Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive172

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>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <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)

"Schlafly Sympathy"

Something tells me there's an new "Schlafly Sympathy" article in there somewhere, because I'm certain I've read similar instances of Andy turning tragedy into comedy by finding the conservative upside to something horrible happening to someone else, especially if it's a non-conservative. I'll be happy to write the entry, but I could use some help in digging up examples. Thanks. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just shooting off things from memory: Ted Kennedy, church shooter guy (who was stopped by the guard), Pat Tilman (or was that mostly Jpatt?), and Augusto Pinochet. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly Sympathy would pretty much just be a copy of Conservapedia:Cheap shots, seeing as (i think) all the entries there are Schlaflisms. But it would make a much better name for the article. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What Andy wrote was factual. If any political analyst wrote this on CNN, would the outrage still be there? I have seen very insensitive news bullets written in regards to someone's death, but they have usually not been done by Andy. Specifically, TK implied Ted Kennedy was going to hell. I really wanted TK to write the same bullshit for Lautenburg, so we could expose him for the Anti-Semite that he is. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this entry meets the cheap shots criteria as has been shown by other entries that have been made. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On reliable sources

A classic case of put up a source and hope no one checks it. The comments on the linked to profile for Amy Bishop on ratemyprofessors.com never once mention her political views. They don't really mention much of anything more than half thinking her class was an easy A and the other half thinking she's too hard and that you should take classes from Dr. Adcock instead. Talk about a trustworthy encyclopedia. HumanisticJones (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just removed it. And yes TK, block me and put the link back, but it's a lie and you know it. --94.197.56.233 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Darnit it is there! Guess that means she is a socialist, if one of her students said so... --94.197.56.233 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note the sole student who said she was a socialist added she'd only discuss it after class. MDB (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

CP actually got that canard from Glenn Reynolds, and they're about a week behind the rest of the right-wing blogs to boot.[8]Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The same student that said she's a socialist also says she's pretty hot. PILF! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A Proletarian You'd Like To Fuck, Comrade? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a second student who said she was hot, too.--WJThomas (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

One of Schlafly's students told me that he made the class glue little coloured stars to his penis while he sang The Battle Hymn of the Republic. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a mental image that will stay burnt into my brain for the rest of my mortal days. MDB (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

When the kid earns a gold star... well... that's a whole new story! :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor MDB. It took 2 hours of staring at the girl in the yellow dress to purge the image from my head, and then Norseman brought it back with bells on. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching the new episode of Spartacus: Blood and Sand managed to scrub my memory. The series is basically one homo-erotic image after another. (Yeah, I like movies (and TV series) about gladiators. So sue me.) MDB (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

He started it!

Remember the story about Mitt Romney getting into a physical altercation on an airplane, with TK insisting that a "liberal" hit Romney?

Well, the "liberal" ( a rap singer) has come forward, and says that Romney started it.

MDB (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all just lies; Romney could not of started it; his word is his honour. CS Miller (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe if this rapper wasn't rollin like he bees ballin, none of this would have happened. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood Values™. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Maybe if he asks my nicely, I'll decide to obey the law and act civilly." How Clintonesque, picking and choosing which laws he wishes to complying with. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Rob, That was Reagan's idea. Only enforce laws you agree with, ignore the rest. ħuman 04:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Conservative to me. --Kels (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

so the alleged perp and/or victim is the grandson of the founder of Motown? Romney evan addressed him with the beougois title, "Sir." Perhaps that was Romney's sin. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My cat's breath smells like cat food. --Kels (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My cat's breath smells the same! It's an epidemic. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 07:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this guys but it reads like Rob is right to me. The account sounded very questionable to me. The facts as we know them are Romney got into a fight on a plane with a rapper. That's funny enough to me as it is without needing to take sides. StarFish (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I must say I agree with you that the rapper is acting too self-righteous for someone who was breaking the rules, though to be fair to all sides, it was a minor infraction that Romney had no business butting into, much less invade the guy's space for. But anyway, I just wrote in here to nicely bring to your attention that "bourgeois" is the correct spelling. I only mention this because I've seen you misspell it twice. Junggai (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you caught that. How high brow of you. Well lump mein with the proletariat. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob, Mate. You need to just calm down and not take it all so seriously. When you respond like that you're kind of taking the bait and we just laugh at you all the more. I don't pretend to represent anyone other than myself here but I think it's fair to say that most people on this website aren't interested in wiki-wars or vandalism or whatever. We just enjoy a good laugh at you guys. And in fairness you can be very, very funny. In my opinion you would be a much happier person if you just kicked back and took it all a bit easier. You know those moments when you're "enjoying" your pictures of Kara in her yellow dress? That sort of thing. Have a joint or a beer relax and know that no-one is watching. have a good old time. No-one cares. Life's pretty good really. Don't be so up-tight. What we think or say really shouldn't matter that much to you. StarFish (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You naughty devil Rob ;) EddyP (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's "Porn Master Rob" to you, peasant! --Kels (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rob. Only snooty elitists can spell correctly. So you're saying then that it gives you street cred to pepper your posts with big French words you can't spell or use properly? Well lump "mein" with the latte-sippers then. Junggai (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mein is a German word. This proves that Rob is a closet nazi. This explains his hatred of communism. EddyP (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Rob, what kind of proletarian writes "expound deviationism"? That's meaningless, ungrammatical, and above all pretentious gibberish. The guys I used to work at a glass factory with would punch you in the face for talking faggy like that. Junggai (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously guys (gals/other), think cp:Students for a Democratic Society may qualify for Feature Article status when its done? It's groundbreaking, finally connecting all the dots in one place. 23:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Exercise in futility or Andy once again confuses the Conservative Party with his own ideas of what a conservative is

Somebody needs to point out (once again) to AndyPandy that whilst the Conservative Party calls itself conservative, by Andy's measure they aren't. Tories and Labour have exactly the same positions on the NHS, gun control, the right to choose to have an abortion, stem-cell research, state-education, the role of religion in schools, the teaching of evolution as a scientific fact in schools, civil-partnerships, both seek to stamp out homophobia, etc. Just about the only difference between the two parties is that the Tories say that government expenditure needs to be sharply cut back in the next budget, Labour says that there must be stronger signs of economic recovery before the same cuts must be made.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They might also want to point out that Britain could very well be heading for a hung parliament, in which case it will be the Liberal Democrats (of whom I am a proud member) who will have the whip-hand. Go Lib Dems.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I also take issue with his description of a government that has abolished more civil liberties than any other in our country's history as "liberal". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a result of the fact that Americans are utterly incapable of understanding what the word "liberal" means. --Horace (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now "progressive" instead of liberals, with all the moderate conservatives fleeing to the dems.--Thanatos (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The third biggest party doesn't have the whip-hand in a hung parliament. It just has a small amount of influence, instead of none.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that in a hung parliament it's the parties with the small influences that get to decide what policies pass and what don't when the balance of power is split between the two main parties. For instance, Labour only won the vote on 42 days because the DUP (a very small party in parliament) voted with them. In return Labour moved forward legislation that the DUP favoured. A very small party with a very small amount of influence gained the whip-hand on two pieces of legislation, and that was in a parliament where Labour had a massive majority.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been said, the 'liberal' Labour party have introduced over 4000 new 'offences', most of which are imprisonable. Whilst they have been truly liberal when it comes to law and order by refusing to lock real criminals up. However, the other side of the coin is that the Maggie's Tories completely destroyed the country in the 80s, so there are many many people who are pissed off with Labour but couldn't bring themselves to vote Tory. Whilst this will propably result in a very low turnout, I would hope that lots of independant candidates and some of the fringe parties like the Greens and UKIP gain some seats - even the BNP - it would be good for politics for the main parties to get a kick up the arse. I'm even considering standing myself on a "fuck'em all" ticket..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Brown and Labour didn't learn their lesson last summer when the BNP gained two seats in the European Parliament elections. This summer is the first General Election where I'll be old enough to vote. I reckon it'll just be an out-and-out Tory victory - the Party's are so alike on social issues, it's just economics where they differ. There'll always be people not voting for them simply because of their Republican-esque history (myself for example) but they still have a strong following down South whereas Up North will be torn between Labour and the fringe parties. As for me, Lib Dems here I come. SJ ^Debaser 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Woo, Tories! Sort out immigration and block the BNP. EddyP (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Teleprompters

Dear sweet FSM, I have about fucking had it with conservative half-wits obsessing over Obama using the teleprompter.

• Every President since the damn thing was invented has used the teleprompter. (I understand Reagan preferred note cards, but what's the difference, ultimately?)
• Obama didn't use a teleprompter at the summit with the Republicans, and is widely acknowledged to have performed spectacularly, so well that Fox News stopped coverage early.

I swear, if today's conservatives were alive in 1864, it would be "why did Abraham HUSSEIN Lincoln depend on that envelope? Isn't he smart enough to give his little 'Gettysburg' speech without notes? He should just go back to his Illinois address rather than one in Gettysburg!" (Yeah, I know, conservative 'commentators' blogging the Gettysburg address has been done. MDB (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it wouldn't be "Abraham HUSSEIN Lincoln", it would just be "Ay-bra-ham Lincoln", with the snarky implication he's secretly Jewish. MDB (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'bra'him Al-Inkhan. I think we covered this before.

Also, the Assfly either fails at googling, or deliberately didn't search for "obama AND teleprompter" as he implies (as that would only return just over 900,000 entries) Iatrogenic (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush & phonetic teleprompting ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And here's a piccy of Bush @ the 2007 State of the Union thing with two teleprompters clearly visible. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to Bush how many of us can correctly pronounce Kyrgyzstan without notes? On the other hand he should have been able to manage Mugabe or Sarkozy. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"To be fair to Bush"!!!!!! Why?

Seriously, as a world statesman he should have been able to pronounce anything that he'd had foreknowledge of. The guy was a puppet. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also the old rumor that Bush the Lesser was 'wired up' during an election debate and was being fed answers via radio. I've never been sure if I believe that or not, but the claims of 'unable to speak on his own' are hardly peculiar to Obama. MDB (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

McCain with two StarFish (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's claim that Obama cannot speak coherently without a teleprompter seems right at home with his claim that Obama is an affirmative action recipient who never earned anything. I can't even begin to imagine Andy's pain at being better qualified in every possible way than the President of the United States, yet having been discriminated against because he's a conservative white man. Poor Andy. One of these days Andy will teach those coloreds to stay away from Harvard and teleprompters, he will! 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's bitterness over Obama's success in life versus his own could be the subject of a psychological study.

• Early Life:
  • Andy: Family financially well-off, if not wealthy; son of prominent conservative activist
  • Obama: Poor family, father left him early on
• Education:
  • Andy: Harvard, ran for Editor of Law Review, lost
  • Obama: Harvard, elected Editor of Law Review
• Law Career:
  • Andy: lackluster, reportedly screwed up one case badly
  • Obama: law professor, reportedly turned down a Supreme Court clerkship
• Political Career:
  • Andy: ran for Republican Congressional nomination, lost badly
  • Obama: Elected to Illinois State Legislature, then US Senate
• Today:
  • Andy: runs radical right wing "encyclopedia", teaches a handful of home-schooled students, attacked even by fellow conservatives for attempting to produce his own Bible translation
  • Obama: Somewhat more notable that Schlafly.

MDB (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We haz artikle somewhere. Search CP space for "comparision Schlafly Obama" without the quotes. ħuman 18:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Every day I grow more and more convinced that Andy is either a troll (or at the very least, he's deliberately playing up some of his more stupid aspects in order to annoy people like us), or he has actually gone properly insane. I don't mean "misguided" or even "close minded", I mean that he has some kind of DSM identified mental disorder. The man really is not right in the head. And he's getting worse. (Fun fact: I nearly typed out the speech from Phantom Planet when I started typing the first sentence). X Stickman (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to joke about how disappointed Andy must be to have to leave his white robes in the closet, but that's not funny. I think you left out a real possibility from your list, and it has nothing to do with whether Andy's crazy (I don't think he is) or whether he cares what you think on any subject under the sun (he doesn't): he is so completely consumed with hate of other that he is blind to the reality that everyone but him shares such that he bullheadedly argues cold hard facts with people, gets it wrong, and has the chutzpah to tell them to open their mind. 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy is a prime example of what's wrong with American conservatism today: basically, all they have left is "we're not liberals, and we're especially not Obama". It's not so much a conservative movement as an anti-liberal movement. They need another "Contract With America". Now, I thought the principles of that contract were largely bunk (and they way they weaseled out of a lot of it after winning was reprehensible), but politically, it was a great move -- a simple, specific list of things they'd do if they got control on Congress. MDB (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Andy has a disorder per se, other than extreme arrogance, but I think he is a great example of what happens when people get removed via the internet. Watch the interview with Colbert or the other one when he was on debating vaccines. He's loopy, that's for sure, but he's a normal functioning person. But you get someone in front of a computer, where they have no real effects of their language and then Andrew Schlafly becomes ASchlafly, a raving lunatic who's obsessed with Obama and wants to turn America into a Theocracy. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 18:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Here is a list of things that aren't mental disorders.

1. being wrong
2. being stupid

Thanks for listening. -- =w= 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been seriously questioning Andy's sanity for a while now, and I am of the opinion that he's becoming unhinged. It could be the internet syndrome, which is why I'd really like to see a long in-depth interview with him in which his most batshit crazy ideas are brought up (something that didn't happen on Colbert). DickTurpis (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think his whole life has been build around a set of strong beliefs he got from his family and to start questioning them now would just destroy him; so his brain isn't going to let that happen, it just blocks anything that threatens to contradict his worldview.

Actually Mei, Andy isn't just wrong and stupid. He's convinced that there is massive conspiracy, infecting every area of life from mathematics to the right to bear arms. He is convinced that everyone who doesn't share his opinions is part of this conspiracy. He is completely incapable of ever seeing that he's wrong. This is a serious problem. Bil08 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, your typical conservative--Thanatos (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Sunday Sermon

Here it is, in case you slept through Church this morning: [9] --Simple (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, when I'm that incoherent I just revert noobs, and don't expect to contribute useful info. And to think he was that drunk at 5 PM... ħuman 04:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly true that you can use political processes to force people to follow your religion. Refreshing to hear him being so open about his plans. I will contact Atwood and let her know The Handmaid's Tale will be penciled in for 2015.--^talk 04:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, an open call for theocracy. About time Andy started to get concise about what he actually wants to see. --Kels (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, really strictly speaking, he's not calling for theocracy, since he's calling for great intertwining of politics and religion, not government and religion. The end result would be the same, though. And if he had a modicum of intellectual honesty, he'd admit he wants a theocracy.

And Andy also needs to be careful what he wishes for, because he just might get it. In the twisted, smoldering labyrinth that is the mind of Andrew Layton Schlafly, all Christian conservatives think just like him. He forgets, or refuses to acknowledge, the increasing numbers of young evangelicals who support the environmental movement and/or believe that the government should take an active role in caring for "the last and the least of these". MDB (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And when he says 'Conservative Christians should have the power' what he really means is 'me' Worm^{(t | c)} 11:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

@Human: My english sucks so bad that I don't see where the incoherence comes from, but that's beside the main point.

Didn't he see examples of theocracy somewhere in the middle east? Well, If he's the one leading a theocracy I can see why he wants it, but... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. When you want a theocracy, a government based on some other religion is as bad, if not worse than, a secular government. After all, Osama bin Laden isn't regularly having tea with the Pope. MDB (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood Andy's desire for a theocracy or at least mandating of prayer, The 10 commandments, etc. in schools when conservatives are so scathing of government and being pro-private enterprise. Surely the likes of more private Sunday schools is exactly what they should be agitating for. I would also say that not having an "established" religion in the US is what contributes to the strength of religious feeling/views. It's the competition between the various sects that keeps a thriving market in crazy thinking. Being dominated by the CofE in the UK and it having to be literally a "broad church" has caused much of the stagnation and general religious apathy that we have today.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the kind of logic that I've seen some clergy use to promote keeping the whole Separation of Church and State. But, for people like Andy and the Andiots that follow him, this does not compute. In their minds, their religion is so right that it is only proper that they run everything. It's only bad if something that doesn't agree with them totally is in charge. It's like they want lesser government, but they want the government to mandate sexual morality by outlawing everything but missionary in marriage. - Ravenhull (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only groups in America that really support small government are the libertarians and the purely economic conservatives. The social conservatives would love for certain aspects of government to be honkin' big. MDB (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy would only be happy with theocracy is he could be Theo. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh!, I've never looked before, but I live about eight miles from where the Puritan movement that led to the Pilgrim Fathers pissing off to the New World started.

But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted & persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were but as flea-bitings in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken & clapt up in prison, others had their houses besett & watcht night and day, & hardly escaped their hands; and ye most were faine to flie & leave their howses & habitations, and the means of their livelehood.

Can we clap him in prison, please? I think that he would NOT be well appreciated by the first puritans. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New additions to old article

Does Andy suffer from... Evolution syndrome? Editor at CP^{mały książe} 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

His brand of logic hurts my brain. I thought humans had, err, evolved beyond this. Nevertheless, I should get tested for this sydrome. – Nick Heer 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)|

We should compile a list of his sports analogies sometime. ħuman 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea that work ethic alone would make anyone excel in math or physics (The logical operator is OR, correct?). Thanks for the new insight, Andy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I like how he obvious loved his brilliant idea of comparing it to taking steroids to get into the major league, so he just added that analogy twice in the same short messed up article. You know, it didn't even work the first time. Taking steroids may be cheating, but their results are real.. So is he saying that evolutionists are a lot smarter and have better arguments, but got there through unfair means?? Oh Andy, you retarded troll, you. --GTac (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And steroids aren't necessarily even cheating, as long as we expand the concept past baseball. They work, and they can create winners, champions even, in, say, body-building. His metaphor is terrible, but then, so is that whole essay-posing-as-an-encyclopedia-article. ħuman 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia in the newsish

I was doing my occasional "where has conservapedia shown up in the news" and found this gem - http://www.afterelton.com/internet/2010/02/gay-friendly-search-engines?page=0,2 - "On Google it failed to appear at all in the top 100 listings. That could indicate Google assigns far less weight to Conservapedia entries." Maybe its time for "Operation purple pumpkin eater" or whatever's next. Or maybe, Ken if you are reading this, all of your SEO attempts is pissing google's spiders off? --Shagie (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Andy hinting at something about his admins' literacy?

Maybe it's not worth a WIGO, but I got a chuckle out of it at least.

RobSmith adds a news item^img with a misspelling or two. A user helpfully points it out^img on the main talk page. Andy sees this, and thinks to himself "Those damned liberals Conservapedia sysops and their phonic-less public school education!"^img Junggai (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "loose", a noun, means relaxed or not tight Grammar much? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

'Kinell! That's possibly the worst. An article^[sic] on mistakes with such a total blooper! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, "loose" can be a verby thing too, Andy. And what part of speech is it in "set loose the hounds"? ħuman 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an adjective, H, as in "paint green the hounds" although not as cruel. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But "Loose the hounds" is perfectly valid. Professor Moriarty 20:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Verb (loose the hounds), adjective (the hounds are loose), adverb (set loose the hounds). Unless phonics involve calling the latter two "nouns" for some reason. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be "LOOSEN", when used as a verb. By the way, hello, I am the user who "helpfully pointed [the typo] out" at CP :P --Maquissar (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but to "loosen the hounds" and to "loose the hounds" are very different things. --4perf, who has forgotten his password

Right...I believe "loosen" implies degrees of looseness, i.e. loosen a knot/collar/etc, whereas to "loose" something seems binary. The hounds are either loose or restrained, though their restraints could be loosened.

Look at Andy, tricking we liberals into ranting about English instead of deceitful things... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My dictionary says that when it's a verb, "loose" means "set free" or "release," which would be binary. But it also says that it can mean "to relax one's grip," but it's not clear if that means to make your grip on something less tight, or to let go of it entirely. My dictionary is not that helpful, in other words. Except to reiterate — and it makes this point quite stridently — that "loose" is never a noun. --4perf, who hasn't remembered yet

Meh, in English parts of speech are looser than dictionaries let on. Suppose we're sorting, oh, jeans, and you hand me a pair, and I say, "This is a tight. Hand me a loose." See? Noun. Bluefish (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still an adjective. In your example it's an adjective to a non-described article. And the award for pedantry goes to --> ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That's what's called an elliptical construction, where one or more words are left out on purpose. A less contrived example would be "This is a small, hand me a medium," where of course what you meant was "This is a small one, hand me a medium one" or whatever. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Loose - in the sense of relaxed or not tight - doesn't fit Conservapedia's definition of a cp:noun - as it is not like kingdom, friend, church, dominion, fellowship, grace, Earth, Jesus, or the Presbyterian Church of St. Andrew. It's more like mortal or angry in

1. "Suicide is a mortal sin."
2. "God becomes very angry when you use His name is vain."

which are examples of cp:adjectives... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that apparently "loose" CAN be used as a noun, in an obsolete way, as can be seen in the fifth definition found in http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Loose . However, this is made confusing by the fact that, following the link to said definition, no reference to "loose" as a noun appears. This said, I agree that loose is preminently an adjective, an adverb and a verb, but it is not used as a noun nowadays. --Maquissar (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely one common usage of loose as a noun is when a criminal is referrred to as being "on the loose"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What I find funny is that among all the Conservapedia admins who follow this page, obviously no one's yet given Andy a heads-up in the last 48 hours. The mistake is still up there. TK, RobSmith, are you enjoying Andy looking stupid? ;-) Junggai (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point to this discussion? I've spent a long career in marketing and advertising. Misspellings, spoonerism, double meanings, oxymorons and such are common ways to (a) get attention and (b) make it stick. Like the saloon with a card game in the backroom, the sign out front reads, "Liquor in front, poker in the rear". RobSmith^{don't bother me} 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, you're cute, even when you're full of shit. Would that be anything like your attempt to pass off the accidental porno title you posted at CP as just "pulling our strings" to see how we'd react? Junggai (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

JPatt in a corner

this conversation^img has made me laugh like few in recent memory. My apoligies if this was already discussed. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the most clear-cut and uncomplicated example of No True Scotsman I've ever seen. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how AlexWD is still around. TK is getting soft. Keegscee (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe TK likes seeing Jpatt getting harassed? - Ravenhull (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Daaaamn. Of all the things we'd usually expect to happen, everything happened in reverse. Like the Twilight Zone over there. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like TK didn't appreciate being called soft!--72.224.42.45 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fucking brilliant! Nice one, AlexWD! Can we get a capture of that before it gets removed? (Does capturebot only work on difflinks?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here:

Convo referred to

Update: poor AlexWD is disappeared for smart-mouthing the senior admin. Does anyone understand Ed Poor's edit comment here? 13:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Dick Cheney in hospital [10] our prayers are with him. Of course, the liberals are praying for different results and not to any God. [11] --Jpatt 22:40, 22 February 2010 (EST) Kind of like the Conservative Christian Minister praying for Obama's death?, JPatt? AlexWD 22:57, 22 February 2010 (EST) That pastor sounded neither conservative nor Christian, right AlexWD?--Jpatt 23:04, 22 February 2010 (EST) A political ally of Alan Keyes and an ordained minister? Nope, nothing conservative or Christian about that. Nothing at all. AlexWD 23:07, 22 February 2010 (EST) Hey smarty pants, a Christian doesn't pray for someones death but their conversion. He's ordained, that makes him Christian in name only. Political ally of a conservative, does that make him a conservative? I think not. Is John Kerry sympathetic of cheating on wives because he was a political ally of John Edwards? Quit playing games, that pastor was neither and you know it.--Jpatt 23:18, 22 February 2010 (EST) So the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest and most important Christian movements in America ordains non-Christians and names then officers of the church? Is that what you think? AlexWD 23:21, 22 February 2010 (EST) I am saying you can have the title Christian minister of the Southern Baptist Church and not follow the will of Jesus, aka Christian in name only.--Jpatt 23:26, 22 February 2010 (EST) I recognize that argument. AlexWD 23:37, 22 February 2010 (EST) Let me add, I certainly don't have all the answers and I can easily throw this whole topic backwards. Me being Catholic and I were living in 1944 with a chance to take out Hitler. Would I kill him to end the suffering of innocents? I think I would. Would that make me a person against Jesus? --Jpatt 23:39, 22 February 2010 (EST) Wow , a no True Scotsman followed by a Godwin's in short order. Well done, sir. Well done. AlexWD 23:40, 22 February 2010 (EST) I forgot to mention the 'right JPatt?' comment. If you know what my name is then you are correct to assume that the J initial is my first name and P initial stands for my last name. However, being Jpatt is my username you must be used to seeing JPatt.--Jpatt 23:52, 22 February 2010 (EST) Another question--if the ordained minister and former running-mate of a leading conservative politician is a "Christian and conservative in name only" because he prayed to the Christian god for Obama's death, why isn't the blog poster who rejoiced for Cheney's illness a "liberal in name only"? AlexWD 23:58, 22 February 2010 (EST) I guess you finally got me there, if the liberal philosophy is that everyone has the right to live. However, a liberal is more than likely to have a prochoice view whereby someone can determine if another 'person' shall have life. Another can of worms so to speak. But the 'all' liberals would be an injustice to demonize, which I did. So you are in fact correct.--Jpatt 00:04, 23 February 2010 (EST)

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of many liberals who were in the "I hope Cheney dies" camp. I do know of two responses, though:

• (serious) I hope he lives... so we can try him as a war criminal and send him to prison.
• (not as serious) Dick Cheney has a heart?

MDB (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a capture tag for the first link to the convo. I think CaptureBot can handle these quite well. And while I think/hope that few hope he dies, I think many people (liberals and conservatives) expect him to die sooner or later. Even CP's 2012 election page notes his "dubious health" as a negative point, and I vaguely recall several people making it quite clear back then that electing McCain in 2008 would basically mean electing Palin for 2010 or so. --Sid (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where I heard this, but I've gotten the impression Cheney's doctors have told him "the stress of running for President would kill you." McCain I'm not quite so sure about -- his mother is still alive, and doing pretty well for a woman her age, so he's got at least some "longevity" genes. MDB (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Boy Scouts' Anniversary

So, Andy is outraged that no one in the mainstream media is covering the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America.

A google news search indicates that's true (though nothing bears out Andy's claim that its because those awful gays dominate the media). There's only a handful of stories listed, and its all small town newspapers, mostly saying "the local Boy Scouts had a banquet this week, and they celebrated their 100th anniversary. Yay, Boy Scouts!"

Even Fox News has only one story on the anniversary, and its just an AP story.

That makes me think the reason there's so little coverage is that the BSA itself isn't currently making a big deal of the anniversary. From looking at their calendar of anniversary events, the big events are mid-year, even though the actual anniversary is in February. MDB (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My neighborhood troop is celebrating the anniversary by engaging in enthusiastic group sodomy, and also making s'mores. We expect press coverage to be light. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What a shocker! Another homosexual trying to downplay the importance of the BSA centennial. You're doing nothing but reinforcing Andy's point. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Jamboree (which is held every 4 years) happens in the late summer in Fort A.P. Hill. It is held inlate July - school is out (most of the scouts are in school right now) and summer camping is much more fun than winter camping for most (the late part is so that summer camp staff can go to the jamboree without disrupting their summer jobs). [12] I suspect that it will be a bit more celebration and media this summer. --Shagie (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

as AlexWD...

I made nothing but good-faith, wiki-gnome edits--hundreds of them, mostly as a way to pay CP back for providing us with so much entertainment. Except for one that I had a little fun with. have fun finding it, TK. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey cool, you're my favorite recent parodist. I will make you a badge. -- Mei (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously saw that your interaction with JPatt was appreciated. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn nice work. Some pretty decent and helpful edits there, and I was laughing at the talk page comments. I wouldn't call it parody, but it was certainly editing done with an amusing swagger. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that YEC isn't ID! (Ed@WP)

Ed may be topic-banned from Intelligent Design on WP, but today he discovered the joys of semantics in YEC-related articles. Though at least his talk page edits include a clear admission that he's an OEC - I think some people were wondering about that in the past. What fun! (This reminds me that I still wanted to follow up on the whole date rape thing... tsk, tsk, tsk...) --Sid (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'se been watching him. The date rape thing says a lot about his interests, nicht wahr? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Counting down....

....to this^img appearing on the mainpage and in the Obama article. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Is this our signal to the muslim world that we're not going to shoot down their missiles?" Insane Troll Logic at its finest. Barikada (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Also, it was used prior to the 2008 election and it has no link to any political campaign." How much do you want to bet that nobody's going to ever pay attention to this nugget? – Nick Heer 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This just in: TK is using RW as his news source^img. Nice. – Nick Heer 04:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He reads RW more than a lot of us do. RW's a great source of timely and topical information. 04:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed's at it again

Length of New Articles

I know talking of Ed might get boring, but this is quite a gem. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at his recent contribs on WP: he's been interesting himself in date rape, where he's come up against someone with the unlikely handle of Sid3050 (Who he? I wonder.). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite an opus - well, his essays tend to be longer than his articles... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My favorite quote: "[Liberals] make their choices about the type of causation not based on any evidence, but on what suits their ideology." I hate to say it, but, well, irony meter much? Tetronian ^{you're clueless}

He's finally cracked ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive missing?

Were the WIGOs removed in this edit ever put in an archive? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Answering own question: They are, but the page does not appear in the archive list. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which was because a regex in the archive list page needed fixing. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Its hilarious when you three get together. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When shall we three meet again? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you try purging the cache? - π 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did. The problem was the regex in the archive list page used to match the various archives; it was matching the subpages beginning with "0," but not those beginning with "1" (hence, the lack of the archive from 2010). ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Very, very old news

This is old news (ca. 1 and a half years old), but I figured I'd share it anyway: Dawkins mentions the Lenski affair in his most recent book, sparing no expense in bashing Schlafly at every turn. Personally, I think it is intellectually dishonest for him to do so because he is just having a chuckle at stupidity rather than rebutting a creationist argument, which is what the book is supposed to be about. But there you have it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

- π 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just got to that part of the book, and I can see what you mean. It's still funny though to see the Assfly mentioned by name! Incidentally, Dawkins gives an excellent description of the Lenski experiment, and he does a great job of explaining the significance of the findings (especially to a non-sciency guy like me). Dawkins rocks! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The description of the experiment is very good. I also found it funny how before he describes the Lenski experiment he warns that reader that he is about to launch into a long an intricate section, so "don't read on if you are tired and likely to fall asleep." Very amusing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I wonder why Dawkins, who is a biologist and not any kind of theologist or philosopher, talks so much about religion. He is right about a lot of things but he is also a complete jerk. Etc 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How is he a complete jerk? I've heard a lot of people say that before, but I've never found out why. Johann (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He talks about religion so much because its premise (God) is counter to science. He's not really a jerk but he has got negative charisma, possibly brought on by his hostility to religion? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard people say about him "Oh, I can't stand that guy", or describe him as a fundamentalist atheist, "just as intolerant as the people he complains about" (everyone seems to be under the impression that this is a witty and original point), but when asked about this, I've always found that it boils down to people who are going by received wisdom, or basing it on Dawkins' reputation rather than what he actually says, or it comes from people who believe that it is wrong (or at least crass and mean-spirited) to criticise religion. Johann (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is actually rather odd if you actually meet him. I have met him, and his manner is a strange mix of politeness and prickly jerk. So long as you agree with him on everything, he is very polite, as he is in non-ideological matters. The jerk rapidly comes out, though. He came to speak at my university, and I was invited to the dinner held in his honor. The very first thing he did upon coming to the table was to make a snide remark about anyone wanting to say grace, which is really not a good way to start out at an event with a few dozen individuals who might not all have the same religious views (and didn't) regardless of their similarities otherwise. Later in the dinner conversations, he made some bigoted remarks about Americans and showed absolute ignorance about the role of religion in American culture or history, to the point of almost seeming to think that fundamentalism is all there is to religion. There was also a law professor there who has devoted his career to analysis of creationist legal strategies, and has helped to direct pushback against them. However, the professor made the mistake when speaking to Dawkins of describing himself as nonetheless a devout Christian, after which Dawkins really only responded to him with insults and dismissiveness. Outside of religion, one of the grad students I was with tried to ask him some questions dealing with his dissertation research, which is based on some concepts Dawkins has worked a good deal with. Dawkins gave him a rather rude brush off and simply walked away. Anyone who gave Dawkins fawning praise, however, received the utmost courtesy. Now, I have great respect for Dawkins and his work in science, but the man is human. I am glad I met him, shook his hand, and got some books signed, but I wouldn't want to be around him on a regular basis. It is easy to see why he can both helpful and damaging to any effort to which he contributes. He is brilliant, and a truly great writer, but, based on my experience with him that night, and my familiarity with his dealing with Gould among others, he is rather close-minded toward others with differing views, impatient, and, yes, a jerk. Like everyone, he is a mix of marble and mud, and there is no reason to not acknowledge this. Kaalis (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I read his books on evolution and was totally sold on Dawkins. I think Douglas Adams said something like he thought he understood evolution but then he read The Blind Watchmaker and really started to understand. For me it was The Selfish Gene - I had never considered that some of the genes that made me what I am might be stored in other species. I bought and read all his books and loved them all up as far as The Ancestor's Tale, which is an incredible book. The God Delusion was where it started to go wrong. Instead of telling me what he thought, Dawkins was telling me what he thought other people thought, and at that point I lost interest. He should have stuck to his subject, because he was absolutely brilliant at explaining evolution. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

His new book isn't bad. The reason it isn't great is because he makes snide, obnoxious comments at every opportunity. Instead of patiently refuting his opponents, he cherry-picks the dumbest creationists and mocks them. His writing style is entertaining and he is great at explaining evolution, but he substitutes snark for substance way too often. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I liked his new book, too. I didn't think it was up to the level of his best. I agree with your point about the unnecessary snideness, but there was something else problematic, too, but it is hard to describe. There was, I don't know, an absence of heft and rigor. I greatly enjoyed it, but it seemed a bit fluffy. I can't point out precisely why, but I don't think he really accomplished the ringing overview of evidence for evolution he set out to write. Still a good book. I have to agree with Douglas Adams' assessment of "The Blind Watchmaker". It is, bar none, the best single introduction to evolution and the power of natural selection there is. I know it has really influenced me in my work. And brings up a sad fact about Dawkins' recent shift to being so focused on evangelical atheism - it is much harder to persuade people who are really confused about what evolution and natural selection are to read his books on evolution. I used to be able to, and found that it did help clear up some people's confusion. However, now it is just not possible. He has gotten to be so polarizing a figure that his name is enough to prevent people who are fairly open-minded but still quite religious from reading his earlier books. Kaalis (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, and with the risk of being more snarky than substantive, personally I've always equated "creationist arguments" with stupidity. If Dawkins is spends more time laughing than refuting its probably because there is nothing to refute. There is no argument a creationist can use, no point they can make, no evidence for their case that has not been refute, soundly, and at great length already. To watch them continuously try to find new ways to say "I don't believe evolution could happen, therefore it didn't" (and that is what all creationist arguments ultimately boil down to) is at first confusing, second frustrating, third funny. Dawkins may be a bit of a self important prick but I'm not going to knock him points for calling a spade a spade.

As for Andy, the Lenski Affair was hands down his finest moment, the absolute quintessential example of how arrogant, ignorant, closed-minded and bull-headed he really is. With authoritarian impassiveness, raging religious zeal, and barely veiled accusations at misconduct (if not outright fraud) on the professor's part Andy thought he could discredit, defame or somehow at least embarrass Prof Lenski and his work. What would follow would be the template of responses to creationsist bull$#!+ and smackdown that not only continued to squat on Conservapedia's...ahem, reputation, but gave Lenksi's work more press than it ever would have gotten otherwise. And the worst part is Andy did it to himself. At the time that little brujah was starting several editors and even a sysop or two (if coffee starved memory serves) told Andy this might not be a good idea. But he went ahead anyway and now is getting pointed and laughed at like he so rightly deserves. Frankly, couldn't happen to a nicer guy if you asked me.

oh god kill it with fire

I'm never using intercom again. I will stick to talking in places where I can quietly tidy my spelling errors. -- Mei (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

look ok to me ^{the mighty} Hamster (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Atheist" church burnings

"Jason Bourque's family home in Lindale was also searched, yielding a small plastic bag of "suspected" marijuana seeds, more Skechers shoes, and three Bibles." How much you want to bet that never gets mentioned?--Gishin (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Link? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Link! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 11:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New research

Ken's just updated the Atheism article (he sez^img - I can't be bothered to check) with some brand new stuff in the "Baptist press" Oct 23, 2007. Up with the times the, Ken? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 11:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that's^img how it works, Ken. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 11:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If he wants the article to load faster for people on dial-up maybe he shouldn't have made it a novel. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He is confusing the display size with the file size. Reducing the display size doesn't affect download time; it just affects people with weak eyesight, who probably have better things to look at than this load of nonsense anyway.--Fawlty (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially as we all know what gives you weak eyesight ;-)-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So Ken understands basic computer principles about as well as he understand everything else he gets involved with. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that MediaWiki scaled the images server-side so that the thumbnail images loaded at their display resolution. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost certain LX is correct. So Ken really did save the downloader of his magnum opus a few k. Like 2, maybe. ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

SVGs maybe, but I would be surprised otherwise, that is a huge drag on the server. - π 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My suspicions that it scaled by the browser has just grown as I am being chased by big pictures every where. - π 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right to be questioning this point: I spoke too hastily above, thinking of ordinary web pages. I don't actually know whether MediaWiki software does the scaling on the client side or the servier side. And I don't really care: even if Conservative is right and I am wrong, his article is still a (very long) load of nonsense.--Fawlty (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You realise that you are denigrating the champion of the SEO? Don't be so irreverent! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Before it disappears:

Morrissey parthian^img

Also here for the 404 challenged:

Parthian referred to

Thanksgiving edit, part 2 Wow, been away for a while. Got blocked. Anyway, pursuant to this: [13] TK, you're taking a very strange turn here. Your determination to say that Thanksgiving is uniquely American is causing you to use some odd interpretations of the truth. First, uniqueness has nothing to do with "what came first." It's about being the only one of something, not the first. Nobody defines "unique" as "never done before." Except you. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unique http://www.answers.com/topic/unique http://www.yourdictionary.com/unique http://www.brainyquote.com/words/un/unique235023.html http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/unique.html You're also the only source who will dispute that it's a national holiday in Canada: http://ottawa.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=about_usa&document=holidays http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590003/Thanksgiving-Day http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Thanksgiving_Day.aspx http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590003/Thanksgiving-Day http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14555a.htm the U.S. government, the Canadian government, Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Catholic Encyclopedia and many other solid sources disagree with you. It's indisputable. And even if you want to couch the debate in those terms, there is evidence that Thanksgiving occurred in Canada before the U.S. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/590003/Thanksgiving-Day But the Canadian one wasn't first either: http://german.about.com/cs/culture/a/erntedankf.htm Basically, this whole argument is because you want Thanksgiving to be uniquely American. Why does that even matter? I've made a number of useful and valid contributions to this website, and now you've blocked me for five years, clearly out of spite (despite what circumstantial proof may say - there's a very reasonable explanation for the IP address). Your silly pride has cost the site a useful contributor and frankly, exposed you as very ethnocentric and immature. I suppose I should thank you for blocking me, since now I won't waste any more time trying to contribute anything valid or rational to this insane website.

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He got blocked, I bet he's miserable now. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.73 / talk / contribs}

TK is such a charming man. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet that user only wears black on the outside because black is how he feels on the inside, and if he seems a little strange that's because he is. 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think he'll pull through? 86.131.217.140 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He really doesn't know and he really doesn't care. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make when a helpful editor leaves? It makes none. And now you've gone and your prejudices won't keep you warm tonight. 98.226.15.58 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang the TK, Hang the TK, Hang the TK. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another TK original

Perhaps TK must have been stung by his lowly ranking in the CP new pages league as his latest copy/paste job of Give Me That Old Time Religion is such a pathetic set of lyrics (there are a great many better spiritual songs) that it is hardly worth creating a page to highlight them. I can only assume that it's another example of the extreme form of parody and blatant arse-licking which TK has been engaging in recently.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that & had to look twice. Ed: yes; even Ken: yes; but TK?   ^Contribs_Talk 13:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me ...

while I go to the bathroom and vomit^{img   Contribs}_Talk 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

HAHAHA. Ironic. If only those poor Union soldiers hadn't died at Gettysburg, and a hundred battles like it, there would be no president to institute the out-of-control government spending they died trying to defeat. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Because, as every good conservative knows, there is absolutely nothing in the entire realm of human experience that poses a greater threat than out-of-control government spending. Plague, famine, asteroids from space and the possibility of widespread and sudden zombification all pale in comparison to the sinister spectre of the possibility that somebody, somewhere, might accidentally spend a buck. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

while I go vomit^img ħuman 05:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's right on the IQ tests, though. "Intelligence" is a vague subjective term with no clear defined parameters. I've read scientific articles which define the IQ as "that which the IQ test measures". At best, the IQ is a good indicator on how well someone is at certain academic skills. --GTac (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Movies about football coaches with 11-year-old daughters

?! 03:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Ed is hoping that it's a subgenre that'll really take off in the next few years. He's just planning ahead. X Stickman (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The appearance of the coach being optional. --PsygremlinParla! 04:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hayden Panettiere as the daughter ? nust have been an old movie. Perhaps a recent photo will help ED sleep tonight PICTURE Hamster (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I.Want.To.Go.To.There. (Does that make me a bad person?) --Psygremlin講話 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was uncertain about our branding Ed as one with an interest^(ahem) in young grils, but this putteth the lid on it! Pervy old "Uncle" Ed strikes again.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Does our Ed Poor article reflect his ... interests? EddyP (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We cover his interest in young girls, and I'm writing a new section entitled "Ed, the master of the obscure" to describe his really odd ideas for articles and categories. My theory is that Ed is live blogging his descent in to madness, and that in years to come we'll look back and wonder how we missed the warning signs? --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uncle Ed" is spreading his interest in young women over to Wikipedia. His latest work was some minor corrections to an article on the novel Room With a View. The book is about "a young English woman's confusion at the Pensione Bertolini over her feelings for an Englishman staying at the same hotel."--72.224.42.45 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed and RobS stand out head and shoulders above the rest at CP for having interests in addition to the boring old de rigueur racism, homophobia, lying, xenophobia, and spreading hate. Has anyone see Andy say anything nice about his wife or express anything remotely approaching a human expression of sexuality or love? 15:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed makes dozens of new stubs and fails to add a category to any of them but then creates a category that can only be used (most likely) for one specific article. Then the main point in his stub tells us that "Newcomer Hayden Panettiere gives a surprisingly strong performance as the white coach's daughter". Yes, he really is decidely creepy. One can only surmise that with his predilection for commenting about pretty young girls and their panties coupled with his many articles relating to sexual addiction means that he is probably deeply tormented by his inner demons.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So, has he done a stub for that early Brooke Shields movie, where she's in a cathouse? - Ravenhull (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

whans his Birthday? I would contribute to a copy of "Blue Lagoon" Brooke Shields of course. for him, although maybe he would rather have The adventures of Pipi Longstockings ? Hamster (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC) oh, I just creeped myself out a little.

So I went on WIGO CP, and started reading from this Ed wigo upwards, and then I went on WIGO clogs and blogs and read some of those. But I'm still laughing about Ed. Bil08 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should inflict the Roseanne test on him - at what point in the show's history does a given person think it's ok to lust after the two growing daughters? ħuman 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialists are shit at sports

I love it, Andy's getting smacked all over that page. I can't believe that he forgot the Beijing Olympics already. Can someone add it to the list of Andy's beliefs? EddyP (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Back on the "Andy said it therefore it is so!" ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember something like the Soviet Union - surely, they didn't win any medal anywhere... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention Women's tennis - no gays there eh Martina? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's moments like this that make Conservapedia worth following. Keegscee (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy appears to have fled from that discussion, but hopefully he'll prove me wrong. EddyP (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of TL;DR for Andy to ignore. (Rubashov's gonna get 90:10'd out) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(un-indented) This can only go well. My tl;dr: Andy: "Socialism and gays are killing sports. Just look at Canada's loss at hockey at the Olympics for proof!" Maquissar: "Here are some examples of people with non-conservative values who are widely regarded as the best. If anything, it's the opposite." Andy: "Here, look at these stats pulled from my ass." Rubashov: "Andy, this is one single hockey game, and you're attempting to extrapolate from that? You're an idiot." Andy: "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Prediction: 90/10 block, or subordination block. – Nick Heer 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rubashov, I think I love you!^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides for the part about asking for a refund from Princeton, that is pure gold. Keegscee (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OH PLEASE, for those of us that are 404 blocked, someone must capture the response (if any that is). Aceⁱ⁹ 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm copying it as it happens. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy ducks the issue.^img Rubashov was blocked once before (for last wordism, I believe) after he argued with Andy about SDI, so he really hit the ground running. That's dedication. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is he blocked again?

(Protection log); 18:17 . . TK (Talk | contribs) protected "User talk:Rubashov" [create=sysop] (indefinite) (Protection against recreation)

(Deletion log); 18:17 . . TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Rubashov" (Troublemaker/Troll)

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So he is: "Trolling / Liberal Trolling: Adding email block and extending block. User reminds me of AmesG."!!!!!!!^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(I'm off to bed. If anyone could update this if anything happens, I'd appreciate it.) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer, since I am Superfast. -- Mei (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got Maquissar's latest. 'Night all. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

TK deletes loads of comments [1]^img. We still have it (twice). -- Mei (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great new rule for an "encyclopedia" that also disfavors books over online sources. 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a full-on TK vs TK cagematch. Who will win? [2]^img Nothing escapes the eyes of Superfast Mei. -- Mei (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

TK is such a lying shit bag. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought Andy was getting boring he pulls this one out of his ass along with classic Andy "debate style". Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 04:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Who likes Spain (or Brazil) for the 2010 World Cup? 04:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I love it. Andy's getting called on his shit and completely and uttered cornered with facts.. so his only remaining argument is pretty much LITERALLY "Well it's useless trying to debate with you people, because you aren't accepting my made up shit". Does that man ever reflect? --GTac (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking... Andy having any second thoughts? That would deny the abasolute rightness of his rightnesshood. -Ravenhull (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know which of Andy's assertions are the most proposterous? Do you point out that:

• Spain only sent 18 athletes (compared with, say, USA's 200+)
• Other countries where same sex marriage is legal (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada) are doing pretty well with 47 medals so far, not to mention the countries where civil parnerships are legal (eg Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland, UK, etc) with 62 medals by my count
• He also asserts that you can't compare the number of medals won in early olympics with current ones because the number of medals has increased (true enough), but he goes on to say that you need to look at the percentage of medals won - which raises the problem that the number of competing countries has expanded considerably, so by doing that it will look like every country competing in the original games is doing far worse now - and countries, such as the Eastern Bloc and African nations are immeasurably bettwer (irrespective of the fact that they either didn't exist 50yrs ago, or sent hardly any athletes) - for example the number of competing nations/competitors has pretty much double in 44yrs. Sure it would be possible to tease a comparison out with statistical analysis, but you can't get it by giving a Schlafly glance at the raw data
• Plus, I'm sure, other examples

Iatrogenic (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

90:10^img? What's the betting? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame we don't literally count the number of instances in which Andy's debated argued at people and written off literally every single thing the opposition says. I'm pretty positive it's gotta be approaching something like 2'000 times now. I hate that he goes on about how Britain are socialist. We really aren't, it's just because of our healthcare system and his wretched fastidious conservatism against this. SJ ^Debaser 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the All-time overall results shows that Norway (same-sex marriage, generally leftist government) comes out top, having won 12% of all the medals ever awarded - US has 10% and Soviet Union 9%. Furthermore, 40% of the Soviet's medals are gold (US - 35%), but that's not necessarily terribly useful - Uzbekistan have 100% Gold medals (1 out of 1) :) Worm^{(t | c)} 13:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has brought up the "best of the public" yet. Weren't Olympic athletes one of Andy's original examples? This takes cognative dissonance to a new level. He's managing to pit his own positions against one another... -- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@Iatrogenic, another pretty important point is that Spain is country with a pretty hot climate and has no big wintersport areas! Same reason why you most likely won't see the Netherlands win any medals on skiing events, since we have no mountains to train on (we get our medals through ice skating). --GTac (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't for gay marraige and socialism, God would create some mountain ranges in the Netherlands. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a God, I doubt he cares that much about the Winter Olympics. --Sean^talk 18:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

@GTac, yeah was very tempted to burn a sock with something along the lines of pointing out how all the countries where same-sex marriage carries the death penalty are doing in the winter olympics (ie terribly!), of course to the total exclusion of the fact that these countries are in Africa and the middle east and probably have no representatives at the games! Though to be fair to Andypants, Spain does have the pyrenees Iatrogenic (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Goalposts moving slightly^img. No longer marriage & heterosexuality but prosperity. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh. Canada's women's hockey team is beating the United States 2:! in the 3rd. 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Canucks won the men's hockey gold, 3 to 2. (aet) The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear, The Maple Leaf forever!. When two tribes go to war, a point is all you can hope for. (Go to war, go to war) CS Miller (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is another one of Andy's absolutely top-notch debates that pops up about every six months. Over time they all start looking the same - Andy is so fucking stupid he just walks into these minefields every time, not seeming to notice that he keeps making assertions which can incontrovertibly be knocked for six with tables of facts. But then Andy's never met a fact he's afraid of. Andy beats up facts in the schoolyard. He runs over facts and crushes them with his monster truck. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And...oh dear, Canada beat USA 2-0. Damn commies must have been cheating. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Commies... with Liberal values. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada has all the fun :) More fun from actual stats - using the All-Time standings for Summer and Winter Olympics combined from Wikipedia - the USA have won the most medals (2511) - but have also competed in nearly all the games. Including (for instance) the 1904 St Louis games where they won 85% of the medals, which would be quite an achievement if it wasn't for the fact that they had nearly 90% of the athletes, and nearly half of the events were competed solely among entrants from the USA. They have won an average of 56 medals per Games - which puts them in third place behind the Soviet Union on 67 per games (damn commies again) and the Unified Team (which I had to look up and turns out to basically be the Soviet Union again) on 68 per games. So USA basically getting whooped but a buncha damn reds. Who else is near the top of the list? East Germany - another good conservative state....oh wait. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals per capita

If we're comparing countries then the only true measure has to be medals per capita. This link is for the 2008 summer Olympics - Estonia (Hi EL) scores high with one medal but bugger all in the way of population. When it comes to commies/teabaggers I don't see any correlation (surprise, surprise). Jack Hughes (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"If we're comparing countries then the only true measure has to be medals per capita". Actually this would only work in a perfect world, where all athletes have the same probabilities of competing. In reality, the entry for most events is limited to, usually, 3-4 athletes per country in individual events and 1 team per country for team events. This wouldn't matter if sport results were rigidly determined, but given the variability in performance and stochastic factors, the more athletes, the more chance of a medal (up to the other extreme, where all athletes had the same chance for a medal; then probability of a medal would be strictly proportional to number of athletes). As an extreme example, if the 50 States of the US competed individually, they'd win more medals in total than the US now. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

True, Ed@. There's also the per GDPlist.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say: good find, Jack.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've always thought this. You would obviously expect big, rich countries to win a lot of medals. In fact it's surprisingly how badly big rich countries do for all their advantages.--Bob^{It's cold!} 11:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Top notch facilities, technologies, research and coaching culture play a big part, but you have to contrast them with a) hunger: sport in poor countries is a good way to get proportionately better salaries and way-of-livings, and it's easier to work more and sacrifice more of your youth for it; and maybe b) paradoxically "healthier" childhood: that is, you still practice sport every afternoon (if not else, by playing with your pals in the streets) as opposed to computer games and fries. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada wins

So it seems Canada's women's hockey team won gold. I guess socialism and gay marriage only have detrimental impacts on men? DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken's the only one who seems to hate lesbians. I gotta say none of those women seemed "obese" in the sense Ken crows about and some were even real hawt. 14:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly ill-advised of CP to crow about the result of one match. Now that Canada has taken the gold (Canada outclass US to take gold in ice hockey) I'm sure CP will turn to Canada's celebrations Canada's women's ice hockey team have apologised for celebrating their Olympic gold by swigging champagne and beer and smoking cigars on the ice). Of course the mens game still has to be settled and Canada could yet best the US in the final.

As stated elsewhere, Canada won that 3-2, in overtime. CS Miller (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW Did anyone else know that Britain won the gold medal in ice hockey in 1936?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

["http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/26/canadian-hockey-celebrati_n_477665.html"]

some very nice pictures of the girls celebrating on ice Alain (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who holds the Rugby gold?   ^Contribs_Talk 14:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Psshaw. Union is so effete, League is for real northern men. And anyway, can one say they hold the gold when it hasn't been played since 1924?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rugby Sevens is returning to the Olympics, but sadly not in time for 2012.

Britain is also the current Olympic champion at Cricket. Bondurant (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Olimpix iz all commiez. ħuman 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A good reason never to bring back olympic cricket. If we did, the fucking Aussies might win, then we'd never hear the end of it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He's doing it again

Andy's made a statement^img (go to "The gravity question") and by George, he's not gonna be swayed.

Gravity

Mr Schlafly, if I may I would like to explain a simulation I ran over a decade ago. Back in high school teachers taught about gravity. I was quick to note that the exponent 2 seemed quite arbitrary and it was the first thing I tried to disprove when I got home. So I took my laptop and ran a couple of simulations. I plotted the paths of several planets around the sun and used different formulas. First with factor 3, then 2.5, then 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, you get the point. I kept going closer to 2. The result was inviariably the same. Planets started to crash into the sun in a single orbit. The patterns were highly irregular and always involved moving through the sun. Only with exponent 2 flat the orbits remained elliptical as observed. I hope this clarifies the discussion. It's open minded to question the formula, it's open minded to test the formula and it's open minded to accept the formula once the tests come in affirmative. Marnick 13:41, 25 February 2010 (EST) The orbits crash ... when? The orbits are not going to be significantly different over reasonable periods of time for an exponent that only slightly differs from 2.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 25 February 2010 (EST) At first glance that is the most logical deduction. However I challenge you to run the simulation with any commercial or free physics or mathematic software suite. I'm sure you can give this as a homework assignment to one of your students. The orbits change in very significant ways, and as I said, they are going to move through the sun (not near, exactly through).Marnick 13:56, 25 February 2010 (EST) My statement is not merely at "first glance ... the most logical deduction." It is the only logical deduction. It is true with a mathematical certainty, which is why the denial of it is so illustrative of a closed mind.--Andy Schlafly 14:40, 25 February 2010 (EST) You accuse ME of having a closed mind because I actually looked for evidence? The evidence might not be what you want it to be, but that doesn't make it less true. 2.00000001 will crash the planets into the sun, that's a mathematical and physical fact. I dare you to test it with a simulation, that would really show how open minded you are. Also admitting you're wrong is part of being open minded. I'm correct. Run the tests and admit it. You're so proud of your open mind, this shouldn't be a difficult task, now would it? Really mr Schlafly, run the simulation. As I said, I doubted my teacher so with my open mind I immediatly did some tests. And they confirmed what I learned. Sometimes logical deductions are simply wrong.Marnick 09:16, 26 February 2010 (EST)

How long will Marnick last?   ^Contribs_Talk 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What's with the unreadable collapsible thingies that add weird stuff to our headers? ħuman 05:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you use Schalfly's 2.00000001 (or whatever he suggests) over what time period does the modelling hold until there is a significant difference? If you are an old-earther then the modelling will fail because of the aeons involved but if you are a YEC-er perhaps 6000 years is sufficient time for the planets not to have crashed?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly, feel free to bring up this game, build your own solar system and bring up the "4 star ballet" option. Take any of the stars and modify their mass by 0.(as many zeros as you want)1. Chaos will inevitably ensue, even if it takes a long time. Over a long time, things build up. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 15:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the mass of one of the stars to 120.0000000000001. Took about 35 time units for the entire thing to spiral into chaos. 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the mass that is being changed, but the power in the equations of motion. The sun has been losing mass since it formed, but things haven't gone crazy in the solar system. Bondurant (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You EC'd me on that point. I don't really understand Andy's point, not that I'm trying to be obtuse. It seems to me that what he's describing, and the more he describes it I believe I'm right, is unknowable. I don't think it's being open minded or "logical" to spout off on things you can think up if they're untestable as fundamentally unknowable. 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't have a point. He said something, without thinking it out, and so has to defend it against all comers. Andy is never wrong!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

His reply^img makes me want to scream. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Physicists/philosophers of science: does Andy's point actually mean anything? Is it the kind of thing that's even empirically observable? 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I think Andy is just playing lawyer and never admitting he's wrong because that's what a lawyer like that does, but in this case, it's clear that he's viciously stupid. The funniest part is that how he uses the fallback that "one doesn't look for evidence that 2+2=4", just like one doesn't look for evidence that the distance from object A to object B is the same from B to A (or that spheres are round), which is why it's an inverse square. The only way it wouldn't be an inverse square is if you accept relativity and acknowledge the 1,000,000,000 lb gorilla in the room who is bending the fabric of spacetime.

Andy embraces the fact that 2+2=4 with a gusto, yet he denies the fact that 2*2=4 with a reckless abandon. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you ok? You were coming over a bit... Ken-ish there. Bondurant (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes...I had an episode. Got myself a snack and am feeling much better, thanks. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a computer simulation isn't necessarily going to reflect reality 100%. Not that I know much about how simulations are written or work, but it seems entirely possible that we're looking at circular reasoning here, and the programs are written based on the math Marnick is trying to use them to prove. Additionally, I harbor some skepticism about this guy. Seems a little advanced for a high school student, and how many high school students had laptop computers in the 1990s? That being said, Andy is of course being his standard closed-minded idiot here. The man is monumentally stupid, and I really want to kick him in the nuts whenever he tells people to open their minds. He is the paragon of close-mindedness. DickTurpis (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason that AndyPandy now defends every utterance coming from his mouth and never backs down is because he's become an arch-conservative. For AndyPandy everything is now a stark black & white situation and, as we can see with the evolution article on CP, AndyPandy really believes that if you invalidate one part of an argument you invalidate the whole. Or in other words AndyPandy really seems to believe that if he is proven wrong on one single thing, then he will be seen as having been proved wrong in everything else.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is why those nutterss have to believe that EVERY word in the bibble is true. Heaven forfend if some of it was allegorical.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone should ask Andy if his mind is open enough for the possibility that 2+2=4,00000000000000001 Internetmoniker (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, on the old log tables 2+2=3.999...-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Inverse square law^img still exists which quite emphatically states it is 2, and has survived over a year of a request for a review^img. --Shagie (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing reminds me of why Andy makes me want to cry. How is he allowed to teach children, when he is so blatantly incapable of thought? H. Randolph Twist (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy embraces the fact that 2+2=4 with a gusto, yet he denies the fact that 2*2=4 with a reckless abandon. But 1+1=2 and 1*1 = 1 but 3*3 = 9 and 3+3 = 6 . Did you notice they NOT THE SAME. If you subtract you get the original number .But Not for 2. 2+2 = 4 and 2*2 =4 MUST be a special pleading within mathematics and somehow librul. Hamster (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another one hived off to Debate.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm appalled that nobody's pointed out the obvious. Of course it's possible that the surface area of a sphere doesn't vary precisely with the square of the radius … if you define "sphere" or "radius" or "square" to mean something other than what they mean. The problem here is that Andy seems to lack a basic understanding of what "sphere," "square" and "radius" mean, which is why he's confused. It's as if he said, "In order to be open-minded, you have to concede that it's possible for parallel lines in the Euclidean plane to eventually intersect." In other words, in order to be open-minded, you have to reject the definitions of the concepts you're talking about. Or you have to stick your fingers in your ears and assert that the universe is magic and not self-consistent. I think Andy would be equally comfortable with either of those outlooks, because after all, GOD DID IT, PUNY MORTALS. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody here, years ago, once embarked on creating a "hand-wavy prrof of the inverse square law", and although they never finished it, there was enough to get the basic geometry that Andy seems to think needs .00001 added to it because he's an utter moron. ħuman 05:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me. The hang up was my miserable failure to be able to draw the necessary 3D diagrams with the shit tools available to me. This whole conversation makes me want to beat both participants with the cluebat. In a universe with 3 length dimensions, the relationship cannot be other than the second power. Duh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

With three length dimensions and Euclidean geometry. Of course, Andy's tacit approval of the idea that space is curved is at odds with his rejection of general relativity. Professor Moriarty 14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scheisse! Moriarty, I though of that while down the pub: of course a [non Euclidean] geometry is conceivable (not by me - no mathematician, I) where the inverse square law doesn't apply, but Andy wouldn't allow such a departure from flat space, shirley.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you be trying to confuse me with your quantum gravity malarkey. Newton 'til I die! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You wants Riemann geometry , is cooler than Euclids stuff Hamster (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Magritte

What is dear Rene doing at the top of mainpageleft next to Andy's weirdness? The painting looks vaguely like a guillotine with a (stylized) severed head on first glance... [3]^img (hope I did the capt. right, I don't do this much...) ħuman 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it clearly isn't a pipe. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's their new motto: "Conservapedia: Ceci n'est pas une wiki." --98.204.160.254 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"wiki" is feminine in la belle langue? Whodathunkit?! ħuman 03:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone agree about this? (probably not. eh?)   ^Contribs_Talk 09:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you a pro?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing Course

Haven't seen any activity around this in a while. What's going on? EddyP (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Professor Andy?

Looks like Andy's got a new scheme--CP courses for college credit! One question, though: If someone could take one of Andy's "classes" for college credit, would that make Andy a professor, or just an inferior associate professor?

Ha! Ha! Hee! Hee! Ho! Ho! "I'm sure our courses are as good or better than the StraighterLine courses!" Hee! Hee1 Ho! Spleurgh!!! (collapses in heap and is incapable for 20 minutes)   ^Contribs_Talk 14:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived to here ħuman 22:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Summaries agree?

Sez Ken^img:
"Glenn Beck has an interview with three authors who summarize Beck's thoughts on how to thrive in the unpredictable and difficult times that are expected ahead. [VIDEO] None of the authors recommend depending on big government to solve most of our problems!"
So: people who summarize x agree with x? Summary =/= criticism, Ken! Idiot!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that he's trying to say that when 3 guys tried to summarize Beck's "thoughts", they didn't conclude that we should all become a Stalinistic state or whatever? What else, 3 people interviewed O'Reilly and concluded that O'Reilly thinks that christianity is good? Why would you even have three guys trying to summarize Beck's train of thought? It's just all "LIBRULS ARE COMMIES SOCIALISTS OBAMA IS A RACIST FASCIST OH GOD TERRORISTS ARE KILLING AMERICAN VALUES" rambling anyways, with some crocodile tears here and there. I kinda feel sorry for those guys though, it sounds like a pretty awful job to actually have to analyse that shite. --GTac (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Without actually following Ken's link, I suspect that he's just misusing the word "summarize". I think he's using it in the sense that Glenn might say, "Here are three guys who nicely sum up my thoughts exactly." My guess is that Ken ment to say that they mirrored Glenn's thoughts, or shared his thoughts, or endorsed his thoughts, or something else a bit more coherent. Bluefish (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's the lucky RWian?

In one fell swoop, JacobB gains a whole host of privileges. EddyP (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Most likely either Zoetrope or Dear Leader --CChristian (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ssh! You'll embarrass Andy! Professor Moriarty 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, whoever you may be; may you move up to the next level of parody. Godspeed, sir. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting turnaround, given that just a few months ago both Andy and TK were ready to strangle JacobB. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! JacobB is, and always has been, a highly valued member of the conservapedia team. The records are being amended to reflect this view as we speak. X Stickman (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi JacobB. I'm watching you. 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Andy? Well, keep fighting the good fight Jacob. --MarkGall (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Dear Emperor, biatch. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympics and Economy

Nate of 538 did a bit on the balance of medals and comparing them to past winter olympics.[14] If I may quote the summary "The lesson here may be that a centrally-planned economy is not good for very many things -- but the Olympics may be an exception." I wonder how this jive's with Andy's olympics and socialism thing. --Shagie (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

TK [4]^img picks this up, and claims it vindicates Andy. RobertE sticks his head above the parapet to point out that it doesn't. CS Miller (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

a paper over here compared medal count per GDP for the 2000 olympics. The winner on that scale was Cuba. Meanwhile, this table for 2008 has North Korea as the winner. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Milestone

"This page has been accessed 1,000,556 times." Internetmoniker (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You should put that on WIGO:WIGO:CP ^{ONE / TALK} 14:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Or here, of course.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the 1,000,000th view, by the way. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

guided by intelligence voices

Puts you at a disadvantage then, Ed.^{img   Contribs}_Talk 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's guided by the invisible hand of Schlafly. In fairness to Ed, this is by his standards quite a substantive edit. ^{Ask me about your mother} 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Substantive as in: copy → paste? Then yes I suppose it is.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be why Terry Koeckritz regularly refers to "my friend" Ed Poor. It's a mutual love of ctrl+c. ^{Ask me about your mother} 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Never forget we have this^img kind^img of standard of editing as the norm, and compare to those, it's at least a step forward. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Karajou's not coming to his senses

"During the next three days you will read the complete Federalist and the writings of Hamilton; you will not refer to the Tories as conservative again."   ^Contribs_Talk 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh look look: Karajou made a funny. Seriously though, are we liberals demanding someone "kowtow" to the will of the king? I like Elvis as much as the next guy, but I really don't think his will is important. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Classic Ken

"Some grim economic statistics have come out and have recently been reported at the VisionVictory YouTube channel. The economic data that VisionVictory has reported lately has been so grim..." [5]^img
When I looked up 'redundant' it said, "see Redundant" --PsygremlinZungumza! 04:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if it's on YouTube it must be correct. I wonder if Ken engages in conversation in the same way as he edits at CP? I imagine it would sound something like this:

Mysterious man: Hello Ken, the usual?

Ken: ys please, bt ths time please tak watch off before stick it there?

Mysterious man: Sorry?

Ken: yes please, bt ths time please tak watch off before stick it there?

Mysterious man: I don't understand you, dear

Ken: yes please, but this time please tak watch off before stick it there?

Mysterious man: One more time?

Ken: yes please, but this time please take watch off your watch before you stick your fist up there.

Mysterious man: I understand. Get yourself oiled up and I'll be right with you.

--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow--The watch (apparently) isn't digital? 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

No, but the penetration is.86.158.52.23 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BZZZZZT! No, I'm sorry. The answer we were looking for was "analog". 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

And in this case it sounds like the penetration is carpal, not digital... ħuman 00:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find a carpal watch? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I could tell you, but you don't want to go where every Gay man in Buffalo NY has gone before ... Opcn (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally unprincipled rant

What got up Andy's ass that he's taking a gratuitous swipe at associate professors? Did he get turned down for that adjunct position at the local law school because a liberal associate professor had his number? 01:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just going to post something about this. Where I went to school, an associate professor had the same level of education as a full fledged professor, he/she just lacked the necessary experience. They aren't 'deemed unqualified,' just not experienced enough. And it's certainly not an inferior status. Is it different elsewhere? Keegscee (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a roundabout stab at Barack Obama. The Obama article makes a huge deal over the fact that he wasn't a real professor. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If he wasn't a real professor what was he doing teaching classes to University of Chicago law students down the hall from Ronald Coase (!!!), Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook, Geoff Stone, Cass Sunstein, and Martha Nussbaum? 01:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, Andy's a complete idiot with no ide how academia works - or doesn't. Because he ain't in it in any way or form. Nice call, Nutty. ħuman 03:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually think this is baldy disguised swipe at PZ Myers. - π 06:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone who isn't under the bannerhammer needs to stick some ^{[citation needed]} tags on there. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the corollary of this that people who are unqualified for an associate professorship end up teaching homskollars in their basements? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

PZ has tenure, associate prof's tend to be off tenure track positions, and tend to generate a lot of controversy as part of academia. Dr. Novella is either an assistant Prof or an Associate Prof IIRC...--Opcn (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, PZ is an associate professor, which at UMM is a tenured position. Andy's lousy article got my confused assistant professors are off tenure track or pretenure, Wiki sets it straight. "The mid-level position is usually awarded after a substantial record of scholarly accomplishment (such as the publication of one or more books, numerous research articles, receiving a large external research grant, successful teaching and service to the department); however the specific requirements vary considerably between institutions and departments. As of 2007, 22.4% of academics hold the rank of associate professor." --Opcn (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Climategate" featured article

So Ken just changed the featured article to the Climategate one. This is often repeated, so I don't want to wigo it, but note the captions: "snow is melting from the polar icecaps and glaciers at a rapid rate" (from the Gore image), and "record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009 contradicting Gore's claim" on the NASA image. I didn't know human beings could be so dense and still function. I wonder what their shopping trips are like: "This bag of potato chips has 700g and is $1.99, but this other one is $1.49 for 300g. Who in their right mind would pay $1.99?" – Nick Heer 08:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry; I'm pretty sure Ken is not allowed to go shopping by himself. DickTurpis (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Americans don't buy nothin' that comes in grams! Random surfer (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC) (new user)

Coke comes in grams --Opcn (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheistic hospitals

... Figured out yet why there are no atheistic hospitals?^img Theres's plenty over here in the UK & the rest of Europe, Andy.   ^Contribs_Talk

I wish I weren't banned. I'd burn my account over there just to point out that the oldest hospital in the United States is Bellvue, in New York, founded in 1736. It's also one of the most acclaimed. It's where the polio vaccine was developed, and doctors researching there have earned enough academic prizes (Nobels, etc.) to pave the lobby. Something like four out of five of its patients are poor and uninsured, and receive care at either no cost or drastically reduced cost. And like more than a third of all hospitals in the United States, it's completely unaffiliated with any church or religious group. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! The original Hippocratic oath before the evil secular elite modified it contains references to Apollo and Asclepius. This clearly and logically proves beyond all doubt that all Hospitals and Doctors are in fact, eh, Olympian I guess.Sen (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, touché. So I guess that means that all hospitals fall into one of two categories: either pagan, or apostate. So Andy's technically right: none are atheistic. (On the other hand, find me an individual doctor who can witness tragedy and death every day for years and hold on to a faith in a benevolent god who loves us each and every one, whether Christian or Olympian or whatever. Maybe such men and women exist, but I can't imagine how they make it through the day.) --98.204.160.254 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Like the constitution, all that matters is one of the founders was a deist theist Christian, ergo it was religiously inspired.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the Arsefly now suggesting that lower IQ correlates with high achievement? 'Cos that's how I read that. People with high IQ are intellectual wannabes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So, when Andy is confronted with the idea that atheists do indeed build hospitals, he replies by saying "Atheists don't build hospitals"? What a brilliant pontificator. CameronGTW (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy must think hospitals are "charitable." Something I learned from trolling there is that he insists that atheists are more charitable than theists theists are more charitable than atheists. Of course at the same time these damned conservatives and liberals running the big hospitals are screwing us just like Microsoft and Wal Mart and the banks which are as charitable as my vagina. Brianna (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with a burnable sock

Contact me, please. Professor Moriarty 19:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea about 2 million boy! Brianna (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Phelps - liberal or conservative?

Not sure if this is worth a WIGO or not. There's quite a funny discussion going on over at the talk page for Fred Phelps. When questioned as to whether or not it's accurate for CP to describe Phelps as being liberal, DouglasA responded with: "Self-promotion, attention-grabbing, interpreting the Bible any way he wants? Check, check, check!". I still don't know which way DouglasA intended that to go. Is it Phelps or Andy he's talking about? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw that & assumed it was Doug's veiled ref to Andy.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Phelps himself, Liberal and Conservative are completely overruled by 'Nucking Futs'. - Ravenhull (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, he's a complicated man. I'd love to see Phelps and Andy slugging it out over scriptural interpretation. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to imagine:

Andy: "Liberal deceit!"

Fred: "Fag enabler!"

Repeat ad infinitum. EddyP (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried having the same discussion years ago, but discovered that arguing with RobS is like arguing with a retarded magic 8 ball. The man is so monumentally stupid that merely engaging in conversation with him makes your IQ wither up and die. DickTurpis (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

God, life must be boring at CP & RW. You can always tell when we trot Fred Phelps out of the closet for another go-round. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to Dick: Did you use the infamous "R" word above. For shame. For shame. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm using the word satirically, so I have Queentard's blessing with this. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You ever notice how retards Conservatives like Rob are so much more concerned with Political Corectness than Liberals will ever be? And strangely, it gets even worse when they're looking bad. Must be a coincidence. --Kels (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Back to the point under discussion: hear what Phelps said of Dick Cheney; Joe Biden couldn't do better. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any smear in a storm, eh Rob? --Kels (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If Phelps hates Cheney because he's insufficiently anti-gay, I'm not sure you can really argue that he's "liberal." Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there's one thing all liberals can agree on, it's that gays need to be purged from the earth post haste. I believe it's the liberal modus operandi. Unlike folks like Rob, who embrace the gays with such vigor that one can hardly believe they themselves are not engaged in anal sex with random men in Soho at this very moment. DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Why didn't Michael Moore report on this (Socialist Lobotomies Against Homosexuals in Castro's Cuba) in SICKO? Is this what Che fought for? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The retarded 8 ball strikes again. Take your motherfucking meds, Rob. For your sake. And for the sake of those people who won't be shot in the head by some insane motherfucker in a bell tower whose paranoid schizophrenia wasn't kept in check by his refusal to self-medicate. DickTurpis (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a totally implausible source, Rob? Basing your arguments on people suffering from the same kind of paranoia you suffer from is only going to lead to trouble. Or is that what they want you to think? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Implausible source? Look at Amazon's Review, "Radosh is not a left-winger who has become a right-winger" or Publishers Weekly, "the left he left refused to see the dark side of the Cuban revolution."[15] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My God! Rob! Run! They're on to you! That link turned into a 404 before I could even click on it! THEY are WATCHING!!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Here is a man who viewed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 as very possibly a portent of "extreme reaction, if not fascism," suddenly blacklisted by the Left... He even suffered professionally: in 1993, Radosh was denied a job in George Washington University's history department. "If I had still been a Communist writing left-wing history, I probably would have breezed in. But faculty members practicing a politically correct version of McCarthyism blackballed me." RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't post too much of your upcoming autobiography Rob. Just fix the link. Unless that's what THEY want you to do? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Little free advice for you there, Rob. Your dog isn't actually a medical professional, and you shouldn't accept any prescriptions it writes. --Kels (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget, CNN touting free healthcare lobotomies for all, with Castro's Cuba as the model of how progressives treat gays. [16]

Another paranoid right-wing source? Rob, Rob, Rob! Don't you realise? All these stories are plants! They just want you to think that you've got ahead of them! Was that a noise in the back room? Run! There's somebody there! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who this RobSmith character is, but, if this is the best he's got for his arguments, they're far from convincing. First, we have an article detailing how a bunch of visitors (which the article can't even decide whether they're 'socialist' or 'commies') to Cuba became absolutely horrified when they realised the patients in the mental institution they were visiting were lobotomised, with the only person who wasn't described, even by the less than objective article, as a 'Castro loyalist' (in case you miss the point, Rob, just because someone leans to the left does not mean they're best buddies with Castro, in much the same way that just because someone leans to the right does not mean they think Hitler was a swell guy). Second, we have an article that details how CNN gives a somewhat balanced assessment of Cuban health care, noting both the good points and the bad points, which the website hosting the article, who kinda have the same relationship with mainstream media as Conservapedia does to Wikipedia, tries to spin into CNN saying we should copy every aspect of Cuban health care (with the unspoken implication that CNN are therefore pro-Castro commies), plus an ad hominem attack against someone interviewed by CNN. 92.19.8.223 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagreeing with Andy in any way at all means you're a dirty Lie-burr-ul. Therefore, Phelps is a dirty Lie-burr-ul. Unfortunately, Phelps seems to use roughly the same definition... which means Andy is a dirty Lie-burr-ul. EddyP made basically the same comment above, but it needs to be made clearer: there is only one true Scotsman, and it's the person doing the talking. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada

I wonder how Andy explains Canada winning gold in hockey? Or winning the most gold medals ever in a winter Olympic games? Maybe socialism and gay marriage aren't that bad after all. Keegscee (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt he'll claim the IOC standard (num golds, then num silver, num bronze) is socialist deceit, and only the good ol' total medal count matters. Which, handily, the US won on. CS Miller (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy wins, whatever. Anything else is closed-minded liberal deceit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this really worths a WIGO? Can't we just update the other WIGO where Andy criticizes Canada's "lifestyle"? Kangaxx (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, has anyone here been following the debate topic they created out of the talk page that started this? It's hilarious. Maquissar is running circles around Andy, who's forced to do the Gish gallop and change the subject with every response. I can't believe Maquissar hasn't been blocked yet. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. You underestimate Andy's cognitive impairment dissonance. Everything bad that happens in Canada is because of universal health care, abortion and gay marriage. Everything good that happens is because of the Conservative government and the Catholic School Board. --Kels (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy acknowledges the loss; uses it as an opportunity to stick the boot into Obama. [6]^img. CS Miller (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Stephen the Large always been a lot more interested in watching hockey than providing Responsible Government^tm. --Kels (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything. Andy humbly admits he was wrong [7]^img. CS Miller (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

It was probably a bit redundant to re-WIGO this instead of updating the original, but it was such a wonderful turn of events from where Andy started just a few days ago that it seemed justified. (The other one that comes to mind is Scott Brown, conservative hero becoming Scott Brown, RINO traitor after a mere three votes). To his credit he's eating a little sliver of humble pie, and he's probably hoping that will let this vanish from memory ASAP. Not really surprised at the Obama crack, but that's going to be Andy's M.O. until Obama's out of office. The President could shit gold, and Andy would find fault because he's not shitting diamonds instead. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FSMdammit - I didn't see this debate here. I was too busy downing shots in the bar. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually have to agree with old Arsefly here. Canadians are parasites that tear up our roads and shoplift from our stores or at least where I live. Brianna (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shout out to TK or RobS

Tell Andy about this. I wanna see him have a fit. Hat tip   ^Contribs_Talk 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, he can't scream "professor values!!" on this one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

75px	This user has been PWNED by Brianna for being a wandal, jerk, or otherwise being unuseful. :P

Sorry I just had to do that. ;) Brianna (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Vanishment

Cleaning, but where's the archive?^{img   Contribs}_Talk 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he was in a jolly mood so he forgot it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy hasn't archived in ages. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Answer to the question: RW is the archive. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Chief Archivist - Rationovalskovitch-Wikiyochov   ^Contribs_Talk 14:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Atomic bomb

It's ALL AMERICAN (and you're probably a liberal^img.   ^Contribs_Talk 00:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The "all-American A-bomb." Catchy! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who needs the atomic bomb when we have the political klap-traps that can leave a trail of destruction far greater than that of the a-bomb. Brianna (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bert Schlossberg's Conspiracy Theories

Looks like Bert isn't too happy with Wikipedia right now. It's worth checking out his WP edit history - he's been adding conspiracy theories involving Rep. Larry McDonald to every page he can think of. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I maded him a page. Please expand.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR. Distilled version: nutty conspiracy theory that gets rejected on WP is welcomed with open arms on CP. 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It reminded me of Ed, actually - didn't he try to put Moonie-related stuff on WP and was rejected? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

He was topic-banned. 19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Ed is REALLY interested in....

the father-daughter^img relationship. Now he can add movies about fathers and 12-year old daughters, fathers and 13-year old daughters, no more being confined by 11-year old daughters. --72.224.42.45 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

he needs Sleepless in Seattle, Bachelor Father, and the Haley Mills one with the twins. Hamster (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

... and a box of Kleenex and some lotion. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck, Ed?^img Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What goes through his head when he liveblogs stuff like that on an online encyclopedia? Does he think it will be expanded to a regular article? Does he just do it to show he can still use his computer? I don't get it. Please Ed, try Twitter, it is perfect for you! (Oh no, he already tried that and expected that to expand magically as well.) Internetmoniker (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that his shortest ever? Must be pretty close if you exclude redirects.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's 122 bytes, which is short even by his standards but not quite the shortest. According to Worm's PoorTwitaPedia (which really should have its own article), there are several Ed stubs that are smaller. For instance, his entry for "poor" is 73 bytes and seven words long. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is cp:Eft, weighing in at a whopping 16 byes. The shortest I got away with when trying to mimic the master was cp:Insight, still almost three times as long. Don't know how he does it. --MarkGall (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"A young newt" is an anagram of "Gay tune now." This means something. This is important. *carves mashed potatoes into a crude shape of a newt* --98.204.160.254 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Media

You know what grinds my gears?

This newswire bulletin crap about "Hey! Thing X happened and even though I've only looked at three obscure sources, none of them covered it! Therefore, no one is covering it at all! It's a conspiracy to cover up the truth!"

This tripe is on par with those cheesy Facebook status bulletins that say "I support (cause X, thing Y, religion Z, or person Ω) and if you do too, copy/paste this worthless chunk of text into your status (or else). (PIDOOMA number)% of people won't re-post this because (they're too lazy, don't care, they're part of the evil Zionist conglomerate that caused it, they're worthless sacks of shit, etc.)"

It all boils down to the rudiments of psychological projection and total insecurity.

What a fucking waste of time, effort and brains. The End. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: Steal your own generic status to use as your status for cheap laughs and satirical commentary. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a sock to burn so I can put the CNN/CBS/MSNBC links on CP's talk page? Thanks in advance. – (Nick Heer) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore and Ponzi Scheme

I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but could anyone explain to me how on Earth can TK say Al Gore runs a Ponzi Scheme? I mean, okay, they think Al Gore is making money with alarmist claims, but it has nothing to do with a Ponzi Scheme (at least to me), and yet TK is so confident he adds a link. I know that this 'stretch' pales in comparison to what goes on daily on Andy's blog, but it gives me the feeling they are not even pretending to be accurate anymore. --Ireon (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that TK is playing a game. Fairness, truth or accuracy don't matter to him. It's more about positioning the TK character near the king. I don't think that he really believes half the stuff he posts. Some of it is designed to yank our chains but mostly it's about enhancing his position and sucking up to Andy in some way, or building alliances with JM or Ed Poor by pretending to be their friend so that he has some support if he screws up again.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy has a liberal bias. Bondurant (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lily is right - it's attention seeking. If he makes outrageous claims, people will react and he gets to wield the banhammer he so loves in new and interesting ways. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just stop reporting on TK already? It's obvious that all he wants is attention. Vulpius (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Easier said than done. No new users on CP -> no-one to disagree with Andy -> no fun (although a case could be made that their claims become more and more extravagant, as a desperate measure to garner attention). --Ireon (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We do have a moratorium on TK appearing on the actual WIGO page but here's a different thing: we're not so much commenting on what he says but on why he says it. I think ... Aren't we? ... Isn't that it? ...   ^Contribs_Talk 11:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's it. I know I'm fed up with his games, since they take a lot of the fun away from CP. But some of the things he does are still humorous. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not it. He's a bully and a sociopath. And if he's funny it's funny like watching someone run around kicking people in the balls form behind and shaving parts of their heads with electric clippers while they're sleeping. Jerry 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think TK and Al Gore should stop fucking each other and be friends. They would get along quite well there both annoying as shit! Brianna (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the Writing course?

There was Writing Lecture One, and then there were the student answers, and then Writing Lecture Two got halfway written ... and a month has passed since, with no further signs of life. Is this course dead? - Cuckoo (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy's probably busy. Remember that thing we saw in Google News a week or so ago? He may be busy with that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What google news thing? EddyP (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The CPAC convention? ħuman 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly 2012? --Sid (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian, Pedantry: that's scienceblogs, not google news. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it had been on Google News back then. --Sid (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping for refund requests--Thanatos (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Benefits for being a Conservative.

No i'am not kidding about this, they have this on the front page! Go see if you don't believe me, here are the things you can benefit from being a Conservative!!

The personal benefits of conservatism include defeating:

obesity and other addictions anxiety, depression and other time-wasters deceit and bias temptation of all kinds peer pressure Break free of the liberal pressure and begin benefiting. Give it a try with any problem of yours, then help others too.

No you are not imagining this, these guys actually wrote this and did it with a smile on their face. To celebrate this lulz, i decided to annoate this goodness, just for the lulz.

• obesity and other addictions

Well if this is true then i guess Rush Limbaugh isn't a conservative, since he is not only very overweight (seriously, someone get this guy a stairmaster) but he is also a reformed prescription drug addict.

• anxiety, depression and other time wasters

I'm sorry, but aren't these the same people that believe that the evil whiberals are taking over the country and trying to steal their guns and God? and don't even get me started on the depression conservatives have ever since Obama got inaugurated, Oh the Humanity!!

• deceit and bias

I LOLed when i saw this. Not only is this utter bullshit, but it is coming from Conservapedia! It's like a Star Trek fan calling a Star Wars fan a nerd, The irony is beyond delicious here!

• temptation of all kinds

Sure, if you don't count Sex, Drugs, Alchohol, Gay Sex, Money, Gambling, and all that other stuff that whiberals do.

• peer pressure

Now this one is very true, considering the fact that your peer's will kiss your ass regardless of your personal views, as long as your ideologies are the same, (anti-abortion, anti same sex marrige, etc).

Anyway that's all i got, now if you'll excuse me i'm going to take a nap and dweam whiberal dweams.

--Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to two weeks ago. Keegscee (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not to be mean, but do try to read a bit of what's gone on previously before you post :) H. Randolph Twist (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Archives have searchbox on it if you believe it is buried somewhere. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Rush drop down to a reasonable size? --Opcn (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Easter Project 2010

It's not about chocolate eggs. The New Testament needs to be completed, so let's finish it for Andy! Also, it maybe the Conservative Bible Project's last chance. I don't need to remind you that translating the Bible will:

• open your mind
• make you equal to Sir Isaac Newton
• increase the status of your sock with minimal effort
• provide you with amazing opportunities for parody
• maybe result in further media attention for CP
• probably earn you a place in Hell (who cares?)

No-one really gives a damn about Bible Translation edits at CP, so let your imagination flow (just take a look at certain translated verses, some approved by Andy Himself!). --Ireon (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

F@#k Andy, lets do this for Stephen! If he can't be God, he can at least be Jesus, we owe him that much! --Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From mainpageleft, "Participate in our Easter Project, by which we complete our translation of the New Testament." Hilarious. ħuman 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you paraphrase that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Easter Project 2010 is a proposal to complete the New Testament translation in the Conservative Bible Project by Easter, April 4, 2010." Well, someone propose the completion and then no one else will need to be in the project. I propose we finish the CBP by 04-04-2010 ... success! --Opcn (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)