Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

AndyPandy, rapidly losing support amongst the conservatives

Wnen Rapture Ready starts caning your arse, you know you've lost your evangelical support.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's posted in the Apostasy section! XD That's so many different kinds of awesome, I can't even begin to count them... --Robledo 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, that did make me smile.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This actually made me laugh the way it's worded - like a newspaper article laughing at a fucking idiot. It's so refreshing to see Andy get shitted on from somewhere other than here: Schlafly counters that his critics "are liberals who are unhappy that their game is up." I'm literally sitting here laughing at that as I type. Bloody priceless. SJ ^Debaser 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment also amused me:"I thought Phyllis Schlafly was a she....edit: never mind, they said Andy (son of Phyllis Schlafly) and referred to him as "he" for the rest of the article."

That's brilliant. After all this time is it 'Andy—founder of Conservapedia' , or 'Andy—Harvard trained-lawyer' , or even ' Andy Schlafly—who once ran for political office' ? Nope, its 'Andy—person we've never heard of, but apparently plopped out the loins of Phyllis Schlafly.' --AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy or is it Scott? I can never remember, despite remembering what is possibly the most important piece of advice in Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends And Influence People - "Remember that a man's Name is to him the sweetest and most important sound in any language". Forgetting someone's name or getting it continually wrong is guaranteed to piss them off. I think the Washington Post calling him Scott and Liberaland(?) referring to him as Phyllis's (lesser known) non-gay son probably really hurt. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Man alive, Andy is now getting called an idiot by RR. These people should be his core constituency - Obama hatin' nutjobs. He absolutely can't play this off as Liberal bias. We know he'll never admit it publicly, but he must know he's gone too far, and he'll only alienate the people he wants to be courting. If the Christian word on Andy is that he's a blaspheming heretic, who's going to have their kids educated by him? Will he try and bury this under the carpet from here? Chapman Baxter 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's such a shame that we don't know who Andy's padre is. We could drop him a line to let him know one of his flock is plunging headlong into apostasy. Such a letter would be solely for the sake of Andy's immortal soul, of course.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 23:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the word you seek is heresy. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The charge of apostasy is a judgement call by those who find your words/actions sufficiently heretical. --Robledo 23:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here comes the pedanticism. As Andy has previously indicated his belief in the literal word of the Bible, especially Genesis (the core tenet of evangelicalism), then his rewriting of the Bible to now match his own personal beliefs instead of changing his personal beliefs to match the word of the Bible means that he has formally abandoned the teachings of evangelical Christianity, making him an apostate to evangelical Christianity. We know that despite claims to the contrary Andy isn't a Catholic, because he doesn't accept the Catholic Church's teachings on evolution, opposition to capital punishment, pursuit of social justice, etc; and because he deliberately rejects the teachings and tenets of Catholicism this means he is also an apostate of the Catholic Church, whether the Catholic Church yet realises that or not. Of course, from the point of view of general Christianity Andy isn't yet an apostate but a heretic, but he's probably working on that--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh the irony! It hurts so much but I think you mean "pedantry". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Acually, either word is correct pendanticism or pedantry. It's just that I prefer the more modern form.--53696C656E6364 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To be an apostate one has to abandon the tenets of the religion and not continue to claim that their point of view is in conformance with it. Mr. Schlafly, who continues to claim that his beliefs are in perfect conformance with the Bible and Catholic teaching, is instead a heretic. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. AndyPandy specifically claims not be in perfect confromance with Catholic teaching, because Catholic teaching is too liberal for him. As a state of apostasy is a call made from the point of view of the religion, not the individual, then Andy's rejection of the authority of the Holy See makes him apostate to the Catholic Church. He make seek to claim otherwise, but as the individual his point of view doesn't count when it comes down to whether he is apostate or not, only the point of view of the religion. The Catholic Church is quite clear, rejection of the authority and teachings of the Holy See is apostasy if you are or were Catholic (because to reject the authority and teachings of the Holy See is too abandon Catholicism). As for the Bible, AndyPandy has already declared that he isn't in perfect concordance with the Bible, because he is having to rewrite it to bring it into perfect concordance with him. As the 'bible' he is writing will never receive confirmation that it is a Bible by any recognised Biblical authority, this means that the book that he claims perfect concordance with isn't a Bible, and so, by definition, AndyPandy still won't be perfect conformance with the Bible. Remember, an apostate achieves apostasy and is declared apostate based on the benchmarks and decision of the religion compared to the behaviour of the individual in question. If the individual declares "I no longer believe in this religion" then apostasy is easy to declare, but the point of origin for a declaration of apostasy still flows from the religion to the individual.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The central tenet of Christianity is not literal belief in the Bible, it's belief that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected (The Nicene Creed). Andy still believes this so he is not an apostate. His beliefs, however, are not recognized by any theological authority and as such are heretical. Now, if a theological authority decides that Andy's beliefs go beyond simple heresy and actually deny the divinity of Christ (and I think this argument could be made, as Andy is stating that even Christ's words, like the Adulteress story, must play a subservient role to his true religion of modern neoconservatism) then he could be declared an apostate. Indeed, given that he professes to be a Catholic, if the CBP gains sufficient notoriety, he could be excommunicated. Stile4aly 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If he suggests replacing wine during communion with koolaid to discourage alcoholism, Andy will officially be head of a cult--Thanatos 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stunteddwarf, allow me to quote the Old Catholic Encyclopedia: "The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself." If Mr. Schlafly still claims to be a Catholic, that is not apostasy; the people of the Society of St. Pius X did not become apostates when they said the papacy had become too liberal.

<Insert> Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Liberal ;-)--53696C656E6364 18:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stile4aly, there were several sects denying the divinity of Jesus, notably the Arians, that were treated as heretical by the Church. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying you're Christian but denying Christ is a bit wacky imho. Etc 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mohamedans (as they used to be called) never claimed that Mohamed was divine. I guess you could follow the teachings of Jesus without acknowledging that he was divine. There have certainly been sects like the Cathars who called themselves Christian. (And it's all wacky in my opinion.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's very telling when the Rapture Ready forum people look positively normal, level-headed and even rational, compared to CP (or aSK). --Sid 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ud)Not sure if this one's been mentioned yet, but Dr James F. McGrath, associate professor of religion, says (so wonderfully!) "So is the "Conservapedia Version" of the Bible a really funny parody or a really deceitful pseudoconservative pseudotranslation that leaves its users with a pseudobible? I'll let the reader decide. I'm still not entirely sure, although if you read it as parody, it is actually quite hilarious, and laughter is probably a more constructive reaction than frustration and despair. But either way, I'm grateful for this illustration of the fact that "conservative" and "Bible-believing" are not the same thing, despite what you'll often hear." --PsygremlinSnakk! 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he wrote this article before the media flurry (Sept. 29). I like his explanation of Poe's Law: "Had I not in the past found more than once that my attempt to parody some extreme group simply resembled an even more extreme but equally real group, I would be certain it was parody." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That Rapture Ready forum is Full of Win regarding Andy. here we have a bunch of serious fundies distancing themselves from Andy's project and accusing him of everything from apostasy to blasphemy and calling down God's wrath (in the form of Rev 22:18) upon his ass. And in typical Andy fashion, he'll ignore everybody and go on making a complete fool of himself - even broadcasting his efforts on the main page. His Mummy must be wondering what to do about this... thing of his. --Psygremlin話しなさい 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick look around some of the Christian Chat forum over at RR. These guys are sad little intellectual children, aren't they? I can't even get mad at these people, they seem to lead such pathetic little lives. Like the person who's obviously trying to make themselves feel good about abandoning a friend because they won't be "saved", but ending up looking rather pathetic. Their peers over there don't seem much better and offer condolences, but it's all a bit seedy and pathetic. --Kels 21:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what Christianity is all about, really; becoming an infant in spirit and (for creationists) in knowledge and thought. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's quite funny looking through their signs of the apocalypse. They seem to think that every peace treaty between every nation is a sign of the end times, and throw in pretty heavily with the right wing on Islam being evil, Iran being evil, Israel not being even the slightest bit evil, etc. It makes me laugh since I remember seeing people talk about all the same signs of the apocalypse decades ago, just with a different set of obvious signs. --Kels 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See also: This list of "End of the world" predictions that have been and gone. --(I have an account, just not signed in) 05:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Liberal style bot (moar)

This. 'nuff said. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It has claimed the first victim! Broccoli 20:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice how Andy casually ignores Mark's reference to a "liberal wiki site"? I guess he was distracted because he is drooling all over the keyboard with excitement. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We need a version of the bot here, to check our own liberal tendancies. Broccoli 20:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...maybe Mark will post the code on Andy's talk page? ^{C'mon Mark, you know you want to...} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He published his formula, didn't he? Maybe someone here can re-implement it themselves. Fedhaji 01:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to MarkGall, the formula is: ratio of talk-page posts to main-page posts; average word count of talk-page posts; possibly adding a list of "conservative" buzzwords to praise, a list of "liberal" ones to ban, and brownie points if you quote the Bible. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could believe it when you see it. Show me the bot. 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All it needs to do is count mainspace posts, talk posts and then take all the text ever inserted by a user, count the words placed on talk pages, search for 'liberal' and 'conservative' words or phrases and plug them into a calculator or something. Then apply the 'Last wordism' rule to produce whatever value required. Broccoli 02:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, it would be interesting to see how he coded it. And I wouldn't be surprised if he fudged the results to please Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ud) Holy crap, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What a lying little shit that man is. SJ ^Debaser 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew has the powerz of the entire internet at his fingertips. Beware, you have been warned! ħuman 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark my words, its parody gold. As usual the Assfly is completely taken in by such gall. Auld Nick 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the best example of just how batshit insane Andy is, to fall for this. I wonder how it would have gone down if TK et al had been shown to be liberal... although I see his score of 1.33 seems dangerously liberal to me. I can't wait to see the rankings posted on the mainpage. --PsygremlinPraat! 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes, methinks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just thought, considering that the CP sysops have proved time and again that they know almost shit all about computers and coding, is it possible that this guy has just written a code that could crash and destroy Conservapedia and Andy just gave him the keys to let him do it? Mostly considering that what they're saying isn't really possible (at least in any serious or accurate sense). But, considering what Assfly wants to use it for, I propose we name it McCarthyBot. ^narchist 11:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think MarkGall has just hurled a load of words on the screen completely making up everything to virtually wank off Andy. SJ ^Debaser 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't actually need to run anything on the server to make a bot like this, some sort of web spider or something that hooks onto the api would work fine. However, I doubt that the bot actually exists; whoever is MarkGall making stuff up and throwing numbers at Andy. It's like statistics bukkake and Andy loves that shit. Etc 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just Schlalfy statistics at work. Any random bunch of numbers that support his viewpoint must be good.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Party?

I think we should have a party page set up for MarkGall for all his tireless work exposing Andy's buffoonery. Thoughts? Or another one of my silly ideas? SJ ^Debaser 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. And maybe some kind of humorous template with a (spoof) conservative-detecting formula.Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

Maybe I shouldn't point this out, but doesn't it seem odd that somebody who was recently attacking^img Conservapedia's use of the flag in the logo, calling it "a flagrant show of disrespect" and "somewhat appalling for a site of this nature" (altho I'm amazed JohnnyPeepee didn't block him after his "Ridiculous statements" comment) is suddenly advocating a bizarre liberals by numbers approach. It won't make a difference - after all, we screamed parodist about Bugler until we were blue in face and Andy still hasn't thanked us for pointing that out to him. --PsygremlinZungumza! 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that by the time Andy saw that he was already in love with Mark's orgy bot idea. The funniest thing would be if this bot actually gets implemented, though, since it would be a huge slap in the face later when Andy finally figures out what Mark is. I have to say, I'm impressed by hi style: he thrives on sucking up to Andy and avoiding everyone else...I wonder if he will turn aggressive like Bugler once Andy gives him god powers to block anyone who has a goat high liberal quotient? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

He already has block powers, thanks to the emergency storm trooper recruitment required by Stephen Colbert. He seems content to continue riding the suck-up wagon for a while longer. I don't blame him -- it looks like a lot of fun. Gauss 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I expect he'll become the self-appointed Liberal Czar and call out people accordingly after every post. At least now Andy knows that if TK's stalking doesn't get you, AlFrankenBot will... until it overwrites the database, of course. --PsygremlinPraat! 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot Fight

I just had this crazy idea. We have on one side AlFrankenBot, built to detect and terminate liberal style. And on the other side, Andy's Quote Generator, a robotic doppleganger mimicing almost perfectly the Master's verve. Soooo....Would it be possible to enhance the Quote Generator, with input from the infamous 'list of conservative words', and see if it can fool AlFrankenBot? --Ireon 08:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the Assquote template is an accurate simulation of Andy's writing style (which it is), isn't that just testing if Andy would be marked as a liberal by the bot? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would do that, yes. But by identifying Andybot as a conservative, we would prove the inaneness of Andy's assertion that combining conservative words aimlessly may give birth to new 'insights'. Ultimately, I would like to see a new Sokal Affair!--Ireon 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could say that every parodist who has ever been successful at CP is a mini Sokal Affair. But yeah, it would be great to see our Assquote test as conservative. It would be really obvious, though, if one of us went on CP and randomly started spouting Assquotes. Even Andy would catch that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I like Conserva-bot...

...and I like liberal-bot too. But which is better? There's only one way to find out... SJ ^Debaser 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If this thing rolls out

We need an article on it. --Crazyswordsman 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote generator!

Hard to tell,^img isn't it? Broccoli 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes me wonder whether Andy has seen the quote generator here and is doing some kind of amusing self-parody. The similarity is incredible. --Ireon 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy just communicates like that. Can someone who understands such things add 'Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about modern science' and 'you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion' to our Andy quote gen? Broccoli 19:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC GRRRRRRRRRx28gazillion)That is actually quite scary. Does he ever think about his replies, or is it like automatic writing? Totnesmartin 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No effin' way!!! Either the quote generator is really, really good, or else Andy took a peek at it and is messing with us. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been getting all the good WIGOs lately. My advice is to refresh recent changes every 30 seconds get it up as soon as you see it. EddyP 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you've written yourself a WIGO generator? Totnesmartin 19:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you've got me! I use a bot to calculate a stupidity value for Andy's posts when compared with the quote generator and based on his use of conservative and liberal words, last-wordiness, word-to-substance ratio. If his stupidity value is greater than 2 the bot automatically WIGO's it. EddyP 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'All' the good quotes? There have been lots of high score wigos recently ! --Ireon 19:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For posterity, sort of, I just want to quote Andy here:

"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

He is so obviously playing with us. And if not, someone ought to give Alan Turing a call, I think the generator may have achieved sentience - and has hacked Andy's password. ħuman 20:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No way, Andy is so not the type to be messing with us. I doubt he would even be aware of the quote gen. unless TK or Jinx told him. Ace^McWicked 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Turing Test is to check for an impossible-to-distinguish from sentience. All we have here is a computer that is impossible to distinguish from Andy. Broccoli 20:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the Test is weak when comparing a machine to Andrew's level of sentience, but still. He did found CP, after all. ħuman 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good God, Human. You're going to give me nightmares. The world's first sentient computer has Andy's personality? It's like some kind of extra-Reagany SkyNet. Fedhaji (Talk) 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@Ace - it seems to me that he must be messing with us; his reply matches the format of the Assquote template almost exactly. Although it seems very unlike him, It's not like Andy doesn't know about RW. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tetronian," Do you think that there must be a material explanation for the remarkable correlation between the Assquote template and Andy's recent screed or do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material? 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nutty" (please recreate your account with your first name and last initial) if you would pick up a Bible more often you would see that there is no way that this is a coincidence. Do you, like most evolutionists, think that something as extraordinary as Andy quoting the template could have happened without an intelligent designer? Why don't you contribute instead of insisting on last wordism, like most liberals? Godspeed. Aschlafly Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another "theory" - Andy found it, and likes it so much he uses it when appropriate to his idiom, perhaps changing a word or phrase to fit the context? He just hits "reload" until it's close to what he wants? And since they are all "his" phrases, maybe he doesn't get that the joke is on him... that last part we have volumes of evidence for, at the very least. ħuman 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be even less innocuous and more subliminal: he saw it and then was sort of still thinking about it when he wrote the above quote. He might not have totally gotten the joke, but I don't see how he could possibly not have realized that it is making fun of him - it is called "Assquote," ass being the operative word. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it all back. Schlafly is a robot. Clincher.^img 00:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, twice!! I can't believe it. Once again, he uses a reply straight out of the Assquote (and in a similar format too!) I know coincidences are common, but this is just too much. I think there is only one logical conclusion: I call Poe's Law on Andy Schalfly!! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Or we use the sage page on the ad lib book as Andy--Thanatos 00:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess the deal is that the assfly quote generator is just so perfect he can't avoid looking like its facsimile. Also, isn't "final reply" liberal "last wordism"? ħuman 02:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is, but I doubt Andy notices. It's enough of a strain on his feeble irony meter to use a parody of his writing style to rebuke an editor. I can't wait for this to happen again - I stand by my obnoxiously bolded statement above: for perhaps the first time, Andy is trying his hand at parody. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The people talking about Turing have it backwards. What's remarkable is that Andy has a posting style that's so predictable and formulaic that it's possible to replicate it eerily well using a quote generator.

The only thing that frustrates me is that Andy always includes a line break 60% of the way through his post, but if we put that in the generator it messes up the indentation. Unless anyone has a solution?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope he's egging us on...the alternative is much scarier. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 06:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just realised the key to the mystery may very well be here. Andy appears to believe that by randomly connecting 'conservative' words, insights can be achieved. Since the quote generator is actually all about 'conservative' sentences, maybe he genuinely believes he can rebuke users with it? --Ireon 08:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

CBP gets yet another predictable bashing

This time by the noted atheistic and liberal Christian Post-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Queue snotty comment from Andy in 3...2...1... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Man, times like this, I wish the US still had heresy laws. Anyone got a stake?--Thanatos 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, should have flagged this earlier. Quoted from the article: "Basically, here conservatives (falsely so-called) are adopting the same trajectory strategy-Jesus introduced concepts that weren’t fully developed yet, so now we can 'translate' them into fully developed conservative ideas. This isn’t conservatism at all. It is heresy. Hokey heresy, but still heresy." That's right, according to conservatives AndyPandy isn't a conservative at all and, of course, in AndyLand this must mean he is in fact a librul. Nice-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the best indication of just how batshit insane Andy is, not to mention paranoid. Anybody who attacks his new pet project must be liberal, because he is a True Conservative and conservatives don't turn on their own. Any so-called Christians who criticism him must be one of those namby liberals who put the whole forgiveness thing into the Bible in the first place. Luckily Andy has his hand-picked henchmen to egg him on, otherwise he'd find the world a very lonely place. --PsygremlinSermā! 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lara and Kara?

What's up with Karajou and Lara Croft? Is he having some sort of meltdown and thinking he is Lara?

I guess it's just another one of those deadly secrets he's been keeping.

He probably tried for several days to get that hoax code of the blonde/nude Lara to work. Udon 05:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised its Karajou and not Ed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If it were Ed, it would be an uncategorized stub. Udon 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or he'd be waxing lyrical about her "muscular thighs", "tight shorts" and "heaving breasts". And no doubt make mention of the nudie patch. cp:Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon is still one of his scarier articles. --PsygremlinTal! 17:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. After reading that I feel strangely horrified. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to understand how such a pervert can call himself a christian. EddyP 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is, you can say that about almost anyone on CP, especially that heretic/apostate Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, christian + pervert seems to work for that small but notable part of the Catholic priesthood.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is actually something of a well-written article. Wonder how long till Andy decides to start attacking the video game and Lara for being a feminist icon? BTW, anyone here ever play any of the Shin Megami Tensei series?--Thanatos 23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. (more seriously, it's a favorite of mine in concept if not always in execution, and I kind of wish there was a reason to talk about it here. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually tie that much into religions themselves - rather, it works to examine the themes and motifs that have shaped religions, with a lot of namedropping to stand out in the JRPG crowd. Megaten 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanatos, although I hate to say it, Karajou is actually one of their better editors. He has created some good articles, he makes use of navigation and infoboxes, he usually acknowledges when he has copied from a PD source with a template, he has admitted being wrong and he also submitted one of his own drawings (not too bad either) to illustrate the saber-tooth cat article. And his SDG contributions show that he has tried to instigate new ideas to improve CP, the only problem is that none of the other sysops really care. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a jab at Karajou. Most articles I have read at CP either push POV or are stubs. Conservatives have attacked Tomb Raider for sexuality and we all saw Andy attack the video game industry. So, when an article that has an opportunity to push POV comes along and instead it is done right, it gives me hope for that not all CP users are fueled by blind hatred--Thanatos 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

FOIA finds new article to obsess over

I think it's starting all over again - see here^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's somehow related to Alger Hiss of course.--PitchBlackMind ^{This machine is obsolete} 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of. It has to do with anti-leftist sentiment, but it's not quite the same. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you guys imagine yourselves watchdogs of conservativism, and never heard of Alger Hiss or Sacco and Venzetti, just what the hell did they teach you in school about conservativism? RobS

Actually I did learn about Sacco and Vanzetti. They were two Italian anarchists who killed a bunch of people in the 1920's. Strangely I never learned about Alger Hiss though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not so much "watchdogs of conservatism" as "watchdogs of mean-spirited, intellectually bankrupt morons who base their worldviews on fairy tales and tired old mythology." That's why we love you so much, Rob. RaoulDuke 02:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you got your commie talking points. Got any ideas of your own? RobS 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

His was the first General Secretary of the Untied Nations (ever hear of that) and a commie spy, too. RobS 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yes I know now after reading the insanely long article. And yes I think I have heard of the UN, isn't it that organization that has acted on human rights violations and fostered communication between nations (which for some reason you conservatives hate so much)? (that's sarcasm, in case you missed it. In fact I'm a big fan on Ban-Ki Moon, the current Secretary General.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You never would have heard of Richard Nixon if not for that commie/lib Alger Hiss. After Nixon stuck that pretty boy New Dealer in prison as a traitor, Nixon then got himself elected President of the United States. Unpardonable! Nixon dared step on the neck of a dedicated do gooder, liberal, and servant of Satan Stalin to elevate himself to Presidency? Unthinkable! This is where Nixon's Enemies List came from.

Haven't you got a Bible to corrupt translate, Rob? --PsygremlinZungumza! 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, the UN came into existence at the same time Stalin disbanded the Comintern. Alger Hiss wrote the UN Charter. Alger Hiss hired the first 500 employees (mostly Comintern operatives). An organization that acted on human rights violations? On what planet? Saddam Hussein, of recent memory, would still have a job today if the UN had it's way (and his two boys also, raping children and making prisoners wear women's panties putting people in woodchippers. Defenders of human rights? How many charges of pedophilia have been leveled against so-called "peace keepers" in just the past 5 years (See cp:United Nations). RobS 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have an aneurysm Rob. The strike out humor is amazing though; have you thought about hitting the amateur circuit? Yorick^{Doing public school work} 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, without hyperbole or exaggeration can you explain exactly what Alger Hiss was tried and convicted of? --Damo^Hi 04:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiss was convicted of perjury after two trials, the first jury hung, the second convicted after Nixon testified and made a personal plea to the jury. Hiss could not be charged with espionage because of the statute of limitations on ten year old evidence. Hiss was convicted of lying to a Congressal Committee (same charge Ollie North beat) after denying that he had ever met his chief accuser, a Soviet intelligence courier. The courier produced wp:incontrovertible evidence in the form of documents that came from Hiss.

Hiss, Stalin and FDR were the only negotiators in the room when Stalin compromised by agreeing to join the UN if the Soviet Union got three votes insteasd of just one. Retrospectively, this had little historic consequence, although when it was discovered at the time Stalin knew FDR would give on such points, largely based on information Stalin got from commie liberal Democrat traitors in the New Deal, but it still made for bad press for Democrats and put people like Richard nixon & Joe McCarthy on the map. RobS 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The words "commie" and "liberal" do not belong in the same sentence, unless they are bookending "is doing a bad job of pretending to be a." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Pg. 5 here says for example, "Robeson was no liberal - he was a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a Communist." You know, Paul Robeson, the guy who got Obama's spiritual godfather, Frank Marshall Davis, a job in Hawaii. The same Robeson Obama's physician, Dr. Quenton Young, served on the "Paul Robeson 100th Birthday Committee" (above link, pg. 4). The same Quenten Young who was reimbursed by the KGB for the Chicago riots in 1968 and debriefed Bernardine Dohrn after her guerilla training in Cuba. The same Bernardine Dohrn who was a member of the National Lawyers Guild, described by a committee of Congress as the "Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party." [1] The same Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers, Obama's ex-boss and avowed communist. The same Ayers-Dohrn-Quenton Young axis who got Obama started in elective office. I agree, none are liberals.

Problem you got are articles like Conservapedia:Fascism, how are you gonna counter such blatant propagandizing, slander, twisted reasoning, and abuse? RobS 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse? What abuse? That article is cogent and well-reasoned. Yes, perhaps it is a bit of a stretch because a wiki is not "real life," but it is an interesting comparison. And by the way, don't you guys at CP have something similar? Oh yes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Who is denying, today, that Mr. Robeson, Mr. Davis, Prof. Dohrn, and Prof. Ayers were/are communists?

For the three hundredth time, if you have problems with that fascism article, raise them on the talk-page. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob, there are Communists in my bathtub, could you fly out to Denver and work some of that magic on them to get them to leave.... After that, hit the COS building down the street. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, there are no Reds Under the Bed anymore. While your (and FOIA's) obsession interest ^{(look I can use strikeouts too!)} with the Cold War is amusing, the UN is not the spawn of Stalin you imagine it to be. If you haven't noticed, this is the 21st century. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No Reds under every bed? Been reading this one [2] lately. Fascinating. Look for example at "international left" (occurs 3 times) and compare with the recent RNC fundraising letter after Obama won the Nobel Prize, "The Democrats and their international leftist allies." [3] Or pg. 24, "We drew on the strenghts of the communist tradition while challenging it place a greater priority on gender, race, demcracy and mass organizing." Mass organizing, kinda like ACORN does. Or pgs. 19 and 29, "community organizing," etc. Or "the growing Maoist orientation of STORM" (Mao is referenced 9 times). Or "Third World Communism," referenced 6 times. RobS 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, as that first article says, STORM effectively failed and is virtually non-existent now. Even at its peak it was nowhere close to accomplishing anything significant. As for the second article, just because it comes out of Michael Steele's ass mouth ^{(look! more strikeouts!)} does not make it true. And the government just cut funding to ACRON (which, by the way, actually helps people in need organize and protest for good reasons). There is no giant conspiracy, just a few Marxists who still believe in the Revolution. Besides, what's wrong with a little communalism to balance the ubercapitalism of the global marketplace? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you have to look at why this document was created after the organizations dissolution. And it's interesting how an organization which had as few as 5 members at one time, never had more than 37, and only 16 at the time of its demise, could place a key member in the White House above Departmental heads in less than 7 years after it broke up. As pg. 49 (pg. 29 pdf) says, "We hope that this work will help lay the groundwork for a more-deeply-rooted, broader and more effective revolutionary cadre organization in the not-to-distant future." RobS 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unusual, yes. But that line you mention - "we hope..." - means that they are defeated and they want someone else to be inspired by their example because they are now politically irrelevant. But what difference does it make? They haven't accomplished anything important, and for every left-wing nutjob revolutionary in this country (US, I mean) there are at least 2 revolutionaries on the far right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevent? One of the founding cohorts, after establishing relationships within the "community organizing movement," "in the not to distant future" ends up in the White House. RobS 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So? Many US Presidents have been Masons. Does that mean that the Masons are in control of the nation? Obviously not. This cohort, whoever he is, hasn't (to my knowledge) instituted or even proposed any important policy changes. By that definition (which is clearly the one that matters), he is insignificant. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) sorry to bring this up again Rob, but can you please come get those commies out of my bathtub? I was up all night listening to them formulate plans for world domination and something about forcing conservatives to eat Tofu... I have an exam coming up and could really use your help clearing out my studying environment..... Rob?......... Rob? SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, and don't use that bath water - if the Reds have been in it, it's probably fluoridated. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when the commies take over my bathroom. Nothing but drunken shouting and accordion music all night and when I come in in the morning to clean up the place smells like cabbage and feet. 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Columbus wankery

Leif Erikson Day. That is all. Barikada 18:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But didn't Andy stop moaning because he found out Leif was a Christian? Has he forgotten all that, or was "liberals deny Christopher Columbus" just what came out of the quote generator today? Bil08 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I recall Mr. Schlafly never did explicitly state that Leif was a pagan, but he continued to stick to his guns about how Leif did not land even after he was informed that Leif was a Christian. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Search Vinland. It will come up as New Foundland on CP, although Andy states in one of his lessons that if the vikings did land, it would have probably been in New England.--Thanatos 00:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am - shock! - with Andy on this one. Landing in a new country and discovering it are two separate issues. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought (and this is just me operating from fuzzy memory) Andy was actually denying that the guy ever landed there and at one point even claimed that some settlement they found was a complete fake (because the wife of some archeologist wanted to be famous at all costs)? And I don't have a direct opinion on the definition of "discover" because I have little more than a very vague gut feeling there. --Sid 12:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To the gentlemen at a wiki that purports to be conservative

I have a solution to your vandalism woes: shitloads of /16 rangeblocks. Just realised I haven't seen any rangeblocks in a while. Come back TK! EddyP 20:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Or - dare I even mention it - /8 blocks? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why half-ass it? Two or three /1 blocks ought to do the trick. Fedhaji (Talk) 00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this for TK a while back. - π 00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. If I tell you his password will you run it? ħuman 01:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was kind of saving my IP for the Conservapedia day awards. - π 01:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they should just block everyone and let only established users edit. That way, you liberal trolls won't have a chance.Conservative Punk 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Punk's "idea" is how my wiki is run. Udon 02:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even odder, hasn't CP noticed that CP is run that way? ħuman 02:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What's with the $y=$y+1? Why not $y++? Doesn't matter much, just wondered, seemed odd for a code-savvy person not to use the ++ notation. --GTac 07:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly because I never write code from scratch, I usual keep tweaking old code so they have built in historical contingencies. When I was first learning perl I did what I knew would work. - π 09:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mystery solved! --GTac 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Colbert and Andy

Shit man, running through the last 500 edits shows Andy really really dislikes Colbert now. He can't stop accusing people of being Colbert fans and advising them to "go back to watching Colbert reruns". Jeez Andy, get a fucking grip man - you're the moron that put yourself out there. Ace^McWicked 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't see it like that, of course. He just sees Colbert as another librul parodist vandal. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The only pity is that Colbert's request of his Nation was to vandalize CP. Too bad he didn't encourage them to just go "work" on the CBP. ħuman 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but I don't think it would have made much of a difference. The average troll probably wouldn't have the patience or knowledge of CP's inner workings to become a truly effective parodist. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to send this to Andy? Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Statistics

If that wigo is correct Andy pulls 97% of his statistics directly out of his ass. I bet that he also uses non sequiters and insists on last wordism. Fastwinds. Yorick^Crass. 07:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that What Triggers Reconsideration of Liberal Beliefs? only adds up to 90%. Room for some additions there I think. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a well known conservative fact that the remaining 10% of liberals are actually satanists in disguise. -Redback^{not Redneck} 08:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pinch me. This is real, isn't it? I'm not just dreaming this one up out of a Colbert sketch or something, right? ^narchist 09:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The foundations were laid by Aschlafly but most of the brickwork was done by lesser editors, some of which are known parodists. However, given the later editing done by Andy I would guess that he's skimmed it and that it meets with his approval. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't trace the edit chronology, but the talk page has Andy defending the statistics at the end of 2008. --Sid 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy tries his hand at irony

...and fails miserably. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live already made that same joke. Czolgolz 14:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So not only did he completely fail at emulating Colbert's style, he had to rip the joke off from a liberal network? Come on Andy, where are your standards? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it all wrong, it wasn't humor until it came out of the mouth of a conservative, because all comedy comes from christ. Jackass -129.19.137.65 18:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Closed-mindedness"

Andy's assertion that "closed-mindedness is a synonym for atheism" really bothers me, because it's exceptionally stupid, even for him. I found a video about open-mindedness that had me cheering from the rooftops; since obviously I'll never be able to share it with anyone on Conservapedia, let me at least share it with y'all here: http://skepchick.org/blog/2009/05/open-mindedness-video/ - Cuckoo 16:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's like the 6th time that video has been posted here. It does kick ass, though. Check out his other stuff at youtube.com/qualiasoup ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I should have guessed it would be popular here already. :) Thank you for the link; I didn't know there were other videos like it! - Cuckoo 20:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very shallow - so I prefer this :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkLGMyYbz4I (Tim Minchin - also probably posted before) Worm^{(t | c)} 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or is Andy doing very little actual translation in the project he will take all the credit for? EddyP 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he was doing quite a bit earlier. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Andy is doing the vitally important work of managing the project, making him the equivalent of the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert. I suppose that makes TK Catbert. Note that he's not Dogbert -- Dogbert is evil, but only to stupid people that deserve it. (The problem is that Dogbert is a genius, so almost everyone is stupid compared to him.) Catbert is evil for the sheer joy of evil. MDB 17:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that even CP's resident conspiracy theorist Bert is getting in on the action, though I'm not sure he understands the concept. He's just updating the language and, uncharacteristically for him, isn't adding too much overt crazy. I would have thought he'd be all about conservatising Exodus, with the Soviets cast as Egyptians, KAL 007 passengers as Israelites and himself as Moses. Let my people go! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we're on Dilbert analagies, does that make Karajerk Alice (must-control-banhammer-of-death) and JPratt Wally? Ken is, of course, Tina, the tech writer with no social life. --PsygremlinTala! 17:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless work in the supervision and organisation of the farm. Much of this work was of a kind that the other animals were too ignorant to understand. For example, Squealer told them that the pigs had to expend enormous labours every day upon mysterious things called "files," "reports," "minutes," and "memoranda". These were large sheets of paper which had to be closely covered with writing, and as soon as they were so covered, they were burnt in the furnace.- George Orwell. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for people to get down tot he fun old testament stories about murder, rape, dismemberment of spouses and such. For Gaiman fans, hunt up "Outrageous Tales From The Old Testament" and sock up a translation. --Shagie 20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh Danny Boy.....

Come on Daniel1212, you know you want to tell Andy that you have learnt the lesson of Adam and refuse to be tempted into damning your immortal soul. Go on, have the courage of your namesake.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel1212 has branched out lately from his previous Fred Phelps-like obsession with gays. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling the scales might be falling from Dan's eyes, especially given Andy's nurturing "STFU and get back to building my blog, peon." reply. --PsygremlinSpeak! 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is strange to see Daniel doing something other than obsessing over homosex. Anyway, what a fucking loser... Repeatedly putting loads of effort into a exegesis only to be repeatedly, rudely rebuffed for his efforts. The fact that he remains paints a perfect picture of him having nowhere else to go. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore

I don't really wish to pre-empt any possible reaction at CP but Michael Moore's new documentary Capitalism: A Love Story evidently contests the religious right's assumption that God is on the side of capitalism. He also revealed himself to be a church-going Catholic. In the light of CP:BTP I can see Andy getting worked up about this and expect a lot of old ad-homs by him and his goons. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason the Reds were able to crowbar so much of their philosophy into Western politics is because the Christians had already paved the way for them, both with the Lofty Ideals and a tendency to ignore the details wherein the devil lurks. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. And I thought it was because people were fed up of working for pennies a day to spend at the company store, in dangerous conditions with no leisure time. I guess I got schooled about those "reds" right there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please to quit conflating unionism and communism. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right, unionism should always be conflated with de Mafia, and the Catholic Church.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the film's interesting, but this is not something unique to Christianity. Any ideology, religious or secular, can be adopted and bent out of shape by the people in power.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia celebrates vast Socialist creations

Nice to see that Conservapedia is celebrating the creation of a Socialist ideal: The US Navy. Government owned, Government controlled, Government monopoly, paid for and wholly subsidised by the taxpayer, plus, of course, the true Socialist ideal of redistribution of wealth, in this case taking money from those rich enough to pay tax and giving to those who didn't have a job at all, until this government run, socialist behemoth was created. The true Capitalist's idea for a working Navy would be the hiring of mercenaries as and when needed. That Andy can't see this proves the Christian Post's contention that Andy is no true conservative-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wut? I've never heard anyone seriously contend that military functions of government have any basis in socialism. Care to clarify? 00:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, come now; the Reds have the notion that the military exists for the sole purpose of shooting at whatever Oppressed Class their particular variant claims to speak for. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Nutty's got a good point - even Ayn Rand would admit that a government-run military is necessary for enforcing the laws and defending the nation from enemies. Where's Rob, maybe he can answer this; he's our resident expert on the Reds Under the Bed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand did. David D. Friedman is more radical, and does not. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a government-run military is necessary for defending a nation, or projecting a nation's power (you don't want to use it for enforcing the laws though, that's what the police are for), but the point is that from a philosophical point of view you will never run across a more Socialist institution. An easy way to contrast it is to compare it to the way that the English Throne used to obtain an army, which was essentially issuing an order to the nobles of the realm to gather, train and then make ready a regiment or regiments at their own expense (a very capitalist way of doing it, if you ignore the fact that the nobles paid for the regiments through the taxes they gathered, plus obligations of duty owed by peasants that were, for all intents and purposes, 'owned' by said nobles). Indeed, if you want a more recent example look at the East India Company, a prime example of military capitalism in action. The trick here isn't too look at the practical (which all too often is used as an excuse by the conservatives to try and excuse the gap between their behaviour and their beliefs) and instead look at the philosophical difference. Another easy way to look at it is too compare the NHS and the British Armed Forces. Compare the way that the two organisations are funded, employed and paid for. Really there is no difference, and even 'necessity' doesn't come into it. Does Britain actually need any form of armed force? Who the hell is going to invade us? More importantly, would our allies desert us should we require military aid. From that point of view then in many cases a military isn't needed at all, instead is just a powerful and favoured tool of politicians who like to stamp their will across the rest of the world.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC⁸) The word you seek is statist, not socialist. Unless you ask Mr. Schlafly, of course. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything very "capitalist" about the East India Company, which basically ran roughshod across India, nicking people's property however they saw fit. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was a very British Victorian form of capitalism in action. Make no mistake, sweetness and light if you were white, Western European, or your head of state was married to one of Vicotoria's brood but if you weren't and you had something we wanted then it was a case of 'goodbye' and a swift, brutal occupation. In many ways that hasn't changed. Look at the way the demand created by western style capitalism has created vast pools of child labour (often forced), a modern slave trade in the form of trafficked people, and the forcing out of local business by vast international megacorporations, the last being a less obviously violent form of the way that the East India Company did business.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You should try to respond to points raised... ListenerX^TalkerX 03:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

?. "I do not see anything very "capitalist" about the East India Company, which basically ran roughshod across India, nicking people's property however they saw fit. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)". Response: "Oh, that was a very British Victorian form of capitalism in action.". Of course, that should have read ...a very British Georgian form of capitilism in action", but apart from that the reply was made to the points raised.

I gave a reason why I do not think they were capitalistic, viz., that property rights are a key tenet of capitalism, but that the East India Company flagrantly disregarded them. You did not appear to respond to this. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys took the Dwarf's initial comment a little too seriously. ħuman 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? It flowered into a nice discussion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that was a bad thing... just that the OP was dripping with sarcasm as far as I could tell. ħuman 02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite (more dripping with some very nice Shiraz earlier on in the evening). But ask yourself this. What is a socialist institution at heart. Is it something that is paid for, staffed by and run by society (through the intermediary of an elected government), for the benefit of society? If yes, then a large number of institutions that we take for granted are socialist. And that was kind of the point that I was aiming at. Really, it doesn't matter if an institution is based on a socialist ideal or a capitalist ideal, as long as the institution is as fit for purpose as possible. But to the barves (points to those who know where that word is from) from Conservapedia the idealism is more important than the practicality when it comes down to mouthing off about such things, hence the use of the word 'socialism' anytime a public health option is brought up in the political arena, despite the fact that there is no practical difference in the way that a government-run health system and a government-run military system is run. As for importance, ask a severely wounded soldier which is more important to him/her, is it the government-provided and run military or the government-provided and run health care that's stopping him from dying in Afghanistan? Even more mind blowing, in the last example they are both one and the same organisation. So Conservapedia being against government-run health care because it's socialist, but support for the US Navy because it is a government-run organisation, that incidentally also is a government-run health care system, seems deeply ironic.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've done enough musing tonight. The Shiraz is wearing off and it's 03:31 in the morning. See y'all tomorrow.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for when you return, here's my reply: As an American I have no idea WTF "barves" is, but I think statist is still a better word than socialist for a government-run military. Socialism is more than just government using tax money for projects that are in the common interest, there is also the issue of government control of the means of production. And, as Marx put it, socialism is based on "from each according to his own ability, to each according to his own contribution." The military is not just based on that ideology. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Socialism is based more on questions of power in a society than societal welfare in general. Marx, writing when he did, saw this power as the means of production; others have interpreted it differently. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but it's important to remember that virtually no one else sees it that way. Neocons are huge supporters of the military, and no one really includes "having a government-run military" when figuring out how to place a nation/government on the political spectrum. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sees what which way? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was unclear - what I mean is very few people consider a government-run military to be a sign of socialism. Technically you are probably correct that a government-run military is pseudo-socialist, but most people would not draw that same conclusion.

Well, I'm going the same way as the Dwarf: good night. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed that a public army is anything resembling a socialist venture. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were agreeing with the Dwarf. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you like Conservapedia...

you may also like RationalWiki. Go ahead, check it out. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ is out of his mind 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is funny - but WTF is up with the other sites on there, like NASA? I didn't know CP users actually read science articles. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that far from reading science articles, the NASA visitors among Conservapedia readers are doing research in aid of exposing the Moon landing hoax? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Either that or trying to prove that NASA is a Commie conspiracy to institute a New World Order. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Our NASA article reveals all. Totnesmartin 09:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving away a Conservapedia account with escalated privileges

First person to send an email to zelmerszoetrop@gmail.com that accurately guesses who I am can have it. Zelmerszoetrop 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MarkGall? If I'm right (and you're not joking and just planning to send the winner spam), give it to someone else, I don't want it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Send an email dummy I'm not going to say who it is on the public forum, and I need the winners email anyways to send them the password privately. Zelmerszoetrop 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And no, it's not going to be spam. I am an escalated privilege user at Conservapedia who doesn't have the time or inclination anymore, but sees no reason for the fun the end. Zelmerszoetrop 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is that e-mail address entered into the Wiki? It resolves the spam question if the Wiki is used to send the e-mail. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not interested. Send it to this guy, he's a pro. BTW you are acting pretty damn weird. The last person to do something like this was TK. Are you TK, or just drunk? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that FP/Bugler should have first refusal on the account. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you at exculpatory1@aim.com because your email isn't enabled on this wiki. 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I sent a spoofed email to and from tfk92270@hotmail.com 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously you guys have no tact. TK (or someone else) is going to check user every newish rights holder and the moment they are seen editing from a new IP they are going to be dead. - π 03:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am proud to announce that I have just registered the most win email address ever, in the history of Rationalwiki. Not really related, but the conversation reminded me... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think all I would do is change the password and remove password recovery, which is what I did to a certain sysop. >.> 03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Udon / talk / contribs}

Probably. That's because our friend here probably is TK to begin with. (No offense, Zelm, if you're not - you're just acting like him.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am TK, who knows? All I can say is, if you want a high up account, send me your best guess. My email is registered here now. Zelmerszoetrop 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Piece of RationalWiki trivia, what was the name of the sysop account we auctioned off to raise money? - π 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you dummy, I mean you are TK and the whole thing is a ruse. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite, though I'll probably regret it. Check your email. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't, for the same reason. I would like to see how it turns out though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If anybody has oversight, I don't know if that even exists here, they should probably delete this whole section and all relevant edits now. Somebody has guessed correctly. Zelmerszoetrop 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, that process was full of amusing. ħuman 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We have something similar, but nobody is going to do it just because you went about this stupidly. Also RobS can read hidden edits any way. - π 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I never would have guess it would be Jinx. You learn something new every day. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Π - well how the fuck should I have done it? ^{— Unsigned, by: Zelmerszoetrop / talk / contribs}

This is a bad place, CP sysop read here. The best thing to do would have been to email one of the really early editors, someone's name you recognise from here and asked them how they use to do this sort of thing. - π 03:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ItLs all for nothing anyway. What can possibly be so damaging? They'll keep growing. What's to stop them?

TerryH fumbles on in - spanked by schlafly

what the fuck is this all about? Ace^McWicked 03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. WTF was he thinking?? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he might have made the mistake of "thinking". I love Andy's response. ħuman 04:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is like watching two people fight over the wheel of the Titanic, after it has hit the iceberg. - π 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"I think your other points are open to more discussion and debate." came from assfly, never has he ever encouraged discussion and debate --129.19.137.65 04:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I've seen some hubristic comments on wikis in the past but that (and his associated posts on various users' talk pages) is gonna take some beating. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If Terry is as much of a scholar as he says he is, why on earth does he want to get involved with this daffy enterprise?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think TerryH studied at some bible seminary (see his teabgging party picture) and he did a lot at CreationWiki where he goes under the name of Temlakos. So I do believe that he is qualified. However, although he is an Ayn Rand fan, whether he could put enough conservative spin on the Bible to satisfy Andy's loopy ideas is another matter. He even registered here with Temlakos and forgot the password (so he says) just so nobody else could use the ID. So if you find a site which he might be interested in, sign up with the user ID of Temlakos just to annoy him. Although we know what he looks like, our pet Schlafly mole Kettlewicket said that thought TerryH was really creepy when he met him at the CP barbecue and rummage sale. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"and also reminds me just a bit too much of a certain motion picture franchise that I now know was a thinly-disguised anti-American screed in six parts" - ooooh, the obvious question is, when is George Lucas releasing Star Wars: The Conservative Edit? In which the Empire wins, because they're a big business with some healthy disregard for the lives of subcontractors (see: Death Star), and the Rebels lose when the Empire buys the majority of their stocks? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this not WIGO-worthy? I must have reloaded that page 5 times already today because I still can't believe I read it. I love the sound of the "Committee on Translation" - it brings to mind some kind of McCarthy-ite organisation screening people. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 11:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy's response seems to indicate that he half-heartedly appointed TerryH as the dean of translation, if at all. I've no doubt, looking at his credentials, that TerryH could probably be the best option to head a committee (except perhaps Bert Schlossberg), but it just seems Andy hasn't bought in to it completely. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in love with Andy's list of qualifications. If nothing else it sheds some light on his earlier claim to have "studied" Koine Greek. So, right. Any native English speaker has been studying "modern English" in some sense since a very young age. Heck, I even took English classes, of all things! What does it mean to "study" something anyway? Let's see. When you start a list with a qualification like having studied modern English and then include things like your non-existent teaching qualifications and reference to having studied a thing that that is at most a heuristic tool in fields in which you also have no expertise, your list speaks more to your insecurity than listing real qualifications. 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Taking control" and "Committee on Translation" sound exactly like the things Andy officially wanted to avoid, don't they? Didn't Andy praise the whole power of the people approach using wiki technology while shunning "intellectuals"? And what happened to translating the KJV? I'm starting to get mighty confused what they want to do... --Sid 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A few of them are obsessed with giving themselves titles and areas to control. Weren't they assigning themselves "departments" to "chair" at one stage? Most of the document by PJR is a long whine on how TK took over organising the categories from him. - π 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me like TerryH's translation could just as well be a paraphrasing of the NIV. Which is hardly surprising, seeing as how he's going back and actually thinking about the Greek, rather than updating the KJV. Broccoli 00:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is awesome (from that edit):

• KJV: And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
• Andy: Jesus then rebuked the evil spirit, "Shut up and depart from him."
• TerryH: Jesus then scolded the spirit, and said, "Shut up and get out of him."

Good to see that some silliness is there to stay. --Sid 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NIV:"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" Oh good, there's hope for parody yet. Broccoli 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Astroboy

Is it just me, or is CP guilty (save there lack of competence) of the same crime they accuse hollywood of committing, namely discussing explicit marxist philosophies? --129.19.137.65 05:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Marxism is like sex with them; not to be discussed in front of children except to condemn it in very vague terms. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we need RobS to clear this one up. Hey Rob! That's right, I'm talking to you!</sup[> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All liberals are not marxist. All Marxists are liberals. ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.7.135 / talk / contribs}

The BoN should study a bit of elementary set-theory. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the set theory it's a grossly over-simplistic view of what constitutes a 'liberal' - I know plenty of Marxists who have nothing liberal in their philosophy. Bob Soles 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The BoN's statement is contradictory. But as I said to RobS above, the words "commie" and "liberal" do not belong in the same sentence, unless they are bookending "is doing a bad job of pretending to be a." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

case-n-point, conservatives do not know plenty of Marxists. please add sig ty ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.7.167 / talk / contribs}

You sign your posts by placing four tildes after them. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think itmeant to say "all Marxists are liberals, but not all liberals are Marxists", which is still wrong, but at least logically coherent. ħuman 19:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reds hate liberals as heartily as wingnuts do. I have heard one or two of them curse liberals for being worse than fascists, which is like a fundamentalist saying someone is worse than Satan. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance - why do Reds hate liberals so much? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think because liberals are "for" (regulated) free market capitalism? ħuman 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Commies would like for it to be "upper class, authoritarian, uncaring, uncompromising free-marketeer capitalists" versus "lower class, democratic, caring, uncompromising anti-market socialists" because then they'd have an easy job winning the class struggle. But unfortunately for them there are "middle class, liberal democratic, caring, compromising, welfare state semi-capitalists" and variations thereof who confuse things, distract the working class with empty promises, keep them from the obtaining "class-consciousness" (that's why the Communist Party can't get any votes!) and prop up the decadent capitalist state. Bil08 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. So, basically, they want people to see a dichotomy where there isn't one. ^{Is that right Rob?} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bil, I submit that the reason the Communist Party does not get any votes is because the Communist Party have got bullshit leaking out their ears. Workers are good at seeing through that sort of thing, which caused the communists to lose elections, at which point they invented "cultural hegemony" to re-class (no pun intended) any worker who voted against them as brainwashed and unable to think for himself. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we are running up against the difference between an American political spectrum liberal and a traditional political spectrum liberal. Classical liberals (closest thing we have left are libertarians) are concerned with govt. protecting negative rights (Like the right not to be punched in the nose) Welfare liberals are concerned with protecting positive rights, like the right to not die of hunger, Marxists tend to be very concerned with positive rights, not so much with liberty. --Opcn 23:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we know that when Andy says "liberal" he means American-style liberal. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, when andy says liberal he means anyone he disagrees with --Opcn 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much ends that conversation... anyway, yeah, in 'Murka, a liberal is a dirty word, and means anyone with any "leftist" tendencies whatsoever. Meaning anyone who thinks the gummint can fix a problem. Thank you, Saint Ronnie. ħuman 03:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing is a lot of people would agree with that. Interestingly, that isn't true in New Jersey where Andy lives. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Volunteering WIGO

I think this little exchange between Andy and our old friend Jinx _{hi Jinx!} is very telling of the mindset of these people. A. The South has higher rates of volunteering, The south went for the Republican Party. Therefore, all people in the south are Conservatives. Never mind that Obama won 39% of the vote in Alabama, 39% in Arkansas, 47% in Georgia, etc, etc ,etc. I could easily continue throughout the rest of the South, but I won't bore you. The biggest point is that how on Earth can they honestly peg every single person that lives in a certain state as leaning one way or the other politically? I am amazed. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not pegging every single person in a "conservative area" as conservative; I think their argument is based more on majorities in the given regions, which have a large influence on government policy there. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's just more things to volunteer for down here? We get hit by fucking hurricanes all the time, there's still people in New Orleans volunteering for Katrina.--EcheNegraMente ^{I guess a guess is the best I'll do} 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe there is actually a relationship between right-wing administrations and volunteerism, viz., that if the State does not provide certain services, volunteers will jump in to do it instead. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It may also be related to the economic crisis, which hit middle America really hard. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd think the hardline conservatives like Andy would be against volunteerism. Working for free? That's undermining capitalism! Fucking liberals! 194.6.79.200 09:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Andy is 27 million page views behind?

Look at the stats page, he is way way behind in his gloating, why? --Opcn 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Busy on the Bible Project? Broccoli 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not so far removed from reality that he is unaware how users here manipulate his page counts. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Last time he made up a number of hits he determined were fraudulent, subtracted that from the total and used that. I have a feeling he will do something similar once he determines when the Colbert Bump is over. But I also have a hunch that he might soon try and reclaim the few million 'fraudulent' pageviews and use the mediawiki total like it never happened. One thing is for sure, Andy has not (and will never) stop caring about pageviews. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The more you tell a lie, the harder it becomes to tell truth from reality.--Thanatos 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

When JPratt deleted a load of Law Terms stubs last weekend he took out over 10 million page views. When they update their MW software next time there could be a huge discrepancy between the running total and the sum of current pages. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's Andy's celebrations?

How come AndyPandy isn't celebrating the Dow climbing and staying above the psychological important mark of 10,000? After all, for such a staunchly pro-capitalist free-market site you think this would deserve front page coverage and a rousing cheer of support. (Mmmm, I feel a </sarcasm> tag coming on.)-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious: he can't let himself admit that anything good can happen during Obama's term, even if it is totally unrelated (which in this case you could argue it is). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

the only peeps profiting off 10000 DOW Jones are Congressman and women. Da middle class is broke barney. What is a tilda? ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.188.0.52 / talk / contribs}

Shift and the key to the left of 1. - π 01:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait! It's called the tilda? I thought it was the tilde. >.< Udon 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bah! You beat me to the obvious rice joke.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is actually tildə, but that fucking upside down e confuses people. - π 02:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, it is pronounced "tilda" and means "not". ħuman 03:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the tilde was the wavy line above the hash sign on the far left of the second row of the GB keyboard. Confused of Blackpool AKA Bob Soles 10:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it's on the far right of my second row. Your liberal bias in preferring (far) left over right is duly noted... Cantabrigian 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of it that way, but my ~ is above # on the right. Is it English/US keyboard set ups? Now that would be an interesting one to misapply some politics to. ^narchist 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. it is. You learn something new and interesting every day. ^narchist 12:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a much sillier "editing pattern" at WP than I ever had at CP... ħuman 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

All you ever seem to do at WP is steal their wretched commas. How silly is that? Silly twit 21:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's simpler than this. He hit the 100,000,000 page view mark. In his mind, this big round base 10 number grants his site respectibility. Now that he has that, no other number of page views matter. Of course, we could go the crazy-go-nuts route and push him to a billion views and see how he reacts. Stile4aly 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That would take like twenty years... He ought to go the McDonald's route and just say "billions and billions amused". ħuman 02:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"The finest design is often illusory"

Wow. Just...wow. [4]

Is Andy seriously claiming that the notion that God is not deceptive (which is about as bedrock a principle of Christian theology as you can get) is "atheistic bias?" Did he REALLY replace it with the notion that illusion and deception make for "good design?"

That's...gaaah. I'm speechless. --Phentari 01:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of funny that Andy is supporting a concept rejected by the current "scholarship" of creationists. Creation "science" is pretty much just making up excuses when challenged, rather than research. - π 01:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, at the same time, he is modifying the so-called literal word of God to match up with his beliefs, which are rooted in creation science. *ducks to avoid shrapnel from exploding irony meter* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people say the fossils were placed by the Devil to confuse people. Do we know if Andy thinks that, or that they were all placed by the flood? If the former, then it seems logical to say the Devil also placed a bunch of starlight in the sky to confuse people too. 194.6.79.200 09:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I'm torn between cheering Andy on to insert insanity into an article I know at least a bit about, but at the same time, the whole Starlight Problem territory is my personal trauma zone thanks to Ken (who apparently still sees merit in c-decay) and Philip (who doesn't believe in c-decay, but insists that anti-creationists only criticized it on ideological grounds). Grahhh... --Sid 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

god is magic. Magicians use misdirection. QED . . . deception is godly. Damn people! Do I have to do all my thinking for you?! See also: Facade. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Back when the devil was still god's buddy, god gave him some special "creationary" powers to handle some of the work (it was a very busy week). The devil, tasked with making some pretty lights for the night sky, impishly made them appear to be umpteen light years away. A couple thousand years later, when god was very busy managing the global flood, the devil discovered he still had his special user rights, so he created all the world's fossils (and all other remaining evidence for "deep time") and scattered them around the globe. Dinosaurs, for example, were never real - they were just an expression of the devil's imagination. Why he made it look like Wales blew up, know one quite knows. ħuman 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Lucifer" does mean "light-bringer." Perhaps you're on to something. I find your ideas compelling and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Stile4aly 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Evil word evilest!

ħuman 03:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Norway = Sweden

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#No_shocking_news_regarding_the_Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences.

I loved the line "Norway and Sweden are similar countries in the same area of the world, and neither would be considered diverse in any meaningful way."

Well, they were sort of united when the Nobel Prize was formed, but still... ^narchist 12:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like the way Andy hammers that both prizes are the same. "User: wait, let me explain,..Andy:SAME! User:but, but, not really look...Andy:SAME!" The lines around 'why does it bother you so much?' are also comedy gold. --Ireon 12:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoever PeterF is, he is wrong. The three real science are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences , the economics prize is a) not a Nobel prize, it is Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize and b) it is awarded by the Bank of Sweden (the Swedish equivalent of the Federal Reserve, but much older). - π 13:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Assfly's comparison to a sports contest at the end is a bit off, Nobels aren't exactly a competitive prize the same way as a sports cup is. You don't go out there and say "I'm going to win a Nobel Prize!!!" exactly. ^narchist 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is he implying wrestling isn't real? I don't believe that, you can see them bleed! - π 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

She should have heard my old Uncle Chris on the subject. 'Svedes!' he would roar. 'Vat are Svedes but Norvegians vit der brains knocked out?'- Kathryn Forbes ListenerX^TalkerX 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada and the USA are similar countries in the same area of the world, and neither would be considered diverse in any meaningful way. --GTac 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Page view black hole

Following the above discussion about page views I just did a count of all (32192) pages which are registered in main space and got a total of 78,628,396 compared to the Statistics total of 132,553,609. A discrepancy of nearly 54 million! So Andy still has a way to go to reach his 100 megaviews. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You took the time to count that?! Is this what you do at work? Udon 15:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you count special pages? As - for instance - cp:Special:RecentChanges? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that include talk pages? If so, someone, somehow, must tell Andy this. Sure, a fair few of them will be from deleting and recreating pages with legitimate views (evolution and main page talk, for example) but most of them will be from deleted page bump operations.

No talk pages, and my counter returns 78,685,414. This is simply a result of the countless bumped pages he's deleted and recreated. 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Are the "view statistics" mainspace articles only? ħuman 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NSF Porn Scandal

As ever CP is bang up to date. In my search for an more authoritative source than the Washington Times I found this Scientific American article dating from 6th Feb 2009 - eight moths ago. Bob Soles 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Even further back this blog dated from January notes that the 6 cases in over 1000 employees is well below the the results of the 2008 Neilsen survey which found the 25% of employees with unfiltered internet access looked at pornography during work hours. to quote

Workplace computer misuse is persistent and increasing. It's quite awful but it has nothing to do with the NSF, with scientists, or reviving the economy.

Bob Soles 15:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a random thought on "educated elites"...

... that may well have been noted before, but...

Andy is very dismissive of "educated elites". (For instance, his belief that's an equivalent term to "Pharisee".

Let's see... M'sieur Schlafly has a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Princeton, and a Law Degree from Harvard.

I would think two different degrees, including one advanced degree, in difficult fields, from two different prestigious schools (is Princeton part of the Ivy League? I know Hah-vahd is.) would make qualify as "educated elite".

Is this self-loathing on his part? Is this making him the educational equivalent of a Jewish anti-Semite? MDB 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I always assumed he meant academics. Broccoli 16:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure how he takes "Norwegian parliament" and arrives at "educated elite," unless of course he applies that label to all Norwegians. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Elites" is a conservative snarl word, meaning essentially "anyone more powerful than me." Which, in Andy's case, is more or less everyone. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Silly liberal. None of Andy's criticsims apply to him. He's got the whole "I'm rubber, you're glue" thing on speed dial. It's not hypocrisy either. It's an "open mind". ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Or it's because Mummy's money brought the degrees for him.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This too. He escaped his elite education unscathed. No learning touched him^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This goes back to the neo-conservative concept of elitism and the Republican's semi-successful attempt to reclaim the mantle of populism from the Democrats. Knowing that a party of increasingly old-monied people demanding tax cuts and deregulation could not really be classified as anything but elite, the Republicans decided to suggest that the "real" elites were the culturally elite. Those that value education and demonstrate tolerance for other cultures and other points of view aren't real Americans since they don't appreciate America's traditional values. They are the real elites, since they're the ones trying to force their ideas on you, but never mind us while we grow the wealth gap and exploit the government for corporate benefit.

Is Andy an elite in the sense that he's fortunate enough to come from a famous family with enough money for him to never hold a real job, and instead move from sinecure to sinecure? Of course he is. Stile4aly 22:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the culture of a country being used to influence policy did not originate with neo-conservatives. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

God Listener, have you and Rob been hanging out more than usual recently? The link between Gramsci and what Stile4aly was talking about is a pretty weak one - certainly not deserving of another update on how the Reds continue to murder us from beyond the grave.Bil08 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The effect of Marxist thought on neo-conservatism is not disputed; a significant number of the founders of that philosophy had previously been communists of one stripe or another. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

haha...Nail. Head. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Even better. I double facepalmed at this one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy doublethink

Doublethink^img much Andy? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "doublethink" is a bit of a misnomer. I think "think" is a bit of a misnomer. SJ ^Debaser 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooh... this is reminiscent of the "Is It Humor?" gameshow. We need our socks to present Andy with republicans ranting and raving about the Nobel prize and have Andy tell us one by one how they either aren't conservative or aren't angry. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

I just have to say I love the most recent Andy WIGO saying that the Nobel Prize is only given from liberals to other liberals. Classic Andy, and a very well worded WIGO, laughing at Andy's idiocy. I can see this shooting to the top, and if it doesn't, then it should be! SJ ^Debaser 22:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes don't mean much to the Schlaflnator, unless someone doesn't win one, Eistone fer instance for relativity...zilch. The means one can call the [whole of] ToR into question since the muckety-mucks there in Sweden passed on it. This is an old meme Schlafly uses. He's been down on the Peace prize especially since none of the current crop of neo-cons will ever "win" one since they tend to be hawks (chicken or otherwise). CЯacke® 23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Mother Teresa WAS a liberal; if I'm not mistaken, she followed the consistent life ethic, which makes one tilt more left than right. --Crazyswordsman 02:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa is one of those that must make Andy's little head spin around. "She's opposed to abortion so she's a conservative but she's opposed to the death penalty so she's a liberal but she's opposed to abortion so she's a conservative but she's opposed to the death penalty so she's a liberal but... my head hurts. I'll go listen to Rush, Sean, and Glenn. They'll make things clear again." MDB 11:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what happens when your Party Line is defined in pure opposition to the view of the other Party, which in turn is based on a freedom of choice ethic. If the Democrats went around getting abortions because they liked them, then Fundies could have a more honest basis for their opposition to abortion. This pretense that they actually give a damn about the life of the baby or its mother is sickening. LinuxGal 16:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come now; some of them care, just not the prominent demagogues. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise, since I wrote the WIGO. I might have been able to make it longer, but I ran out of synonyms for liberal and wasn't in the mood to hunt down a thesaurus. MDB 09:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The boys are fighting again

Over relativity again. Ace^McWicked 03:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I realised the futility of arguing with my older brother, or even having an intellectual conversation with him, a long time ago as he seems completely impervious to logic and incapable of understanding things he didn't simply make up himself. I understand how Roger feels. - π 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

They must have some awesome family get togethers. Ace^McWicked 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one lives in New Jersey and the other in California, they couldn't get any further apart and still live on the mainland of the US. - π 04:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised they didn't take it "private" (hell, I don't like my brother, but we still talk on the phone and stuff). Especially considering how many flavors of wrong and stupid Andy is being in that exchange. ħuman 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"If you received a good grade for the reciting liberal viewpoints, then it becomes even more difficult for you to reconsider." might belong in the quotegenerator. ħuman 04:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For sure. I do like the argument that unless something "of value has come from it", then it can't be true. I think Andy has missed his calling in life as a university finance administrator or on a grants committee somewhere, he would save them a fortune. - π 04:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Added...Ace^McWicked 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unbelievable how bad Andy is at debating. I've encountered many lawyers in my line of work and debating is one skill that they have all had. It seems like a fairly essential requirement for the job. Does he perform like this in court? JoeDuffy 09:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he ever actually been a courtroom attorney? As opposed to just writing legal documents? MDB 09:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I found that on the web, Maybe it was posted here before. Its Andy-Pandy, writing in the name of his Shammy Doctor association, writing a defense for BLimpbaugh back in the time when he came back alone from the dominican rebublic with tons of viagra and some serious chaffing. Alain 15:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/aapsamicus.pdf

I think the going theory is that this is why he is a two-bit lawyer for a quack organisation. Broccoli 09:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He used to be a two-bit legal counsel for AT&T until he did something stupid and lost them money. It is about 20 pages long, not to long but not interesting enough that I have ever gone through it. I don't think he has ever appeared in court, it would be interesting to find out. - π 12:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading that right, it's pretty fucking hilarious. Assfly pwned courtroom style. I love the [sic] used in quoting him on page 18. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From my quick skim read as far as I can tell, Schlafly cut of AudioText’s long distant phone service because they had a outstanding bill and would only restore service if they paid $828,923, a number he pulled out of his arse. In the process he broke about four laws, violated the terms of a contract and tried to come up with some pathetic excuses to cover arse. Not a bad days work for him really. - π 13:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got any idea what Andy is on about when he says "the denial of the arrow of time" is a political ramification of relativity? Bil08 12:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really get the intricacies of what Andy did wrong there, but it looks like AutoText were pulling some kind of nefarious scam.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea. Gene Ray makes more sense than Assfly when he's trying to talk about advanced physics. At least Time Cube makes sense in the author's mind, whereas Andy, I'm pretty sure, doesn't know what he's talking about and knows it. He really is an appalling bluffer when it comes to this stuff. ^narchist 12:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the standard M.O. is to spout crap dressed-up in nice sounding jargon. I did enjoy his baffling and totally off-topic Obama reference. I get the feeling that if his dick went soft during sex, he'd somehow find a way to link Obama to his flacid little soldier. Looking on the bright side.. That's another educated contributor he's driven away. I do enjoy Andy's relocation of relativity from physics in to the social sciences. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I now have this creepy image of Andy in the showers at Harvard sneekily comparing cock sizes with Obama after a game of raquetball or something. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy seems to have his freak on for the theory of Relativity, he apparently doesn't believe it, or he thinks "moral relativism" is the direct result of it, and in any event, Relativity has to result in profitable technology or taxpayers shouldn't subsidize it and he's implying that anyone who donates to Relativity is a communist. User:LinuxGal

(Added LinuxGal's name to the previous post). Something tells me that Andy is never going to be in a position to make these funding decisions, although his support for creationism is classrooms seems odd, since creation science [sic] doesn't exactly have a lot to show for it. May as well fill a bunch of pre-teens up with morphine and then ask them to decide on funding for mapping the human genome. Scientists probably sleep safely in the knowledge that Andy occupies his time with his blog. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit! I can't believe Roger just corrected teh Assfly... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't know much about physics and I barely possess the maths necessary to figure out tips I can tell you with great certainty that time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. I'm pretty sure that is what Schlafly is on about. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy slaps Roger back. I'm really surpirsed they are having this debate in public. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's excruciatingly easy to work out why Andy-Pandy is against what he is against. If he doesn't understand it it must be wrong. Andy-Pandy doesn't understand relativity, so it's wrong. Andy-Pandy doesn't understand evolution, so it's wrong, Andy-Pandy doesn't understand the cosmological inflation of the universe, so it's wrong, Andy-Pandy doesn't understand the Big Bang, so it's wrong, Andy-Pandy doesn't understand (fill in whatever you want), so it's wrong. That's why Andy-Pandy keeps on banging on about having an 'open mind', because if you decide to see things from Andy-Pandy's then you realise instantly that ignorance trumps understanding any day of the week, because God would never create anything that Andy-Pandy can't understand, and anything that exists that Andy-Pandy can't understand must be lies or vandalism created by libruls.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That must be it. And a whole wiki based on knocking down everything Andy doesn't understand is a gift of free entertainment that keeps on giving. LinuxGal 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not even wrong young User:Stunteddwarf! ToR is bad simply because of who came up with it...had it been someone like HAWK Edward Teller (read: Not liberal ZOMG! PACIFIST! Einstein) then he'da done the mental hurdles needed to get why ToR is a G(o)od Thing®. CЯacke® 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Or it could just be that it says the speed of light is constant, which gave rise to the starlight problem. Also I found this, which I just WIGOed, pretty funny. Commence Andy obfuscation in 5...4...3...2...1... Tetronian ^{you're clueless}

Oh. My. God. I never thought I would say this, but WAY TO GO ROGER!! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about relativity, but it certainly looks like Roger just annihilated Andy.--EcheNegraMente ^{A smooth operator operating correctly} 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Annihilated" doesn't even begin to describe it. He called Andy's arguments "silly," told him he was wrong in capital letters, and called the author of his source a "kook." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope somebody is making a copy in case it gets burned. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I WIGOed it so we have the captured image. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy calling Roger's laconic replies "quite a rant" made me smile. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for him to call his brother a liberal - I think he came pretty close to doing it in that last reply. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that hard

These Colbert fans are all idiots. If you want to get Colbert into the Conservative Bible, it wouldn't be that hard. Here's how you'd do it:

1. Create 2 accounts on CP, one with an obvious vandal name and one with a real first name/last initial combo (if there are any left).
2. Log in as the obvious vandal and blank one of the translated Bible pages, like Mark chapters 1-8. Replace it with "LOL" or something.
3. Quickly log in as the other account and revert that vandalism. But near the bottom, put in some stuff about Colbert.

That way it only gets spotted if someone compares the diff between the pre-vandal version and the reverted version. Someone (not me) once used this trick to slip the phrase "an unruly negro" into the Barack Obama page, and it stayed there for quite some time.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly well-known wandalism trick but at CP only TK knows to look for it. Is TK still on patrol or has he fucked off? If he's gone then now is the perfect time for such efforts. 194.6.79.200 09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that's why "rollback" rather than manual editing is preferred for vandalism. And you can see it clearly if the diff summary has a different character count. ^narchist 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Or they can try the "Shakespeare" way and be a little more smart about it... find the story about the stoning of Stephen and somehow spell out the letters for colbert or something by starting the next word with a c, followed by an o, etc... User:Uramischbuh

there was aflurry of acrostic edits as you describe last year. all they do is delete/recreate the articles and the acrostic is borked. PJR once altered the acrostic CONSERVAPEDIAISACROCKOFSHIT to read CONSERVAPEDIAISAHIT. Fuck, why do I remember all this stuff? Totnesmartin 14:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one - that was a good wheeze. BMoore's hidden message to CP is still visible if you know where to look; I wonder who that was.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the screencaps to the acrostics above. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy is right...

... in that there is a difference between "elite" and "elitism". However, he ignores the fact that he has repeatedly used the word "elite" derogatorily, and then, when someone points out that he would qualify as "elite", he says he meant "elitism".

This is one thing that's long bothered me. I want to be governed by the "elite" -- smart, well-educated people. However, the United States' long contempt for "elitism", and tendency of people (like Andy) to portray "elite" and "elitism" as equivalent, are what give us George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. MDB 16:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about competent people instead? Many "smart, well-educated" academics could not find their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone oversee any civic administration.

However, it is true that many of our most fondly remembered presidents have been rich-kid types (Jefferson, FDR, Kennedy). ListenerX^TalkerX 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "talented" rather than "smart, well-educated". And many of our most fondly remembered Presidents came from humble backgrounds, too -- Lincoln being a prime example. And to contradict my own point, Washington was not well-educated compared to his contemporaries among the Founders (and, according to one presenter I heard at Mount Vernon once, felt somewhat inferior to them), and is almost always ranked as our greatest President. MDB 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Going out on a limb here......

....but those fucking "MOAR!" entries look silly. I agree with MC on this that these internet spellings are ridiculous. Fine on talk pages but I think we should keep them mainspaces. Thoughts? Ace^McWicked 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)