Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive43

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <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>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

AA President

Oops, we already tried that. I mean the other kind of AA. Isn't it special that teh assfly (see WIGO:"Ed Poor asks a VERY uncomfortable question") finally has vindication for one of his made-up terms - ie, other people also made it up shortly thereafter. Other bigoted, small-minded jerks, at least. Can someone tell his mommy he made good? Can he finally get that WP entry we all so would drool over? Last comment... isn't it amazing that the See Also, "Nepotism President" is still there, and the article still exists!!! Balance on CP! Whodathunkit? human 20:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Didn't the article get moved to the Essay pseudo-namespace, though? *too lazy to double-check* Although yes, it is quite amazing that it wasn't deleted instantly. --Sid 21:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

See, I didn't read that exchange as trying to give Andy credit--I read it as the opposite; Ed and Kara trying to give Andy some [plausible deniability on one of his nuttier notions. "Golly, where did this crazy statement come from?" "Looks like it came from this Farah fellow, we'd better give him credit before we get in trouble." "No, no--it was a liberal Democrat who said it...Yeah, that's the ticket...". But Andy's too thick, and messed up the plan, so we'll, uh, archive it.--WJThomas 22:07, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Anybody want to do some homework for Aschlafly?

I call the power of dissent, but we should all submit some. It's only like 6 double spaced pages.-caius (tinker) 21:21, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

The "future of movies" one is actually a fairly interesting topic, though not for the reason Andy thinks of ("CP got so many pageviews"). I shall write an essay and submit it on-... oops, I forgot: I'm banned there. Oh well, more time for actually important things! :D --Sid 21:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

You know, I usually read Conservapedia with disinterested humor... But as a teacher (sort of) whenver I read these things, I truly feel sad. Not only are his asssignments complete indoctrination and grabage. But they're very poorly written. It's like being taught by a monkey (with a high, nasally voice) it's great if you plan on being a monkey, but not for the real world. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 23:37, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's more of a mid-range nasal-y voice, but I completely agree with the rest of the sentiment. These are the kind of assignments they warned us about, sure to generate parent e-mails (in a public school setting, at least), and not just about the absurd indoctrination parts. He thinks these are SAT worthy? Now, granted, I didn't take the SATs when they had a writing portion, so perhaps they are only basing the point scale on mechanics or verbosity, but I doubt it. In this light, it's not so much that the prompts are at fault (sadly, I've seen worse, academically), but any result that shows insight and cohesive thought (presumably what the SATs are looking for) surely won't fly with Schlafly (the immediate grader). The poor kids are damned if they do and damned if they don't. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 01:46, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

"11. If teachers and students were armed with guns, then there would be fewer beatings, intimidation by gangs, and massacres in public school." yup' - there'd probably be nobody left to do them. (</snark>)   ^Contribs_Talk 01:55, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if Andy hands out guns at his homeschool classes. --Shagie 02:02, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Usually I don't approve of mockery, but that really did make me laugh :) SHahB 02:23, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

As much as I was making a funny there, the idea of arming youths in school is a really bad one. It has been shown that the brain doesn't mature to the point of being able to make good judgment decisions until about 20 or so.[1] Combine that with either pre-teens who think everything is a toy or hormone influenced teenagers trying to resolve just who was flirting with someone's girlfriend, and you could have really bad situations in normal day to day activities. It is just a bad idea to consider arming children. I grew up in the country - in November about a quarter of the class would be on vacation for deer hunting season. Its not that guns are a bad thing themselves but putting them in the hands of a child and saying "shoot if someone points one of these at you" is... words escape me for how boneheaded this is. One would hope that conflict resolution skills other than using force would be a better approach - so people don't think the only way to resolve a problem is with violence or deadly force. --Shagie 14:50, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I liked assignment n. 3 (or 4?) 2. Should a real Conservative pray with reason or emotion? After a day full of harassment by evil Liberals, Atheists, Rationalwikians, Affirmative Actionists, I'm sure a real Conservative would be in tears while deeply emotioned asking God for a good punishment of the aforementioned. On the other hand, a real Conservative should always act with cold reason, taking an example from the Masters of reason and reasonable conduct: the Schlaflies and their cohort (Karajou, Conservative, et co.). (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 03:26, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

WTF does this: "9. The past is like the future: it depends entirely on what you make of it." mean? Substitute any two words for 'past' and 'future' - it makes as much sense. "9. The table is like the orange: it depends entirely on what you make of it."   ^Contribs_Talk 08:23, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

With it depends entirely on what you make of it the Assfly means reality is entirely what you make of it. Don't let 'liberal' facts get in the way of the alternative conservaverse. Auld Nick 08:40, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's eerily similar to "Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future." Of course, the assumed sincerity is rather troubling. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 10:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

And those who control the spice control the universe. No, wait . . . -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 15:58, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Persons Who Weren't Homeskooled

According to one evil, illthinking, vile, doubtless misinformed person Mr Schlafly's kids weren't (aren't being?) home skooled. (oh & kajagoogo can't spell, but he can revert (see next diff) Oh & he can with certainty identify AmesG, under whatever guise he appears.   ^Contribs_Talk

Is that really true? I mean, it would be freaking hilarious... but how do we know? SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 12:40, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

That guy actually was me! I think it's very important to note that Schlafly's kids weren't homeschooled, and it's a hard question that he has to answer. If he was really committed to the cause...

Anyways, yes, his kids weren't homeschooled. One of my friends went to the Pingry Schools, and sent me a pdf of this newsletter that my friend appeared in (He'd done something cool), and there was a note about Schlafly's kids being there in the same newsletter. O! Fortuna!-caius (tinker) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't know that Andy feels that all kids should be homeschooled, just that no kid should have to go to those liberal atheistic public schools that are nothing more than a get-rich scheme for the teachers union. Sending one's offspring to a fancy-pants private school is, presumably, acceptable.--WJThomas 13:19, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Is it possible that he endorses homeschooling because he couldn't cut it as a real teacher? Lardashe

If homeschooling is important to keep away the atheists and the lib'ruls, then I don't see how Pingry would be any better. He'll still be learning evolution & world history that goes beyond 6,000 years there, it's not a religious school, is it??-caius (tinker) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

No doubt such things are just convenient excuses. Likely he wants to get rid of public schools for the traditional rich white guy reasons--the ignorant unwashed are best kept that way. If they start learning and stuff, they might get all uppity, wanting "special rights" like a decent wage, and safe neighborhoods. All that stuff cuts into the bottom line. Of course, that's a hard argument to win elections with, so instead you complain about liberal conspiracies and whatnot.--WJThomas 13:47, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm still waiting for somebody to ask him if he actually owns a gun. *hint* NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 15:47, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if he would object to one of his homeschool students bringing a gun to class. Or if his students would object to him bringing one to his lessons. (Assuming he does actual classes in person) Lardashe

This is Andy's daughter speaking. I'd just like to correct you all to say that yes, I have been homeschooled all of my life except for the third and fourth grades, and my brother was homeschooled for a couple grades when he was younger. Just to clear that up.Phy

Hypocrisy

Today's front page of Conservapedia says, "Liberal hate speech on the rise.” Now you never get Conservative hate speech anywhere? Now you never get hate speech on Conservapedia? Proxima Centauri 05:29, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Keep in mind that "hate speech" is defined here as "speech Andy doesn't like", which can include mild criticism of Conservatives. Therefore, Conservatives are unable by definition to produce it. --Kels 06:32, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Pity we haven't smilies to say "Silly". Proxima Centauri 06:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure Susan could find one to oblige :-) Bondurant 08:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

not mine: they're all knicked kfrom aKjeldsen - totally without permission.   ^Contribs_Talk 16:25, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Here, I shall provide: ridiculous, nonsensical, and childish. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:59, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

"Smilies." Not "similes." PFoster 13:44, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, I got 7 out of 8 letters right, and that ain't bad. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:12, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, those are synonyms. Similes are comparisons using "like" or "as." Please excuse my outburst of Englishteacheritis. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Double oops of me. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:30, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

sharon tate values

Someone queries sharon tates murder again. This is gonna end badly...Of course! It was her 'culture'!

Ace McWicked 22:01, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly's a freak. An ugly freak. human 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, at least she's not a mascot for Andy's weapon of gun advertisement. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 12:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy on the BBC

Don't know why I didn't go looking for this before - Andy interviewed on BBC radio (along with a WP admin) back in the early days of CP. Without it I never would have heard of his wonderful blog. (Apologies to those who've heard it before.) Matt 00:18, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

ET! We need you!

I find this more than a little lol-worthy. I have no idea what TerryH is trying to say in the previous paragraph, but PJR is with him... I see this as a new purpose for the SETI project - to destroy the faith of all the fundie bible-literalists! Bondurant 05:43, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

That article and its associated talk page is an absolute classic. Ajkgordon 06:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

...talk pages like that make it harder and harder to believe that TerryH is not a parodist. *still giggling* --Sid 07:16, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah...I like how Terry takes pains to assert that, in the unlikely event that alien beings did visit Earth, they would undoubtedly be evil (his proof: aliens in Hollywood movies are always ugly). Mostly the whole thing is part of the ol' "cover all your bases" routine: Alien life would invalidate the Bible, BUT, if we did find life elsewhere it would either be from Earth originally (via microbes ejected from the Great Flood) or demons in disguise, so the Bible would still be true.--WJThomas 07:26, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

In the essay, he hopes that should aliens arrive, that they would be a Christopher Columbus rather than various other analogs. This shows just how uneducated Terry is. Columbus and his merry men didn't treat the natives they found very well. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 09:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Non-human entities descending from the sky - definitely evil extra-terrestials, or is that evil angels? What effing cloud-cuckoo land do these guys live in?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 09:50, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

This was an interesting add by Smeg Ed. Think he's trying to tell us something? Psygremlin 10:06, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think he's trying to tell us that he can do without his medication. Bondurant 10:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought he was just showing us how clever he is and how he can deftly win an argument with a clever turn of his fine mind. Yeah, either that or he's been smoking cigars with the plastic wrapping still on. RedDog 10:19, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

It is also nice to know that if alien's land in Terry's backyard he is prepared to shoot them with his weapon of gun because they are obviously demons ( well, they're ugly. Demons are ugly and have a noted affinity for flying saucers . . er . . "scoutcraft". . . ). One question though . . Is Terry 9?

Ooh... somebody calls him on Columbus and gets this reply "...your unfounded allegations against CC..." Has Terry got a hard on for explorers now? Or just been reading too much of Assfly's "history" books? [2]Psygremlin 10:59, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Update TerryH is officially an ignorant moronPsygremlin 02:26, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Vatican Official Declares Extraterrestrial Contact Is Real Auld Nick 06:41, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed's Freudian Slip

This made me laugh. "If you can't leave with these terms..." then we'll make sure you leave... Psygremlin 10:16, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, this explains everything. -All Hail Tuna 10:33, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

And then there's this gem "I may need help keeping the article's focus". Face it, Smeg Ed couldn't produce a focused article even if we pounded a couple of lenses into him. Psygremlin 10:52, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's the thought of all those "big, burly, heavily-muscled male human beings" that gets to him Silver Sloth 12:13, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I think we've have our new closet boy... that explain why we haven't heard from Kenservative for a while. Really though... who goes out of their way to say big burly heavily-muscled male human beings? Anybody ever seen a Men at Work sign and thought just maybe it's a bunch of antelope putting up a building? and one more thing... If you saw a sign that said People at Work...would you just assume their announcing a shopping district? Ed has officailly lapped himself. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:27, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Usually that sign means "heavily-tanned people leaning on shovels drinking coffee". human 14:00, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

It is worth bearing in mind that -as a Moonie - WeirdEd may anyway have a strange palate for matters of the flesh, so to speak. If I recall correctly, Rev Moon chooses the marital partners for one another in a vast lottery system, so you have no say in who you end up with. Then, following the marrieage, Rev Moon instructs them to beat one another on the buttocks with what he calls the "indemnity stick" ... and then they are forbidden to have sex for three years. Then, when they are allowed to finally consummate the wedding, they have to follow a complicated set of instructions about pre-coital ablutions and mid-coital positioning. For two nights, the women are on top and taking control, and for the third in an attempt to overturn the fatal dominion of Eve the husband reasserts control. A large photograph of Rev Moon has to be positioned so that it can oversee the event. After making bacon, the participants then have to wipe themselves with the Holy Handkerchief, an unusual family heirloom that is to be preserved, unlaundered, for the rest of their lives. Now there's some images that will haunt your weekend :D Fox 14:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

For two nights, the women are on top and taking control, and for the third...the husband reasserts control. Hey, sounds good to me--Damn good...--WJThomas 18:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

The couple should continue the act of love until ejaculation, but if it is difficult to reach ejaculation, the act may be stopped at that point. However, insertion itself must be accomplished. If insertion is not possible because the husband does not have an erection, the wife must take her husband's sexual organ in her hand and guide it into her sexual part in order to successfully do the ceremony. Obviously the Moonie men are prone to finding it less emjoyable than you might expect. Still, as they are brainwashed into thinking of women as objects, and dirty, sinful ones at that - Moon himself says that the first "criminal part" of the human body is "those two thin lips", and he's looking below the waist as he says it - I guess it is a distasteful thing that good Moonie men have to sully themselves like that. Fox 19:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for ruining my day, Fox ;) By the way, PoD also forgets to mention that in come contexts (He is writing that next, right? Can someone peek at his conservapedia:writing plan?) "men at work" is a pop band from Australia... human 14:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

And, so you can see I am not spinning a merry yarn ;) here's the moonies' official "Joy of teh Sex" guide... :D Fox 14:41, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

...hate you so much right now... *reaches for the Brain Bleach* ;) --Sid 14:45, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

More fresh Holy Handkerchief lunacy for the people:

Holy Handkerchief Significance

The internal significance and use of the Holy Handkerchief is explained in the verbal instructions given for the Three Day Ceremony. They are priceless and should be treated as such. A word about their care will be mentioned here.

When to Receive

Holy Handkerchiefs are given only to members who have gone through both the Engagement and Holy Wine Ceremonies and are handed out individually at that time.

Preservation

NEVER wash a Holy Handkerchief. The Holy Handkerchief has been sprinkled with Holy Wine and may be wet or slightly damp when received. It is important to dry it out BEFORE putting it away. Be sure that it is stored in some type of material (plastic bag, for example). Do NOT put it away without covering it. Do not write your name on the Holy Handkerchief itself; it is important that your name is clearly marked on the outside of-the package. (Place it in an envelope with your name on the outside, if desired.) Each person has the responsibility to store his or her Holy Handkerchief in a safe place. If fiancés or spouses store their Holy Handkerchiefs in the same place, the handkerchiefs must NOT be mixed up. Clearly mark both packages with the individual names. Do NOT divide your Holy Handkerchief. (See below.)

If A Holy Handkerchief Is Lost

One cannot have the Three Day Ceremony without his or her own Holy Handkerchief. Dividing a Holy Handkerchief is not acceptable, nor is using only one. However, loss of a Holy Handkerchief is taken seriously and receiving a second one requires a condition of indemnity (tang gam). Consult a major or national leader, regional IW, national Blessed Family Department, or the International Blessed Family Department for direction.

In the Case of Reblessing or Rematching

The Holy Handkerchief originally received is still valid and should be used. Holy Handkerchiefs of members who have left the Unification Church should be sent to the International Blessed Family Department. [3] --Robledo 15:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I feel unusual now. DogP 15:52, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Holy Handkerchiefs of members who have left the Unification Church should be sent to the International Blessed Family Department. where they are very careful how they open envelopes. . . . ^{— Unsigned, by: 204.248.28.194 / talk / contribs}

Imagine the fun that could be had (before, during and after) of getting a few hundred handkerchiefs, making use of them and sending them to the IBFD. The only problem would be the identification back if they wanted to go for harassment... that genetic material thing. --Shagie 16:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

In the Case of ... Rematching [t]he Holy Handkerchief originally received is still valid and should be used 0_o The new wife/husband must love that bit. Fox 16:18, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, honey, that was fun. Now we have to wipe down with holy handkerchiefs. This one still has my ex-husband's jizz on it. You don't mind, surely?" DickTurpis 17:40, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

At least it isn't "Holy Bedsheets" that aren't to be washed. --Shagie 16:23, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Wait. That thing is actually called "Holy Handkerchief"? Oh my... this gives this an even more surreal twist. I should feel bad for mocking Ed's apparent religious belief system, and I sorta do, but seriously... Holy Handkerchief? --Sid 17:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

It is indeed, Sidney. Here in the more refined south, one does not refer to items of a lady's toilet, however I understand that north of Watford Gap it is commonly known as a "tea towell", or, in the further northern reaches of these fair isles, "curtain". Fox 19:31, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Holy Handkerchief, Batman!!! What do these stains mean?! Robin 22:02, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

"Curtain". LOL@Fox! Ajkgordon 04:54, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

OMG! This might just be the funniest thread I've ever come across on the 'net. Thank you to all who contributed. Now... about that mouthful of coffee I just spat over my keyboard... Psygremlin 06:31, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

How do we know Ed is a moonie again?

Because he stated so on his WP (and iirc at one point his CP) userpage. Fox 15:15, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

He also posted a link on his WP user page to a picture of him at a Moonie religious service. 16:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

HJ

Whatever happened to Andy's comments to HelpJazz about how "I'd love to be able to give you new rights any day now. I really hope I can! Any second now..." I guess no so much, eh? DickTurpis 14:09, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Makes me wonder what is "preventing" Andy from doing what he'd "love to be able to" do... did Fuzzy Kettle break Andy's 'crat buttons when he briefly hijacked the Project Leader's computer to sysop and desysop himself? human 14:21, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

*blinks* Wait. HelpJazz doesn't even have Upload rights? WTF. (Then again, maybe he'd actually get those if he just asked for them?) --Sid 14:43, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

He must prove his loyalty. This is a test. Rational Ed^perception 14:44, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I do not know if I influenced anything. I highly doubt that could have affected anything. Andy is rather forgiving/patient with people. Fuzzy|AfD 19:02, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Not with...well...almost anyone I've ever seen him interact with. Other than sysops. But then again, I'm sure he's somewhat different in real life. He must be, or all sorts of folks would have beat him to death by now. DickTurpis 19:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, a few people get mad at him for saying certain things, but as far as his stress management goes, he's a good Type B. Fuzzy|AfD 19:28, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

"B" as in Bloodthirsty? Goodness knows he loves it when people die to serve his cause.--WJThomas 22:16, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I was just joking, FuzzyKettle. I was wondering how Andy somehow couldn't do whatever he wanted to do, and came up with my batmoon theory to amuse myself. human 21:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Bohdan

Gone and vaporized (can't even see his contribs to see what warranted it). Looks like they found you out again, Ames! I didn't notice for over a week until I saw his posts signed with a red name. 70.119.189.137 18:30, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Fortunately for us Bohdan is still there! He's now HenryS.-caius (tinker) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, damn. I missed that. Carry on, good sirs, carry on. 70.119.189.137 18:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, I tried to register the user name after the renaming, but my IP is mega-blocked over there, and I'm too lazy to learn proxies... human 21:56, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Someone thought I was Ames' sock? SHahB 23:51, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Aren't you? And AKjeldsen's? You are one swarthy Dane, as far as I can tell, and a puppet of one Willum Shake's Speare! human 00:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

"Carve a better man out of a banana"

Well, if you say you've heard it StatsMsn... I personally thought it was rather funny in itself, but we needn't waive accuracy to mock Conservative - the rest of the stuff there is damning enough already. Uchiha^KATON! 00:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I find it odd that user:C would use a quote from Kurt Vonnegut (Jr), atheist that he was. CЯacke®

I find it incredible that Ken is so deeply wounded by our article. And not by the actually offensive stuff! By the NUMBER!-caius (tinker) 00:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Did he post another "message to the gentlemen" (Kels, Susan, Barbara, Pink Lily, etc. please turn off your computers now, this IS GUY TALK) that I missed? human 00:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Ken d]oes love the "Guy Talk," especially where a 1-900 area code precedes the phrase.-caius (tinker) 01:19, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I have been poisoned by gossip... whenever I see a "girls gone wild" ad, all I can think of is the outing of TK for apparently buying a "guys gone wild" dvd. As untrue or irrelevant as the accusation may have been, it still pollutes my brainz. human 01:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Wait, WTF? Is that a bit of TK gossip that I *don't* know?! Telltelltell-caius (tinker) 01:45, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I thought everybody knew this?--Bob^{bing up} 09:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I think you are accused of being its architect, Amos Grawit. Although even that isn't as bad as TK's (for it is he) creepy otherkin S/M adult roleplaying adventures. --82.44.64.173

HAHA. I saw that site. That made me shiver in disgust, then laugh, then shiver again. But the girls gone wild thing is new to me. What was it?-caius (tinker) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

OMG I just found out that I was apparently running a sockpuppet while asleep! Thanks for letting me know, Karajou!-caius (tinker) 09:57, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Is no-one going to tell me this TK story? I'm so curious!-caius (tinker) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I have no idea what the truth is, or even where the roots of this came from, but I think it was something along the lines of someone stealing TK's credit card info and using it to get a Boys Gone Wild DVD, and then the internet muckrakers with axes to grind somehow found out (or made up the story), to poke sticks at TK. human 20:07, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh noes! *gasp!*

Ken boycotts RW! My life is over! *weeps* --Sid 07:07, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Hehe. I also don't see the "most recent climb in Conservapedia's alexa rank" he alludes to... (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/mozilla.com?site0=rationalwiki.com&site1=conservapedia.com&y=p&z=0&h=400&w=700&range=1m&size=Large) human 14:15, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Reach and rank go up while pageviews go down a bit = Conservative is link-whoring and trolling on forums like crazy again. --Sid 08:58, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Is Andy sleeping in late?

Everything on CP seems to be locked. --Gulik 11:05, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Prophets get up whenever they want! --Kels 11:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

And they claim it to be because it's "night time" in the US. I never knew that Taiwan became the 51st state... when did that happen? Fuzzy|AfD 11:54, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, HelpJazz Kettlelick - congrats on getting nighttime edit rights!!!!! PFoster 12:01, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Dang, that's what happens when I'm away trying to pack? Fuzzy|AfD 12:05, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Aquacadet WTF?!?!?!

To quote PJ O'Rourke - "What the Fuck? What the Fuckin' Fuck?" How does this guy's contribution record get him edit rights? This just in from Andy: "Fuck you, Helpjazz. Look at Aquacadet and see how it's done." PFoster 14:36, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

He's a homesckoolar. He posted to Andy's talk page about making an article for the Aquabats, and unless I'm making this up, I remember seeing something in that request about "you know me from class".-caius (tinker) 14:51, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Great, Helpjazz gets done in by a 13-year-old. How does that taste? PFoster 14:56, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I added the difflink to the "You know me" talk page post (even before checking here, but I figured this would come up anyway). Jazz must feel really loved right now. One user got sysop rights and three people got edit rights ever since Jazz's edit rights were "announced". Man, that Mayterious Problem That Prevents Andy From Giving Him The Right must be really damn specific and complicated, but I'm sure that Andy's working day and night on solving it! ;) --Sid 21:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Checklist for Insanity

OK, lets run down the list of insane Andy claims for a second:

• His claim that any Conservative he disagrees with is actually a Liberal reason being he says so
• Thinking he's actually an educator
• Thinking he's actually a decent educator
• Claiming he can rewrite the bible and make it better by removing the Liberal Bias
• Claims he encourages free speech, but blocks any editor he disagrees with
• Refers to himself as a prophet

I think he may be just a little bit crazy. I once offered Kenservative and ED free transport to Denver and free Pysch care. I now extend the offer to you, Mr. Schafly, please come get some help.... you can ski? If it's not liberally biased to do so. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:28, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

His claim that any Conservative he disagrees with is actually a Liberal reason being he says so -> Not really a sign of insanity as much as a lack of political smarts.

Thinking he's actually an educator

Thinking he's actually a decent educator -> Insanity? Of just over-inflated view of himself? I fancy myself a third-baseman when I play with my Wednesday night softball team. Others may disagree.

*Claiming he can rewrite the bible and make it better by removing the Liberal Bias-> This, admittedly, is worrisome.

*Claims he encourages free speech, but blocks any editor he disagrees with-> Being a power-abusing a-hole is not a sign of insanity. Just ask my boss (kidding, boss!).

*Refers to himself as a prophet-> again, worrisome. My conclusion - the patient may exhibit a few traits that bring his mental health into question - but hey, it's the 21st century and we're all a little crazy, right - but for the most part is just a loudmouth, unthinking, and power-hungry man who is not mentally ill, but is in fact completely responsible for his own behaviour. PFoster 15:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I have to disagree with you on several points. The specific condition I'm looking at is Delusional Paranoia, very dangerous. As to your counterpoints, I have some problems with them.

1. "Not really a sign of insanity as much as a lack of political smarts." It's not the issue of his political problems, it's the fact that he is so delusional and paranoid, he thinks that only he can spot the true Conservatives and anyone who claims differently is a Liberal out to get him.

2. and 3. "Insanity? Of just over-inflated view of himself? I fancy myself a third-baseman when I play with my Wednesday night softball team. Others may disagree. I would agree with you on this point, but the difference is, you don't run a website wherein you claim to be one of the finest Athletic specimans in North America. You also don't don't post tips and drills for young kids to do if they want to be third basemen, and you don't demand that anyone who plays the position differently or thinks there's someone out there that can play better run your drills and come back with an open mind.

4. This, admittedly, is worrisome." I thank you for your concession :)

5.Being a power-abusing a-hole is not a sign of insanity. Just ask my boss (kidding, boss!)." Again, the issue hinges on what he really believes compared to what he says. I think he really does think that he truly Embodies the principle of free speech and dissent. That is why I fear for the Delusions

6.again, worrisome." Again, thank you

My conclusion - the patient may exhibit a few traits that bring his mental health into question - but hey, it's the 21st century and we're all a little crazy, right - but for the most part is just a loudmouth, unthinking, and power-hungry man who is not mentally ill, but is in fact completely responsible for his own behaviour. PFoster 15:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

This is where our two feelings really shift directions. I would argue that while we all may be a "little crazy," as my opponent put it, none of us actively compile shrines to our infallibility. Andy Schlafly displays classic signs of a Delusion Paranoid. Some of which indicate a rather high degree of seriousness. I recognize the counterpoints of my opponent and thank him for his debate, but I still fall on the side of my original conclusion. Thank you for the time. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:59, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

PS, this is so off topic, but am I the only one who thinks of Andy when I see this?SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:59, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Chuck, your analysis is typical of the liberal cult of victimhood that denies any sort of personal responsibility and allows people to literally get way with murder. This is the end result of the sort of liberal gullibility that the so-called "psychological profession" is guilty of inflicting on our society. PFoster 16:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Check out my (uncompleted) Mental State Assessment (MSA) on the Assfly's page here abouts (under Looneyness Quotient) Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

@PFoster, you forgot to mention that you were going to add this example to the growing list at Liberal Style! human 20:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Hillary

You know, I do love the first section of Hillary's article.Shangrala 19:34, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Nope, not a blog. --Kels 20:37, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Certain Gentlemen

Oh Lord! He's at the 'certain gentlemen' bit again. DogP 20:51, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

It's amazing Andy doesn't realize just how little Ken cares about his authority, and actively thumbs his nose at it. But then, Andy may be delusional enough to see all this self-interested "MY articles are high on Google rankings, the rest can go to hell" activity as "all glory to CP" instead. --Kels 21:21, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Our Red Telephone is ringing again. DogP 21:24, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't find it, has anyone linked to this: "Liberal encyclopedias, like Wikipedia, care more about other goals than trustworthiness. Examples of other goals are: high traffic (as generated by gossip, which Wikipedia allows but we prohibit), maximizing entries (which Wikipedia boasts but it is not a goal for us), and majority or mob rule (true at Wikipedia, while principles rule here). Thanks for your comment and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:18, 26 April 2008 (EDT)" on Main page talk? (Highlights mine)   ^Contribs_Talk 22:02, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

The Red Telephone codes were reset. I guess we'll have to have the codebreakers get to work... DogP 22:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Susan, here's your link to Andy's post. --Sid 22:08, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I find it extremely ironic to see Andy's post there while the current main page openly links to "Recent Alexa Rankings of Conservapedia" --Sid 22:09, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely!   ^Contribs_Talk 22:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

No comment

AdenJ, we could fill Giant Stadium with liberals who say "I am no liberal." See point 1 in liberal denial. I'm bet you support censorship of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded abortion, and Barack Obama for president. If you don't think that's liberal, then you're inventing your own meaning of the word.--Aschlafly 21:27, 26 April 2008 (EDT)"   ^Contribs_Talk 21:38, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

From the same page, I really love AliceBG's style. "I've been kicked out of better joints than this!" indeed. --Kels 22:05, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

At first I just thought that he was parodying himself; but I guess not!   ^Contribs_Talk 22:08, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

"I'm bet"? I'm not sure if AdenJ's first lanuage is English or not, but can somebody please decipher "I'm bet you get called on that as Liberal Style re: Mockery (despite the fact Aschlafly corrects otherd grammer all the time as an attempt to discredit others) then blocked." for me. I'm bet they can like to learn English as she are talked in the hoomskool. Psygremlin 22:35, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I am indeed an english speaker. read the whole section and you'll understand. JdenA 22:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I was about to elucidate but you (whoever you are JdenA) beat me to it.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:45, 26 April 2008 (EDT))

JdenA, AdenJ, jibber, jabber. Just another thorn in Andys ass. JdenA 22:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Ugh! being anywhere near Andy's ass is not something of which I'd like to brag. :-)   ^Contribs_Talk 22:53, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Well thats where he pulls most of his shit from. HA! I made pun. JdenA 22:57, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy vs. Physics

It never ceases to amaze me that on the one hand these YEC/ID nutters rant and rave about how specific and finely-tuned the universe is to allow us to live on such a lovely planet, and yet at the same time are so cavalier about how those same laws of physics could just willy-nilly have shifted all over the damn place at some indeterminate point in the past. Despite any evidence that they actually did, mind you. --Kels 21:56, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I know, its bloody funny eh. The whole radiometric/carbon dating talk page is freaking hilarious. Asshat uses all the tricks in his arsenal including but not limited to: The 'Bad grammer/spelling discredit", the patented "If that is your real name", his "expertise in everything from physics to medicine", the famous "Physics? Oh yeah that liberal trick - its going the list!" and my favourite "I'm right your wrong your blocked".

Ace McWicked 22:35, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Boo hoo, no EZ link provided, I have to work to read what of you speak? human 22:43, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

cavalier (above)   ^Contribs_Talk 22:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Oopsie, thanks! human 15:17, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

yes well, as my girlfriend keeps telling me, "Ace, your a real pain the ass you know that" Oh and I am lazy too Ace McWicked 22:48, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Flower Picker Values

Too obscure for WIGO, I think, but I find it so very fitting that Joaquín "Mind/body" Martínez puts up "The Flower Picker", an image that apparently shows... well... theft in a "nothing wrong with it" way. --Sid 08:53, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, Bethany put up that unsourced, probably copyvio image, JM just pit it in the article. He's taught her well. --Kels 10:40, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I didn't track it that far. Still an interesting choice. --Sid 11:50, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Note! Conservapedia seems to choose virginal women or girls who look a bit sad. Looks like that's the way they want women to be.Proxima Centauri 12:51, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Sad Housewife in Snow? --Sid 13:31, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Alexa

I don't really understand Alexa or what on earth Andy is on about on his main page (no change there though). has CP's Alexa rating improved? What happened to the 'Ides of March' rubbish? Is it just that there is always something in the near future that is supposed to improve CP but never turns up? Or objectively are his ratings really improving? RedDog 10:17, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

These links may be relevant:

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/manipulating-alexa-traffic-rankings/3044/

http://www.alexa.com/site/company/announcement

If you actually check out Alexa's page, you'll see that the traffic rank is the only thing that has "improved"- their daily reach and page views have remained pretty much the same.Shangrala 10:36, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Ken's been trying to game Google for a while now, so it makes sense he'd try to pervert the Alexa results to make his articles (not CP as a whole, mind you) look better. In reality, they're not even coming close to the last blogburst they got when *coughsomeonecough* inflated the pageviews on their homosexuality articles. --Kels 10:39, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Gamed or manipulated statistics do not make popular articles, and perceived popularity isn't an indicator of quality.

I might do another "Popularity of [article]" check (as I did with the Evo article before RW even existed) to see just who actually refers to CP (assuming that anybody outside of RW and CP still remembers CP). --Sid 11:49, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's do it then. First ten results I get on Google that aren't CP or RW:

• Blog calling it scary humour
• Ken starting a discussion on an anti-evo forum (as Peter Moore)
• Stale link on an atheist board, CP does not appear on actual page
• Another "scary humour" post
• Blog critical of CP
• Simple, staring disbelief at CP's insanity
• Post describing the article, and CP as a whole, as stupid
• Blog that periodically refers to CP, describes it as as "pitifully inaccurate"
• Blog laughing over Homosexuality ranking
• Blog that laughs at CP, does not actually link to or mention Atheism page, although the word "atheism" appears in a comment

So out of all that, on the first two or three pages of Google (all anyone looks at anyway), you have one positive comment, posted by Ken himself. Not exactly an outpouring of support. And by the way, how many good editors have they gained as a result of all this shameless self-promotion? Isn't that part of the point? --Kels 12:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Excellent replies. Thank you guys. So it seems like the stats are manipulated. Isn't this a bit like sending yourself lots of birthday cards to impress the postman. There's a name for people who do things like that. Sad-arse or Andy. Take your pick. RedDog 13:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

A few more details about the Google results, though Kels summed things up nicely: The only ones praising CP's Atheism article are Ken and maybe one or two people on some anti-evolution board. --Sid 13:21, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

It looks from a few quick google searches that he's been running around under a variety of aliases to different message boards, blogs, and so forth, doing drive-by postings with his links in them to artificially inflate the rankings. Since most of the responses range between annoyance and offense, I don't really see how he's helping his cause.

The official reasoning is that it doesn't matter how the ranking is boosted, it means they'll be high in rankings and people will go to them instead of anywhere else, and people will be convinced. Which is delusional hogwash, of course, given the slop they've actually got on the page. --Kels 13:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

He has (one of his RW Talk Page archives should have a nice list of one phase, actually...), and yes, it's simply trolling to boost the ranking. Heck, he basically stopped coming here because we have "nofollow" tags and because he doesn't want to get RW involved in CP-related searches. --Sid 13:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Re: Alexa, it's odd how right now CP's rank and reach are both climbing, and yet their pageviews are dropping. Re: Google, it's a pity we aren't a higher ranked return on a search for "conservapedia". Surely we should be, we probably use the word more on our site than even CP itself! human 15:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

We were in the top 10 a few months ago... now it appears we're on page 3. :( Uchiha^KATON! 20:39, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Its not only about what you have on your site, but what sites link to you. Thats the key thing (and why before the nofollow thing for google, link spamming on blogs was so common). The more sites that link to you, the better your rank. This is what Kenny keeps going on about. Though the part that Kenny forgets is that its about the quality of the site that links to you too. Saying the same thing over and over again google tends to not score that high (think of meta tag spamming that went on for awhile too - again, before google started filtering that out). --Shagie 15:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT) Something to try doing.... fetch the popular pages page every 15 minutes for a week. See what pages are hit and how often they are hit. --Shagie 15:28, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I still don't understand why it is so important to CP to have a high-ranked article about Atheism anyway - I mean, I would - while I was regularly editing there - much rather CP was known for quality articles about conservative philosophies, or scholarly articles on Biblical subjects. Or educational articles on numerous other subjects. Regulars there spend all their time writing about Liebruls, commies, gays and atheists and produce almost squat about subjects conservative Christians actually want to read about and be informed about. I'm not particularly knocking Ken or PJR or most of them there - I only single out TK and WeirdEd, and that's because they really deserve it - but I just can't understand why they don't actually pull their thumbs out of their butts and try to cater to the market they initially identified as their target. No atheist is going to read the Atheism article and head straight to church for forgiveness; no homosexual is going to read CP and suddenly become straight. The whole Projekt has become one of alienation. Fox 10:45, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not important to CP but rather the author of the Atheism article, who happens to "share" his ratings fantasies with the rest of the world via cp's mainpage. And I think I found out his seekrit, go to http://googlerankings.com and search for keyword theory of evolution (no quotes) and domain conservapedia.com . Such a "search" brings up CP ranked #3 on MSN.

But to the larger point of CP being a "negative" entity, (and here I use "negative" as in, "I will define myself NOT by what I AM but by what I am NOT"): as has been said elsewhere by many, CP isn't so much an encyclopedia as it is a blog of Schlafly's beliefs. The only conservatives worth mentioning (there) are those in power, great conservatives of the past are given short shrift: giants like cp:Barry Goldwater and cp:William F. Buckley get respectful but woefully short articles, given that under their watch the modern conservative (US) movement came into being and became a force to be reckoned with. The unwavering support for GWB's disastrous policies: interventionist war (without end), don't tax-and-spend (in essence increasing the taxes of today's children and their children), Medicare part D (this really deserves it's own article).

What Jack Chick is to the Bible is what Conservapedia is to conservative thought. CЯacke® 14:18, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

PJR maybe not so reasonable?

I'm sort of interested to see PJR lately, arguing on the one hand that WP should simply report the facts on Expelled and not concern themselves with whether its points are correct or not, but does the exact same thing in the "Evolutionism" article, even going so far as to lay a trick question about Stonehenge as part of his "proof" that weak atheists are WRONG WRONG WRONG and thus don't belong in the article. He might not be the sort to ban people for disagreeing with him, but he's as pigheaded and loopy as the rest of them. --Kels 11:18, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, he seems to have been persuaded in the end, or did I misunderstand? (I mean not that the idea is right, but what the idea means.) --Bob^{bing up} 12:33, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, you may be right. I was looking at the "you fell for my trick question on Stonehenge, therefore screw you, I'm reverting" bit. Seemed awful cheap to me. --Kels 13:07, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm not entirely sure he does get the idea of what a weak atheist actually is. If he actually does, then he's perpetuating something he knows to be wrong by reverting the article - it seems to indicate that a 'weak atheist' does science based on a 'world view', not the evidence, despite the fact that the whole difference between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism is that 'weak atheism' follows the evidence and 'strong atheism' just happens to claim what this evidence appears to indicate. (Incidentally, from what I've seen at Conservapedia, one of their major failings is that they think all atheists are 'strong atheists', whereas, in my experience, quite a number are, in fact, 'weak atheists', as they are atheists due to the evidence, or, more properly, lack of it, rather than because they have a strong affirmative belief in the non-existence of God.)

As for his 'trick question', the only problem with it is that it's flawed. Yes, we do know that Stonehenge was built by man in reality, but, in his hypothetical situation, the one and only bit of evidence we would have that man even existed in Britain at all in that period is the simple fact Stonehenge exists. This would only be enough to propose the hypothesis that man built Stonehenge, but, in the complete absence of further evidence, no-one would be able to prove this hypothesis scientifically. Urushnor 19:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Just thought of something else - going by his argument, in reality (not his hypothetical situation), the fact that man built Stonehenge is not actually a 'fact'. You see, going by his idea of science, if I propose aliens built it, not man, someone has to prove me wrong before that's not science. Wonder if I should bother pointing this out over there? Urushnor 20:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The YEC Article is incoherent

I know what you're thinking, but it's more incoherent than normal! Look at its excerpt on the front page of CP:

“”At the same time, young earth creation scientist argue that the young universe view is the inference to the best explanation.

Huh?!?!-caius (tinker) 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

You know: if you utilize your powers of logimagiticy and inteligenciamaticism than it becomes very clear that a young earth is a paramount physicalamonius Truth --with a quite capital T-- per se, vis-vis thereby and there for, and at the same time again, contrapulataminating , those lying darwinist bastard heretics. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 15:07, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Sheesh, you should copy that bit of magnificence into our YEC article somehow... to save it for posterity. human 15:40, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Just some garden variety irony

I find it amusing that Crocoite is using an xkcd comic on his user page. Especially when xkcd supports such messages as http://xkcd.com/54/ and http://xkcd.com/154/ and http://xkcd.com/164/ (be sure to read the mouse over for the image ) Nothing more. Carry on. PS - ever think http://xkcd.com/136/ will be an entry at a homeschool science fair? --Shagie 15:22, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

The "someone on the internet is wrong" toon also appears on - iirc - Drek's anti-CP blog. Made me chuckle when I saw it there. :D Fox 15:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

As a note, could someone fix the licensing on http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Duty_Calls.png - its not "fair use", it is "creative commons" as specified in http://xkcd.com/license.html - and you need to link to http://xkcd.com/ instead of the jpg itself to be in compliance with the license. --Shagie 15:58, 27 April 2008 (EDT)