Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive307

This is an archive page, last updated 17 January 2013. 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>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <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 wonder if Andy or anger bear will mention this?

The pope's christmas message condemns rampant and unregulated capitalism. I will not be holding my breath. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the past 7 years of unmitigated cowardice from him on issues like this, i predict he will simply doublethink it away and pretend it never happened. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Karajou is a Protestant--"Shut up, Brx." 14:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am slightly tempted to say something but I would likely fall straight into no true scotsman if I did. And I just noticed someone has wigo'd this on the World. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that itself is an interesting question. Does Kara have the testicular fortitude to spit on the leader of Andy's church? Again my answer is he will just pretend it never happened, since his role of being an angry, hateful bully on CP is likely the only thing that makes his pathetic life worth living Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Andy had a problem with both Biden and Ryan being Catholic. I believe he's a CINO by now. Vulpius (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy's Pope lives in a mirror in New Jersey. C®ackeЯ 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly: Portrait of a sports fan.

You're right, Andy. I was going to watch the NFL playoffs, but since you told me there wasn't going to be any prayer or Tim Tebow^img featured I don't think I'll bother. Makes total sense to me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If the silent moments aren't explicitly called moments of prayer, then the whole game is ruined and you might as well not even watch it. Nihilist 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the article. It's all about a slight decrease in viewership, happening in parallel to a slight overall decrease in television audiences. Andy thinks people are staying away in droves. Hey, Karajou, since I know that you read this and since I figure you're pretty much a "regular guy," answer me this -- could you see yourself sitting down to watch some football with Andy? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait.. What?!

"Why bother watching its liberal style playoffs?" - Andy Schlafly

Of all that he said in the above link, this actually makes the least sense. How are the NFL playoffs "liberal"? The teams with the best records are awarded going into the playoffs; awarded for their achievements - All division winners will get at least one game at home (while wildcards will most likely have to play all away games); the two best teams in each conference do not even play the first round, guaranteeing they will be in the second; the top seed in each conference gets "home field advantage" through the entire playoffs. In the NFL playoffs, you win or you go home, you get no second chances or best of number series; hence one (loss) and done. Has Andy ever even watched the playoffs?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't pray beforehand. Therefore, liberal. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So the fact players openly pray afterwards doesn't count? Or is it that the NFL doesn't attempt to impose prayer that makes them "liberal"?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberals don't like, support, or root for underdogs. You'll notice the liberal NFL gives the top teams a bye, which givs them an advantage they don't need (since they're the better teams going into the playoffs). The wildcard teams, already underdogs going into the game due to their worse season records, have to be the "away" team which further cements their underdog status. If the NFL was conservative they'd make the top teams have a cage match before the playoffs, and give the wildcarders home field advantage - which would make their opponents the underdogs...so they should have home field advantage...which would make the wildcarders the underdogs again...hmmm, maybe I haven't thought this through enough. Random surfer (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean the Best-of-7 system is conservative? --Revolverman (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The only proper way of playing American football is to start with prayer, end with prayer and also the game itself is prayer. Basically, it's just a match of prayer, where everybody wins. They will henceforth be called... prayoffs... --GTac (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot a prayer in each mandatory ad break and after each touchdown. Naca (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. FYI

But of course^imgPercival^Cox 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"immature individuals who crave attention" - P.K.B. Генгис^marauding 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 at Conservapedia

editors by groups

editors by account creation

#edits vs. #days of editing

• 2012 was the year for spammers at Conservapedia

year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
new accounts	12,417	10,760	7420	4011	4833	7641

Out of these 7641 new editors, 4841 left not edit behind (mostly because their only edit was deleted as spam), and another 2229 editors commented only on a single day:

Days of editing

days	0 days	1 day	2 days	3-4 d	5-8 d	9-16 d	17-32 d	33-64 d	65-128 d	129-256 d	>256 d
#users	4841	2229	188	134	90	57	40	43	19	6	3

• parodists like cp:User:Dvergne used this flood of spammers to discourage any new editor by blocking her or him for spurious reasons, thereby mainly annoying fellow parodists-to-be
• Conservapedia's main purpose now is to inform RationalWiki about the actions plans of the Question evolution! campaign
• looking at Best of Conservapedia 2012 there are two pages which I enjoyed most:
  • cp:E=mc² (and the corresponding talk-page cp:E=mc²): if lack of intelligence had a mass, this would become a black hole of stupidity.
  • cp:'s-Hertogenbosch To enjoy cp:User:Ed Poor's fight against the leading apostrophe, it's not enough to look at the talk-page cp:Talk:'s-Hertogenbosch, you have to click through the diffs (start here): there is as much fun in his deletions as in his contributions. While Andy has his minions to do his dirty work, the whole '-affair show Ed Poor for the scumbag he is...

--larron (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you LArron. As always you're a fountain of facts, enjoyment, pretty graphs and I am pretty sure you'd go down well in the sack. Kudos. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I often present these statistics in my local get-a-life-club! --larron (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I bet the other club members are very impressed. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Other club members"? There are no such things in my local get-a-life-club.

I am also a great fan of the EMC2 page. The best part is that although it is introduced as meaningless nonsense, there are still, a few pages down, plenty of perfectly valid and well-described (by CP standards) examples on how the formula is applied and verified in practice. Etc 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As a resident of 's-Hertogenbosch, that page was my favorite occurence this year, it was like Christmas had come early. Got even permabanned for posting some sourced facts on the official name of the town, confirming Ed's douchebagginess. --GTac (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Permabanned? Only at first... --larron (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole den Bosch thing (beautiful town, by the way) was a hoot. The icing on the cake was Ed (two meters) Poor merging articles on Dutch towns because they were too short. Lordy, what a fucking transparent hypocrite. Phiwum (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks LArron, I hadn't noticed it was reverted! But yeh, the merging was hilariously obvious and ironic. --GTac (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Just an interesting observation: the most prolific new editors of 2012 are cp:User:Dvergne, cp:User:Wschact, cp:User:Brenden, cp:User:MattyD and cp:User:Cmurphynz. Gentle Uncle Ed was there to welcome cp:User:Wschact, cp:User:MattyD and cp:User:Cmurphynz with their first block - and cp:User:Brenden at least got his second one (after being blocked by a parodist the first time) from Uncle Ed (for "Refused sysop direction about talk page use"). --larron (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the best part of CP for you in 2012?

For me it was Andy, pure and simple. His crazy beliefs combined with his enormous ego and the desire to present himself as some sort of expert on everything has been pretty entertaining. Without Andy's whacky "insights", or his views on everything from sports to math or politics, CP would be an extremely boring place. Sure Karajou, Eddy, Kenny, Launchbooty, and JPatt all have their crazy, fringe beliefs, but they are very rarely entertaining about them; Andy though, he is the poster boy for everything that is wrong with the religious right/Tea Party set.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't encourage him, but I love Ken's endless petty QE! promises.London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the choice of Ken but only because he has turned CP's Main Page into a humongous redirect. What he has posted is largely immaterial but he has done more to discredit CP as any sort of learning resource than all of the parodists put together. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed "The Teacher" Poor, Andy "The Leader" Schlafly, Con "The Tactician" Servative - it just "Irony Central"... --larron (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think AugustO desrves the prize for "Conservapedian Who Should Know Better". He knows by now that CP is not a place where he can collaborate with fellow scholars and produce a good quality new translation of the New Testament, yet he still keeps hanging around the bloody dungheap. Spud (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy takes the cake the cake this year - he managed to take every event that happened, especially the Olympics and the football season and smear his own special brand of crazy all over it. Karajou did nothing except block and make stubs, Ed was sadly quiet and Ken was just the dribbling madman in the corner everybody tries to ignore. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire Olympics article is definitely my pick, although Andy's belief that AugustO was sent by God to fix Conservapedia also deserves a honourable mention at least. Vulpius (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fiscal Cliff Vote Review

Andy puts only six names on the list^img...and still gets one wrong. Jared (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh burn. Paul Ryan's on the list. The guy nominated for CP's Conservative of the Year for being the "spokesman for fiscal conservatives in Congress." Countdown to him being declared a RINO in 3... 2... --PsyGremlin^Speak! 18:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I love how encyclopedic the title of that article is. «-Bfa-» 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's truly doublethink, and in a way, it's a beautiful thing.. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Take the Andy exam

Oh, fancy. You can now take Andy's American Government final exam in internet questionnaire form. I did no revision, and don't even know a huge amount about US government, but I got 14/15. It took 8 minutes. In fact the only reason I didn't get full marks is because I gave the correct answer to question 9, not the wingnut answer. Really I should have known better.

I'm sure this vigorous teaching was well worth the money the homskoll parents pay for it. At least I hope it's cheaper than getting their neighbour's teenage daughter to babysit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided not to take the test because it said "you have 10 minutes to answer 15 questions". That's less than one minute per question. That's too much stress for me. I can't even read the question in one minute let alone peruse the possibilities and think of the answer. Oh well. It did look like a nice interface though, easy to use and returns your score immediately. Refugee^{talk page} 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, well if it's any comfort I don't think there's any code in there to enforce the time. Maybe it refuses to mark your test if you take longer than 10 minutes. If you look at the HTML it's a total clusterfuck. I hope Andy wrote that shit himself, because if he paid for it then he paid too much. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

13 out of 15. Two questions: how are any of the options in #7 an example of a check or balance, and does Andy really acknowledge that school prayer is illegal? Nihilist 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

14/15, non-American, never studied US civics beyond watching Schoolhouse Rock more than 30 years ago, 2 mins to do the test. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Same as ToP, excluding the Schoolhouse Rock part. I think there might be code for the 10 minute part, let me test it. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 02:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer is 'no.' Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 02:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like something easy to code in. Nihilist 02:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh god. The CSS. It burns my eyes. And Question 4? I got that wrong. I feel so stupid. 3:20. 14/15. 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WooHoo! 15/15, despite the fact a few of the questions make little sense. I think this tells me more about my understanding of the mind of Andrew Schlafly than US History, which is more than a little disturbing. DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's demoralizing that he considers the answer to question 7 to be A--"Shut up, Brx." 03:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

After looking it up on Wikipedia, yes, it is very disheartening — and i still don't understand how it's an example of a check or balance. Oh, and apparently it's not even attributed to the right person. Nihilist 03:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Kinda sad exam. Leading questions, emphasizing trivia, little critical thinking required. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 03:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

^ This. For the record, 15/15 in 5 minutes, despite being a dirty liberal atheist. However, more from knowledge of Andy than American history. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

13/15. Q's 6 and 7 wrong. I don't really understand Q 7 as none of them really seem to be examples of checks and balances. Damo^Hi 04:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Number 7 is certainly retarded, but if you know the nature of Andy's own stupidity you can figure out what he was getting at. 6 makes a little more sense, in that those in the military do have restrictions on speech, and whenever you see "public schools" in any Andy exam you know it's a reference to "censorship" of prayer, so both of those must be right, meaning the answer has to be all of the above. DickTurpis (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points Dick. I was really close to putting all of the above in 6, but I just didn't think that student speech in public schools could be censored. Thinking about it a bit, of course it can (students aren't free to walk around sieg-heiling for example), as can speech in the military. Damo^Hi 04:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a fun experiment to see which group of people did better at Andy's exams, one given a real course on American government or one given a course on Andy's obsessions. You can usually do pretty well on all his exams if you know Andy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Question 5 cannot be answered incorrectly, but grade inflation is not a conservative trait therefore goat. 06:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

No, the answer to question five is definitely judicial review.--"Shut up, Brx." 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 8 is certainly pretty despicable,and it certainly reminds me of Conservative's "if an arbitrary phrase is not addressed in an article or found in a search engine, my point is correct!" antics. Yes, the Establishment clause does not mention the exact statement of a wall of separation between church and state...but the intent and function of the establishment clause was in line with the phrase Andy mentions. In fact, that "wall of separation" comes from a quote from Jefferson on that very clause! I can only imagine that Andy told his students something along the lines of "the establishment clause didn't mention a wall of separation between church and state. Only liberals interpret it that way." That's almost as vile as the infamous push poll attack against McCain and his "illegitimate child(actually a disaster victim that he personally adopted.),and the fact that he's enforcing this absurd viewpoint through graded tests is frightful. Also, props to question 4 for highlighting Andy's bizarre obsession with homeschooling.WilliamR (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

14/15 in 6 minutes (which includes making Mrs K a cup of coffee) for a non-USAian, and never studied American civics, just studied the machinations of Andy Schlafly's mind. However, I got 15/15 in under 2 minutes when I immediately resubmitted the answers on the same page. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

8/15 in 5:36 including a go-over with the vacuum cleaner, know very little of some of this stuff, was just curious. Question 14 is so poorly thought out I need to scrub my eyes. Going to have to ditto Nihilist - so Andy accepts that school prayer is prohibited rather than allowed (or hell, encouraged)? I suppose that falls in with his "Public education is evil" shtick though...Also, I can't help but think that question 9, if Ken wrote the exam, would have Lawrence V Texas instead of Roe V Wade. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

14/15, only missing Q13, in 4:26. Frankly, I am surprised I did that well at 7 AM with no caffeine in the tank yet. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 12:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

12 out of 15 in 2 minutes 38. I know next to nothing about the US and it's government ecept for the fact that I probably know more than Andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In short, as a group we have done better than Andy's homeskoolers.London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question 12: What does the 14th Amendment have to do with ANYTHING regarding gender? --Seth Peck (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The 14th Amendment makes the states accountable to the Bill of Rights, I believe, so the 1st Amendment could be applied towards gender discrimination. Or something like that. This isn't my area of specialty--"Shut up, Brx." 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) So Congress only has power to legislate according to specific constitutional grants of authority. This is a rea, as opposed to wingnut fantasy, Constitutional check and balance. Oddly, the civil rights statutes (Title VII covers gender discrimination) have typically been passed according to Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. Look at Katzenbach v. McClung for a discussion of that in the context of race discrimination. One would expect a Reconstruction Era Constitutional amendment to apply to the very people it was meant to protect, but that's apparently not how Congress invoked it legislative power. The Lopez decision about guns near schools is another example of commerce clause regulation of something that makes very little sense in context. Why in the world guns near schools isn't a purely local problem, vs. one that has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, is a problem that's still being discussed among students of con law. As for gender discrimination under the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause was held to invalidate an Idaho statute that required the executor of an estate in probate to be male. Of note, that decision invalidated a state law - I'm not up on these things, but I'm not aware of any federal statutes dealing specifically with gender that passed Constitutional muster. The Violence Against Women Act was enacted according to Congress' Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment power, was held to be unconstitutional under both. I'm sure there are other examples. 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, Brx. By it's own plain language, the 14th would seem to apply only to the states - " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." However, the Supreme Court found that it was "reverse incorporated" to the federal government. Odd. There is an express federal analogue to 14th Amendment due process under the 5th Amendment that has not received uniform treatment by the federal circuit courts of appeals. 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh didn't read that very carefully. That's correct the 14th Amendment applies to the states and the federal gov't. 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain #7, the "checks and ballances" in andy land or out? What the fuck does a statement about telling someoen else to fix it, have to do with congress having a right to oversee the budget that is proposed by the pres, and the courts having the right to make sure laws are constutional? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

He thinks that a president joking about the executive refusing to enforce a final judgment of the Supreme Court is an example of checks and balances rather than something that would get the appropriate executive official sued for a writ of mandamus to require him to do his fucking job. 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the one that tripped me up as I couldn't discern anything which might fall under the title of checks and balances. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I had to turn my brain off and remember back to Teatards advocating Congressional Republicans flat out refuse to cooperate as a "check and balance" against Obama's rampant overspending and lust for war. Or something. 21:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

12/15. Not bad for a filthy furriner, with no knowledge of the subject, outside of general knowledge. Questions 5, 7 (what the hell question is that?) and 8 wrong. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 12:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

7 is a truly wacky but 5 and 8 are very straightforward. I wouldn't expect many USians to know that Marbury established SCOTUS' authority "to say what the law is," but you have no excuse for not knowing the answer to 8. I'll see you after class. 02:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to doubt your "drop your pants and grab your ankles" approach to teaching... --PsyGremlin^Parla! 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

15/15 in 4:28. As others said, the key is to think like Andy does, rather than focusing on facts or logic. It also establishes Andy's incompetence at indoctrination, if he can't get all of his homeschooled students to score 15/15 too. --DinsdaleP (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You missed Question 7 with an incorrect answer of x. The correct answer is y.

The total number of questions answered incorrectly is 1.

• • • • Steve G, your total score is 14 out of 15. ****

The total time elapsed was 2 minutes and 21 seconds.--75.140.157.105 (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservative of the Year

As if gold medals weren't enough, the entire set of Olympic athletes has been awarded the title of Conservative of the Year 2012. Truly their cup runneth over with joy. And why have these 11,000 sportsmen had their year crowned with this accolade? Because they are 'predominantly conservative, selfless, and hard-working'. Hard-working I don't doubt, but conservative???!!! Does anyone have the slightest shred of evidence for them being predominantly conservative? Or that any of them - or at least, more than just a handful - are sufficiently 'conservative' for Schlafly's taste? This just seems totally delusional. Cardinal Fang (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Andrew Schlafly has a delusional belief? What kind of leg are you trying to pull here? Nihilist 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't work out if he means all olympic athletes (even those commie Chinese ones) or just the Americans. He spent most of the pre-games predicting how the atheistic British would suck, and most of the games themselves trying to belittle most of the sports so he could still pretend that the British did poorly. Is this his new out? That all the athletes were conservatives? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How I imagine their reaction to such a "title". --Seth Peck (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing he means the US team - that's all that matters in his world. I'm surprised he didn't single out the homeschooled gymnasts and the idiot swimmer with the mouth grill. --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly must have forgotten that he spent much of the summer slagging off Michael Phelps because he had the temerity to go to a school/college, therefore was not hoam-skooled, therefore was not a True American Hero. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No one should be surprised by this; Andy always does a 180 when it suit his own vain political needs; we have always been at war with Eurasia.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jeeves: On reflection, he must mean just the Americans. Mo Farah is British and Muslim, i.e. cannot be a True Conservative™®©. The gold-medal-winning wrestlers and weightlifters from places like Iran and Kazakhstan are also Muslim, therefore are not only True Conservatives™®© but also agents of the Axisss of Eeevil. Presumably the Truly Conservative™®© USA team had no Muslims and if they were Muslim, they were competing for the USA, therefore were not True Muslims as per "No True Scotsman", therefore were most likely True Conservatives™®©. Does that sound right? Cardinal Fang (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Jpatt's crackin' up

"#LiberalChildrensBooks Winnie The Poo on Police Cars.". WTF is he on about? Scream!! (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hash tags. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I know but what the eff has WTP got to do with police cars & Liberals? Scream!! (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

They're making puns in which they change the titles of classic children's books to reflect their own conceptions of liberal values. JPatt is making a joke about liberal disdain for constituted authority with the image of someone shitting on a cop car. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaah! Pooh = Shit. Hadn't got that. I see! I suppose. Pretty silly (or crap!) Scream!! (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

#LiberalChildrensBooks Why my two mommies wrestle at night. Whoo! Isn't he a funny - he should be on the stage. ^{(It's OK - that's all I'm gonna copy here. You can have too much of a good thing.)} Scream!! (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sound of a man who hasn't been layed in a Geological era children. --Revolverman (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

What are you looking forward to from CP in 2013? I think the coverage of the Iranian presidential election could be a classic CP moment. Any action on gun control will be good, as well as the new fiscal cliff on March 1. As an Australian, I hope our election gets some coverage, but I doubt it. Should be interesting. Man of Perspective 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing if Kendoll can get through another entire year pretending the QE! campaign is a real thing. I'd like 200+ and booklets for next Christmas. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's always about Andy. In 2013 there will be a sporting story that comes to the fore; there will be an unspeakable tragedy involving guns, or climate, or disease; there will be a controversy about religion in the public sphere; a celebrity will die; Hugo Chavez will die or step down or he will do neither; Castro will die, or he'll appear in public looking reasonably healthy. Whatever happens, Schlafly will say something shockingly appalling and insensitive, or he will paint himself into a corner by making some outlandish prediction that fails to come true and will perform an anti-intellectual contortion act to avoid owning up to being wrong. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne to continue to gain the respect and trust of the Andy. Provided he has a sufficiently robust fake name/story lined up, he will be granted full sysop powers including oversight, delete and MPR/MPL posting privileges by the end of the year. Damo^Hi 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He'll have to be very good - I don't think Andy's made anybody a full sysop since it was posthumously revealed that TK had been leaking ZB and Fab Five e-mails, plus people like Addsion, Jallen and Douglas abandoning his project. I think the paranoia levels will mean that only the current Gang of Six will get and keep their sysop powers. But I hope I'm wrong. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 08:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing Andy politicize a new, completely unpolitical field, like he's done with relativity, math and the NFL. That's always a hoot. It'd be entertaining to see him classify bodies of water by politics. Lakes are obviously conservative, while constantly changing rivers are liberal claptrap. Or maybe he'll create a Conservative Periodic Table, removing all the liberal bias present in the table of elements. Helium is a noble gas, therefore conservative. Meanwhile, that promiscuous carbon is a product of Hollywood values. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There will be a couple of interesting elections: probably a special Senate election to replace John Kerry, and most deliciously, Chris Christie up for re-election in Andy's home state of New Jersey. Schlafly for Governor! rpeh •T•C•E• 08:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Christie will be forgiven for doing his job after the hurricane. Probably not during the primaries (assuming there is a serious challenger) , but he'll be the ultimate conservative during the general election. Damo^Hi 09:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing the foreskin of atheism getting caught in the zip of creationism, and other clumsy metaphors.London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As always, I think the best will come out of Andy choosing to be completely insane and unreasonable about some particular position. I'm just too used to Conservative being developmentally disabled, Karajou being stupid and angry, and Ed being passive aggressive. Andy is the only one who occasionally stuns me with a gold medal worthy display of mental gymnastics. Ego (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

With four years of Obama ahead, I expect Andy to be especially bitter and crazy, Ken will remain the attention-grabbing spoilt child, Ed will drift in and out whenever he gets smacked down in his extra-CP world, while Karajou will get even angrier against liberals and Muslims.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tim Tebow - He'll be traded to simply signed up by another team (most likely the Jaguars). Andy will play it as some sort liberal NFL/media/New York conspiracy and how Tebow will be welcome in "conservative" Florida, where Andy takes it from there will depend on how Tebow does. Higgs Boson - Most likely will have further confirmation, prompting Andy to downplay its significance, because physics honestly seem to scare him. As for Iranian elections; I expect little airtime on CP as to that crew all the candidates will be foreigners with funny sounding names.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm also looking forward to Andy crazily trying to divide more stuff among conservative or liberal. Maybe we'll learn which foods are liberal? What are the most conservative electronics? Is Linux for liberals?? The world needs to know, Andy! -GTac (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I second this. I would love to see how Andy politicizes concepts such as freeware and open source.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Linux is BOTP. MediaWiki too. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs love abortion. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs became a conservative posthumously. Keep up! Phiwum (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How quickly I forgot! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC & outdent) Locally in NJ, the election for governor will be front and center because it's a race with national exposure. Remember that Andy had trashed Christie as a RINO when he was first running, supporting an extremist named Steve Lonegan instead. When Christie won the primary, he suddenly became a conservative, and Andy's been flip-flopping between "Conservative Chris Christie" and "RINO Chris Christie" ever since. The degree to which Andy praises him or trashes on a weekly basis would make an interesting graph.

There are also some notable Supreme Court cases on the docket for 2013, especially with rulings on marriage equality to fixate on. Look for plenty of CNaV blog posts to be pushed on Conservapedia as Terry's crew cranks up the outrage before, during & after.

The Tebow-tracking will be fun but predictable (Seen any mention of Jeremy Lin by Andy this season?). What I like most from Andy is the pure randomness in his choice of subjects to judge the "conservativeness" of. I know that mentioning anything here is a guarantee that it'll be avoided there, but I'm looking forward to some unexpected, random "insight" like "Best Conservative Superheroes", "Best Conservative Snack Foods", "Best Conservative Board Games", etc.

Finally, as much as it'd be fun to ask why there's no "Question Atheism!" campaign, we should consider tracking what percent of the links on the CP Main Page go to QE! or CNAV. One percentage to track MPR links, the other for MPL links that are not purely internal, like "Popular Articles at CP" and "Conservapedia Projects". That would be your weekly tracking of how Andy cedes control of Conservapedia to simply be a portal to Ken and Terry's pet projects. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I fucking hate my job, so I'm going to work on that for a minute. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. Once your boss gets back from vacation and opens her e-mail, "hating your job" won't really be much of a problem for you. You sick bastard. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking a simple, hourly cron job working on a serialized map of domains and link counts. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Occasionaluse/mainpageright.py is the script I wrote. My first python program! It will increment counts by domain and domain-user from its last run. Occasionaluse (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Dinsdale

MPL

- as with most Christmas presents, it is not exactly what you wished for... --larron (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks, LArron. What I like about this perspective is that it shows the volatility of Ken's work - if I read it it correctly, the sharpness of the spikes shows a constant pattern of Ken's work being "trimmed" almost as soon as it's added. He can also never just be content with adding a single QE! link and calling it a day - they always come in sets. --DinsdaleP (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Magnificent, I presume the MPR would be even more erratic. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discuser? 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

MPR

I was quite surprised by the number of links! --larron (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How did you determine how many links were on a page for a given day? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've a database of (most of) the revisions of Conservapedia, so I just looked them up... --larron (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But in a given day, the number of links on the page can swing wildly. Do you just pick a time? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The graph depicts "day of revision" against "number of links" for all revisions - there are a couple of revisions per day and if the numbers vary, the day is seen as a verical line segment. --larron (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

MPR Links out

Domain	Links	%
conservativenewsandviews.com	79	17.03%
questionevolution.blogspot.com	75	16.16%
creation.com	42	9.05%
bertschlossberg.blogspot.com	19	4.09%
wnd.com	15	3.23%
politico.com	11	2.37%
usatoday.com	11	2.37%
thehill.com	11	2.37%
youtube.com	11	2.37%
newsbusters.org	10	2.16%
examiner.com	9	1.94%
foxnews.com	8	1.72%
telegraph.co.uk	8	1.72%
republicomment.blogspot.com	7	1.51%
cnsnews.com	7	1.51%
newsday.com	5	1.08%
rt.com	5	1.08%
TOTAL	464	100%

Out of last 500 changes. 464 links inserted. Only domains with 5 or more hits appear. NB: This double counts every time Andy rearranges something. Occasionaluse (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin activity

CP Admins

Name	Most recent edit	Comment	#all comments	#comments in 2012
AddisonDM	13-Jun-11		7000	0
Admin	18-Mar-07		100	0
Aschlafly	03-Jan-13		55200	7000
BenjaminS	22-May-10		1400	0
BethanyS	24-Jun-09		2200	0
CPWebmaster	24-Nov-10		900	0
CPanel	01-Jun-07		9	0
Chippeterson	06-Apr-11		4600	0
ChrisS	13-Nov-08		300	0
CollegeRepublican	None	Ken's deletion sprees	0	0
Conservative	03-Jan-13		53000	10000
David R	21-Apr-08		1000	0
DeborahB.	12-Dec-09		2400	0
DouglasA	27-Dec-12	only 4 edits in 2012	1800	4
DuncanB	30-May-10		900	0
Ed Poor	31-Dec-12		25700	1200
EdBot	21-Aug-10		3500	0
Freedom777	13-Jul-08	Ken's buddy	70	0
Joaquín Martínez	02-Jan-13		13700	1200
Jpatt	31-Dec-12		15000	1600
Karajou	03-Jan-13		19400	1940
PhilipB	23-Feb-09		900	0
RSchlafly	29-Dec-12		1700	40
PhyllisS	12-Jan-11		500	0
SharonS	27-Oct-09		5400	0
Taj	03-Jan-13		3000	300
TerryH	02-Jan-13	Only uses CP to linkwhore his own blog	6900	300
Will N.	26-Nov-07		1000	0
Ymmotrojam	06-Jul-08		900	0

Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing my spectacles, but I count what, 8 of 30 active users? This site is growing rapidly! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea Joaquín Martínez had been so active this year. When his masterpieces gave way to Ken's clip art on the main page, I thought he was dead. I genuinely wish him good luck in trying to keep the main page looking classy. Spud (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And so it begins

Hugo Chavez hasn't been seen since Dec 11th... ergo he's probably dead,^img like Castro.^img --PsyGremlin^Hable! 20:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If this was anyone else, I'd say this was a joke at our expense, because that was fucking clockwork by Andy. --Revolverman (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Imagine the sense of power that comes with being able to immediately identify massive conspiracies. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2I've never been able to understand this particular Andy-fixation. If you look at the world through Schlafly-tinted glasses, some of the other idiocies make sense, but this one fails on every level. I don't see how it benefits liberals that Castro continues to live; I don't see how liberals benefit from concealing his death. Yes, there's the propaganda argument, but if you're going for that angle, why pretend he's so ill that his brother has to take over?

It all comes down to Andy's definition of an "open mind": if you disagree with him you have a closed mind, but if he disagrees with you it's because he won't accept "liberal claptrap". The man is an idiot. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he just thinks everyone he hasn't seen in a couple of weeks is dead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't edited CP since November until today. Perhaps I had been lying in stasis? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like "Next Thursdayism". --Seth Peck (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen my wife in 6 hours. Should I start to worry? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I havent seen andy in the flesh since the "colbert show" debacle. Obviously he has been forcibly absorbed and assimilated by the KEN9000 collective. to deny this obvious fact would be an unmistakable act of liberal deceit Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The "they haven't been seen for a while so must be dead" thing is rather older than Andy's little fantasies. The old USSR wasn't above really airbrushing people out of history and Mao did his famous swim up the Yangtse to quash rumours of his death, apparently. Sphincter (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a fairly common thing. I'm old enough to remember the "Paul Is Dead" frenzy ca. 1969-70. The Beatles had been in everyone's mind for years. So when they went for a while without making public appearances and putting out records a fad started that one of them was dead. All sorts of crazy things then got interpreted as clues that McCartney was dead because that was the answer people were looking for. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember the Paul is Dead frenzy too! Great times! And speaking of that, has anyone ever seen Andy and Hugo Chavez in the same room at the same time? Or for that matter, Andy and Paul McCartney? Hmm? Simple (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone here read a website that said Paul was killed by the KKK, and didn't die in the car crash, but in Northern France (or England) in a Zombiefied state? God I wish I could remember the link to that site. --Revolverman (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We have an article about it, start your search there. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is losing editors

Brace for Andy blowing this out of proportion in 5... 4... 3... Vulpius (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've read that a few time recently. It is not really all that surprising because as the wiki gets more and more complete there are less things a casual contributor can really work on. No doubt there are other issues as well with rules and editors maintaining fiefdoms over their pet articles, but I'll bet the main reason is that it is getting harder for average people to contribute meaningfully. --Damo^Hi 02:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd think people in glass houses would avoid throwing stones. CP stopped "growing rapidly" about 3 years ago, and has been on a death spiral ever since. It still doesn't have anything like decent coverage of even basic subject areas (no teapot article to choose a random example.) They can't retain even their sysops, and the ones that do stay use it to spam. Compared to CP, WP is a hive of activity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It turns out Wikipedia is one of the top ten most popular websites in the inner solar system. •sad trombone• An outcry cometh (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here It Comes

Obama's massive tax increase will reduce revenues. See! Reagan was right. Never mind that the article is comparing this to the alternative of raising taxes on everybody, raising capital gains and dividend tax rates, raising estate tax rates, getting everybody with the AMT, etc., etc. There is no right-wing victory (making 99% of the Bush tax cuts permanent) that can't be of more value when twisted to be an Obama blunder. Whoover (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Headline in "lamestream media" "Obama walks on water!"

CP's take: " Obama unable to swim!"

C®ackeЯ

Conservapedians as Characters from fiction

Im kinda bored right now since its early morning here and im just waiting for some foccacia dough to rise next to the radiator, so naturally I started pondering what famous (or infamous) characters from fiction we visualize the denezins of CP as. Whether you think of Andy as Joffrey from Game of Thrones, Hurlbut as M Bison, or even Ken as Profion from the groincrushingly bad dungeons and dragons movie, what characters do you see the CP crew as? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 08:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken is more of a Walter Mitty, surely? --PsyGremlin^Tala! 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I immediately thought of Ken as Davros the Dalek. Permanently stuck in a chair and coming up with increasingly ridiculous plans for world domination.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 10:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I imagine Ken as AM from I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, minus the intelligence and power. Just a hateful, sadistic, egotistical prick. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 10:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I always found Ignatius Jacques Reilly from Confederacy of Dunces to have a great resemblance to Andy, though it applies nicely to Ken too. Just the whole amalgamation of egocentrism, idiocy and arrogance just perfectly matches with CP. --GTac (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a thing here comparing them all to characters from Lord of the Flies. Sophie^Wilder 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they could pretty much all be compared to Don Quixote, suffering from the delusion that they are battling against fantastic foes and winning, but they'd probably like that comparison, especially Andy with his half-baked ideas about chivalry. I'd also say that Andy is Owl from Winnie-the-Pooh. He thinks he's really clever, his peers seem to think he's really clever (or at least further the illusion that he's really clever when they speak to him) but the truth is that he's an ignoramus and a charlatan who doesn't hesitate to make up "facts" when asked for them.--Spud (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned it before. Andy - especially in regards to any talk about Obama - is J. Jonah Jameson. - Lardashe

I'll stick with Star Trek. Andy is probably Gul Dukat from DS9, in particular for his meltdown after losing the station to Starfleet. Ed Poor is Admiral Dougherty from Insurrection, who after being slapped down by Picard pulls rank and tells him to piss off. Anger Bear... Kes from Voyager, but only in the episode where she's really old and decrepit and sets about destroying the ship using only her mind. Catapultbuttocks is Admiral Leyton (DS9), because he is exactly the type who I'm worried would instigate a coup and declare martial law. Kenny is pretty much Richard Daystrom from the original series, the guy who built the M5 computer. Psychologically unstable, unable to admit that what he's done is just not working and eventually sent to psychiatric care. Fortunately, Kenny's cock ups won't kill people. I think that's everyone worth mentioning. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see Il Duce as Gul Dukat as Andy has the passion and personality of a mud brick. Personally when I view Conservapedia through the lens of Star Trek, I just imagine the Pakleds, including their dishonesty and deceptive behavior.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence specifically during that meltdown, obviously Gul Dukat is much more charismatic than a wooden post, which in turn is much more charismatic than elephant turds. Which is much more charismatic than Andy. But that breakdown, one day, will be Andy. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see Andy ever mentally breaking down like that; he'll just be defiant in his beliefs to the end.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Match the CP character to the Dickens character:

• Wackford Squeers: a hideously incompetent and arrogant teacher.
• Mr Bumble: an overbearing, self-important bully who loves ordering other people around.
• Fagin: a member of a minority religion who gives idiotic assignments to young people.
• Therese Defarge: a fanatical zealot who may once have been a decent person but is now driven by political extremism.
• David Copperfield / Oliver Twist / Nicholas Nickleby / etc etc: a perfectly pleasant, normal person, possibly a touch self-righteous, but clearly out of place in a mad world.
• Miss Havisham: bonkers.

Cardinal Fang (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For me, whenever I think of the Conservapedia admins and sysops the lineup that always comes to mind is the "Five Bad Band" from TVTropes. Andrew Schafly is the "Big Bad", though a Non-Action version since while he is ostensibly in charge really doesn't actually do much and spends most of his time in his own little world. Conservative fills in the "Dragon" role these days, vacillating between Dragon-In-Chief (since he pretty much is running things de facto by this point) and Dragon With An Agenda (from his QE spamming). Ed Poor fits the "Evil Genius" spot since he is arguably the (marginally) best-spoken and wiki savvy, while Karajou ranks as the “Brute” with his hair trigger banhammer. As for Jpatt and TerryH I think they split the "Dark Chick" slot between them since, despite being a part of the regular crew, they have their own obsessions and goals. --Tygrehart

Jesus. When Ed's the genius in your team then you're really in trouble. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I picture either Ken or Conservative as Grima Wormtongue, spewing vile about anything and everything Danoso (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "either Ken or Conservative" a bit like "either Count Dracula or the vampire"?--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry... Ken or Kara Danoso (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah. TK was and always be the Grima Wormtongue of CP. Ken and Kara might have the ambition and de facto authority, but they are nowhere near the manipulators or backstabbers like he was. --Tygrehart

Yeah, spot on. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

kenny, with his speel cheeker, at the double.

4 edits^img and he still can't spell complacent correctly. No need to thank me ken, just get the seplling right this time, or more likely burn all evidence of it. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll defend Ken by saying that that spelling makes more sense and is better. Nihilist 18:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind — it's actually a different word entirely. Nihilist 18:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2) I'm guessing Ken is still using Netscape, or IE. Otherwise, you'd think he'd notice the little red lines under his misspellings. Also, what's that law where you criticize somebody's spelling and make a mistake yourself? --PsyGremlin^Speak! 18:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Skitt's Law — although in this case, Ken's 'misspelling' was purposeful, and Oldusgitus's was a typo, which i'm not sure was unintended. Nihilist 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Always a god idea to marc deliberut sapling misteaks with a hidden comment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A mystery!

"Why do some people not subscribe to my batshit crazy delusions?" Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"There is no religious test for office in the United States. In fact, the U.S. Constitution prohibits such a test. So why the opposition to recognizing the likelihood that the American President is Muslim?" Thats such a jump in logic, I think that makes Andy a BASE jumper. By his logic, he can also be Secret Jewish, Secret Shinto, Secret... --Revolverman (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why the opposition? Sit down and allow me to talk to you about evidence, your lack of it and the other side's abundance of it, then allow me to punch you in the face for being an obtuse git who wouldn't acknowledge that Obama's a Christian if the voice of God Metatron came down and told you himself without any ambiguity before lighting you on fire and sending you down below. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama's religion doesn't matter, but obviously he's a Muslim and we will keep pushing that idea. Right, sure. «-Bfa-» 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be surprised and all, but every time Andy gets hit with way too much information that threatens to destroy the belief Obama is a secret Muslim, all he (and his crony Jpatt) keep screaming "HE'S A MUSLIM!" at the top of their lungs to drown people out. Hell, I'm surprised GregG and Wschat (who seem like the only two editors with any sense on this issue) haven't been blocked yet for the grievous crime of having the temerity of believing in reasonable doubt. Speaking of that, here's the response of the neophyte who got fed up when he realized Andy was completely insane and Andy's response. Arcane (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Arcane

User:Conservative gets cold feet

In one of his more lucid moments, Conservative criticizes Andy's masterpiece cp:Mystery:Why Do Some Oppose the Likelihood that Obama Is Muslim? on its talkpage:

Because it is not likely. He eats pork and drinks alcohol and had his daughter baptized at a crazy "liberal Christianity" "church". Obama is a narcissist who worships himself and he is sympathetic to Islam because his liberal theology is a hodgepodge of various religions. He hates biblical Christianity.[1] He is not a Christian. See also: cp:Fallacy of exclusion and cp:Confirmation bias. I hope that helps despite how much some people want Obama to be a Muslim.Conservative 02:16, 6 January 2013 (EST)

It's still crazy ("He hates biblical Christianity"), but not as close-minded as Andy. So a user asks on Conservative's "mail-page":

Dear sir, Thank you for adding your thoughts to cp:Talk:Mystery:Why Do Some Oppose the Likelihood that Obama Is Muslim?. Since this is a mystery/debate page, would your comments be more appropriate on the main mystery page instead? Wschact 02:43, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Conservatives reaction? Abort! Abort!

--larron (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, JPatt.

You're gonna let the new guy do you like that^img? Hope he at least had the courtesy to give you a reach-around. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's totally hilarious when you pretend CP editors are gay. I mean, anyone who takes it up the ass is totally a sissy faggot. What a brilliant insult. Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're being a little precious there, Phiwum. You know, precious like a sissy-boy....see what I did there? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I'm willing to own it. Sue me. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The ice moon of Jupiter, Europa, does not have enough cold water to apply to the burn JPatt just recieved. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 21:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we still on this "don't make any comment that might be interpreted as anti-gay" thing? I thought we settled that months ago. SirChuckB^{That is all} 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It does occasionally rankle to see one's sexuality "otherized" like this. Older queers, such as myself, understand a bit better; still, if someone were to come up with a rather universal way to indicate humiliating submission I'd be all fer seeing it. C®ackeЯ 22:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Because dyke Sotomayer can grant exemption for Muslim prisoners, [2] it won't be long before I have the last laugh on this topic. I can wait -Notafanofshitdicks --76.188.25.61 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Because a dietary exemption in observance of a specific religious holiday (Ramadan) is TOTALLY equivalent to a corporation denying mandated health insurance coverage, right? I think this is my favourite: "Religious rights and any other rights should not apply to prisoners." Unless they're Christians, right, guys? I like the "or any other rights" part, too. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we can bring back Template:Ken? Because I always thought it was funny to knock at his bigoted insecurities.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish we could. We've already axed most of the Conservapedia namespace, why can't the remaining pages be honestly juvenile? Vulpius (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Little does JPatt know that his "I give up, you're too stupid" can be applied to literally everything on CP that's been touched by the greasy hands of their cabal. THERE IS A CABAL. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Punctuation"

Yep, just fixing up the punctuation.^img Nothing to see here. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit disappointing as I was expecting something more egregious; but yes, another example of Andy engaging in Conservative deceit. Генгис^pillaging 11:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Causality

Jim Jordan, one of the... (ahem. scribble, scribble, scribble^img) ... GREATEST CONSERVATIVE SPORT STARS^img!

It's almost like saying things critical of Democrats is the ticket to getting your name on that list, not sporting achievement. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the guy is an accomplished wrestler, so he certainly qualifies for the list. Not that he was ever on Schlafly's radar before--"Shut up, Brx." 04:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, He does....

This one had me literally laughing out loud:
Andy: "some who idolize Obama think that he is an atheist, when in fact he is likely a Muslim"
--Night Jaguar (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is why they need a "Who?" template like Wikipedia. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 12:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this funny idea that things you put in it ought to be true. Conservatives know that truth has a liberal bias. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the only people who go with the "Obama is an atheist" angle are those on the religious right, about every atheist I know views him as a Christian in addition to being too catering to his fellow religionists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Even Conservative doesn't agree^img, but his lack of machismo conflicted with standing up to anyone who has more power than him. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I put the original content on the picture's page:

Because it is not likely. He eats pork and drinks alcohol and had his daughter baptized at a crazy "liberal Christianity" "church". Obama is a narcissist who worships himself and he is sympathetic to Islam because his liberal theology is a hodgepodge of various religions. He hates biblical Christianity.[3] He is not a Christian. See also: cp:Fallacy of exclusion and cp:Confirmation bias. I hope that helps despite how much some people want Obama to be a Muslim.Conservative 02:16, 6 January 2013 (EST)

More proof: Obama picks Hagel for DoD because Hagel hates the gays. Muslims like Obama all hate the gays.

I guess we have good, Christian homophobia and bad Mooselim homophobia. Whoover (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But don't Christians like Kendoll also hate gays and oppose the Iraq war? The only true way to tell if he's a Muslim is to see if he weighs the same as a duck. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought Obama was pushing homosexual agenda. I'm confused. Vulpius (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The conservative view of reality, aka Truthiness, is based on quantum theory. Like Schroedinger's Cat, any fact is conveniently multi-state. When in his Liberal Orbital, Obama is for the homosexual agenda. When in his Muslim Orbital, he is homophobic. It's like his musical ability: Muslim Obama hates dancing but Nigger Obama sings like Al Green and makes white women swoon. Whoover (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed...." --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah george orwell. Truly a great conservative hero. Seriously, why the hell did andy ever start thinking orwell was on "his team"? As for Andy's further groincrushingly stupid and petty idiocy, it just confirms the idea he sees Obama as his own personal nemesis as well as the muslamicatheistdarkierabblerousercommunistdamnedhomosexualnazipedarist antichrist. Which makes me even more sure andy genuinely sees himself as some kind of "holy crusader" chosen by god, since if andy hates and fears obama then clearly god does as well.

Andy seems to have latched onto the anti-communist part of Animal Farm, not the betrayed revolution where the leaders turn their back on the ideals of the revolutionists, and become as bad as the Tsars. CS Miller (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My personal theory is that Andy read Orwell and liked the message (or his understanding of it), but can't accept the fact he liked a socialist. Thus, Orwell must have really been a conservative in his worldview. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I really can't see andy ever have read any of Mr Blair's books. Can you imagine him sitting down with Keep the Aspidistra Flying or The Road to Wigan Pier, let alone 1984 or Animal Farm. He's read a synopsis somewhere, watched a film version of one of them or had mummy explain them to him from her distorted right wing standpoint and now thinks he knows what they mean. You can't read Down and Out and genuinely think Orwell was anything other than left wing his entire life. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes me curious however is whether his utter fixiation and obsession with obama stems from him simply being a popular, vaguely left wing, and uppity ni...blackguy, or whether Andy really is that bitter over a popular, vaguely left wing, and uppity ni..blackguy succeeding where white, wealthy, and entitled andy failed, and living out andy's most cherished power fantasies Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I gots a red telephone

Pot meet kettle. I don't edit a blog disguised as a wiki for years claiming atheism is going to end the next year. I don't troll to everyone claiming I may be more than one person. I don't delete edits, I don't oversight edits, I don't protect pages from the facts. And if staying out of pointless conversations is a key attribute to machismo, I guess that explains why no one will debate you. But, wait, are you calling Andy's Obama is a Muslim! stance "pointless"? Watch where you tread, boy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bait and switch

If you thought that this paragraph:

"Meanwhile, someplace, somewhere in a far away land, a group of people are listening to an orator, a caring and wonderful man, as he asks why so many have so much, and others have so little. Follow me he says, I’ll make things fair. I’ll give you what you deserve."

ought to be followed by "And the crowd chants, Jesus! Jesus!" you'd be wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That'd be a nice twist, but instead he ends the piece with the same old nonsensical Obama-hating. Nihilist 22:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats right. Supporting social equality and opposing millions of people being left to suffer and die because they cant afford the artificially raised prices of basic medicine while their tax dollars feed the ultra rich and their homes and money is stolen by shitty loans, asking that the less wealthy not be treated as subhuman, and placing the rights of women above the feelings of the far right on zygotes makes you an evil genocide supporting satanic communist. Duke Hurlbut has thus spoken, so all you peasants get back to crawling in the gutter. What kind of godless faggot would try to help the poor anyway?! (Also why did he use the same skull picture twice?) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

1) He used the same picture twice because he ALWAYS uses the same picture twice. I have no idea why.
2) This reminds me of the old saying "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Carlaugust (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki

I assume the spammer is from here [hence the signature spam], and I beg your attention, for just a moment

STOP

Thank you,

Brenden (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki

Wat r u Doing

Rationalwiki

Stahp

Care to elaporate on just what you want to stahp? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Theres... so many more people, besides rationalwiki, who look at conservapedia, many more of which are more inclined to commit petty wiki vandalism. --^Mikal 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean you people (I think), but rather some random person who looked at RW, and thought, hey this is funny, I'm going to plaster it's name all over CP. I also presumed s/he frequented this page.Brenden (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry, it's not you. Brenden (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okiedokie. Still don't get why people still bother spamming conservapedia anymore. At least spamming a few choice pictures of black men's genitals on stormfront occasionaly results in a few chuckleworthy reactions, but CP is pretty much dead with regards to conventional trolling Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know.... I did love the "Moar Hitler" attacks from a few years back. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh yes, I was the master at 'Moar Hitler'. Back when I cared about such things. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another tedious question about the obviously deranged.

I hesitate to bring this up, because, as we all know, Conservative has some apparent mental issues. But I'm constantly stunned by the way he values public opinion over truth. Not only is he obsessed with claims about the popularity of creationism, or the fact that a predominantly atheistic (and overpopulated) nation has a low birth-rate, but he also never argues about the truth of, say, global warming. Instead, he argues that the public is unlikely to be interested in the matter, because they want jobs (well, more to the point, because the economy is going to collapse on Tuesday or something).

Add to this his remarkable concern about web page hits. If the evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory regarding the origin of species, then how come Dawkin's web page hits fell some time after his last book publication and its attendant publicity?

Honestly, what addled thought process is at work here? Phiwum (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

He knows that real facts aren't on his side, so he resorts to 'public opinion' and other obviously-fallacious forms of reasoning to reduce the cognitive dissonance. Nihilist 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's simpler than that. We've previously established that he doesn't actually understand the graphs, their scales, the concepts they represent or how they are metered. His understanding is really only on the most basic level, that a graph going down is "bad" and one going up is "good." Sometimes he'll even post a graph where the immediate trend is down, but the overall trend is up. He has this one trick, and it's all he knows how to do. He even sets himself "goals" based on the graphs, without any reference to how his actions actually effect them. In short, he has the mental capacity of a small child. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, hence my mention of his glee over the fact that, some time after Dawkins releases and publicizes a book, his web site hits naturally decrease. Phiwum (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If Ken had a modicum of critical thinking skills then he wouldn't be a creationist. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If Ken had a modicum of critical thinking skills the he wouldn't be a [insert the noun of a political, social, or (pseudo)scientific position you disagree with here]. Nihilist 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There are creationists who are rather more capable of critical reasoning than User:Conservative. We can all (here) agree that creationism is remarkably bad science or a remarkably bad imitation thereof, but even in that crowd, Conservative stands out as addlebrained. Phiwum (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's simpler than that. It's that. It's the whole "best of the public" thing. The "elite": scientists, professors, people with higher education, people paid to think, etc., are consistently at odds with his world view. This is why the view of the "rest," quantity versus quality if you will, is so important. Whoover (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, his comments on global warming are different. He's not claiming that the average man knows better what is true. He's claiming that the common man doesn't care about the climate, because the economy sucks. It's not your average appeal to popularity. It's some weirder view that all that matters is popularity, not truth (which is different than the claim that popularity is a reliable measure of truth). Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Compared to the shit pulled by an increasingly deranged group conservatives, this is refreshingly honest. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

China's birthrate is a direct result of their government's one-child population control rule. Just thought I should put that out there.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, right. Look, no offense, but I'd wager everyone present realizes that. (By the way, the one-child policy is not so onerous as it seems for privately employed persons, from what I understand. That's not to say that it's a negligible burden on a significant portion of the nation.) Phiwum (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. I'm not sure exactly on the numbers, but having an additional child beyond the One Child rule might be punished by, say, a $5,000 fine. That's an insummountable barrier to most people, but it's about the cost of a second hand car. Even someone on a modest income could pay it if they really, really wanted to. It's mainly to stop rural families having 12 kids. --Sasayaki (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Foreign policy" is a liberal concern.

What?^img Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new there. I recently read an essay by Jerry Pournelle from the early 80s where he (I assume sincerely) assumed the US didn't have a foreign policy as such. Maybe it's a part-isolationist, part-three wise monkeys wingnut thing London Grump - don't talk to me about the fucking olympics (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Jerry Pournelle is off his nut. He'd fit in quite well at CP I think. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So Reagan telling Gorby to "pull down that Wall" was what... a liberal thing? It gets harder and harder to keep up with Andy. And damn those liberals for messing with Iran's nuclear policy. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 10:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Pournelle may be a moron, and his old Byte columns were masterpieces of self-centeredness, but I'll forgive him anything for The Mote In God's Eye. Wonderful book. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And Lucifer's Hammer. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberals hate power, but conservatives hate Iran. Can anyone tell me Andy's policy on Iranian nuclear power? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If he's at all consistent [guffaw], it would be "nuclear weapons don't kill people; people kill people. If Iran is denied nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad would simply strangle every resident of Tel Aviv with his bear hands." DickTurpis (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama's religion

And if he suddenly announced he was a supporter of the 'Jedi faith'/Invisible Pink Unicorn/FSM/Last Tuesdayism what would CP do? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Any reference to Obama being a Muslim would immediately be deleted, Andy would claim he'd always said Obama wasn't a Christian, Karajou would block anybody who asked 'But didn't you say he was Muslim?" and Ken would defeat atheism and homosexuality on the internet. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys slow? It doesn't matter what Obama says because he'll say anything to deceive people about his true Muslim faith. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention eat pork, drink beer and dance. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Long live the confused Church of England: Henry VIII gets given the title 'Defender of the (Catholic) Faith- a title retained for the Protestant faith that evolved from his dispute with the Pope, no women bishops (yet) but men wear dresses, you can be gay (but not do it), and you can mix and match your services with 'high and crazy' (Catholic flavoured), 'broad and hazy' and 'low and lazy': and you don't actually have to believe in God to be a priest. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What's that got to do with Andy and co. insisting that Obama is a Muslim, BoN?--Spud (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The question I would like to see Andy answer is this: "what evidence, if any, would you accept as sufficient proof Obama is a Christian?" MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be a total generic cop-out, something along the lines of "I would believe Obama was a Christian if he stopped attacking Christian values with his policies". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(from co.)It would go like this, Obama attends church at least once per month. It's that easy. Give 1 hour a month to the Lord. Instead he goes 5 times in four years but golfs 110 times. Priorities. --76.188.25.61 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point: golf is very central to Qur'anic teaching and Muslim theology more broadly. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only imagine the fracas conservatives would try and throw about him disrupting the worship of others with his presence. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Masterful inconsistency

Andy:

Southern Christian values: Alabama wins its 3rd national title in 4 years.

Why are atheistic parts of the Nation so lousy in college sports?

THEY BEAT A FUCKING CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY Occasionaluse (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From a red state, and a university suing for exemption from federal health care rules that require insurance to pay for contraception. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because the "atheistic" parts of nation prefer schools that actually provide educations rather than football teams? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Where are these supposed "atheistic" portions of the nation that suck at NCAA football?

2. He does know that Alabama recruits nationally right? That the majority of players are from outside of the state of Alabama?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

They come for Christ, they stay for football. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At the secular, public University of Alabama.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This week the FOIA is awful

Karajou ranting on about how criminals are going to steal his guns or something. Anyone want to chip in on a FOIA request? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the old conservative 180. Before this list was published: "owning a gun makes you less likely to be the victim of a crime". After this list was published: "releasing this information means these people are more likely to be victims of a crime!" DickTurpis (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, only sooper-seekrit guns protect you from crime. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My head's spinning. I thought the idea was that you needed a gun so you could shoot the people trying to steal your things. So is he now claiming that you are safer if you don't have a gun? It seems that he's railing at a jackass but being a complete dumb-ass. Генгис^unbelieving 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this even a point of contention? He's saying that -before- the list was published, gun ownership would make you safer. Because the list was published, theoretical bandits would have tactical information to raid the house. Is there a firearm that could be stolen? Is the family poorly armed? He thinks that the published list is threatening the advantage gun owners would have had otherwise. Move along, peopleWilliamR (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfettered use of the first amendment is teh bad. But the second amendment is Sacred and no regulations are teh best! C®ackeЯ 07:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Owning a gun makes you (the person) less likely to fall victim to a crime. Owning a gun makes your empty house while you are at work MORE likely to fall victim to a crime.I can only protect what I am with. It's not inconsistent, no one needed that information, there was nothing journalistically important about it, it was just a fucking disaster. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cue Garret Morris:

"Hugo Chavez is still dead!" Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As horrible as it is, I can't wait for Chavez/Castro to die so I can watch the gymnastics from Andy. Also, it would make my 2013 if we could find a dead guy who Andy insisted was still alive, but I expect we will have to wait until Obama passes. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus? Vulpius (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There won't be any gymnastics, it'll just be "the lookalike died" or "they finally gave up the charade, what a victory for conservative common sense". X Stickman (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This one won't last long.

Oh dear, ken's^img problems summed up in one post. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is his problem that he's behoofed then? Must make using a keyboard pretty hard. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

if someone told me Ken was a Donkey who could type, I might believe that. --Revolverman (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to believe he's a donkey who can't type. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that le mot du jour at CP is "jackass". Генгис^unbelieving 10:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Onion feels your pain, Ken. 81.137.227.129 (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have broken up Saul's paragraph, but seriously, if you consider that an insurmountable wall-o'-text…. Ken, try not to be as blatant with your ignoring of people's arguments for completely trivial reasons. Nihilist 16:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

On my display Saul's paragraph takes up 13 lines. Just out of interest I went to one of Ken's articles, Evolution was the first that I thought of. After an intolerably long introduction section, I came to the first titled section , Theory of Evolution - Mutations and the Life Sciences in General which is also exactly 13 lines long. What a hypocrite you are Ken. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Saul here. In my defense for writing behoof instead of behoove, it was 2 AM and I didn't really give a damn since I knew he wasn't going to read what I had posted anyways. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SaulShinichi? As in Solzhenitsyn? --larron (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nukes for all.

Flying in the face of every court ruling ever, Terry opines that the 2nd amendment doesn't permit any sort of gun control at all^img. What a brilliant legal mind he has. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you gotta sympathize with poor old tosser. For him the apocalyptic wank fantasy of civilization collapsing, billions suffering and dying, and the world entering a new dark age as hideously violent and heavily armed psychopaths take over the ruins is the sole thing in his life keeping him going. He wants access to all the freudian sized heavy guns he dreams of so he would be able to finally become High Duke of New Jersey and enforce his brand of theocracy the moment he thinks the government isn't watching. Right now all he can do is bitterly sharpen his machete and phone Andy every 5 minutes to ask if he can start the "purge" yet Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 04:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, our only saving grace is that Tossbucket will be too busy going full retard with whatever machine gun he has locked away in his basement to actually enforce his will on anyone. --Revolverman (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, once he has his generator people will respect his authoritah. People will just obey his orders on the basis that he's the caveman with the fire. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Could YOU live under Terry in exchange for power? --Revolverman (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly wonder just how he expects to be able to rise to the top of whatever post apocalyptic pile would exist in NJ after the apocalypse, let alone assume dictatorial status and have his own private army and theocracy solely because he claims to have a generator. Just what does he think will happen when he marches into the middle of town gun and machete in hand, and pulls his "BOW TO ME!!! I AM YOUR LORD AND MASTER BECAUSE I HAVE POWEEEEEERRRRR!!!!!!" schtick on dozens if not hundreds of scared, hungry, and angry people (who have also gone salvaging for arms and shit remember)? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I posted here when he first made the original post, Terry's generator-ocracy dream is at best silly and delusional and at worst downright dangerous. Any attempt to seriously implement it will fail and probably in a way that will result in his arrest or his death. It really is one of the loopiest things I've read in some time. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Has Chucky ever elucidated how he would continue to fuel his generator in a post-apocalyptic world? Does he have a direct pipeline from the strategic petroleum reserve? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well clearly, Objectivist Jesus will have his hookup! --Revolverman (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Babe Ruth: Model Catholic

Apparently, Il Duce thinks it's a Catholic trait to bang whores and drink copious amounts of liquor. Catholic values, hell yeah! I guess. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Compared with the priests, the man was practically a saint. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; when you sleep around with a lot of people but make sure all of those people are adults and the sex is consensual, you already exceeded the sexual morality of much of the Catholic priesthood by a wide berth.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess as long as they weren't using birth control. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 14:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A little late for trimming the verge, don't you think?

Many internets to those who recognize that quote.

Anyway, seems as though Andy keeps trimming Conservative's QE! blog edits on the main page, blatantly and now more frequently. I guess since he has no spine to stop Conservative's spamming, he just cleans up after him. Reminds me when I was a kid at Disney... they had a parade with horses who just trotted along while globs of ripe shit rolled out of them in unison. Immediately after the horses, a single janitor follows from behind with a giant broom and dustpan to clean it up before the next part came. (My family and some others would clap and cheer for him)

I've yet to see Conservative even address Andy directly or vice-versa on their site, and any sort of mention of one to another is met with silence (from Andy) or mockery (from Conservative). Is there any known communication between the two, or are they just too embarrassed of one another and they just do their own thing? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't droppin' no eaves, Mr. Gandalf. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but it won't last. Ken's unhinged need for attention and to feel important will compel him to reach further (such as replacing MPR with his own blog, which he did once), but at the end of the day Andy's in charge and CP is the only "successful" thing in his life and won't let it go. Eventually Ken will reach too far, get smacked down, then the build up cycle will repeat itself. --Sasayaki (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

They used to communicate with each other. Come to think of it, the last back and forth conversation that I can remember between Andy and Ken was when Ken asked for video embedding to be enabled on the site. At first, Andy didn't understand the question and then he brushed him off with an "I'll think about it". That was a good few months ago now. Ken has posted on Andy's talk page since then but I can't remember him addressing Andy directly. Instead he was telling users who begged Andy to put an end to Ken's crap posts and abusive comments that it wasn't going to happen. So, yeah, they probably now just make each other cringe as much as they do us.--Spud (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say ken has learned to hold andy in utter contempt, even if he does not say it. For him conservapedia is just the Ken Show, a platform for him to strut around and pose as some internationally feared and renowned right wing showman, its sysops mere pawns for his "great game plan", it's owner a has-been who would not dare remove him, and from this stage he tries to remake the world in his image by editing himself into a so-called encyclopedia which he can pretend is all "fact" by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. In any normal wiki this would lead to him being booted in a heartbeat, but at CP his self agendizing just so happened to initially match the general stances of the site and it's owner until it was far to late to remove him, since he was easily the biggest contributor. Since andy has shown himself to be an utter coward regarding any and all confrontations, he is too scared to act and just clings to his own delusions for comfort, so Ken is essentially the King of CP now.Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 08:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well they don't call it Aschlaflyapedia, do they. --Sasayaki (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Bizarely I would reckon kenny does not see himself as right wing. I think he sees himself a conservative, with a small c, rather in the mold of the left of the UK tories. He rarely rants on abortion that I can recall and onyl really tends to be totally out there on the subject of evolution. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's because he is planning on making big changes to the abortion article when video embedding is finally allowed. Then he's going to post an epic pro-life film that won't leave a dry eye in the house. And he was muttering about launching a major Internet anti-abortion project, but then Question Evolution came up instead. Still, I would agree that Ken is not much of a political animal, his religion is what defines him. Whereas Andy divides the world into liberals and conservatives, Ken divides it into true Christians and everybody else. Of course, a true Christian, like a true Scotsman, can mean whatever Ken wants it to mean.--Spud (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, the famed Conservapedia Anti-Abortion Project, the grand project that ol' Kenny promised would speed out of the yard like a mag-lev bullet train and smash abortion once in for all; too bad they could never get the engine to start. Ditto for his even less successful Anti-Socialism Project; and then there was briefly sputtering Richard Dawkins Project that has since died a slow lingering death through neglect.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lakers stink, but so does Andy's sports analysis

Actually, Andy isn't wrong in the newest addition to the WIGO:CP. The Lakers are "unlikely" to make the playoffs. They are trailing in the playoff picture and are thus not likely to make the playoffs. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. Where Andy really screws the pooch though is where he puts the blame. Of course on the Media and the Libruls, as if knowledge of sports has anything to do with politics, or vise versa. Chaosof99 (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

They are trailing in the standings, to be sure, but I figured it was too soon for Conservapedia to be Proven Right®. They'll be proven right when the Lakers are mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 12:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Worst College Majors

Most people will agree with some of the entries on the list (even if at the level of 'if that's what some people wish to waste their time and money on...') but why US history (and golf management studies is likely to give people practical business skills). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I don't know how things are anning out for people who majored in History in college--it'll get you into law school or teacher's college, for sure--but have you seen the job market for Ph.Ds in history? Grim, my friend. Grim. 2. Because all they teach you about now in US History is women and African Americans and workers and Indians and poor people and nothing about the great dead white males who really built this country and wanted freedom for everybody. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I fucking hate the idea that a college major is worthless if you don't become rich from it. Nihilist 16:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the relevant WIGO, and ain't about to go looking, but a close family member took a PhD in history (not concentrated on US, but mid east) and made a nice living working for the government. His baccalaureate degree, on the other hand, together with some loose silver, got him several cups of regular American coffee. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So how are Andy's engineering and law degrees working for him then? Vulpius (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone need to do a degree in US history? You can learn all you need to know from a handy-dandy online course, and there's no textbook to buy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Sedition

Call the FBI/Secret Service/DHS. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I see he calls his declaration "unanimous". It doesn't mean what you think it means, Pratty. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck are ya'll talking about? Phiwum (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Guessing this. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If this be treason make it vague, ridiculous and over-dramatic. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And use made-up words like "dissolvement", while plagiarizing phrases like "When in the Course of human events..." Phiwum (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still here bitches--76.188.25.61 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you still here? Too lazy to rename your twitter? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't get butthurt about Twitter.--76.188.25.61 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, because we all wish we were as clever as this. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All his hashtag bandwagon jumping is great. It's like he's an android exquisitely programmed to be unfunny. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfunny to liberals, damned shame. --76.188.25.61 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No johhny reb, you are actually very funny to 'liberals'. Just not quite in the way you either think nor would like to be. We laugh at you for a reason johnny reb, a very good reason. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am curious to why he even wrote that? We all know those words won't be followed by action, so its all rather impotent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh JPatt. You know, your impotent rage is very perplexing. I am not a liberal in my own country (down here in the colonies where our healthcare, education, child mortality, freedom of speech and economic freedom is better in orders of magnitude in comparison to the USA) though I would be very liberal by your standards so your comments are truly bewildering. And we don't so much laugh at people like you but are genuinely baffled by your behaviour, as well as the actions of people like Terry Hurlbut who, incidentally and somewhat ironically, is a perfect example of the need for gun control. Do carry on. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry is a perfect example of the need for birth control. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 02:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Awwww, is JPatt stamping his widdle feet in impotent rage again before throwing his toys out of the pram? Darkmind1970 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt he wrote it at all. It's probably a copy-paste from some facebook wingnut community. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I notice Johhny's rant is very short of examples (and I refudiate dissolvement") - perhaps he'd like to share what rule of law has been ignored, what laws the politicans have written for themselves and what law for the people, what rogue govt agencies are there, what emergency appropriations and by executive orders have there been, what unelected judges are you talking about - the majority conservative SCOTUS, what databases of domestic spying - you mean the ones set up by the Patriot Act? And etc, etc. All I see is somebody repeating the paranoid bleating of a group that is starting to realise they are no longer relevant. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 02:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It boild down to this , Psy: There's a black guy in the White House. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it makes much difference really. He'd be doing the same regardless of which Democrat was in office. It's nothing personal, I'm sure he just hates Democracts. Damo^Hi 03:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This is Mr. "Muslim Agenda" we're talking about. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't get caught up with the details. If it were Hilary it would be the "feminist agenda". The articles would have the same intent, just with different focusses tailored to whoever it happens to be. Damo^Hi 04:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a sexist as well as a racist. Doesn't make him any less of a dick. Or any more of a Christian, another thing he fails at. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The CP goon squad are largely a hateful bunch but one can usually find some facet that shows a modicum of humanity; even anger bear with his saber-tooth cat drawings exhibits something different. But Jpatt and TerryH are both festering turds of impotent rage with no apparent redeeming qualities whatsoever. Генгис^mutating 09:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I heard once that as a 20 yr old, Obama looked at a Muslim. Part of his Muslim Agenda? You decide. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

They always seen so very mad about "unelected judges" even though the constitution that they claim to love specifically set it up this way.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"unelected judges" is conservative slang for "Judge I can't vote out of office because they voted against my issues." SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 05:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, JPatt? The word is "dissolution," not "dissolvement." Just a friendly bit of constructive criticism. --Phentari (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy's Man-Crush on Timmy Tebow Continues.

Andy goes all white knight on his QB in distress. It's really quite cute. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens to players who can't play in the NFL due to shitness? Is there some bush league they get relegated to, or do they have to go get real job-type jobs? I can see Tebow being hot shit on the touring preacher circuit. Andy would probably jizz himself if Tebow came to preach in Jersey. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

He'll end up in the Canadian League, probably. If not, it's Arena Football. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Would that also prove God has a sense of humor? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I really love that Andy thinks the NFL, a collection of incredibly wealthy, overtly religious athletes with teams owned by insanely rich men is a haven of liberal behavior... I mean, when the Minnesota Vikings punter came out strongly in favor of Gay Marriage, the sports media went nuts, it had never really happened before. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 05:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a "QUESTION TEBOWLUTION" Campaign. WoD

The reason Jacksonville changed their minds isn't a mystery as Andy suggests. The team hired a new general manager who then let go the head coach in order to bring in his own guy. New GM, new coach means all new scheme and Tebow didn't fit into that like he may have with the old scheme and coach. It's nothing more and nothing less than pure business.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a reason why Andy has so much emotionally invested in Tebow. A vocal Christian player who does well in college and then ends up sitting on the bench in the big leagues? Why, that's almost like earning two Ivy league degrees and ending up teaching kids in a church basement (in his mind, anyway). The only reason either could happen, of course, is if liberals are persecuting good Christian conservatives. It can't possibly be because they're over their heads. Or they're a talentless fool whose few successes can be easily explained by being born into wealthy and influential family. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask andy how a team with virtually the same players, and the same coach, save tebow and Payton, have such shockingly different records, if tebow is that good. Just saying....Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dvergne

I'm curious. I wonder how somebody without checkuser gets to go on a TK-esque blocking the world spree? PsyGremlin^Sermā! 09:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I was wondering that myself. Refugee^{talk page} 09:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure, but he might be blocking IPs preemptively from some publicly available black list. Like this one. (Wikipedia has an open proxy blocking bot.) In fact I found several addresses on both lists, although the overlap is not complete. Open minded (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That's probably what he's doing. As for how he gets away with it, it's because CP is a poorly-run project that lacks in proper oversight. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

JPatt's little ... thing.

Okay, so JPatt's declaring the current government to be illegitimate and evoking some completely unconstitutional right to rebellion. The same thing happens on the left whenever people like G.W. Bush were in charge (I'm moving to Canada! etc) but it does seem worse this time around from the right.

I'm just waiting for the pendulum to swing back, for the Republicans to once again (inevitably) take government and then for people like JPatt to stand tall and proclaim their undying loyalty to America and its (holy) institutions, and that anyone who doesn't like it can get out. --Sasayaki (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, ignore it; we all know he isn't actually going to do anything.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an unconstitional and a constitutional right to rebellion? Please edumacate me.--76.188.25.61 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, which article of the Constitution do you read as giving American citizens the right to overthrow the state? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone tries to invoke clause 61 I will burn their house down. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I just love reading that stuff with all the WE THE PEOPLE and the WE THE CITIZENS as a quite recent national election kinda determined that that 'we' is actually the minority. "The People" voted your hated Obama into office, "The People" are actually pretty content with the current government, no matter how much a hissyfit you and your little group of cooks are throwing. -GTac (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That post above. If Johnnykins represents a substantial group who dismisses the majority of their compatriots as "not people", then it's a good thing the right guy got re-elected.--Brendiggg (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson's declaration was the start of a new country that would one day become the richest and most powerful nation on Earth. JPatt's declaration made some of us here at RationalWiki giggle. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you add up the total number of votes received by Democratic House candidates in 2012, it was greater than the total number of votes received by Republican House candidates. The only reason why the Republicans still control the House is gerrymandering. I see JPatt's declaration as anticipating something less than a direct democracy to determine its adoption. For example, only CP admins will be allowed to vote (or to govern the replacement nation.) Alternatively, JPatt would provide descendents of slaves with 3/5 of a vote to honor the traditions of our founding fathers. 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes The People have spoken, $1 billion dollars ensured victory for what exactly? More unemployment, more deficits, more credit downgrades, more abortions, more scandals where Americans die. Not a very bright voting decision I suspect. Maybe it was the free phones and the contraception. The people didn't suspect their taxes would go up, smart. The incompetent boob got 9 million less votes. He is a real winner, you were proven completely right because you won. </sarcasm> --76.188.25.61 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Unemployment is down; the credit downgrades will be as much the fault of the House Republicans; abortion is legal, so that's a non-issue; American embassies were safer under Obama than they were under Bush -- way safer; the "free phones" program started under Bush; contraception is legal and necessary, so that's a non-issue; Obama got more votes in his second election than Bush in his second election. Christ, you're a moron. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

JPatt, you seem to be mixing messages. First, you think that people voted for Obama because they want free condoms. Then you point out that they were shocked their taxes went up --- but taxes didn't go up for the kind of folk swayed by free condoms. They went up for those making $400k or more. (And what's this about free phones anyway?) Phiwum (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually they did go up for everyone because the temporary payroll tax expired at January 1st and it wasn't renewed, so it was a tax increase two percentage points on anyone who earns a paycheck.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If we were to reintroduce the CP's biggest idiot contest, I think Jpatt would be the winner by a good margin. Very few people are stupid enough to make mentally deficient Ken DeMyer look good, but Jpatt is one of them. DickTurpis (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No. That award is Ed Poor's in perpetuity though I suppose ties are allowed. C®ackeЯ

Yeah, at this point CP is middle-aged white male twit of the year. "TK is dead, but he's not necessarily out." --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely only Andy would be considered upperclass? All of the others strike me as being middle class at best. --Damo^Hi 22:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hurlbutt is an MD, so, upper-middle class/sniffing at wealthy, maybe? I'd love to see Andy trying to hang and watch football with JP or Karajou like a "regular guy." AWKWARD. I'd also be curious to watch those guys try and figure out what fork to use at the Schlafly table. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry gets crazier

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an obsession with the sheriff's role only a hop, skip and a jump away from freeman on the land beliefs? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, this seems oddly similar to the "Posse Commitatus" group's ideology. Tosser likely loves the idea of being his definition of "sheriff" since it's an ideal way for him to exercise unlimited power against his neighbours, and turn the county into his own little fiefdom under the cover of "the will of god" and "the will of REALTRUE americans" and thus when civilization falls it seemingly leaves him in a position of ultimate authority and power. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you imagine living in a society where Launchbooty had absolute power and his CP cohorts were his lieutenants? Imagine what would happen to you if they discovered you were an atheist or some other non-theist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, a few middle aged psychopaths with a gun fetish and an inability to comprehend or accept basic reality. In the case of Hurlbut living out his wank fantasy of taking over a town the moment local government collapses, all I would need to do is create some fake Muslim Brotherhood gunmen out of maniquins and towels on the edge of town, alert the dutiful sheriff and then bury him and his posse alive in concrete when they flee to the anti-muslim bunker.

As for taking over the country, Im guessing it would pan out into starting like Christian flavored Iran, evolving into Hurlbut flavored North Korea, before descending into Fundie flavored Taliban's afghanistan. All ample motivation for any man with a braincell to grab a Bane mask and start up a good old fasioned coup the moment it happens Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy on Aaron Swartz.

Interesting? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be a cynic, but I've a feeling this only showed up on Andy's radar because it'd give him an excuse to bash "big" government. I don't know what Aaron's personal politics were, but his actions evince a philosophy about the world that's fairly opposite Andy's. RIP Aaron Swartz. (Not Schwartz.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Has he always been a liberal? I seem to remember him being a conservative sports star at some point..

I think there is some confusion as to what the terms liberal and conservative mean. A conservative is someone who is good, whilst a liberal is someone who is bad. The terms aren't more nuanced than that. So you see it is easy for Lance to have been a conservative whilst he was winning all those titles and was a great man, but is now a liberal since he has been caught out. --Damo^Hi 21:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I once did some editing on the Lance Armstrong article. The interesting evolution there has to do with Lance's atheism. At first, it was OK that he wasn't born-again because he was an American beating the French at their own sport. Later his atheism was OK because the USADA was persecuting him; this can be seen in Ed Poor's edits. Then Andy came down with the most recent edit, establishing the new official view of things. Armstrong is not a liberal by any normal definition of the word. A-political might be accurate. He was, at least for a time, pals with Bush the younger.Simple (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Pibot / talk / contribs} 06:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Broncos-Ravens tied, 30 seconds to go.

The Broncos lose, it'll be less than a minute before Andy is crowing on CP. I can't wait. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

(in a cartman voice) God dman it! sighs. hate football. it's bad for my blood pressure. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dmanit, god DOES have a sense of humor. grump groan moan. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, he will probably hold off until he has finished his session with his inflatable Tebow doll. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy delivers. Peyton Manning as an MVP level year - 4,659 yards, 37 touchdowns and 11 interceptions, but that is overrated. Tebow has 39 yards for 0 touchdowns and 0 interceptions, but he is a true NFL star (last year with the Broncos - 1,729 yards, 12 touchdowns and 6 interceptions). Also before Andy claims that conservatism wins in the NFL, San Francisco is now going to the NFC Championship game.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Tim Tebow is a better quarterback than Peyton Fucking Manning. What an assclown. DickTurpis (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy isn't the only one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game."^img Given the God-status Andy accords Tebow, I find his use of the word 'amazed' to be very ironic. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 10:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Am I the only one in Denver who's happy right now?" - Peter Tebow. Yes, you probably are; and I wonder how many in Denver feel about a minister gloating that the local beloved team lost just because his brother doesn't get to play on it. Of course it still pales in comparison to Andy attempting to somehow politicize a football roster decision.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, the taxpayer-subsidized team of overpaid life-skill deficient corporate spokesmen whose only job is to distract you from real-world problems didn't do as well as chasing a ball around the lawn as a comparable team from another city? Life is so hard. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, it was a fucking good game. we actually played quite well. they just played a bit better. I hate the kind of crap andy and tebow's brother pull. "my guy would have obviosuly won". odds are, with TT at the helm., we'd not have even made the playoffs. And for the record, it was 4 flipping degrees on teh field. i'm still stunned, litterally stunned that not one play fumbled. I can't even pick up my car keys at that temperature.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So Dvergne

Either the bot has gone crazy^img or we now know for sure this person is either a parodist or insane. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This happens when you are adding a new section (&section=new in the URL) and hold enter with the "save page" button focused. The browser sends multiple requests to add a new section (as opposed to pressing normal "edit" multiple times, which is idempotent). I have seen this behaviour very many times at Wikipedia, but till now I have never seen a series of over 40 edits. Perhaps Wikipedia has some filter against mass editing, while Conservapedia does not.

However, it is really interesting that those edits lasted for five minutes 09:31-09:36. Either he had some lag/cache problem and mashed F5 to add the message (doing that 40 times is insane, though), or their server is _that_ slow it needs 5 minutes to save 40 edits. Weird. Open minded (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, someone needs to tell him that the word "both" doesn't apply when you're referring to three distinct things. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? you guys are still unsure if Dvergne is a 'parodist'/troll? ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.17.209.68 / talk / contribs} 06:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember that some of us don't really follow the site all that much. A cursory glance at his contribs might not reveal the depths of his parody. He is the best one since Bugler IMO. This incident was just a fuck-up though. --Damo^Hi 06:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Sports Breakthrough

What's a best of the public quarterback? Normally, the term means a layman who agrees with Andy on a topic, at odds with people who really know something about the topic (typically having made it their live's work). How does that extend to athletes? Perhaps it means Kaepernick is a conservative who has succeeded in that swamp of liberalism, the NFL. If so, "best of the public" has devolved to mean "conservative who disagrees with liberal." Why am I surprised? But any rational theory will be appreciated. Whoover (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Best I can see, he was adopted. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It means whatever Andy wants it to mean at that time in order to push his personal worldview. If the Packers had won, then conservative sports star and best of the public Aaron Rogers would be touted on the front page while tattoo covered Colin Kaepernick and San Francisco would have been chided as representative of the liberal mediocrity of their home city (and state of California) by allowing the lower seeded visiting team to knock them off. As for Colin Kaepernick, he was a college quarterback who played for a Division One bowl subdivision team (the highest level in college football) and was drafted and contracted like most professional football players, so that "best of the public" doesn't fly; he is an professional expert, like Manning, Brady, and Rogers are professional experts.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing that Andy is more clueless about than sports (and that is quite a feat given his understanding of science, politics and biblical scholarship). Damo^Hi 05:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should point out that Bill Clinton was also an adoption success story, so we can watch Andy's head explode. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 12:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were going to pick a "best of the public quarterback", I'd say Vince Papale would probably be the best shot. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to go.

Six months ago, I posted that I thought it was time to draw a line under WIGO CP. I think the consensus then was pretty much that, but to wait until after the US elections to do it. Even the elections failed to give CP much of a bump start in entertaining crazy. The place is dead, and only getting deader. There's only so much entertainment to be derived from Ken's fantasies or Terry's tea partiers.

So, especially in light of this, I think the time has come. CP has been a great source of merriment to us lo these many years, but all good things must come to an end.

Can we, the regular denizens of CP space, agree to close and archive this stuff now? I really think we ought to. Lets have some kind of blowout event as a goodbye to the remaining morons at CP, and call it a day. Who's with me? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No. There's still plenty of fun to be had with CP and CNAV. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care either way - I just would hope it'd all be archived and kept. Particularly away from people like Ty who would rather burn it all down. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need to keep the archives. It's history! CP has had some great moments, and someone needs to chronicle them. But alas, it won't be having any more of them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It'll die when it dies. I still enjoy perusing this page every so often. Tielec01 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

top 5 of most edited pages at RW in Dec 2012
1	RationalWiki:Saloon_bar	2156 edits
2	Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?	657 edits
3	RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation	181 edits
4	RationalWiki:What is going on in the world?	155 edits
5	Forum:Science and mind	136 edits

Yawn, --larron (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to create articles on CP-specific things anymore, but WIGOCP is still a major attraction point for the wiki and articles like Schlafly's serve a purpose. You might as well say we can delete fun space because that doesn't make us look professional. --PsyGremlin^Tala! 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of years ago you'd be right, but CP has been out of the news for over a year now. It's not a big internet deal anymore, and it's never going to be one again. I think we'd be better served calling WIGO: CP a day, and making a CP retrospective page as the lead-in to the CP space instead. It won't be dynamic, but CP isn't dynamic either. It beats one more round of the poke/don't poke Kendoll argument again anyway. We're getting stale here because CP is stale. We need to do something fresher. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Then get your priorities in order: first find something fresher (and more popular), then get rid of WIGO:CP --larron (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Convincing the world of our seriousness is best done by writing good and serious articles. CPspace does not tarnish us, although I am also glad it is no longer at the center of our efforts.--^talk 11:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) As long as people are interested in CP, what the heck do you care? If you think it's not worth your time, then don't waste it here. But I really can't see why you're comfortable telling others that it should be shut down because you think it's dull.

As for me, CP is still the most interesting topic actively discussed here and why the fuck should I care whether they're getting press or not? Phiwum (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I agree. If we were going to do "something fresher" we would do it anyway, without having to shut down a section of the wiki to do so. Ask the question - why doesn't the talk pages on WIGO W or even WIGO Clogs generate the volumes that WIGO CP does? As per the stats above - the busiest pages are the Saloon, WIGO CP, WIGO World (but not it's talk) and people throwing their toys out of the cot. WIGO CP will die a death as CP dies. But to simply close it down when it's still the busiest part of the wiki isn't going to magically create a brand new project that everybody will flock to. Besides, to use the "vandal" label is disingenuous - nobody except Karajerk still believes RW is involved in any of the lame vandalism, parody going on there. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 11:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

When CP was a semi-active project with interesting characters and debate and ever increasing lunacy -- roughly from the good old days of the Pacific Arboreal Octopus through the Bible Project and Andy's appearance on John Stewart's show, there was something there worth writing about. Even though picking on the homeschoolers was problematic, the online courses and grading of exams let us point to the real-life problems associated with letting ideologically-motivated idiots teach children. Now, it's a blog run by a cautionary tale that a Princeton/Harvard education will not guarantee a successful career, a link-spamming blogger, a seditionist and a mentally-ill man-child who needs help, not our scorn. And yet it's compelling, and try as I may, I can't turn away, and neither can many of you. If our larger project needs to engage with a completely marginal website and a years-long history of inside jokes about that community as a loss-leader, if that's what we need to draw people in, then that maybe says something about our larger project. If smart and funny people criticizing bad religion, bad science, and bad politics and working to educate the internet with style isn't enough to draw page views without riding on Andrew Schlafly's tattered coat-tails, we should think about what we can do to draw eyes to the wiki because of us, not because of those losers. Close this page, re-open it on Wikia or something. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO, there is a Citizendium and a wikipedia approach to this matter: you can try to create only content for the readership of which you think you are worthy - or you are willing to have some content which pleases the readership in a way you don't understand. Well, let's go all Citizendium, it's a success story! --larron (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a ton of content not related to the mission--between the Saloon Bar, a lot of the WIGOs, Fun Space and the various goings-on on user talk pages, there's probably still more non-mission stuff to please the readers than mission stuff. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I'm thoroughly uninterested in the Saloon Bar, the other WIGOs and especially the Fun Space. I check out some of the mainspace articles about pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and the like, but it's CP that provides the most interest for me.

But, to be sure, I don't give a damn about the "mission" of the site. I'm looking for a little entertainment. I'm not out to improve others by providing a top-notch educational site and I don't measure the success of this Wiki in terms of attention it attracts, but only in terms of whether I'm enjoying it. I'm selfish and shortsighted, I s'pose. Phiwum (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's essentially my position too. I don't mind at all when people want to take my CP-centric site and add a load of stuff to it, but I do get annoyed when the new kids decide that the content that brought most people here in the first place needs to be deleted. It's not we who are the selfish ones, Phiwum. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, I hate to point it out to you, but to those of us who have been here since 2007, you are the new kids. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see it in waves - the first wave was yourself, Human, Kels etc. Then there was the early 2008 wave of me, Weaseloid, WfG and the like, then the next lot were Nutty, AD and on it goes. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ace! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes I see you. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ToP has already made that point on my user page, and I have already replied. I'll admit my use of the term was inaccurate. I made the point better below, with the post about the constant redefinition of what's "acceptable" on the site. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that's the essential problem. RW started as a group opposed to CP; when we kicked off we put up stuff that wasn't allowed at CP and we put up other stuff that mocked the idiots that were running Schlafly's grand project. Now some of us saw a greater purpose than just acting as a counterpoint to CP because, quite frankly, that is very limiting. As ToP pointed out, CP was initially entertaining but it has now stalled and just populated by a bunch of half-witted lackeys sucking up to a failed lawyer trying to be big fish in a diminishing puddle. CP is stale and nasty with only the occasional flash of lunacy from Andy, but even then there is little that is genuinely new. Running RW now costs a sizeable sum and I'm no longer prepared to fork out just for the occasional lulz. We can't erase the past but it's time to move forward and sticking with the CP route is a dead end. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)#

And that would be fine, if that was where it stopped. But changing the focus doesn't seem to be enough, so we have dozens of CP-related articles deleted. Not archived; deleted. And then that's not enough, and some people decide that SPOV isn't "suitable" in some places, so we see more "excessive snark deleted"-type edit summaries. Then even that's not enough, and suddenly we're talking about forking the whole of CP space off.

The trouble is that you end up with a wiki full of straight articles with nothing to distinguish them from Wikipedia, in which case people will just go to... Wikipedia.

You want the site to grow? Great. But it won't happen if you cut it off from its roots. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Genghis, I can understand your concern, but I don't see what good deleting or archiving WIGO CP would do. I'm sorry to say that I would visit RW much more sporadically. Maybe that would lessen server costs, and maybe my visits aren't important to you, but I just don't see how the CP content prevents whatever else it is that you want this site to be.

My thoughts really come down to this: if Jeeves or you or anyone else thinks that CP is a pointless waste of time, then please don't bother with this part of the site. Contribute to and enjoy the good parts. But I just don't see any pressing need to get rid of the wasteland that some of us rather enjoy. Phiwum (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think what Ghenghis says gets to the root of it. At some point this decision will be forced on us, and I think that point will be soon. I think it'd be better to tidy up here and present CP space as a finished RW project rather than giving people an excuse to just delete the whole thing. There's a lot of history here, but we aren't going to be seeing any significant additions. I just don't see a lot of point continuing with WIGO:CP when it's just the same old thing day after day. Even Psy's blog has branched out to other weirdos on the internet, I think we might be better served doing the same. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't fit with larron's edit figures. And Psy's blog has expanded by taking on more writers and because CP is a great introduction to the wonderful world of wingnuttery. I say again: there's plenty of laughs to come from CP and CNAV yet. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside of WIGO, CP-space is practically dead in terms of new articles & edits, so I don't see much harm in drawing a line under it & closing those articles to new edits (I guess the way to do that would be a banner or something to appear on everything in CP-space to identify articles as archive material only). But WIGO & WIGO:talk still get edited every day so I see no reason to forcibly shut them down. As long as there are members of the RW community interested in watching what goes on at CP, they're still going to want to space for saying "OMG did you see what Andy just wrote?" etc. so why not let them keep it? Closing down WIGO:CP would effectively be making CP a forbidden subject across RW, & would probably mean contributors going elsewhere to discuss it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd propose moving all this discussion to TWIGO:Clogs. It may be that in the beginning the CP talk swamps the rest of the stuff, but it'd give us the opportunity to bring up other stuff too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion: Don't fix what isn't broken. Very few people would give half a shit about RW if it wasn't for the snark, AFAICT, and this is still a nice steady source. Have you noticed how Andy manages to invent a new type of crazy every time we have this discussion? --Yukabacera (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming back from the dead to give my two cents. Leave WIGO:CP be; CP is dying, and CPspace will die naturally alongside it, there's no need to hurry it along. Just look at the archives; used to be this page was archived eight times a month, now it's only two or three. CP isn't the Wacky Races it used to be (far too few racers now), but it still produces some gold every now and then. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Some context for the table above

Any chance you could update your graphs, larron, so we could see if this trend is sitewide? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

abs. number of edits at RW per month	percentage per namespace

Everybody could be happy: CP-space is still not negligible - but not as prominent as our internal bickering, while the percentage of main-space is going up. If you want to branch, create content. WIGO:CP can be integrated in WIGO:BLOG or WIGO:CLOG the day one of those gathers more traffic than WIGO:CP itself. --larron (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)