Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Discussion for organising a new Biggest Idiot at CP award is going on HERE. Feel free to add your opinion regarding the discussion.

A new Andy classic

We were overdue. Seems Evolution ain't just a meme, it's an actual pathogen. Well done, Assfly, you've outdone yourself. --JeevesMkII 08:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Points 2 and 3 are classics of their time. Andy's still grumpy about getting pwned at WP and that other place whose name escapes me. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I think he's actually sort of talking about us behind our backs. Armondikov 08:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"See also - Stockholm Syndrome". Genius.--seventhrib 08:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And as always, there is a certain logic behind Andy's wild rambles - it's in support of Ken this time: "The locking (of the Evolution article) is due to the prevalence of evolution syndrome. If someone can propose a solution, I welcome it." Andy doesn't have to manage when he can concoct bullshit weasel words and phrases.

He's becoming a parodist of himself. His reply here is a classic: "There are are different beliefs about evolution, but the person who has evolution syndrome insists that his belief is true to the exclusion of other beliefs. Most normal people do not take that attitude." Substitute "creationist" for evolution, and a truer picture emerges. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, I kinda already did substitute creationism for evolution :S.Armondikov 09:49, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

[1] Well, it's nice to see Andy's article has been met favourably. Barikada 13:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

"There are are different beliefs about evolution, but the person who has evolution syndrome insists that his belief is true to the exclusion of other beliefs. Most normal people do not take that attitude." Notice how he takes a thoroughly reletavist attitude. If you believe P then you believe P to be true, that's what believing is. If you believe P is true then you exclude the possibility that not-P is true - you cannot believe P and not-P, that's what logic is. So how do you allow (or not exclude from) Person S's belief, not-P, to be true? Only if not-P is true-for-him and P is true-for-you.--Toffeeman 11:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I like how in the middle of getting pwned, teh assfly runs off, writes some article about a made-up topic, and refers to it as if his interlocutors would gain something by reading more of his drivel. That article is essentially an ad hominem attack on a handful of people trying to comment at talk:PNAS response. At least PJR "tries", by referring people to articles that already exist, crappy as they may be. ħuman 14:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure Andy's becoming more unhinged. It seems his m.o. now, as Human said, is start an argument, change the rules every 30 seconds and if that still doesn't work,make up some all-embracing bullshit phrase that he then keeps referring to ad infinitum. I wish he'd realise that he doesn't win arguments through rational debate, he wins because those that haven't been reverted and blocked eventually shrug their shoulders, think "what a mad wanker" and wander off. Can you imagine having him as your defence lawyer? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Psy, that is quite possibly the most terrifying thought I've ever had.... And what you and Human point out is exactly why the Assfly won't debate people in real life (although I'd still trying really hard to get him to do it). If he were in a hostile situation, where he didn't have the banhammer and power of instant reversion to take out the strong points against him, he'd be exposed as the pathetic, washed up loser he is. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 14:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Not even a hostile environment, but a level one. Hence the demand of a security deposit. (adding more) One of my favorite things about Andy is that he coins a ridiculous phrase and starts throwing it around like it's common knowledge or an accepted medical term. Corry^{I'll be in the hospital bar.} 17:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Crease a Deist

I've been informed by certain sources about this appalling website, and aside from the general anti-CP claptrap you have on here, I demand that you cease and desist mentioning anything about me. Your allegations that I am a parodist have undoubtedly contributed to my brief ban on Conservapedia, but fortunately the sysops there have something you lack - a brain - and were able to see through your deception. --DRamon 10:57, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Aw... look at the ickle CPer. Ain't he cute? Just a brief correction, we are not anti-CP, without you guys, what would we do for humour? And unlike CP, we have a small difference... we arn't going to ban you for posting here. Have a nice day. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ watches curative bassoons dry

Also, being accused of being a parodist is a good thing. The alternative is being accused of being a raving wingnut fanatic. But if you want to insist that you're actually a raving wingnut fanatic, we will comply. Bjones 11:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

(ec) Wow - some big words there - who wrote it for you? Oh and I think the legal minds on here might have a word in your ear about flinging around terms like "cease and desist". It's called freedom of speech, fuckhead, something we have here, unlike over at Club Andy. Oh, and we didn't really contribute to your blocking - a combination of your inane edits, Poe's Law and their paranoia did it. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

A fake I think. A good one, but still fake. Bondurant 11:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Implying that we're getting messages from a parodist of a parodist? The internet is about to implode! Armondikov 11:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

DRamon, please read the entirety of this page. What sysops have, and what we lack, we gain in rationality wherein they don't. Have a nice day. Norseman^Wassail! 11:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr DRamon, would you care to explain this 'correction' of yours to another editor's user page? weaseLOId~ 11:19, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Looking at Mr Ramon on CP, it looks as if he is a spoof of Bugler (who is a spoof of Aschlafly, who is a spoof of Pschlafly). Bondurant 11:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

His level of sycophancy is far too implausible for a genuine new user. Most likely a parodist, but there is a possibility he could be the sock of an established CP user (Bugler? Jinx?). It would explain the toadying & also the fact his block was so swiftly lifted. weaseLOId~ 11:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooh, conspiracy. Armondikov 11:43, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr DRamon, if you care for CP, you should at least correct your entry:

A Cauchy sequence is an infinite series of numbers that approach some other number. These sequences are often used in real analysis. For example, the sequence 1/2, 1/4/, 1/8/, 1/16, 1/32... is a Cauchy sequence that approaches 0.

It hurts my eyes --LArron 11:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe someone should help him with his statistics example too. I am blocked right now. Wismike 15:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Fake or not, his addition to the Evolution syndrome registers high on the irony meter. weaseLOId~ 19:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This hurts the brain ... but, I guess, keep up the good work, DRamon, whoever you are! Learn from Bugler, he is the master. Etc 20:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Argh! Poe! Poe! Poe! Would even the worst parodist want to make themselves look this stupid? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Finally, a verifiable claim

Andy steps over the line here. Surely we can comb the archives to prove him wrong...--Antifly 11:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I had a brief look when Andy gave me an almost identical reply here. I'm sure there is something there, but I'm done arguing with him. It makes me feel dirty and it distracts from the lulz because I get pissed off. If someone else wants to do it I'll give them a goat. Bjones 11:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I tried but just opening the PNAS website page hurts my feeble mind. Then again, Andy doesn't allow meaningful criticisms on that very talk page, so... Norseman^Wassail! 11:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT) _{gotta find an industrial irony meter}

I went to the archives. Second issue I clicked on had this. Critical of “single origin” model of human evolution (EDIT:Or something, I skimmed). Should be about 50 more of them in there. I have to go back to work. Bjones 11:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That would be good, but it's far too long and complex for Andrew "Concise" Schlafly. Armondikov 11:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

God knows he won't read any of them. If I had time I would just collects about 10 examples, post the links on the talk page with a smarmy tone, and make him squirm. I know he's never going to back down from his position. The point is to take advantage of that and embarrass him publicly. Bjones 11:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Squirm? You mean insta-rollback, surely. Armondikov 11:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I dunno. I (as KimEide) basically told him he didn't know shit and he left it on the talk page. Who knows. Bjones 11:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, you're Kim. Nice work. Armondikov 12:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

He'll move the goalposts by claiming that PNAS never publishes rebuttals critical of Evolution. On a related note, I did a survey of the time between submission and acceptance dates that covered about a year's worth of Inaugural Articles in PNAS. The Blount article had a turnaround time of 14 days, which was within a standard deviation of the average. In think about 3-5 papers had the some turnaround time as Blount's (about 10% of the total papers). The histogram was pretty interesting and showed that the review time of the paper was not extraordinary. I'll have to dig that out next weekend.--Neon 12:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Alright I did the work, except I'm blocked. This is just for 2008:

• Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al
• Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change
• When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution

Somebody help me out. Thanks. Bjones 12:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

One quibble with the comment on CP. Don't say 'pro-evolution'; just say 'articles related to evolutionary theories'.--Neon 13:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This is why I have a "No Arguing with The Assfly" policy. He's just too stupid. It isn't any fun. It only pisses me off. He says "MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article...." You show him an article that makes a meaningful criticism. His response? "No, it doesn't." How can you argue with that? I give up again. Bjones 15:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy decides who is a real conservative. Andy decides what defines a liberal. Andy decides which comments are substantial. Andy decides what is meaningful criticism. Sense a pattern? No, you don't, bitch. Andy decides what you sense. >=( --Sid 17:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I can feel the burn from that one. Very nice. Bjones 17:20, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice one Sid! It's funny because it's true...--Antifly 18:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Heh

Toffeeman reverts Liberalist's edit giving Andy the monkey barnstar. (In fairness, he reverted the "Get Stuffed!" edit shortly thereafter. I just found it a funny diff.) --Marty 13:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Under Aschlafly's pleasure

Horace, given that you were there for awhile, what does it feel like to be "under Aschlafly's pleasure" and do you want to remain? For that matter, what does Kookie know about being in such a position? --Shagie 15:24, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I am also banned except under assfly's pleasure, and i can definitively say that i will NEVER be under his pleasure. Ever. No matter how many time he asks.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 18:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What if he wore a goat suit and very little else? 18:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

History Homework 2

BethanyS's check out answer 4. Particularly the third sentence.--Toffeeman 15:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Makes perfect sense to me. God guided Columbus to the New World so that good Christians could colonize and kill the heathens, so it only makes sense that Satan would try to throw a monkey wrench in the works.--WJThomas 16:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What's the status on those... have they all been turned in and graded? I'm still refraining from looking at them until I start the grading process.... By the way, any other educators doing this or is it just me? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This endlessly makes me laugh. My honors kids wrote 2-4 paragraphs per question on a "homework", and a page, sometimes two, on a full out "test". The AP exam expects **well written essays** for each question, not a quick, vapid answer.--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 17:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm trying to avoid looking at the questions/answers as if a real person as asking/answering them. If I pretend they're merely characters in a complicated new form of literature, I can laugh at it. When I think that these are real kids, some of whom will be taking the AP test, it's a bit depressing. I remember my AP history class most out of all the classes I took in high school. The teacher was amazing, the class kicked my ass, and both fundamentally changed the way I wrote essays/papers. The bullshit that passes in too many English classes didn't fly when writing a history essay (especially DBQs). These kids aren't getting any of this - some of them barely seem literate, much less capable of concise, well thought out, critical essays. The disservice Andy is doing to these kids is nigh criminal. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Woah, someone is doing weirdo stylesheet-breaky things. TMT, have you been at the peach schnapps again? Anyway, the status is that all the homework ones are in and graded, we've moved on to homework two which, if possible, is even more inane. Question: Do the inestimable Miss Bethany's parents know what Assfly is teaching these kids? Why on earth to they keep committing her back to this maniac? Raving fundies or not, bad teaching is bad teaching and anyone of voting age ought to be able to recognise it. --JeevesMkII 17:08, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, there are obvious signs that Trent is working on the slider system for the Conservapedia Day Awards voting. ħuman 17:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I was beginning to wonder if I'd already started my drinking binge for the night -- without my noticing I'd started. Given my day, it's a distinct possibility!--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 17:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, I don't think most of these kids are preparing for an imminent AP exam. Only seniors take those, right (or perhaps a very gifted younger student?)? Based on the little I know of Andy's classes from what I've picked up and from his "CP on the Hour" Youtube video, his classes have students of a variety of ages, most younger than high school seniors. In that video, the girl who is actually seen speaking is SharonS (according to Kettleticket). She's probably 15 there? Bethany is her younger sister. These aren't high school honors seniors. Yes, his questions are mostly astoundingly inane, and the answers are generally no better, but we shouldn't be holding most of these kids to AP standards, with perhaps a few exceptions, though we can't say who those exceptions are without more information. DickTurpis 17:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Most of my AP history and AP chem classes were 11th graders, actually, but maybe that's not typical. I could have sworn Andy had an article on preparing for the AP exams, but maybe I'm misremembering or perhaps it wasn't connected to the current class. I'd still say the answers are ridiculous and almost painful to read, and I'll still dissociate them with any real people as much as possible, but you're right that we shouldn't hold them to an AP standard if they aren't intended to be in an AP class.

Well, I'm not sure who takes AP classes normally (I never took any; I was a bit lazy in high school, if you can believe it) but I think I've known them to be taken by seniors generally. They're supposed to be college level, right? If you're taking them in 11th grade what are you taking in 12th? But no matter. The point is they are for the most advanced upperclassmen, which I do not think Andy's students have illusions of being as a whole. I think Andy likes to bill his classes as getting students on the road to the APs, and, being completely delusional as he is, he probably thinks taking his class is a good preparation, but I don't think it's billed as an AP class for P students. I'm sure he thinks they're better than AP classes in that they are devoid of liberal deceit, but he's not teaching for those tests, as far as I know. I tried watching his youtube video to get an idea of the ages of his students, assuming they're about the same now as they were then, but I'm too removed from that age group to classify them as anything more specific than "young 'uns". I suggest asking Na-Thang for more specifics; didn't he say was enrolling in this? DickTurpis 18:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess it's urban (wiki) legend, but yeah, I too thought he (Andy) has stated that the class is prep for AP level exams.

Anyhow, when looking at his topics for education, one topic is "Animals". not "biology" or "biological taxonomy" but "types of animals. Some days I wonder what he thinks he is preparing kids for. he has a college education (or so he claims) so he must, somewhere, realize he is destroying his kid's chances at something great in life like a chance at college.--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 18:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

We actually should go through his statements on his classes and see how he presents them. As far as I recall, he never billed them as AP classes. He may have presented them as alternatives to AP classes, in that they are free of liberal bias, but I am not aware that he specifically bills them as their equivalent. Of course, knowing Andy, he would deny that AP classes are in any way better, because in Andyland, no one can do anything better than Andy can. He could watch Apollo 13 once and be convinced he'd be a better astronaut than anyone at NASA. But, anyway, I'll take a look at how they are officially presented to parents and see what claims he makes. I could be wrong, he may say they are college level. I'll see what I can find. DickTurpis 18:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, doing a whopping 2 minutes of research I did find this statement in his American Government class: "Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course." That isn't exactly saying it's an AP course, but it does imply that students could emerge from the class prepared for the AP exam in US Government and politics. Again, I think he has students of a variety of ages, and some of them do the "honors" work, so presumably only they would consider the AP exam. So it is at least inaccurate to say all of his students should be doing AP level work, though it is quite clear Andy is not asking AP level questions. And, to be excessively literal, he does say they "can" take the exam. And, well, anyone can, can they not? DickTurpis 18:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that some of the confusion is that Andy teaches/has taught several "courses". This one looks like routine high school US History - and it's the first time he's really doing this one on CP - still working on his "lectures", most of the homework isn't written yet, etc. The Govt class may have been a bit more "advanced". He also has that list of all the fine first-choice colleges his students have been accepted at on his user page. He's been doing this for what, six years now? (You know what's funny is the "unimproved" versions of his "lectures" are still as they were years ago on the Eagle Forum U. website) ħuman 19:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Considering I aced his Government exam without having taken an actual course on US Government, I don't think it was of AP level. But, without having seen his cirriculum, I can't say for sure. His test was certainly not at the AP level. DickTurpis 20:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) (response to DickTurpis) I'm a bit atypical, but I actually took an AP class/test as a sophomore, and I know people who took the AP music theory class/test as frosh. However, I do think that history AP tests are generally taken only by juniors and seniors (and quite a lot of juniors at that). In fact, nearly every "smart" person at my school took at least 1, and sometimes up to 4, AP classes as a junior. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT) A couple of points:

• Anyone can indeed take an AP exam. However, as of a few years ago, in order for a course to be billed as "AP", the syllabus for the course must be approved by the College Board. I think they had a problem with people teaching classes they claimed were AP, but which did not adequately prepare students for the test, so they decided to impose some quality control. (See [2] for details and an informative link.)
• Typically in high school advanced students may take an AP class Junior year to get a taste of them, then take two or three senior year. Super-advanced students may begin in Sophomore year, but this is not all that common. Homeschoolers who do AP may start a bit earlier; they need the outside validation of their work, and they have more time to focus on a particular topic. On subjects like Math, the students must have the background to take Calculus, so that limits somewhat when they can start. For subjects like US History, it is easier to start younger. (I'm generalizing here, based on my observation of my (bright, academic-type) kids and their friends and cousins, one of whom did five or six AP classes before graduation, another of whom did three, another probably 4 (including one in the summer), another who started at about age 13, etc.)
• On [3], AS states "We need a basic college-level textbook, or advanced high-school textbook, in United States history that is free from liberal bias and adequate to prepare students for AP, CLEP, or SAT II exams." See also [4] for more from AS on these exams. No mention of DBQs. It astounds me that anyone could consider the same course to prepare for CLEP, SATII, and AP - they are all quite different. I'm surprised he didn't throw in IB.
• $250 each times 40ish = over $10,000+. I'm just sayin'. --Too tired to log in 19:26, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Interesting, this. As I recall, my school offered very few AP courses, I think. Then again, I was never good at science, so I was never in contention to take any (my sister, I believe, had to commute to the neighboring high school to take AP biology her senior year), after completing trig my sophomore year I never took math again until college, so I wasn't about to take any AP math, and I think our history/government regimen was mostly dictated to us, so basically I had little opportunity for AP. I was hardly an overachiever anyway. I think (other than maybe American History) at my school you basically couldn't take AP until you had completed more basic courses (no AP bio until you had taken regular bio, and generally you'd take chemistry and physics first as well; no AP English until you had finished the 9th, 10th, and 11th grade courses), so you usually had to be a senior to take the few classes offered (if they offered AP music theory at my school I'll eat my hat). I took it easy my senior year (and consequently got straight A's for the first time since elementary school, unless you count gym). So I'm no expert in AP. It's pretty clear Andy isn't either. DickTurpis 20:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Sample questions from a real online site

Just for comparison's sake, these come from here. "Students should be able to write a thoughtful paragraph or 2 on each of these" (note: the author lists 20 some essays questions. I just took the first five)

1. Even though the Albany Plan of Union was not successful, why was it an important precedent?
2. For what three reasons did Native Americans side with France during the French and Indian War?
3. In what three ways did the Seven Years’ War directly affect the colonists’ growing discontent toward the British?
4. How did the Sugar Act differ from the preceding Navigation Acts?
5. How did colonial protest evolve? What steps were initially ineffective and what later steps proved successful?--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 17:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Is the answer to #2 "Liberté, égalité and fraternité"? :D --JeevesMkII 17:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought "wine, cheese, and chonklit" myself. I do admit, i don't think I could pass the AP exam if it were on my desk tomorrow. shameful, huh? --En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 18:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) (response to DickTurpis) I'm a bit atypical, but I actually took an AP class/test as a sophomore, and I know people who took the AP music theory class/test as frosh. However, I do think that history AP tests are generally taken only by juniors and seniors (and quite a lot of juniors at that). In fact, nearly every "smart" person at my school took at least 1, and sometimes up to 4, AP classes as a junior. Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

US High School for Jeeves

Someone help me out here. I'm totally bemused by how High School in the US works and wikipedia is no help.

My understanding is something vaguely like this:

• Everyone takes some basic SAT test that only covers English and Maths and consists largely of multiple choice questions (WTF?)
• There may also be a state sanctioned high school graduation exam to receive a high school diploma.
• There are also about have a dozen SAT subject specific exams in a narrow range of subjects. Not all students will take these.
• Smart students will take some other and different subject specific exams too, AP, CLEP, whatever. These too consist of more multiple choice questions (WTF? x 10^25)

These AP sample questions look no harder than the history GCSE I took way back when, but am I given to understand these are for 17 to 18 year olds? It's a complete mystery to me. --JeevesMkII 19:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll try to give you an overview... the "basic" system is the 1st to 12th grade structure, running from about 6/7 to 18/19 years old. Many places have pre-school and kindergarten type programs, some paid for publicly as part of the system, many not. The younger years are usually split around 5th or 6th grade, so you have an elementary school and a middle or junior high school. The high school then runs 9th - 12th grade (freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years). While education is "mandatory" in most places, students can usually "drop out" with varying criteria of age, grade completed, and parental permission.

The only "result" of finishing the program is a high school diploma, with various states having different requirements for what courses must be taken. For example (racks brain), at my school, one year of math was required (or both years of two year algebra or the general math courses), one year of science (I think), four years of English, one year of US History (usually taught in 11th grade), and maybe one or two other things. A "drop out" can attain the equivalent of the diploma by passing the "GED" test if they later desire. Some students have to use an extra semester or two to finish up the required credits for their diploma if they smoke too much pot.

Most students take standardized tests along the way that don't affect their grades (but influence class tracking), partly to evaluate the school systems themselves. College-bound students take one of a few independently-administered tests in their Junior and Senior years. For instance, juniors can take the "PSAT" (preliminary SAT) to get used to the test, and to qualify for being a "Merit Scholar" by doing well on the PSAT and the SAT. Senior year, people take things like the SAT or the ACT (I think it's called that) to help colleges decide if they want them or not. These are falling out of favor a bit since there is little correlation with college performance.

In addition, students can take these "AP" tests of which we speak, which, if they go to a college that accepts the results, will get them college credit (or sometimes let them simply skip an introductory course). AP = "Advanced Placement". At the college I went to, they ran a calculus placement test on campus to see who could skip/get credit for Calc I and Calc II, and probably had some other programs like that in other subjects (that was also a long time ago).

So there is it in a nutshell - K/1 - 12, only possibly ended by "dropping out", with much tracking and difference in coursework as the years go by. All the college-entrancey type tests are administered separately from running the schools, and colleges make up their own entrance criteria. ħuman 19:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

PS, the SAT used to be two large sections, Engs and Maths, all multiple guess. They have now added a third section which requires "writing". ħuman 19:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Wha? So, all university entrants are judged on just the basic SAT (which seems to have no relevance to tertiary education performance) + whatever entrance exams universities cook up? I think I'm even more confused than ever now. Where do subject specific exams come in to this? Are non-university goers ever examined on anything other than English and maths? Is this system really as insane as the picture I have in my head? --JeevesMkII 21:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Many colleges also require tests that specialize in certain areas. Once called the SAT II's, they're now called SAT subject tests. They cover things like bio, physics, chem, math, u.s. history, etc. At least in Pennsylvania, we have to take other standardized tests every year in school. PSSA's are in 5th, 8th, and 11th grade. All the other grades take the Stanford Aptitutde Test (IIRC), but that's not the SAT (which is Scholastic Aptitude test, IIRC). The PSSA's and the "not those SAT's" generally cover just about everything, including math, english, science, and social studies. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:19, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Right, the PSSAs and stuff. Which, oddly enough, don't affect one's grades or future (except for "tracking" kids into appropriate levels of classes in later years). ħuman 21:35, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hahaha. I think I should just give up trying to understand. It seems like a confusing morass of acronyms some of which are the same but refer to different exams. --JeevesMkII 21:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for the alphabet soup, that does make it harder to follow. But the test acronyms ought to be on wikipedia. The main thing to keep in mind is that there's "school", with classes and tests and papers and grades and stuff, that gets one to a diploma, normally in twelve years. Then there are the mandatory standardized tests, administered statewide, that help sort out the students a bit and also track the school's quality (allegedly). Then, there is all the college-related crap, which is all optional, and in some cases not even looked at by colleges. The college-related tests are standard nationwide, and administered by a private company (ETS). ħuman 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

My two cents:

• Everyone takes some basic SAT test that only covers English and Maths and consists largely of multiple choice questions (WTF?) The SAT is only for the college-bound. The original idea was that it was an aptitude test, not a test of knowledge or skill. Basically, roughly, how smart are you; are you smart enough for our college. Colleges needed a way to tell whether a kid with all As from high school #1 was anything like a kid with all As from high school #2. SATs are given by an independent corporation. While they are typically given AT a local school, they are not run by the school at all. The ACT is pretty much the same thing, from a competing company, except that it is more about knowledge than aptitude. Most colleges require one of these tests as part of the college application process; some are moving away from that, especially in less academic fields.

• There may also be a state sanctioned high school graduation exam to receive a high school diploma. There are two versions of this.
  1) More and more states are requiring "exit exams". You don't just have to take and pass 3 years of math (or whatever), you also have to pass a math exam in order to graduate. The problem, of course, is when you've got kids who *have* passed their classes but can't pass the exam. Also, it's pretty clear some kids are *never* going to pass exams in certain subjects, so they tend to drop out earlier - why bother sticking around? Unlike European systems, you generally have to pass ALL of the subjects.
  2) There is also the GED exam. If you do drop out, but later decide that you want a diploma, you can study for and take the GED. It is theoretically the equivalent of a high school diploma, but tends to be looked down upon as compared to a "real" diploma. Note that you can't decide to take this at, say, 15, instead of finishing out the last few years of high school, even if you are well-qualified to pass it, as it would be way too tempting to way too many students who find high school to be a waste of time, so the rule in most cases is that you can't take the GED until after your age-peers have graduated.

• There are also about have a dozen SAT subject specific exams in a narrow range of subjects. Not all students will take these. These are again part of the college admissions process. Typically, you'd have to take an English, a Science or Math, and one other exam. Again, the idea is to give the colleges something standardized to compare applicants. As we all know, one school's US History class may be substantially different than another's. These often come into play for students heading into the sciences (have they had a basic high school science education?), etc., and which ones are required often depend on the applicant's major. These do measure knowledge rather than aptitude, and they are designed to test knowledge at a typical high school level. A good time to take these is at the end of the year, just after you've finished the corresponding course (e.g. take Physics when you've just finished taking your high school Physics course, etc.) At this point in the process, most students don't know what colleges they're applying to, so they don't really know which ones will be required, but if they wait, they will run out of opportunities to test, as the tests are only offered at certain times. Note that these tests are an excellent way for a homeschooler to show that their high school work is up to snuff in comparison to other high school students. In many cases, colleges will accept AP scores in lieu of the corresponding SAT subject test. As the AP is at a college level, and the SAT subject test is at the high school level, someone who does well on the AP clearly would have done well on the SAT subject test.

• Smart students will take some other and different subject specific exams too, AP, CLEP, whatever. These too consist of more multiple choice questions (WTF? x 10^25) Let's take these one at a time. CLEP tests are designed for adults who return to college after some time in the workforce or real world. The idea is that they've picked up some knowledge through work or self-study, and ought to be able to skip some college classes if they already know the material. Thus CLEP tests can be taken for college credit. However, CLEP tests are typically accepted for credit only at the lower rungs of the University ladder. More selective universities don't accept CLEP tests for credit. These tests are fairly obscure - college-bound high schoolers typically do not ever take them. Homeschoolers might choose to take them, again to show that their work at home is up to standard - I'm not sure why they'd choose these over AP. My impression is that CLEP tests are not as challenging as AP tests, even though CLEP is supposed to give college credit. CLEP seems to be less likely to result in college credit or advancement at selective colleges.

• AP tests, on the other hand, are quite challenging. The idea is that an AP course in high school is equivalent to a college course. Many colleges will award credits for AP classes. The super-selective colleges may not award such credit, mainly because they expect their incoming students to have more-or-less all taken such classes as almost a prerequisite to admission. AP scores show that the student is capable of college-level work; good scores reflect well on the student. While there is some multiple choice (drawn from a very broad area of expected knowledge), there are also essay questions. The US History exam (and I think maybe some others) also have DBQs - Document-Based Questions, where the student must do some analysis of primary sources. Most AP US History courses I'm familiar with drill students by giving them DBQs frequently, so they know how to do them.

• These AP sample questions look no harder than the history GCSE I took way back when, but am I given to understand these are for 17 to 18 year olds? It's a complete mystery to me. Yeah, Europeans have a system that, to me, makes a lot more sense. But we all have to be equal here in America.

• So, to relate it back to the subject at hand, the idea that the same history course can prepare a student for the SAT subject exam (which is a high school level exam) OR the AP exam (which is a college level exam) raises some concerns. Of course, for $250 per student * 40+ students, there's a lot of incentive to create a course that is all things to all people. The problem, of course, is that for most of these tests, scores are permanent. If you score badly, it's on the paperwork that gets submitted to colleges, and you can't remove it. (Since the SAT and SAT subject tests all come from the same company, your score sheet includes all scores from any time you took one of the tests. (I'm not sure about the AP scores - they too are from the same company but it might be a different score report.) Which makes me worry about students who think they're going to be ready to take the AP when clearly they are not.--Too tired to log in 23:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh and then there's the State of New York, with the lovely and complicated Regent's Exams which don't affect your GPA at all but still make graduating High School in New York just that little bit harder. Although most NYS Universities factor your Regent's Status into deciding weather to take you or not. I got my High School Diploma "With Honors" with a GPA of %89 because my Regents Scores were all above 95%. --Wren 09:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

www.conservapedia.com./

Question. What's the deal with some people posting Conservapedia URLs with an extra period . between the ".com" and the slash? I mean like [5] (as opposed to [6]). It annoys me; does it serve any other purpose? --Marty 16:56, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

What difference does it make?--Damo^Hi 17:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I know personally, I do it just to piss you off. I can speak for anyone else, though. Bjones 17:21, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

In the DNS/BIND world, a period at the end says "don't try any further resolutions." For example, in the resolv.conf file I have here I have hq.corp.com eng.corp.com corp.com lab.corp.com dmz.corp.com where 'corp' is company I work for. If I look up 'www' it will look up www, www.hq.corp.com, www.eng.corp.com, www.corp.com, www.lab.corp.com, www.dmz.corp.com. If I look up 'www.' it will look up www and then stop. So really, a period at the end of "www.conservapedia.com." won't make a difference unless the server can't find www.conservapedia.com. --Shagie 17:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This belongs to Conservapedia Awards V.2

But I'm posting here instead. We need a new category: Best parodist edit by a non-parodist - or alternatively: The Poe's Law Award. Only articles and edits by established non-parodists, that is Aschlafly, Ed Poor, PJR, Conservative, Karajou, DeanS and a couple more accepted, no Bugler please. My nomination is Aschlafly with the WIGOed article Evolution syndrome. How could one not take it as parody?!? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 17:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And obviously I'm too late on WIGO Talk, sorry. :P Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 17:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

See here. We're still voting on the procedure for voting on procedure. ħuman 19:18, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes this site makes me rethink my views on direct democracy! JazzMan 19:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Under attack!

</melodrama>
Items in WIGO are being voted down by some kind of bot. Even ones with very large scores have fallen to about zero . Can someone get the president Trent on the line? ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Quick, everyone take their cyanide pills! Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 20:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Mine tastes like strawberries! --Kels 20:26, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

This is not how I envisioned our emergency response. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:31, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

oHHHHH, did you want something more like this:

• Run away! Runaway! (monty python style).--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 20:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Hanlon's razor. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 20:35, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Would I be right in thinking that translates as "I screwed up WIGO somehow but now I've fixed it"? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Swallow this coconut. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

If you think I'm going to swallow that coconut, I'll need some airspeed! ħuman 20:36, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I hate you all. *sulks*

Here's what would happen if we were pirates:

CHAOS: There's a hole in the side of the ship.

RW MEMBER: I'm an astronaut!

CHAOS: The ship is sinking.

RW MEMBER: Don't touch my unicorn.

CHAOS: We're all going to die.

RW MEMBER: Look! I can surf down these stairs! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!

And to put the icing on the cake, you all edit conflicted me. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Wait a second, my cyanide pill is just a Tic-Tac! Boy is my face red and my breath minty fresh. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 20:47, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Shoulda tested them on Blondi first, yo! --JeevesMkII 20:50, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

They're Tic-Tacs? Cool!! *pops pill* *dies horribly* Zmidponk 21:00, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

It was goats that done it. DogP 20:59, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm guessing there was no "actual immediate site problem to deal with"?--ζειαηđδηǐ (τ|ϛ) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

There may well have been. This time you were lucky. Remember: constant vigilance! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 21:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Nothing to see here but a few dead bodies, folks, move along, move along... ħuman 21:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

All quiet on the western front. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 21:03, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Now that that's all settled, who wants some nice refreshing Flavor-Aid? Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:07, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Something is goofed. When I vote on a WIGO item, the total changes from--say--6, to something like 0.75 (or .224 or whatever, but nothing over 1). If I refresh the page, everything is hunky-dorry, with my vote counted correctly.--WJThomas 21:53, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Keep in mind that Trent is breaking the site so we can haz generic slider vote bars. See his comment way above... ħuman 22:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Attention all Conservapedia sysops

It seems that this page is watched by sysops at Conservapedia, and since I cannot make edits on that site without an account, I need to tell you at Conservapedia that I have forgotten the password to my account on there, User:Heisoursavior. To negate the risk of someone compromising my account, would you please block that account indefinitely so I can fall with honor, rather than fall dishonorably at the hands of a vandal? Thank you. 75.169.203.208 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a similar problem, gentlemen at CP. I humbly request that you block my account, "Karajou". I know it's a bizarre, childish and uninspiring name. I was six when I made it. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:19, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I already blocked it, but some idiot unblocked it... Keklik 23:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I know! What's wrong with them? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Please, do not do this. This is a serious request I have made with nowhere else to go. I am ashamed that I had to make this request at a site that pokes fun at where I edit, but this is all I could do. Thank you for your compliance. 75.169.203.208

If you're serious, you should probably verify your account through email. It still works when you're blocked, and will be more compelling than an IP address on a hostile site making an unverifiable claim. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:24, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

No problem, I'll take care of it...PFoster 23:23, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

He's talking about CP. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:24, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And who's to say I wasn't talking about CP?PFoster 23:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Pardon me, but you do not seem like you are a sysop at Conservapedia. Like I said, I realize this site was made to smear conservatives (and this is why it pains me to even write on this site), but I really do not want to go to bed tonight knowing there is a risk of someone knowing my account password. 75.169.203.208

E-mail someone on CP from inside your account. And you're a parodist, actually. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:29, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

And how would anyone know your password? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

That's kind of a strange request considering (to my knowledge) nobody's account has ever been hacked, and considering you only have 6 edits (1 mainspace), so you don't have much of a reputation to uphold. JazzMan 23:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I am insulted. I am not a parodist. And if you read mu comment, it says I have forgotten my password. There is no way I can get into my account and email someone. And anyway, how do I email someone? I do not see email addresses displayed on their pages. I do not know how someone would know my password but if Governor Palin's email account is able to be compromised, I suppose my account is at risk as well when I have no control over it. I do not want to argue about this with you, I have just asked someone from Conservapedia to intervene. Also, I would have made more edits but I forgot my password a while ago; ever since the news of Governor Palin's email account compromising I want to protect myself. 75.169.203.208

Indeed, I bet those sneaky hackers are going straight from Palins email account to your CP account. My god man, will they stop at nothing?! Is nothing sacred anymore? Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 23:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll head over there and have a few guesses at your password and see if I can fix things for you. Can you tell me some your other passwords, some clues? DogP 23:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm very sorry, 75. I'm a little tired and I somehow read your comment as saying you'd been blocked. My sincerest apologies. In that case, I suppose the only way to verify the account is to supply some internal information from your account -- like the real name field.

As far as email goes, you can always email CPWebmaster -- his address is in there somewhere. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:40, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

I thank you very much, Mowse. I did find CPWebmaster's email. I appreciate the advice and thank you for helping me! 75.169.203.208

Don't mention it ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 23:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Wait a Minute

From higher up, "...SharonS (according to Kettleticket). She's probably 15 there? Bethany is her younger sister." So correct me if I'm wrong, but CP has a 13/14 year old wielding supreme executive power over there? I mean Bethany, of course, Andy's mental age is 5. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 00:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Seems like it. She is too young to feel empowered enough to exercise her bureaucrat powers but it means there are other bureaucrats other than Andy and CPwebmaster, so Andy doesn't look like he is running a dictatorship but he remains unchallenged. Quite clever by his standards. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

That reminds me, did we ever learn something about the CP Panel other than it's made up of teenagers? NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 01:44, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if it really is related, but cPanel also seems to be the name of the company that hosts the CP server. See http://209.85.100.44/ (which is the ip address of www.conservapedia.com). Very curious, me thinks. Etc 07:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Coinkidink? Or just another method that Andy has used to silence detractors (before discovering the ability to concoct bullshit weasel phrases). --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)for

Actually, cPanel is just a website management tool that nearly every hosting company makes available to their clients. It provides an easy-to-understand interface for managing higher-up tasks, like e-mail accounts and page/file permissions and deletions. The other alternative is learning to use FTP programs and *nix commands, which is too much for most people to handle. Sandman 14:23, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It was Andy's original home-schooling class that founded CP, most would be gone by now except the few that got exclusive power sysopship/bureaucratship. Even they have abandoned Andy's blog. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 01:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

(Off Topic) I don't know if the archive was too server, but make it less severe next time. I don't know the guidelines, but at least half a day of messages should be kept. In addition, engineering-pi, your sig makes me confuse you with Jellyfish/Chaos!. Is this what you really want..? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

No wonder you are a Liar at RP. Please make substantive comments or they will be removed and you will be blocked 90/10, talk, talk ,talk. Godspeed. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 03:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

3.14, add something substansive or be elswhere. I detect Evolution Syndrome. We are not fooled here. Open your mind and reject Big Science. Gods peed. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 03:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Reject Big Science? But that's my favourite Laurie Anderson album! 04:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT) Totnesmartin

Actually, despite their contributions to Eragon etc., I have always though that Sharon and Bethany have shown a maturity far greater than their older (male) sysop colleagues. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Given that list includes Ed, Conservative and Karajou, my puppy has shown greater levels of maturity and intelligence than those three. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 07:35, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Great - I now have an image of Ed having his nose rubbed in the carpet. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:44, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Ed should have his nose rubbed into some of those articles he "write" until he stops doing it. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 07:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

No kidding. Conservapedia's bullshit, hypocrisy, bigotry, and general stupidity are all galling enough, but the inability to call them on it is what REALLY makes it obnoxious. --Gulik 14:30, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

18 months ago a bunch of kids were having fun on CP. Then it got publicized and a bunch of internet rejects turned up to play powermonger. And, of course, a bunch of sane people turned up to argue the case for evolution, etc. After they got banned all that was left were the power-hungry idiots and trolls/vandals encouraged by every bit of publiscity CP ever gets. It's never been the same. Those kids probably could made a decent little project out of it, in spite of Andy. ħuman 18:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It's actually quite sad when you think about it that way. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Who would believe it?

The first mention of The Albany Plan appears on this page at 17.06 on 17 September....the new article on The Albany Plan appears [7]on CP at 08.11 on 18 September! In spite of the speedy response to an o0bvious need for such an article, it's a load of crap. Oh well, just be careful her because but Chippeterson is clearly watching you! Woneder if Andy knows that Chippy baby is looking in at the adults at play? Mick McT 09:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh well, if he is - Chippers, old chap, you're freaking worse than Ed Poor when it comes to creating stupid stub articles and if you had any sense of self-worth you would not bask in the "glory" of Crockoshite counting the ridiculous "articles you create. Oh, and if I see you spell "their" or "they're" as "there" one more time, so help me I am going to send demons through the intertubes to pop out of your monitor and wring your scrawny neck. On the plus side, however, your sister looks kinda hot... I can haz number? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Chippy also has a decided lack of knowledge regarding the use of apostrophes, as well of a dim understanding of ordinary sentence structure. And his (non-copy/pasted) articles are largely random facts strung together in a way that makes clear his general lack of reading comprehension (of the source materials). ("George Washington is the father of our country and of George Washington Carver. He chopped down a cherry tree and used it to make wooden teeth for himself. Congress chose him as there first president. He was a midget with fourteen fingers and seven toe's.")

He typed that??? Obviously he is a Poeradist. ħuman 18:53, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Heh. No. I made that up--CP was down at the time, so I couldn't grab a real example. Not far off, really, but mine is funnier than any of his.--WJThomas 21:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I wonder if we can get someone to cite this for the Washington page? --Kels 19:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Intriguing. The Albany Plan is mentioned is Anerican History Lecture Two, so that might be a reason for it, although I don't think Chipmeister is on the course(?).
If he is reading this _{Hi Chips} I wonder who introduced him to RW. . . In reply to Mick McT, be careful of what? I don't think he's dangerous. weaseLOId~

Conservapedia has a problem?

Anyone else getting this? Armondikov 10:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Same shit as always for me. What are you getting? $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 10:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It literally just says "Conservapedia has a problem" in big black text. :S Armondikov 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Gone now...Armondikov 10:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe Conservapedia was overcome with honesty for a while. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 10:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Right when I pressed the Submit button for my wonderful Conservapedia edit, argh! Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

That was God's way of telling you you shouldn't be posting there. --PsyGremlin_{I haz no mowse?} 10:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Should have screengrabbed that one. Armondikov 10:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

We already have- see: Image:Cpproblem.png PFoster 10:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I seem to get occasional 500 time outs, so maybe Andy's borrowed the hamster for recreational purposes again. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Seems to be offline again now. weaseLOId~ 12:01, 18 September 2008 (EDT) & It's back. weaseLOId~ 12:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Palin's email hacked

Wonder how CP will take it? You have hackers from Anonymous (the same group who took on Scientology, presumably) exposing her public emails that didn't fall under the umbrella of the Trooper Gate thing. However, the emails show "DPS" (Department of Public Safety) which may have been informative of the investigation. Deletion of the yahoo accounts shortly thereafter may result in a charge of destruction of evidence, if those emails are relevant to the investigation. If anyone cares, I'll post links, but I'm far too lazy at the current prevailing time. Norseman^Wassail! 10:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It's interesting because there seems to be good evidence that Palin and her office used private e-mail to discuss official business in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the subpoenaing (is that really a word?) of said e-mails. I think that's it- I'm no lawyer. Corry^{I'll be in the hospital bar.} 11:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

There's no "evidence" of that. Just speculation. It was certainly in breach of protocol and a bad idea, but there's no reason right now to think it was anything but stupid.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 11:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Just what the USA needs, a stoopid VP. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

At least it would be better than a "stoopid" president who can't speak coherently without a teleprompter. --CPAdmin1 09:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)11:23, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

There were articles referencing how Palin's assistant admonished someone in the administration for sending a particular message on the official govt email system, when the Yahoo account was supposed to be used for the type of subject in question. Very Rovian, as in the way he used erasable RNC emails to communicate things he wanted off the record. --SpinyNorman 11:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Norse, your questions have been answered, by our old friend Jinx _{hi Jinx!} no less.... He's taking the typical CP line, hypocritical liberals, call the fbi, they always scream about privacy rights etc... When someone brings up that we have no idea what the political affiliation of the groups, he respondes with the classic view. They're doing something I don't like, they're liberal.... I guess that makes National Enquirer a Conservative publication... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Tom Moore, you do not have the legal right to say "all my e-mail is privilidged" just by your say-so, regardless of what account you use, so the argument is both speculative and wrong - but for the wrong reasons. The *only* mail that is given executive privilege would be mail that could do immediate harm to the Safety of the State. Things regarding, say knowledge of military actions against a foreign country" (oh wait, governors don't do that). Topics dealing with an unavoidable safety hazard that the State has not yet concluded how to best deal with (ie., something that might cause a serious panic, and we are at the 'what should we do' state). Bush has batted around teh term "executive privileged" for so long, most of us just assume it means any and all communications from an executive to his or her staff. and that simply is not protected in an investigation under subpoena or warrant. (waitingforgodot...)--71.208.215.187 12:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

You are correct, except for all the things you said that were wrong, because I never said anything like that. I was only replying to the speculation that she was doing this deliberately to hide her emails, and I didn't even mention privilege.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:35, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

What's this about Michelle malkin linking it to us? TMT provided a link to her blog her it doesn't mention us. I iz a confoozd lemur. Totnesmartin 14:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It's in the comment section... basically just saying that the guy who supposedly did it is a member of our site. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

(studies his fingernails) Seriously though, is it worth asking her to put up or shut up? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Yea, not really a big deal, just came across it searching server logs and as a large number of incoming hits from her blog. Thought I would share. Found it humorous. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Anonymous went after Palin? Haha. I wonder if she used seven different passwords as well. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

The Malkin thing is in the middle of the second comments section. They also refer to the same username at wikipedia. ħuman 18:56, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!}

Are we 100% sure that Jinx _{hi Jinx!} isn't a parodist? I mean really Jason, you think anyone is going to "despise" someone giving thanks. You've been brainwashed by Christian teachings. Contrary to what you may think, we don't hate religious people, nor do we hate religion. You can worship whoever and whatever you want. If you want to join a cult that wears only Cotton/polyester blend Haynes brand jockey shorts and professes that camel spit is the secret ingredient in the fountain of youth for all I give a damn. I just don't want you attempting to force the rest of us to subscribe to it and I don't the government giving you any special attention... Do you comprehend that my Incan (Olmec?) friend? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 13:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

And on the eighth day, god created Engineer imbued with the power of padding of the estimate. And god beheld his creation, and saw that he had made a terrible mistake. Thus god gave us the contractual penalties for time and cost overruns as a sign of his covenant never again to interfere in the course of man's progress. --JeevesMkII 13:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

You really think that somebody who is a regular reader of RW would have difficulty coming to believe that some very vocal people here hate religion? That would surprise you?

Hunh. Aziraphale 16:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

You're mixing two completely different things here. I've been involved here for several years now, and I've never seen anyone express hatred of individual, otherwise rational religious people. There's hatred towards religion in general, and serious mocking of accepting thousand year old books over common sense and observation. There is also extreme mockery and dislike of those that seek to foist their views on us and demand we respect them when they are not willing to return the favor. However, I would like some examples of (regular, real) users showing hatred towards someone that doesn't fall into those categories. Hell, speaking for myself, I liked Pope JPII. I had no respect for his office (fun fact, I have as much authority as the pope, I just don't have as many followers) but I respected his work, including the forgiving of the young man who shot him. I, however, have no respect for the current Nazi Pope, but that's just me SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

And again, "individual, otherwise rational religious people" or "there's hatred towards religion in general, and seriour mocking of etc etc". Wrong wiki my fellow, try Atheistwiki. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 16:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

What? Was that to me or the other guy? I'm not sure... Also, a note for clafication, because I see this being distorted, when I say "otherwise rational religious people," I don't mean that being religious makes them irrational. I mean people who are not batshit insane. I don't fault Barack Obama for his religion, I fault George Bush for manipulating his religion.SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

So you fault Christians but not Muslims, eh? DickTurpis 17:18, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

That's funny, SirChuck, since I have great respect for the office of the Pope, but considerable dislike for JPII's work, which to a considerable extent involved rolling back or preventing a lot of the necessary changes that came out of the Second Vatican Council. However, mpore importantly, I must say that I'm greatly disappointed to see that this myth of the "Nazi Pope" still being bandied around here. People really ought to know better. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)If I've allowed myself to become deluded, well, so be it. However, I'm not going to wade through, for example, Susan's edits to find the ones I find damning enough to prove my point. At some point we'll start splitting hairs about who is "otherwise rational" and so on. I'm prepared to be wrong about this, but presently remain unconvinced. Aziraphale 18:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I for one think this "hate religion, but not religious individuals" is a bit of a cop-out. In the end, any religion is made up of individuals. It seems logical that hatred of the religion also implies hatred of the adherents of that religion, at least because without them, it wouldn't exist at all.

So that really means we end up in the old situation of "my friend Muhammad here, he's a nice guy, but all the other Muslims? I don't really like them at all, know what I'm saying?" There are several words that can be used to describe this, and I think we know well what they are. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:36, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Shall we institute Headless Chicken Mode, or do we lack a quorum due to Susan's incarceration in no-web-access hospital room? By the way, we try to clean out the religion-hating junk people sometimes leave in our articles. We don't delete what people say on talk pages... those are signed comments that do not "speak for" the wiki. ħuman 19:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

If Jinx is reading this, & there's no reason to believe that he isn't, no doubt he is laughing and clapping his hands and weeing in his pants with glee that his offhand comment about a new interstate bridge could cause such a stir about attitudes to religion. weaseLOId~ 19:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Human, while it is true that the wiki as such does not have an "official position" on these things (which is for the best), that does not tell the whole story. If you'll pardon my academia (because sadly enough, I don't really know how else to express this), I think it's obvious that there is a pretty strong Self/Other division at work on the site, with the theists playing the role of constitutive Others to the mainstream atheist Selves. It's really a question of which sort of discourse is dominant on the site. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but as a hard core atheist myself, how often do I thrust my opinions as such into the wiki? Do I treat you as the "other"??? Actually, I usually act as a buffer against the lamer hard cores atheists like PC. I mostly ignore Bob and Susan, since they contribute so much elsewhere. ħuman 00:56, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Trying to catch all of the above points, if I miss something, please forgive me. To AKjeldsen, I don't think the pope is or ever was actually a Nazi. I use the term as a sign of the supreme dislike I have towards his lurching the church back to the reactionary body it once was. Not only did his unneeded comments almost start a war with the muslims, but his entire demeanor just seems awful. Also to you, I don't see my opinion as a cop out. I don't personally hate religion, just the horrible things done in the name of it. I think the vast majority of religious people are very kind, loving people. At the risk of sounding cliched, I have many religious friends (of very different religions) I don't agree with their views, and I personally find their beleifs silly, but I don't hate them by any means. I will also say that I think the Ghandi quote is a much accurate reflection on the situation. "I like you Christ... However, I do not like your Christians, they are not much like your Christ."

To Aziraphale, I have no intention of splitting hairs over what is and is not rational behavior. I think it's very obvious. Taking religion out of the equation, it's very easy to discern between rational and irrational behavior. As a final note, Dick, I have no idea what you're talking about, please clarify for me. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 21:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I have already explained myself numerous times. If you cannot make substantive comments perhaps you would be more at home at that National Enquirer of the Internet, Wikipedia? DickTurpis 22:07, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Humor duely(sp?) noted, but I still have no idea what you meant by your earlier comment... However, I am really tired, so I pledge to sleep on it and see if it makes any more sense tomorrow. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 00:10, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I think he also meant to mimic teh Assfly with that earlier comment, you know, with the whole "you say republicans did this but refuse to say that democrats did this other thing" or "Bush blew up the world but it doesn't matter because Obama did worse" crap. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 05:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Chuck - amazingly, once we begin to differ on what is and isn't obvious, we can then begin to differ on what is and isn't hair-splitting. I'm just trying to cut out the middle man and jump to the part where we diagnose what went wrong, without the tedium of having the conversation that goes wrong. Aziraphale 03:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not WiGO worthy, but

This was still pretty funny. DickTurpis 14:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

So were the next two or three diffs. But he was right! Oh no he isn't!! Oh YESH HE IS!! Pure panto. Armondikov 15:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I look forward to your attempts to explain Panto to our fellows across the pond :D Totnesmartin 15:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Retired Canadian ballerina Karen Kain has been producing pantomimes over here for about 20 years now, with her husband. Some of them were filmed and put on CBC, they're brilliant stuff. --Kels 16:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia: The Pantomime almost seems like a good idea. We should drink until it's an awesome idea and has it's own namespace. Armondikov 16:39, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

when discussing Conservapedia, the word pantomime is almost redundant. 18:26, 18 September 2008 (EDT) Totnesmartin

Can I be the end of teh Horsefly that has eyeholes? Pleez? ħuman 19:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

But the other end has all the speaking roles. --Kels 07:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Trumpeter

Trumpeter wades in both feet first with an all-out assault on his fellow CPedians. DogP 16:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

...and gets decidedly unfamily-friendly with his block comments. --SpinyNorman 17:02, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

......and finally bans old friend HelpJazz for being a Rationalwiki sock. DogP 17:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

His prose ("Defy the drivel") is also starting to make him sound like an angry Dr. Smith on Lost in Space - "You bubble-headed booby!", "you ludicrous lump", "Bellicose Bumpkin ", etc. --SpinyNorman 17:12, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

And now he's banhammered DRamon. Onr parodist blocks another. DickTurpis 17:19, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

So, what, are we heading for Night of the Long Notes? Barikada 17:59, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

No, BrianCo just blocked him with a one-day banhammer. DogP 18:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Now I'm confused. Having come across to the Bugler-is-a-parodist camp I put earlier lengthy blocks down to "playing the part". What's going on now (remember he's defending his Big Science piece) just seems deranged, even beyond Fox on here when drunk. Perhaps it really is the medication wearing off, he isn't a parody after all! Or maybe he read our recent comments about him being a parodist and is going all out to protect his cover. --Toffeeman 18:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm I am confused about Bugler now. Although, he is obviously quite unhinged. I bet Aschlafly will stay far from this one. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 18:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I think he's definitely a parodist, but as I clumsily tried to say below, I think he's enjoying the power and attention he's getting over there. I think he may be going NATIVE!!! Matt oblong 18:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I realize this conversation can't be trusted in public for reasons that are (or will be)self-evident, but my paro-dar has never gone off for him. My assumption (yes yes, I know) is that people here keep calling him a parodist to undercut him on CP, since most CP brass at least casually browses RW.

He clearly puts on airs and, I suspect, is talking in a way he doesn't talk in real life, but that dis-ingenuousness shouldn't automatically be assumed as broader deception. Two cents, Aziraphale 18:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Mr Aziraphale. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I've thought for quite some time that he's a parodist, but an anti-CP and anti-RW one. I thought he was TK for a while, until his Englishness became apparent.--WJThomas 18:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Aziraphale, you're likely right about why HelpJazz is on Bugler's list, but you do realize that you've likely just "incriminated" yourself as well? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:32, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, after my swan-dive off of Andy's talk page a few months ago I lost whatever magic shielding I had before anyway. Heck, LearnTogether reverted me just a minute ago, that never would've happened when I had my mojo. ;) Point being, I'm feeling freer to speak my mind in all places because I no longer value access to CP higher than I value my desire to say what I want.

I just really really hope he's a parodist. If not he is utter utter scum that's proud, according to his userpage, of being called a racist. Matt oblong 18:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Besides, similar to what I said about HelpJazz just a moment ago (before LT reverted it), any balanced reading of my edits here would show that I no more approve of y'all's methods than I do of theirs. Y'all are just friendlier, and I'm always willing to get along with those so inclined. :D Aziraphale 18:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Sock or not, Bugler is doing more to disrupt things over there any of my/our/your previous socks have ever done. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 18:24, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we'll never know. The old final night block spectacular just doens't cut it now. I don't think we'll ever know definitely if he's a sock or not. Matt oblong 18:31, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I go back & forth in my opinions about Bugler. His rage tonight seemed pretty genuine, but he still came up with lines like this, which is absolutely Shakesparean. I think he probably is a right wing lunatic rather than a parodist, but also that he deliberately pushes things to extremes just to piss people off & to get his own way. weaseLOId~ 18:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Are there really still some people who don't know that Bugler is a parodist? It's certain. It's been confirmed. What his endgame is, I don't know (not sure he does), but yeah, he's a parodist. DickTurpis 18:45, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

"It's been confirmed". When & how & by whom? weaseLOId~ 18:48, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Ditto. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I decide to watch some footy on the telly and miss all the excitement. At least we now know for sure that Bugger reads RW. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I think Bungler is just a British version of TK, though perhaps more "right wing" on his own. TK's political compass, recall, was almost 0,0 - but he played along with the "rules and regs" at CP to build his power base. Now, Burglar may be a similarly politically-neutral - but aware - power hungry reject from the rest of the internet, but uses what he knows of right-wing attitudes in the UK to come across as the real thing. And since it's UK politics, no one on CP can tell (except Fox maybe?). I could pull a Bugger at CP, but they'd see through my "American" right wing parody. However, we have a healthy contingent of real Brits on here. Listen to who the people are who are absolutely sure that Bagbalm is a parodist... ħuman 19:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Good point, if you're going to be a good sock and worm your way up, there's no sense in talking US politics if you're not American and into politics. Whereas if you're a "furriner", you can talk about your own country's politics all you like, make a complete hash of it and the CP xenophobics won't be able to tell. Armondikov 04:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I understand BUGLER

I just watched a film called ID. Now I know what's happened to Bugler. Matt oblong 17:36, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Bugler - parodist or not?

Opinion is divided on this Bugler fellow. I'm interested to find out: who here thinks he is a parodist / mole? Johann 19:17, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Also please put your country code first, like - [GB] Genghis - so we can test Human's theory. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

What did I do wrong, boss? Any way, will this vote count towards an award for Conservapedia Day? Bondurant 05:10, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see. Arrrr! Bondurant 05:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Yea

1. (US) - he is the most disruptive sysop on CP since TK. --Shagie 19:29, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
2. (Democratic Republic of Fukistan) Definitely. No question. DickTurpis 20:45, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
3. (AQ) - he is far too active not to be a parodist. Keklik 21:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
4. (US) - Absolutely. No question about it. And a very talented one. Consider edits like this [8], where he tells someone off for being a parodist, and [9], where he criticises those on the site who create "sterile, circular debates" "merely to disrupt and damage" (on a debate page he created), or here [10], where he actually provides a link to Andy's Liberal Denial article, or or here [11], where he links to BOTH the Liberal article and the Liberal Tricks article, or here[12] - this stuff cannot possibly be written seriously. I think we need a Bugler drinking game, based on a Bugler Scale of parody. The core would be a point system to rate edits (both Bugler's and others'). Say five points for linking to a "Liberal Denial", "Liberal Tricks", "Liberal Deceit", etc. article. (Must be an actual link - only one point for a reference that is not linked.) Another 5 points for praising Andy. Five points for, when presented with a coherent argument, replying by calling the poster a Liberal and dodging the argument (a la Andy). Twenty-five points for, well, I think of it as recursion - when he pontificates about the evils of parody. And so on.--Too tired to log in 00:00, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
5. (DS) - Without a doubt. He's always been too OTT and acting as Andy's Minime. Now that he's realised that he's basically untouchable (I wonder if Beth still has her eye on him) and Andy's not going to do anything (I don't believe he's Andy's sock) he's really starting to push the envelope. Of course, I say yes, because to think that somebody could naturally be that obnoxious is scary. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 00:49, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
6. (non Brit EU) - he is one of us, and I have suspicions on three RW editors, two in UK and one based in the US. I concede him this: he is doing it cleverly. Harassing HelpJazz shows that he has been following CP for a long time. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 02:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Susan is out sick, but has chimed in before. So I post for her. (Susan, feel free to overwrite this comment when you come back) ħuman 03:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
8. (UK) - Slightly surprised we are still having this discussion, to be honest. He's so blatantly a parodist. I can see how he confuses people though, as he puts an extraordinary amount of effort into it. As to his end game, I think it's an experiment to see how far he can push the envelope before being found out, or alternatively, being elevated to sysop or even beaurocrat. Bondurant 04:26, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
9. (UK) - Most definitely a parodist, although how he's as sucessful as he is when other people who have essentially been as extreme as him have been given the parody-shaped boot is anyone's guess. My theory (well, strictly, hypothesis) is that he's actually a consortium of RW socks and this entire discussion and site is an elaborate ruse orchestrated by the multiple people who run Bugler's account. Armondikov 04:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
10. (UK) - I just don’t think there’s any doubt. His language veers between that of a Mary Poppins script-writer and aping Assflipper. He just doesn’t use the language of a British right-wing nut. The word liberal is normally used as an adjective in combination with something not as a noun. His school boy insistence on calling HelpJazz HJ. Loads of edits that are just too specifically wink wink to be serious. Definitely guilty. Matt oblong 04:50, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
11. (UK) I have it from an extremely reliable source, which I unfortunately cannot reveal, that Bugler is indeed a parodist. Auld Nick 10:10, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
12. (UK) 100% certain. A genuine British right-wing nutter wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to rail against the EU. Barnaby 19:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
13. (US) I think so. --CPAdmin1 09:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Nay

1. (NZ) I have always thought that he was a sock of Andy that he uses to perform actions that even the assfly knows is below the belt. --Damo^Hi 19:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   I don't think Andy's amsrt enough enough to run a sock - and he sure doesn't know British politics as well as Bungler. ħuman 03:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

   I should have added the proviso that I have been away for a while and that was the impression I had a month or so ago. Events seem to have moved on somewhat since then. He seems to have gotten a lot more disruptive lately.--Damo^Hi 21:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

1. (JV) Seriously, now, people. He is far too active to be a parodist. You think anyone here has that much spare time?? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:59, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   That coming from a jellyfish with mousepuppets??? ħuman 03:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

2. (UK) I don't reckon so, but can't decide for sure. Still wondering if he might be disgraced BNP candidate Dominic Bugler. weaseLOId~ 20:06, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
3. I think probably not, but then Bugler is the defining example of Poe's Law. --symuun^Words! 20:10, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
4. I think he's a conservative-leaning Brit with a wicked sense of humour, who agrees with most of CP's basic positions but can't resist stirring things up. He's awesome!--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 04:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Goat

1. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 19:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't know/don't care

1. I am not really to sure but he did float the idea of CP day so perhaps that'll be his moment, if he is a parodist.(NZ) Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 19:25, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   I just had a vision of Bugler in his workshop, hammering and welding away at his version of the Delta House float/car in Animal House, except that the outside is a big Yorkshire Pudding. --SpinyNorman 19:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   Yummiest answer so far! (Haven't had one in soooooo long...) ħuman 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

2. I have my suspicions, but either way it doesn't matter. In the end, Bugler is just a wickedly bent spoon who gives the pot of conserva-gumbo we call CP a much-needed stir now and then. Stir on, Bugler. Stir on. --SpinyNorman 19:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Don't care, he dances so well. Soon for the concerto! Norseman^Wassail! 19:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Per Poe's Law, or rather a logical extension of it (as one's views become more extreme, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between a parody of that view and the view itself), it's basically impossible to know without knowing Bugler in person, and you might not even be able to tell then. Also, I don't think it matters. We get our lulz either way, right? OneForLogic 19:41, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   We can always put him in a sealed box that will release poison gas with a .5 probability, and then declare that he is or isn't a parodist until the box is ope--- oh wait, wrong experiment. --SpinyNorman 19:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

5. I don't know (DK), but it doesn't really matter. The fascinating thing is that regardless of whether he's genuine or a parodist, Bugler is the cancer that is killing /b/ CP. If they were smart, they'd kick him out sooner rather than later, but... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
6. (US) I don't know. He has no "trail" like Jinx does (his blog, WP, etc.) which make me a little more suspicious, but it's really a tough call. Some of his edits have been almost word-for-word lifted from Andy's comments, but it could be just happenstance and the environment. I think he his Poe's Law made manifest.
7. i) If he's a parodist, my hat's off to him, I love his or her work, and I continue to think I'd be pissed off at you all trying to out me if I was him; ii) if he's not a parodist, brilliant again, he's just a supremely entertaining totally ignorant fuckwit, who I love for all the same reasons I love Andy. Poe's Law is a closed circle, you know.... DogP 20:34, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

   Maybe Bugler's (if parodist) doing a reverse-Poe's Law, anticipating that we'd sit here and scream PARODIST! PARODIST! and become so entrenched in the belief that he is, that it only deepens his roots within the system of CP? Like Ted Bundy, where women said they loved him even while he sat in prison for murdering and raping so many women. Norseman^Wassail! 20:39, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

8. All I know for sure is that he's doing RW no favors...--WJThomas 21:08, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
9. I tend to bounce back and forth. Sometimes his comments seem to be over-the-top enough that they qualify as a level of parody. On other occasions, it seems like he's defending things that are so distasteful that I'd have a hard time believing that anyone who was a parodist at heart would be capable of it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter to us. He's such a perfect fit for their project that his presence will only hasten the eventual demise of CP (assuming it isn't already DOA). - Lardashe
10. (SE) Virtually all of his mainspace edits are disagreeable additions to hot topics - which screams parody all around. On the other hand, removing vandalism seems to be his "big thing", and if he was a parodist he wouldn't be so swift with the infinite blocks, instead let every sock vandalize a few times more before blocking. On the third hand, this is just what made Andy fall in love with him so he'd better keep it up. Etc 18:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

bent spoon

1. Best idea I saw so far... ħuman 23:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Either he started off mad or he has been a parodist so long he has forgot how to stop and has become mad, either way it makes no difference now. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 02:49, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

We are all born mad. Some remain so... --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

1. (GB) Flibble. What more can I say? Whatever he is the man is absolutely hatstand.--Toffeeman 04:13, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

He is TK

1. [US] Surprised it wasn't posted already. Pinto's5150 ^Talk

He is not TK

1. Bugler : TK = Hannibal Lecter : Darth Vader. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 04:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Stockholm syndrome

I believe Bungler to be the Mr Hyde to an RWian's Dr Jekyl. He (she?) started out just a little bit right of centre, but has progressively become more and more fascist as (s)he finds out what fun it is - to the point where they're actually beginning to believe what they're saying. (I have an idea which, lately rather inactive, RWian it is)   ^Contribs_Talk 23:48, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

"Exam" questions

The fact that Andy keeps accepting and grading papers after he's already publicly posted all the answers gives a whole new meaning to the term "open book". I'm pretty amused that the one posted in WIGO expresses doubt in answer #7 that the Vikings discovered North America before Columbus, and then in the very next answer talks about the settlement the Vikings had in North America well before Columbus. Great stuff! --Kels 21:08, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I haven't seen him give anyone less than a grade in the high 90's. What a racket - Andy takes money from parents who homeschool their kids, fills their minds with his propaganda, and then hands out ridiculously high scores which validate the parents' delusion that their choice to homeschool has made the kids smarter. Bravo, Andy. --SpinyNorman 21:27, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually his students have a pretty good record taking standardized tests on the subjects they take from him. --CPAdmin1 22:00, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Which standardized tests? Don't try telling me they're getting 5s on the American History AP after taking his excuse for a class. DickTurpis 22:03, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I personally got 73 on the microeconomics CLEP, 69 on the Western Civ 1, and a good score on the Western Civ 2 which I don't remember what it was off the top of my head. And I know other students doing very well on CLEPs. I am not sure whether anyone took APs. Some people took the SAT II American History test and scored very well. --CPAdmin1 14:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I admit I know very little about the CLEPs. Perhaps I'll look into them and see what they're like. It seems they're multiple choice, which would be a far cry from the APs, and it's these essays of Andy's that are generally so bad. If CLEPs are anything like the tests needed to attain a GED, then I have substantial doubts that they're terribly rigorous. Anyway, regardless of the tests themselves, I think in general homeschool kids are more likely to take an interest in learning, and will therefore on average do better on some tests than other kids regardless of their exact lessons. So I guess what I wonder is if his students did well because of his class or in spite of them. I will say that many of these essay responses that are getting 99/100 from Andy wouldn't pass muster on a rigorous exam. 67.242.83.173 15:48, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If the students generally do well on nationwide exams, then great. Seriously- no sarcasm. I remember the AP exams being rigorous, and if Andy's students perform well, that reflects well on them. If Andy's students are intelligent and driven, they deserve reciprocal effort from the teacher, and Andy's homework assignments just don't pass muster. Questions about how great Columbus was? Unintellectual, unchallenging, dogmatic, sycophantic garbage. Andy should be challenging these (paying) students to critically analyze historical events and relate them to a present day context, not teaching them how best to agree with him. My advice for improving their AP/CLEP/SAT II scores: drop the class, get your parents to stop the check if he hasn't been cashed yet, buy Tindall and Shi and learn from legitimate historians. Corry^{I'll be in the hospital bar.} 18:47, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I mentioned this earlier, its a very weird way to mark papers. You know, before everyone has actually handed them in. Andy has a strange way of doing things. He seems like a "shoes first, pants second" kinda of guy. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 21:30, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

More "shoes first, socks second" I think. DickTurpis 21:38, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

"pants first, tighty-whities second"--WJThomas 21:59, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

This seems strangely appropriate, under the circumstances. --Kels 22:08, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah... Andy's the world's worst teacher, as far as we can tell. The kids only do well, if they do, because of other influences (highly involved parents?) - and he takes credit for it. ħuman 02:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy's Academic Record

Andy's persistent focus on credentials being/not being important has brought up that he claims to have taken advanced statistics classes. Since he claims considerable expertise, why don't we push him to post his entire educational transcript? That way, at least we'd know on which subjects to consider him beyond question. - Lardashe

You fool, nothing is beyond Andys scope. Nothing! he even knows more about NZ Politics than me and I work in NZ Politics! Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 21:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy would freak out if he really understood our politics. Either that or he'd get a job hosting talkback on Newstalk ZB.--Damo^Hi 22:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

My grade in Analytical Physics in 1979 (A) means no more than Andy's grade in "sucking at statistics 101" in 1980. ħuman 03:01, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)

Here's a prediction - when we start getting results from the Large Hadron Collider that lead to unexpected and/or revolutionary insights into physics, watch for Andy to jump in and start discrediting them "because I have a degree in engineering, dammit". "You say you've shown how mass is imparted and you've created dark matter? I want to see the raw data!" --SpinyNorman 06:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If the LHC doesn't count as "Big Science" then I don't know what does... (Sorry, I had to get that out of my system).--Antifly 07:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

"It's not a black hole until I say it's a black hole. Please send your data+any black holes so far created. Aschalfy

Also, "no independent, non-liberal scientist has been able to reproduce the experiments from the Large Hardon Collider!" Etc 18:04, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Did you just call it the Large Hardon Collider? I bet I could reproduce that sort of experiment. DickTurpis 18:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

@ Antifly, yeah, I thought the same thing while I was digging through their photos. One of my favorites in that vein was one showing a shitload of people in one of their funky buildings (had a huge center atrium). Something like 1900 scientists are working on/with it. That's more than 12! ħuman 20:51, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Just a reminder

We should try to avoid posting parody edits on WIGO (except those by Bugler). DickTurpis 23:09, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Wait, those aren't parody, also? ħuman 00:02, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I must admit I am not so good at distinguishing parody from genuine edits. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.--Damo^Hi 01:47, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Me neither. PS, Andy hasn't turned off editing yet. Unless I somehow got "night editing" privs, which I doubt... ħuman 02:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, still open for business. They seemed to open up pretty early yesterday too (unless you northern types' daylight saving has kicked in/out again, which messes me up totally). Have the UK put their cocks back or forward yet? Ah - somebody's noticed - hamster has gone to bed.--PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:23, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Sir, what I do with my clock is none of your business!Mick McT 04:25, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I just let my "cock" dangle. Arr! Cap'n Geng^{What d'ya say, Cap'n Flint?} 04:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I wish to know how one puts their "cock" forward or backward? Is there some sort of detachable aspect that of which I do not know of?! Norseman^Wassail! 10:06, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

A person makes one typo around here... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

No, cocks and clocks are exactly as they were yesterday. And I thought a WIGO-CP rule was that we didn't out clear parodists or on it? Armondikov 05:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, the problem with Bugler is that he makes some of the funniest edits, but you can't enjoy it unless you're sure it's for real. It's like watching a scripted reality show. Etc 18:01, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

How about a new userbox?

"Karajou has asked this user to apologise or some such. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 23:51, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

"Bugler asked this user to provide a tossed salad... without dressing." ħuman 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

This User Is Clueless. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 01:34, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that one exists, it might be called template:user:cabal? ħuman 01:38, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

An "I gave Karajoy the finger" one would look pretty good on the wall of fame. Armondikov 05:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent)Is there a list of all the userboxes that have been created? Just wonderin...Bjones 09:44, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki:Userboxes#Adding userboxes There are several liinks from this page. However, you just have to look. A lot of users (like me) have boxes that they've simply created themselves and haven't made an official template. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 12:18, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Derangement syndrome spreads: Linked to Conservative values

Beliefnet blogger Michele McGinty ("Reformed Chicks Blabbing") channels her inner Schlafly in her post: "Palin Derangement Syndrome". Somebody call the CDC.--Neon 09:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

...Is this his usual response?

I noticed that you guys saw the response I dropped for Andy to think about, and then noticed his complete lack of response. Judging by the rest of the page, am I the only one who thinks that Andy never answers any criticism? Alexa 10:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

You are wrong. He often answers. "Open your mind", "I'm not going to waste my time with you", "you are breaking the 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk" are among his deeply thought answers. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:48, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

And let's not forget the "You're clueless. Godspeed." DickTurpis 10:49, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC) I was compelled to point that out here. Ban-hammering and ip blocking ensued. Dean is a fuckwit. Bjones 10:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Time to get a new IP

Dean is in rare form today. Apparently he took a break from copying and pasting blog headlines to block every account I've made, and a few I don't even remember making. I wonder if asking the IT guy at my work how to get a new IP would sound suspicious....Bjones 10:47, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it was me who started it all, wasting those MikeX accounts. Now he has discovered CheckUser and likes to play with it. It's a pity as there are some good contributors in that block list, along with some funny parodists. I had a soft spot for Carolyn. Sigh! Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:50, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Crocoshite has had CheckUser for quite some time, and he's done this very often, going on a checkuser blocking rampage. Thankfully, as in the past, he hasn't hit any of my own socks. Yet. DogP 10:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

When he figures out how to use this all their troubles will be over. CЯacke® 10:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey Shite, you could have saved Carolyn. She was legitimate - I mean: could I fall in love with a sock?!? This was uncalled for. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Re: falling in love with a sock, there are at least literary precedents. Sort of. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, thanks for that AKjeldsen. I feel in good company now. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. ^_^ Just try to avoid committing suicide by jumping out from a townhall steeple. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't take literary suggestions so... literally. I have devised many ingenious ways to leave this world in the last few months. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 12:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It's my fault he went CheckUser crehzeh. I sent him an email about having more fun with blocks and he took my advice... go figure. Keklik 13:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

See what you get? Now CP is boring, no discussions, no talk, no PNAS letters. Is this what you really want? Shame on you :-D Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Best of demarcation

Currently the "best of" criteria is >=10 votes. This was established at a time when the average vote level was between 3-6 votes. >20 votes an amazing turn out, and >40 was practically unheard of. I notice now that we have a lot more voting coming in. I think it might be time to up the criteria to define a "best of" entry. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 11:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

While 20+ is still relatively rare, the "best of" criteria could go up a little. Once something breaks double figures it's definitely good (or at least has caught people's attentions in a big way) but not necessarily "best". Armondikov 11:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I noticed it too, but only in the last few days. Has it been going on for a longer time? Or should we wait and see if it will go back to old levels? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I have been seeing it as more of a gradual increase.....there is an easy way to figure this out. I will just pull the data from the database and plot it. Be back this afternoon with results. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 11:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

You rock, tmt. But take into account that perhaps... Conservapedia has gradually "improved" over time :-D Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, whether it's more RW traffic or CP "improving", it'll still need readjusted. Armondikov 11:56, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Instead of a hard-and-fast vote count, you could grade on a curve. Take the top 25% vote-getters, or somesuch.--WJThomas 12:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Eh? Why not just take the 90th percentile of the month's pickings? --JeevesMkII 12:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Are you Z-transforming that?--87.83.175.26 12:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

The data plots are now at Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?/Vote data. I think there is clear evidence of a gradual upwards trend, but it is fairly minor. However, 10 does seem to be a low cut off point based on the data. I would argue against a monthly percentile as a cut off because you can create a situation where crappy wigo items get in, or good ones get left out based on the fluctuating average per month. There shouldn't be an artificial min/max. Take a look at the data and let me know what you guys think. tmtoulouse ^frustrate 15:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it could be raised to 12 or 15 safely. Someone did notice that the BO transfer to August seemed a bit "bulky", we should go see if they were "really" good.

This site is growing rapidly! ħuman 21:14, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree with raising the standards for Best of to 15+ votes. Actually, that occurred to me a while ago. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(I know this'll sound idiotic but bare naked with me) Why not just take the entries that have significant votes and have a yea or nay page dedicated to Best Of? That way, any slight revisions and/or additions can be made to said entries before they are exalted and praised in our shrine of epic lulz. Just a thawt. Norseman^Wassail! 22:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Insight (or, fun with anagrams)

I've figured out why Dear Leader always runs from a fight: "Andrew Layton Schlafly" = "Fly then, nasally coward...".

In other news, "LearnTogether" = "enlarge the rot", "Phillip Rayment" = "thinly prim ape", and "DeanS/Crocoite" = "dance so erotic".--WJThomas 13:04, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice one! I have seen the future and it involves some very creatively named socks. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If only I had a "y" in one of my usernames... "NathanG/Kektklik" = "get khan talk kink_y" Keklik 13:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

No new account creation

I'm confused by all the powerz and rights at CP. Andy and only Andy decides when CP goes to sleep (night editing shut down), right? But what about new account creation? For example it has already been blocked many hours today and Andy hasn't been active today. Is it all Sysops? And do they have a reminder to put New account creation back? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Probably done to avoid the daily visit from Liberalist et al. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:34, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I think a certain amount of sysops have to use their special rights to unlock CP fury!!1!. Keklik 14:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Account creation is baaack. Bjones 15:36, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

No more fossils?

[13] Wait, what? Did Ken DeNier go crazy again? Barikada 17:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That would seem to imply that there was a time when he was, in fact, not completely crazy. I find that proposition doubtful. Bjones 17:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Which, of course, breaks this.(Not to metion these.) Brilliant. CЯacke® 18:02, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have (or can get) a copy of what was ON teh fossil page? Us no-nuttin's (vs, know nothings) don't have access to such lofty thingies.--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 18:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Google cached version here, dates from a month ago so might have been changed between this version & deletion. Can't see anything "inappropriate" about it - it presents both evolutionist & creatist perspective - but I guess this information was just too much for the creationists to stomach. weaseLOId~ 18:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

"This is Jane. See Jane Run. Run, Jane, Run!" too much information for creationists to stomach...--En attendant Godot_{"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov»} 18:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Andy - "We're building an encyclopedia here"
Ken - "Not if I can help it".
<facepalms> Cap'n Geng^{What d'ya say, Cap'n Flint?} 18:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It's easy to pinpoint what is wrong with the cached article.

The evolution section...

1. ...is longer than the Creation section.
2. ...accidentally debunks the "rapid fossilization" thing.
3. ...treats radiometric dating as something that actually works instead of the blind guessing Creationists try to make it look like.
4. ...also puts a speed bump in front of the whole "organic matter in fossils means they're young" argument.

On the other hand, the Creationism section...

1. ...comes only after the evolution section.
2. ...says that Creationists (implied: merely) believe in a young Earth.
3. ...fires off the "organic matter" and "rapid fossilization" arguments right after they have already been shot down.
4. ...fails to convince people that Creationism is correct - even by CP standards.

So expect Ken to "rewrite it" in the usual way: "Create, protect forever, add quotes by Creationists, smear non-Creationist scientists, cherry-pick a few 'candid quotes' from papers such as 'There are still many open questions about fossils but this paper shows that they can be answered in a satisfying way.' and link fossils to Hitler." --Sid 20:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a well known fact that Hitler had his Nazis create fake fossils in order to prove that evolution happens. He was such a well known Evolutionist. I mean, he only misunderstood the whole idea of natural selection. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Weird. I hit "random page" and got cp:Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, which they "unstubbed" by.... listing the lyrics. Which are, of course, copyrighted. ħuman 21:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Ha ha ha! Ken comes up with an "answer" for his deletion. Goebbels and Hitler get a mention. Maybe we should base a new drinking game on how many times Ken mentions Hitler, or Nazi. Clearly the fuckwit hasn't heard of the AFD process, or mostly likely, doesn't care. Any socks want to complain in that dusty mausoleum that is the 'abuse' section? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:55, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Lippy chimp?

Oh please does anyone have a copy of Image:Lippychimp.jpg that Dean just deleted? That sounds like that would have been fun. --BoredCPer 21:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

If memory serves, it was a pic of a chimpanzee with red lipstick and oversized eyeglasses. Looked a bit like Andy's mommy. I'm wondering, too, what sort of "unauthorized use" he feared.--WJThomas 22:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah! Looks like somebody's been paying close attention to the idiot competition.--WJThomas 22:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

J'accuse either Fuzzy Kettleticket who is now spying on us (bravo!), or Dean read it himself. In which case - Dean - you're a fucking arsehole! DogP 22:38, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I was at church for the past 6 hours. Sorry, I couldn't do any spying. Keklik 23:39, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

SIX HOURS in church?!?!?!?! What does one do in church for six whole hours? That's some pretty serious praying. (Unless it was this church, of course....)PFoster 23:42, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Nope.. it wasn't a service. It was actually set-up for a service. Tomorrow my church is having an outdoors worship thingy. We had to sound check everything, set up lights, make sure the camera and projector are in working order and lots of other junk. Not fun. Keklik 00:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not fun eh? You know if you waz an atheist you could have sat around the house drinking. Works for me. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

If you were a scientologist you could have Improved your Communication Skills Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

For pre-clears, there's nothing more worthwhile than a good auditing. DickTurpis 01:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Gallup rationality study

That study on the "rationality" of Christians is actually pretty funny. Can they honestly say with a straight face that Christians are less likely to believe in "pseudoscience" than non-believers? What about the pseudoscience known as Creationism? Oops. I guess someone forgot to count that. "Do dreams foretell the future?" Of course not! Who would believe that. Oh wait. It happens in the Bible. "What about ghosts?" Of course not! Well, there is that one. All the study shows is that Christians are less likely to adhere to some irrational beliefs because they are contradicted by another set of irrational beliefs of their own. They even cite "demonic possession" as a superstitious belief. Remind me, is it, say, the Catholic Church, or is it atheists who believe that people are possessed by Satan? That might as well argue that being a Christian makes one less likely to believe in Vishnu than the population at large. No shit. Wonderful how they lump atheists and New Agey folk into one category? Oh, and Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, if you actually had the brains to comprehend anything you've read at this site, you'd know that it is dedicated to countering all irrational ideas, including pseudoscience, superstition, and the supernatural. And that Maher! What an idiot he is! He doesn't even believe in vaccines! Oh......wait.... DickTurpis 00:28, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Of course Mr. Turpis, dont you know the belief in some invisible, all knowing, all seeing man that can read your thoughts is the height of rational thinking. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It does make me wonder, it's not the first of April anywhere, is it? Is the Wall Street Journal writing parody pieces all of a sudden? DickTurpis 00:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The study actually makes sense to me. When you believe in a single voice of all-encompassing authority, you are more likely to exclude possibilities not accepted by that authority. Many Christians believe that the Bible and their preachers are the voice of authority on virtually all matters, so naturally when that authority precludes belief in ghosts only a smaller percentage will believe in ghosts. People who do not accept such authority don't have that preclusion, so a larger percentage will be more willing to accept the paranormal and pseudoscience. It's not a happy fact for me as an atheist, but it's something I have to acknowledge.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The problem with the study is it defines "I think Amazing Larry the Miracleman raised the dead and walked on water" as an irrational superstition, but "I believe Jesus Christ raised the dead and walked on water" as a rational idea that has greater merit. A person who thinks "Maybe there are haunted places. There are many reports of them, and there is stuff beyond my understanding" is irrational and a person who says "there are no haunted places because my clergyman says there aren't" is rational. If you stack the deck that way then of course Christians are going to come off as more "rational". All the study shows is that many non-Christians still have some wacky beliefs. Tom Cruise has made that very clear to us already. Anyway, I'd like to see the actual study, not some nut-job's commentary on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it gave a different picture. DickTurpis 02:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that no one on Conservapedia bothered to read the survey and the actual findings. But examining the actual findings shows a variation of only about 5% between the most extreme ends of the scale of paranormal belief. As examples, the poll found that the most frequent church attendees were 24.68% likely to believe in paranormal topics compared to 28.88% for the most infrequent attendees; Evangelicals were 25.43% likely to believe in such topics, whereas "non-Christian" theists were most likely to believe at 30.81%.

What the study actually demonstrates along these lines is that the people who are most likely to believe in paranormal topics are religious non-Christians. The "none" category (agnostics, atheists, and apatheists) demonstrated only a 27.1 average paranormal score, compared to evangelical Protestants at 25.4 and "other" (unlisted religious) at 30.8.

The most interesting pertinent statistic in the study is paranormal belief by church attendance. Those who attended church weekly had a markedly lower score than all other sectors, 24.7 points. Those who attend church "less than once a week," "less than once a month," and "never" were all within less than one percentage point of each other. It supports my proposal about the voice of authority, certainly.

The study's methodology is sound; I can find little fault with the survey or the assessments. But their summary is a hatchet-job pandering to their own beliefs (since it's from the Baylor Institute of Religion specifically), and so is the WSJ piece (little surprise there).--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not surprisingly, the actual study sounds substantially more reasonable than the CP and WSJ summaries. Do you have a link? However, I still have some beef if they are not counting, say, belief that a wafer becomes the body of Christ as a "paranormal belief" just because it is adhered to by a mainstream religion. That's pretty damn paranormal, and should drive up the percentage of Christian theists believing in the paranormal (at least among devout Catholics) by a substantial amount. DickTurpis 03:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Survey and results are here.

Like it or not, mainstream religious beliefs are not considered "paranormal." I don't consider them that way, either, for that matter. It's a matter of definition more than anything else. Still, your point is well-taken.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 03:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I looked at the actual surveys. One has a 14 page survey with 84 multi-part questions (some have 10 or more parts) and of this only 4 parts of one 12 part question deal with the paranormal at all, asking whether the subject thinks these exist, and how strongly: ghosts, extraterrestrial life, bigfoot, and psychic phenomena. Also asked in the same question are belief in the Rapture, hell, armageddon, and various other Christian concepts no less paranormal than ESP. The survey itself makes no distinction between the apparently "paranormal" beliefs and the mainstream religious ones. Anyone reading that non-Christians are more likely to believe in the paranormal because they checked the "ghosts" box more than Christians is giving their own interpretation of the data on deciding which of those are paranormal (eg ghosts are but demons are not). Additionally, if by Extraterrestrials they mean any life in the universe apart from Earth, then strongly believing in them isn't paranormal or irrational at all. Mathematically, it's a pretty good bet. This isn't the same as UFOs.

The other survey (the earlier one) has a section on "The New Age" with 4 multi-part questions. Right off the bat, they're sort of poisoning the well. Many Christians, seeing the heading "New Age" are likely to reject everything therein. What follows includes some pretty unclear questions. To what extent do you agree: "Ancient advanced civilizations, such as Atlantis, once existed?" Well, advanced (defending on how you use the term) ancient civilizations existed, just not Atlantis, so I don't even know how to answer such a question. If I disagree am I saying there were no advanced civilizations, or am I denying Atlantis? "Some alternative treatments are at least as effective as traditional medicine?" Some? Maybe. Alternative medicine can become mainstream you know. "Dreams can sometimes foretell the future or reveal hidden truths?" Revealing hidden truths is unclear. If by "hidden truths" they mean "things known only subconsciously" then there is probably widespread belief that dreams can connect with the subconsious. By if by hidden truths they mean "show you where Jimmy Hoffa is buried" then they're asking an entirely different question. The subconscious is not paranormal so anyone answering the question in that sense is not making any statement about paranormal beliefs.

The next question asks if as an adult you have ever: "consulted a Ouija board to contact a deceased person or spirit?" I did once not believing any of it. It was a game. Does that count? "Had a dream that later came true?" I once dreamt I found my missing remote control in the seat cushions. I found it there the next day. Hardly remarkable, but technically I suppose that makes the answer "yes". The next question asks if you've ever researched various topics, including astrology, UFOs, ghosts, Nostradamus, and other such things, almost all of which I've at least looked up on Wikipedia at some point. If they are counting this as belief in the paranormal, they are quite mistaken.

Looking at the results, the only belief that scored high was the belief in alternative medicine, which in most cases is hardly "paranormal". Dreams scored just above 50%, which again, is not necessarily a question about the paranormal. Atlantis scored pretty high, making me wonder if people were answering a question on ancient civilizations or Atlantis is particular. The only other to clear 30% was belief in haunted houses. The answers to the belief in 10 "paranormal" phenomenon were combined to get total results (the 10 being Atlantis, alternative meds, telekinesis, psychics, astrology, talking to the dead, haunted houses, dreams, UFOs, and monsters (Bigfoot and Nessy mentioned by name)). So we have three questions not really about paranormal activities highly skewing the results in a question allegedly about paranormal activities. And, of course, the results do not vary widely among any of the groups. Evangelical Protestant had the lowest with 25.4 (this is not a percentage, I believe, but a cumulative score. But I could be wrong, it's nearly 5 AM and I haven't been to bed yet). Non-religious got 27.1, below the average of 27.4, and less than all the remaining groups except Jews who scored 26.6. In addition to this, it does not define any religious belief, no matter how scientifically invalid, as being paranormal. WSJ's and CP's assertions that non-believers are "less rational" is utterly flawed. Time for bed. DickTurpis 05:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Nice post, Dick. There is certainly a muddying of the waters over what construes "paranormal". But intercessionary prayer, bleeding statues, resurrection form the dead, crackers turning into flesh, water turning into wine and wine turning into blood, sharing five loaves and two little fishes between several hundred(?) people, and dinosaurs coexisting with humans of course are all perfectly rational beliefs. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I think you pick at it a little too closely; the questions on the current survey (the latest one) seemed to me to be generally fair attempts. Things like the Ouija board are just you overinterpreting it a bit... few are really going to think that the use of the board while laughing at it as nothing more than a game interprets to an attempt to "contact a deceased person." Similarly, "UFO" has the universally-understood connotation of ETs having visited earth (and thus becoming UFOs), with all the associated connections. For almost everyone, a surface interpretation of the question will be used, and that will obtain the desired result. It's a sound survey.

You're right about the score; they took the numerically-indicated level of belief (1 for strong disbelief, up to 5 for strong belief) and added them together for the ten paranormal things, resulting in a total skeptic of 10 or a total believer at 50.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Sigh. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey let's do a poll!

What do you believe in? Sign your name below anything you have a positive belief in. Feel free to add more (phrenology, alchemy, scientology, what have you), but try to keep snark to a minimum, I'm actually curious about this. DickTurpis 00:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

God (Judeo/Christian/Islamic)

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. Unsure (leaning towards No) SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Totnesmartin
5. No 86.152.83.126 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT) Matt oblong 05:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No Lardashe
7. Yes, but I'm not a fundy, I swear. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Judeo/Christian (not the same as islamic)

1. Yes --CPAdmin1 09:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

God (other)

1. Please vote. I'm awfully lonely in this cold, depopulated poll :(Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. no  ^Contribs_Talk
3. Same as above SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Only at times when I think things like "If there was a Big Bang, where did that 1 proton come from?" and "What was before the big bang?". It helps to think that before "nothing" became "everything", there was Bob (or the Great Green Arklseizure or something). It can be neatly plastered over the bits science can't answer yet. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Well, believing doesn't hurt. I'm in! Etc 04:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No - not the old sky-daddy kind. Matt oblong 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No Lardashe
9. No --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. First define this non-Judeo/Christian "god". After that, no. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ghosts

1. I reckon that ghosts can be explained by electromagnetic activity. Our brains run on electricity, the earth itsself has an electromagnetic field. When someone dies a vicious death, their brain is working overtime, neurons are firing and the whole brain is active. That leaves an imprint on the electromagnetic field of the earth. Then, when the field is charged (say during a lighting storm - explaining the cliche of ghosts appearing during a stormy night) the imprint is revealed. Also, pyschics cant communicate with the dead but they are more intune with the electric feild than others may be. I am just saying...Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

You are kidding, right? Please?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I never kid, I am just not that funny. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 07:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. Slight possiblity SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. I don't, but I'm not willing to write them off just yet either. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes, but not as some remnant of what keeps us alive - more like a recording onto the surroundings. Totnesmartin 05:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No - Someone would have got a convincing picture by now. Matt oblong 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No Lardashe
7. Unsure, leaning towards yes. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. No. I don't believe we have non-corporeal parts which can linger after death.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Astrology

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No--PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No Totnesmartin
4. No - And if it was true I don't believe the nut-balls-goat-spongers who pedal this crap are the least bit qualified to do it. Matt oblong 05:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Lardashe
6. No, but it does make for good conversation when all else fails. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. NO.

Bigfoot

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No (ditto Loch Ness et al) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Probably not. Totnesmartin
4. No. Lardashe
5. No. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Not an impossibility. But I think we would have some better evidence for them if they were real. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Psychic powers

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. This one is complicated... Ask me on my user page if you're really interested, it'll take awhile to explain SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Not explicitly, but there do seem to be cases where people have 'some' kind of power. Like SirChuck said, this one is complicated. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes. Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Lardashe
6. Yes, but in far fewer people than claim to have them. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. No. I'm with James Randi on this one. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The ability to communicate with the dead

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. No Totnesmartin 05:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Lardashe
5. Yes, but only if they're ghosts tapping on the pipes or some such. And then anyone can do it... if the ghost is willing to tap morse code. 8^P --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. The dead cannot communicate: they're dead.--Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Atlantis

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. Yes, but it's under the wrong name. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. If SirChuck is referring to Crust Displacement, then I'm with him. It's not Atlantis, it's Antarctica. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes, but it's under the wrong sea. Etc 04:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. No Totnesmartin 05:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No, but it'd be cool! Lardashe
7. Possibly. Might be under Antarctica. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Not an impossibility, but likely to be mythical. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Faeries

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. No (and not even Conan-Doyle can convince me) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Sadly, the bottom of my garden contains mostly slugs. Totnesmartin 05:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No Lardashe
5. I Do Believe in Faries! I Do Believe in Faries! *Claps Hands.* --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. And Doreen Virtue, "PhD", makes my blood boil. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Witches (not Wiccans)

1. no  ^Contribs_Talk
2. I believe in the power of belief in witchcraft, which also has nothing to do with Wicca (strange distinction made in the heading, I think.) There are people who believe they are witches, or witchdoctors, or sangomas, or tonton macoute (sp?) and there are people who believe in the powers of those people and that is what gives them their power. make sense? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. If you mean cackling old women flying around on broomsticks and turning people into frogs, then no. If you mean non-cackling old women making herbal remedies and potions which may or may not work, then yes, I've got some on my phone. Totnesmartin 05:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. No. Regardless of the existence of those who claim themselves witches, they hold no real power that would make them 'witches' Lardashe
5. Um... no. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. There are plenty of people claiming to be, but I don't believe that any of them have any magical powers, or that their spells and potions have any effect other than the placebo effect. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

UFOs

1. If by this you mean "life from other planets that might conceivably have swung within eyeball distance of the Earth at some point in history" PFoster 00:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. no  ^Contribs_Talk
3. If you mean aliens, probably not. But there are many unidentified objects still awaiting explanation SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. I find it hard to believe that given the size of this universe, we are alone, but I find it equally hard to believe that they would be so technologically far ahead of us. So, if the question is UFOs only, then no. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. There is some kind of atmospheric phenomenon which science hasn't got round to explaining yet (and probably is shy of looking at because of all the crankery) - no evidence that it's aliens from Zeta Reticuli though. Totnesmartin 05:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No - though in the strictest sense of the acronym, yes. In the sense of aliens visiting our planet, no. Lardashe
7. Maybe. Call me if they land. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Once again, it's a possibility. But the manner in which they get reported is so similar to the reporting of fairies and ghosts that I don't believe aliens have visited us yet. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Spring Heeled Jack (not the ska band)

1. Much like the Monkey Man of India, spring heel jack was probably the result of hysteria Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean you're not voting for it being true? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

1. No, there were murders (I think) and thy were around the time of JtR (again, I think) so witness's descriptions were probably blown up out of proportion. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Yes, it was the work of a prctical joker (the Marquis of Waterford IIRC). Totnesmartin 05:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Huh? --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Never heard of it. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

That there is something "paranormal"

It cannot be explained by science (or has not been adequately explained) (you should probably clarify what you actually believe here; interpret as you will)

1. I'm sort of open to this, though I can't say I believe in anything specifically. I have seen some things I am at a loss to explain. DickTurpis 00:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Dark matter. (Note: that would be "isn't" rather than "cannot be explained by science...) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 00:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
3. Several things, but a more accurate explanation is cannot be verified by science for the moment) SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 01:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. There is still much that isn't explained by science (go back to my Big Bang musings), but that doesn't imply I'll immediately substitute woo for that. Science will get there eventually - flight was still woo 150 years ago. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. I've had personal experience of a poltergeist, so i find it hard to dismiss witness evidence if it's consistent, independent and honestly reported. This fails scientic method, and there's the danger of woo, but there seems to be stuff that science hasn't got to yet, and might not in our lifetimes. Totnesmartin 05:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. No. That which cannot be explained just can't be explained yet. Lardashe
7. I'm sure there's SOMETHING. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. You'd need to define "paranormal" first. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Love

1. yes   ^Contribs_Talk
2. Yay! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 01:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT
3. Well, yeah, but this one isn't terribly controversial (disregarding Assfly's "atheistic substitution for love" bullshit or whatever it was). I also believe in sandwiches, but I'm not going to create an entry for that. Oh, and should we be numbering these if people are going to post "no"? I will throw off the count and make the final numbers meaningless. DickTurpis 02:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
4. Yes. But what is it doing in such a list as this?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
5. Wee! This is much more fun than the other things. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
6. Love is 40 years' of marriage. Or 3 minutes of squelching noises. Your call. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
7. Yes - as I can't disagree with Susan. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 04:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
8. Yes! Totnesmartin 05:32, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
9. I have the most beautiful girlfriend. Love. Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!} 07:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
10. Yes. But it's not as mystical as it's been made out to be. Lardashe
11. Yes, but don't confuse passion for love. The fires of passion dim in time, but the embers of love, well tended will continue to keep you warm. God that's cheesy... did I lift that from someplace? I can't have just made that up. --Wren 08:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
12. But of course! --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Homer Simpson

1. The Simpsons is a reality show, everyone knows that. Etc 05:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. I don't believe anything I see on television, but I do believe DickTurpis has got bored by now Totnesmartin 05:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

DickTurpis has got bored by now

1. No. Etc 09:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
2. Me too. I'd rather discuss any of the above than merely have us all state our opinions. --Johann 09:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

None of the above

(note:Love added afte Damo's contrib)

1. --Damo^Hi 00:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Poll saturation

This place is turning into PollWiki - every day hour a new one - boring!   ^Contribs_Talk 02:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Disagree

1. You can't fight satire. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 02:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Robin Hood

1. NightFlare^{i haz a talk page.} 05:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wrong! It's actually Sir Angus of the Prune disguised as Robin Hood disguised as Sir Angus of the Prune. --JeevesMkII 07:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Historical Quote

Doesn't this quote off the front page "Look at nature, work independently, and solve your own problems." sort of fly in the face of fundie belief? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 01:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not at all. "Look at nature (i.e. the Bible, the natural word of God), work independently (study your Bible in an independent manner) and solve your own problems (through the study of Bible and prayer)" Where's the issue with that? DickTurpis 01:11, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Fundamentalism grew out of the Protestant idea of personal interpretation of the Bible, so it's reasonable to see it there. Totnesmartin 05:35, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Lenski statistics

Andy keeps complaining about combining different samples: "The studies were not combined in a logical manner". I'm blocked, but has anyone asked over there if he's read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used (pdf here)? And if he has had read it, which bit exactly does he think is wrong? alt 06:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It probably was asked. It goes in the big pile of statistical questions Andy has ignored. It's pretty obvious that he just doesn't really understand the statistics involved; he was fed his "objections" by another CP user, he didn't think of them himself.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It is blatantly obvious to everyone, including the sysops and other sympathetic editors. And they all read here, so it's not like they don't know about it. And not one of them has the balls to say anything. HELLO CHAPS! THE EMPEROR IS PARADING UP AND DOWN THE INTERNET WITH NO CLOTHES ON!!! 121.44.9.208 08:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

RJJensen

RJJensen - not to be confused with AKjeldsen - is becoming too good a contributor. In the very remote case of other as good contributors coming on board, Conservapedia could regain some credibility, and we don't want it, do we? So should we convince RJJensen to abandon the sinking ship? Other suggestions? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:42, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wasnt RJensen roughed up at citizendom and found his way to CP? Ace McWicked^{55.3 million page views!}

Something along those lines - we received a request not to harass him a while back. I haven't checked his work (it falls out of my area of expertise) but he seems to be concentrating mostly on history - not sure with how much bias though. I'm sure Bugler will latch on to him soon enough. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)