Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive183

This is an archive page, last updated 31 May 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>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <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)

The revolution shall be televised!

hat tip Schlafly. tmtoulouse 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Dear God that's fucking creepy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone stick on utube or something so I can watch it at night? Or does the SCNJ have archives? ħuman 00:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, but it's hard to say how long it takes them to post it.--WJThomas (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I fail at reading. Well, 4/25-26 is up. So hopefully it will happen before we forget all about it. I'm gonna put a sticky reminder on my talk page for myself. If anyone figures out their schedule, can you add the date to check back please? ħuman 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mind if I ask: which case(s)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the effort by some morons in NJ to recall their US Senator. I forget his name and stuff, but the link above ought to get you there. ħuman 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be tomorrow morning at 10:00 am then. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the clerk's site and saw that New Jersey doesn't permit separate merits briefs on appeals to the Supreme Court than those submitted in the appellate court. So Schlafly hasn't had to write a word to get this far. He's smarter than he looks. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"He's smarter than he looks": not hard to do! (see vid above) 23:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That Andy is smart is a source of interest to me. Keep in mind that he graduated from Harvard Law with honors and he didn't do it by arguing the nonsense he argues on Conservapedia. He has made a conscious decision to reject a rational education he demonstrably mastered to maintain a worldview that lacks even a minor semblance of logic or consistency. --Leotardo (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy the Attorney

Human, somewhere above, to Rob: "...(The NJ) supreme court is hearing an appeal about whether or not the state court was correct in its finding that there was no grounds for them to rule on the case until a petition is actually successfully completed and submitted. Do you see how that is a different case than the whether or not there is a right for people to recall federal officials?" Rob understood. Does Andy?--WJThomas (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine Andy thinks of himself as Charles Bronson from Death Wish and he's preparing himself for some vigilante justice botp style. Yorick^Crass. 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The case is interesting not just because Andy's ginormous ego has him saying it's the most important case of the year even though he's not involved in the case but simply filed an, "I have an opinion that's relevant!" amicus brief. The crux of the issue is a conservative blathering point: what was the original intent of the founding fathers. This article from the wingnut Human Events is actually pretty good in explaining the issues. Towards the end they hit at the hypocrisy:

Luzzi said that the right to recall federal officials predates the Constitution, going back to the Articles of Confederation where it is specifically granted in Article V. “If you go back in the history of the United States, and if the court decides that all political power rests with the people, then the people have the right to recall,” Luzzi said.

In other words, they are arguing that recalling federal officials is in line with Originalism because the Articles of Confederacy are even more original than the Constitution - LOL - whilst overlooking that the Articles of Confederacy didn't work, which is why they were replaced. I've seen this before with conservatives--in particular, on the birthright citizenship issue--that they look at the losing side of the debate in the day and point to it as support for their current 'originalist' position. --Leotardo (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did someone say we can watch it online? EddyP (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, I think it's tomorrow. ħuman 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It may ultimately be a cp:Tenth Amendment issue. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Wait!!! Hold the phones! Stop the presses!! Someone just used "conservapedia, the encyclopedia any freak can contribute substantially to" as a freaking SOURCE! It's a first! ħuman 05:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)These is staggeringly little tenth amendment case laws. I know it is the latest trend to screech "tenth amendment, state's rights" but historically it is non-occurrence and act of federal government have always superseded state legislation. The amendment is a bit of a truism, if it is not in the constitution, it is a state issue. Depending on how literally you wish to read the seventeenth amendment, it appears as though they expect the senator to be there for 6 years regardless, so recall is out of the question. - π 05:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how the first amendment is freedom of speech, press, etc. because fuck freedom of religion, right? --Opcn (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help

Anyone remember the time Andy used a private dinner conversation with a SCOTUS justice as a citation in an article? Can someone provide a link? Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the one: cp:Lemon test. Reminds me of the time I was chatting over dinner with Andy and he told me that he never wanted to be Christian, but felt he had to in order to stop his mother from from beating him with a tyre iron. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 16:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal deceit! It would have been a tire iron. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAHA... not only is he citing himself, he's citing a conversation that took place over 15 years ago. Thanks for the laugh.--Night Jaguar (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He also defended it on the talk page. --Sid (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, CR. Weird thing: I had some distant inkling of what the article was in the back of my mind, but after wracking my brain I couldn't think of it, though I kept thinking of the word "yellow". Now I know why. DickTurpis (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I hadn't seen that before, but had to find it after you mentioned it. Looked like a wind-up, but blimey it was real. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was probably before your time. Might I ask how you found it without really even knowing what you were looking for? DickTurpis (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno how he found it, but in general, it's easy enough if you can pin it down to a phrase for their search engine (or Google with the "site:conservapedia.com" parameter)such as "dinner conversation" (with quot. marks for greater accuracy). --Sid (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I searched via CP, using the string dinner supreme. checking mainspace and the talk pages. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that was pretty easy. Not knowing which justice, what they were discussing, or any other details, I figured I didn't have enough info for a satisfactory search. I guess "dinner" was they key word I was thinking was still too common. I was actually looking mostly at RW, as I thought we had something in our Andy or CP article referencing this laughable citation. DickTurpis (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

...we don't? That's a surprise, considering how it's the prime example of CP's (lack of) sourcing standards... --Sid (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Prodigal Son

Iduan's back.^img This could be interesting. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oo, well spotted. I shall order some popcorn. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Osama WIGO Phail

BenB, can we ask what you intended with the Osama WIGO? The link to the CP:Atheist page doesn't seem on the surface to have anything at all to do with Osama? It's getting voted down so badly because it doesn't appear to make sense....maybe a rewrite could help? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This was inserted into the article, but was reverted. The link on the wigo just links to the article, not the diff, so the wigo line seems to be completely random. The most amusing thing about it (to me) is that the reason for reverting the edit was the U.N line, not the Bin Laden line. "UN has nothing to do with this... The other was just too ridiculous for words...." indeed. X Stickman (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some honest and no doubt delightful person oversighted that link. Use the capture tag, g. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

God damn. I was gonna use the capture tag but then I figured it wasn't important enough for them to bother oversighting, and I didn't wanna use up whatever resource the bot uses on something pointless. X Stickman (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

El bot tiene mucho machismo. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken machismo WIGO

That is really, really weird. I feel an odd mix of pity and fear. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Page bumps anyone? EddyP (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No clue, but definitely one of his weirder endeavours. The images of the Spanish people running away from the bull are incredibly bizarre. SJ ^Debaser 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I could only read the first three paragraphs because my eyes tired of his attempt to disguise his lack of wit with exclamation marks and rhetorical questions. --Leotardo (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It only took me two paragraphs to realise this guy is literally insane. Andy may be crazy, but Ken is on a whole other level. He needs help. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken, your repressed homosexuality is showing again. Vulpius (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is he spending so much time on it? EddyP (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The usual reasons, I'm sure: pageranks and the fact that it gets our attention. Side note: I think this has become the scariest thing on CP, topping even the Obama article. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't say "topping", it gets Ken too excited. --Kels (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. Ok, then, this has risen thrust peaked climbed to the top of the list of scary "articles." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken, I just feel awful for you these days and cannot even imagine how lonely and miserable you must be in this state. Do you have a psychiatrist? If not you need to make an expedited appointment on Monday and get yourself some help as quickly as you can. If Andy Schlafly or any of the other allegedly moral people on CP had the least bit of human decency in them they'd put an end to this and try to make some recommendations you might listen to over those of an RW user, which says something about their ability to exploit and abuse someone like you who is so obviously suffering. Be well. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Andy and Co. care one way or the other; they just ignore Ken for the most part. It is a sad, I suppose. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Its the strangest thing I have ever seen him do...Aceⁱ⁹ 21:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't taken more than a few hours off in the last day. This is hard to watch. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. He took a hot dog and nap break here:

1. 18:02, 21 May 2010 (hist) (diff) New! File:Dineshdsouza-full.jpg ‎ (source: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/more/about.html Obtained permission to use the picture)
2. 07:32, 21 May 2010 (hist) (diff) Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism ‎ (→References)

10 1/2 hours off from 7:30 AM EST to 6 PM. Wow, this guy is working on my schedule, sort of. ħuman 06:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ, Ken, get some sleep! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"Instead of hispanic women constantly kicking sand in Senor Dawkins' face when he goes to the beach because they think he is merely a weak, quiche eating, liberal atheist who is..." Shit, I ate quiche today and seriously, I never eat quiche. It was just the best-looking thing at the deli and I didn't even enjoy it that much. Fuck me, stereotypes. Now Latinas are going to kick sand in my eye at the beach or something. --Leotardo (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken has used the word Machismo more than 20 times in a really grating manner.... obviously for google rank purposes, when people search for Richard Dawkins and Machismo... (who does that any way? apart from Ken of course)--Buscombe (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is second for the search Richard Dawkins and Machismo on a certain search engine starting with G. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he couldn't even achieve number 1 shows a lack of machismo on Ken's part. - π 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

But so what? Who would ever search that? And if he's aiming for a high rank on Google:Machismo that seems highly unlikely, and pointless. Few people searching for that are going to care two bits about some weird ramblings about some Richard guy's relationship to it. Even if they improbably got a "hit" from such a search, they would certainly not get a "read" out of the searcher. --Leotardo (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The more people who know that Richard Dawkins needs more machismo the better I say. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken's page is not even in my top 10 google result for Richard Dawkins and machismo together....--Buscombe (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's #2 for me. Of course the "summary" is just plain weird. First, I accidentally googled Richard Dawkins masochist, which actually returned real content. ħuman 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize he spammed the main page with it! ħuman 03:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And he has copied it to the bigtime, CP's alleged "essay" space: [Conservapedia essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?‎]. ħuman 04:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I smell Article of the Decade status! --Kels (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just plain creepy. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And he's copied the whole thing into his "project" article. ħuman 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit Ace, it got vaped. What was it? User:1

Is it just me or does it seem like Ken is trying to be the next José Jiménez? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh Good Christ - the article's waaay longer than it was when I last looked. Holy fuck. What a weirdo. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Insanity aside, machismo in Spanish means "sexist" or "male chauvinism". So saying that Hispanic women don't see much machismo in Richard Dawkins is actually a compliment (or maybe on Conservapedia it isn't). Also, it's señor not "Senor". Normally I'd let it go, but he made that mistake 54 times (seriously) in that "essay". --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about impotence is strangest of all. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@Night Jag. I think Ken has confused macho and machismo. But he's definitely in need of help at the moment, perhaps his parents are on vacation and have left him alone in the house for a couple of weeks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia think tank WIGO

Omigod, omigod, I almost couldn't stop laughing at this that I seriously thought it was parody at first. I like this:

A traditional think-tank, for example, may gather together a small number of fine conservative minds, but it lacks the power generated by a "best of the public" approach.

The old think tank model of people who have dedicated their lives to learning and thinking about particular subjects *does* lack that 'people with opinions about subjects but who have no evidence of serious study of those subjects' quality. I'm calling my poker night a think tank; usually around 2 a.m. we have argued about, and sorted out, most of the world's problems. --Leotardo (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just... is this parody? It's brilliant! Webbtje (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Parody? Oh no, BenP is a REAL user! I love that Andy's looking for a name. As usual, he has zero suggestions himself and just gets someone else to do it. I've a few: ConservaTank. SchlaflyTank. Thinkapedia. That could get them started. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My vote goes to Thinkapedia. Keegscee (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

ConservaThink. tmtoulouse 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Think Tank of the Public. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just "The Best of the Public". tmtoulouse 19:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "Best of the Public" usually refers to any organization that uses "the public" instead of experts, at least according to cp:Best of the public. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Best Think Tank" or "The Best of the Think Tanks" --Leotardo (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Tank of the Public? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something I'd look for at a bus station, so that might be perfect. --Leotardo (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Think for the Public. tmtoulouse 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha! That's a good one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

lol...yes, but they would stress that 'for' means 'on behalf of' as in 'the best of on behalf of' --Leotardo (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but I could use AndyLogic™ to say that only the BotP are qualified to think for the public. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a media question - they'd want to avoid the Orwellian overtone when Conservapedia is interviewed. When people ask questions about the policy proposals and are told to shut up is when the best of the public will be revealed. --Leotardo (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Conservative group thinkers" would be perfect.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OMG, that BenP post namechecks every Schlafly-meme in sight! "Think of the Children" perhaps? ħuman 20:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DogP- SchlaflyTank is too awkward. I propose "SchTank". Kallium^talk 20:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I love ThinkaPedia. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

They could even use a brain as their logo! --Kels (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Thinkypedia I think, sounds a bit more camp. CP needs whatever camp they can get, since Ken surely isn't far away from being sectioned. Webbtje (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Would a "think tank" really have a "-pedia" name? --Leotardo (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Should conservapedia really have a "-pedia" name? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For farcical reasons, yes. But they are different farces, aren't they? --Leotardo (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Realistically the insights provided by the soon to be launched CP think tank could already be gleaned from reading user comments on the Orly Taitz site. The market will (quite correctly) set the value of CP's advice, but in forecasting that value I suggest the name "Will Think for Food". It's modest and realistic, and suggests a can-do attitude in the face of certain failure. Failure is what made America great by providing a point of reference for the winners. Perhaps those goofy bastards are the reason why whenever we look at the Stars and Stripes we can't help but be reminded of the word "flag". Bless them! --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Gold Star to this thread for comedy writing. You've all excelled yourselves. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Combining some of those ideas, how about CampThink? Thinkycamp? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"How about Conservaway or Conservaprocess?" How about "SepticTank"? ħuman 01:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "GodspeedTank"? (probably sounds much stupider if you aren't having insomnia....) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the addition of the God meme. How about GodThink? ħuman 02:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can just imagine Andy shouting to his minions, "Tankspeed ahead!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest "Godspeed You, White Paper." Perhaps a more important question, what are we going to call our new RationalWiki brand consultancy? And how much are we charging Andy? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Unrelated, but you know we have a PoorTwitapedia page for all Ed's stubs? We should have a Godspeedia for all Andy's memes. 82.34.246.39 (talk) 1, can't be arsed to sign in

I would have thought their first hurdle would be finding people who can, you know, think and not just regurgitate whatever crap Andy or their preacher has served up. --PsyGremlinHable! 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Best Conservapedia Think Tank Names

As a member of the worst of the public, I deem my arrogant list below to be the definitive "The Best of the Suggestions" for the best of the public's new think tank, and if you don't agree then shut up and open your mind...

1. Think for the Public
2. Think Tank of the Public
3. The Best Think Tank ("Ever" is implied)
4. GodspeedTank
5. Thinkapedia

Benp and Andy, on behalf of RationalWiki: you're welcome. Now please start ASAP so we can create a new WIGO forum graphic. --Leotardo (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle Hymn of the Public. ħuman 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder just what kind of "tank" they are thinking about when they say "think tank". --⁠ (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How about ConservaTruth? Because, firstly, they won't actually be doing any thinking as they've already got all the answers - and secondly, it'd give TK an excellent occasion of repeating "Because the Truth will, indeed, set you free!" every time the name is mentioned. --Maquissar (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Best of the tank? Think of the public! The public tank of best-think. The permutations are endless. (Well, quite big anyway). Jaxe (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome-Tank! Easily abreviated to Awank. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Conservative Coalition of Christian Parents. Rob should love that one. DickTurpis (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Thinkapedia best, but it's not available, like most urls that are any good. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OOOh oooh wait I have a new one - how about ThinkyTank? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they could call it Tank Credo. (Somehow I feel this should be amusing but I have little grasp of minor US politics so excuse me if it falls flat.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Backdated for accuracy

I, C®ackeЯ, haz updated the wigo to the past. Missing April fool's day by only 5, Ed Poor suggests think tankiness in 2007. 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Norse Mythology

...hmmm... I was wondering why SBStefansdottir was blocked for some a minor edit which also happens to be very accurate^img... sorry to break it on you, TK, but the information he edited was not a "deliberate insertion of false information" and "lying"... firstly, the name of Odin posing as a wanderer in Baldrs Draumar is often spelt as Vegtam, with an initial V; secondly, Angrboda is one of the jötunn, which are a race of GIANTS and not witches. Sorry TK, but you've actually blocked someone for IMPROVING the quality of an article in Conservapedia...--Maquissar (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And this surprises you why? TK doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's destroying CP. Keegscee (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I not normally one to defend TK or CP, but exactly why would you expect an American Conservative Christian based encyclopaedia place a high premium on the translation of Norse Mythology? This seems like an exceedingly small matter to be making long posts about. - π 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Crazy blocks like this are the norm. The first time I was blocked (by TK), was for fixing a then broken link in the Billy Sunday article. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They seem amazingly bad at reading diffs, he probably thought you were breaking the link and hence were vandalising. - π 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

TK has been misreading difflinks since 2007. He thinks whatever was changed was written by the previous editor. He's an idiot. ħuman 05:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was because the link pointed to the magazine "The New Republic", which he informed me was too liberal and I was trying to insert misleading modern liberal interpretations into the article. He changed his mind when he realized A)The link was previous, and B)The article in question was 95 years old. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If the username is accurate SBStefandottir is a woman from a nation with gay civil unions and a lesbian head of government. Clearly this user must be up to some. They would also be completely devoid of machismo, mind you. mb 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we autocapture all CP links in CP talk:WIGO as well?

I think we already do on CP:WIGO, but the talk page isn't. Then stuff on CP talk:WIGO got oversighted. (This question is inspired by Several topics above) Would this bring too much additional load on Capturebot/botserver? Or is there other concerns that we aren't doing this yet? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't a strain on the system we probably should. Speaking of which, our Andrew Schlafly article is full of significant links to CP which all should probably have image captures as well. DickTurpis (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Only links within the votecp tags are captured on WIGO:CP. Links on this talk page are not captured because I didn't want every link captured - I want editors to use their judgment. Large stuff like cp:Barack Obama is expensive. Also, the capture tag is unsuitable for this job for several reasons, chief of which is that it captures everything, not just links to cp. -- Nx / talk 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can go to user:capturebot and add pages to be captured. ħuman 06:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You can go to User:Capturebot2/sandbox, but you don't have to, since this page is monitored as well. You only have to surround it with a capture tag. -- Nx / talk 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's best to keep it off autopilot for the talk pages. I was wondering if there were plans for some kind of "performance review" of capture bot. It's a clever little bugger, but is it still worth it and are those images at risk of clogging up the server and the wiki? ^postate 10:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Macho Insane Ken

Ooh boy, I think Ken is finally starting to come unhinged. As evidence, may I present Conservatives known for having a great deal of machismo^img (with a whole 3 rednecks) and Machismo challenged Liberals^img. And we all know that being macho means girls get easy exams and have to bake cookies. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier for him to rename the article to "Liberal poofters"? It's easier to spell than machismo and it sounds less foreign. Ken, keep up the good work and why not post a picture of yourself posing with a woman who is neither your sister, your mother, or a trained medical professional. Oh, for bonus points you should be wearing a Nascar t-shirt. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 10:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By Ken's logic, Britain is liberal/atheistic and therefore have no "ma-cheeeese-moooo," but he really oughta try spending a night out in the West End and seeing how many pissheads teeth he can collect after they knock them out of one another's mouths. SJ ^Debaser 10:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Machismo dictionary.com's word of the day or something? He's really going to town with this. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the links to 'Does Dawkins have Machismo... and his other normal potshots. --11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the fact that a guy who does seemingly nothing but talk about other men (and usually their gayness) on a crappy small time wiki is obsessed with the idea of machismo. It's like those guys at school who constantly went on about wrestling and how they'd win a fight with anyone you could name. You know, the guys who were seriously out of shape and never left their house after school hours. X Stickman (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I only wish I could actually ask the other senior editors at CP what they honestly think of this weird Richard Dawkins Project, especially the "Machismo" obsession. That and Ken's future essay of "Will Asian ladies finally believe Richard Dawkins had more yang than yin?" --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally I find Conservative as tedious as TK, but this machismo kick is utterly brilliant - it's up there with the barmiest Schlafly pronouncements like autumn foliage and Jesus inventing humour.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bugger me backwards with a telegraph pole _{metaphocially}! I was planning to sock up and suggest that Ken extend his "Dawkins lacks machismo" theme to a new essay about how no "quiche eating" libruls have machismo either, but alas, there was no need. There truly is a god! Keep up the good work Ken. PS, as BMcP has said, it would be interesting (a little bit) to see what the other sysops think of Ken's ever more bizarre ramblings, "projects", and mainpage spamming; but I don't think any of them really see anything wrong with them. They are all (although generally to a lesser extent than Ken) under the same delusions and strange siege thinking. The only one who is not stupid is Terry Koeckritz, but he is a small sociopath who doesn't actually give a fuck about the appearance of CP to others. (I also don't think Rob's quite a stupid as the likes of Jpatt, Kowardjou and Assfly, but he is a conspiracy nut) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OH my GOD!!!! Ken? Is your television stuck on Nick at Night or something? Alan Alda? Who the hell listens to Alan Alda anymore? Who the hell ever listened to Alan Alda? and fyi, even as political science major, I have run into numerous college students who don't even know who Dukakis is. You might wanna update that essay. SirChuckB^{That is all} 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is the unnamed 'Evolutionary "Scientist"' at the end of the list. Doesn't matter who you are, if your science research involves evolution, then you lack MA-CHEESE-MO! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm clearly late to the party, but has this been mentioned before? One of his ridiculous additions to the R. Dawkins Project is "News Update - 8 - Enlarged clown pic for Richard Dawkins article see note below". Is he teasing us? — Pietrow ☏ 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the "What other sysops think of Ken's antics" question, filing through the Zeuglothingy Blues might be quite rewarding. I vaguely recall quite a bit of "WTH?" commentary before and after Ken joined. But thanks to CP's isolation principle (every sysop has his own special niche and doesn't give a crap about what happens elsewhere on the site as long as it doesn't get in the way of his personal agenda), no sysop truly cares about his little projects and what-else-not, and he's only slapped down if he goes completely out of bound (such as his "Gentlemen!" shout-outs, which smashed gaping holes into CP's "We will never talk about a certain site!" fourth wall). --Sid (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly you are most likely right, we will never know what they really think. Still I have a feeling they think it is a little ridiculous, even by their warped standards. However it is true the sysops have that place divided up like personal fiefdoms, so as long as he doesn't intrude on their domains, he can go on being Mad Ken in his own castle. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not fair

Tomorrow morning I unplug my computer to take to the internet-free house - just as conservapedia finally goes completely insane. My timing couldn't be more off if I tried. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not going completely insane as such, just poor Ken taking it one step further. SJ ^Debaser 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

stop treading on my drama. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just think how much you'll have to look forward to on your return! (For the sake of Tot, capture tags for everything!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Ken the Schlafinator is bound to blow a gasket on this harrowing personal defeat before the SCONJ --Opcn (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he won't call attention to it, even he realizes it was an embarrassment [2]. tmtoulouse 18:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's day in court

http://www13.zippyshare.com/v/53353959/file.html

^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I really, really, really appreciate that, thank you (it let me watch the Andycam on my time delay) and the work it took to create it. But the last three minutes are redundant if you can ever chop them off. ħuman 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see why they are there now, sorry. That's when the acolytes approach him to rub his knob. Forgive me, and thanks for an awesome upload! ħuman 05:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. Bob Soles (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The second time around...god, it's so bad. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hell! I spend too much time waiting for a huge file to download and I get 45 minutes of a silent blank screen. What the fuck does a Mac guy have to do to watch one fucking video? DickTurpis (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there video? Mine is also just audio. Keegscee (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

hmm.. I thought I converted them from wmv to xvid. I'll upload an ogv... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

VLC rulez. tmtoulouse 18:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This VLC business don't work for me either. Any chance of getting it on youtube or something? DickTurpis (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ogv is here if you want to give it a shot. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what ogv is, but I'll give it a try. In the meantime I am quickly filling up my hard drive with huge files that do nothing. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(Expect my "this didn't work either" report in 15 minutes.) DickTurpis (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At least you didn't have to capture, compress, reformat and upload them for thankless people who can't get their codecs straight... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be an Ogg-Thedora encoded video. Ogg is a file wrapper, which can contain one of more of

* Vorbis (the most common), a sound compression library. Optimised for the general case, like MP3 (but a different method).

* Thedora, a video compression format

* Tarkin, an discontinued video compression format

* Speex, a voice compression format, designed for telephony

* Writ, text format for subtitles/karaoke lyrics

* Flac, a lossless audio compression format

* OggPCM, another lossless audio transport, for raw PCM/Wav files

Since .ogg is normally used for Ogg-Vorbis audio files, .ogv is used to distinguish a video file from .ogg

Here endth today's lesson in audio-video compression. CS Miller (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5 and Google Chrome can play ogg files out of the box. Just drag and drop the file onto Firefox or Chrome. -- Nx / talk 19:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting VLC link---got it to work on my MacBook. One note at ~7:40, Assfly says the Constitution leaves stuff out, that it can't have everything in therre. Isn't that a complete contrast to the typical conservative judicial position? 72.224.42.45 (talk)

Ha! He does it again at ~10:27. Says there are certain rights citizens have that are NOT in the Constitution. That's the type of judicial decision conservatives hate! 72.224.42.45 (talk)

See though what the constitution left out was on purpose so that it could all be reserved to the state via the 10th. tmtoulouse 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if ur being sarcastic or not :-) 72.224.42.45 (talk)

A little of both. In this particular case mostly sarcastic. tmtoulouse 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So are selected bits gonna make it to YouTube at some point? --Kels (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dick and other Mac users - Perian is an excellent toolbox which will allow you to watch almost any format. Download and install. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it to work. Thanks. Dragging it into firefox did the trick. Never would have thought of that, probably. Thanks to everyone who fiddled with computery things I don't understand to get this going. DickTurpis (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and install Perian anyway Dick, it's a fab little thing you'll never notice that allows you to see any format video. Should be part of your standard install package for Macs. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dog. That's the shit right there. Better than Flip4Mac. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the quick cut to the judge with the beard at 7:13 - he looks like he's facepalming. BTW Thanks Neveruse for getting this together. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW goalpost moving by Andy can be seen at 7:48 when he says the Const. doesn't say anything about establishing a National Bank. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some good reaction shots. Another I liked was right at the end when he was arguing that you the court couldn't address the issue cause the legislature had to have acted in good faith cause they are the legislature. Then the Justice shakes her head and says "Well then we couldnt ever rule." And of course the background laughter at several points. Even Andy has to have seen this didn't go well. tmtoulouse 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want a CODEC for the original AVI, there's one here. Works fine for me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that as a complete outsider to all this (being British and knowing next to nothing about law let alone US law), I thought Andy's short opening statement... was... well... kind of normal sounding. He didn't come across as a nutter to my ignorant ears. That is until the judges started asking him questions... at which point his little charade imploded. Jaxe (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is what is odd about it, he has 5 minutes to talk uninterrupted, this is where he is to lay the heart of his case. Did you get a chance to listen to Menenedez's lawyer? You lay out case law, address key points, etc. But he opened with this vague raw raw talk you might give to a Federalist Society meeting. tmtoulouse 20:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I literally made it 30 seconds in before I had to stop, he began by telling the supreme court justices what the constitution they work under starts with. --Opcn (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did the same. Oh, man. It's that UFOlogist voice of his too. It's like THIS IS MADE ENTIRELY OF *FACEPALM* - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He's kind of convincing sounding, unusually for him, but although IANAL it sounds to me there isn't one iota of a chance of his argument succeeding - the issue was clearly explicitly discussed by the Framers, etc and one private letter from Washington to his nephew or whatever doesn't seem to me to be any kind of an argument - as the justices seem to think. Shot down in flames, you'd be inclined to predict. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'm listening to this (and occasionally glancing at it) now, and it's like Fozzie Bear Goes To Court. In terms of seriousness as well as the hilarious voice. --Kels (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this just seems like the legal version of the Lenski affair. In a few months is he going to be wasting the time of NASA officials? --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jaysus. Just seen it. Don't know a huge amount about the US Judicial system, but if that was the British Supreme Court Schlafly was trying to argue in front of with that level of legal incompetence the Bar Association would be taking a bloody close look at him 'round about now.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That was great. Andy's online persona transers exactly as you would expect to real life. His constant hand waving (see here) served as a brilliant visual accompaniment for his hand-wavy arguments. It was nice to see a new shirt/tie combo. Also, he said "progressive" several times. Should we do a Conservapedia word anaysis to determine how liberal his speech was?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also liked how the Justices tripped him up for quote-mining. ħuman 04:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ShawnJ

What did he do? Looks like he has a fine enough record. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you expect, its TK. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What ever he posted has been oversighted, perhaps he said something nasty? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Off the wall

Ken has now gone completely off the wall.^img He must be having some kinda episode or something. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay...its now completely into that icky, uncomfortable, "embarrassing to watch" end of the spectrum. There is no humor in that. Shut it down Terry Koeckritz for the love of goats. tmtoulouse 04:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A 69-year-old academic isn't the epitome of machismo? Say it isn't so! --Kels (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some times I feel sorry for him. Has he got some mental health issues like OCD or something?--Buscombe (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he denies it, but then he denies that there's any way of knowing he's male. Which says a good deal about his machismo that apparently it fails to shine through in his prose. --Kels (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through his "contributions" over the last few days looking for gaps of more than 3 hours. Very very few. Gauss (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to step in over there. This is beyond ugly. tmtoulouse 04:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is the first time we have seen Ken write more than a few sentences of his own work. Usually it is cut-and-paste job of quote and quotemines. Disturbing as it is does give you some insight into why he prefers writing that way. The man truly cannot string together a coherent paragraph. - π 04:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He's still better at categorizing than Ed Poor. --Kels (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Even stranger......

Aceⁱ⁹ 05:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

change text and oversite the first few revisions? 216.221.87.85 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We're seeing another episode of something we've seen happen to Ken before. The last time he did this he finally slept and Gentlemanned us to let us know that he had indeed been unwell and now felt better. Ken, please don't forget to talk to someone. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He has already mentioned not sleeping well.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop Ken! No Don't Stop!^img Argh, I am so conflicted! Aceⁱ⁹ 07:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the odds Ken is both not married and doesn't bench press? I will payout 1000 to 1 if he is married. One the other hand I will payout only 101 to 100 that he was once a rodeo clown. - π 07:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

At least he's together enough to realise that was a post too far - already oversighted. If he didn't keep deleting and recreating the article, its history would be a monument to insanity. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Ken could work a garlic press, let alone bench press. Machismo, indeed. Someone has an issue, and I don't mean a nocturnal emission. ħuman 09:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins could learn a lot from The Untalented Mr DeMyer. For one, why's he wasting his time married to an attractive actress? Surely someone with machismo would know that girls are icky, and that spending every waking hour in the Conservapedia sausage-fest is far more manly. I'm sure I'm not alone in being unimpressed by Dawkins' previously held prestigious position at a world renowned university, and the plaudits he's received for his writing and public speaking are surely little comfort to a man who spends so little of his time studying the Bible and fighting bulls. Dawkins, you can learn a lot from Ken. Specifically, if you lie on your arm until it goes numb you'll find that it's like someone else tugging you off, and it's not gay if you keep your eyes closed when doing it with yourself!! --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 10:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, lie on your cock for half an hour, and then it feels like you're wanking someone else off! (Or if you're more of a voyeur, lie on your cock and your hand for half an hour, and then it's like you're watching someone else wank someone else off) _{Sorry for ending a sentence with a preposition.} StarDelta (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would Ken be married? Marriage is between a man and a woman, dammit! And women don't have nearly enough machismo for Ken! --Kels (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight! You ever seen a bearded woman wrestle a bull to the ground? Have you watched a woman stun a mule with her fists while smoking a cigar? I haven't and neither has Ken. This is why his lonely vigil must continue, but thankfully for us he's spending his time making substantial contributions to Conservapedia. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 14:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My chest hair has become thick and curly, my beard manly and strong, and I have started to spontaneously grow a cigar from the corner of my mouth after simply reading Ken's contributions to CP. X Stickman (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a HUGE VEINY THROBBING PURPLE MANLY PENIS - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! It's back on the main page as the new feature "Essay on the Month". Awesome. 30 days of this. Is this a 3rd birthday present for us? DickTurpis (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Has the main page ever been this bad?! We now have Ken's weird pseudoscience copy-and-paste, gibberish about machismo (Essay of the Month!), Evolution (Featured article!), the anti-abortion project, the Dawkins project, and Abortion (Article of the Year!). I hope he eventually removes everything else. 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Essay of the Month?? I love it when the comedy gold writes itself. CP's front page is stand-up club material for the lazy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Also love how the "Article of the Year" is almost demoted to total obscurity at the bottom of the left hand side of the main page, but Ken's pet article of Evolution sits at the top. I wager Richard Dawkins will be 2011's "Article of the Year". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together. SJ ^Debaser 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to caputre that abomination of a mainpage, possibly to add update the screenshot on WP:Conservapedia DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try that again, shall I?^img _{All this Ken-watching is rubbing off on me} DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But where are all the Hitler pictures? EddyP (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitwin is on summer holiday, as he lacks Machismo. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If we want to save this specific mainpage for posterity, keep in mind we have some quite high standards. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's staggering. The current one has more nonsense at the top, but not the sheer length. 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Ken has already sold the movie rights.^img DickTurpis (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is going to be that same creepy guy that points his webcam at an angle to the screen and reads whats on it. tmtoulouse 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its the same creepy guy. tmtoulouse 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Goddammit that guy's weird. Who the bloody hell keeps a camera in their helmet? Can you imagine what it'd be like seeing some guy on a bike reading that and talking to himself in the middle of an empty car park? Macheeeeeesmooooooooooooo... SJ ^Debaser 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is just plain fucked up. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken removes his Freudian slip. StarDelta (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it really sound like the guy is mocking the article? "This is hilarious!" he says without any conviction, about an article that is far from hilarious. I can't bring myself to sit through 10 minutes of this painful diatribe, but it is horribly unconvincing. I know if it is parody it is very deep cover. And why the fuck is the guy on his motorcycle? Was he on his way to his pal's apartment to play some Starcraft when he suddenly remembered "oh shit! I told that weird guy over at Conservapedia I'd have a video of whatever it was he wanted by the end of the day or he wouldn't plug my youtube channel! I better pull over and video myself reading it right away." You outdid yourself this time, Ken, Please feature this video at the very top of mainpageleft. DickTurpis (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cause being on a motorcycle is like machismo dude. You missed the freeway part? That's the best part, random pontificating while driving down the interstate interjecting "machismo" in creepy voice at random intervals. tmtoulouse 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I gave in and watched basically the whole thing. This guy is just stupid enough to fit in well over at CP. I wonder if he has an account. But, Ken, if you're reading this, this really needs to go on mainpage left. On the right side it is going to get buried in 400 news updates about Andy doomed recall BS. You need to keep this high quality video where it will be one of the first...nay...the absolute first thing anyone sees when visiting Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I like how he throws the article right into the trash before going on a ride. --Opcn (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting to lose it even more....

State of play - 26 May

It's like a car crash...^img Aceⁱ⁹ 03:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I... I can't look away^img User:1 09:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This page^img is just pure, unadulterated insanity. He has completely fucking lost his marbles. What's with this bullfighting obsession anyway? I clocked 6 bullfighting pictures so far. I guess he needs to add at least 4 more to get his point across (whatever it is). Is Andy really going to let this wankfest stay on his blog? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added the screencap here so you can see it as an overview.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Shock of God really Sock of Ken?

Because really who would do a video about kens article and not criticize it for being a piece of shit? --Opcn (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure it aint. No one on their right mind would let Ken ride a motorcycle for starters. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously a quid pro quo sort of thing. This guy isn't quite as...special...as Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But he hides his identity too doesn't he? Maybe it's Ken during his more lucid moments? I wonder if he would respond to an email ... --Opcn (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I sort of like this dual persona idea. Maybe Shock of God, when he smells a particularly strong atheist threat, hops on his motorcycle, drinks a jar of formaldehyde and turns into Ken, his semi-hero alter ego. DickTurpis (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not "Mariano" or whatever his name is, is it? 00:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Ken once have something on his userpage about the economic benefits of riding a motorcycle. Although in Ken's case I always imagined it to be one of those little 50cc automatic ones. - π 01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Ken, I saw this the other day CAUTION! Graphic Pictures, probably NSFW and after about fifteen minutes of cringing and holding my neck, I started laughing because it made me think of the reality of his little Creationism is a matador, evolution in the bull metaphor OLE! OLE! OLE! SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 01:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just watched more Shock vids, (with the sound off) saw palm trees so he must not be in Buffalo, there goes that theory. :/ --Opcn (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe Shock's first name is Richard. What I am certain of is that he lives in the Inland Empire somewhere. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As astonishing as Ken's insanity is, it's always more astonishing to find people who, when reading his work, don't see the product of a diseased mind. Don't encourage him, mr. shockofgod. It isn't good for him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That part where he cracks up reading off the quote between 1:10 and 1:14 gave me the biggest laugh I've had in ages. Is there a consensus that this biker fellah is real? 81.137.227.129 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I still laugh a little whenever he says "MACHEEEEESMO" and does that thing with his hand. It can't possibly be serious, can it? Word bastard Phantom! 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone watching?

Andy's trial starts in a few minutes! I can't imagine anyone would actually let him get up and speak in front of the SC of NJ, but I'm hopeful. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tuned in and ready. tmtoulouse 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

IT HAS BEGUN! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my revision scuppered for the afternoon. EddyP (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit! I need some fucking plugin to watch, and even after downloading it it still doesn't do the trick. Well, I gotta run errands anyway. Let us know what happens. DickTurpis (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to use Internet Explorer. EddyP (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for Menendez have begun, all are focused on the narrow issue of issuing the petitions. tmtoulouse 14:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

God forbid Andy gets his day, I'll be recording. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point Windows Media Player or FlipForMac here. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just downloaded a free trial of flipformac, but it doesn't seem to be doing the trick. Oh well. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Or just mencoder it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it on FlipForMac right now that I downloaded about 20 minutes ago... Nutty Roux (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I just remembered I swore I'd have a bingo card system ready if Andy ever appeared on TV again (close enough). Well, I guess the setting isn't conducive to Andyisms anyway. he can hardly go off on the liberal atheistic Wikipedia in front of the NJ Supreme Court (though it would be awesome if he did). DickTurpis (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like they are digging for arguments to reject the recall. Will be interesting to compare the tone and kind of questions they give to Schlafly. tmtoulouse 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Straight from a Justice: "I think we can all agree that the substance of this case is an easy one, its whether or not we should rule." That pretty much says it. tmtoulouse 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Justice calls it a "direct clash between the NJ Supreme Court and the US Supreme court" at least 3 so far have pretty much openly said they believe its unconstitutional, the only question seems to be what we originally talked about whether or not "judicial restraint" means to wait to rule. Schlafly time!tmtoulouse 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OMGMAONM ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

SQUUEEEEEEEEEE EddyP (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU~ Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

someone is recording this and can post it later, right? DickTurpis (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe he thinks it's compelling under the circumstances to start his argument with public policy and a statement that a "senatory is not above the law." He's capitalizing on the fact that they give you an uninterrupted 5 minutes to grandstand on irrelevant nonsense, which give me about 3.5 minutes to finish my coffee before I need to be worried about my monitor and keyboard. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Is this really what you are suggesting at this time?" tmtoulouse 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Justice Albin just gave a smack down. Wow. tmtoulouse 14:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please please please let him say that denying the ability to recall senators is like denying 2+2=4. DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

THIS WAS IN 1788...1788 ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is getting his ass kicked. Great to watch - apart from Schlafly's grating voice. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(ECx3)XD go old guy! EddyP (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Justice Barry T. Albin is the new Richard Lenski. tmtoulouse 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Albin is handing Andy his ass.--TimS (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to amicus curaie! tmtoulouse 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the notes, guys. I'm at work and can't stream to this, but I want to hear all about the smackdown -Lardashe

Sounds like this could become the new FBI. Wish I could watch. DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, Schlafly just jumped the podium and attacked Albin. I'm dead serious, DickTurpis! Not lying at all! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The gist of it is that Andy claimed the founding father's never debated the recall of senators so therefore it is article 10 territory. The next 10 minutes is Albin showing him why this is a flat out lie and Andy pulling the same debate style at CP. Ending with Albin pretty much laughing/yelling at the same time. Man I could just see him wishing to "godspeed" him. tmtoulouse 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rivera-Soto seems to very much favor a narrow ruling saying the petitions should be released, all his questions have focused on forming that argument, and he trying to drag Schlafly kicking and screaming towards that argument, but its not working. tmtoulouse 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow...I heard him get laughed at. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a more careful analysis can pretty much show you exactly where the various Justices stand on the issue based on these questions. tmtoulouse 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my Albin was nominated by a Dem. No wonder Andy is so agressive towards him. Loved how Long said, we don't care about the one letter from GW that you have based all your arguments from Andy...--TimS (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "I can see why you rely on this one letter from Washington so heavily, but it is slim pickings" he will never wander off CP again. tmtoulouse 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hillarious. Thank you so much whoever posted the link. He's getting treated like a child. It isn't going well. StarFish (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They are all up there laughing now, openingly. tmtoulouse 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Chief Justice is trying to drag him back to the narrow ruling argument. They have rejected the constitutional argument completely. tmtoulouse 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They are making him "assume that it is unconstitutional" now. Albin is great. tmtoulouse 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

anyone see any legal problem posting Andy's time in full? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally volunteer to help write a Lenski affair-esque article once I've had time to watch this. Damn you all for making me dislike having a job that prevents me from watching this legal comedy. --Leotardo (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its copyright NJSC but would fall well with in "fair use" I would think if we provided commentary. tmtoulouse 15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there will be commentary... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do they publish a transcript? StarFish (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Over. So what now? EddyP (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe he ended with an appeal to patriotism. The equivalent of "NJ Rules!" Does he really think that this sort of thing persuades judges? -Lardashe

That's that, till they issue their ruling. Which could be a while. Anyone else seeing that line up to talk to Schlafly? Looks like there maybe a handful of his homeschoolers. Embarrassing. tmtoulouse 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder about that myself. EddyP (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's any recording of the above amusement for those of us who missed it? Or are we just waiting on a transcript?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Neveruse says he recorded Andy's time. Eventually it should appear here. tmtoulouse 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys providing commentary here have well and truly made my day. Thanks. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, only just read through this. So on a scale of 1 to 10, how much did Andy get his ass handed to him? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well its never going to be a 10 in a SC setting, lets say that Andy pushed the traditional environment of mutual respect to its utmost limit (how many times did Andy say "with all due respect?"). The biggest ass handing was Albin's initial Q&A with Andy. Things settled a bit later on, but still some good tid bits. I would put Albin's initial retort at a 7-8, held back only because he couldn't say what he really wanted. tmtoulouse 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The main highlights for me was the "IT WAS 1788...1788" in response to Andy's late in the game comment. Then I didn't see which Justice it was who listed off all the things they would have to ignore and only look at one letter, and while listing them off the other justices were all laughing. tmtoulouse 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In some ways the funniest bits were unspoken. You could see they thought (correctly!) they were dealing with a whack-o on a mission from beyond the stars. StarFish (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please to be posting the video somewhere so those of us who missed the webcast can revel in its glory. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

During the "sane" part of the arguments (I.E. when Menendez's lawyer was up there) a lot of the Justices pretty openingly said they felt it was unconstitutional. The arguments were about whether or not a narrow ruling to issue the petitions and decide the constitutionality later was the only issue at debate. There was at least one Justice who was clearly the championing of that, and you could see several others who were trying to vocalize arguments through questions. I think with another viewing it would be easy to see how the various justices are leaning. From what I can tell there is 1 that seems really in favor of a narrow ruling, and at least 2 that seem for ruling it unconstitutional, with several other leaning that way. The same pattern is there in Andy's portion but exasperated by his idiocy. The one Justice who seems strongly in favor of a narrow ruling tried pushing Andy to that argument once, but other than that didn't say a word. The Chief Justice then played his game, telling Andy, "assume this unconstitutional, now why should we not rule?" But Andy didn't play very well. tmtoulouse 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got no experience with video. I have a 200 something mb avi that I'm having a hard time clipping. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you dump the whole thing on some file upload service or other, I'll chop some of the best bits out and upload them to youtube so we can embed 'em here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to do the same - so please post or email me the link to the upload service. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just clipped it. Going to try compressing... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Once the video is uploaded in the archive, someone should make a "serious" Conservapedia page about this ruling, describing it in a non-controversial way (i.e., without implying that Andy is a moron and saying that he got laughed at), perhaps even going as far as hinting that poor Mr. Schafly was treated unfairly, and at the same time posting a video link for all Conservapedians, so that they can watch it and see for themselves how well Andy fared. I'm curious to see with which excuse they'd delete the page and ban the user who created it :) --Maquissar (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

More than that, they should point out Barry Albin's role in WP:Lewis_v._Harris and how that shows him to be a deceitful liberal. Bob Soles (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy as a Courtroom Attorney

Was this the first time Andy has actually appeared as an attorney in a court of law? I've gotten the impression his career as a full-time attorney consisted of him working as a patent attorney for a telecom (AT&T?), which usually means writing briefs and analyses, not going to court. MDB (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No. He has been a litigation attorney for the length of his career, both in firms and solo. That means he drafts pleadings, does discovery, appears in court on motions and for status hearings, and goes to trial if necessary. I don't get the impression that he has very much experience doing contested hearings or that much of his work has been in trial courts as opposed to handling appeals and doing amicus advocacy, but he's definitely a litigator. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he looked like an amateur with his floundering hand waving and Libra scales imagery. ħuman 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Help a nonMurrrrican out

Is there a brief synopsis of all this anywhere? I haven't a clue as to what this is all about, so much of the lulz may be lost on me. Is the Assfly trying to make a case that senators can be booted out after being elected if enough people complain? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my cursory understanding of it. Some states have laws on the books that allow recall elections of state officials is enough signatures are collected on petitions. This famously happened to California's governor Gray Davis, giving them Governor Schwarzenegger. New Jersey apparently has such a policy, however, Andy and Co. are trying to apply it to New Jersey's US Senator, who holds a federal, not state, office, and federal law trumps state law whenever the two disagree. Andy is arguing, I guess, that the federal government does not state senators can't be recalled, therefore state law has the right to allow recalls. It's not a very compelling case, as the Constitution states specifically what terms Senators serve, so arguing states have the right to alter this in any way is going to be tough. Or, as RobS would say, unelected liberals run the judiciary, and they are opposed to the basic human right of voting, and only Andy can stop them from oppressing us. Anyone can feel free to correct me if I have something wrong. DickTurpis (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're also missing the most amusing argument Andy's putting forward. His amicus, according to the video, is predicated on the fact that there's no constitutional case to answer. He's putting forward a definition of "judicial restraint" which says that the judges shouldn't decide anything about whether the recall is allowed until a. the people have asked for it, b. the senator has been forced into a new election and c. the senator lost the election. He's saying that only at that point can the constitutional matter be relevant. It's bizarre logic in the extreme. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems the argument will come down to: do we rule against a recall now, or do we rule against it after they've collected the petitions and it becomes a legal issue? Obviously they cannot prevent the Schlaflys of the world from petitioning, so it might be more judicially prudent to wait until it becomes something on which the government at some level will be compelled to act. If they shot it down now it would save Andy's side a lot of trouble trying to collect 1.3 million (or however many) signatures, and the facing legal challenges that will emerge when a certain percentage of those signatures are contested. However, if they could collect the requisite signatures, it would look worse for the court, as Andy could use it as evidence that the judiciary is voiding the will of the people. Tossing out a million signatures with a "Nope! Not allowed" could at least be a PR victory for Andy, if that's what he wants. I don't think it is, but it looks like the best he can get. It would at least give him something new to whine about incessantly on CP. I can almost picture it, in fact. DickTurpis (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the informal version. More formally, he's trying to make the case that the people of a state should be able to hold a recall election to remove Senators from office.

Some of the western states that were founded during America's populist era do have provisions for recalling state officials -- most famously carried out when California recalled Governor Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger -- but that's state officials. There's no recall for Federal elected offices. MDB (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MDB. So, informally, is Andy pissing in the wind with this one? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A few points, the first is that this is not merely trying to apply state recall standards to the senate, but that NJ passed a state constitutional amendment that specifically allowed for recall of federal officials. So in this case it is a conflict between the state of NJ's constitution and the US constitution. I am not a legal theory expert, but the case seems really, really weak, and the Justices seemed to agree. The main point of contention though is basically when the court has a right to issue a ruling. The state court ruled that until a petition is actually successfully completed and filed the court has no reason to rule on the constitutionality of the recall process. This is the "narrow" ruling based on "judicial restraint." The counter argument is that there is substantial harm to the people of NJ and to Senator Menenedez if it is allowed to move forward with just the petition and therefor the court has a right to issue a ruling now about the constitutionality clause.

Any disagreement between the Justices was clearly focused on this narrow ruling. One Justice even said that the meat of the constitutional issue was clear, and only the the issue of when to act was at question. Andy didn't really pursue this argument, and instead focused on his weird post-ho historical revisionism which is what caused the beat down he got. They tried to drag him towards the narrow ruling argument but he just wasn't going that way. tmtoulouse 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird, how did we not edit conflict each other there, MDB? DickTurpis (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks too, Dick! (You reply wasn't there earlier, just MDB's, even though your timestamp is earlier. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see Dick's reply after I saw mine -- his showed up later.

And yeah, Andy's pissing in the wind on this one. As I recall, there's already precedent that states can't add additional restrictions on federal officials. During the anti-incumbent wave during the Nineties, at least one state passed term limits on their Federal legislators, and the Supremes said "huh-uh, you can't add to the Constitutional restrictions on Congressmen." (Though they presumably used... slightly more legally formal language than I did.) MDB (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton? mb 18:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And thanks Trent - that was some unusual edit sequencing there. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Will the be a transcript on-line anywhere? The link provided somewhere above led to a pdf, but that was for a ruling back in March. However, many thanks to you all for giving us uitlanders a chance to "hear" Andy being made a fool of. As has been said 1) this will be the new FBI; 2) expect the judge to receive his own, personal CP-style entry. Sadly, this won't end Andy's public appearanes - the man is far too deluded about his own expertise. --PsyGremlinPrata! 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Found this article on the proceedings. Strangely, it comes from Kenya's Daily Nation. Methinks Obama doth hath a hand in all this. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This Lawyerin' Stuff is Hard Work!

Geez, Andy, no kiddin'^img? What'd you expect? The NJ Supreme Court ain't homeschool or Conservapedia, where everyone sucks up to you or gets blocked into silence.--WJThomas (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

dememoryholed. CS Miller (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Is it possible that acclimatization to the CP echo chamber has adversely affected his lawyering skills? EddyP (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That would assume he had lawyering skills to start with. My guess is that he's just that way, and that this was his first time before a forum of any real intellectual legal rigor. His approach seemed to be the same as on CP, where he grabs a couple of easy quotes/factoids, and tries to BS the rest. At one point he mentions that he searched the Federalist papers for "recall" "last night". Last night? Perhaps the biggest day of his legal career, and he waits until the night before to do some rather basic beginning research? Yipe.--WJThomas (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not his first time in front of a significant court. I know that he had a case in federal court a few years back (before the CP age). Something to do with an alleged conspiracy involving somebody that did something (made? sold?) with persian rugs or something like that. He was arguing the defense. I remember because he talked about it quite a bit in one of his classes. He "won" the case, though if I remember correctly, the court decided that there had been a conspiracy but that the plaintiff had not been hurt by it or something. I remember he was happy because he won, but it sounded like he just barely didn't lose to me. I'm not too sure of the details because this was years ago. --aSKTim 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You should write something about being a Schlafly minion homeskuler and falling out of favor. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I have anything to say other than what I already said in my CP resignation. --aSKTim 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure you do. Is there a secret list of people TK isn't allowed to hector? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything that you don't. And even if I did, I am not a fan of giving out information that was intended to be private. --aSKTim 00:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

TK always provides. EddyP (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In which case, the question becomes: how did he get through Harvard Law? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he used Momma's money to pay that Barry Obama fella to write his papers and take his tests.--WJThomas (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to understand that Harvard, though well known, is not nearly the rigourous study it claims to be. The running joke around Harvard is that once you get in, you're guaranteed a B average minimum. Plus, and this is quoting a buddy of mine who atteneded Harvard, The legacy kids (those whose parents have lots of money and have had several generations of family members come through the school) are the most spoiled, pompous brats you'll ever meet. He said they've spent their whole life being waited on and expect good grades simply by being there. I'm sure that Andy's years at Harvard weren't as nasty as some think. Besides, I'm sure he through some rocking parties. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

JimPT signs his own death warrant^img (check the youtube link). EddyP (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Two young women do come up to him and shake his hand afterwards, so that's nice, I guess. I don't think he will view this as the total crushing defeat I expected from the livebloging, I think he will spin this baby to his advantage. It was really nice seeing Andy up against someone he couldn't shut up though. --Opcn (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the recall team sound confident don't they:

"Today was the hearing. Now we wait for the decision. This war will determine the future of our country. We will take this battle to the Supreme Court, if necessary. We are not going to let Senator Menendez strip us of our right to petition, free political speech, or to chose representatives that honor our constitut...ion. Today represents another step forward, but we need to stay strong and go the distance."

Yeah that sure sounds like they expect to get a favorable ruling....tmtoulouse 23:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's weird is that Menendez is purely and simply just defending the action. I'm not even sure he briefed it, but what's strange is that he didn't file a separate action in federal court to definitively answer the obvious federal questions. He's not stripping anyone of anything by merely defending a frivolous case. Such strange rhetoric. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well look at the rhetoric throughout the page. This isn't a group of people that has even the barest glimpse of understanding about what the constitution really says:

"Personally they ought to recall the whole enchillada ---from the POTUS (is he a natural born citizen?) to the VP, pelousey, sec't of state etal who "certified" that BHusseinO- was okay according to the CONSITUTION OF THE USA!!!!"

You can practically hear the "USA! USA! USA!" chant she goes into. Secretary of State? WTF? tmtoulouse 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor JimPT, and I was doing so well too! --Opcn (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some good work there, Opcn. I'm sure I did some work in the past with JimPT. And three cheers for Eddy for outing a parodist. Nice one. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is posting a youtube link on Andy's own talkpage parody? It's not like TK the paranoid wouldn't check it anyway. EddyP (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to a search on youtube for "Schlafly+Recall", I figured I could get away with that. If I screwed up it was when I said I was 17 minutes through, I had not realized that there was less than 17 minutes of content uploaded to youtube. --Opcn (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You also gave it away when you said "I got on this morning to look up some stuff". But sorry if I screwed things up for you :( EddyP (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

truefreethinker.com?

Saw that Kendoll used a link to that site in his 'Dawkins is a clown' thang. I'm almost afraid to go there, is it on the same level of the Freepers, or even further off the deep end? --Ravenhull (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ack... orginally listed 'realfreethinker.com', which seems to be a bit in our direction. Corrected. --Ravenhull (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a blog written by a friend of Ken's, just imagine Ken's crap a little more coherent. The circular nature of this whole endeavour is funny. Ken emails his mate asking him to write some stuff for him and then uses what he writes in an article as a reliable source. - π 07:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I got brave and Googled and saw that teh second link was Ken's endorsement... I guess I should get brave and look before I ask early again. --Ravenhull (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

*checks* Oh, yeah, it's just that Mariano guy again with one of his dozen blogs. Yeah, Ken made a special deal with him - all of Mariano's blogs got favorable entries on CP in return for him setting up a linkfarm to Ken's pet articles (the blogs won't drive traffic to him, but Ken wants to manipulate Google rankings by getting as many sites as possible to link to his articles). It seems that Ken's been busy wiping his tracks, though, now that Mariano switched to True Free Thinker: Deletion logs of "Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists", "Sam Harris - Myth Buster or Myth Maker?", "Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?", "Atheism Dissected" and "Atheism is Dead" - all of which are outdated Mariano blogs. --Sid (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The irony comes full circle.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember a couple years back looking at all these blogs Kenny was creating articles for and noticing how they were all written by the same guy, and just wondering "why the fuck doesn't this guy combine all of these into one single blog?" It's not like one is about politics and one is about Harry Potter; they're all basically the same shit. Is there some issue with an anti-Dawkins post appearing on the same blog as an anti-atheism-in-general post? Good to see he appears to have finally done so. I can just picture him having an epiphany: "Wait. I don't need 12 separate blogs...I can combine them all into one blog about multiple topics! Brilliant! How come no one ever though of this before?" I recall he also had an anti-Mormon blog, which I was quick to sock up and tell Andy and Dean about. It was fun seeing them squirm and defend freedom of speech or something. DickTurpis (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I get the idea that there's some confluence in thinking among these teabag/fundie types about Google rankings. My guess is that these folk - excuse me some wild speculation here - are the last of the 'pre internet' generation (older white males anyone?) and who learned some vague stuff about search engines back in 1996 when they took their computer classes. As a result, they believe that multiple mentions of the same thing, over and over, with repeated phrases linked to repeated names will guarantee them high placing on search engines beginning with 'G'. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gives freethinkers everywhere a bad name. I wonder if the domain "RealChristians.com" is available. They would scream bloody murder. Jimaginator (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal rag short-sells impending conservative victory

Maybe they're just being cautious? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you take seriously anyone who gives their children names like Twig, Bristol or Bushrod?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

More on London Bridge

It just dawned on me. Surely if Andy (insular as his world knowledge is) wanted to portray pre-atheist Britain... sorry, England, then surely York Minster or St Paul's would have been better than a bridge that ge can't even name properly? Especially this image of St Paul's standing proud amongst the Blitz. Then again, I guess I am asking a lot of a man who calls "London Bridge is falling down" a hymn. Countdown to Terry adding a new "Before England voted Labour" link in 3... 2... PsyGremlinHable! 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

oh dear Jesus

Not content with dreaming about running his hands through Dawkins' chest hair, Ken is now wondering if Paul Kurtz^img will be top to Ken's bottom. Not to mention the Gallery of Liberal pantwaists^img, which includes the Greek politicians, as well as the same names in his liberals lacking maraschino cherries. Seriously, I think Andy or Ed (where is he again... "teaching" little kiddies maths I suppose) needs to drive over to Ken's house - he is seriously going to pieces. --PsyGremlinSermā! 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that you know of Creepy Ed having some physical proximity to children? Please clarify. I'm compelled to make notifications. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's mentioned it pretty often, how he's taught math, music and various other things to young children, as well as having responsibility (to use the term loosely) over kids. He's talked about how he doesn't always break up fights, how sometimes he punishes kids being bullied instead of the bullies, and so on. The assumption I make is that he's a "teacher" with no real credentials or expertise that gets put in charge of Moonie kids. --Kels (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny that he hasn't written an article about "machismo" itself yet. Fortunately, Wikipedia has one, and it contains this definition: "Spanish and Portuguese machismo refers exclusively to the belief in the superiority of males over females, that is it means "sexism" or "male chauvinism"". So, the answer to his question, "would Hispanic ladies like Dawkins more if he had more machismo?" is probably NO. Röstigraben (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he means "¿Quién es mas macho?" instead of "¿Quién tiene más machismo?" Being manly (macho) is much different than having machismo (chauvinism). Nutty Roux (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part of this page is "Category:Liberal pantywaists" at the bottom. 69.246.210.209 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Drill Baby, Drill!

Even for CP, the double standards are astounding. If McCain/Palin had gotten in, even the nuclear option might have been on the table for drilling for oil. I've said a lot of things in my life I've regretted, or were just plain wrong, but I am willing to admit when I've been wrong. Zeus save us all. Jimaginator (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

conservative outrage over this is delightfully dishonest. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Under a conservative government, nothing ever goes wrong with drilling. Ever. X Stickman (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And if it does, it must be the Democrats' fault, because nothing ever goes wrong with drilling under a Republican administration. QED. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget the drilling. What about worker safety? The Obama EPA in 2009 restricted Corexit 9500 because of health concerns for humans & wildlife. The Obama EPA in 2010 ok'd Corexit to disperse the spill--a cosmetic effect. The oil is still there ahnd workers are getting sick. Guess what else? The manufacturer of Corexit is a big campaign donor. What the hell does any nof this have to do with drilling? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, you are so full of shit that you need to be hosed down every hour to prevent the smell from annoying your neighbors. The EPA told BP to stop using Corexit. BP just continues to do so because they claim they can't find a better one. EDIT: That first edit was really quick, here's a great story about the EPA telling BP to stop using the dispersant. I'm also a glutton for punishment, so go ahead and tell me where you got this "manufacturer or Corexit is a big campaign donor." Do you actually have a source? Or did the commies hiding in you garbage disposal pass that along to you? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 02:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

They're hiding in Rob's colon so they can have a face-to-face conversation with him. --Kels (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, this one has a bit of information. In any case, Nalco is the maker of Corexit. --Kels (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great source Gentleman Kels (Yes, I know, that was a Ken reference). I was pouring over the FEC Disclosure reports and not find anything. Seems to me that there is nothing to find. There are no donations from Nalco to Obama, either from his Senate days or the Presidential election. Funny thing, it seems that 84% of their donations went to the GOP. So Rob, balls in your court now. Do you have a rebuttal or will we just sweep this under the rug? SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 03:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob will just ignore the facts until he finds another heap of unrelated dog poo to hurl at Obama or the Democrats.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where above is the claim made NALCO contributed to Obama? As Krugman might say, "don't put words in my mouth." nobs^{don't bother me} 05:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

" The manufacturer of Corexit is a big campaign donor." --Rob Smith. And since NALCO is the manufacturer of Corexit, well... --Kels (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

68% of Americans want their own state to have a version of Arizona's "Your papers!" law

... so says "In the News" section at CP, and CP is outraged that the Justice Department is opposing the law.

I presume, therefore, that CP will also get behind repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, since 78% of american support that. MDB (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Great example of TK's brand of deceit: a mixture of omission and outright fabrication tinged with the blood of innocents. While the blog post does say that a team of DOJ attorneys recommended the government file suit in federal court to challenge the Arizona statute as unconstitutional, TK omits to discuss that the decision is still up in the air or some of the choicer points from the blog post like, oh, maybe why the DOJ is concerned. Nevermind concerns that the Arizona statute might encourage racial profiling or other civil rights violations in contravention of federal law or impede federal enforcement, etc. Racial profiling? Giving the federal gov't credit for enforcing its own laws? Certain positions on these issue are, of course, anathema to real conservatives like TK, who must reflexively pound on the Obama DOJ for taking a stand on some rednecks' rights to be racists AND to enforce their racism under color of law. ^{Psssttt that 68% figure isn't in the only source TK cites}.

Worth mentioning this blog post on the subject of how many people support an action. It'd certainly be unsurprising if a majority supported such a law, but the majority wouldn't be affected by such a law, so does that really count? ^postate 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the support level would be if the US was facing an illegal immigration problem from the north, and people who "looked Canadian" had to worry about being asked to prove their citizenship.

"This is North Dakota State Trooper Buford T. Justice. I've got a suspected illegal here -- he was spotted with a hockey stick, a six pack of Molson, and a quart of maple syrup. And he says 'eh' a lot." MDB (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, funny how the Minutemen say that they also patrol the northern border but don't really. Probably because they'd be shocked at the number of people trying to get out of the US. ^postate 15:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd be shocked too. It's hard to get a Canadian visa as a fucking loser with 0 skill like some of these guys complaining about illegals. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, it seems that the will of the people^img shows that the poll was wrong. --Sid (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course. The Will of the People is, by definition, Conservative, because all Real Americans are Conservative. Poll results that show otherwise are deceit spread by liberals who probably lack machismo. MDB (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Willminator

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&diff=781993&oldid=781982

Style seems very familiar... ħuman 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't call out potential moles. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Who edit Andy's talk page? That's not outing, it's curiosity. ħuman 08:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just shot beer out my nose

That part about not being able to refute things on Conservapedia really touched me. Thanks for the light comedy, Ken. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL DUDE that wigo is the best. I love it. rational ghey (message) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Its funny because Ken always runs away from any sort of debate when he knows he A) cannot win or B) cannot block. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah but he has never claimed to have machismo himself...tmtoulouse 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We could have chosen to be kings of the internet-forest, but instead we chose to be maggots...interesting imagery Ken. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Does that make CP the decaying dead flesh of the internet? tmtoulouse 01:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to write a "Does Ken DeMyers have machismo?" essay. Rodlen (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this meme is so much funnier because we don't have such an essay. It's just Senior Administrator Conservative going crazy all by himself, a true thing of beauty on the Trusworthy Encyclopedia. --Sid (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken's similarity to CWC is growing every damn day. Crazy. Also I'm on rationalwiki and I've got so much damn machismo I can't even keep it contained in me, I have to store my overflow in bottles in my machismo room. Which is decorated with stuffed tigers that I punched to death. X Stickman (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

MACHISMO!! --Kels (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, so is Ken for or against RW? The reason I'm not sure is that he says, 'individuals with integrity and backbone when faced with internet material they disagree with, simply create refutational material that dispels the material they disagree with', which, last time I checked, is exactly what's on here, in the form of the various side-by-side articles, that are a point-by-point refutation of various things, such as CP's Evolution article or Michael Behe's interview about The Edge of Evolution. However, the rest of the essay seems to indicate that, in his opinion, RW members are 'spineless liberal wiki vandals', which would seem to contradict the idea that people of integrity and backbone do exactly what RW has done. Of course, I shouldn't really be surprised, as one calling card of right-wing nuttery is mutually contradictory arguments, and another is the idea that invective is an adequate replacement for evidence, which seems to be what Ken thinks in this essay. 92.18.72.150 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So what now? Should we add some bullfighting pictures to all the refutations? I'm not sure how this machismo thing works, but Ken seems to be an expert. Röstigraben (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I find really strange if that Conservative seems to think we would want to have machismo. I hate posturing, macho bollocks. I would much prefer to be thought of as someone who argues calmy and rationaly (although I don't always achieve that) that someone who thinks with their testicles. No, sorry Spanish ladies, I do not have machismo. StarFish (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clear case where the echo chamber is to blame. On CP, he has the power to ignore, taunt and ban anybody who criticizes him, and very few people even bother to try anymore since they see that CP is a lost cause. So he gets away with his various shout-outs and silly challenges (to Dawkins, to us, etc.), and the lack of negative feedback tells him that what he does is great. And then he found a fun new word (machismo) and its dictionary definition and decided that it fits his CP behavior, so by definition, it must be great, too. And anybody who doesn't act the way he does is less of a man in his eyes. --Sid (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All this talk of machismo and Ken still won't accept my challenge (over at aSK) to fight him. - π 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Part of that is his International Man (or woman) of Mystery schtick. He's utterly convinced that nobody knows that he's really Ken DeMyer, and could be ANYBODY! Maybe he's a vagrant on the street. Maybe he's James Cameron. Maybe he's the Terror That Flaps In the Night! He might even be a woman (shouldn't his machismo shine through in his prose, though?). A personal appearance for fisticuffs would blow the illusion. The illusion that, uh...nobody but him believes, although PJR pretends he does. --Kels (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Five Penguins to Kels for throwing in the Darkwing Duck reference, assuming that's what you were going for. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, could it be anything else? Plus, the question format comes from Cutie Honey. --Kels (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Ken Doll a closeted homosexual?

Those who attack others' masculinity tend not to be secure in their own sexuality. Come out of the closet, Ken you phaggot! ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This meme is so worn out. I think Ken just has no sex life, and has had one never, except for maybe some teenage experimentation. So it's not our business to call him "gay". I think he just frustrated. But as he gets older, the frustration is not so difficult to deal with. His obsessions, on the other hand.... ħuman 08:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And who sez he's closeted? Here is a direct quote from Ken, in his WIGO-noted missive to Robbie: "I also notice they made no mention of refuting my homosexuality...". Sounds out to me.--WJThomas (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Superb, Dubya-Jay! He sure did say that! In true Ken style I'm going to add that to his article. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Ken has never had sex with anyone, ever, and only even gets mercy fucks from his right hand. But he's probably flirted with the idea of homosexuality, probably before he dived headlong into the cesspool of hardcore religion. --Kels (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is water wet?

What? I thought we were asking this kind of question now.--Opcn (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the Pope shit in the woods?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it, the answer to the question has to be yes. As far as I know the pope shits on my dreams, which are not in the woods. --Opcn (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was from Bottom? "Does my breath smell?" "Does the pope shit in the woods?" "I dunno, why?" "Because it smells like he's shat in your mouth". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the new one was "Does the Pope help paedophiles get away with their crimes?" El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct Richie Richard quote is "Is the pope jewish?". I'm not aware of the exchange you mention there, Crundy, and I am somewhat of a Bottom scholar. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) Your quote was actually Eddie, (2) my quote is from one of the live shows (I think it was the first one on the island) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I will admit my studies have slipped in recent years. Whilst I may be a Bottom scholar, you appear to be a Bottom Ph.D, Sir. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

big blood red blurb across the top

Why can't it match the CP blue article title color, at least? When I click on this page I am still shocked by the meaningless (as far as I can tell) color choice. ħuman 09:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck Human, grow some fucking machismo. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ugly, but WTF do I know?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that many sources believe user human to actually be a clown! [3]. Ole! Ole! Ole! --GTac (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Huw, it looks fucking awful. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So shall we change it to CP'd blue header color? We can, but I've drawn more than a little ire trying to tweak this improvement to the site, so I am cautious. ħuman 03:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally some help for Ken?

Rob told Ken to 'give him a call' - oversighted now, but can be seen in the machismo WIGO. EddyP (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Na, have you read the Z.Blues? They all think Ken is a genuis (expect when they ignore him competely). Aceⁱ⁹ 09:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

But the SDG shows that they consider him to be more than a little strange. EddyP (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

One he could read, the other they said what they thought. - π 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob's read all the abuse here and realises what a pile of shit the whole Dawkins project makes CP look. Hopefully not, hopefully he's going to tell him to add MOAR BULLFIGHTING AND HITLER!!!!111 Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea who Dawkins is and only have peripheral understanding of any of it. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is a man completely devoid of machismo (unlike Ken DeMyer, who is machismo personified, just ask any of his G.I. Joe dolls). That is all you need to know. DickTurpis (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A warning to Ken

I really hesitated to show this one, but Ken must see where too much machismo can lead to. Consider this a warning, my friend:

File:bullfighting - ouch.jpg Junggai (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkified for the squeamish - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw this pic in our local paper yesterday, and my only thought was, 'Good, I hope that son of a bitch suffers and is scarred for life.' --PsyGremlin講話 10:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I see he plays the horn! --GTac (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Payback! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with better wikiskills than me please put a show/hide thing on that picture as I do not have much machismo and it is making me want to be sick. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.138.108.33 / talk / contribs}

(EC) As much as I detest bull-fighting I have to feel sorry for that hapening to anyone. However, if you want to play with wild animals you need to accept the consequences.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A tourist was visiting Spain. He decided to try tried the local food and went to a restaurant near the corrida. Sitting down waiting to order he sees the man at the next table tucking into something tasty. The waiter comes to take his order and the tourist tells him he wants what the other man beside him is having. The waiter says there is no more left. The tourist then asks him what the meal is and the waiter replies that it is the testicles from the bull that lost the bullfight earlier that morning. He tells the tourist that if he comes back tomorrow he'll save this meal for him. The tourist thinks, "What the heck, it'll be my last day here," so he comes back the next day and the waiter has his food prepared for him when he comes. The man eats the meal and thinks it is delicious but is disappointed about one thing. He calls the waiter over and asks him why his meal looked smaller than the meal the other man had the day before. The waiter replies, "Oh, sorry sir, sometimes the bull wins."

(Rimshot) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought therre was something about the horn-in-mouthness of that picture that Conservative might quite like. I worry about him though. I don't say this to make a point but I am now seriously concerned that he is unwell. It feels wrong making fun of him. StarFish (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be affected by some cyclic disturbance, could one of our code freaks do an analysis of Ken's editing frequency over (say) the last year? 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I'm certainly not a lentil soup-eating, liberal hippy veganist vegetarian lefty or anything, I do like it when a matedor gets stuffed. The bull doesn't want to be goaded around like that, the bull doesn't know what's going on. Why bother? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have too much machismo you'll end up getting gored. It reminds me of Tim Minchin's song, "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out (Take my wife!)" El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 12:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

dID HE DIED???1 --84.221.68.126 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The origins of Ken's machismo?

I see in Homosexuality in Nazi Germany^img, Ken makes mention of the fact that the Nazi party did have teh gaze in the party (Ernst Roehm is one that comes to mind). He also manages to forget that Roehm and his Brownshirts were purged during the knight of the long knives. There's also no mention of the pink triangle. However, pride of place must to to this quote, which sounds like wistful longing:

“”In contrast to the wimpy "swish" homosexual, Nazi homosexuals were ultra-macho or "butch".

At least now we know Ken likes his men butch. And by implication, so does Terry Koeckritz (although he likes being caged and forced enemas too), seeing as he allows Ken to continue adding this drivel. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

By Jove, I think you've cracked it! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected. It wasn't Ken, but rather creepy Uncle Ed^img, who was longing for butch Nazis in black leather. Urg. Now I need to scrub my mind with bleach. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, kind of like Herr Doogie in the Starship Troopers movie? MDB (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

D'you reckon Ken has a Nazi fetish, kinda like Max Mosley? That's a stupid question, of course he does. However, I think it's a bit of a crass generalisation that all gay Nazis were butch. If anything, they looked even faggy-er in those leather boots and toyt pants. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, where did Ken learn a word like "machismo"? It's got three syllables and the second one is stressed (at least according to ShockOfGod), so I'm quite surprised he's heard of it. SJ ^Debaser 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

He probably pronounces it "MATCHES-mo" --Kels (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of something

Show me the DATA!^img Piss off! Says TK^img 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I love that block reason, you could just shorten it to "blocked for something-or-other". --Kels (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does Terry Koeckritz even bother with block reasons? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

To show that he has enough conservative machismo to deal with liberal pantywaists. Obvious, really. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting

compare and contrast. So which came first, I wonder? --Kels (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's from CP. Note that all of the links in the +50 article point to CP ones. Professor Moriarty 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that a site that seems proud to have a section servicing atheists has most of its articles slamming them. I bet they feel welcome there. --Kels (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And they took Reasons For Atheism, of all things? It even contradicts their other articles. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The question is, of course, which one put it there? Ken himself, or maybe Jpratt? --Kels (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

So do they accept evolution or not: [4]? (And at certain points in Christian history cleanliness was the reverse of godliness) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll learn that they just make shit up or heavily bias it to fit their agenda. rational homo^{and he loves you puddin'} 18:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

...and the mere fact that one page (or section) says "A" does not stop another page (or section) saying "NOT A" 18:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My changes

Just want to know what everyone thinks. I like feedback. Tanx rational ghey (message) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Blesséd is he who expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed. 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I expecteth thateth I wanteth feedbacketh. rational homo^{and he loves you puddin'} 18:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty poor, and unnecessary to be honest. I considered reverting them and/or leaving a polite message on your talk page, but I couldn't be bothered. Please think twice before you 'improve' WIGOs in the future. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't get all bitchy R-Ghey. I reverted them because a) they didn't make the WIGO any funnier than its already is (as noted by the high votes) and you introduced "Ghey" and generally we avoid internet speak on WIGO's. No need to fly off the handle yourself. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

lol. It continued to go up after the changes but whatever rational homo^hey 23:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit missed the mark, introduced internet memes and overcomplicated a simple WIGO. Then you said in your edit summary "I hope you all like this, if not you can revert". It was reverted and now you are packing a sad? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind her she's only being bitchy 'cause it's expected.23:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Is Ken a trailblazer?

According to Bryan Fischer ^{Hat tip}, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy with the AFA, Adolf was an gay & surrounded himself with more gays 'cause only gays were willing to be savage and brutal enough to carry out his agenda. 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that actuallty. In fact many Nazis in its beginnings were actually gay. and open about it. rational homo^{and he loves you puddin'} 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I believed this to be true I just googled Homosexuality Nazi -: no positive correlation. 18:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality nazi? Is that a person that is brutally strict about proper techniques in gay sex? Vulpius (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there were lots of gay Nazis, especially in the early years. Two reasons:

(1) Nazism was a brainchild mostly of Austrians and Bavarians, not of Prussians, so they were culturally Catholic rather than puritan. The party had a certain earthy, pragmatic tolerance for sinners and deviants; you could get away with a lot of misdemeanors against Doctrine as long as you were discreet about them and they were certain of your basic political loyalty. Think of Schindler's List: Schindler can pretty openly give everyone the finger and keep hundreds of Jews alive in a climate in which most people around him consider it their holy duty to kill as many of them as possible. Nobody really gives a shit; this Schindler dude is flamboyantly heretic and we're supposed to report him, no doubt, but he doesn't embarrass us in public and he throws great parties with all these really awesome Polish chicks, so what the fuck. For gay people, the whole thing was basically DADT well into the thirties.

(2) The Nazis were never just about refighting WWI and killing Jews and stealing land from the Slavs, there were also elements of social progressivism about them. In the early days they were fairly serious about wanting to abolish the 19th-century class distinctions that Germany's upper crust was clinging to. They also hated religious conservatives - not religion as such but the traditionalist, reactionary kind of religion they saw as an impediment to the rebirth of the nation. (Of course, the leftists and the homos became an embarrassment when the party had made its arrangement with the Vatican and began to need to draw in as many middle-class conservatives as possible, so they killed them off.)

One of my grandfathers was a mid-level SS officer. He had some friends back then who do not seem to have bothered the womenfolk in their respective vicinities with an overabundance of romantic pursuit. mb 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where I got it from but I have long been under the impression that Horst Wessel was gay.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you confusing this guy with someone? Horst Wessel was boning staggering numbers of prostitutes. mb 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

...or a number of staggering prostitutes. --Kels (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I read once that it was ironical that the SS used the Horst Wessel song as an anthem but that he was actually gay which the Nazis held in contempt, but it's all so long ago and I can't find any other evidence for it. So yes, maybe I was drunk at the time and misapprehended it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are so many urban legends concerning Nazis and their sexual inclinations, their orgies, and their reproductive organs that I'm sure someone once wrote some crap about how Horst Wessel was teh gay. So you may very well have been sober. mb 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the Horst Wessel Lied was one of two national anthems, not an SS piece. It references the SA, not the SS, and these two groups no longer particularly liked each other by the time Wessel got himself offed. mb 21:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing new or groundbreaking about claims about Hitler and Nazi sexuality. Look at the propaganda from the time period. Hitler was being accused or homosexuality in his own time. A great example of this can be found in Spike Jones' Song "Der Fuehrer's Face." SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

More of the above

Archive

Just had a brief exchange with the webmaster at the NJSC site, said that the full video will be available from them in 3-4 days, hopefully before labor day weekend. tmtoulouse 20:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

LABOR Day weekend?!?! Methinks you misspoke 72.224.42.45 (talk)

Memorial, whatever it is, I have lived in Canada for 4 years now. We had our Monday holiday yesterday and I drank a shot for the Queen. tmtoulouse 20:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Canada? Isn't that part of the USA? Next you'll be talking about BCE and CE. Can't we limit access to those who agree with us (U.S.)? Jimaginator (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Recap?

Missed the live feed, and I've got a 9-yr-old birthday party to attend to before I can watch the linked copy, so I'm hoping someone can add a quick recap of how it went and if there was any schooling of Andy by the judges. After days of redundant CP News headlines hyping this, there's a conspicuous lack of any mention of how it actually went, which tells me it wasn't the BOTP triumph Andy was expecting. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"WTF?"

There were times when the justices can be heard laughing. There were times when I thought Andy would just walk off. There were times when the justices had to repeatedly ask Andy to explicitly agree to basic legal tenets. It was pretty fucking awesome. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Man, I love how he refers to Washington as effectively a deity. Constitution? That was made by mere men. Washington's letter was written by a GOD! --Kels (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I was reading the livebloggers above earlier today, I was fantasizing about Andy being "politely removed from the site".... ħuman 01:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we recap even more as I can't seem to figure it out. Why is Andy in court? I'm watching the video but three minutes in and he's just spouting rhetoric about people, he hasn't actually said anything yet. Seriously, have I missed something? ^postate 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clips

I will be doing youtube clips User:Tmtoulouse/smackdown. tmtoulouse 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Trent! The entire thing? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just choice bits, but I am working on a "streaming" option for the whole thing. tmtoulouse 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh Trent, you are a legend. There is a reason I have pictures of plastered all over my ceiling above the bed. Its not the same unless you can see the whole thing. Clips are for memories but on the first instance you have to watch in its entirety. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Check back in about half hour and I should have a full stream solution. tmtoulouse 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Make a playlist. And please to include the other side's stuff from before Schlafly? ħuman 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, took a little longer than I thought but if you open this link in FF or Chrome it should stream the whole thing. tmtoulouse 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Transcript

Will the court release a text transcript? If not, shall we do one ourselves? I'm not going to do the whole 45-minute thing but if there are a couple of others interested, I'd do 15 minutes. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A transcript will eventually be available, usually cost a bit of money but not too bad. tmtoulouse 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The transcript won't be cheap if it's from a court reporter and it's considered bad form to share court reporters' work. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd be worth doing a Conservative Bible on this and break it up into fifteen different three minute chunks. Add your name to one of these sections and transcribe it NSCJ Transcript here. I can take a chunk later this evening. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

0-4 mins done. I can't do any more right now, but I can probably do more in the future.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All done; someone else can make it prettier, cause I'm tired now.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(I yanked the shitty transcription log above so no-one gets confused and tries to do any more transcribing). Martin did a bang-up job and done transcribed the whole durn shootin' match. So now we have the first official transript! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean unofficial. DickTurpis (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But anything done by the BOTP is officially better! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we're ratwiki vandals. We are de facto WOTP. DickTurpis (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Verdict

When do we find out? EddyP (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

It's the way the editor, clearly on-the-ball for the live feed, cuts away to the *facepalm* at 7'19" at precisely the right moment. This is the quality we're after. And Albin's Joisey thug accent, which sounds like he's threatening to cut Schlafly's nose off for wasting der goddam moments of his life as he has to Lenski in painful goddamn detail this yammering moron who keeps interrupting him. This was not a lawyer with an idiot client doing his best in the circumstances - Schlafly was proud to be there. I bet he thought had a chance - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And the repeated "With all due respect" - when you get to that stage talking to the goddamn judge, you've lost. Give it up. - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, this hatred of Andy is irrational. You going to blame Elena Kagan's incompetence for the loss of the Citizens United case, too? or Johnny Cochrane for the crime OJ Simpson may or may not have committed? Tell me you people are so-called "rationalists." Jesus H. Christ. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well...uh...what about all this other stuff!? lol Rob. tu quoque ftw... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse complete bafflement and amusement with hatred. Secondly, you are so hate-filled toward Obama you'd pin your genital warts on him if you thought it would stick. Dumb shit. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on Rob, have a sense of humour. There were some pretty funny bits in the appearance, Even you must have found it moderately amusing seeing Andy try to justify his whole case on such flimsy evidence. Nobody is hating Andy because of this, we just find it amusing. If you had read above you would see that many of us don't even blame him for taking the positions he did. He's just making the best of a bad situation. --Damo^Hi 07:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me this is guided by an irrational emotion, hatred. And that hatred is not even directed against the conservative ideology, it's directed against persons. Andy, TK, User:Conservative, and EdPoor. There are 170+ Archived pages over years that testify to this fact. There's nothing "rational" about this at all. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob, your rationality has always hung by a thread so don't be surprised if no-one takes anything you say with any credulity. You're a lying, deceitful, angry little man so you are the last person to be throwing mud around. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah, but I don't pretend to be a "rationalist." nobs^{don't bother me} 07:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That good because you are far from rational. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Seems to me..." There's your problem, Rob, you're using an untrusworthy source. --Kels (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, did Rob just imply that TK is conservative? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Andy's letter-from-Washington argument

Would someone smarter than me contrast his feelings about the letter from Washington with his feelings about Jefferson's letter discussing church/state? 67.170.6.1 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice. Andy is just fish in a barrel, but still... ħuman 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After careful consideration of this issue I don't think Schlafly did that poorly considering. He choose the recall side because he had a political dog in the fight, and the letter from Washington is something in his favor, and he made the point that it was a personal letter and therefor not subject to political posturing (unlike the letter to the Danbury Baptists). He tried to make a case with a very slim amount of anything to go off of, and clearly there was no case to be made, but really the root of this issue is more about what was pragmatic in 1787 rather than any fundamental rights, it was left out of the constitution because it wasn't pragmatic to weave too much into the constitution, but really had the issue been addressed there would be no conflict either way they went on it. Schlafly got his ass handed to him on the history, but the premise that he devised (it didn't get in there, that doesn't mean that it is or is not permissible) isn't totally full of fail, I think a more skilled lawyer could have actually used it to make a decent case, but still would have suffered with little evidence to go off of. --Opcn (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering Andy was hired to defend what appears to be a pretty untenable position, he really didn't embarrass himself. At least, not to the extent some of the commentary seemed to imply. He had some moments there where he did not look good, to be sure, but it's not the sort of thing that would become a youtube sensation with a title like "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT MAKE AN UTTER FOOL OF HIMSELF. LOL" (with more typos). He came off a lot worse on Colmes ("government=tyranny"). I gotta say, if he did bring some homeschoolers along with him that's pretty cool, really. I'm sure that experience is 100 times more educational than anything that happens in his class. And it isn't too often that students get to see their teacher appear before a state's highest court, even if he did put on a pretty poor showing.

All that aside, I have to say Andy did come off as lacking macheeeeeessssmoh! (spoken with hand gesture). DickTurpis (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Olé, Olé, Olé!!!! (Too lazy to link to random utubez. Or maybe not.) ħuman 07:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As a lawyer myself I can only sympathise with Andy. His position is clearly untenable. He made the best of a terrible situation. In anticipation of the obvious response; I also don't think he should have passed up the opportunity either - he is just doing his job as a lawyer. Damo^Hi 08:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It had s;lipped my mind that he is probably getting paid a net positive amount of money for that. --Opcn (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

...he is just doing his job as a lawyer. Surely a decent lawer would advise his clients against wasting their money for a case which has no legs to stand on. If this is, as Andy claims "the biggest case of the year"[5], then I bet a more high-profile lawyer, or team of them, would have got the job. The only reson Andy got the job is because Andy (A "Conservapedian" prepares to argue in support of the people's rights) Schlafly believes in it. No one else would waste their time on it. Auld Nick (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed -- if this were really the earth-shattering Constitutional case Andy thinks it is, then Andy would at most be filing amicus briefs to assist some of the right's top legal minds. He would not be in the courtroom. MDB (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's all they could afford. 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly not the biggest case of the year, although it might be in the running if he wins, which he won't. I'm not sure why they chose Andy instead of a real lawyer. It's probably some two-bit organization doing this that can't afford anyone better and who are impressed with Schlafly's conservative bona fides. Perhaps no good lawyers would take the case, seeing it as doomed to failure (though I'm sure Andy's getting paid handsomely for this, win or lose). Although I do have to wonder, if the NJ legislature passed a law specifically allowing recall of senators, then the idea can't be completely kooky, can it? I don't know much about their legislature, but they at least have some credibility, I'm sure, unlike whatever group hired Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on quality, Andy's fee is likely a half a cheese sandwich and a nickel. --Kels (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And he has to provide his own condiments for the sandwich. MDB (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because the legislature passed it doesn't necessarily mean it has any validity. This is a lot like the term limits fights of the 90's. A lot of state legislatures (and some state voters) passed Federal term limits for Senaters and Representatives. They were popular ideas, and they weren't even bad ideas, but they were all thrown out by the Supreme Court because they were unconstitutional. This idea has been pretty much settled 20 years ago. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it had a constitutional basis of the NJ legislature passed it, I just meant that it was a decent indicator that it was probably not some batshit wingnuttery. Someone with a half decent legal mind must have thought it had some potential validity. If this had been Mississippi, of course, it would be a different matter entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A related academic question

The text of Washington's letter in question is here. The part where he mentions recall of elected officials is a few paragraphs down. Now, I'm far from an expert on the history involved, but a reading of the language there makes it seem that a possible interpretation is that Washington could be using the word "recall" to mean "not re-elected when the term is over" as opposed to "kicked out of office before the end of the term". In other words, the letter might not even mean what Andy thinks it means. Does anyone know more about this?

Oh, and as a bonus, I found this portion of the letter delightfully ironic, given Andy's argument:

They [opponents of the Constitution] build them upon principles which do not exist in the Constitution--which the known & litteral sense of it, does not support them in; and this too, after being flatly told that they are treading on untenable ground and after an appeal has been made to the letter, & spirit thereof, for proof: and then, as if the doctrine was uncontrovertable, draw such consequences as are necessary to rouse the apprehensions of the ignorant, & unthinking.

--El Presidente (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the justices made the same point, actually. I believe Andy made a pretty convincing-sounding argument that use of the word "whenever" and some other phrasing seemed to strongly indicate more than just waiting the requisite time for a new election. Though perhaps if I were to examine it more I would find the argument less than convincing. DickTurpis (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to side with Andy that Washington's meaning is as Andy describes:

The power under the Constitution will always be with the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is exercised contrary to their interests, or not according to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled.

However, regardless of what Washington thought, recall did not end up in the Law of the Land, even after debate on the subject at the ratification conventions. So that's the end of that then, Andy argument failure. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And another question

@Auld Nick " Surely a decent lawer would advise his clients against wasting their money for a case which has no legs to stand on" Maybe he did, but some clients want to proceed anyway, for all sorts of reasons - especially perhaps in such an idealogically driven case. In any case it is up to the client to decide if they want to procede. --Damo^Hi 22:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@Damo Maybe he did, but some clients want to proceed anyway. Its possible but I doubt it. Mr Schlafly sleeps secure in the knowledge of victory. I present my case your honour:

• Mr Schlafly is known for having a tenuous grasp of reality. See his various musings on Conservapedia about everything that ever was. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence that he got it wrong, he sticks to his position, where necessary, rearranging his alternative reality to make things fit how he thinks things should be.
• Along with that, in Mr Schlafly's reality things are very black and white, there are no shades of grey. It is either them or us, where us are always right. See the case of AudioText International Ltd. v. AT&T Corp.[6] where Mr Schlafly Esq. represented AT&T. Being employed by AT&T, Mr Schlafly decided that AT&T were us and, in his reality, AudioText were them and to him, logically, AudioText could only be wrong. Mr Schlafly, incapable of perceiving reality, ignored the evidence and instead of advising his employers that they didn't have a case, and to either meet the demads of AudioText or settle out of court, Mr Schlafly contested and consequently cost his employers a great deal of money for no good reason. Shortly afterwards Mr Schlafly left AT&T.
• In Mr Schlafly's reality the current case before the NJ Supreme Court is the biggest case of the year[7]. A view held only by Mr Schlafly. A Conservapedian prepares to argue in support of the people's rights, once again indicating he really believes us is right and them is wrong.
• Consequently in Mr Schlafly's reality, he sees himself as an awe inspiring orator and cutting edge conservative intellect. Bourne out by his our New Jersey Constitution emphasizes that all political power is inherent in the people. This is not just one little issue tucked away here. Our constitution is based on this principle. All political power is inherent in the people. The first three words of the US Constitution are "we the people". The Declaration of Independence states that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. These are fundamental principles of our republic. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held likewise and upholding the people's power to recall fits well within New Jersey's tradition. It was here that the key battles of the American Revolution were won. Our New Jersey governor, Woodrow Wilson, was a Progressive, and he became President just at the time the 17th Amendment was passed. The people of New Jersey place the power to recall in our Constitution, and this honorable Court should give that the presumption of constitutionality.(see here) The reality is, of course, less glamourous, a whiny voice delivering the fantasist ramblings of a congential failure.

Auld Nick (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well what I would say to you is this; These are the sort of pronouncements that any lawyer worth his salt dealing in a hugely political case would make. I mean should he be saying publicly "Oh this is a nothing case that we will certainly lose because our case is extremely weak and I am not a very good lawyer"? Also I think that the point of taking this to the SC is not necessarily because they think they will win, but it is to draw attention to the cause. In other words this whole process is more political than legal. If they lose they can say that their voices weren't heard, that the politicians (remember many of their base won't understand the concept of an independent judiciary) never listen, that its business as usual etc forever and ever. Damo^Hi 06:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Auld Nick (please use your real first name and someone else's last initial!), you mispelled some comon werds, so obviowsly, you are wrong. Please read the Bible more and open your mind. Godfuckingspeed youself now to do so. ħuman 07:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

@Damo Of course a lawyer shouldn't be publicly saying he thinks he has no case. If asked, by the media for example, one would expect a lawyer to make his case and leave no doubt of his conviction that he is doing the right thing. That, of course, is not the same as publicly proclaiming on a crack-pot website that its "the biggest case of the year". What I'm trying to show is that it is highly unlikely that Andy advised his clients not to persue because they have no case. Andy seriously believes they are right and jumped at the opportunity to represent the case because it feeds his delusions of grandiosity in the fantasist alternative reality he lives in. The man's a grade A Wingnut. Is further proof required? The sad thing is, Andy doesn't even really understand what he's doing. When asked how things went, he replied "The Justices had many questions",[1]^img which translated means 'I don't have a clue, it was all a bit over my head'. When he loses it won't be because he got it wrong but because of Liberal censorship, Liberal bias, Liberal redefinition and judicial activism etc. etc. Auld Nick (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)