Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

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

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

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

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

The fate of gun control

If the fate of gun control depends on Andy Schlafly, then the NRA might as well pack it in now, and beat their AK-47's into plowshares or something. MDB 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's writing an amicus curiae brief. They're probably not even going to read it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For information from WP:

An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court.

An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.

(my emphasis) In cognito 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, isn't an amicus curiae brief the Supreme Court equivalent of a letter to a Congress-critter or the President, albeit with legalese? I can imagine Andy's letter now:

Dear Justices:

There are too many liberals nowadays. Please eliminate three million. I am not a crackpot.

Yours, etc,

Andrew L. Schlafly (Esq) (Mrs.) MDB 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! A python fan! 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but (a) As incomprehensible as Andy is, even poorly written amicus briefs filed at SCOTUS are much more coherent than, say, letters to the editor, and (b) They only get a few (less than 50 or so) briefs per case (c) Every justice has several clerks (d) The briefs are organized, with tables of contents, so readers can skip parts that are redundant.

OTOH, it is hilarious that Andy thinks the court's decision is up to him. This is the best Andinsanity I've ever seen, since it extends beyond the bounds of his wikirealm. Coarb 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's at least a close second to the FBI Incident. Maybe Andy will also try to influence the gay marriage bill that is floating around the NJ legislature right now? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Andy's writing is not so good. Here's the AAPS amicus brief from the DC v. Heller case if anyone's interested. His alleged McDonald v. City of Chicago amicus brief isn't posted yet. 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can tell from the writing style that it is Andy. Loved the "gun control = genocide" bit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) "The Primary Use of Guns Is Defensive, Having a Beneficial Effect." Classic Andy right there. But more to the point, the AAPS, an organization of medical doctors, are filing and amicus brief supporting the propagation of a device that exists only to kill people? WTF? TheoryOfPractice 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The opening bit explaining what the AAPS and why they care about gun control is a bit distressing. I don't know about you, but there seems to be something almost unholy about a group of pistol-packing-physicians (would make a good grindhouse movie, though). Kaalis 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OMFG!!! "Had someone used a gun to avert the 9/11 massacre, it would not have generated anything near the news that did result." You have to be fucking kidding me.... SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if he ever considers that four times in about 150 years^(?) US Presidents have been killed using the defensive weapon of gun? (not to forget the incident that triggered^(hee) the first World War.) In cognito 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 bit destroyed my last respect for the man (yes, I still had some left for some reason). DEAR GOD, WHAT THE HELL? --Sid 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his strangest argument is his idea that children, if armed with a firearm, could overcome a normally more powerful aggressor. Because, you know, it would probably be better if every child had a gun in their backpack just in case a bad guy came after them on the way home from school. No way that could go wrong. Oh. And I loved the reference to Hollywood bias. -- JArneal 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just staggeringly funny. There exists an organization crazy enough to have Andy file briefs with the SCOTUS on their behalf, and he drowns the page with the most absurd Andyisms imaginable. Is it too much to expect "Dear Supreme Court. No one denies that autumn leaves are beautiful except evolutionists, and since doctors defend against medical tyranny and the incroachment of relativity with guns, we cannot allow highschoolers to watch Colbert. 2+2=4. I await my appointment as President. - Andy." 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He is just as wacky a guy outside the wiki as he is inside. ^{Side note: I sent him a (sincere) email once, and he signed his reply "In Christ"} I was (almost) surprised he didn't write "Supreme Court" (please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

after reading the brief from the link above , my basic reaction was WTF !!! but I did like this bit quote: Gun control makes citizens, particularly children and mentally disabled people, unprotected targets for crime. The right to bear arms enables these targets to obtain protection. Hamster 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Vaccines could be taken as a public health analogy for guns." WTF??? About the only Andyism I haven't found in there is gun control causes breast cancer. I assume this drivel was laughed out of court? Oh yes, and if Anne Frank had a gun, she would have kicked Nazi ass, apparently. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"The AHPA brief claims that the risk of firearm related death is greater in homes with guns than homes without, but again, such data are defective for failure to specify who fired the gun and whether the gun in the home was the one fired. There is much reason to expect that most of their deaths were by criminal assailants and the presence of the gun in the home had nothing to do with the death." Jesus, point missed much, Andy. Where the fuck did the criminal assailants get the gun, you idiot? With tighter gun control, they might not have had one. --PsygremlinTala! 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the many contradictions stuck out for me. At first, Andy states Virtually all medical professionals support use of drugs and vaccines that cause serious adverse effects as long as they confer greater benefits, yet that basic analytical approach is missing from Petitioners’ Medical Amici. on page 10. Then, on Pg. 15; By focusing only on harm resultant from an activity, those submissions falsely conclude that gun ownership is itself harmful. With that approach they would conclude that vaccines, heart surgery, and even bathtubs are harmful and could be profitably banned. But all those products and services – like the ownership of guns – confer benefits that far exceed the attendant harm.

I'm not sure if my eyes are filled with liberal deceit, but methinks Andy downed Vaccines in one paragraph then said they were beneficial later. I don't think he did much proofreading after he completed this 'work'. -- CodyH 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pianist

I might have missed something, but what did JDWpianist do to get^img Godspeeded^img? _& marmite^chat 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See the thing about Jinx above. JDW dared to question whether global warming might be true. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost sort of sad to see the pianist get the banhammer. His contributions to the article on Vienna are the reason I'm here. I tried to sign up to Conservapedia so I could correct some of his more egregious factual errors but my IP address was blocked. In fact pretty much my entire island was blocked; not exactly surgical precision seeing how we were roughly half a million people. I mailed the blocking sysop as per the relevant instructions in the Editor's Guide and politely asked to be allowed to register; the sysop replied he wouldn't help me unless I first confessed to the crimes that got me blocked in the first place. The rest, as they say, is history. Mountain Blue 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He rises from the grave^img to tattle on TK. Sadly, Andy says he "investigate" and we all know what that means... --PsygremlinFale! 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You Should be Ashamed of yourselves!

Dear Rationalwiki,

You need to look at yourselves and your lives and the amount of time you spend harassing conservapedia and Mr. Schlafly. I have been a faithful reader of conservapedia for several months now, and then I stumbled upon this website and I am disgusted by the content of this page. Why do you feel it necessariy to tear apart everything Mr. Schlafly has worked so hard to build? What is wrong with spreading conservative values and the word of god? Mr. Schlafly is a brilliant man and willing to take on the vast amount of liberal bias that exists in America today. So to question his mental health and resort to name calling is just immature and childish. I suggest you open your minds and read what conservapedia has to say. Godspeed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Seeker / talk / contribs}

Hilarious. Perfect bit of parody--except a true Schlaflyite would have never written "God" with a lower-case "g" as you did. Otherwise, nice bit of parody. TheoryOfPractice 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is this? My money is on Neveruse. - π 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I should have capitalized god. How liberal of me. I was actually hoping conservapedians might think they have someone sticking up for them. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Just for the record, I think they are all crazy over at cp. I was actually the one who posted the question about global warming logic, which I was promptly blocked for, only to have them repost it with that ridiculous response. Does anyone else find conservapedia is like crack? You know it rots your brain, but you just keep going back to it.--Seeker 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it makes me feel terrible about myself, no matter what good I do in the world. --Crazyswordsman 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the subtleties you have to master. A REAL Schlaflette wouldn't have even posted on RW. ^sshole 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the proper etiquette for something good on conservapedia?

I found something really good in an article, something that displays the ignorance of someone they like, but like parody I don't want to point it out. Do I just sit quietly and smile? --Opcn 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. If you send me an email we can both smile at it. - π 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Forward, please. TheoryOfPractice 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too! I could use a laugh. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Email all of us! ħuman 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Except whoever is running "TK" this week, of course. ħuman 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was TK last week. Me too, please. Corry 05:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Next time, wait a while before posting. I correlated your post time with the logs for CP article views, and then matched time periods for those ips for against the times that you were online at this vandal site. In short, busted. Bye.^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.59.123 / talk / contribs}

What a fanciful lie. - π 05:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I was watching NCIS, I wish I were that cool.

It could happen though. Heck, once we implement GTS (Google Total Surveillance), its not a matter of what you can know so much as how much you're prepared to pay to know.

Sounds like Science to me. Hot and Rational! Let's start a wiki! ħuman 06:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has been up for a while, I can't believe no one caught it. I emailed it on to those who asked, not TK Corry, who I do not particularly recognize :) Tracked it down to it's source, Assfly expunged most of the original post by the long ago blocked editor, but left the damning part --Opcn 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite funny, although I doubt they would see anything wrong with it. - π 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm intrigued... it's not "the cause of birth defects is the will of God" is it? ^sshole 10:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody mailed me :( Now I feel all left out and in need of a hug. --Psygremlin講話 12:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to you. You should blog about it. - π 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Schweet. Off to have a gander. Anything that saves me blogging about Ken - the stupidity overload from reading his stuff is bordering on dangerous levels. --Psygremlin말하십시오 12:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Although I'm wondering if I missed the point. Still it was an interesting bit of research. --PsygremlinTal! 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thay was awesome. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too please, Opcn. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me three? Pietrow 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Thanks for the mail Gremlin. Pietrow 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OOooh, that's very nice! Thanks for the email Opcn. Fucking idiots. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please pass it on to me?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Psy. It is quite funny. I suspect that even if we pointed it out they would defend it rather than remove it...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should do this more often. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read this conversation and cannot find out what it is then you belong at cp, kind of misses the point of the quietness, but good blog entry. --Opcn 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Well CP have picked this up, and are now defending it by saying

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it. In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of George Washington on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9). George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the Declaration of Independence and later writings.

I don't now enough about American history to analyse this further. CS Miller 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it - "under God" was only added in 1954 to detract from the fact the pledge was written by a socialist and MacCarthyism was rife at the time. (btw adding "under God" makes it a prayer, so if kids are saying it at school, then there is prayer in the classroom, so what's Schlafly's problem?) What CP have done is said "Washington said 'under God'. Washington was a founding father, ergo ALL founding fathers would have said 'under God'". The founding fathers have about as much to do with the Pledge as I do. --PsygremlinTal! 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington also said (wrote) "and bedew no man’s face with your spittle by approaching too near when you speak. " I suggest we amend our pledge to read "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and bedew no man’s face with your spittle " --Opcn 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That. Is. Brilliant. God bless Sarah Palin. (I'd still nail her though) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Leisure reading

Now that I have time to read for pleasure (for a little while) I've finally dug into The Greatest Show On Earth. The Lenski discussion is great, and the postscript shoutout to CP is hilarious. That's all. Corry 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I bought it a while back but haven't found the time to delve into it yet. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just taken his "Ancestor's Tale" out of the library. hopefully he isn't as shrill in this as in God Delusion. Also got the Dancing WuLi Masters, which looks a promising "physics for teh terminally dumb" book. --PsygremlinPrata! 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just finished Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith and Revolution, in which the distinguished, Marxist, atheist scholar takes "Ditchkins" (Hitchens and Dawkins) to task for their un-nuanced and unsubtle views on religion. Not an awesome book, but an interesting read. TheoryOfPractice 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard him give a fantastic lecture this past spring from a (then) forthcoming book. Was this one anything about the nature of evil? Junggai 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

CP site down?

Is anyone else having trouble getting onto CP? I keep getting when when trying to access any page (even main page)

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Has CP finally gone totally round the bend and blocked those evil socialist evilutionists in Europe from even seeing CP? Been like this for a good 12 hours -- 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's OK for me. Try again. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your IP might be blocked. No problem for me. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might have got blocked if you were involved with any pageview bumping. I believe that several people had a similar fate a couple of months ago when the 100 million page views millstone was reached. I haven't really checked my stats but it looks like it's still happening and that's why main page left is stuck at 105m although the stats show 141m. I have a sneaking suspicion that at some point it will all be forgotten and some arse (you know who you are) will just update MPL with the current value. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I get that on my work PC as thats where I edited as JJacob from. Ace^McWicked 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Think it's my buildings IP, still blocked here but it's fine on campus. -- 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, "millstone". ħuman 09:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Geo.plrd's talkpage

Yeah that is exactly how a wiki should be run. - π 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on talkpages what is missing^img? - π 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Both events are tied to the stuff that's described in the above "Jacob versus Jpatt and Geo.plrd" section. Summary: Geo removed some of Andy's drivel (overruling Jacob who wanted to keep it), Jacob points it out, TK gets involved, things get potentially messy, Geo realizes that he stepped onto a landmine and locks everybody out so he can likely insult them in private. --Sid 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Day by day, Conservapedia really does seem to be sliding further and further into some kind of Soviet dictatorship- you can't even address the admins now. They just shit on everyone the second they create an account and that's that. SJ ^Debaser 12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Geo's not a big one for talking - it was him who arbitrarily shut down the abuse page too. Luckily we've got his wikepedia page to chat on if we must. --PsygremlinSiarad! 12:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Geo's steps for dealing with abuse reports: (1) "The sysop had good reason to do this." (or: "I know what I'm doing.") (2) "No, I don't know said reason or any details." (or: "So maybe I don't know what I'm doing. I'm still right.") (3) "You know, I think you're right th-... hold on." (4) *picks up phone* "This is Geo. ... Hey TK, how's it going? ... Ah. ... Oh. ... Yes, Master." *click* (5) "Shut the fuck up, you fucking peon! Don't question the sysops! Besides, what do I have to do with this? Fuck off!" --Sid 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the body empowered to consider appeals is /dev/null. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the Student Panel? Given the current status of the Student Panel it is the same as /dev/null, but anyway. - π 01:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I had this handy hand-held deviced that let out a high pitched scream and melted after reading ...I went to another wiki, Conservapedia. There I developed my "people skills" that had been sadly lacking.... My god, what were they like beforehand, if these are the skills you've learned? PsygremlinPraat! 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining? Much? Ajkgordon 09:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

CP "Liberal hate speech" articles posted on Craigslist.

So the Ann Arbor Craigslist "Rants and Raves" section is currently peppered with entries titled "Liberal hate speech against persons with disabilities", "Liberal hate speech against women," and several others that are cut-and-pated from the CP "Liberal hate speech" article--right down to the footnote numbers (w/out corresponding references). CP is legion. TheoryOfPractice 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as "extra chromosome" being offensive to people with Down's Syndrome and my palm collided with my head. Is it worth going further? ^sshole 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's just nice to know someone is reading/using CP in the liberal bubble. If I wasn't ip blocked I'd post something on Andy's page congratulating him on spreading his message...TheoryOfPractice 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I read most of that article, and found a good portion of their refrences to be either A) Anonomous Comments online B) Comedians (Seriously) or C) things that are completely unrelated to hate-speech against a person (I.E. "Obama called Sarah Palin a Pig")--Passerby25 18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this one: "Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota peddled a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Stupid Idiot, viciously ridiculing a person struggling with obesity and hearing disabilities." Now, you can't argue that he wasn't attacking Rushbo's weight.... But I have read that book several times, and he never brings up anything about "hearing" disabilities... and considering all of the ad hom and vicious insults Rush makes about people everyday, I think he can take it. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all just part of their tactic of portraying a conservative as the poor, poor victim. Doesn't matter if anybody actually mocked him for it, just list every pity-worthy part and hope that your readers will go "How could anybody attack such a poor guy?" --Sid 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

...and again, another CP article on the local Craigslist. TheoryOfPractice 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you figure it was an out-of-state (=NYC) UM student weenie wot posted that, some vile Ypsituckian, or a true-blue redneck Michigander? 68.49.249.43 04:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's just a typo but...

KAL Bert's new essay project is off to an inauspicious start^img. TheoryOfPractice 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll buy a round of internet beer if Andy can get through this tossed salad of run-on sentences, misused comas, and half-baked theology. Needs conservative conciseness. Concise-osity? --Simple 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy reads this stuff? I assumed he just goes by the username and skims a half-dozen sentences here and there to make sure there's no sneaky liberalism, and assumes the rest. --Kels 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy reads stuff? --Sid 10:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PZ pwns Andy

Yes, I know we did it first, but I liked his line "the only reason scientists huff and puff about what's actually out there is to get you to stop reading your Bibles." --PsygremlinRunāt! 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy must feel like The Omega Man.--Thanatos 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much PZ got when he pawned Andy. Can't imagine he has much resale value. --Kels 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now gentleman kels, have pity on an old man - I can't keep up with you young 'uns and your terminology. I'm still getting used to 'groovy' and 'daddy-o'. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "a" in PWN (pronounced Pown, memetically the offspring of "Own" and a qwerty keyboard) --Opcn 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, in my brain I've always pronounced it 'poon', because I learned the word cwm first. Thus I try not to say it out loud for fear of mockery.--Martin Arrowsmith 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My own embarrassing pronunciation story lies with "fuck". At primary school, my friends and I had only ever seen it written down so we said it as (and excuse my pron guide here) "phewk" rather than "fuk". Yeah... we were all a bit middle class. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah! PZ pwns Andy on a blog. Dawkins pwned him in a bestselling book.Toffeeman 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Replicant, we should get sound sample of you saying "phewk orf"? It'd be handy addition to the unwelcome template. That's assuming you're not busy hunting foxes or something. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely he isn't out hoonting phooxes. --Fawlty 10:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Phookz hasn't been here since his last freakout. Probably still drying out after that one. --Kels 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy continues

Oh, the gift that keeps on giving... Andy argues that he doesn't need to produce any references to back up his claims that relativity leads people to atheism (Cue Roger, again...), and that if someone doesn't believe him, they only need to go to a physics department and see for themselves. Good work, parody boy. --Irrational Atheist 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Where could we find some?

Non-liberal deceit is rare and you may not be able to find any, says Andy. But surely I saw some recently, now where might that have been? Fawlty 07:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at that assholes contribs and wondering exactly where in today he fitted his Thanksgiving dinner. There's a gap from 19:00 to 22:20, is that it? Christ on an easter stick, I didn't even check in before walking over to my lovely neighbors house, and wasn't worried about getting back for the RW party. Andy spent the whole fucking day editing CP...

"Chapter 4: completed verses 25-26; a fantastic way to start the day) (top)
10:40, 26 November 2009 (hist) (diff) Essay:Quantifying Order ‎ (marriage brings greater order and can be understood as beneficial for that reason.)"

Moron. And loser. ħuman 09:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He brought marriage into his Order essay? Damn, sounds like I'll have to read the updated version this weekend, I seem to be missing out good quality lulz. --Sid 10:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amused that the addition of marriage to the article is not much more than the edit summary says. I think there's another five words. This edit amuses me more, since we know that growth rates aren't consistent even today. So his "argument" means nothing. --Kels 14:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if CP has it set up so that "no edit comment" is "replaced" with xx characters of what one typed? Or is Andy just an idiot who copies and pastes what he wrote into the box before saving? ħuman 21:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not able to find any non-liberal deceit, Andy? Make sure you have the pages for Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Kent Hovind, Ralph Reed and Sarah "Going Rogue with the facts" Palin recategorized to label them as liberals, then. --SpinyNorman 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, rebranding as liberal is only necessary as a last resort, and only when the person is no longer useful to the movement (see Jack Abramoff, for example). First step when confronted with conservative deceit is to classify said deceit as something not-exactly-deceit. Haggard, for example, is guilty of hypocrisy, not deceit. And it has to be embraced deceit, which (near as I can figure) means that Andy has looked into their soul and deduced that they really really really meant to be naughty. Conservatives might sometimes be deceitful, but they don't ever really mean it, so it doesn't count.--WJThomas 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

JDWPianist

Why was he blocked? I thought he was one of CPs best contributors.

Also, if you get blocked by Karajou, and he labels you a sock of someone who wasn't you, what does that mean?--Star trooper man 09:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked because he was one of CP's best contributors. --Fawlty 10:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He got into a minor spat betweeen GeoPlrd & TK & the inevitable happened. See several past entries on this page. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On Kajagoo: who knows? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Kara: It means he can't think of any valid reason and just has to make one up to have an excuse. Either that, or the user's IP happened to be in the same IP-block/city/state/country as another one Kara "knows". See also Conservapedia:Blocking the planet --Sid 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he blocked someone once claiming it was me, solely because it was a Canadian IP. After all, only a half-dozen people live in Canada, right? Only wikis I've ever contributed to have been here, WP and Rice Boy. --Kels 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that TK's unblocking of him merely indicates his subjugation. Professor Moriarty 21:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He blocked an IP in Salt Lake City claiming it was me. I live in the Denver/Metro area of Colorado. He's only off by about a three hour car trip. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy pulls a Ken

I really thought that vague announcements of upcoming media events was Conservative's domain, not Andrew Layton's....TheoryOfPractice 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what he means is either he was asked about something and they're quoting him and makes mention that he runs Conservapedia, or someone used Conservapedia in a Christian/Conservative post and let him know they're posting it soon. --Irrational Atheist 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mebbe AS will be a guest on Feces the Nation? 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Maybe he is finally going to address the health care debate debacle.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If a tripod site counts as "newstands" then Andy is being totally honest. If he's going to hit something bigger then perhaps he's planning on going postal? --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So I go to google again to find evidence of "Another big news story about Conservapedia is due to hit the newsstands and internet as early as this weekend" happening. First amusement is in their description of the site: "An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint" (emphasis added). I click on "news" next (that's how you do it, right?) and nada yet. :( ħuman 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New Conservative Words Thanksgiving Weekend Edition

"patriotically incorrect hate speech": "Speech attacking America, Americans as a people, or American interests."
"anti-choice": "the position of opposing school vouchers"
"values deniers": "people who do not believe in natural law"
An epic WTF to Jfraatz. --Irrational Atheist 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it to him yerself.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU'VE BEEN MEMESHOCKED BOYEEEE!!!!1!! 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me who agrees that the religious right/tea party people are so stupid that you can reduce their talking points to a science? 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a Conservapedia value...

...unless, you know, we disagree with you. TheoryOfPractice 01:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They must love the ACLU then--Thanatos 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand CP anymore. The hypocrisy is unreal. Isn't the very First Amendment of the Constitution the right to freedom of speech? And they're shitting all over it by saying get anti-Christian stuff off YouTube. They make me sick. SJ ^Debaser 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, on CP, it's God, then Country, then Mama Schlafly, then Andy's ego, then TK's power trip. Everything else is negotiable. --Irrational Atheist 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought Andy's ego always came first--Thanatos 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Right to free speech only applies to stuff that the government does. Youtube is a private company, and can censor all it wants from its own site. However, that doesen't mean they should, free speech is still inherently valuable, and shouldn't be thrown out of the window because they think something is offensive. They are anti-free speech, but that doesen't necessarily make them anti-first amendment. --Passerby25 03:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched the video on the xtian site linked from the CP "news" entry - that's clearly not a host biscuit. It looks more like a Ritz cracker, all thick, golden, buttery, and delicious. 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I googled host desecration when I saw the notice. I had no idea about that french Canadian kid. Making false allegations of firearm possession and intention to shoot up a school, another sterling example of Christian librul deceit.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Link --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I used the Petition to send a nice message encouraging Google to uphold Free Speech and keep the videos there. Hopefully they will wrap my message up in some nice HTML mail Jesusy packaging. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER! Some people need to get a grip on reality. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a year-old cracker. - Poor Excuse 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a cracker to a certain group of christians (I can't even remember which group to be honest. All catholics or only a subsect of catholics?) which I assume Andy belongs to. While a lot of christian groups view the bread and wine of communion as a purely symbolical thing (i.e. the bread and wine represent flesh and blood, they aren't actually flesh and blood), some groups honestly believe that after the priest has done his thing, the cracker actually literally and really becomes a part of Jesus. Then they eat it. Of course, if you actually believe this fully, mistreating a consecrated cracker is like punching jesus in the balls.

People like Bill Donahue and Andy expect us to accept this "bread literally turns into the body of christ and then we eat it" thing as something that is perfectly normal and respectful and they really blow their top when people don't (it is an inherently odd thing to believe) X Stickman 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Catholics are certainly in that group. But in terms of Quebec boy, I am under the impression that the object(s) in the videos were actual crackers - Ritz, Hi-Hos, Keebler Town-House, Wheat Thins, Triscuits, etc. No actual hosts, consecrated or otherwise were involved; this was playacting, not actual desecration. If I'm wrong, please someone disabuse me. But my point was that the videos are a year old, why all this new activity? - Poor Excuse 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point is that not only do they believe that the host becomes the actual flesh of Jesus, they believe that when the priest consecrates it he ever so briefly becomes Jesus. Or something like that. Corry 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. First part is essentially correct, second part is bizarrely wrong.--WJThomas 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Watergate, Shmatergate...

Lame WIGO is lame. Andrew Layton clearly wrote "biggest scandal in the history of modern science," not "politics." TheoryOfPractice 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Irredeemably lame. 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It looked very promising; conservapedoheads defending watergate, but then I clicked on it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO was Andy calling it "ClimateGate" as though it were as big of a scandal as Watergate (the whole -gate thing being of a huge, important scandal in politics). It's leaked emails from one place that are being quote mined, and nothing political, nor anything of relevance for what Andy thinks it is. --Irrational Atheist 12:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy is using NewsMax? They make WND look practically sane... tragic... just, tragic -- 18:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Newsmax really all that far out there? Always seemed to me to be a "regular" news source, albeit heavily right wing. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Memeboy gets in hot water with Andy

I dunno if RW has covered Jfraatz before, but check out his facebook group:

Due to the fact that we have had limited success tampering with Wikipedia I have developed a new strategy. Conservapedia is of little use trying to DIRECTLY infect the public, since only small subsections of conservatives visit it.

However I have decided that this is useful for another purpose. We can model Conservapedia readers as the memetic equivalent of BIOLOGICAL VECTORS. The idea being that Conservapedia users will readily take in our language (because it is compatible with their worldview) and propagate it indirectly to the general public once they have sufficiently absorbed it.

However to do this we must saturate Conservapedia with our memes. To be effective with this we must not only on pages for specific terms but also on other pages mixed into the language of the other articles. Fortunately Conservapedia encourages this sort of thing -inventing new conservative language that is. Only in our case we are doing it scientifically.

He is a horrible little Straussian twerp, eh? (he actually name-drops Strauss and Kristol constantly). The guy is one degree removed from sociopathy. Even his fellow movement-conservatives aren't people, they are bugs, THINGS, to manipulate, psy-ops, infiltrate, lie to at will, play mind games on, etc.

That's why it's so satisfying to see him try to play his mind games on the Internet's Stupidest Man - and lose.

When all the neoconservatives go to hell, I think the best punishment would be if they were locked up in one room each - with only a paleoconservative for company. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a chat with him on my talk, talk, talk page the last time his antics surfaced here. MemeShock is a highly cynical and deliberate form of Unspeak. Johann 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page is... disturbing. He is past sociopathy, he even admits that he prefers winning to being right. That's far worse imo than the usual neocon because usually they tend to convice themselves they are fighting with sinful means that are justified by for the worthy cause. This memetic creature (see I can do it too) just takes pleasure in the manipulation itself. Pietrow 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he is a whole lot worse than Andy, in the same way that Paul Wolfowitz is a whole lot worse than Pat Buchanan.

He parrots Straussian memes like: "Without a spectacular state to fear, people have a propensity towards anarchy", we need a priestly philosopher class to guide authoritarian rulers, "the masses" need to believe comforting falsehoods or else people will descend into anarchy, frame yourself as a "moderate" and use doublespeak to convince them to give you what you want, we need an authoritarian revolution, "any law restricting executive power makes no sense" because "all of the authority to enforce laws ultimately flows from the president"; there is nothing inherently valuable about democracy so the CIA is "morally justified" in overthrowing democratic governments that don't fall in line with the West, corporate power should be coopted by the state to achieve political ends, and finally, Rawlsian liberalism is at fault for the Darfur genocide. Why? Who knows, except Rawlsian liberalism (aka "democracy the way they taught you in civics class") is the boogeyman for these guys, the same way "secularists" are hiding under Glenn Beck's bed and "statists" are hiding in Ron Paul's closet.

Look, obviously he is just a pimply undergrad with delusions of grandeur, he talks about "my allies in the pro-life movement" and how "I can leverage corporate power to get what I want out of the political process". Like he's the next Peter Wiggin. On that level it's funny, yes. It's a bit like all those teenagers who get seduced into Randroidism.

The difference is... Leo Strauss is so palpably, sick-makingly evil that there really does have to be something pre-existing, something inherently WRONG with you for you to pick it up and say "Wow, this guy has the answers!" Democracy depends on believing that your fellow citizen is a human being just like you and when you two disagree, the best way to achieve the public good is for you each to try to convince the other with calm and reasonable arguments.

When you believe instead that your neighbor is weak-minded, you know what's best for him, and it's best to manipulate his subconscious rather than argue or debate, then all that talk about "God-given human rights" is a load of shit - another noble lie for weak-minded people like you and me who need comforting myths. To Jraatz we are no longer subjects but objects - "memetic vectors." After he rationalized "the masses" as a means to his ends it was only a short hop to believing they don't have minds. The next step in this chain of thought is to start building crowd-sized ovens.

Watching stupid, dogmatic authoritarian followers like Andy or Ken generates a lot more lulz than watching the cunning sociopath who will be leading their homeschooled kids into a brave new tomorrow.

I wish I weren't a Rawlsian liberal, otherwise I would ban his ass into the next century.

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like I am reading the Democrat play book or Alinskys radicals. I mean that word speak, control the masses, use the people.. Straussmeiser must be secular-progressive must reads. --Lipps ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.7.167 / talk / contribs}

Ahahaha, even Fraatz' memepals on his Facebook group complain about not being able to create accounts on CP. 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great little CP project. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that somebody on CP is a parodist who actively edits here on RW

Since we, of course, do not want our CP administrator friends to know who this parodist is, of course, I'm going to be sneaky little sysop myself here. My next edit I will show proof of who the editor is here, who he (or she) is on Conservapedia, and why I'm damn sure of this connection. I will then delete this edit from our logs for obvious reason. If this editor then gets banned from CP for being a parodist, this will prove that a CP Administrator is an Administrator here. Now this hypothetical CP administrator who then would would want to block this editor would have to contend with the fact that he (or she) outs himself or herself as a parodist as well. Win-win situation here. Please be discrete in subsequent comments. ConservapediaEditor 11:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Several CP sysops are sysops here as well, they can see it too.

• RobS
• Geo.plrd
• Conservative
• TK has about three socks that are sysop.

Do you want me to continue? - π 11:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand this idea on a whole series of levels. While I'm not sure that I approve of the idea of inserting parody into CP, it seems to me that spotting parodists is their problem and not ours. I don't think that creating and hiding comments realy fits our ethos. Your plan rests on the assumption that any CP sysop would react instantly and not, say, in a month's time. It also rests on the assumption that CP sysops do not read RW and will not have read your post and will be too dim to react in a more subtle manner. Finally, as Pi points out we know that some CP sysops are sysops here and we don't care that much.--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I haven't done it yet. I'll back off on this. ConservapediaEditor 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect those who lurk have figured many of them out already, even disregarding the occasional slipups. MaxAlex 12:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See, even the lurker agrees and he knows all about lurking. - π 12:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this. Outing parodists destroys all the fun. Etc 14:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to seem retarded, but WTF? I don't get it... -- 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad, pointless idea, please don't. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia WIGO

"Wikipedia could sink faster than the Titanic." It could, but it won't will it? It's not going to. Everyone uses it, whereas the only people who use Conservapedia are retards or trolls. SJ ^Debaser 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

... of which there are a whole lot, hence Conservapedia isn't going to sink anytime soon either. --127․0․0․1 18:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's still not much of a ship. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the antithesis of learning and charity", says the guy who runs a site that a) routinely deletes stuff they don't agree with and b) have copyright terms and site license that is ripe for abuse... as opposed to Wikipedia's reliability requirements and, um, their license which was actually constructed by a real IP lawyer to specifically allow "charitable" use of material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Andy, I can see why he's all giddy about this. If one out of every hundred or so of these guys goes on to sign up to Conservapedia, his site will have grown by two orders of magnitude. Mountain Blue 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What I find funny is that it took him/them so long to jump on this. Hasn't our discussion of it at the SB been archived by now? ħuman 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reeling in the minions

Any reason why Team Killer^img and Geoff Plourde^img are telling people to lay off the ideological blocks? Recipients so far include Kal-Bert, DeniseM, Taj, JacobB, Jinx _{hi Jinx!} and Foxtrot...TheoryOfPractice 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Because blocking for any reason other than vandalism is only for the "senior administrators" i.e, them. Once Andy gives newbies block rights the only means the rust-ons have of extending authority over them is by creating arbitrary hierarchies and rules. - π 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That much is pretty clear--I'm just wondering if there's a specific incident that triggered the move. TheoryOfPractice 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably worked themselves up into a lather in their google group. TK must have got another one of his vague orders from Andy ("do what you think is best") and took the chance to wave his mighty authority around. - π 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Need pictures

I need a pair of portraits for an article about two successful and influential legal thinkers I'm working on: Andy Schlafly and Mike Nifong. Google finds several metric fucktons of Nifong pictures but the free ones tend to be crap and the nonfree ones tend not to come with any licensing information to speak of. Many don't have copyright statements. Others have copyright statements so terse they do not, as practical matter, actually identify any copyright holder. Can anybody here tell me who I should talk to? Are there searchable databases for media personality portraits, like there are for stock photos? Is there some kind of syndication service somewhere?

Google also finds some Schlafly portraits but they are all of them guano; one is a lo-res scan of a really bad photo booth mugshot and the rest are blurry lo-res camera phone jobs. Is there any Schlafly portrait at all that looks halfway professional and has a reasonable resolution? I don't care how favorable or unfavorable it is and it doesn't necessarily have to be cheap. Any hints would be sincerely appreciated. Mountain Blue 02:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The standard andy photo can be found here. TheoryOfPractice 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the mediawiki commons for Nifong? ħuman 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Something VERY interesting

I have discovered something VERY interesting, but in the interest of not exposing parody, I won't put it here. Who is safe to email this fascinating tidbit to? MisterEd 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about anybody. Try this guy.TheoryOfPractice 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about me? Ace^McWicked 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's worth the while, Ace, send it along. How you been? Thx. TheoryOfPractice 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I been OK, thanks for asking. And you? Ace^McWicked 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual--overworked, spending too much time pissed off at people on the internet and not enough time naked and out of my gourd. TheoryOfPractice 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You should be naked as often as possible - the rest comes naturally. Ace^McWicked 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would be so kind Ace, flick it this way.Rad McCool 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, I actually haven't gotten nything yet. Ace^McWicked 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Always excuses.Rad McCool 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever gets it last, send it along to me please? ħuman 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pass the mustard, please. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And the salt, pretty please?Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it along to me, please. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That IS very interesting MisterEd. Nice detective work. We shall be watching developments. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wing it Josh's way could ya please sweethearts? SJ ^Debaser 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is certainly not a CP sysop in deep cover and would like to know what is happening with these electronic mails. Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent eleventy-one of you your eighth copy. Well, all except that "Wodewick" person who hasn't slept with me yet. ħuman 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please send the lulz this way.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ħuman 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, H? TheoryOfPractice 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your fifth copy. ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Human, that certainly bears watching.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it means, indeed. (tldr) ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, I had an all day rehearsal. Someone wanna shoot the resident token a quick email? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody send it to me too, please? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to sleep with you doesn't mean I'm not a dirty secularist :( It just means I'm a dirty secularist with good taste. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, nobody sent it to me and once again I feel all unloved. --PsygremlinParla! 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So much phail...

...in so small a space.^img TheoryOfPractice 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "moral relativity" is somehow linked to Einstein's relativity; is this something Andy just cooked up all on his very own, or is it a common meme out there in the conservative world? --Simple 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has failed to provide any links to back his assertions up. Ace^McWicked 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, a special Thanksgiving present for us! You never fail to please. ħuman 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest casualty of Andy's unhealthy "action at a distance" obsession? The Bible. Oh sure John may use "the word for hour," but only liberals would deny that Jesus cured him INSTANTLY with "action at a distance." Can someone burn a sock to ask Andy how the centurion's servants measured the difference between "action at a distance" and Jesus's blessing travelling at the speed of light (20 miles from Galilee to Capernaum = 0.1 milliseconds). Were they sitting there with an atomic clock waiting for Christ to break Einsteinian spacetime? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My head is about to explode if this guy writes anymore. "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible." The Tribe article he cites also uses Quantum Mechanics as analogy just like Relativity, wonder why Andy doesn't mention that? I just cannot understand how anyone who went to college and especially the Harvard Law Review can make an unfounded assertion like that and be completely fine with it in an "encyclopedia". Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity and Arabic

I love that according to Andy, all Arabic speakers are Muslim. There are no Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, Druze, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Yazidist, etc. Stile4aly 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the links from there is just hilarious. Parodists and sexually frustrated brothers ftw! ħuman 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that 1+1>2 for large values of 1 and small values of 2.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, $\lim _{1\to 7}1+1=14$. --127․0․0․1 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You are going to criticise Wikipedia for losing editors, Andy?

Needs link to CP user block log or something to make it funny on its own. IMHO. ħuman 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)