Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive282

This is an archive page, last updated 25 March 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <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)

I don't click Random Article on CP very often

...but maybe I should! Sophie^{because liberals} 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

hmmm... you could be helpful and add the category "Peanut Butter" to the article. :-D Refugee^{talk page} 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That would involve relating the article to reality in some way, which would lessen its strange beauty. Sophie^{because liberals} 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be from Ken's peanut butter phase. He had a whole thing about it for a while. Witness CP:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter, home to such insights as "Richard Dawkins is rumored to often has intense cravings for creamy peanut butter because he lacks machismo". ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Real men like Ken only eat nutty peanut butter?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Chuck Norris. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are what you eat. Vulpius (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the light! After 30 years of studying evolution, the Parable of the Peanut Butter has made me seen the error of my ways. Thank you! Thank you, Ken, for such a convincing argument. (And I shall never eat creamy peanut butter again.) Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Serve with the tears of a clown

Don't forget, peanut butter is a delicious part of the atheist's nightmare snack. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am rather hungry now, but my Peanut Butter has to be extra-crunchy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are all far more mature then I give you credit for. No one has made a "mouth full of nuts" joke yet.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To compensate for that, I hereby submit the joke: 'Ken has a mouth full of nuts'. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I counter with this joke. Ken Demyer. Good joke.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So apparently one paragraph/quote constitutes an "essay". I wonder what the mindset was when this was written...aside from assuming Ken's mental incapacities, I can only come up with "This is funny", as in a "God has a [rather simple, bordering on retarded] sense of humor"/"Tebow throws for 31.6 yards per completion" kind of "funny". Because the base reality of Randi's comment is "Christians are fucking stupid".

CP editors: nuttier than Skippy. The repeated inclusion of Chuck Norris makes me think this site is a parody and the ultimate Poe, regardless of the real Chuck's real beliefs.

Also, as much as I'd love to get into the whole "creamy vs. crunchy" debate, it seems to me that neither one really supplies Ken's beloved "machismo" as much as, say, steak. -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tube steak. (I'm saying Ken likes penis) (also peanut butter is awful) X Stickman (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we figured out your () statement when you said "tube steak". That takes some REAL machismo, being willing to swallow...that. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When Andy tries to be serious it's fuckin' funny. When Ken tries to be funny it's just really sad. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Distorting the news for St. Gingrich

The Romney-RINO^img diff is pure gold, really.

Conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich win a total of 65% of the vote in the Kansas caucuses, while the RINOs can muster only 21% for Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, in reality, Santorum won 51%, Romney won 21%... and Gingrich won 14%. Yep, sort of a strong spin to make Gingrich look like he's on top of the world. Maybe Andy is hoping that Gingrich and Santorum will fuse into a single being at the end of the race, pooling their delegates together for Neck Gintorum?

Oh, and from Andy's source:

Santorum won 33 of the 40 Kansas delegates, and Romney the other seven, according to unofficial results from the Kansas Republican Party.

Yes, that looks like a great win, totally justifying Gingrich appearing in big letters on the main page! --Sid (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Andy not call Gingrich out on MPR a couple of weeks ago about staying in the race and getting in Frothy's way? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But isn't Jeb Bush going to be president this year? ... hmm. Or maybe someone else. I wonder if we should make the Schlafly Adminstration article... --Sasayaki (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha - no - other way round! He lambasted Santorum for getting in Gingrich's way! Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They question how someone who does poorly in Kansas can hope to win...I dunno, I can think of a few people. -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Kansas supposed to be some bellwether state, or is it only important because schallfy is scrambling? I don't remember them saying anything about all the states where santorum landed in the low singles. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

a brief history of santorum on MPR

• Sometime in january: As Conservapedia has long predicted, Rick Santorum continues to be a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, this time in Florida as Santorum criticizes pro-life Newt Gingrich. [180] Over his career, Santorum may have campaigned harder to help pro-abortion candidates than Planned Parenthood has!
• just before andy deckared the florida primary worthless: Endorsements continue to pour in for pro-life Newt Gingrich -- who leads in national polling -- as Ronald Reagan's conservative son joins him in campaigning in Florida. [154] Rick Santorum's senseless instance on staying in the race in Florida is depriving Gingrich of a victory there.
• Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are now "in a statistical dead heat" in South Carolina, as Rick Santorum had "a sharp seventeen-point decline from the group’s previous poll." [240] Long ago Conservapedia predicted that Rick Santorum was a stalking horse for Mitt Romney, and would endorse him just as Santorum has endorsed pro-abortion politicians in the past.
• Simple math: Floridians who vote for third-place Rick Santorum will be strengthening the pro-abortion side of the Republican Party by making it more likely its candidate (Mitt Romney) will win: "Newt Gingrich Makes A Play For Rick Santorum’s Voters In Florida." [164]
• Pro-life Newt Gingrich, ahead in national polls but trailing in Florida due to Rick Santorum's senseless lingering in the race, declares "I will go all the way to the convention!" [165]
• "Rick Santorum criticizes attacks on Mitt Romney." [243] Santorum, while claiming to be pro-life, has a long history of endorsing and campaigning for pro-abortion candidates, and Santorum may endorse Romney before long in the race.
• Sometime back in august: Rick Santorum distinguishes himself at tonight's debate on the key social issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, drawing huge applause from the spectators.
• Sometime in February: Conservapedia forecasts conservative Rick Santorum as the winner in Colorado, completing his perfect 3-0 sweep in a stunning upset against the RINOs. "A victory for our party," Santorum declared.

people who win but arent romney are conservatives, otherwise they are rinos--il'Dictator Mikal 19:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done! Is there any place where we can put this? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably. not sure where--il'Dictator Mikal 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's own entry at RW? (Is it all Andy quotes?) MDB (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously now

What are the chances of a whole bunch of Dems voting for Santorum, just so the crazy man can run against Obama? Because to think that millions of what I thought were sane Americans are voting for this man is too scary too contemplate? Another thing, outside of abortion and birth control, has there been any sort of policy statement put out by any candidate? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Some US states have "open" primaries, where you can vote in any parties' primaries. (Only one, though -- you can't vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.) My native Tennessee is one of those. So, Tennessee Democrats (all twelve of them, it seems at times...), since their primary in pretty meaningless this year, could vote for Santorum to futz with the Republicans. I don't know if you could, for instance, vote in the Republican Presidential primary, but vote in the Democratic primary if there's races there you care about. It could vary state by state.

Other states, like my current home of Maryland, have closed primaries. You register as a member of a party, and you can only vote in that parties' primaries. Now, you could change your registration, of course, but at least in some states, it's a crime (though a small one) to change your registration just to futz with the other parties' voting.

In fact, in 2008, Rush Limbaugh encouraged his mindless dronesaudience to vote in the Democratic primaries, once McCain had the Republican nomination sewn up. (I think he encouraged them to vote for Obama, because he thought Hillary Clinton had the better chance of beating McCain. How'd that work out for ya, Rush?) In one state where you can't switch parties just to mess with the other side's primaries, one guy who switched his registration to Democratic was asked, "are you really a Democrat?" and he responded "for today I am." There was one state that talked about prosecuting Limbaugh for criminal conspiracy, but nothing came of it. MDB (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To expand on the above, the U.S. does have a lot of "one issue" voters, especially Midwestern Catholics. My in-laws (second-generation Italian) are left-wing on most issues (including gay marriage), but vote exclusively on the abortion issue. My stepfather-in-law (also pro-life, but not a single-issue voter) frequently gets into arguments with the rest of his family over this - they probably will vote for Santorum in the primaries precisely because they feel like he is the "pro-life option", even though his other social policies are completely at odds with RC teachings on social justice. ORavenhurst (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again going slightly off topic: You know, there was a time when I thought Germany's parties needed primaries too. Seeing this years Republican primary; I'm so fucking over that. Yeah, looking at this, this system of a dozen party high-ups walking into a room an choosing a candidate of their party/future-fraction-in-the-parliament really holds up the sanity in the German political arena. No conservatives catering to the New Right/Nationalists, no social democrats catering to the communist, just one person and a few hundred pages of a party program. Non-participation isn't all that bad. After all the chancellor(ette) is just a figurehead. --★uːʤɱ federalist 16:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not quite reached this point yet but I'm increasingly thinking that we were better off when the nominees were picked in the proverbial "smoke-filled room". Yeah, the current primary system is more democratic (lower case "d" intentional), but because the party faithful are the most likely to vote in primaries, and they tend to be towards the political "fringe" rather than the center, you get nominees who represent the party's strongest supporters well, but turn off the rest of the electorate. The Democrats had that problem through much of the Eighties, and the Republicans are experiencing it now. MDB (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid question in states with open primaries, and of course no one would be surprised if Obama's dirty underhanded machine that eased Hillary Clinton out of the way by stuffing the ballot box is in play to some extent. However, and it is hard to avoid noticing, there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm among the hard core Obama faithful. Not only are donations down, the volunteers are demoralized and are just not even showing up to man phone banks. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

JM finally speaks up

Joaquín Martínez finally^img speaks out against Ken's complete ownership of MPL. Not that anything will happen, mind you, but I think it's nice to see even other senior sysops now going "Um, what the shit?" --Sid (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy only cares about traffic. Ken gets traffic (for better or worse) and no one cares about the masterpiece, therefore Andy doesn't care about JM. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Too much in the bottom." You never spoke a truer word, JM. StarFish (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hah, I thought Joaquin would be pissed about Kendoll demoting his stuff the other day. Still, that's a fairly pitiful protest. Just quit, Joaquin. Nobody cares about your masterpieces at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

lol..."in the bottom". Tom Cruise would look at him and say "Jeez, that guy is deep in the closet, isn't he!" -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You make the mistake of calling JM a "senior" sysop. He's never been allowed to play with the big boys in the soopah seekrit chat rooms. I'm sure we'll soon a post that states "4 sysops now agree with me that the masterpiece belongs below the important stuff." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I find Mr. Macdonald's -official- comment concerning one of his colleagues more interesting or telling.194.246.46.15 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that Kara is Ken's bitch and will happily roll over, rather that risk having Ken drum him out of CP, like he did to Rob. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, right, we know, but see the nuttish comment below about of how to treat a conservative colleague (here and there). That one is spot on. Private Brian only reveals officially what could be taken from the SDG et alia: ignore him! A very good recommendation for RW but less so for senior administrators at a rather conservative website, who should follow their christian principles and care about thy neighbour.... 194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A twist to normally unsurprising news, revert^img and incivility ban^img of RichJ... which is then lifted as JM boldly steps in! --Sid (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll socking on Yahoo answers.

Well, that's not obvious or anything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer with most "good" ratings: "Dude, you're not an atheist. Lying for Jesus is still lying. You're gonna burn, mofo." -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, "atheist" poses a question about alleged dwindling numbers of atheists in the world, wondering what can be done to turn it around, and the answer he chooses as the best is "there is no joy in it...JOY IS IN JESUS!!!!!!!!" Are all atheists this easy to convert? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised this moron hasn't socked up on an LGBT forum as "Homo", warning the masses of his horrible case of gay bowel syndrome. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You've checked 'em all? Scream!! (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably not Ken, but funny how the guy misspelled "atheist" over and over. The user Fireball (I prowl Y!A off and on) just posts irrelevant shit as replies often, and gets the best chosen answer by fellow indoctrinated beings. She's the scary kind of believer. The whole Religion and Spirituality section is a hoot to read, just F5 every 10 minutes and read the questions and replies. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are atheists worrying that atheism is shrinking, anyway? These guys are so obsessed with getting everybody on board the God train (actually the exactly one specific notion of one specific God train) that they really can't imagine how normal people think? The "I don't give a crap what you believe" mindset is so unimaginable that we must really be bemoaning the loss of every atheist. We say non-prayers for their non-souls at our atheist church services on Wednesday night and can't stand hearing about new Christian converts. I see no alternative "thought" process that would project such worries onto atheists. It must be very awful to be trapped in Ken's head. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing I find most amusing about Kendoll's atheism is shrinking bit is that all the demographic scaremongers he quotes are actually saying it's Islam that's going to be the prevalent religion. So I guess Kendoll is looking forward to bowing to Mecca five times daily, because he sure seems to like what those guys have to say. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Funniest of all was the misspelling of ideas as "ides", as anyone who was around for the Ides of March will attest. DogP (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He also dolls up as a lady called Janet (to answer his own questions of course).--Brendiggg (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It really is deeply sad that this is what Kendoll chooses to do with his time. What on earth does he think he is achieving? It's transparently obvious even to the people who don't know about Kendoll's prior art that he's being dishonest, it seems so unlikely that even he can think he's fooling anyone. He can't possibly think that this is how evangelism is supposed to work, can he? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What gets me is the rate, it's a fucking rounding error size rate, jesus if Ken is right then by the time I'll probably be dead the community will be 95% the size that it is now. Shit who the fuck cares? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why, yes! Yes he can possibly think this is how evangelism is supposed to go! Because he's mentally ill. You codependent jerks are still poking a deeply troubled man. Sure, he's also highly dishonest and a real creep, but I think you know messing with him only makes things worse. How's that feel? There is no good reason under the sun to even discuss this man except to highlight what a truly bad person Andy Schlafly is for not helping him. Do any of you actually disagree? If not, can we get a moratorium on this junk? In my opinion it's one of the most unsavory things that happens here and is bad for our image. 06:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should point out Ken's dishonesty whenever and wherever it appears. No, we shouldn't point and laugh. Something that some of us have been saying for a while now. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that, I'm pointing and laughing. He's a laughingstock of a person, and it needs to be pointed out quite blatantly for the same reasons that I want Santorum to win the GOP nomination. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus... when you come across as the foolish one at Yahoo! "Answers" you know it's time to quit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the MPR story "Even atheists are concerned in regards to the fact they are shrinking by 200 members daily, while in regards to Christianity, Christianity is growing by 10,000 people daily. Give it up, atheists, for assistance in leaving atheism and joining Christianity, see HERE and HERE. Then you won't be an obese nerd anymore and the Spanish ladies will love your machismo. Ole! ole! Ole!" --PsyGremlinPraat! 08:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

SURPRISE! SUR-BLOODY-PRISE! That prediction has come true. At the top of Conservapedia's main page, it now says "Atheists are worrying that atheism is shrinking. (link to the Yahho! Answers page where Ken posed as an atheist) A joyful Christian sweetheart tells depressed atheist that atheism is joyless". I wonder, could that "Christian sweetheart" have been Ken too? Why didn't that "13 year old young man" who makes those wonderful YouTube videos chime in? Mentally ill or not, DeMyer is a thoroughly dishonest little shit. --Spud (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have imagined that Ken would have posted this a lot earlier if it had been his sock, I think that the Yahoo Answers question was from Schlockofgod. Neither he nor Ken are the sharpest knives in the drawer and while this sounds a little like Ken there are a few things that persuade me otherwise. Also, TheAtheist's Yahoo profile says that he is located in Riverside, California which is Sog territory; so, this is not a Ken sighting in my book. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's plausible. In which case, I can't even say that Ken was knowingly dishonest on that particular occasion. He may have genuinely believed that TheAtheist was a real atheist. Not many other people would. --Spud (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken's been taken in twice by obvious parody at his QE forum, so, yeah, he'll believe anything that fits his worldview. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Another http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111112132742AAEWo30

Proof and Evidence

Once again using the Andy Schlafly standard of scientific rigor, Climate Change (formally known as Global Warming) can be declared not only as feasible, or probable, or a solid theory, but as truth. After having the fourth warmest winter on record in the contiguous United States, temperatures this week are expected to be as much as 20 to 35 degrees above average at times in the Midwest and Northeast. Now normally using "secular science", a single warm winter and a week of far warmer than normal temperatures a climate theory does not make. But we are using the superior Schlafly Standard here, and since Andy is expert in all things, and has previously declared single cold snaps or single major snowstorm during the winter as proof the world is indeed not warming, we can conclude using the same godly method and the aforementioned links to declare that Climate Change is not just fact, but absolute truth!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats just LIEbral bias--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 02:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope Andrew enjoys today's 70+ degree weather. I know I will. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could, I would put the facepalm template here, but I can't, so…

Gee, Ken. How about human languages? Dolphins, wales and bees also have languages...^img Or do you think that (a) god created Humans and all animals with language coded into their DNA, if so were are those strings and why do babies have to learn how to speak or (b) that some guy (because it sure as hell couldn't be a woman!) sat down one day and thought "You know what, if we all started transporting information via sounds and gestures we might be more social and less aggressive. Ya know what? I'm just gonna sit under that tree and make up a system of that." Now I'm going bang my head against the next wall. --★uːʤɱ soviet 11:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a few reasons who a deity might make us with the capacity for language (which is in our DNA) but with out language itself. Language is big and bulky. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But the language itself would still not be intelligently designed. --★uːʤɱ heretic 16:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, Ken...if God designed the universe, then there are no examples of non-designed things. It's such a meaningless premise. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't got intelligently design languages after the Tower of Babel affair? X Stickman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's "what the MSM isn't fully covering"

A blogger, his spawn and Ken took an on-line quiz!

Wow, now that you've pointed that out, I'm sure satellite trucks are parking on your lawn ready to do a whole series of live interviews where you can display your extraordinary command on the English language.

And the media is also ignoring the burning question "Does God have a sense of humor?" MDB (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pick the highest difficulty and get all answers right, you get just above 50,000 words. No time limit, so you can google it all you like. I can't imagine Ken getting a perfect score when compared to his editing habits at CP, so that's obviously bullshit. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

50031. That makes me smarter than Ken. of course, estimating your vocab from 10 questions is soooooo scientific. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I can get to 50085. It doesn't seem to be very good, though, a lot of them I get right and the word count actually goes down. -- 13:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I got nine out of ten right. I guessed on two of them, incorrectly on one. I don't know my score, because I'll be damned if I'm giving them my email address just to get it.

Others may disagree, but it seems to me that this is really a test of how easy it is to spam your email account. I could have set up a dummy account, but really? Ten questions to come up with a silly number of words I know? Just too darned stupid to bother. Phiwum (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just 10 questions? Wow... though what about the whole thing about people only ever using the 2000 most common words? I got 9 out of 10 (I resisted putting "palpebral" into Google) but it crashed giving me the "score". Can't imagine it would have been far off the 50k mentioned by everyone else. Like online IQ tests where everyone gets 130. ^bomination 13:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sign up to get your score". Goddamn, who gives a fuck? Jesus... SJ ^Debaser 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting and relevant post on the subject of words and "how many". ^{d hominem} 13:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd. Didn't ask me to sign up, just flashed my score on screen, then my doorbell rang and a redhead in a French maid's outfit did wonderful things to my lower half. I think the last bit might be a coincidence, however. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Where do I sign up for that? -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

<--Maybe the test gave extra points for using the word "regarding"? Godspeed (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Though, reading through the Vox Day post, why does this guy claim to be a genius? "It has quite a good word list" - no, it doesn't, because I've went through it three times and keep seeing the same ones, they'll have about 50 or so words in the test. "It's probably and underestimate" - well, if you count aaaaaa, aaaaab, aaaaac, aaaaad and so on as words, then yes, but considering the ones in common everyday use are a minute subset of words, and our ability to be familar with them isn't exactly an 1 or 0 sort of thing, it's a stupid thing to quantify like this - and you certainly can't guess through a 10 question online game anyway. Kinda just proves that Vox Day is a moron, really. (oh, the estimated words appear in the top right, it starts at a randomised value and moves on from there, hehe.) ^theist 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, (a) who says they didn't make up the score, and (b) how many times did they have to take the test to get a high score?

What about compound words? If I know the word "hydrogen", and I know "chloride", and I know, "hydrogen chloride", is that two words or three? Because technically that last one is a completely different word, just like "ice cream" is not the same as "ice" or "cream". And don't even get me started on conjugation.

Furthermore, if I know a word in a different language, does that mean the number of languages I know increases the number of words I know, even though they're simply linguistic synonyms? Cuz, you know, I know a lot of words in French, Spanish, Italian...combine this with compound words, anyone here could easily know 300,000 words or more and this test wouldn't be able to detect it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the site itself, Word Dynamo, is pretty good. Just wanted to chime in with that. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 14:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The test is bobbins. A lot of the wrong multiple choices show the wrong part of speech, so can be eliminated immediately. Two or three of the ten I got right weren't words I actually knew or had ever heard (and I've now forgotten them again), but it was easy to deduce them. So, even on its own terms, the test is bobbins.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kriss, the test said I'm smart, so I highly doubt there is anything wrong with it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The test said I'm smart too, which is nice of it, but honestly how could it know with just 10 words? The real story here is that christians once again fall for anything that gives them an emotional handjob. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 16:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon. Do you really think getting a quick egoboost from an on-line quiz is peculiar to Christians, or even theists? MDB (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[insert something here about the link between intelligence and susceptibility to woo/indoctrination/bullshit] -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You forget, MDB. All Christians are loons. Didn't you get the memo? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The test itself basically shuts down once the user goes beyond 50,000 points. Any scoring beyond that point is quasi-random. If you sign up, apparently you'll be able to save your progress and continuously build your score to absurd levels (the high score is over 140,000) . Ken's cowardice shines here once more: it's easily possible to score 50,000 , assuming you get the first seven questions correct and the remaining questions have only one logical answer, but it is virtually impossible to exceed that score.

Ken must find that his surroundings are quite cramped in regards to Word Dynamo, for there is a massive pileup of (presumably obese) atheistic scores around him in every direction. For the record, I scored 50,078 without using google. Vox Day should go back to composing horrible music. 143.215.104.191 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Its worse than that; we have to assume that Ken is telling the truth and took the test honestly (without looking up any words), or not multiple times before getting a score exceeding 50,000. How do we know he didn't do much worse the first several times, or looked the words up? We don't. That is why the "test" (if you can call it that) is invalid; you have to assume he is truthful and just accept what he (and Vox) says, which alone kills all scientific credibility whatsoever.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the words I got was "credulous." Hmm, not too ironic. ... of liberals? (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't even spell subcinctorium right (spelled it "succinctorium"), and it was ten questions long with no time limit whatsoever. Even if the user didn't use their unlimited time to google stuff, you can fairly use the limitless time appointed to you to simply figure out which of the four possible answers is right. Considering that the other three incorrect answers are typically way off, this is shockingly easy to do. Just going through the test slowly, without looking elsewhere, at the "college level" I managed a 50078. What does this mean other than beating Ken by 52 points and Vox Day by 16 points in a pointless online quiz that isn't remotely scientific? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I wouldn't use it to claim "superior atheist intellect". I wouldn't use it to say I have a greater vocabulary than Vox Day, someone who I do not know and who's work I am not familiar with, (saying your more knowledgeable with the English language than Ken is not an achievement or worthy of boast). This test says nothing and measures nothing; only an idiot would use it as an indication of intellect or knowledge of English.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Over 50,000. I have a headache and my eyes are on frigging fire. And I'm not a native English speaker. I don't necessarily see problem with the methodology (I suppose you could take a list of words, order them by the reading level and familiarity, pick a bunch of representative words from different difficulty levels, and make broad and hazy guesses on how many words people know based on that), but there's problems with the test: No time limits, susceptible to easy process of eliminating (wrong word class, same frigging answers popping up in the same quiz run), and a limited pool of words and answers. And, uh, a tip to Ken and Voxy: It's not the number of words you know, it's the ability to express your thoughts with them. I've written a couple of hundred thousand words worth of fiction with probably a vastly smaller pool of unique words. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

According to a new internet quiz, the My Little Pony I'm most like is Pinky Pie. Checkmate, Christianists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the test itself and the methodology behind it seems sound. I scored a 58,301, which seems about right considering how intelligent I am compared to you guys. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)\:::have any of you all ever taken a real vocab test? i'm dubious of this whole "50K words" for most of us, though any of you in science likely have a slight advantage - all that damn latin. most grad students test at about 35K, give or take. You have to be honest with yourself, which is the hardest thing as we like our egos to think we know more. You start with a single word, and are asked: 1) have you seen this word, 2) can you define it and then use it in a sentence. 3)if no, or incorrect you are asked if you can understand it in context and pick from a multiple choice. In the best of exams, you will do this over a serries of "exams" each about 30 minutes long, for a total of 4 or 5 hours of tests, but not all at once, cause apparently you will do better if you are fresh. My own is (perhaps not surprisingly) low (30K, vs 35 or 40K average for post grad). Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC) (EC Occ of course, probably has 75K, easily. grins)

You're right, you shouldn't just take our word for it, yet this also holds true for Ken and Vox, either who could be lying or skewed the results. The point ultimately is the test is awful at determining knowledge of English or as Ken claims, intellect. That is the important distinction, we acknowledge the test is bunk, Ken sees it as some actual truthful measure of English knowledge. Also I took Jeeves MLP test and discovered I am "Twilight Sparkle", which appears to be the smart one (and probably an atheist to boot); take that Ken! :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what kind of quiz taker are you? ... of liberals? (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not about how many words you know, it is about how many conservative words you know. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 21:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just think how many more words Ken would know if he learned some pronouns.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And I got 50068 (I'll put up a screencap of my score if anyone asks for it)... given my track record for difficulty of writing in english, that probably is a bad thing isn't it? and I think part of the score is speed so I am guessing that you can quasi-memorizing all the questions to artificially boost your scores. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Free Grammar Checker

My free grammar checker gives Vox Populi zero for "That's how many words Word Dynamo estimates me to know", when the correct form would be "...estimates I know", unless this is one of those weird cross-Atlantic things. I got 50094, but since I got everything right I don't know how I could get much higher. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

NOt that you care, i'm just bored, but individual words in your test are rated according to set scales of the difficulty of each word. So someone who's random list of words (I'm assuming it's a random list) could have 5 uber hard words, and a different person could have 4 uber hard words... hence the reason you all are getting "all of them right", but different scores. I'm guessing the site is using a standard ranking, but who the hell knows. :-) --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Having purposefully got the lowest score I could one round (I think the result was somewhere around 13,000), it seemed that if you got the word right the next one would be harder, if you got it wrong the next one would be easier (or at least not more difficult). My words that round were pretty damn easy the whole time. If you get them all right you get something just over 50,000. The exact number is either completely random or based on the difficulty of the random words you were given (which is also random). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

free rice is pretty fun too. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New book cites Conservapedia, not in a good way (obviously)

Title explains it. - π 23:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure Andy's weird flights of fancy can be extrapolated to Republicans in general. Might check it out anyway, just to see Andy humiliated in print. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Andy is given as an example of a worst case. - π 23:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The blog mentions that the book opens with a segment about CP. It links to Amazon. Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature lets you read the first pages... *whistles* ;) --Sid (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the book itself. Back in February, Jerry Coyne reviewed an article the author wrote about the book. It seems like the author himself is being unscientific by drawing unwarranted conclusions from the data. Anyway, still funny to see Conservapedia laughed at in book form again. Only liberals seem to pay any attention to them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably because the things we take pretty much for granted by now (Jesus disproving relativity, ConservaBible, debate challenges, etc.) are pure Twilight Zone for people who don't know the site. It's a genius move to open with a tale about CP, really: when it comes to anti-science, there is something for everybody, thanks to the various Counterexample pages and of course Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Just open a few of those pages, read them out, and you can entertain people for HOURS. --Sid (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If Andy's in the intro within the first five pages? Author's probably not going to pick Andy apart at any length, but instead use him as a segway into his easier-to-break-down examples.. Before the book can pick apart the tamer or more layman goofballs, it needs to present a 'hook' to introduce the subject in the most interesting way. And if Andy is ANYTHING his antics sure are... interesting. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Took a Look Inside! as Sid suggested. Here are some quotes:

“”[A]llow me to introduce Conservapedia, the right-wing answer to Wikipedia and ground zero for all that is scientifically and factually inaccurate, for political reasons, on the Internet.

“”In its list of "counterexamples" to relativity, Conservapedia provides 36 alleged cases, including the following: "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described by John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51." If you are an American liberal or progressive and you just read the passage above, you are probably about to split your sides - or punch a wall. Sure enough, once liberal and science-focused bloggers caught wind of Conservapedia's anti-Einstein sallies, Schlafly was quickly called a "crackpot," "crazy," "dishonest," and so on.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's times like these that I hate being an atheist. If I weren't, I'd pray to God that Andy challenge the author of this book Lensky-style. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Why pray when you can sock up! As several parodists have shown, Andy is extremely easy to manipulate. Issue the right catch phrases, stroke his ego and you can have him challenging Mooney to a duel. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck Chris Mooney. CP is no more representative of the GOP than Timothy McVeigh was of atheists. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 06:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I think he's lost interest somewhat lately, I think he could still be coaxed into something. He gets really riled up when his blog gets mentioned anywhere, even if it's negative. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Something about that word thing

ken rambled about something^img--il'Dictator Mikal 05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's really highly uncharacteristic of him. He seems to be extending the metaphorical olive branch. The writing style is clearly Ken's , but it seems to be a lot calmer than his normal stuff. It's not overloaded with quotes that have nothing to do with anything,and he's not constantly insulting other people. I mean, it's still along winded rant about how he believes that atheists are the "bad guys," but I can almost empathize with the guy. I mean, laugh at him as we might, we seem to be partly to blame for him constantly going off the deep end.

Yeah, I know, he was up to his insane antics before he was on conservapedia, but you have to give him SOME credit. He does show SOME moments of clarity.

And then he swings right back into writing articles about fat atheists and bestiality. 143.215.104.191 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what Ken sounds like when his meds are working. Makes me a little sad actually... somewhere, deep inside that obese mentally ill manchild's tragically mislead brain, is a sane and lucid person just dying to come out. He seems at his most irrational when speaking about a set few topics however... Which is interesting to me. Especially those specific buttons. I wonder if he is a camp-made, bona fide ex-homosexual? It seems odd that he would speak positively of reparative therapy when must fundies just go "The gays will burn in hell". Just my observation, but usually the only people with a strong public belief in the whole ex-gay thing are people who run the joints (crapload of money in it) or those who've been through the places themselves. --Sasayaki (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ten revisions later...^img The problem Ken wasn't you informing people about the test, the problem is attempted to claim that doing well on an Internet quiz was somehow indicative of you having superior intellect over anyone who happens to be an atheist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Ken is reading this... you don't ask, you don't get. Hey, Ken, are you an ex-homosexual? (or a current one trying to quit the habit?) --Sasayaki (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken's vocabulary boasting would be more impressive if he had spelled Earl Nightingale's name correctly. Oops! Also, regarding "Atheists are well known for having pride issues", I wonder if Ken has discovered a kitchen utensil dating service? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I personally believe that in his long post to us (me? since I brought up the fact there's no time limit) that he genuinely did it perfectly, but the test is severely flawed and I hope he knows that too. It's meant to draw you in and buy there more in-depth tests, so claiming you got a good score means very little to anyone. Posting the score on the front page, then claiming atheists have pride issues? lol.

Pongo, not funny. It's very difficult to get to third base with a fork. Very difficult. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard they were easy to fork. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the "pride issues" bit too, can't figure out what the fuck he's talking about. An issue of pride as in having not enough, or having too much? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, is there seriously a problem about being proud of what we think? I'm pretty sure that he's proud to be whatever he is. Why is it only a bad thing when we exhibit it and not him? I am pretty proud to be less wrong than some other people. Think of it this way: two people pass in an assignment. One person gets a C. The other gets a A-. Even if he didn't get everything completely right, is the A-minus student supposed to somehow be NOT proud of his hard work?

Never mind that part of being rational is in a sense modesty: that we can't explain everything because we don't have the information required to yet. How is believing one knows all of the answers (goddidit) somehow less prideful than admitting that you're trying really hard to find them right now but don't know for sure yet? KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When one brags about something that is easily shown to be wrong, incorrect, incivil, not even wrong or merely poor taste and sticks to one's guns come hell or high water, then you can be sure that the pride of knowing what you know is less about what is known than your tenacity against unlearning something that is wrong and correcting your thinking.C®ackeЯ 17:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cracker, I think you've got what is potentially a broadly applicable and long lived point in there. However I think you overworked your words and you need to start again from scratch to say what you mean. I think with the appropriate amount of effort you could express that thought in a manner befitting it's inherent profundity. I'd rewrite it for you, but A) I'd probably fuck it up and B) it should belong to you. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 19:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy fails statistics and evolution (yet again)

Andy: "The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution, which asserts that populations of species can randomly drift away from their "mean" or normal characteristics over time in order to become a more advanced, more complex species."^img

I'll give Andy this: his arguments against evolution are at least more creative than the average creationist. They often just parrot the same old talking points (second law of thermodynamics, no transitional fossils, just a theory, micro/macro evolution, etc.) However, his arguments are also much dumber and that's really saying something. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and when someone tries to explain to Andy why he's full of shit Andy complains about the guy using "jargon" and he's not accommodating Andy's short attention span^img. The explanation seems pretty clear even if you don't understand every term. Anyway, if you're editing an article on a mathematical theorem and also trying to use said theorem to disprove a major biological theory you should fuckin' be familiar with the some of the "jargon". --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

He's still just parroting creationist crap. He's just using more obscure crap, is all. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I have to hand it to Andy every now and then. His asinine buffoonery can be pretty creative sometimes. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but he didn't create this particular line of "reasoning". --Inquisitor (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me he didn't invent the "pretty autumn leaves disprove evolution" argument too. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure he used that argument to try to prove that God exists. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but he also tried to use it against evolution^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of nuclear fission -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right? Sasayaki (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of my cat is really fat -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right?

Now you try! Sasayaki (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Law of Large Numbers showed that 00.00000000000% of atheists are good poeple (sic). Jimaginator (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a math man but I was under the impression that the mathematical/logical proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is actually fairly complex and involves a lot of jargon. Andy's an engineer; he can't honestly believe that if something can't be explained in a few sentences then it's wrong. Then again he's also a lawyer so maybe that's affecting his judgement. X Stickman (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. Lawyers are famous for their brevity. Andy's just lazy. I think he realizes that adding details to an assertion gives people more angles to assault it from, so that's partly why he keeps his bunk nice and short. When people see through it, he can't be arsed to think a defense through—he might even discover he's wrong and we can't have that—so he just holds people to the same standards out of sloth. It's also easier to dismiss one sentence as hooey, which is why people like PJR break things down to that level. Even if Andy isn't consciously using that as a tactic, being lazy makes it pay off for him just the same.--Ellipsoidal (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the statistics, but every time somebody claims Evolution is an 'upward path' that goes from simple -> advanced/complex, I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for the person. KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 18:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very amusing to see Andy make a statement of disproving evolution without explanation, then calls the contrary explanation "jargon". Beautiful ignorance on display! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How's this one? The Law of Large Numbers is a counterexample to eco-hysteria. In 1 AD (that's 1 CE for Jews and athiests) world population was 300 million. The Law of Large Numbers predicts that census figures will converge on this number. Obviously the "billions of people" we're expected to believe is as laughable as "billions of years." Whoover (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who loves it when Andy uses the term "Jargon" like its an insult or bad thing? He might as well be saying "I'm far too stupid to understand what the hell your talking about, so its clearly wrong." --Revolverman (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I love it even more how they spout jargon but get all "la la la la, I can't hear you" when you point out they're spouting it wrong. It's really the thread that binds all their "science." "Second Law of Thermodynamics!" That doesn't apply because energy enters the system. "La la la la." "Law of Large Numbers!" That doesn't apply because you're not working with a static sample. "La la la la." "Solenoids disprove relativity!" You can't accelerate a solenoid to the speed of light. "La la la la." I really think that the instincts of a lawyer, to sell a position whether it's reality-based or not, is very much on display. Training as an engineer -- not so much. Whoover (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you imagine being Andy's mechanic? Or doctor? Or even professor? And him thinking you're an idiot because you can't dumb things down enough? Sometimes I forget that Andy is a real person who other real people sometimes have to interact with. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowing Andy, I bet his mechanic tells him he fixed whatever was wrong with the power of the Bible and Jesus, and then proceeds to charge about 10x more then normal. --Revolverman (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I read a news item today about some survey or other saying that Harvard is the world's top university. Isn't Andy a former pupil of Harvard? If so, here's a statistics question for him: how far does his tiny little intelligence drag down the mean of Harvard FP's? Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Harvard isn't required to show that its entrance requirements are restricted to the ability of the students. Traditionally US universities are eager to seek students who aren't very bright but do have a lot of money (or parents with a lot of money) that could be "donated". Cynically you could see this as a fair bargain, although it might not always seem so for other students who're there on merit. Whether Mrs S might have put some serious quantities of cash Harvard's way to ensure her son got the brand name is not, so far as I know, public information.

As to proofs that 1+1 = 2. It depends on your starting assumptions. You must have some assumptions. The Principia Mathematica begins with some rules about logic which appear intuitively reasonable, and derives arithmetic (and thus 1+1 = 2) from there which does indeed take many pages. Some years later Gödel discovered that any system that can get as far as 1+1 = 2 is inevitably "flawed" to our intuitive way of thinking, there will be some things that the system either cannot prove true or false, or else that it can prove both true and false. Gödel did this by essentially formalising the Liar's paradox, finding a way to allow systems able to handle arithmetic to examine claims about themselves so that such a powerful system can be used to either prove or disprove "This statement cannot be proved by this system". In a sense this put an end to the grand project behind the Principia Mathematica. The formally rigorous new world these explorers wanted to reach for had been shown not to exist, so further planning for the journey was now futile. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I pity the tutors who have to teach the students who bought their places at Harvard if they're all as dense as Andy. I've looked him up on WP; his degree in electrial engineering from Princeton (did Mummy buy him that place too?) is rather worrying because he could do some real damage with that qualification. Mr Gently Benevolent (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think Andy teaches homeskolars in a church basement? Although it wasn't directly related to his EE qualification as such (I assume that he got the job because of both his degrees), he screwed up royally at AT&T. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

With due respect to the BON, no, Goedel did not show that any system that can prove 1+1=2 is "flawed" — he didn't even show that every such system is incomplete. The incompleteness theorems require more than simply proving 1+1 = 2. (What matters, for those who care, is whether one can "represent" certain syntactical relations, notably including the provability predicate. Being able to prove 1+1=2 is certainly not sufficient to do so.)

Sorry for he pedantry, but misstating Goedel's result just bugs me. As far as making the PM an impossible exercise, well, only to some extent. If Russell (like Hilbert) aimed at a complete theory, then he couldn't have it. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have a rigorous theory which served as a foundation for mathematics, although ZFC has since been chosen as the de facto theory rather than Russell's. Phiwum (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The KenDoll Method

Why not challenge Palin to a debate, Mr. Obama? (a recent post at HumanEvents.com). An excerpt:

"What’s the matter, McFly? You’re not… chicken, are ya?" PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama challenging Palin to a debate would be like a professional heavy weight boxer proposing that he beats a small child to death with a stick. Some fights are so unbalanced they just become a blood sport. -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I kind of want to see this happen now, just because it would be hilarious. KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 16:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason it would never happen is because it would degrade the Presidency (and not just because it would be against Sarah Plain and Stupid.) Presidents just don't "do" debates, unless they're running for re-election. Sean Hannity once challenged Obama to a debate. He must have known damn well Obama wouldn't debate him -- Presidents don't debate talk show hosts; they grant interviews to them, and the hosts are damn lucky to get them. It's just not something a President would ever do, because it's not Presidential. MDB (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember when Rick Perry challenged Nancy Pelosi to a debate? I can't decide which one would be more hilarious and/or pointless. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Debates? Feh. Obama should challenge Palin to a duel. MDB (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't challenge someone who hunts polar bears with a rifle from a helicopter to a duel of anything but wits. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Shootin' is probably the only thing that Palin is sharp at. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Mark Levin has offered $50,000. to Obama's PAC if he would debate him for an hour. No word but i'm guessing that would get in the way of golf. [1] KnightOfTL;DR

Don't impersonate people, BoN. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah! My identity! Give it back! KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Palin is a terrible shot. Clearly I am the only one who watched Palin's reality show. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 20:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to see the debate. It would be a beat down on such astronomical levals, that palin will be forced to slink back to the obscurity of alaska forever more.--Thunderstruck^{YOU'VE BEEN...} 21:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If she does as poorly as Perry did there will still be millions of people who consider her the winner, and she isn't one to stand and stammer. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Given her luck (e.g., being pulled out of obscurity and into the limelight, then somehow retaining that publicity) I still wouldn't want to be anywhere near her when she has a firearm. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

She has a real and valuable talent, good fortune did play a big part in her rise, but it isn't luck that she stayed there. It did however take her 3 shots to kill a karibou standing out at like 125 yards, which is fucking shameful. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Opcn, what is this "real and valuable talent" that you speak of? --Inquisitor (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rallying idiots--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

She is phenomenal at remembering talking points, and repeating them in a clear and understandable manner. She is extremely charismatic and an engaging speaker. Having that celebrity skill set is what put Barack over the clearly more intellectual Hillary, and it's something Sarah has more of than Barack. Though she has considerably less experience and interest in actually governing. There are Idiots on the left too, and they get rallied by charismatic leftwingers as well. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the idiots on the left also get rallied by Sarah Palin, but they rally to senselessly hate her instead of senselessly adoring her--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And Obama also rallies the idiots on the right to hate him. He has a high general level of familiarity and understanding with the issues, she does not, beyond that the two of them are more similar than most Democrats would are to admit. Cain also fit into that category, only he was more bold with his ignorance, and had an area of knowledge that applies more readily to high public office than homemaker does. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"...and repeating them in a clear and understandable manner." Really? Her speech always sounds like stilted ill-delivered word salad to me. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Are you kidding? She is a phenomenal communicator. If she wrote a speech herself it would be garbage I'm sure, but in interviews outside of the Couric disaster and in the VP debate she was always able to rope in a question that she couldn't handle and walk it back to something she was more comfortable with. I went and watched her speech for Joe Miller in the 2010 Senate race and she absolutely hit every point perfectly, really a wonderful communicator, just like Obama and Reagan, only she has a better memory for speeches than Obama, which is why she does so well with out a teleprompter. I think she missed her calling as an actress, thought her phenomenal financial success would stand as counter evidence to that assertion. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To each their own... maybe I get too hung up on the prosody and cadence of her speech. It always sounds very disjointed to me. Verbal train wreck, would be what I'm going for. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I gotta say it. "She is phenomenal at remembering talking points"? My god, this is the woman (a Republican, mind you) who had to write "tax cuts" on her motherfucking hand! Remembering talking points my ass. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

She remembered like 1200 times as many words as she had written down; she wrote down topics to be sure that she got to them, she had several talking points on each topic. Have you ever seen Obama give a speech with out a teleprompter? Sarah lost hers halfway through her phenomenally delivered speech at the Republican national convention in 2008, she kept going like a boss. Obama can't make it three sentences with out the prompter, he is really an excellent reader, amazingly natural while he does it, but he's no match for her at remembering the bulk of a talking point. Like it or not talking points have been a technological breakthrough for the political parties and have really helped them to communicate their messages more broadly and deeply. Hammering home the same thought in the same language sticks. Up here right now we are having a statewide debate about oil taxes, I keep seeing Democrats come out with the line "for every one we chase away two come to take it's place" it's not true, we've chased away four and a half and one has come to take their place, but the talking point has stuck hard. Some of the politicians who spread the talking point are idiots, or corrupt, or assholes, but they spread the talking point and it has been working for them in a major way. It's a real and valuable skill. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 08:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is the trouble with some partisans, left or right - they fail to see the danger represented by people such as Palin. While people may dismiss her policies, her ignorance, her experience, her whatever, she is obviously a great communicator. And it's that that wins elections. How the hell do you think someone like Santorum can be challenging for the nomination so successfully? Guy's a complete loon but he communicates. Even if what he communicates is often nonsense. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama talks without a teleprompter all the time. And that story about Palin's breaking halfway through her convention speech I'm pretty sure is just a story; and I've never seen her give a speech without a teleprompter or note cards (basically the same thing). Yes, she can memorize some talking points. A parrot can do that. At her one debate she decided to bring up talking points for a question that was not asked, in fact. If this election cycle has shown us one thing it's that being a genuine idiot does not mean you can't be a successful politician. Even so, Palin is washed up. Her relevance sinks by the day. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama very seldom does, and no they aren't just fine. A parrot can do it, but as someone who has done speech and debate I can tell you that it's not a skill that most people have. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can supply some links to videos of Palin speaking so phenomenally without a teleprompter (or notecards) please do. I really don't see anything impressive about being able to remember talking points. I mean, how hard is it to remember "Obama is a socialist", "OMG! the national debt!!!!!", and "gas prices are really high!"? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Palin spoke after the teleprompter broke" story seems to have originated with Palin herself, referring to an event at which she apparently did use a teleprompter. Also, it seems that Palin likes to use it for interviews. But at any rate, using a teleprompter is tantamount to using written notes; it just looks better to gaze out over the audience than to glance down at the podium.

@Opcn: "And Obama also rallies the idiots on the right to hate him. He has a high general level of familiarity and understanding with the issues, [Palin] does not, beyond that the two of them are more similar than most Democrats would are to admit." But Palin's lack of relevant knowledge is a big rallying point against her. Are you saying that right-wing criticism of Obama is based on his rhetorical skill or knowledge of issues, or that Democrats would not want to admit to those aspects? "Obama very seldom [speaks without a teleprompter]" Doesn't he usually do that at question and answer sessions all the time, like this?184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the story seems to have been grossly exaggerated. I don't have a video for you, but as an Alaskan I've seen Sarah speak several times both as governor and after. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 01:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

An Orchestra Of Stupidity

Andy: Liberal demagoguery fails because women still won't vote for Obama as much as in 2008!^img (The original Bloomberg article: "Obama’s advantage among women is more pronounced over Santorum, a Roman Catholic who says he is personally opposed to contraception and has made such social issues a hallmark of his campaign. Women also back Obama over the former Pennsylvania senator 51 percent to 42 percent, while voters overall choose the president by a narrower six-point margin.")

Jpatt: New York Times has a double standard!^img (Fox News calling somebody out on a double standard, hilarious!)

Jomar: Heil Assad!^img (Article from... from... the New York Times!)

So, in summary: It's o.k. to call your opponents fascists and demagogues while supporting a fascist and demagogue. It's also ey-ok to use a source that has just been discredited as "biased". And if you make an ad populum arguement, it's ok to cherry pick your data. After all sources are just tools for you to throw data at other people.

It's like they are completely incapable of making a post without violating a law logic or taking a big ol' dump on truth and honesty. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of why it's lost its shock/awesomeness value. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the attitude of these people sees sources not really as looking for the real information, but, like a turtle's shell or a bush's thorns a defense. They know that their ideas won't stand up to scrutiny, so they think that if they cite a source it will make them look more grown-up/intelligent and their point irrefutable. Because, of course, if someone else said it too their ideas can't be wrong and nobody can call 'GTFO YOU HAVE NO SOURCES' on them. It's basically passive-aggressively defending their ideas even before anybody calls them out on them. It's armor for their argument. Armor fashioned of bullshit. KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe their armor was touched by a manure golem. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So, The CP Banhammer is a double club? --Revolverman (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So as near as I can figure, using the Bloomberg article as a resource, they're pretty much counting on the idea that no one will read it. Because anyone who reads it will see not only that Andy's assertion is not only cherry-picking, it is completely refuted by the greater context of the article in addition to providing approximately ten more significant arguments predicting a two-term Obama and a Republican House minority come November, based on public opinion.

Do they honestly believe that no one else will read the article? Because, if anything, the previous WIGO of them linking to a gay news site is clear evidence that viewers (or, at the very least, editors) DO look at those sources. So what's the point of providing a source if it's just going to refute your argument? It's not the best argument for CP being a parody site, but damn...-- Seth Peck (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why I am pretty sure that the use of 'sources' is defensive, rather than practical. Sending a statement out naked is scary: they have to find something, anything that contains the same words as their statement somehow, so they can just point to it when somebody says the statement doesn't make sense. Or so they can pick it up like a sharpened stick and throw it at the offending questioner, 'You don't think my statement is right? Well TAKE THIS! I have a citation and you have none so I WIN!' The desperate attempt to look like an authority and thus defend themselves is of higher priority than the actual making-sense part of the statement. KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 23:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume that none of have ever have had to deal with people like Andy, in real life, and on a regular basis. It works like this: Andy knows he's right. I mean he really knows it with every fiber of his being. So anything he reads that is contrary to his definition of Truth is clearly biased, distorted, or untrue and subsequently can be dismissed without a second thought. People like Andy can't see that they're cherry-picking data. In his mind he's just passing on the "relevant" or "important" parts of the story and ignoring all the other patently false liberal claptrap. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. People like Andy, when they get faced with evidence that say Obama is an American Citizen by birth, can always say "well I need to see the whole story get out first" when questioned about why they don't believe the evidence. To them it's taken as unquestionable that they are right so it is similarly unquestionable that if all of the evidence is against them that most of the evidence must be missing. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have... I worked at a psychiatric hospital at the time. People with schizophrenia are very similar to what goes on at CP. It is one of the reasons I've wondered about the well-being of some people there. Ayzmo (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Remember when a few months ago Conservapedia's main page touted a news story about a fossil sea creature being found on land as proof of the Great Flood? Someone pointed out that the cited article said that the fossil was millions of years old. Andy countered that the fossil being found was a fact and that its age was an opinion. He gave a (not very grammatical) example of how that worked "We saw a car crash before the game that the Yankees should win. You don't have to be a Yankees fan to appreciate that there was a car crash" (or something like that). So, basically, anything in any source that Andy agrees with is fact and anything that contradicts him is opinion and can be ignored. The man himself said so.--Spud (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia needs to hold some sort of ecumenical council, so that MPR looks less schizophrenic--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I may have figured out where the name "Karajou" comes from...

Apparently, "carcajou" is another name for a wolverine. Is is possible that "karajou" is a regional variant on that, or something? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 03:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, see, wolverines actually are badasses. Karajou just plays one on Andy's crappy blog. --Inquisitor (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious by some of his self-aggrandising comments in Conservaleaks? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 05:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

More evidence for Karajou's WikiFur page being real? Vulpius (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Impossible. "Karajou" 's activity on wikifur mostly consists of minor edits to embarrassing articles, with a joking reference to his obsession with military prosecution in one of his talk page comments. I definitely don't think the actual Karajou is into mpreg! 143.215.104.191 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

...Karajou? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 15:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

An on fire Creationist...

Once again, ken asserts that fire destroying things is a good thing.^img. Also, some guy bought two thousand tracts and is going to apparently put atheism to shame. thing is, didnt we already put atheism to shame with all those preachers and public speakers and other people who pledged hours?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If I was on fire, the last thing I'd want to do is order 2000 sheets of paper. Still, good start on those 2 million shockofgoat said he was going to hand out. Only 1998000 to go. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Give the man credit. First, Shock was going to move forward again and again until there were one million tracts in people's hands. He's already about 0.2% of the way there with this order alone! Probably, he's closer to, oh, 0.3% or maybe 0.35%. And then, Shock will continue moving forward to two million. But that's later, man. Phiwum (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Tracts. Having read hundreds of them in my life I can tell you they do exactly two things. Jack and shit. And sometimes some quality unintentional humor. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

They also make Indians cry when they end up in landfill. Won't somebody please think of the Indians? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone really give a toss about this? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 16:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we must be really bored over CP to give Ken attention over what any fundy church does every month.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a reason for bringing up when he mentions the crushing of atheism, but thats a side project. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We are fucking bored. Nothing is happening at CP. Only Andy's new mystery has kept the crazy engine turning over at all so far this month. Joaquin is probably going to leave, Karajou and JPratt are practically gone. TerryH is gone for all practical purposes. Kendoll's blog is about all that happens. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Karajou and JPatt will always be around in some form, because they have nowhere else to go, nothing else in their lives of note. At least Joaquin seems to have interests other than conspiracy theory, and e-bullying. Terry though, I can see him disappearing because he has CNAV to use as his pulpit to keep impotently raging at a world that doesn't confirm with his Christo-Objectivist view of how society should be while lamenting nostalgically for a past that never was.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In a twist, CNAV (and Examiner) are 90% of the reason why Terry will be staying - he simply link-whores his blog on every site possible, from his Facebook to CP to Reddit to Digg. So as long as Andy doesn't put an end to that (and we all know that he never will because he's a complete pushover when it comes to stopping his senior admins), Terry will be around, cluttering MPR with more and more stories about the UN and Obama's birth certificate. --Sid (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Gem from "Random Page"

WTF?^img This reminds me of my brother-in-law off his meds. Whoover (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ahh that would be pattern, whos biggest work seems to be this essay--il'Dictator Mikal 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought he might be a parodist, but no parodist would have the patience to sling that much shit. Whoover (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You really would be surprised how much patience parodists have. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I keep getting surprised at how idiotic the real conservapedians can be.. GTac (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's Politicize March Madness!

It's Andy after all, of course he is going to politicize the tournament. In this particular example he pulls out the old and ill-defined "best of the public" shtick^img because Lehigh University upsets Duke in the second round. How this is "best of the public" is beyond me. Both teams are made up of student athletes (i.e. non-professionals), recruited by their respective team's coaching staffs in much the same way. Both universities are also private institutions, and both universities have full scholarship programs, so there is no major difference there. The only difference is Duke has more prestige in the NCAA Basketball world and thus usually have better luck at getting recruits, but all recruits are just high school kids from various locations throughout the country. In short, Andy is pulling air out of his ass in order to prop up the decaying corpse of his "insight".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And there was I thinking that March madness had something to do with St. Patrick's Day (I suppose there's still time for Andy or someone to politicize that). I know dick-all about American universities or basketball but I see that Andy trumpets LeHigh as being "working class". This is a new development, isn't it? So now the working class are "good"/"conservative" and white-collar workers are "evil"/"liberal". I would have thought that Andy would see any remnant of a class system in the US as a wicked vestige of British feudalism. I'm interested in seeing if and how Andy's going to run any further with this. --Spud (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

See that is what makes it weird. People here (other Andy it would seem), don't divide universities between "working class" and "white collar". If anything is seen as a "blue collar" school it would be the two year technical colleges or specialized technical schools that teach in specialized area (like heating and air conditioning repair). LeHeigh (which was originally an engineering university), and Duke (originally started by Methodists and Quakers) are four year universities with graduate programs. The divide Andy is trying to shoehorn in is entirely artificial and entirely of his imagination.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So I don't care about putting this ball in a basket game one bit, but isn't one team beating another simply BOTP? The predictions were that Duke would win, being just predictions of course, but their record shows they were the slated BOTP, right?

Oh, nevermind. I sometimes forget Andy is a moron. Next thing you know, negative numbers are liberal because they take away from whole numbers (conservative!). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If Duke is a liberal favorite, why then did the lamestream media go after the school so bad with that lacrosse-team rape story a couple of years ago? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that Andy would root for Lehigh as it employs Michael Behe, instead of engaging in LIBERAL CLASS WARFARE!! Gomedog (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Duke is a higher seed because they've done better in the regular season, right? I wonder why God doesn't just punish them during the regular season. I bet he's got some wagers on March Madness. No other way to explain it, since one never expects upsets during the NCAA tournament. Those never happen. Phiwum (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is only politicized because Obama picked Duke on his bracket pool. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 16:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Andy got into sports just to politicize it. You'd think he'd be against sports as being liberal or something, but he obviously has a buttload of time on his hands, so I guess he watches sports. Probably helps him feel like a man. It's pretty awesome that Andy is talking up Lehigh, which is nothing but a bunch of damn dirty evolutionists. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nosir. Lehigh is a bastion of conservative thought what with Behe, the Catholic creationist, being on the faculty there. It's easy to be right when you can cherry pick your own reality. 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This^img was so stunningly incoherent I thought it had to be a Kendoll original, but apparently that's an Andy thought, unless there's some oversighting gone on. It's made worse by being almost impossible to read since your eyes are constantly being dragged to the manic animated fish just over in the next column. It's like none all of these guys are out to destroy whatever last scraps of dignity CP was still hanging on to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"It's like none all of these guys are out to destroy whatever last scraps of dignity CP was still hanging on to."

How many times has that been said before, even just by you? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"It seems like Andy got into sports just to politicize it." Andy's not "into" sports, and I doubt he knows a three-pointer from a grand slam. He scans the headlines to find scores and stories that fit his political project. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And thereby becomes an expert in everything. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy is what makes Conservapedia interesting. Just when you think his proclamations make no sense in the light of reality (LeHigh victory over another similar institution of higher learning is "best of the public"), Andy ramps up the crazy with a dose of conspiracy with his "hypothesizes" that if atheists ran the NCAA (which he has no idea about) that Duke would win, pressingly through cheating, all to embarrass Behe, who has nothing to do with the tournament and most college basketball fans never heard of. Its mind boggling paranoia that can only exist in the crazy or the desperate to be relevant.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So quickly you forget. Atheists hate underdogs. Whoover (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Economics Lectures"

Andy taught economics?^img--il'Dictator Mikal 22:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've actually taught spelling in my life. The fact that someone "teaches" it, is just a reason to check your children for permanent damage, and to a reason to think the "teacher" knows shit. Godot What do cats dream about? 22:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some of us should start doing sbs's on his lectures? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Found on the first line of the midterm Economics exam.

"Instructions: 30 minutes. Closed book. BE SURE TO READ THE QUESTION CAREFULLY. No points are deducted for wrong answers, SO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. "

So... no points deducted for wrong answers. Is it grade inflation, or just difficulty writing in english? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's neither, the confusion just comes from him not mentioning the alternative. Here's how it goes: A wrong answer will still get zero points, so if you get five right and five wrong, you'll have 5/10 points. Which means that Andy is basically just encouraging guessing where you're not sure since there is no punishment for guessing wrong. Other tests are stricter in that a right answer gives +1 and a wrong answer gives -1, so if you got five right and five wrong, you'd have 0/10 points. I'm sure there is plenty of literature arguing for or against both approaches - I don't have a strong opinion, though, so I'm just posting this as-is without judgement. --Sid (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, some standardized tests have wrong answers weighted some negative fraction of the value of right answers in order to give the same probable score for uninformed guessing as for leaving the questions blank while rewarding informed guessing.184.61.193.172 (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Worst mainpage yet

I've seen pretty ugly looking main pages (mostly thanks to Conservative) but the current one is just about the most amauterish of the lot. That animated gif looks awful! StarFish (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's actually pretty tame in the list of worst CP:MP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The twitchy animated GIF is a good start, and leaving MPR twice as long as MPL is an interesting take on Feng Shui, but the overall lack of pictures on MPR is disappointing, and I'll have to deduct several points for the lack of Hitler. Also, no absurd pictures-with-captions. --Sid (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No Shitwin, no flying kitty, no clowns (except for that weird painting), no obese atheists and no creationist wildfires. The animated gif does give Conservapedia all the credibility of a 90s Geocities page, but it's still far from the worst I've seen. I agree that our international man of mystery needs to add some more random pictures or atheism and evolution will never be eradicated from internet. Vulpius (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this fish is in a class by itself. I can't look at it for too long because I think it might cause seizures, but it seems to have pig nostrils and two eyes on one side of its head. It also has some fungal growth towards the tail. Whoover (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be devil's horns on the "Piranha of Christianity"^imgOr am I the only one to see that? Headache-inducing though it is, it's still better than that shitty shark Ken used before.--Spud (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking through the archives...

and i found this from... august '10--il'Dictator Mikal 21:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, User:Conservative is a liar. C'mon User: Conservative, get on the red telephone and tell us how you're not. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 21:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Old news. Read about it in Conservaleaks. What do you think of the idea of cutting and pasting my current RW User page to CP MPL? That could a first, and groundbreaking. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?--il'Dictator Mikal 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Rob is an idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

C'mon now. Are you guys really that fucking stupid? You do not think it would groundbreaking if content from Rationalwiki was cut n' pasted to CP's Main Page? Tell me, why in the fuck do you spend so many hours, and years, on this page observing, and discussing this shit? nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 23:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1) it makes me laugh. 2) whats that got to do with the price of fish?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1.It makes me laugh, too. 2. Rob, you're an idiot. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob is an idiot, but the Ed Poor post from his Conservaleaks link was brilliant. Recommended reading! Phiwum (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My favorite leaked moment is where Terry called andy god.--il'Dictator Mikal 04:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I wonder how all that stuff got leaked out anyway? :-D Refugee^{talk page} 08:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Read at your leisure. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm always the last to know anything... Refugee^{talk page} 08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm 1 Peter 0. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's inferiority complex is almost sad.

"Children of extraordinarly bright or athletic parents are, on average, not so extraordinary."^img Don't worry, Andy. You're doing just fine, for you! Phiwum (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Not only does he conflate the 'Law of Large Numbers' with 'Regression to the Mean' and ignore all the mathematics underlying population genetics and the modern synthesis, he – eh, fuckit. I guaran-fucking-tee you he doesn't even know what drift means in a genetic context. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fucking called it.^img --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll ignore all other (glaring) problems with this most recent episode of Andy bullshitting his way through for the moment and instead just: Is there actually any evidence for the assertion that Darwin was weak in mathematics? --Sid (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from Maths being the least liberal of all forms of education except Bible studies, none that I am aware of. This "fact" came straight out of the last quarter of a bottle of Johnny Walker I think. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy always thinks like he's drunk. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it back, according to this article he wasn't too flash with maths. As in, he was trained in higher mathematics but didn't like it and professed that he didn't use much of it in his various studies. Andy has taught me something. I feel dirty. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

However, the article concludes with: "Darwin himself came around eventually in his attitude toward mathematics. While he wrote in his autobiography of his youthful distaste for math, he also wrote that he wished he had learned the basic principles of math, “for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense.” " I'm a little wary of that, though, since many people have claimed that Darwin changed his tune about many things in his latter years for their own political purposes. --Sasayaki (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Now Andy's trying too hard: "More generally, we're not like liberals in pretending to be smarter, and we don't engage in silly putdowns of others."^img In a section titled "Give it up, liberals", no less. Phiwum (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And with the entire Main Page being a jeering taunt to Atheists. Andy is just so lovable. When is he going to have another TV or courtroom appearance - there must be more amicus briefs to be filed! DogP (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

[Insert something here about fish climbing trees, or Rand Paul] -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The passive-aggressive main page wars continue

Joaquin tries another suicidal push for pride of place^img on the main page, moving his masterpiece and historical quote of the week century^img above the tide line of Ken Krap. Kendoll of course won't stand for this when he gets wind of it.

In the mean time, all the CP navigation stuff has now deposited itself on the absolute bottom of the page so that now you have to scroll through about 3 pages of gibbering to find out what conservapedia actually is. I almost feel sorry for any project with as weak a leader as Andy. It's just anarchy there now with nobody able to restore order. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

MPL is going to look like Ken's user page, or even the homosexuality article--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the cp:Raymond Davis Affair still rates above Joe Biden as a Popular article at CP. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly... science teacher?

Well, that explains a lot and truly makes me weep for Andy's homeschoolers:

• User:^img "Oh my, Andy, your insights of how math disproves Darwinism are much needed! You should totally teach a science class!"
• Andy:^img "I already have! And I exposed the lies liberals teach in public schools!"

Just... wow. I weep. --Sid (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Cruncher sounds like such a reputable and scholarly text, where can I purchase this fine volume? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Try http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads/Evolution%20CruncherP.pdf larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

That sounds too much like parody. People don't actually talk like that do they? Well Andy believes it, probably because it strokes his immense ego.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A thousand pages is a lot of work for a parody. PS: I read one paragraph about an experiment in which a room is emptied of all of its contents, and then left to see what happens. Because the air doesn't turn into something else.... P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

From that PDF Larron linked: "Introduction: Stellar evolution is based on the concept that nothing can explode and produce all the stars and worlds. Life evolution is founded on the twin theories of spontaneous generation and Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics);—yet, although they remain the basis of biological evolution, both were debunked by scientists over a century ago." I need a dozen facepalms stat! Just... Even for Young Earth Creationism, this is particularly egregious. What is there for me to say other than I shook my head and realized I need a very strong drink?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If it isn't a parody(I don't think it is) it is either quite old, relying on very old "data"/"information", purposely distorting acts(*gasp*), or all of the above. It has an entire section on Hyracotherium which includes information which is known to be false and misleading. If I didn't have a clusterfuck of papers to write I'd read more into this "book." Ayzmo (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My fave from this wonderful text is the "rebuttal" of evolutionist objections to arguments that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. (They point out that the Second Law applies to isolated systems, which we ain't.):

The evolutionist argument goes this way: Energy from the sun flows to our world and makes it an open system. As long as the sun sends this energy, it will fuel evolutionary development here. In contrast, a closed system is one that neither gains nor gives up energy to its surroundings. Therefore, sunshine negates the Second Law,—in spite of what Einstein and all the other physicists say! It is obvious that their neat denial denies too much. Their argument effectively nullifies Second Law everywhere in the universe, except in the cold of outer space and on planets distant from stars. Evolution is apparently progressing even on our moon, for it is receiving as much energy from the sun as we are!

They teach this shit to kids. Have they no shame? Whoover (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Whomever is socking FrederickT3...mad fucking props to you! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ken's "Christianity is growing!" thing

So we all know Ken is touting Atheism is apparently in decline worldwide and Christianity is rising. I think a good question though is just how many of them are god fearin YEC's who get to go to heaven? --il'Dictator Mikal 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually wrote an essay during my time at CP where I speculated that Christianity is neither as big(same with other religions really) nor is it growing as rapidly as he likes to say. It was mainly based on CP's beliefs about what makes a person Christian and all that but severely limited the amount of people who could be considered a Christian since it would apparently be less than half of Europe and the USA. I think if Ken ever sat down and actually thought about what he was saying versus reality his head would explode. Ayzmo (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to duking it out by numbers, Ken only looks at self-identification. The "Christianity" number would look MUCH different the moment you apply any sort of standard. Even the most intuitive and basic "split up by denomination" would be devastating, and CP's standards are MUCH stricter, leaving basically all but the most dedicated "true Christians" out in the cold. It's such a blatant and obvious distortion of reality that it's a wonder his head hasn't already exploded. --Sid (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if we draw a standard on what CP thinks makes a Christian and a Muslim we would end up in some European countries with more Muslims then Christians. Which unless I'm caught in Geert Wilders head can't really be right… --★uːʤɱ libertarian 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a phenomenon unique to CP. Every Christian does this. When they want concessions from the secular world to their particular brand of religion there's two billion of them, when they're arguing amongst themselves there's a couple of hundred thousand real, true Christians at most. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why you get people using phrases like "Judeo-Christian tradition." That way, even if you don't believe there are all that many "true Christians" you can claim credit for all the good stuff that goes on in Europe and the West.Tacitus (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think every Christian does do that, Jeeves.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It really am not surprised he's doing this at all. Considering that this kind of argument is a kind of 'authority from majority' thing, and this particular somebody seems to desperately claim authority and through it the ability to have the last word or be 'right.' Like when somebody goes to the movies with friends and 3/5 people want to see one movie, but two people want to see another, the 3/5 people may claim that 'everybody' wants to see movie 1 and that the minority somehow has less authority and importance, or even that movie 1 is better than movie 2 because more people want to see it. Even if movie 1 is Jackass and movie 2 is... something not Jackass.KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What if movie two was Twilight? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Soooo Is Andy now oozing over to the Santorum side?

I just had a glimpse of the main page, and it seems Andy is now getting increasingly tender towards the Foamy one, despite the fact that barely a month ago he was weeping over the fact Santorum was nothing more than an abortion loving liberal, and I was wondering If anyone had any estimation as to when Andy may make his support for El Santo official (until of course he decides to support Romney). Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy sees the writing on the wall and knows that 1. Romney will win the nomination and 2. Obama will probably win the election. He won't go over to Romney--instead, he's setting himself up to be able to say "I told you we should have gone with a real conservative and then we would have won the election." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

he isnt just going to the santorum camp, he spent all of february and this month touting him --il'Dictator Mikal 00:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy's not that bright. Expect Romney to become a real conservative hero once he wins the nomination and return to being a dirty RINO once he loses the election faster than you can say 'flip-flop'. Vulpius (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The most hilarious part of this flip-flopping via whitewash will be Andy criticising Mitt for all the flip-flopping. --★uːʤɱ socialist 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if the Republican party at large likes him so much, they can keep him. Somebody else ought to have a turn handling the man; we've certainly had enough of him. It really is telling that Andy is picking the greater of two evils. Par for the course, really. KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 00:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in how long past the end of primary season the "Gingrich administration" page survives. A perfect monument to how not even wrong Conservapedia is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Distortion seems to be a conservative value

After TerryH spamed MPR with this one^img and rapes the internet once again I went on to do some research.

So first to the claim that Media Matters is anti-zionist. Clearly this is evidenced by saying you shouldn't boycott Israeli products because you don't like the countries politics or criticizing the muslim extremist Barack HUSSEIN Obama for saying the policies of the US and Israel have to be the exact same. Yes, being able to view a topic rom both sides is really anti-zionist, after all you wouldn't kill your babies for Israel, therefor you hate Israel.

Oh and Al-Jazeera? Well, maoist radical Hillary Clinton said the following about the way the network operates: "viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and—you know—arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which—you know—is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners." [2] Of course the European imperialists have valued Al Jazeera highly and pushed it's content onto the people of the world, probably even manipulated ratings for this anti-zionists station that tries to keep of the Arabian world away from the teachings of such glorious conservative leaders like Mubarak, Assad and the Saudi-Arabian royals. One of these henchman is M. J. Bloomberg that writes such despicable anti-zionist hate speech, erm, screeches like the following:

The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people - Israel and the Israelis - from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible.

Or even worse and in the same article:

The bottom line is that today, the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation - and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred. [3]

Of course Al Jazeera is an American network, not an Arabic one, and therefor has no business giving forth the opinion of the other side. Now of course freedom of press and speech exists, after all, you make the decision to speak your own mind then be grapped in the middle of the night and flown on a tropic island, they'll even let you go after just five years without making a single point about it! Or you can shut up agree with the American right-wing and be a good soldier in the fight for freedom and liberty.

Now, to stop this sarcastic rant, here comes the less sarcastic rant: This stuff really pisses me off. Even more than the hate against homosexuals, atheists, muslims, nerds and generally any other people that don't adhere to their baliefs and their values, this is like the doctor that refuses to treat a murderer, because while not making it official many journalists ethos is to report news neutrally and then comment on it. This is missing in the US, most of you know this and most of you read other news, no matter if this is BBC World, Al Jazeera or anything else that appears to be neutral. But many don't get this, so when they stumble upon real journalism and not just another part of the popaganda machinery they cry "BIAAAAAS!". It's almost its own thing, "bias-baiting".

What really annoys me are people that should know better, seem to understand that reporting the pure facts without mixing opinion into them, like Andy and Terry, but still continue this sick game to further the stupid masses for their own goals. It is dishonest and immoral, despicable and revolting.

To Andy and Terry and all the other conservative gone wild for Israel, how about real anti-semitism, so you can spot the difference. Like the German far-left site rotefahne.eu that regularly cally Israel "the Zionist regime" and makes Israel sound like a Jewish version of the Empire from Star Wars, ready to built a death star any day now to erradicate the whole muslim world. or another far-left from Germany, the welt, an outspokenly Marxist newspaper that is one of the top 15 newpapers by sales in Germany, That one only calls Israelis thiefs for taking the land of Palestinians, calls the War in Afghanistan an act of terror — commited by the US government — and headed the article reporting the death of Osama bin-Laden "Terrorists murder Osama bin-Laden". Theses kinds of things are real anti-Israeli screetches, real anti-American sentiments. But I guess it doesn't matter, Germany has no ressources left to secure, no oil, no gas and can be ignored. --★uːʤɱ kant 13:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your mistake was doing research, not taking the story at face value. That's such a liberal thing to do. JPratt shows us how to react conservatively to such stories. Read the headline, immediately puff up with outrage and then go tweet the story with a bunch of conservatroll hash tags on it so everyone else can do likewise. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's because he was a physicist and not a foreign policy expert...

Just sayin'^img. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why he turned down the offer of becoming Israel's first President. "All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions," he said. Sophie^{because liberals} 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It takes a special kind of person to get Arabs Muslims and Jews to live together peacefully. Specifically, it's the individual Muslim or Jew that is willing to accept a person with a different opinion on their favorite fictional characters without prejudice and ignores their fellow groupies who preach hate. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have bet good money that it was Andy who posted that. But it was Joaquin. Since when has he ever had an interest in shivving Einstein in the side? In any case, I look forward to Andy noticing this particular nugget and shoe-horning it into one of his many steaming "why Einstein was wrong" dumps. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowing the limits of your expertise takes real wisdom, and is something that Andy could really learn from. StarFish (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@ ONE; Jomar wasn't dissing Einstein as much as he was saying "the Arabs and the Israelis are so insoluble that even the greatest mind of all time couldn't help." P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney's #1 again.

Fast forward to "Just as we predicted all along...^img P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering it's Andy we're talking about, that it only took six months or so for reality to bludgeon his fantasy world in to submission qualifies as a minor miracle. His other exercises in denying the bleeding obvious have gone on for years and years. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Progress report: We haven't done anything.

Kendoll presents the results^img of the QE! campaign's Texas outreach and they are.... that they haven't actually done anything. No, that's not quite true. What they have done is lied about contacting Texas churches, they didn't actually do that. They just got telephone numbers for them. This is just sad, Kendoll. Your "group" (really just you) aren't ever going to do anything. You have no vision, no sensible overall plan, no day to day strategy to get you to you to your non-existent goal. Just stop. Didn't you learn your lesson with all your previous "operations"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So when did the blogger "Question" turn into "15 questions for evolutionists"? It must be Ken of course because he's the only one with a completely hidden Blogger profile. Except for Matt; which suggests that Matt is also Ken. Oh dear, what a sad old man he is. Get a life, Ken. Or even better, get a wife, Ken.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

But keep sharp objects and guns away from her. --★uːʤɱ digital native 14:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Our latest wigo links to Ken saying he's still having sleep problems. Ken, I truly do feel sorry for you and I hope you get better. Your miserably pathetic writing and cowardly online actions aside, I hope you're getting the help you need. SJ ^Debaser 14:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Word has it that he is in a place where he presumably is getting help, though what exactly could help Ken is anyone's guess. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey have I told you guys how embarrassing it is that you're tweaking a man without profound mental health problems who dances like a puppet on demand, whipping himself up into frenzies that culminate in overnight editing sprees? I have? Cool. You suck. 15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Nutty, the platform which allows him to do so sucks. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. I think people uniformly agree Schlafly and his goons are real assholes for letting Ken wear himself out just to get them pageviews that nonetheless come from people making fun of all of them. I think people also uniformly agree as a general proposition that it's immoral to send people on fool's errands calculated to exploit their disabilities. 15:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh, completely bonkers or not, Ken is still a terrible person. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

But if he actually does have a mental illness (or two), doesn't that excuse him? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. He's a horrible person notwithstanding his erratic behavior. 16:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The state of having an unnamed mental condition does not issue one a carte blanche to be a rotten person. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not, if he's a 'rotten person' because of a mental disorder? That kind of attitude seems to say to that you're responsible for things about yourself you have no control of. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, this abstract conversation is very interesting but I regret saying anything specific about the man. I feel so much sadness when I see him getting lathered up over this ridiculous nonsense. :-( 16:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that before saying anything to or about Ken, imagine yourself saying the same thing to an autistic/downs kid sitting across the table from you. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone is a bad person because of a mental disorder, that's one thing, but so far we have no evidence that that's the case with Ken. I don't know of any disorder that makes people call atheists fat or makes them wish all gays burn in hell. You can't go around dancing on the graves of dead homosexuals and then, when someone calls you on your assholery, say "it's okay! I have sleep apnea!" Even if an autistic kid were ridiculing everyone who had some arbitrary trait he didn't like he's still likely to get a "hey, kid, shut the fuck up". Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

At some point every raging ballsack of a person is that way due to causality. The reason that we don't make fun of the mentally handicapped but do make fun of the run of the mill douche bag is that social pressure can really take the wind out of their sails. There is also a component of group cohesion that comes from making fun of an asshole. With a handicapped person, especially a young one, it's just applying uncomfortable social pressure to change something they cannot change. However at this point Andy and Ken can change, and sometimes do in response to the ridicule that does seep through. Ken uses up significant cognitive reserves ignoring us, as does Andy. That cost, in addition to coming with entertainment for us, also reduces his ability to actually spread his santorum like idiocy, when it comes time to call those churches he doesn't have the actual motivation because he has been using his brain to filter out the criticism. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the day Andy explains how a RINO Mormon does more to preserve Christian values than extreme Black Liberation Theology. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 19:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? --_transResident Transfan^form! 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why reply to him at all instead of just completely ignoring him? X Stickman (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's got to the point where we should just delete his crap on sight. He's just incapable of staying on topic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that a challenge? Because, I assure you, I can delete his edits faster than anyone else! An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

While it wasn't exactly on topic, Rob has a great point. I would love to see Andy defend the cult of mormonism in one breath and condemn BLT in another. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would he condemn BLTs? They're delicious and bacony. Anyway, don't you guys remember? Obama is a Muslim because he doesn't dance. Actually, now that I think about it, has anyone ever seen Mitt Romney dance? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy has proved remarkably ecumenical in the past when presented with a common enemy. He defended the CP Mormons against PJR and Kendoll's assault on heresy, presumably on the theory that there'll be plenty of time to kill the Mormons once all the atheists are dead and buried. It's actually verboten to say bad things about Moonies and Mormons at CP now after the last witch hunt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A sound argument can be made BLT is more in keeping with traditional, orthodox Christianity than Mormonism. Too bad godless commie Democrats don't give a shit, or couldn't be convincing enough to do so (while the conservative Christian Right is flat on it's back, on life support and ready to pull the plug, as a viable force in GOP & national politics). nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 20:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Moar demons!

This shit that Kendoll links to is gold. I really need to write an article on Gary Bates and his demonology obsession. I bet if someone uses too much loo roll in his house he blames it on demons. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghosts = demons is a position im used to hearing; always makes sense to me but i grew up in that sorta system. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What are aliens, then? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

don't exist. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Aliens don't exist in our God-given geocentric universe (despite what the head of the Gandolfo Observatory says), they are the hopes and dreams of liberals. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In the Batesoverse, aliens are demons too. Everything that goes bump in the night is a demon to him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, CMI (and likely Ken) believe in aliens, except aliens are extra-dimensional demonic beings, because that is so much more logical than little green men, right?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Little green men? Fool -- everyone knows aliens are humans with rubber foreheads and hot womenz you can reproduce with. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as those women are green and from Orion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

SEO doomed?

I thought of Ken that makes me sad. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would laugh my ass off if they put the kibosh on the influence of paid blogs. I fucking hate SEO...and I don't really like SEO companies or their experts either. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday I would have disagreed, but today I got a rejection for the content editing job I was applying for at a SEO company, so now I agree with you :D -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, SEO "experts" really are bottom feeding trolls. But never fear, glorious leader! For all Ken's talk of operations, and for all his forum spamming, CP's bread and butter was always links from high profile sites laughing at them. I doubt CP's google rankings are in any danger from this reshuffle. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the assumption here is that they profited at all from successful search results, which is clearly the intent of CNAV but not of CP. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Good SEO based on quality of content that's done by sophisticated people I pay through the nose for makes me money. Ken lives in squallor, ergo he sucks at it. QED 19:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nutty, your people probably get raped more than anyone on pay-per-click advertising, so I imagine you have no choice but to SEO. The problem with SEO companies is the way they shit out content, it's never real "quality" in any sense but for SEO. Or is it? If so, I imagine it costs a pretty fucking penny. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a gigantic outfit that provides a huge number of resources like blogs, statutes, cases, directories, forums, etc. They massively interlink their own sites. I draft all the content. They handle the meta tagging very well. I don't actually pay through the nose. It's something like 4 grand a year. 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you ever do a/b testing to make sure that what they're selling you actually does anything? I'd be astonished if any of the search engines still gave a fuck about the contents of meta tags. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotally, yes. My prior site had some of the same content for certain practice areas. I'm doing much better with this one than the other, but that's obviously not good evidence of much other than I'm doing much better with this one. Some of my pages went "organic" or whatever you call it where I'm coming up at the top without having to do Google local or buy clicks. The meta tags seem to mostly be used for identifying practice areas and locations I'll work. My guys have been frank with me about strategies to avoid that they believe Google punishes, like having content that's similar or identical to someone else's, over-larding pages with repetitions of key terms and concepts, and cheating meta-tags. They also encourage me to create lots of useful content that people actually want to use, which is fine with me since I need to be a go-to resource for certain things. In other words, they've at least represented to me that they're not doing anything remotely black hat like Ken tries. 20:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

<offtopic>I applied for a job at an SEO company the other day and I had to actively resist referencing either conservapedia and/or ken in the application. That made me feel quite sad.</offtopic> X Stickman (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

TriWikiContest Feb 2012 redux + an elephant in the room...

A couple of days ago, I presented I few pics to illustrate the resilience of editors at RationalWiki, Conservapedia and Citizendium. I want to revisit this point using a couple a new graphs: the cumulative frequencies of the number of editors in Feb 2012 at one of the wikis vs. the creation of the account. So for each date d, the number of editors contributing in Feb 2012 who created their account before d is given in the diagrams.

Citizendium	Not much to see here: there were 40 editors in Feb 2012, the relatively steep curve at the beginning shows that most of the contributors have been there for quite a while. In fact, 50% of the active editors joined Citizendium before 2008.	Citizendium
Error creating thumbnail: File missing Conservapedia	The old editors are those with the important rights - not too surprising. Nearly half of those active in Feb 2012 are blocked now, a fate very likely for those who started editing in 2012, though even a few oldtimers had to leave.	Error creating thumbnail: File missing Conservapedia
Error creating thumbnail: File missing RationalWiki	I'm prejudiced, but this one looks quite healthy: there seems to be a constant influx of editors who keep editing. It is naturally that the most junior are more active, so their is quite a rise in 2012.	RationalWiki

That's all nice and dandy. But take a short look at wikipedia. You remember, the wiki Andy is replacing?

wikipedia

Sorry, the data isn't for Feb 2012. It's for Mar 1, 2012 (indeed, a single day instead of the month used for the other wikis). On this day more than 31,000 users made 169,000 edits - Granted, more than half of the editors were anonymous: besides the usual vandalism, there is something left from the idea to just jump in and make an edit, and the curve shows that there is a great number of dedicated users of every age. Marvelous!

wikipedia

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. Conservapedia's graph is really dysfunctional. Basically a complete flatline for most of its life, with only the bitter oldtimers clinging on and the newbie parodists and wandals editing. I guess a healthy wiki should have a nice smooth grade with a mix of oldies and newbies. Is the lack of scale on the Y axis of the citizendum graph indicating that the numbers are really small? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the CZ graph is pretty jagged and you can easily see the periods of stagnation--il'Dictator Mikal 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

there were only 40 editors at CZ, and the labeling at the axis starts with 100. But the dashed lines indicate 10,20,30 etc...

I added a kind of density for the cumulative frequencies: for each date d, it shows the number of editors commenting in Feb 2012 (resp. on Mar 1, 2012), who created their account in the year before d (as opposed to any time before d).

Here you can see that the distribution is not uniform over the earlier years, but that there tends to be a bump... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These graphs also represent my anticipating erection for the next display of graphic charts. :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the number of editors one can look at the number of edits made by them. So the following graphs show the cumulative frequencies of the number of edits made in Feb 2012 at one of the wikis vs. the creation of the account. For each date d, the number of edits made on Feb 2012 by those editors who created their account before d is given on the left hand side, while those graphs on the right hand sight show again the number of edits made on Feb 2012 by those editors who created their account in the year before d.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing Citizendium	No surprise here: There are very few newer editors, so most of the edits were made by the old guard.	Error creating thumbnail: File missing Citizendium
Error creating thumbnail: File missing Conservapedia	The old guard has all the right and contributes half of the content.	Error creating thumbnail: File missing Conservapedia
Error creating thumbnail: File missing RationalWiki		Error creating thumbnail: File missing RationalWiki

And wikipedia?

wikipedia

Again the data if for Mar 1, 2012

wikipedia

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Look how resilient Rationalwiki is and still only 5500 actual articles. LOL --99.155.80.201 (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a sysop contest, eh JPratt? Copy and paste some articles on battleships and then leave them as stubs forever? Sounds like a grand plan. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, isn't it awful that our pitiful handful of articles are cited by serious sources, and CP's guff is cited only by comedians? Sophie^{because liberals} 11:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

still only 5500 actual articles - it would be more if we were clumsy enough not to have an essay-namespace and a debate-namespace.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)