Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive80

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <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)

Reading talk pages? Google {conservapedia FBI} instead!

The mysterious edit-summary touter is still at it, and appears to be branching out into new markets, such as pet supplies. --Marty 16:39, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Well "Conservapedia is having problems" in my neck of the woods so I can't check further. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Looks like thay just had a memory hole. The last edit on the RC was 16:28 EST but I'm sure there was stuff posted after that. And they're down again. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:14, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

CP down again (although I was a good little peon and googled "conservapedia FBI", we can add that one to the list :D ). We're 100% sure that when they go down and reappear their entire history hasn't changed 1984 style, right? ArmondikoV^sshole 17:19, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy breaks his perfect record

And lo, a cite appears on the until-now citeless cp:Essay:Liberal Denials about History. And what a cite, suggesting as it does that the slave trade was entirely the fault of those nasty northerners, and the good Confederate boys had nuffin' to do wif' it. --Kels 19:01, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Just as an aside, it's odd that Andy considers this a Liberal denial, when even the INCREDIBLY LIBERAL OMG SIX TIMES MORE THAN REAL AMERICANS Wikipedia quite clearly mentions it in the RI article. --Kels 19:05, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I love the source! Some guy from Australia, writing on a re-enactment site, no sources cited whatsoever. One can only be impressed with the quality of scholarship here! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't be absurd, "AKjeldsen". If the source supports what they already wanted to believe, it must be accurate. Pink_{(Please don't ignore logic)} 19:17, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I'm waiting until it starts to creep into his American history lectures, he's at about the point where it would be relevant. And at some point he's got to add it to the Rhode Island entry and somehow tie it to modern liberals, because these are important facts that shouldn't be censored, y'know. --Kels 19:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Does he not know basic economics? Without demand, the supply will decrease, it's no good importing tons of sand to Morocco, no matter how cheap - there's no demand.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:38, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

hah! "the confederate flag NEVER flew over a single slaveship"! Hi-fucking-larious. ħuman 19:53, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

You mean slave ships in the late 18th and early 19th centuries didn't fly a flag first flown in 1860? Say it ain't so, Joe! Really, Andy, you've got some great sources. Random re-enactors? Really? And did you notice that this article contradicts your "triangular trade is a myth" idiocy? Plus, your hypothesis seems to be that separation of church and state means slavery is a-okay, but embracing Christianity means slavery is bad. Of course, if this Rhode Island concept is true, then it only means that they were slightly worse than the other colonies, and, of course, the South eventually became by far the area most involved in slavery, so it kind of shoots down your theory. DickTurpis 20:13, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Hum, can I ask what is so "liberal" about a slave trade triangle? Do liberals like triangles cause they are associated with gays? I'm quite serious. It feels like he made a mistake, but instead of saying "oops, you're right, a triangle", he had to cover his ass as the Smartest Ass in the Land, and just lie lie lie. (no wonder he likes Palin). Am I missing something political here about the slave trade? --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 20:27, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy's problem with the "triangular trade" model is fucking befuddling. I know he likes to argue that there was nothing the Africans had that would have created a market for European manufactured goods--he doesn't see slaves as a "commodity," which one needs to do to understand the economics of the trade, not like it's a huge leap to make. Part of it maybe has to do with keeping the Africans primitive and unable to participate in a modern global economic system of exchange, maybe? I dunno. Damn liberals. PFoster 20:31, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I think his argument isn't that the Africans had nothing to trade, it's that they had no demand for finished goods from Europe, presumably because they were primitive savages who didn't know what to do with the refined merchandise of civilized men. Not that Andy's a racist or anything. DickTurpis 21:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Actually, I always took it as Andy trying to fabricate some way of distancing Christianity from the slave trade. He's tried to pin slavery on liberals, atheists and Darwinists for a while now, only to be countered by the fact that the slavers, and the buyers of those slaves, were uniformly white Christians, mostly in the southern US. I expect the Rhode Island business has to do with this as well, and eventually we'll be hearing how Confederate Christians didn't even own slaves in the first place, which makes you wonder who Rhode Island was importing them for. --Kels 21:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Jinx and Mexico

Regarding the WIGO item, I think Jinx was trying to save a change while CP was on the fritz. I've done the same thing, to be fair. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 19:09, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Fun though when it's Jinx _{(Hi Jinx!)}   ^Contribs_Talk 19:14, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Exactly! We've probably all done it, but 6 times? And then not checking what he had posted? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:46, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken's secret identity

Revealed! --Kels 19:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Love it, where do you find 'em, Kels? Any more on this one?   ^Contribs_Talk 19:41, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

here!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:46, 6 October 2008 (EDT) (google "hoverboy the republican superhero")

The mind boggles at the sort of executive thinking that leads to attempts to enter the largely untapped Amish comic book market. Sheds some light on the dot-com era, I should say. --JeevesMkII 20:10, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Poe's law?   ^Contribs_Talk 20:12, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Precisely ... is this comic for real? I'm confused. Etc 01:58, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

At one point, yes. Although the Amish thing was a joke. --Kels 07:26, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"At one point, yes". Really?? Everything on that page (including the covers) looks like a spoof to me. weaseLOId~ 08:38, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Come off it, you reckon this is a real comic? weaseLOId~ 08:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

The whole thing's a parody, and a brilliant one at that. It just takes a ridiculous character and uses it as the focal point to spoof the way iconic characters are redefined over time and in different media. Most of the humor is aimed at long-time comics fans, which is why it probably looks bizarre to anyone else. --SpinyNorman 09:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Here's a cool hoverboy video, btw: --SpinyNorman 09:42, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

And then there's this

(unindent) Hoverboy is a fake old comic, created in modern day and retconned into publishing history (as far as I know). However, Superdickery is not a spoof. All (or at least most) of the covers/scans are real. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I never know what header to use for Andy's stupidity. ...

... but this taketh ye biscuit!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:04, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

"On the other hand, it is the same thought." man, is English his first language or what?PFoster 21:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Christ on a bike... Pink_(!!) 21:07, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

(Specially when his source comes to the opposite conclusion)   ^Contribs_Talk 21:10, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy's first language is clearly "Skimming". --Kels 21:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

I know this has been addressed before, but jesus Andy's got himself a bad case of "that n***er done done himself better than me, how dare he".--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 21:21, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

It has been addressed before: Many times. Many, many times. (Brit radio injoke)   ^Contribs_Talk 21:29, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Mystery! Who ghostwrites Andy's encyclopaedia entries? As a graduate of Harvard, it is natural to expect that Andy could write in coherent sentences. His articles, however, bear a striking resemblance to those of his friend Elmer Fudd. --JeevesMkII 21:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

According to a number of recent edits, some dude at the CDC is the author of a lot of Andy's entries. Thank goodness that homeschooling directly addresses the morality of plagiarism.--Martin Arrowsmith 23:57, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

The worst part is, he has to start by assuming Obama didn't write his books, because his first piece of evidence is "Obama is not an accomplished writer". This is not logic, people! Pink_{(>_<)} 21:39, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Gods below, take a look at this edit comment. Does anyone else get the feeling that Andy's taking more than a casual glance at this stuff for the first time? --Kels 23:04, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Something I must announce to the RW population, plus whoever else is stalking reading this page

Will some please tell me why they insist on spelling Adolf with a "ph" at the end? It's utter madness! :O 75.169.215.55 21:22, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't sweat the small stuph. --Kels 21:23, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Why call a question an announcement?   ^Contribs_Talk 21:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Stuph is actually Old English for a piece of clothing. I gained +1 point on an essay in high school because I used the word correctly. Candlewick 22:26, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Good point, Suz. I appreciate your phine editing skills in frasing and such, but I just wish Conservapedia would at least have the nerve to spell right, phor spelling is the highest phorm of phlattery. 75.169.215.55 22:43, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

My gown is made of stuff (stuph?). --Horace 01:49, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather spell it - stuphph. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 08:09, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Relevance

Somebody, please. explain the relevance of the picture on this page.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

It makes the article look mathy. --Kels 21:47, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Oops! I hadn't noticed that it was put there by joaquin, who apparently thinks that any picture enhances an article.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

They make a very, very brief mention of what a "particle" in the "particle physics" sense is... The big problem: they don't even explain the picture though. How can someone so badly handle a wiki based article? I can't imagine being that disorganised or silly. You have the caption option in the image tag for a reason, Media Wiki is a powerful language for writing articles (and after recently trying to learn HTML, I think it's superior for writing pages) and they (the non-parodist editors) just can't figure it out! Oh, and the image is "fair use". I know I'm stating the damn obvious but sometimes one just needs to "ARGGHH!!!" and slam the keyboard into one's head. ArmondikoV^sshole 04:13, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I fucking hate Joaquin.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 04:38, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Take a look at cp:Zenith. It's nowhere near as random as the "particle physics" picture, but I still find it amusingly mysterious. (JM had originally used this horribly un-American image, but I made him change it.) --Marty 12:49, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Why we need a sock in Andy's class

I was thinking about his statement on how the only the only completely reliable authority is the Bible. When he gets to the antebellum period and the Civil War, I want to see someone answer a question on slavery by quoting passages in the Bible defending the practice, arguing that it wasn't so bad after all. What sort of grade would he give for that, I wonder. DickTurpis 23:18, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

His class is on Thursdays at 2:00pm (EST), good luck ^{— Unsigned, by: Kektklik sock / talk / contribs}

Andy doesn't actually care what the Bible says - he cares what he thinks it says. He's entirely willing to ignore chunks of it if he thinks it conflicts with what he does. He's primarily using it as a means of appearing more just than anyone else. - Lardashe

That's pretty much how it is... Andy obviously doesn't believe in the infallibility of the bible, or he would never have accused it of having liberal bias and wanting to edit out the parts he doesn't like. He is perfectly happy disregarding parts that conflict with his racist, sexist, homophobic view. As a matter of fact, I find a startling trend in fundies. Most of them (at least the ones I know) really seem to adapt "traditional values" as a legitimate way to express their hatred for others. If I (Chuck) said that homosexuals are evil sinners destined for eternal punishment, I'm just a jackass, but if James Dobson says it, he's a paragon of traditional religious values. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 13:13, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

PJR's WIGO entry

He lists those three reasons as "Biblical and theological reasons", not scientific ones. While many theologians might take issue with his claim that "The Bible unambiguously records that the entire time from the start of the universe to the appearance of humans was six ordinary days", the WIGO entry as it stands should be pulled as he is not claiming his reasons as scientific. Ajkgordon 03:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I posted it and have no problem with it being changed however, remember, this is his argument for the earth being 6000 years old. And convincing it is not. Hence the posting. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 03:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is his argument, but scientific it is not, nor does he claim it to be. He does make scientific claims, or rather explains the claims of the various YEC groups he associates with, but this is not an example of this. Theologically he is correct in his reasons except that he should, of course, mention that many Christian theologians don't agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis which support his argument. Ajkgordon 03:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I have edited the entry to reflect it as PJR's circular reasoning however, pull it if you deem it pulled. I quite liked it though. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 03:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I voted it down because as Ajkgordon says it is clearly biblical and theological arguments, however we don't pull WIGO entries. If you are unhappy vote it down. - User $\approx$$\pi$ 04:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Well I could have made better snark. I was in a hurry. Nonetheless I love his "logic". Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:11, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I was think something along the line of "the biblical account for a recent creation is true because the world is only 6,000, it says so in the bible", obviously something a little pithier. - 3.14159 (needs to fix his signature)

Meh, I'm easy. Change if you feel it so. I have been drinking and just uploaded a pic of some mexicans ass on a talk page so I dont know if I am the best at editorial direction right now. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I think an arse sums up that talkpage nicely. - 3.14159 (might do something about it later)

thats the first thing I thought of the whole rotten conversation. I come here for recreation not to talk serious business (or what might quantify "serious business" - I have enough of that at home). Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What conversation? Ajkgordon 04:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

This one it has been going on all day. - 3.14159 (actually I won't bother I like this long typing) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh. Looks nasty. Shall I just block all mass debaters with my new powerz? Ajkgordon 04:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

@AJK, I think Pi and I represent the more cerebral of arguments so, aside from us, block away. Oh, and dont delete the mexican ass pic. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 04:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Trouble-makers the lot of the I think we would be better off without those mass-debaters. - User $\approx$$\pi$ 05:04, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Pi is right, time to trim the fat. And these rickets are driving me crazy, block them too. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 05:20, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Back somewhat on topic, isn't PJR getting dangerously close to applying human morality to god with his second point? If so, is this tacit acknowledgement that it bloody well is immoral to send someone to hell for all eternity for trifling sins like stealing a penny sweet when you were a kid? It seems like he desperately needs the Earth to be young so he doesn't have to deal with the consequences of god sitting back for millennia allowing people to go directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect £200. Here's a hint PJR, none of this is a problem if you simply accept that god was invented by man. --JeevesMkII 11:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jeeves, you got a shout out! --Kels 06:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh ho! Biblical morality! Classic. That's the morality that seems ugly and unacceptable to us, but must be right because god says so isn't it? --JeevesMkII 07:48, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Raising the level of discourse

While browsing the "New Books" shelf of my local library, I ran across Reading the OED: One Man, One Year, 21730 Pages. You can probably guess what it's about. The narrative was tedious, but there were good lists of uncommon words, many of which might be useful when discussing CP and its populace. Following is a small selection:

• bayard (n.) -- A person armed with the self-confidence of ignorance.
• constult (v.) -- to act stupidly together
• insordescent (adj.) -- growing in filthiness
• mafflard (n.) -- a stuttering or blundering fool
• mawworm (n.) -- a hypocrite with pretensions of sanctity
• mumpish (adj.) -- sullenly angry
• philodox (n.) -- a person in love with his own opinion
• quisquilious (adj.) -- of the nature of garbage or trash
• recrudescence (n.) -- the reappearance of something bad
• sequacious (adj.) -- prone to following the thoughts and opinions of others in a fashion that is slavish and unreasoning
• silentiary (n.) -- an official whose job is to command silence
• zabernism (n.) -- the misuse of [military] authority; bullying or aggression

And one for RW:

• goat-drunk (adj.) -- made lascivious by alcohol

--WJThomas 13:04, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, those are fun. Thanks! Mawworm. that's going to be my new favorite!--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 13:26, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

These should be the categories in the next round of awards given to CP-ers, i.e. "Biggest Mawworm". --SpinyNorman 13:47, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Perfect! ħuman 17:37, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Brokeback Mountain WIGO

I think Foxtrot is finally coming out of the closet. The parodist closet, I mean. That article is brillant. But still he's right that the stars of Brokeback were total no-names: Heath Ledger's Hollywood career is basically finished, and even today, Jake Ghyllenhall gets only 94 hits on Google.

Foxy's still a sysop... can we look forward to another MexMaxing? --Marty 13:06, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What's the relevance of that second link? Did you mean to link to that? weaseLOId~ 15:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Funny! "Heath Ledger's Hollywood career is basically finished" - well yeah, he's dead. :p so I guess that would put a damper on his career... and if you spell it right you get: Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 4,070,000 for Jake Gyllenhaal. Unsigned by User:Refugee.

Um...yes? -- Yossarian@school being lazy^{Wasn't that the point? >_>} 15:19, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

And, of course, someone has to point out that Ledger's most successful movie - so far - actually was released after his death. Etc 15:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, yeah, if you spell it right, sure "Gyllenhaal" gets a lot more hits. And now everyone's piling on... I do like that HelpJazz added {{fact}} tags to all the polysyllabic^{[citation needed]} words, instead of putting them on actual clauses relating to Foxy's unsupported^{[citation needed]} claims. :) --Marty 21:38, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

That's because putting the {{fact}} tag next to the actual disputed claim is more precise than simply slapping one on the end of the sentence. ("Hollywood rewarded the homosexual agenda", "Hollywood... festooned the movie"; rewarded and festooned are the claims being made, not the whole clause). If you put one on the end of the sentence ("Despite the destructive message of this film, liberal Hollywood rewarded the homosexual agenda by festooning the movie with several awards including three Oscars, four BAFTA awards, and four Golden Globes"), then the tag is ambiguous and useless. 99 times out of 100 someone will put up a reference that has nothing to do with the questioned phrase, then the whole thing just goes around again. JazzMan 23:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Foxtrot is back again, not adressing the {{fact}} tags, but proving (yes, with numbers!) that Ledger and Gyllenhaal were no-names taking a risk. --LArron 05:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Assfly/Obama side-by-side comparison

Can someone who's better at this sort of shit than me set up one of them patented rationalwiki side-by-side comparison thingamabobs to examine the accomplishments of Obama and Dr. Babyshakes? I think we need one. I imagine the result would make Andy look so pathetic I might almost feel sorry for him. Almost. DickTurpis 16:12, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks to Pink 'n' Pi for their work on this. Coming along well. Check it out: Conservapedia:Barack Obama comparison DickTurpis 17:38, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Great idea, I have to go look now! ħuman 17:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Numerical Issues

Look closely.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

/facepalm. Seriously, he must be a parodist. Norseman^Wassail! 23:08, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I can't lie. Fiveteen has long been my favorite number. DickTurpis 23:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

It may have been caused by not having a four earlier. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 23:18, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Five gets all the attention. --Kels 23:19, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Tetraphobia! Norseman^Wassail! 23:24, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I am not a number, I am a free man! (Unless I get to be fiveteen...) ħuman 23:40, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Release the anti-escape orb! --JeevesMkII 23:50, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

"We want information. Information! INFORMATION!"

"You won't get it."

"By hook or by crook, we will." --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Maybe this is just the beginning of a denial that the number 4 exists, and he will go on to tell his students that in fact 2 + 2 = 5. weaseLOId~ 07:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Are you such a dreamer

To put the world to rights

I'll stay home forever

But 2 and 2, always makes a 5...--Thom Yorke ^{— Unsigned, by: My new favourite editor / talk / contribs}

Thanks. It's fixed. Candlewick 17:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sweet Holy Fuckin' Jesus Christ....

He must be a parodist...a separate set of times for boys and girls to write an exam?!?!?! PFoster 23:55, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

someone screen captured that, right? I'd send it to every single parent who subscribes to "eagle nation" or eagle forum, or whatever the online version is. Sick and wrong. even in parody.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 00:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Screencapped

Liberal deceiver! They have the same amount of time. Just different numbers of questions. Girls write slower because of all the curlicues and hearts and pictures of unicorns that they have to put in, so it would be unfair to ask them to answer as many questions as the boys, who are naturally competitive and will therefore race to be the first to hand in a completed test paper.--Martin Arrowsmith 00:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Isn't this teh Affirmative Action he's always complaining about? Different standards for different groups? This is why Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review (and hence State Senator, Senator, and President) instead of Assfly. DickTurpis 00:08, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

In other news, today the Schlafly administration urged congress to repeal largely defensive weapon of gun laws. Responding to critics, Secretary of State McHue remarked, "FUCK YOU!!!" --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Or rather, he responded with the Schlafly equivalent, "Godspeed". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

It's not really affirmative action, but it certainly is a form of relativism, which is wholly ironic considering he's Mr. Anti-relativism: no moral relativism, no physical relativism (a la Einstein), no mathematical relativism (characteristics relative to a subgroup but not the entire set, e.g. one of the big Lenski affair issues, with Brossa's murderer age analogy), no interpretive relativism (he's right, if you don't agree you're deluded or deceitful, or both). But undue educational relativism- well that just fine! Kallium^talk 12:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck STUPID. My branez asploded. Luckily, my irony meter's protection circuits kicked in, and the smoke is still inside it. ħuman 23:54, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Misogyny

I was trying to post that, too. We have two WIGOs for that right now.

I just don't know where to begin with this. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 23:56, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm speechless. What the arseraping christ is he thinking? D'ya reckon the girl's midterm will concern kittens and knitting while the boys will have woodwork and rugger? --JeevesMkII 23:58, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Rugger? I hardly know 'er. Sorry. PFoster 23:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

This is utterly fucked up. But I'm also wondering, if this is a test to be given in class, why is he writing it on a wiki? Doesn't he have Microsoft Word? DickTurpis 00:00, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I also tried to post it. Of course, if the girls finish their questions earlier, they will have time to bake the guys cookies and listen to them brag about their scores. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 00:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

He's not holding it in at all anymore. Gentlemen, I believe we are beginning to reach the mother lode of Schlafly. Etc 01:22, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

WTF? So now girls aren't just useless at math and science, but history too? The man is a maggot. I'd love to know what Bethany thinks about this (if she is capable of thinking for herself, that is.) The parents who allowed their children into Andy's class should be charged with abuse. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 01:29, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Bethany has responded on his talk page, and at the end of it, submitted. Smyth 13:05, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... "Well, you're the teacher, you make the decisions; I will submit." How embarrassing in so many ways. Now READ groomer, and throw up a little in your throat. ħuman 23:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I suppose the girls have to answer question about the sinful nature of menstruation, while the boys are occupied by masturbation... --LArron 02:38, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow. He really is an assfly. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:11, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy is hilarious!, Imagine the outcry something like this would cause in public school.Willis 09:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Monstrous misogyny aside, and I wish there was a hell so he'd get what he deserves, did anyone notice the "Nothing deducted for wrong answers" bit? --Kels 06:03, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

That bit makes sense to me. He simply means that he won't be using negative marking. For those not in the know, negative marking is a scheme whereby a correct answer gets +ve marks, no answer given gets 0 marks and a wrong answer gets -ve marks. It is used to discourage random guessing in a multi-choice format.

More questions means less points off for wrong answers. Once my block expires, I'll ask him the purpose of giving boys more questions. He could really easily create tests of the same number of questions, but use different questions. Candlewick 06:49, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

This is truely despicable. I think that Andy is going on the data that says boys tend to do better on multiple choice exams than girls do. His solution is idiotic. I don't see why Andy "statistics" Schlafly doesn't just ask his students to fill out a short questionnaire at the start of the semester, then assign grades based on the responses. "I see you like horses, but don't like football. There is a 95% chance that you won't do well in my course. C-." It would save everyone alot of time...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 06:59, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, screw the survey. He seems to share Dubya's ability to look into a person's soul and judge them (i.e. look at them and apply stereotypes and prejudices). Why not just parade the students in front of him on the first day and have him assign grades based on appearance. "Andy's one day history course. Guaranteed free of librul deceits. Only 99.95."-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 07:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

No, no, no--ya'll are way off-base here. Andy's not making the test easier for the girls because he hates them and thinks they're stupid, he's making it easier for the girls because they hate him and think he's stupid. Look at it from Andy's point of view--he's surrounded by dozens of sweet-smelling young girls, but they don't laugh at his jokes, they scrunch up their faces with disgust when he tries to look down the front of their shirts, and they push him away when he gives them one of those long lingering hugs of encouragement. Andy has to do something to get in their good graces...--WJThomas 08:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

In which case, this probably wasn't a wise thing to say to him. <-shudder-> weaseLOId~ 14:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Ahh, are we suggesting a Lolita fetish to go along with the gerbil one? That's sad.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 14:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

My personal suspicion is that he knows the girls in his class are simply better students. Most schools that has proven to be the case. I think it has something to do with knowing you are fighting pre-conceptions, but all of our honor classes in highschool had probably 60/40 margins girls to boys. I think the "harder" view is a way for him to "justify" that the girls are getting better grades than boys. remember, he chastised the girls for *lording* their grades over the boys, as if the boys needed to be protected from that. --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 12:59, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's what it looks like to me too - he wants to make the sexes non-comparable lest (horrors!) the girls do better than the boys. Pseudomonas 15:27, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Looking at the topics to be covered on the exam, there seems to be one missing that might be important for an assessment of the students' knowledge of American history from pre-Columbian times through Reconstruction. This is a minor detail, just a quibble- completely just me being an idiosyncratic stickler, but might you want to ask about The Civil War?? No, it's not on the topic list. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 12:59, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

It makes me sad he can publicly defend himself thinking he's in the right. Even on the talk page, he just calls a user an idiot for comparing "apples to oranges", then ignores all other comments to just reply to Bethany. Typical Andy, but this takes the equality scale cake. Norseman^Wassail! 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm having trouble figuring out if this is a new low or totally expected. What a gosh darned cunt. ArmondikoV^sshole 14:14, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

The mid-term is still a way off, it seems. I think he's adding the subjects as he covers them in class, so the Civil War simply hasn't been added yet. I have no doubt Andy will cover it. There's plenty of opportunity for him to praise Republicans and bash Democrats, pretending the parties are the same today as they were then. DickTurpis 14:36, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

That's a fair point. I would also note that there is no bullet for the Revolutionary War. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 15:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Didn't Andy say that the whole justification for his "biggest history class in the world" nonsense was because larger classes encourage competition between students, or something along those lines? Yet now he says the reason for having different tests is to reduce competition between boys and girls? Every time I think he can't possibly stoop any lower.... alt 16:07, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Un-freaking-believable. So the girls have less questions because their "smaller minds" don't function as well, eh? No way would I ever allow a child to participate in his "class". Refugee^{talk page} 18:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't normally pay any attention to this part, because I think CP is beyond redemption. However, THIS? WHAT THE &(#$%W (&@# IS THAT (*(&*^ THINKING? IS HE JUST A (#&$(& OR @(*W(*EURpojpaljklsajfljdflj *Headdesk, blood pouring from my eyes* Good god damn, I now hate that man. Researcher 22:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I didn't read most of what y'all (2 years in Missouri, I can play) wrote above, but I did a stupid and commented at talk:assfly. My theory (see the post) is that the girls would pwn the boys, so let's give them a harder test to really challenge them. Oh, I note my "submission" broke, let's see if it's there... yes, cool. Broken wikis suck ass. Your faithful CP editor and total idiot, ħuman 00:06, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

SlapHappy

Here we can see the power of a good prophecy: It is fulfilled at once...
While JPatt just promised that You [sic] next ban is for life., Bugler takes the necessary steps to make this come true - without any further contributions of SlapHappy --LArron 03:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, according to JPatt, "your logic is tiresome". Indeed, logic can be quite a nuisance. For some people. Etc 05:37, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Uncomfortable Questions

Just another quick example of Andy's argument technique. This user was banned straight away and the comment removed in the next edit:

Hello! I a FrederickA, a loyal conservative, and I know that information is essential to fighting liberals. But I believe that outright lying is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. You claim that Hitler was an Atheist, but he was a devout Catholic. You claim that abortions cause breast cancer, but every major cancer society says that abortion and cancer are unrelated. I don't have time to explain why, but it makes snese. Why the outright lies???--FrederickA 21:54, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Reason for banning: unjustified claims of "lies". Exactly what was he claiming that was unjustified? Crundy 08:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

It means he's right and the burden is on the user to prove him wrong, which is a paradox trap meant to block the user in the end. Even if the user proved he was lying, Andy is always right, so he can't be lying. Thus, the futility. Also note, he said "lies", as if to say "They aren't lies, but they're far from the truth" sort of thing. lulz Norseman^Wassail! 09:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Phhttt, boring. Any user who says to teh assfly, "as a conservative..." is a guaranteed troll, why waste time on them? ħuman 01:17, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I lol'ed

"Conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty."

Okay, Andy. Let's see him honestly prove that (see the irony?). He's on a roll lately. :D Norseman^Wassail! 09:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT) Oh yeah, one of my favorite sections of CP, too, where Ed warns a user for remarks while Andy threw the first punch. It's great!

This one makes me quite angry - not even politically, just at Andy's sheer bloody-mindedness in saying (as he does here & elsewhere) that every time people whom he doesn't agree with say that they're offended, they're actually just faking it. It's the lowest form of counterargument, & he comes close to implying that liberals don't have real feelings. I was almost moved to respond, pointing out that the citation next to the "feigning offence" bit in the article says that Coulter described female Democrat supporters as "no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons" & asking Andy why it's unfeasable for people to be offended by this, e.g. wouldn't he be offended if I called his wife or mother something like that? But it just wouldn't be worth the ensuing pointless argument, Bugler jumping in to defend Andy aggressively, the inevitable block, a waste of time just like the previous discussion on that page from a few months ago. weaseLOId~ 09:38, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

When your world view is that you and your ilk are always right and those with an oppositing view are wrong then it's obvious that if your opponents are offended then they must be faking it as there was no valid reason for them to be offended in the first place. Of course I actually agree with Andy that a lot of offense is manufactured rather than real, because it generates good copy for the media. However, I think it is pretty universal and not a one-sided issue. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

True, but there are plenty of examples of Ann Coulter using offensive & inflamatory language - "faggot", "raghead", 9/11 widows "enjoying their husbands' deaths", Jews being "unperfected Christians" or whatever her quote was on that. The media may exaggerate the public offence in reaction to these a bit, as frankly people expect that kind of talk from her, but clearly the individuals these comments are aimed at are genuinely offended. weaseLOId~ 10:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

liberals don't have real feelings is precisely what Andy beleives -- see liberal love ( I think). Afterall, you can't dehumanize and objectify your enemy if said enemy has "feelings" ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 11:00, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

There is no liberal love (not on Conservapedia anyway!). Do you mean the CP: liberal friendship article? weaseLOId~ 11:08, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it was a full article, actually, it might have been a talk page comment/discussion, and I don't know how to search those. I think the logic was that love could only be felt through "God" or somesuch, and therefore atheists (and, by extension, liberals) could never feel real love. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:20, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

In my opinion, a lot of the satisfaction Andy gets from Conservapedia is pissing off Liberals. He's definately committed Crackpot Conservative, but I'm not sure he completely 100% believes everything he says. Some of his comments - like this one - are another jab to the stomach of the evil lefties. He knows full well that it's an irritating thing to say. That's why he's said it. Matt oblong 11:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I disagree. I think Andy really believes that he is incapable of speaking anything but distilled truth. Making up things to piss off Liberals requires a level of consciousness of his deceit that I think he would be opposed to. All self-delusion requires some conscious thought, but anything further would stumble into moral relativism, a 'big' no-no in the fundy crowd. Even when Andy is outright lying, I thinl he wants it to be the truth so much that he starts to believe the lie. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 12:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Not this again!?! hehe . . of course Andy is lying. He simply beleives the end ( him as king of the world) justifies the means (pack upon pack of filthy lies). You can tell by how he picks up on themes that have a particular effect and the way he simply pretends not to see or understand any text that veers from his agenda. it's just sooooo obvious. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 13:02, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it's somewhere in between. He comes up with these stupid ideas that pop into his head and puts them down in CP without any critical thought. Then when it's pointed out to him exactly how stupid these ideas are in an undeniable way, he either has to defend them or admit he's wrong. The latter is a no starter, so he forces himself to accept them and make up even more stupid shit in his defense. He paints himself into a corner with alarming speed, and the result is the idiocy and hilarity that keeps RW functioning. DickTurpis 13:22, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I will concede that he does not give much thought to what is true and what is a lie, but that's as far as I'm going. There are just too many contradictions. 204.248.28.194 16:21, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

What Andy's kids are learning

Nathaneal's last answer is truly scary. (The worst part of slavery was its effects on freedom of speech. Somehow the gays are the moral equivalent of slaveholders because they do the same thing. I think that's what the kid is getting at, but he writes at a Grade One level, so it's hard to tell...) Somebody PLEASE fess up and tell me that it's actually a parodist, before I kill myself in despair. PFoster 13:25, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I know, I keep having the same thought. And it doesn't help that Andy keeps giving them As for these answers. Smyth 13:30, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Did you see the questions? The slavery/gay issue is pretty clearly the answer Andy is fishing for. What a dickhead. Man do I feel sorry for those gerbils. DickTurpis 13:31, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Dear God. That's horrible. Horribly stupid, that is. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

(ec)I feel weird doing this, cause they are innocent kids, but it's publicly posted. anyhow... "A cause of the War of 1812 was electing the egghead James Madison, to the presidency." So an entire war can be justified by one lunatic at the helm. I wouldn't even say that about the current Iraq war, and that really is far more "one man to blame" type, than 1812. And using "jughead" on a homework assignment? You'd never get away with name calling in my class, sheesh. At least have an argument.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 13:33, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Is his childrens learning? Probably not... Well, depends on the definition of "learning". They are learning stuff, it's just mostly fantasy and decades out of date.

The really funny thing about that statement is that Madison really wasn't thrilled to go to war against a freaking superpower. To put that into modern definition, it would be like if Chavez actually attempted to invade America. Madison simply had to acknowledge the complaints of the New England shipping companies and, for most people, take a stand against England... I weep for these children. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 14:26, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

KatieB has posted her answers, with this gem for the slavery/free speech question:

H5. Slavery affected freedom of speech because when people did speak their mind and express dislike they risked having to face undue consequences from people who didn’t want to hear it. This is like homosexuality today, because if Christians speak out against it they can be sued for hate speech even though all they were doing was exercising a constitutional right. It’s an unspoken rule that you can’t voice disagreement with anyone considered a ‘minority’ or they will lash back at you in any way possible with surprising strength considering their ‘small numbers’.

Sigh. I hate the world now. Thanks, little KatieB. You made Foster start drinking again. I hope you're satisfied.PFoster 19:40, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

What's the WC Fields line? "She was the woman who drive me to drink...and I never had the courtesy to thank her for it." DickTurpis 00:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy works under the concept that if you say it enough times it becomes the truth.--TimS 15:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

c.f. The Bellman in The Hunting Of The Snark - What I tell you three times is true. Silver Sloth 15:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Today gays are affecting out freedom to speech by placing the hate speech law on us. Look. I know there might be some gays affecting out in the RW readership but please don't place the hate speech on us. Think of the children. See, it's funny if you read it like that . .. er . . maybe not. 72.218.143.218 20:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

This gem from SaraW (Student 10)

3. One cause of the War of 1812 was when General William Henry Harrison attacked Tecumseh’s (a Shawnee Indian who was uniting tribes, which threatened Americans) village. This increased tension between Indians and Americans.

So, Sarah, the Indians weren't Americans? Are they nowadays or do you have to be a WASP to be an American? Silver Sloth 10:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, they weren't citizens of the United States of America, and "Americans" is shorthand for that, so I consider that a semantic point. Much more disturbing is that Andy is clearly trying to get his students to draw a parallel between slavery and the "homosexual agenda" in these assignments. DickTurpis 10:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Considering that back then, Indians weren't considered human a lot of the time, that sounds about right, unfortunately. --Gulik 15:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I fully admit to being a little behind on my early American history.... but what did the Indians have to do with the war of 1812? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 15:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

IanG

Think HelpJazz/PJR will save him again? Bugler just bans him out of the blue, apparently it's okay to call people maggots and such but calling a _parodist spade what it is... well... you get the idea. Guess his 1 day block before wasn't good enough? Norseman^Wassail! 15:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate silence

I'm guessing - from the complete lack of mention on CP's "news" page - that the debate went badly enough for McSame that they can't even put their usual brand of spin on it? Interesting to see on CSPAN that the McCain's left and Obama stayed to work the crowd. and WTF was that "that one" comment? Did Granpappy's mask slip for a minute, revealing a slimy undercoat? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

There's not much you can do to spin it. McCain needed a big win, and he didn't get it. Even if you call the debate a tie, McCain loses, because Obama is ahead in the polls. I haven't yet seen anybody call the debate for McCain.

Palin running around and inciting crowds to yell racial slurs at TV crews isn't going to win over undecided voters in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado. They most likely want substance (should I say "substantive comments?") and McCain aides have clearly stated that along with pulling out of Michigan, the McCain campaign is pulling out of, uh, the issues. When a staggering 56% (I think) of people polled say that the economy is their number one issue, it's a bad sign when aides say that the campaign is going to avoid the economy completely and just go dirty. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 16:11, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

It was Obamas to lose and although he didnt win hands down he didnt lose it either. If you are an Obama fan you would find he did well, same goes if you were a McCain fan. However, if you are an independent and unsure who to vote for then McCain came across as a grumpy old man with dysentary who is asking which one of you stole his newspaper. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 16:27, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Was thinking the same thing, Psy, that CP didn't give a single mention of the debate in their news. Same with the Palin-Biden debate, for the most part. "If you can't say nothing nice, don't say anything at all." I guess! Norseman^Wassail! 16:50, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Funny, earlier today I was thinking about how he reminds me of the old lady next door when I was a kid who would yell at us when we accidentally threw a ball into her yard. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 16:53, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I think the interactive format of the debate contributed to that kind of perception. With the candidates able to meander around a stage instead of standing behind a podium, McCain looks/acts about 100 years older than Obama. At least on my TV.--Bayes 18:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Bats are NOT Bugs

This is slightly off topic, but hopefully you will indulge me. I was rambling around today thinking random thoughts. For some reason I was thinking about bats, then something caused me to think about bugs. The juxtaposition hit me like a pickup truck. I am a huge Calvin and Hobbes fan, and I remembered that there was one story arc in which Calvin wrote a school report on bats. He "researches" the report by listing the things he knows about bats: bats are bugs. Armed with this "fact" he attempts to get a good grade through extensive use of glitter and flowery language. The moral is obvious, and there are several good moments in these strips. (Notably when Calvin delivers his oral report he gets the introductory sentence out before being stopped dead by the cry of the entire class, "Bats are NOT Bugs.")

I was laughing a little to myself when the parallels struck me like a fully-laden eighteen-wheeler. Andy is Calvin in the "bats are bugs" story arc. The only difference is that Andy has retreated to an environement where anyone who cries out "Bats are NOT Bugs" is instantly permabanned. Even more pleasingly we seem to fit the role of Hobbes, the voice of reason, a sarcastic wit tempered with compassion for Calvin's delusion and a love of tuna fish and naps. This extended metaphor (microcosm maybe?) seems more and more relevent with each "insight" Andy parades out in front of his followers. A made-up fact off the top of his head, to be buttressed with glitter and flowery language. I wish that I had my comic collection with me so I could read these strips again to fill this idea out some more. I am sure my memory is letting me down...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:09, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

"Dusk! With a creepy, tingling sensation, you hear the fluttering of leathery wings! Bats! With glowing red eyes and glistening fangs, these unspeakable giant bugs drop onto..." Sorry, can't find an image online, but it's the strip from November 3, 1989, for those of you playing along at home. Calvin and Hobbes was (is) the greatest comic strip ever. --Marty 22:12, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know what's more surprising about that link--that CP considers bats to be birds, or that anyone would ever consider eating the filthy things one way or the other.PFoster 22:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget the best part... When the class yells out "BATS AREN'T BUGS!!" Calvin's response is "Hey, who's giving this report? you chowderheads or me?" Replace Chowderheads with liberals and you have Andy's standard response to everything. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 00:20, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The only difference is that Calvin has some redeeming features...131.111.8.97 06:26, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, Calvin is a fictional child. And he is highly imaginative and funny. Andy is all the delusion without really any redeeming qualities. I mean, look above to what he's doing to children. And I concur, Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic strip evar. Smyth 11:54, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I didn't mean to say that Andy and Calvin are comparable in all ways. As you rightly point out, Calvin has many endearing qualities... Also, I agree that Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic strip man has produced thus far.

@Chuck, thanks for finding Calvin's rejoinder. It is the best part, but I couldn't trust my memory on it (all I could remember was that it involved chowder...).-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Calvin is not better than snoopy! And i'd go to war to prove it. You liberal, you!--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 15:03, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I have to disagree with you on that Godot, I think Peanuts comics are usually pretty Meh...... Their animated specials are de shiznit, but Calvin and Hobbes is far far better. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 15:17, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Is CP the cheetah or the gazelle?

Amnesty International are petitioning to have the abuse of the English language by Ken stopped. Also they would like the Evolution and Atheism articles freed so that other, more intelligent people, can edit them.

I'm a little curious, what did happen to Atheism on the net? Far as I can see, there hasn't been any changes recently. --Kels 22:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Nothing. The only I have seen is Ken's shitty picture. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 22:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring ring

Bananas phone! --Marty 22:45, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken's first draft is saved for posterity here. --Marty 22:54, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

We have already established that every single link on the internet to the evolution article is laughing at you, so projecting out form there an increase in ranking will mean an increase in people laughing at you. So increase away. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 22:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

What exactly is supposed to have happened to atheism "on the internet"? Pink_{(Oh poor Ken...)} 22:59, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken thinks his shitty article is somehow so great of an argument that it holds sway as the zeitgeist over the whole internet. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 23:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Here Ken, this should break it down for you. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 23:10, 8 October 2008 (EDT) By the way how is your academic career coming along?

I will try once more to help you out. "[E]volutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States which is one of the scientific powerhouses of the world" first (1) THE TRUTH IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST, I don't know how many times we need to go over this, polls do not gauge the truth for anything other than the percentage of people's opinions. Second (2) there has been no change in the opinion of educated, intelligent people who work intimately in the fields of science directly involved in research. Finally (3) your article is a quote-mined pile of crap. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 23:29, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Someone overrode the first image with some RC crap (unless I missed something cool, it looked boring), so I re-uploaded the image with the actual message. ħuman 00:16, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Human, the image with the RC crap is not the same page as your version. Ken created a sub-page of User talk:Conservative first, containing only the text "...", and then protected and deleted it again within minutes. The Recent Changes at the bottom of the image shows the brief lifespan of that first-draft page. The cheetah pic is on a different page (a subpage of User:Conservative), created a minute or so later. Old image versions are still visible in the history of the image page, so I don't care if you want to revert to the "RC crap" version and upload the cheetah image under a new filename, or just leave it as is. --Marty 00:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

PS, Pi guy, the version I saved (at the link above) has a personal massage for you! ħuman 00:17, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I know, he has sent me love letters before, I think he has a crush on me. I don't want to let him down to hard though he seems to have a fragile ego. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:20, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentleman Conservative

Actually as far as we can obtain it is true. We did a Google search of the link and removed any internal links from Consevapedia or links from here. We then read each page to see what they were saying and divided them into pro and anti. You can find the full length list of people linking to the evolution article here. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:03, 9 October 2008 (EDT) (When I say we I mean Jeeves with me adding a missing one or two) Also do you know what Ides of March means?

Ides! We eat ides! ħuman 00:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Liddle goatse dides? --Marty 00:46, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Jeeves, you should move/copy that into the CP namespace, or add it as a subpage to red telephone... it is teh awesome ;) ħuman 00:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

First of all the links is (largely) how Google determines you pagerank. Second you have provided us with nothing other than a shitty mirror like thing last time. Third you are moving away from the major criticisms of your article and are trying to get bogged down in semantics. Your article is nothing but appeals to popularity and authority. You fail on epic proportions and you have no intellectual grounding of your position. You sir are a moron. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:45, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

You get owned so you memory-hole it, well done. Run back to Andy and tell him how well you are doing, you scared little bitch. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG}

Ides??

Here you can see the full content of Ken's "Ides" threat.

The Ides of March again, Ken? Haven't you read "the Boy who Cried Wolf"? Pink_{(*shakes head*)} 00:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

He read the phrase once and liked it, he doesn't know what it means but wants to use it anyway. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:46, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

And like that — fwoof — he's gone. --Marty 00:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken's wacky sense of humour

Ken just can't stop posting his stupidly captioned pictures. Now he's polluting PJR's talk page after already posting the same twaddle on his own page. I know PJR is anti-evolution but I'd bet that he regards Ken's efforts as a turgid pile of quote-turds just like the rest of us. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:42, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Ken has a sense of humour? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 03:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Irony dear Pi. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:42, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

History of the Evolution article

I was not around at the time but I have looked back through the history of the article. The CPanel made a decision to not changed the article on 9th of April 2007 at 18:17 so this edit by Roger on the 8th should have been the last. However Ken, no more than 4 minutes afterwards, is editing it again. Look at the difference between the last authorised edit and now. Even the other sysops respect the ban, why doesn't Ken? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 01:27, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

He thinks "no one" means "no one except me". Pink_(WP:OWN) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

There is but one answer to any and every question about Conservative. That answer is that he is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, stupid. DickTurpis 01:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, the panel which made that decision no longer exists(?). When Andy was asked about opening up the article recently, he invented the concept of "evolution syndrome" as an excuse not to. He also banned at least one person for asking about it persistently. We should really have a RW entry about the history of that article. It's a perfect distillation of pretty much everything that's wrong with Conservapedia. weaseLOId~ 06:09, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

the history test, retrois

Please keep "bumping" this thing, it's one of the few interesting things (ie, best of) that I've read here lately. The sexist interpretations, however, may be backwards... ħuman 00:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

How so Human? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The new history test is really hot. Way above most WIGO things - by "bump" I meant let's keep it warm, not archive it and forget by accident. As if we would... ħuman 01:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I usually keep things warm by stuffing them between my legs, but I sometimes forget and stand up and whatever it was falls to the floor. How would we "bump" it... just re-post the entry with BUMP text first? Norseman^Wassail! 09:24, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I was asking about how the sexist interpretations may be backwards. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 01:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Everyone knows that girls are smarter :) (Haha). Seriously, every yamuck here fucking assumed he was making an easier test for the girls - with no evidence. I call sexism on RW. Maybe the girls' test is harder - who knows? Time will tell... in the meantime, "our" assumptions are sexist in themselves, and we should be, at least individually, if not collectively, apologetic. ħuman 01:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I was wondering if the girls had to give longer answers to some questions, so they can use there "superior social skills", while the boys may have had some history related maths to do which are quicker and easier (for boys) to do. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 01:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Girl question: "In 250 words or more, please explain why Columbus pwned the ebil Vikings"

Boy question: "With 20 statistics or more, please predict the 2008 World Series winner" Case closed. ħuman 01:57, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Human: assumed he was making an easier test for the girls - with no evidence. I call sexism on RW. Maybe the girls' test is harder - who knows? - I take umbrage with that. I have long thought that highschool girls are "smarter" than boys, and that this endlessly gals Andy who wants a reason to prove women should bake pies like his dear mommy does. Make the test harder, or simply grade it more carefully and the "boys rule".--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 11:08, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

In defense of my own "accused" sexism, I submit that Andy has shown a general hatred of women in general. I don't think it's too far out to assume that the girl's test will be simpler than the boys. Even if it isn't, it's still considered sexist. Treating males and females different simply because they're male or female is the definition of sexism. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 11:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

It'll be interesting to see. Andy could be trying to write tests based on perceived cognition differences in order to challenge boys and girls at their "weak spots" to prepare them for tests which do not have different versions for different genders. Somehow I don't think that this is the case, based on his ideas about how girls shouldn't "attempt to embarrass a boy, as in trying to beat him in arm-wrestling or bragging that you did better on a test." It seems that he really has a problem with a girl doing better than a boy. This reminds me of when my mom was putting herself through college and made a B in a class although she had the highest grade. When she asked the professor how the highest grade translates to a B, he told her that a woman will never have the highest grade in his class. She went to the dean, who told her that because the professor was about to retire she should just grin and bear it. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 12:24, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

And then she sued him so hard that his grandchildren still owe her money, right? --Gulik 16:17, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Shit, I wish! Besides, this was before she would have won the lawsuit. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 16:43, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

OK, I retract my somewhat hasty and unsubtle accusations of sexism on RW. The sexism is really being imputed to teh assfly, based on his dismal track record we can assume with a 95% degree of confidence that he made an easier test for teh poor young ladies under his tutelage. Sorry if anyone felt personally injured by my broad-brushed accusation! ħuman 16:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

(Ok, I read a lot of (to me, fun) snipe around here... but no one would really get offended at comments like these, would they? I mean Humans, not Andy's. They really are all in "fun", yes? Or do i still live in a makebelive world of Neighbors, Sweaters, and shy kitties--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 16:43, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't offended. Also, how is a makebelieve world of neighbours, sweaters and shy kitties different from a world with neighbours, sweaters and shy kitties? I have all three and am starting to get worried...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:03, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Whoa.[1] And his submarine comment earlier is pretty on-topic as usual. Smyth 17:32, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Guy who called Andy out on accreditation...

Who/when/where was that? I can't find it!-caius (advocate) 00:56, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

HSmom questioned the use of AP on the Homeschool constitution essay talkpage, is that what you wanted? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 00:59, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I could kiss you if you weren't a figment of my imagination.-caius (advocate) 01:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Not you and Ken. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 01:05, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Dear gentlemen Mr. Pi. Perhaps you are not aware of the rampant success of conservapedia's evolution article which continues to climb the search engine ranks! (picture of pufferfish) Soon you will have to reckon with the awesome power of Conservapedia! (link to YouTube of apology scene from some movie).-caius (advocate) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

In regards to Conservative

Old news, but it's new to me. How did I guess that this page was a Kenservative original? Could it have been due to circumstances regarding the second sentence, which had originally had the capacity of being initially the first sentence?

"The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism."

--Marty 01:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Note the article sucks so much, he had to keep reader attentions by two "See Also" sections, as if to say "Wait, don't laugh yet! There's more!" Norseman^Wassail! 09:27, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Raised from the archives: FYI (Obama/Berg Suit)

I don't now what's the proper form for unzombiing an archived article, so I just copied it:

The CP Main Page claims that Obama's motion to dismiss the Berg lawsuit was denied. If that were the truth, it would be huge, for two reasons: (1) the federal judge would have to completely destroy the standing doctrine to get that result and, (2) the obvious. Luckily, it's not the truth.-caius (advocate) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

It's still on the Main Page - though it was criticised not only there, but on ASchafly's own Talk Page, too. As usual with unconvenient events, the Leader of the Ignorant choose to lead by ignoring them... --LArron 03:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, DeanS took action, just three days later - I'd thought the matter would be solved in the usual way, by creative archiving. But I love this diff "[..]this comment isn't applicable anymore" -- you wish! --LArron 02:22, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Why an Obama win is bad news (maybe)

Debate:Could an Obama win be bad news?

A thought

I was wondering, why does Andy live in New Jersey? This occurred to me when I was looking at his failed House run. He undoubtedly would have got more than 11% of the vote if he ran in the Bible belt, and he'd probably be much more comfortable in a more conservative state. AAPS is stationed in Tucson, so I can't see that keeping him there. He can tech homeschool classes anywhere, and again, he'd probably have more interest in some place like Kansas or Alabama. Does he have some other job? New Jersey jokes aside, why would he want to raise a family there? DickTurpis 09:45, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy is one of those much-maligned Eastern Elites. If he moved to the Bible Belt, he'd have to hobnob with the working class (and black folk, probably). Although located in Jersey, Andy's current town is about as upscale as they get.--WJThomas 10:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

My wife lived probably about 10 minutes away from his town. It's an absurdly upscale neighborhood, and surprisingly republican as well. If you're familiar with the Short Hills Mall, that gives an idea of what the area is like. -Lardashe

Are you talking about Trenton? When I think of Trenton I think of seeing the "Trenton makes, the world takes" sign while rolling by on the train. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 12:28, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Nope, not really near that. North, closer to Morristown. - Lardashe

I grew up in Morristown--nice area. I don't miss the humidity, though. I know what happens on the internet should stay on the internet, but the temptation to pull some RL prank on Andy is intense... --Gulik 16:20, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I got his address off some legal document he'd been party to & uploaded a google map of it somewhere. Dunno what happened to it!   ^Contribs_Talk 16:32, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I got it via a simple Google search, and a picture of his house off a real-estate site. If this whole unemployment thing doesn't work out for me, I may start a career as a celebrity stalker (but I'd choose subjects a lot better-looking than Andy....).--WJThomas 18:29, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Pock-i-stahn Redux

Ya' know CP's bit about how Obama's pronunciation of Pakistan proves he's a Muslim? Turns out that General David Petraeus uses the same pronunciation. Them terrorists really are behind every bush, I guess.--WJThomas 10:50, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but Petraeus is Christian[2], and the odds of any Christian converting to Islam is less than 1 in 100. --Toiretni 10:58, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

A Muslim in the military, and his name is "General" apparently. "gen-e-ral", that sounds wierd, not like Bill or Joe. And I'm not going to even start with that greek name pa-traeus, with it's icky, foreign ae vowel that is clearly related to terrorist activity from the Greek Empire. and doesn't "pe-traeus" sound a lot like betrayus? I swear, he's an insurgent just waiting for a chance to get a small amount of power in our military so he can work from within!--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 11:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh no!! Now they're targeting our children!!--WJThomas 11:43, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

This is funny. I didn't get the Pokistan thing until I realised it meant short a. The way Patraeus pronounces it in the video is the same as most educated Brits do today, as in "Pa" rather than "Cat". It didn't make sense until today. Gawd bless ya, RW! Ajkgordon 13:45, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

That's what I was going to say. I guess I'm a Muslim too. I kept that well hidden, even from myself. Hell, I bet Bugler is a Muslim too. Who'd have thunk it? --JeevesMkII 18:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Aghh, it suddenly turns out I'm a Muslim and nobody told me. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 19:08, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen at this site, I invite you to witness the death of atheism on the web come the Ides of February! See here for details!

Gentlemen at this site, I invite you to witness the death of atheism on the web come the Ides of February! See here for details! Kendoll 11:04, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen. As further proof of the waning of evolution on the internets, you will find that the Conservapedia talk page for the article on "Evolution syndrome", a term made up by Conservapedia, currently ranks #3 in google searches! Kendoll 12:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree wholeheartedly with the article, however the date is incorrect, and should be February 30. Godspeed Jimaginator 16:37, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

So is this going to occur on the 13th Feb or the full moon? ħuman 18:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

But! I'm a Lady! Way to completely offend me, Kendoll. Why don't you read up on your chivalry? Candlewick 18:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

That was no lady, that was my wife! --Kels 20:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Re: "evolution syndrome" and Google rankings- even though that comment reeks of parody, I'll say this because either way the "real" Ken is getting overexcited: according to Google, the only link anywhere to the "evolution syndrome" page is internal. Not exactly spreading like wildfire! Furthermore, Conservapedia's "Creation syndrome" page- a term made up by parodists and subsequently deleted is also 3rd on Google! Kallium^talk 20:14, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Fucking nitwit

Who wants to sock up and explain to Andy that - no Liberal Tom Hanks did not have control of the Forrest Grump script becuase it was based on a book!!! Fucking dumb shit 18:26, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy has made it quite clear that the use of "Jesus H. Christ" is the #1 factor in determining whether or not a film is liberal or conservative. DickTurpis 18:32, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Is the "H." the determinative factor, or will a plain "Jesus Christ" suffice?--WJThomas 18:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, it depends on the context. "Jesus Christ" is, of course, perfectly acceptable in some contexts. "Jesus H. Christ" never is. This is ironic, as I believe the purpose of the "H" is so you could use the name in vain without it being blasphemous, because you were merely saying the name of a different person with a similar name: Mr. Jesus H. (Harold????) Christ. I could be mistaken about this, though. DickTurpis 20:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The "H" is for haploid.--Martin Arrowsmith 20:23, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

What about "Heterodyne"? --Kels 20:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

It stands for homosexual, you unsubstantive fools! Open your mind and let your brains fall out!! Etc 01:52, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy's Submarine

Does Andy mean a single-gender submarine like the one depicted in this? Zmidponk 19:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Perfect Paper

Andy's found a perfect paper: (he's left the name on so I can say it's a female. There's a copy at Conservapedia:Perfect paper for full analysis.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:06, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The H5 answer is especially interesting, considering this... Kallium^talk 20:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

How can it be perfect with a misspelled word? ħuman 20:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Student Five gets full marks for an answer in which Five claims that John Bull represents the Americans, Columbia is the British, and the Russian bear is admonishing the U.S. for starting a war with England. Andy's response? "Good, but I doubt that the cartoonist is blaming Americans for entering into war. "--Martin Arrowsmith 20:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Tsk, bloody Americans. Kid needs to take a trip to Redwood City, California where there is (and I shit you not) an honest to god John Bull fish and chip shop. Thanks to this fine institution, I have kept up my record of partaking of British eating and drinking establishments in every country I've ever visited. It's great being British. --JeevesMkII 23:22, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Andy and the Military

I get the impression Andy thinks the whole military is like his collection of Sgt. Rock comic books. --Kels 21:04, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

The mind boggles at Andy's non-sequitures (sp?) "The physical tests are the whole ball game" !!!!!!!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:49, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I think Andy may be stuck in some kind of 18th century time warp where the duties of the private soldier extend only to marching 180 paces to the minute then lining up 20 metres from the enemy and giving him a volley of musket fire. --JeevesMkII 22:59, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

According to the ads I see, Today's Modern Army mostly involves computer programming and mid-level management training. But those are, after all, ads. They might not be fully accurate. ħuman 14:47, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The military as a whole is a lot more technologically advanced as a whole these days and it requires a lot of academically inclined people to make it work. You've still got plenty of people with very physical jobs, such as Marine and Army infantry, but you have plenty of people whose job is more cerebral than physical, such as the reactor operators on nuclear powered submarines. And there's plenty of mid-level management and paperwork to go around, but I don't think that's anything particularly new. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 16:38, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Confess your sins

Who is Juan King? I nearly wet myself at this   ^Contribs_Talk 21:27, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Scheisse! It's been vanished!   ^Contribs_Talk 21:30, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

So did I. Saved for posterity.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!}

I am JuanKing. I have it screenshotted & will upload it in a moment. Meanwhile you can see it last edit but on Conservative's talk page. JuanK 21:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

(ec) Text saved here, likewise.   ^Contribs_Talk 21:36, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

"climbing up the internet" priceless...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Parisians Not Welcome

I'll be honest, it's not that unusual (try daily) event at CP to randomly ban new users based on their name, before they make a single edit. My personal opinion is that it's too commonplace to really be worth a WiGO, and instead be moved here to TWiGO for tea and sympathy from the mob instead. --Kels 22:25, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I have lost count of the number of times it has happened to me, although I have often invited it. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 22:35, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

(Moved from WIGO) Apparently users from Paris aren't welcome to edit Conservapedia.

We don't remove WIGOs. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 22:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 22:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

We do, however, comment them out. --Kels 23:05, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Only if they are offensive (in general not to CP), slanderous or detrimental to the project. If they are unfunny vote them down that is why Trent gave us a red arrow so we can use it. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 23:08, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

All hail Trent and the red arrow! Amen. Etc 02:00, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Under Trents leadership there are red arrows for all! Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 02:27, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Trent gave us all sysopship, what other wiki leader has given this to its members? - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results always render PNG} 03:42, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

No other wiki leader could perform such miracles! I will burn over 9,000 goats to his sacrifice while raping a virgin tonight. Etc 04:52, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Over 9000!? I can't believe that! --Kels 09:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Apparently you only believe what seems reasonable - another shining example of CP:Atheistic Style that I soon will add to the list. Open your mind and the truth shall set you free! Etc 10:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

@Pi guy, "For best results also use RationalWiki moisturizing conditioner" should be added to the RationalWiki random sloganizer thing. ħuman 14:45, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

...if that is your real name. Etc 16:50, 10 October 2008 (EDT)