Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

What's Andy getting at

What's with this edit? At first I thought it was about deceitful liberal students trying to cheat, but it seems now it's about lazy professors nd their professor values. Is Andy condoning a site posting answer to college exams?

Gives me an idea. We should post the answers to his exams. Though I guess if his students want to cheat they can easily do so without us. DickTurpis 23:21, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

You don't need rationalwiki to cheat on Andy's exam, you just choose the option that's synonymous with "Liberals are Satan himself." Anyway, if it weren't for tenured sloths, how would people ever get undergraduate degrees. I remember once when we had an exam where the lecturer left the marking scheme in the paper when he reproduced it. There was a general confused murmuring for about 5 minutes, and then everyone buckled down to some serious expanding and copying. Then about 10 minutes in, some blasted suck up alerted the invigilators and a halt was called. I swear if we'd all just sat quietly, and remembered to take the exam papers with us when we left, no one would have been any the wiser. --81.187.75.69 23:31, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems I'm defending Andy a bit here, which is leaving a bad taste in my mouth, but here goes: actually, the liberals are evil answer is probably true of no more than 10% of his questions. Most are pretty mundane. DickTurpis 23:51, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

While I've not yet found his exams, his "classes" on history are only "mundane" if you are cool with total revisionist history. I was shocked to figure out Conservapedia claims to be some kind of homeschool student guide, since his facts on history are not only either skewed or flat out wrong, they read like a 3rd grader would be writing them. There is no coherency, even internally to Andy's whacked out reality. Frightens me so much that this man considers himself a teacher. --WaitingforGodot 17:40, 7 July 2008 (EDT)( I bez a damned liberal academician on state-funded holiday.

Check out this discussion, talk about revisionist! CЯacke® 17:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Dear goddess, i thought i'd heard everything! So, Columbus lands on Christmass just in time to help Jamestown out of dreaded socialism (the evil it doth be) only to find out that Mass did indeed NOT have slavery. and that's only the first 3 topics on this page. I really hope some of his students fail their GREs and sue the hell out of him.

Andy: "Is it better to bash cheating liberals or lazy professors? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" --Sid 07:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, there's a ton of shit in his lectures to be sure, but if you look at his cp:American Government Final Exam, there's no as much "liberals are evil" questions as I thought (though there are some, to be sure). Most of it is pretty basic and unimaginative. Sure, anyone who knows anything about Andy will get #14 right, and while it's a relatively factual and straightforward question, only Andy would consider #18 worth being in a final exam on a introductory government class. The bias is more towards the sort of things he concentrates on than in the questions themselves. DickTurpis 18:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with DickTurpis. I saw this earlier and thought "eh?". I reallly don't see what point he's trying to make with it. The Lay Scientist 11:37, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

AHAHAHA

AHAHA. Be sure to visit both of the sites. I wonder who put that link in? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 03:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

One of the sites is more interesting than the other--Damo2353 07:29, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Caterine moves her lips when she reads. Betcha Andy does the same.--WJThomas 08:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly's strategy

Not just another bit of shameless self-promotion, but something I really want to bring to peoples' attention. I don't think Schlafly cares that he looks like a moron in the Great Interminable Lenski Debate - I think he's playing a long-term strategy that's a bit more subtle (see here). The Lay Scientist 11:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

An interesting point (I'm not sure if this actually belongs in WIGO, but I won't touch it). My main objection is that Andy is overestimating his influence. A meme needs to be picked up by people, but I don't see anybody touching this one. I also think that nobody will touch it - not the Creationists, not the Climate Change Deniers, nobody. The reason? They claim to have science on their side, too. So Andy's meme will hurt them, too. The moment they hold up "science", the meme would turn against them. It's a purely political meme, but politicians apparently picked up science (in a slightly warped way) as their own weapon of choice, so in the end, only Andy will push it, and that's not enough. </quick opinion> --Sid 11:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I disagree with you completely. The climate change deniers are using precisely these same tactics as we speak - attacking science and the scientific process. You have to realize that they're not trying to build scientific arguments, they're trying to spread obsfuscation and confusion so that they can claim it's "open to debate". The Lay Scientist 12:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm, I do see your point, but I mostly have to think about the occasions when "Creation scientists" come up with wild theories, allegedly based on "data" and "science". (And before I get angry mails: This sentence is just the equivalent of what CP does with "claims by secular scientists", so whatever.) Not 100% sure about the climate dudes, even though I think I remember Ed spewing stuff about "real" scientists having "evidence" based on "data", too. I readily agree that they try to seed distrust in "secular sciences" or whatever they call it, but what Andy is doing is seeding distrust in ALL sciences. He may lean towards specific sides, but his accusations are so broad that they hit everybody. The first scientist (no matter what he advocates) to back him would be the first one to get a ton of "Your data! All of it! Now!" demands in his inbox, if just to show him what slippery slope he chose to follow. --Sid 17:12, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The key point though is that it doesn't matter that Andy is seeding distrust in all science. Suppose you're a tortoise, and you're in a race with a hare. ANY speed restriction is brilliant for you, because the more restrictive it is, the closer to parity you are. Does that make sense? Undermining all science, even if it undermines creation science too, simply levels the playing field. The Lay Scientist 17:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah, okay. I wasn't thinking in such dimensions (my tactic usually prioritizes keeping the own losses low). That approach reminds me a bit of "Scorched earth" - destroying assets that would have been valuable to you, just to make sure nobody else can use them against you. Interesting argument, then. Self-destructive, but I can see the "reasoning" now. Thanks for making me see things from your perspective! --Sid 18:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Scorched Earth" is a great term for it, I'll be using that in future :) The Lay Scientist 03:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

This would be more suited to According To. It doesn't reference any specific event on CP. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 12:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

My understanding is that Conservapedia related stuff shouldn't be on According To. The Lay Scientist 12:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe not, but in this situation it is a much better fit than WIGO. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 12:48, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Well maybe so, but it's not allowed there! Perhaps you should implement a new page for "blogging about Conservapedia"? The Lay Scientist 17:01, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with lay Scientist on this one. It's much easier to vaguely imply that data is being withheld than it is to actually do something about it. That is the point of his challenge - "look how difficult it it to get all teh data! I've had to set up teh challenge to tey to force them to give it to me! They can't be teh trusted! Whether it works is, of course, another question. But it would make sense as a strategy.--Bob^{bing up} 15:47, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

From what I can see, Lay Scientist is exactly right about the strategy. However, what he seems to be short on is Andy's actual ability to use it properly. He's got the loaded gun of sowing distrust of science, but he's aiming squarely at his own feet, as usual. While the Discovery Institute, the climate change deniers and so forth are using it on a daily basis, to varying degrees of success, Andy's ham-fisted attempt to use the same weapons come off as laughably transparent and actually harm the cause he's trying to champion. The tactic is a threat, but Andy is a joke. --Kels 16:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, you're right there, as I conceded in the comments on that post as well. Schlafly has found a good strategy, but Conservapedia is the worst type of tool to promote it, because he's investing more energy keeping his Conservapedes in line than he is in actually spreading the message. Yet said, if it does eventually escape the factory, it might pick up. The Lay Scientist 17:01, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Not a chance that Schlafly is playing the long-game. He is just being every bit a stupid as he appears at first look. Look at his entire history, he's never been calculating just really really reactionary. Matt oblong 18:40, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The beauty of the long-game meme strategy is that you don't have to be calculating, you just have to be persistent and repetitive. And stupid people are good at being persistent and repetitive. Stupid people are very good at being persistent and repetitive. That's the beauty of playing the long-game. You just have to be persistent and repetitive. Stupid people are great at being repetitive, and they're pretty good at being persistent as well. Get it now? The Lay Scientist 03:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, the test will be to see how far Andy takes it. If he really firms up his definition of the alleged "missing" data and really starts to begin some "legal action" to obtain it then I'll stand corrected. But I bet that he'll just keep vaguely complaining about data being withheld without explaining: (a) exactly what it is (b) why it's important (c) what he would do with it if he had it - and that's more consistent with what Lay Scientist maintains. So lets start taking bets - will Andy really go for it (and look stupid) or will he just keep vaguely whining in order to try to discredit it by the back door? My money is on the latter.--Bob^{bing up} 04:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm with you Bob (unsuprisingly, since you were agreeing with me, lol). The Lay Scientist 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

By the way, come on guys, -5???? 200-odd of you came to read it, it got a bunch of Diggs, several comments and a trackback from ScienceBlogs, and I get -5 here? Pfft, conservatives the lot of you. The Lay Scientist 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's twiddled the knobs wrong again

CP is down. AGAIN. Holy Hell Batman, that's some unreliable website - it's up and down like a whore's knickers. Ken - your wave of anti-atheism is never going to work if Andy keeps knackering the server.... DogP 15:00, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Thought it was just my crappy wireless broadband.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Right when I was ready to read two days of WIGO. :-( (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps it has become overwhelmed by Christian Apologists? Or perhaps the Rapture is under way and the server has been whisked to a gleaming white server farm in Heaven? DogP 15:22, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Not Deep Thought? It's probably all those UK Theists that Ken's been spamming have overwhelmed the server!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:31, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It's been patchy for me for the last couple of days; it's not unusual that I just get a blank screen instead of a page. And the front page briefly gave me a "database error" followed by lots of php-looking stuff I didn't understand yesterday, too. Alt 15:44, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I checked with this and get "URL doesn't exist", (sigh) if ONLY. UPDATE:Ping and trace route get responses, one trace when 19 hops to an .se address and 15 hops to my IP (via the command/tracert) in W PA (USA). So the IP is answering just not the website, (IOW, it ain't the hardware.) CЯacke® 15:49, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but it's resolving to theplanet.com, their hoster, so it's either a problem with their block or they've simply dropped a spanner in the works again.... DogP 16:00, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia is the laughing stock of the intertubes for many reasons, but increasingly it is also becoming lulz-fodder for total technical incompetence. Among the sites I regularly visit, none are down more often than CP. DogP 15:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

It's been ropey all afternoon and it's down again (that or my steam dial-up). Fretfulporpentine 16:34, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I've got Amish neighbors who have a wood burning computer. Actually, from what I hear, the Amish businesses can use computers, they're just not allowed to OWN them, (or use them @ home). Any hydraulic machinery is okay too; being powered by a diesel engine. CЯacke® 16:56, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

In NZ we have the Exclusive Brethern which are kinda like the Amish except they try and get political. They also cant have TV, radio or computers. They do however have businesses and my girlfriend (who is an advertising executive) had a meeting with some Brethern in an attempt to get them to use online advertising. She claims she didnt notice the dusty computer in the corner of the office and the prominence of the bible on the meeting table. Ace McWicked 17:16, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Still down. Maybe it's strategery to "destroy" vandals.--JayJay4ever^??? 18:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

There will be no more vandals now! Ace McWicked 18:41, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know much about the Armish but I know a bit about the Bretheren. These guys are not only technologically backward but they rank with Scientology in terms of breaking up families. I had neighbors who were with the Bretheren for 30 odd years, then left. No-one from the church has talked to them since, including their parents, kids, brothers or close friends. Its very sad.

It's up again

Downtime: Roughly six hours, going by the gap in the Recent Changes: Last edit: 14.20; Current time: ~20:20 (both CP server time) --Sid 20:31, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Amusing that, as yet (almost an hour later), no-one's mentioned the slight hiatus. Have they all decided not to question the ability of their lord & master? or did nobody notice?   ^Contribs_Talk 21:37, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Voice in my Head

Much as I am continuing to find the whole Lenski thing hilarious thanks largely to the cracking RW coverage - is there not a huge part of you that just wants to walk up to A Shafter and shout 'Never before in the 6 - 5000000 thousand year history of this planet has ever so much an argument been lost in such a complete and irrifutable way. Just please now, f***ing leave it!'. Matt oblong 18:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong, you're clueless if you imagine that the Earth is any older than 6,000 years. Make some meaningful edits or you'll be banned for talk, talk, talk. DogP 18:45, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

The above rant by "Matt Oblong" is too long to be taken seriously. Condense your remarks into a few good points instead of using liberal talk pollution on my talk page. Godspeed. Ace McWicked 18:57, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I admit to maybe being tricked into a bit of Liberal Ejaculation. Matt oblong 19:05, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Its striking that liberals rely on obscenity when cornered. Do you have Breast Cancer? Ace McWicked 19:08, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong, you're clueless if you think that the way that you misspelled "irrefutable" doesn't invalladate you entire argument. Please educate youself. Posing as an intellegtual is a well-known Liberal debatering tactic. Godspeed. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:14, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt oblong (not likely your real name), this will remain a high quality site. I can tell from your behaviour that your theres a 99% chance of your being a liberal. Let me guess though, you wont admit it and claim your a conservative right? "Sic him Bugler!" Ace McWicked 19:17, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Matt, as you have not yet received permission to edit at this encyclopedia, your comment are not only unwelcome and immoral, but a violation of US Code 18 sub 3 against proving me wrong obscenity. Godspeed.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 20:35, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

If you insist on posting gossip and obscenity, "Matt", then perhaps the National Enquirer of the Internet, Wikipedia, is the place for you. I wish you Godspeed in your endeavors. DickTurpis 20:55, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt" you follow your liberal playbook to a tee. I urge to open your mind to conservative values. Ace McWicked 20:58, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt", learn to spell "irrefutable" and open your mind before filling the place with your Liberal Fluff. --λινυσ^(☮) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

And you smell funny too. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:23, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Oblong, Our Leader has written many times here what this site is about, but you still insist on continuing this argument. It stops now, or go elsewhere, understand? Able Seaman^{(In my dreams)} Kowardpoo 04:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

"Matt", your arguments wouldn't hold on court and would be instantly rejected by a non-activist judge, you would have to deny logic to think otherwise. In Christ! NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 10:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey

Don't make fun of me :( --_transResident Transfan^form! 00:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT) ;)

?   ^Contribs_Talk 00:41, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Old news but made me laugh.

Remember Robert Turkel? Did you ever read the sycophantic drivel from Ken on it? (Oh Ken - don't bother deleting it, I've got a copy)   ^Contribs_Talk 00:57, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Re Quantcast

Quite revealing are the "Audience keywords":

conservapedia 990.2x

santorum 122.4x

debate topics 79.8x

debatable topics 54.4x

worship lyrics 44.5x

theory of evolution 32.7x

president pro tempore 28.8x

debates 28.8x

plant cell 19.5x

judicial review 12.6x

cerberus 10.2x

nationalism 10.0x

translation 8.7x

mls 8.5x

fascism 8.4x

Strange (plant cell!)!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:31, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh yes - their Alexa's dropped to pre-Lenski values as well!   ^Contribs_Talk 01:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, their Alexa stats have tanked. I think a lot of the spike previously would have been down to the article about them in the Guardian (no offense to the Pharyngulistas, but the Guardian's web audience dwarfs the whole science blogging community combined).

By the way (I mentioned this above as well), the Finland crowd aren't coming to TLS - for some reason, on my site Finland is being pwned by... North Korea. The Lay Scientist 03:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I kinda share the boggling feeling, as I note that my slowly reviving webcomic seems to be getting hits from Denmark second only to the US. Heck, Canada comes third and I live there! (Finland, oddly, is 7th). --Kels 18:05, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems like both CP and RW had big boosts during the Lenski affair but they've dropped. Unfortunately Lenski's actual site doesn't appear on Alexa and I'm rather pissed of that putting Richard Lenski into google gives you the Conservapedia article. They must have done a massive amount of google bombing to get it there, probably why Assfly links to everything he mentions in his talk pages. If Google's page rank stopped counting links from wikimedia talk CP would die. Armondikov 09:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Before you complain too much, what exactly do you think is the effect of all the RationalWiki and science blogger links to the land of the Conservapedes? 81.102.156.177 10:40, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

WIGO vs the amount that Schlafy insists on overusing terms like "liberal XXXX" in every other one of his replies? Probably negligable. Armondikov 11:36, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, just for the record Conservapedia's Lenski article doesn't appear top ten when I do a Google search for 'Richard Lenski'. Lenski's own website comes top for that. It may be that you're getting tricked by Google, which is pushing the Conservapedia result higher for you because you're spent more time on that site? This is the Google skewing that Kenservative keeps forgetting to take into account when he makes grandiose claims about his pet articles. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Lenski's own site is the first hit for me, some time later WP then RationalWiki and a bit after that CP.--Bob^{bing up} 15:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

But you get some great hits if you Google: lenski RationalWiki.--Bob^{bing up} 15:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

For me I get Lenski's website, WP, RationalWiki "Lenski affair" and then a indented "Richard Lenski", and then (4) Conservapedia "Lenski dialog" under the title is the text; "Richard Lenski. P.S. Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1000000000) E. coli at this very moment?". Real good advertisement for CP that. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:16, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Italic text== Olympic ==

Has anyone else noticed Croco'shite getting ready for the Olympics? Much room for jingoism there!   ^Contribs_Talk 02:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to make a little prediction now, that we'll see a whole wave of anti-China stuff hitting the site in the near future, in order to reinforce "American supremacy". If China get more medals expect articles on brutal training methods, etc., or widespread drug abuses. Any athlete that beats an American will be accused of cheating. Stuff like that. The Lay Scientist 07:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

You're probably right. But, I've always felt that these tables, as presented, are pretty meaningless anyway. It's seems somewhat obvious that bigger countries are going to get more medals. It's always seemed to me that they could be calculated per head of population or something of that nature. I did this last time round and Australia did rather well I think. Also, (again from memory) if you did the calculation with the European union as a "country" then the EU came top. --Bob^{bing up} 07:56, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

No, that method is flawed as well, as in most competitions the number of athletes for each country are limited, thus favouring small countries. A united EU would send much less athletes and get fewer medals - or on the contrary if each US state was by themselves, their total would exceed the US medal count by far.(Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 08:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's a good point. Thanks. So I'll happily withdraw my second point about the EU. Nevertheless larger countries have a larger pool of potentially good athletes to pick from, so they obviously have an advantage, don't they? I mean, if you've only got 500 people in your country the possibility of your having gold-winners among them is small. If you've got millions to pick from them your chances obviously improve.--Bob^{bing up} 08:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that's right that smaller countries are favoured. Limiting the number of athletes is just sensible because of the limited number of sports (even if the actual number of events is quite massive). If the country is larger, they tend to have a larger population base from which to select from; higher odds of having someone with natural talent. Assuming, of course, that the rate of people with "natural talent", i.e., the US, with ca.250million people will have 4-5x as many naturally capable athletes as a European country with ca.50million people. Talent is a subjective measure certainly, but a necessity for the standard of the Olympics, I doubt anyone can be trained to that level regardless of how much time they put it, you have to have the right kind of person. Multiply this by the finances they have available to put into equipment and training facilities as well as bursaries for people to do the sport full time and you're clearly favouring the larger, richer countries. Armondikov 09:23, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure studies have been done on this. Anyway, the problem is that the winner is not selected based on a "quality" value alone, instead there are many variables which determine the medalists: race day condition, interaction with other competitors, tactics, environment, pure luck, injuries, trials (if the USA could bring as many athletes as they wished they wouldn't keep trials and Tyson Gay would be competing for the 200 m run as well as a heavy favourite), etc. Having 30 athletes (EU combined) competing against 3 (USA) means that EU have a higher probability of winning medals if the variable factors are relevant (that is, everything can be perfect but EU athletes won't win the 100 m run). (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

In addition, smaller countries, even if using a proportional amount of money, can concentrate it better on few targets. How many javelot medals has Finland won in the history of Olympics? They found their niche. Anyway, I think Bob's suggestion is not too far off. Medals per population should be a better indicator than medals alone. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

But the EU isn't a single country so it's not really a good comparasom Armondikov 11:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I have already acknowledged that the EU comparison may not have been the the best. But it seems pretty obvious that bigger counties have an advantage. In the last summer Olympics the three "leading" countries were the US, China and Russia. This would seem to be a somewhat improbable outcome if the rules put bigger countries at a disadvantage.--Bob^{bing up} 11:44, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Bets that Andy will argue that in events where American athletes lose, it's because they went to public school? --Phentari 12:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If you want a fair comparison, go with medals per competitor. --CPAdmin1 13:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

True, but that makes it all substantially less interesting :) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 13:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

<-- Re: Kookoo's list, how come it is missing so many events? I think it's weird that he has "hockey (not ice)" but no hockey! Oh, wait, that's a winter Olympics competition. Still... And in regards to the statistical discussion above, there may be a threshold in general populations at which one can expect an Olympic-caliber athlete (say, at 20 or 50 or 100 million population, you're bound to have a few good swimmers or sprinters etc.). That's ignoring the "specialists", like the Kenyan long distance runners (?), or the above-mentioned javelists (?!). What's funny of course is that it's supposed to be about a celebration of all of humanity (I saw the Visa commercial), but competitors still represent their countries, and medal totals get tallied by country. It would be amusing to divide the world up into chunks of, say, 50 million people, which is about the same as the number of countries, and let them go at it from a roughly equal population basis... ħuman 14:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I suppose you could do it by continents - but then continents with more countries would have an advantage. I still like by per head of the population.--Bob^{bing up} 14:58, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

'Twould put Antarctica at a very unfair disadvantage. And the day that the US and Canada say "we're all just North Americans really" is the day that Mr Schlafly confesses to running an abortion clinic :P. It'd be nice just to see individuals compete and not countries, although that's still pretty impractical. Armondikov 04:51, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Anti atheism bloggers and Christian Apologetics

According to the Main Page of Conservapedia we’re going to be treated to yet more silliness that passes for rational argument. Probably we’ll answer some of it and laugh at it a lot of it.
Definitions:-
Christian Apologetics………………An apology for a rational argument
Proxima Centauri 05:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

FBI

Hey, is this accusation true? Did Rationalwikians really get called up by people pretending to by government agents?^{— Unsigned, by: 158.143.193.4 / talk / contribs}

I don't know, but everything up to that point was true. Also, see here for Karajou's mature, compelling response. It makes sense when you consider that he was responsible for some of the most moronic stuff during the FBI thing. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 08:04, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Details may be up for debate, but it is generally true that legal threats were flying, people were contacted IRL, and the implication was made that the FBI was looking up everyone's arses.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 08:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Really? You would think a lawyer (granted, little Andrew is not a very good one) would know it is illegal to impersonate a federal agent.--Franklin 11:18, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Interesting. I'd heard about the FBI thing, but never about the impersonations. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:31, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well let's not all assume it's true just because it was mentioned. The editor who brought it up on CP might just have mis-remembered the details from our FBI Incident article. Does anyone who was here at the time want to weigh in on this? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 11:42, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

As I recall it one Sysop (who shall remain nameless TK phoned 1 Ratwikian more than once but never impersonated the FBI.   ^Contribs_Talk 12:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I've never heard of these allegations...and I'm not sure they're true. I wrote and compiled the FBI Incident article at the time it was going on and the article and Talk page threads there do not reveal any "impersonation of FBI agents", although I vaguely remember someone saying CP seniors had directly emailed some senior RW'ians. I think the allegation is false. DogP 14:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I was e-mailed by several CP sysops, stalked on wikipedia by one, and did receive a phone call at my lab. But there was no impersonation. Either pure anonymous cowardliness or open about who they were. A few others had similar experiences. tmtoulouse ^nettle 14:51, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(undent) I think people are confusing the "FBI Incident" (Andy being all "I'MMA CALL TEH FBI!") and the RW 2.0 History. The talk page post there seems to relate to the latter, especially the case where Andy sent take-down requests when we copied one of their articles for side-by-side treatment and the case where Andy's goons snuck into RW 1.0 under false names, copied various pages and then tried to report us to law enforcements (better known as the 1.0/2.0 transition which happened around the time of the Night of the Blunt Knives, IIRC). That time was also when most sysop harassment took place in form of phone calls (again IIRC - this didn't happen to me personally (edit: but see tmtoulouse's comment above) and blog comments (claiming that there was an FBI Investigation and that the Feds would soon knock at our door with cyberterrorism charges). --Sid 14:59, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I seem to remember a snarky comment on CP with "FBI case #blahblahblah" in it somewhere...Antifly 17:06, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If you mean the RW 2.0 time, then yes. Somebody (I think it was Kara, but I'm not sure if that's correct or if he was the only one) waved around some ominous "FBI Case Number" as an "You're in trouble noooooow!" sign. It later turned out to be just some automatically generated ID assigned by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) site where Kara (or whoever) likely filed his complaint. --Sid 18:02, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It was an auto-generated ID from a tipline website. I was told by some (i.e. he-who-shall-not-be-named) that my hospital director and other bosses were being contacted and that law enforcement had been notified.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 18:49, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Good Lord, I never knew that, PMD, that's dreadful, whether it was true or total horseshite. What a deep pond of scum they are. DogP 18:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

They contacted the president of my university as concerned tax payers about the use of university resources, my university is in Canada. The idiocy vibe they give off is so intense it acts as protection to anyone they go after. tmtoulouse ^nettle 18:55, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's almost like Poe's Law, but even dumberer.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 19:09, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Lazy Tenured Sloths

On the main webpage, they have a blurb that links to this story. As part of the blurb, they claim that One former student declares, "The only people who will find this website to be a threat are those lazy tenured sloths that like to recycle old material on their exams."

Is it just me, or does that comment appear nowhere in the story or in the posted comments underneath it? --Phentari 11:01, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Someone pointed that out on the relevant CP talk page too, but strangely no-one has replied.. Alt 11:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's in the first comment - VJ Metal on 07/03/2008 at 8:13 a.m. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't see that comment at all when I call up the article...weird. --Phentari 11:19, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seems to take a few seconds for the comments to appear after the story itself has loaded. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that threw me for a minute, going back and forth, article to quote, etc. But then I saw the comment. It's a tiny bit misleading, but it is a quote from the page they link to. They should have said "commented on the article" instead of "declared", but that's a minor point. ħuman 14:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Didn't something like this happen before? Dunno if it was on their main page or in an article, but I have memories about people pointing out this exact same screw-up in the past. --Sid 18:03, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) It's not really a screw up... it's very intentional. It's a modernization of one of the tactics conservatives have used to discredit newpapers for years. Basically, the original was "anything that was printed in a newspaper can be attributed to that newspaper" For example, if someone wrote a letter to the editor, saying GW Bush was a terrorist, and the New York Times printed it. The New York Times just called GW Bush a terrorist. This is simply a new version of that. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 19:39, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Wise words for Andy.

In the process of ranting about Wikio's inclusion of denialist sites like Climate Audit and "Love Global Warming" in their list of the top 100 science blogs (and failure to include TLS anywhere even though I crap all over LGW's audience figures, damnit), I stumbled across this notice on Steve Milloy's now defunct climate skeptic blog at Junk Science:

"JunkScience.com Blog is broken, again, perhaps irrevocably. Unfortunately it requires far too much of our limited resources maintaining and defending an interactive component. Discussions continue but current thinking is that the skeptic community is best served by our concentration on disseminating information via the more secure static site, where significant improvements remain to be made."

Mr Schlafly, you might want to read this and take note.

The Lay Scientist 17:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh ****. Just realized that Drupal sent an automated trackback to ClimateAudit when I linked to them in my ranting. Now I'm going to get an infestation. The Lay Scientist 17:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I, apparently, have, with my co-bloggers, slot #21. Given your linkage, I wouldn't be surprised if you are up there by next year. After all, in the blogosphere you're still an adolescent. Of course, the ScienceBorg may have something to do with it too.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 18:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Challenge of the Day

In light of this (already WIGO'd) comment, Ed asks for sources that Andy is a "supporter of creation science" (a term he replaced with "evolution critic").

Now, I'm fairly certain I recall Andy having made a talk post somewhere in which he outlined how he turned away from evolution after "examining the facts" or something. I'm not sure if it explicitly said that he supported Creationism, but I think so.

The challenge: Find it. Please. :D

(We will need Andy's own words since CP's arbitrary sourcing rules will be able to label ANY other source as not trustworthy.) --Sid 18:12, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

(Pro tip: Going through his contribs may not work since several pages have been conveniently deleted in the past, thus removing those contribs from the list. Stick to archives. --Sid 18:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT))

Then again, this may be a "nevermind" case since Andy openly hates the term "creationist" or even "creation scientist", if I remember correctly. So this one may be tricky. --Sid 18:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The only source you need that Andy is a support of creation science is that on Lenski's page it read "open-minded scientist" and when you click on it it takes you to "Creation science" here is Andy's diff link(sorry that is just Andy restoring something Shagie has the one you want). This is Andy's normal definition of open-minded, agrees with him. $\approx$$\pi$ 18:26, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

And the original inclusion of the material[1] --Shagie 18:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Something I found whilst looking for the Challenge. I think the is the first case of a bona fide true believer being turned off, then away, then BANNED all based on the vibes that CWilson might have been sending. CЯacke® 19:15, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this is what you're after, Sid. --Robledo 20:10, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not the comment I had in mind, I think (However, my memory is spotty, so I might have just misremembered the one you linked to), but it does show Andy's Young Earth alignment. Nice job! --Sid 20:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

The moon talk page is a little scary. He seems to be saying that it does not matter how old the moon is, we should teach YEC because you would more likely be a Christian then if you were taught that the moon is older. It seems to Andy the truth is unimportant, making as many people as possible Christian is even if you have to deny the truth to get it done. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems like the "measure of validity" according to Andy is how it impacts the strength of one's faith... ħuman 21:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed an American Jew?

Ed an American Jew? Surprise, surprise. --JayJay4ever^??? 22:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I thought he was a Moonie? --Gulik 22:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Guess he converted -- but still sees himself as a Jew in terms of ethnicity._{..the preceding comment should be read in the light that ethnicity is a social construct with no inherent meaning...}PFoster 22:13, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I noticed long ago him making a statement about "we Jews", which made me wonder. Is he a convert to Moonieism? Or do Moonies consider themselves some sort of "lost tribe"? My guess is he's just a dick, and this is some sort of cover for his anti-semitism. DickTurpis 22:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Probably he's a jew, and crazy too. He's also antisemite, and hates himself for being a jew. Typical of conservapedians. --JayJay4ever^??? 22:17, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe he owns Conservapedia in some remote way? O_o (that was a joke there) Javascap 22:20, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

<JewTalk> He's an assimilated Jew, his mother is a Yehudit and his father is a sheygits (spell the word how ever you like it has many spellings like Hanukkah) , he admits to marrying a shiksha</JewTalk> see CP:Talk:Goy --Jellyfish 22:24, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

If he's a yid, I'm the fucking pope. Not that I'm the arbiter (pun) of all things Jewy, but his voice (both on the phone and in writing) doesn't give away many of the usual tells. That being said, perhaps he's a littler further away from it generationally than I. I know plenty of very assimilated Jews---I am pretty assimilated, although still with lots of yiddishkeit. I'm surprised he's never mentioned this before. I'm a little suspicious.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 22:36, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

You've spoken to actual CP sysops on the phone? PFoster 22:44, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Wait a minute, Ed is one of my people! Well, I'm pretty sure I'm the only yeshiva educated one at CP (don't know about here, seems a bunch of are chosen). Not knowing what Kashrut is means you know nothing about your claimed heritage, Ed. well I learned the Semicha curriculum, and if I had any time/interest/patience could write articles for every one of the redirects... but I digress.

Question: Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to include all information, especially the unfamiliar concepts? If you redirect everything just because you didn't know about it, what the fucking point? DLerner 04:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we make Ed provide proof that he's a Jew, (provide the raw data, or at least the foreskin) DLerner 04:22, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Debbie, sweetheart...

...that's not a "MAJOR PROBLEM," it's standard operating procedure. Don't get your knickers in a twist.PFoster 22:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT) (not WIGO worthy...)

.....How would she notice that unless she tried to create an second account....?--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:32, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking as someone who logs in and out of Conservapedia all the time, the missing "new account" button is quite noticable on the login screen.

Not that I've been on that screen recently. Lord no... _{↳ ↑ ⇨ <blink>↕</blink> ▽ ←} 22:34, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

I've been going there every five minutes to see if Andy got some sense and allowed me to make a sock alert vandals. Then I looked at this sentence. Andy? Sense?--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:37, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Blimey, I think I might have had a kip to do with that... I recently made Fun:Game/Olympics, and for a joke, put Conservatroll at the bottom (I still may follow through with it!). Reckon that is why he removed the new account button? Javascap 22:43, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, I think they aren't supposed to affect their policy or anything by what happens on other sites, but that is bullshit and it has worked good so far --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Although you can probably just chalk it up to paranoia, it's happened before and it'll happen again. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 22:47, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

STS: She might have had a friend who was trying to join. Java: I'm going to go move the olympics thing now, and delete the redirect. So I changed your link, you might want to chase any others. ħuman 01:20, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw hell, why'd you have to go and ruin my conspiracy theory? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 01:23, 8 July 2008 (EDT)