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

Make Karajou Funny (sticky)

moved to Forum:Making Karajou funny

Haha, that's funny, the forums were created to take the load off the SB, but it's perfectly applicable here too. Should there be a "conservapedia" category added to the fora now? ħuman 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just did exactly that. Fairly easy, nice work tech guys! ħuman 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You've gotta love 'em

Charity? From Liberals? But where's it going? To the baddies of course^img. Don't they just make you sick? Don't give & you're "unchristian", give and you're funding the evil one. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Ed: it's capital city^img, idiot. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the few times I've donated blood it's being going to murderers and rapists. SJ ^Debaser 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so hard on them. What they're giving, prayer, is much more important than money and aid. DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has ever told Andy that prayer is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. I wonder how he would respond... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not illegitimate to raise concerns about how the money will be spent, especially in a country with a reputation for corruption like Haiti's. However, Ed seems to want the Red Cross and the other charities to be providing a detailed spending plan up front, and that's just impossible. We only have vague knowledge of what the situation is like in Haiti, and most of it is that things are really rally bad. The Red Cross can't be expected to provide a plan up front, because they don't know what needs to be done yet! MDB (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(conflict-conflict aaaaah)His link is about the Red Cross. You know what happens to your money if you send it to the Red Cross idiot, they know how to do emergency aid. It is not some UN-program. Now show some of that great conservative charity, go on. Internetmoniker (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mixing this up with all that other crazy Andy shit, but didn't he once state that he wasn't donating any money, because he was already donating something way more valuable: prayer? Or something like that? I faintly remember him being really smug at what a completely useless delusional cheapskate he was... --GTac (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Jesus, if he really said that, he needs to go back to Sunday School and re-learn that part about "whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me". MDB (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was in an argument with either Aziraphale or HelpJazz (meaning it's likely completely burned). Andy said that prayer would save their souls, which was more important than feeding them. There's a twisted logic to it, but it's still disgusting. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We should all give our money to the Moonie church. I'm sure they won't spend it on pampering the Moonie royal family. Corry (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical Ed, wanting the Red Cross to submit a writing plan. Генгис^pillaging 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "It only goes to corrupt politicians" is the oldest cop out in the book used by rich people to avoid contributing anything to the third world. Bob Soles (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The irony of that is those same rich people then give massive donations to their own pet corrupt politicians.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian agencies (though they do help people in need) are also used as covers by Western intelligence agencies to co-ordinate and fund movements against local governments, destabilizing them and effecting 'popular' coups that install pro-Western leaders. I will not help this happen in Haiti AGAIN and I will give my money to local hospitals and bums instead. How is THAT for a cop out?99.225.14.16 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like. I'll continue supporting Doctors Without Borders. 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll continue my campaign to Free Nutty from the Chains of Oppression. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed is continuing to be an ass. MDB (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And look at the charity Andy posts: a little mission-group which, while I have no doubt they mean well and do good under normal circumstances, lacks the size, logistics, or expertise necessary for any sort of rapid large-scale disaster relief. Does Andy not understand that a massive effort is required right now, including the acquisition and distribution of supplies for hundreds of thousands, if not millions? And then he brags about the amount he's donating?! 17:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good that he's helping out, but his idea of "rapid response" is typical Andy. Bash the Red Cross, which probably been on the ground helping out already, and provide a snail-mail address for his preferred charity instead. --SpinyNorman (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus irony points for Ed being an ass. He tries to tie the Red Cross to stories about volunteers being held back for days for sensitivity training during Katrina, but the culprit was FEMA, run by the Bush administration at the time. Heckuva job, Eddie. --SpinyNorman (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Their assholishness is unreal. A Goddamn Church didn't save the people in the tsunami...helicopters and boats did. If shithole mission churches were going to save people, Haiti would already be saved. Every holier-than-thou prick with a congregation to scream at seems to have a Church in Haiti. Unless these assholes start planning on performing medical miracles, they should GET OUT OF THE WAY and let real life-savers (doctors, nurses and emergency personnel) do their job. I had to put up with these pricks in the aftermath of Katrina...I can only imagine what the ones willing to live in a 3rd world hut are like. Would it be possible to get a Bible out of their hands? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Samaritan's Purse website:

WAYS YOU CAN HELP

PRAY:

For victims of the earthquake, and for rescue crews and other emergency workers.

For the Samaritan's Purse team that is on its way to Haiti.

For wisdom as we decide where to work.

GIVE:

Please visit our donation page to help us meet the needs of earthquake victims in Haiti.

Генгис^pillaging 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with encouraging contributions to religious charities that are capable of handling something like this, and from what I hear, Samaritan's Purse is good at what they do. Andy, though, seems to have picked some little pissant group that, while they may be experienced in Haiti, is probably not prepared to handle a massive human catastrophe. The Red Cross may not be perfect, but they are the experts at large scale disaster relief. MDB (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter who does the work, just that it gets done. My experience, however, leads my to believe that highly religious Christian organizations are not capable of getting the work done. When I ran in to them in Mississippi after Katrina, all they wanted to do was pray and talk. In the Congo, pray and talk...Somolia, Bosnia, and Haiti...pray and talk. Sure, they got a few building put up, but had they actually shut up for a substantial period of time, they could have done so much more. In my opinion, they've squandered their opportunity to help. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but also remember that Haiti has a lot of Christians, emotional comfort will be important for the survivors, and, for people of faith, faith-based charities are a logical place to turn for emotional support. MDB (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

Nothing wrong with providing emotional and spiritual comfort, but when I looked at the Dayspring Ministries site Andy mentions (their site isn't complete, but a PDF Newsletter is), they run a clinic, orphanage and Christian School. That's all well & good, but aside from the clinic how is sending more money to them going to get clean drinking water, food and shelter to the rest of the country? It's interesting that a link for Samaritan's Purse was provided in the Talk page, but the only one Andy mentions on the main page is the one from his neighborhood in NJ, which he encourages you to snail-mail a paper check to. At least Samaritan's Purse takes online donations immediately, and has the following update on their site:

"Samaritan’s Purse dispatched a team just hours after the quake to help with water, shelter, medical care, and other emergency needs. We will focus on medical help, shelter, clean water, and hygiene supplies."

That at least sounds like the kind of immediate help that these poor people need, but if it wasn't Andy's idea it's not the best of the public. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy has even bothered to verify that Dayspring Ministries is capable of doing much now. They were already in Haiti; there may not be much left of them. (I hope I'm wrong, of course. They sound like good people trying to help some people who were in desperate shape before the earthquake.) MDB (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Front page request

Could we put a "Donate for Haitian Earthquake Relief" to the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders on the front page? MDB (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't stop you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the wiki skilz but these two links might help

• Medecin Sans Frontiers
• The Red Cross

Bob Soles (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And, incidentally, 81% of monies donated to MSF goes directly to field work. Bob Soles (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to check to see if your employer will match charitable donations. (Mine does, and I got a "very timely" from our head of HR.) MDB (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? These are secular organizations. Therefore I am 95% certain that 95% of the money they receive goes to their office gay sex orgies and turning young people away from the Bible. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They use the other five percent to censor classroom prayer. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a list here of organisations to donate to. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I have added links to secular relief agencies on previous occasions so encourage you to do so as well. I think it was the tsunami appeal a couple of years ago where we had links on our front page and CP was only offering prayers. They were eventually shamed into adding their own charity links. Генгис^pillaging 16:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the link provided by user:Toast to the front page. This gives links to a mix of secular and religious organisations including The Red Cross. As I said, my wiki skilz aren't the best so if anyone wants to do a better job feel free. Bob Soles (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob. I made it a little bigger, but nice work. Much appreciated. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the links. I might have the priveleges to edit it, but I don't view the main page as "mine" to touch. MDB (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For something like that, go for it. Helping tens of thousands of people is a bit more important than the possibility of someone getting their panties in a knot over a wiki edit. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the stuff at the top of WIGO CP, linking to the official US State Departement page on the Haitian crisis. They are promoting a way to give a $10 donation to the American Red Cross simply texting HAITI to 90999 (it's added to your cell bill). Fair warning, they will spam you for more donations until you reply STOP, but other than that, it's a quick and easy way to make a donation. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One amusing and nice note

The head football coach at the University of Tennessee (my alma mater) abruptly quit last night. Some fans were going to burn t-shirts related to him. The owner of one shop selling them is offering a 20% discount to anyone who brings one in, and will ship the returned shirts to Haiti.

I have a lot of contempt for my home state of Tennessee, but that makes me feel all warm inside. MDB (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't beat the Conservapedians at being charitable

Conservapedians already helped before the earthquake ever happened. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Andy manages to mention the size of his dickcontribution. MDB (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A whole $200 Andy, you're really testing that whole "Conservatives are more chartiable" meme of yours. Considering all your family members sent you $1000 each when you ran for public office. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 19:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not even specifically saying he's giving the $200, he's "arranging" it. He could be taxing his student's lunch money. MaxAlex (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He should just inject $200.00 into the local community and let the free market economy do the rest. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ace - surely the Haitians know that if they don't make $400.00 from their $200.00 then they will get sent to Hell. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really find a section to comment on this so I picked this one. That mission seem like pretty decent folk, and it also seems natural to me for Andy to point to his hometown mission that has strong ties - and perhaps boots on the ground - with Haiti. Not the most efficient way to get help to them right now, but certainly well-meaning. That said, what do you folks think the chances are that http://www.fccofchester.org/home.html is his church? (The mission appears to be one of theirs). I waded through their very nice photo gallery, and it seems the men go to the woods and be, well, manly, and the ladies bake cookies. Didn't see pics of him anywhere though. ħuman 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Andy "catholic"? 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy was born, baptized, and probably raised Catholic, but so obviously is no longer RCC it's not even funny. ħuman 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know how they'd spin the fact that the largest African aid organisation (and the only African one to send aid to Haiti so far) is Islamic? And they do very, very good work too - volunteered with them during our xenophobia bullshit a few years ago. --PsygremlinHable! 10:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It Could Be Worse

At least CP isn't blaming the earthquake on a pact with the devil Haitians made about a century ago. Pat Robertson is doing just that. MDB (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy fuck. That's awful. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh joined in the "fun". MDB (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's going to hop on their socks and add this? 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very interested in Andy's reaction to this. I'm guessing that he will disagree with Limbaugh, because he (Andy) is never wrong, and he did just say that conservatives (i.e. him) should donate to Haiti. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to hunt up the link, but Andy's indicated in the past he's no fan of Limbaugh. MDB (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he vetoed him being put on the great conservatives of the decade list. That aside, Rush is odious. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's always at least one crazy pastor who'll turn natural disasters into acts of God. Hagee said the same thing about Katrina. These people are all more mainstream than CP. MaxAlex (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, at least, some decency coming from the right -- Fox News' Shep Smith said in response to Robertson, the people of Haiti "don't need that." MDB (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that is a good response. Robertson and his ilk put me in mind of Eric Cartman licking tears from the face of someone in distress. It's that bullshit religious tactic, along the lines of The Secret that requires that people be blamed for tragedies that befall them - even if the evidence wouldn't support such a conclusion. I'm only surprised that Robertson didn't invoke the curse of ham, what with Haitians being most black. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Smith is the same one who declared, live and on the air at Fox, "this is America! We do not fucking torture!" MDB (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And he went off-message and actually reported live on Hannity that the government was barricading people into New Orleans and not letting them over the bridges. Shep is FOX's black sheep, the only guy in the building who appears to have a soul. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember when he mocked Glenn Beck crying? I like Shep Smith. He's probably the only good anchor at Fox News. -Doppelheuer (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming there is no hell (in which Pat Robertson deserves a special place if there is one), then I hope that horrible things happen to Robertson and his family. Maybe God can test his faith a bit. For anybody to say what he did, shows how morally bankrupt they are... as am I, no doubt, for wishing horrible things upon him. --PsygremlinTala! 10:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A very poor Poor stub

I know it's not unusual to find Ed 'come and sit on Uncle Ed's lap' Poor stubs that consist of nothing more than an external link, but what the fuck is this one about? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No kidding, even for Ed, that's pretty bizarre. Does he know he is writing for a wiki? Refugee^{talk page} 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahahaha!! Please please please WIGO this if it isn't WIGOed already. This is one of the best (read: worst) Ed stub ever. He seems to think he is on WP, where there are millions of editors who will finished what he starts. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do justice to it. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

it links to JonathonLedger.com (never heard of him) and a story about some poor Nigerian bettering himself. Made me think of ... well, sex. Not what I would call a Encyclopedic entry Hamster (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so meta, it hurts. --Sid (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ed's oddly recurrent sex stubs are anything to go by then I assume he buys in to the philosophy espoused by this stub. Makes me wonder which orifice he shits through? Presumably the arse is a bit too easy. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The link: dated May 2007; the guy's job: mortgage loan. Now what happened in 2007/8 ... just let me try to remember ... Ooooh yes! (all the stub means is: "nothing venture: nothing gain"; well Duh!) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When I saw path of least resistance, I was expecting it to at least be a physics stub. It does amaze me the way he can create shorter and shorter stubs, you would think he would reach a limit eventually. - π 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It could probably be expressed as a mathematical formula. Poor's Law? Poor's Constant? (that wouldn't be what it is, but I like the sound of it) -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The length of an Ed stub would need to expressed in epsilons, I think. I'll get a coffee and think about on the way down stairs. - π 05:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your findings. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the work I did recently on the PoorTwitaPedia, I have figures hanging around for page sizes and stuff, I can even get hold of the actual content and do some analysis to work out an 'average' stub if it would be fun/useful/pointless? Worm^{(t | c)} 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is truly a work of inspired genius. All of Ed's stubs in one place? It's like browsing the Library of Congress, if the Library of Congress was written by Ed Poor, on Twitter. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, the list that just keeps on giving. There is a double bonus in there of a link to RW and, by CP's standards, a rather family unfriendly link at that. I wonder if Andy will ever realise just how crazy/creepy are the people he has running his asylum, or if at some subconscious level he expects conservatives to be crazy/creepy and so everything looks normal to him. Remarcsd (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on some very dodgy word counts, the 'average' stub from Ed is something along the lines of : The NFL Super Bowl is an American movie from Earth, but the draft science on Conservapedia is not. Hmmm. --Worm^{(t | c)} 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti vs Eureka

I think that's the first time Conservapedian idiocy made me genuinely enraged. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Haiti WIGO blaming the devastation on a lack of economic freedom isn't quite as mad as it seems. Sure, countries with successful economies still get struck by earthquakes, but their infrastructure and resources help to minimise the consequences of natural disasters. The only real problem is that Andy's idea of economic freedom would seem to reduce the US to being a series of corporate city-states separated by country clubs and shanty towns for the worst of the public who weren't talented enough to be born in to money. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something maybe neat

I possess some vaguely interesting Conservapedia-related information, but paranoia tells me that it might not be wise to release publicly. What was the consensus on "tee hee I know something you don't know" incidents? Dump it all out or pass it around via email? Fedhaji (Talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail! Oh, me! Me! Me! (imagine: kindergarten schoolkid straining his arm up, begging to be called) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. -Ravenhull (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto... please send along to lil' me. --PsygremlinSiarad! 12:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And me! I love that kind of info. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck it. Just post it here so we can all see it. DickTurpis (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail e-mail e-mail! EddyP (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure. Just post it.... Or email it to me as well. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not an established member, but you have piqued my curiosity. Could I have an email please? Yorick^Crass. 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this type of behaviour, it completely goes against the wiki mentality, however I do understand when people would rather not alert CP to something. Ergo, email it to me ME ME! (Please) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can haz? 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out it's old news, and I'm a moron

I found the Conservative Bible Project Google Group, but further investigation reveals that it's already linked straight off the CBP page. I didn't realize that this was already public until today; I searched last night and failed to turn it up on here or CP. The secrecy was on the off chance that it might get locked down once it was revealed we knew about it (hi Terry Koeckritz, you paranoid maniac).

So nothing really interesting; go back to your television sets. Sorry to get y'all lathered up over nothing. I did learn how to quickly scrape the contents of a Google Group, though, in case we ever, erm, have use of such abilities. Fedhaji (Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For future reference (and since it's not too widely known yet, I think), you should use Special pages -> External links to check what article links to which site. The regular search field is more for regular text. --Sid (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sid. Fedhaji (Talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Church

Above, someone posted speculation that the First Congregational Church of Chester, NJ is Andy's own church, based on the fact they sponsor the mission in Haiti to which Andy has encouraged donations.

The web site has a link to the pastor's blog, and it seems to come quite close to Andy's own theology and politics, albeit with a good deal less ass-holish-ness. It seems to come close to evangelical Protestantism, though it almost completely lacks any emphasis on "end-times" issues. (Which is one thing that puzzled me about Andy's beliefs -- most hard-core religious conservatives are pretty obsessive about that.)

This is why. If Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic, he is an amillennialist. If this minister is a Calvinist and hyper enough not to be an amillennialist, he is likely a postmillennialist, which means that he thinks Jesus will rule the world for a thousand years before the Second Coming, via theocratic government. Neither amillennialists nor postmillennialists are at the moment expecting the Second Coming to occur at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon, right after Days of Our Lives. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I don't think this necessarily proves Andy is a member there, but it seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

Looking up information on the Congregationalists proved interesting (to me, at least.) There's no real church hierarchy; the local congregations run things (hence the name). It's the descendant of the churchws founded by the early American Pilgrims. (In fact, the founding of the the church that seems to be Andy's own pre-dates the American Revolution by over a hundred years!)

There's apparently three different Congregationalist denominations, including the quite liberal United Church of Christ. I can't determine which one this church is a part of, but their web site does day they left the UCC in 1971. There's two other Congregationalist "umbrella" denominations, but neither of them include the First Congregational Church of Chester, NJ, nor does the church itself list any denomination on its web site. Perhaps its truly independent. MDB (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is his church. His mother is Catholic. If he converted to protestantism he would have been cast out. Phyllis really isn't the forgiving/tolerant type. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am pretty much expecting Andy to start his own church any day now. With a best of the public style hierarchy. - π 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do hope we're not outing personal information here, there's enough crap going down round here as it is.^{— Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs}

He's made himself a public figure & should stand the consequences. Anyone know where (which church) he was married in? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be [Princeton University Chapel. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From Cr's link: "Roman Catholic ceremony.". ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda believe he doesn't even go to church anymore. It just wouldn't live up to his standards, and he has a lot more important stuff to do on the weekends, like making up more conservative words! He just likes saying that he goes to church, just like he doesn't actually read the bible 5% of his time. --GTac (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

His editing pattern seems to suggest he goes to church, but I have a hard time believing it. How could he stand it? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point: how could they stand him? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something I've wondered about... I'm familiar with European Catholicism, but I don't know much about the US version. Is Bill Donohue in any way representative of the US version? If not, Andy seems to be way out on his own with his religious views. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Donohue is pretty hard core among American Catholics. MDB (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure the Andystalking is terribly productive, he/they did say when & where the two large Conservapedia buses were going to be leaving from. It's near a certain church. Assuming that the info is still on the wiki. MaxAlex (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk to myself if I have to, I guess. Voila. MaxAlex (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well found that man. First Congregational Church of Chester. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He definitely has taught there, but I still don't believe he's a member. Andy has to be Catholic, right? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Except he takes some pretty key differences with the Vatican. Most notably, he's a Young Earth Creationist, when the unofficial Catholic position is theistic evolution. Further, John Paul II, at least, was not a supporter of the Iraq War. And I don't think current Catholic theology is that capitalism is divinely ordained -- indeed, current Catholic social teaching is somewhat socialistic. Plus, the basis of the CBP is the King James Version, which is not used in Catholic churches. If he does consider himself a Catholic, he's as much a "cafeteria Catholic" as one who uses birth control. MDB (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how someone who's so America-centric could fit in with the Catholic Church--a religion that has a strong internationalist and universalist scope and in very many ways stands opposed to a lot of what makes America America--military aggression, unhampered pursuit of wealth, etc. It would make far, far more sense for him to fit into some sort of American Evangelical congregation on a political level. The Catholic Church has become way less white-Euro-American in the last few decades; I can't see Andy finding a comfortable spot amongst the global community of Catholics. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many Catholics are much at odds politically with the church brass, which limits the amount of political orthodoxy required of its members. Descendants of earlier Catholic immigrants to the U.S. may have become more aggressively "American" than Protestants as a response to the nativist accusations that they were not "real Americans." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Wait'll the next Pope comes from Brazil or Camaroon and we'll see how uber-American these folks are. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There has never been an American Pope; what are you getting at? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are so interested in his Church, but it seems pretty clear to me he's not actively congregational at any. If he wanted to attend a Catholic church there's the perfectly good St Larry's. Any Church like that will have it's own MfL drive, so the need to requisition more vehicles would be limited and wouldn't need to be separately organised. If there is any interesting question, it's whether he attends sermons/mass at all. MaxAlex (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just curiosity really. It's something we never knew - and that line in the "voila" link above - "He also teaches various subjects to homeschool students at the First Congregational Church of Chester" pretty much nails it for me. I'm sure he goes every Sunday. How on earth would he end up teaching the largest history and economics courses in human history in the basement of a church he doesn't attend? Makes no sense. As far as the RCC thing and Phyllis, sure he was raised catholic, but he had one o' them epiphanies a few years back, when he stopped "believing" in evolution and millions of years (as they love to say). I don't think Phyllis is particularly religious; anyone else remember the slight awkwardness in their radio interview when Andy started going all Jesusy on her?

Anyway, although I am now "convinced", I don't think it's supported strongly enough to be written in any articles.

Last note, "The contingent to the march in Washington, D.C., will leave the Chester Shop-Rite parking lot at 7:15 a.m. and return at 10 p.m., with a stop for dinner on the way back. Bus tickets are $20 and perople interested in participating can e-mail Schlafly at aschlafly@aol.com." ħuman 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's true that there's no confidence in saying he's Catholic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He could be "catholic" but still go to service at FCC. However, I would be surprised if there was any evidence that he went consistently for service. MaxAlex (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to anything said so far: the aforementioned article calls Wikipedia "Wikopedia"... ten times. Is this a stupid nickname like lie-beral or evil-lution or do they not apparently have spell check? -Doppelheuer (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply because it was a phone interview and the journo didn't bother to research the term. MaxAlex (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the website's whois data shows the pastor's name as Allan. Conservapedia is registered through Roy Allen and Associates, on 5th ave, NYC, though Andy operates out of NJ. Nick Heer 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No relation. Pastor Allan has a surname - Briggs. MaxAlex (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The church's website is hardly a popular place if the view counter (3106) is anything to go by. I was amused by one of the subpages which is titled "How May I Become a Believer in Jesus Christ?" and finishes off with "If you have just prayed this prayer, we invite you to contact us at 908-879-5322 with any questions you may have." Генгис^pillaging 10:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The pastor's blog touts Dayspring donations, so the connections to Andy are pretty certain. 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sermon correlation project (sticky)

An interesting project would be to correlate the sermon archives with some of Andy's Sunday essays. Генгис^pillaging 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GK, that's what I came back here to suggest. If anyone wants to work at it, they could research the past (correlate sermon content from archives with Andy's editing later that same Sunday), or we could be lazy and just check out what's currently happening - like, tomorrow. How fast are the sermons posted, I wonder? And it's too bad they are audio not text (surely he writes them in a computer...), it makes the work much harder (can't search for key words, have to suffer in real time, might get converted...). But anyway, yes, we really should do this. ħuman 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that we know about it any new ones can be verfied against the audio. It's probably best to locate a Sunday essay or mystery first and then listen to the appropriate sermon. Генгис^pillaging 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ, fifty-minute long sermons? But I'll give it a shot. It'll be interesting to hear April 10, 2009's sermon, which is over Jesus' last words, including the liberal propaganda of Luke 23:34. ("Forgive them Father...") Will Andy heckle the reverend from the audience? Does the reverend side with Andy? Does Andy even attend this church? We shall see. Doppelheuer (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I made this its own section and stickied it. Might should get moved to a forum, or an article talk page if we get one going. ħuman 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through Andy's Sunday best shows him editing today (17th Jan) from mid-morning through to early afternoon. Other recent Sundays that I could be bothered to find show a similar pattern. I would be a little bit surprised if he was a regular sermon-goer. MaxAlex (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

When do the sermons get posted, then? Andy may not physically attend, and instead listens to the recordings. --Kels (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that he wouldn't be a regular church-goer. Anyway, today his first edit was at 10:42, and I think their server is on CST, so that's almost noon. Plenty of time to go get some Godshine smeared on him. ħuman 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, it looks like they get posted quite some time after being delivered. I wonder if "liberal trap" was in today's sermon? Shall we take the effort to find some good old Sunday insights and list them here and dig out the old sermons to fish for divine inspirations? ħuman 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there would be a mention of a "liberal trap" in the sermon. Unless Andy's church is more radical than it looks, I doubt they would include political commentary in their sermons. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the pastor might have said something that Andy's fertile mind twisted into his dimwitted new "article" (which he is already using to win arguments on his talk page...). Oh, and I got the timing wrong - his last edit is marked 16:42 on my screen, so that must be Atlantic time, meaning 10:42 was quarter to ten this AM EST. Still time for an 8-10 service, though. ħuman 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the "spend more time reading the Bible" stuff came from. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ and the Tea Party Movement

RJJ annoys^img grassroots enthusiasts with an unwanted dose of realism. --Sid (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No big deal - Andy et al. has shown a remarkable ability to ignore historical fact in the past. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because history has a pervasive liberal bias. --Gulik (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disaster relief

Shouldn't that be on the mainpage, or recent changes or the Saloon bar? WIGOCP seems like an extremely inappropriate place. - π 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to site messages so it can follow you around all day. - π 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like the new Haiti relief link box. ħuman 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Republicans occupy 18 of the top 20 spots in terms of followers on Twitter."

Nothing epic compared to Ed-Stubs and Andy-Insights, but I just stumbled over this and feel like rambling a bit because it offers a good look some of the more fundamental problems of CP:

I love how Jpatt includes this in the Twitter article without any sort of qualifier. The paper makes it clearer: This is only about Members of Congress who registered on Twitter with their real name, who are active, and who posted during a one-week window.

Which is kinda silly and sad because the paper does explicitly echo the claim, so there is no real need to "accidentally" omit the context. It's still a strong point (at least when you only look at how US politicians use Twitter - which I'd guess is a fairly small part of all Twitter traffic), so why fudge? Not even to mention that he links to NewsBusters, which links to Forbes, which links to the author's site (but not the specific article - even though it's at least the topmost article on the site for now). You know. Instead of just directly linking to the place where people can quickly check the actual data. --Sid (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention most people only follow them out of a sense of morbid curiosity. --Psygremlin말하십시오 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised. Republican rhetoric these days is largely limited to non-complex notions that appeal to folks who don't like to think much. Cut taxes! Obama is a foreigner! Keep your hands off my guns! Obama is a socialist! I don't know that mastering the 160-charaters policy statement is anything to be proud of.--WJThomas (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the final stage of Rove's Law. - π 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jpatt's pretty fond of omitting important information from a reference. This^img is a couple of days old, but wasn't noticed here. The image he added has a caption that contradicts the Fox News story where he found it, by omitting four or five important words. The result: Global Cooling for the last 8 years! Damn the facts. Junggai (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Idiot! (Guess which one)

The guy is an idiot. A) Being a pervert is not the same thing as "pushing one's morals on another". B) Of course liberals have their own set of morals. Duh--that's what makes them different from conservatives. C) One person's moral failings do not indicate the whole group shares the same ideas (Larry Craig, anyone?). D) Ritter is a registered Republican.^{— Unsigned, by: WJThomas / talk / contribs}

Think we already knew that. (the idiot bit, that is) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha...then again, as Toast says, now that I know who it is I'm far from surprised. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy realized that this item was stupid even by their high standards: "No names, no link, no pointing fingers please." --Sid (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More family-friendly, gossip-free "news" from the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. In other news, the sky is still blue... --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic freedom in Haiti

Maybe I'm not in the know, but how is economic freedom stifled in Haiti? What would Haitians be producing if they fit Andy's idea of academic freedom? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I see it's the typical mix of corruption, lack of institutions and rule of law.--^{Ask me about your mother} 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How is corruption counter to economic freedom? What would regulatory institutions have to do with it? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're over-thinking it. They're poor. They're black. So when a huge natural disaster hits, certain types of folk want to justify their contempt and indifference by blaming the victims.--WJThomas (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic freedom requires stability and a degree of certainty. It's like giving everyone the freedom to build a sandcastle on the beach, but failing to prevent the bigger kids from arbitrarily stomping on the castles of smaller kids. Regulatory institutions provide the stability and certainty, and it's far better than leaving the fate of your business contract in the hands of a local official who's likely to side with cronies or the one with the largest bribe. Yep, this is overcomplicating things. Right now they need emergency help, but after that they'll need help in rehabilitating their society. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mostly reverted the Eureka WIGO. It may not be a good WIGO (too wordy) & I'm fine if people vote it down now, but there really is 3 or 4 kinds of stupidity packed into Stossel's claim. The earthquakes are not comparable, Haiti's poverty has nothing to do with free markets or unfree markets, and supposing a similar-sized quake struck San Francisco most of the reduction in property damage and saved lives would be due to earthquake-resistant construction (regulated by govt) and search and rescue & earthquake preparedness teams (govt service). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good revert. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, good job. Even those damn liberal building codes and the socialistic idea of having a tax-funded rescue agencies would only do so much. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One thought I had about the idea of earthquake codes in Haiti, and this may be off-base -- Haiti is a desperately impoverished country. If they required buildings to be constructed with anything resembling California's codes, most people couldn't afford any place to live. MDB (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An actual comparable situation to the Haiti quake is the New Madrid Fault. Very few earthquakes in this region are large enough to be felt, yet like the Caribbean, there is a small historical risk of a super earthquake that would cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple nearby cities. Where Haiti could do basically nothing to regulate its own earthquake safety, the United States and the threatened states spent and are spending millions of dollars to study the fault and to make sure modern buildings are earthquake safe. A perfect example of government taking action that the Invisible Hand Of Earthquake Preparedness didn't. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the New Madrid fault (the locals pronounce it Mad-Rid) and while a large quake might destroy buildings flooding would be a major problem locally as the Mississippi has quite high levees in that area with a large flood plain. If the levees were ruptured by a lateral displacement a huge volume of water would be released. Of course any earthquake in the US would pale into insignificance if the Yellowstone Caldera blows its top again. Генгис^pillaging 10:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to vote this one down. Stossel is comparing the Haiti quake to the San Francisco 1989 quake (also a 7.0, according to him) while the WiGO is talking about last week's Eureka quake. DickTurpis (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my mistake. I'll remove the Eureka references. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Joaquin, but no cigar

JM tries his hand^img at an ED style stub article but it's just too long. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-dictionary-pedia! Multiculturalism FTW! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not convincing. If Ed had written this one there would be an example of some odd sexual practice as an example of disgusting. "Oh god, it's so wrong. I'll just watch them a while longer so I can be certain that it's wrong"--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There would have been a liveblogging transcript of Two Girls, One Cup. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neeeearggggh! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to put less text, not more. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Also: The Jungle? FernoKlump ^{What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition!} 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Didn't it use "disgust" to open people's minds about the horror of the meat industry? ħuman 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why he's so pissed off.....

...is it because mummy made it on the Torygraph list[1] but he didn't? BTW The comments are well worth wasting 5 mins of your life on! Mick McT (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. I am sure that Andy has accepted that he, like Prince Charles, will live in his mother's shadow till she's gone. MDB (talk)

At the risk of being classed as a sexist, Andy's probably just on his period. SJ ^Debaser 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's just pissed that the "clueless Brits" didn't take their cues from Andy's list. Don't they know he's the decider of conservatism? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly sees Lieberman as a liberal because Lieberman tends to vote with liberals on social matters, while Mr. Schlafly is a social conservative. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clueless Brits?"

"Clueless Brits?" Fuck off Andy, you don't have any friends. SJ ^Debaser 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"SuperJosh" (if that is your real name), let me guess. You're a liberal, right? I've analyzed your unconcise replies and you rely on hearsay, judges laugh at hearsay, so there's a 95% chance you're an agent provocateur. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: accept that conservative talk radio helps resist homosexuality. Nobody seriously doubts that conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty. Try it and you'll set yourself free. As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. The FBI would be happy to do something about you.--aschlafly 11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see Andy on holiday, anywhere really, but especially Europe. I would pay to see him read an english newspaper over breakfast, for example. X Stickman (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm surprised he manages to survive in NJ, which is relatively cosmopolitan as far as US states go. It must have been rough for him to go into New York City for the Colbert filming. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assfly's comment it perfectly logical, Josh. One Torygraph hack wrote one piece that doesn't perfectly match Assfly's opinion, therefore all Brits are clueless. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Andy on this one. Brits are generally clueless. In other news, spades are spades. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMac is spot on, the comments on the Torygraph article are well worth a read! Here's a couple of good'uns:

Seriously? It simply amazes me how fascinated you europeans are with American politics. Do you know how many newspaper articles you see here about British news? NOTHING! You all hates us but you can't admit you want to be us. -Dustin from Boston

I think if anyone has ever watched the circus that is British Politics then you understand why no one takes these idiots serious and why no one should take this list serious. The Brits didn't have a clue as to why we kicked their ignorant a@# out of America and they don't have a clue as to who and why we pick for office. - Jason

Superb! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that "Jason" Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, perhaps? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are americans reading an english newspaper? Their logic is infallible. X Stickman (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

read the bottom of the article it says it was compiled by staff in Washington, so no reason to assume they were British. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.19.166.106 / talk / contribs}

Really, really reaching for those BotP examples

Christopher Columbus? Not only did he fail in his original mission, but also failed in calculating the circumference of the earth, which had been known for over 1500 years already. It was the royal court of Portugal who rejected Columbus due to his miscalculations, and other royal courts including Spain, which would later invest in his trip. He shipwrecked one of his vessels on his maiden voyage, took slaves, stranded his men and never returned with provisions for them... All in all, Columbus was a failure in nearly everything he planned to do, and just happened to "discover" land that was already inhabited. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual, of course, Leif Ericsson does not merit a mention, because "Christians" have to get all the credit, the dickens with those pesky fact things. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just saying those awful things about Chris Columbus because of your antichristian bias. Since we all know he was dirty atheist. Why else would he make that evil Harry Potter movie? 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbus went from being widely acknowledged as a crank by the contemporary intellectual elite, to having a national holiday named after him. I'm pretty sure that's how Andy imagines his mark on history too. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a shame no one thought to insert "An independent Christian mariner, Leif Erikson, made the first European discovery of North America on his own initiative years before Admiral Columbus, who was leading a group of expert sailors on a government-sponsored venture" before the Columbus tribute that Andy's drooling over. Watching him justify its removal would have been fun. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci never seems to get a look in. A decent Italian (therefor Catholic) whi knew where he was going and not a Heathen Viking Pirate like some . Hamster (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I once saw a standup comedian declare that Columbus accomplished the equivalent of wandering into somebody's backyard, interrupting their barbecue, and claiming that you were the first to discover it. Corry (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Leif was nominally a Christian, but had converted from paganism only at the demand of King Olaf, and there was not much Christian about Germanic Christianity in those days at any rate. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So? As Pat Robertson demonstrated, there's not much Christian about some varieties of American Christianity these days, either. --Gulik (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Open Minded Garbage

Is there some conservative memo about being open minded? On Rush Limbaugh's show, he slammed a caller, saying "What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead... What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a close-minded bigot who is ill-informed. If you had listened to this program for a modicum of time, you would know it,” he said. “But instead, you’re a blockhead. Your mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read." Clean up the language and insert a bunch of liberals and you have a perfect Andy quote. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right-wingers are trying to appropriate liberal ideas of tolerance, as well as political-correctness, and adapt them (or the right-wingers' understanding of them, at any rate) to advancing their own political program. Instead of being tolerant of certain groups of people, you are supposed to be "tolerant" of right-wing ideas. Instead of not offending certain groups of people, you are supposed to keep an open mind and not offend right-wingers by challenging their ideas. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's similar to people claiming that giving gay people the right to marry will somehow trample on their religious civil liberties. Of course, I have a hard time not thinking that anybody decrying a closed mind, on either side of an argument, is full of shit. Corry (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt WIGO

Are you sure he's for real? Bringing up that fake 2 million number seems like something only a parodist would do (and in fact JacobB takes pains to repeat it, heh). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from the same people who blame the result of a natural disaster on a lack of free enterprise, I'd be forced to say yes. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck yes. JacobB wins the prize for being the first to follow Andy in copying as much of his edit into the edit summary as possible. He's going to be an admin soon. 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't tell Andy his real name is Jason Acobb. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered where Andy picked up that strange habit. ħuman 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've seen other core sysops doing it, too. Not as frequently, though. I always figured it was some auto-summary plugin or so because some do it so consistently that I don't even want to consider that they'd copypaste their stuff by hand into the summary all the time. --Sid (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone (since banned, but can't remember who) mentioning that they were doing exactly that, and it filled in the blank with the first bit of the entry if they forgot to put in a summary themselves. So that's probably what's going on, I can't see Andy typing all that twice, every time. --Kels (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a clever plugin. Andy always puts in the last sentence of his post, even if it's longer than the number of characters permitted. Could easily be automated, but I've never heard of such a thing. 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a cool "blank summary" default plug in, but then the other day Andy missed the "A" on "Atheists" and entered something like "theists don't build hospitals", indicating a manual copy/paste error. Now, as someone who is very sloppy with bothering to edit comment, I think it's actually a half-decent idea (though stupid on talk pages) since doing it habitually at least gives people some clue as to what your change to an article is. Still, it's a bit weird. Maybe Andy developed it due to his isolation on CP? I doubt he edits any other wikis, or ever really has (what, just a couple of YEC wandalisms on WP?). ħuman 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Experts arn't what they used to be

Just noticed this in the relativity talk page:

Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by J. Robert Oppenheimer on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--Andy Schlafly 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Anyone want to point out that Einstein was in fact the BotP then? ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.101 / talk / contribs}

If Einstein and Oppenheimer only have the right to talk about subatomic physics, what gives an obscure homeschooler the right to claim expertise on anything? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the example to the Conservapedia:Best of the Public article. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much goes against everything Andy said about the best of the public. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Better question: If Einstein (a physicist) had no business speaking on America politics and Oppenheimer (another physicist) had no business speaking on war or foreign relations, then what business does a mechanical engineer and lawyer have speaking on say…the validity of the theory of evolution or abortion causing breast cancer? -Tygrehart

did that entry predate Andys profound insight ?

anybody want to try arguing with Andy that God is the ultimate expert in everything , therefore the opinion of the uneducated masses of humanity MUST be better. Hamster (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Like the proverbial broken clock, Andy's actually basically right about this one. Being an expert in a field like physics does not mean having expertise in other fields. However, being a very intelligent person already makes Einstein's views much more pertinent than those of an idiot like Andy. Still, the notion that "Einstein said this was so, and he's the smartest person ever, so he must be right" is a fallacy. I think this almost exact thing is covered in the book I just picked up, Crimes Against Logic. (Which could be the title of Andy's biography, now that I think about it.) This doesn't make the opinions of Oppenheimer and Einstein irrelevant, just that they're not really the best authority to yield to on such subjects. DickTurpis (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true in our universe, but you're forgetting this is the bizarre parallel universe that Conservapedia inhabits. Over there, it is precisely because Einstein has no real expertise in philosophy, for example, that extra credence should be given to what he says about it, and anything said by anyone who actually does have any expertise in the field should be disregarded. 92.21.89.253 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you now doubt know, this is untrue even in Andy's World. He never said there are 2 types of people, experts and best of the public. He fully acknowledges that there is a huge group of people who are the mediocre or pisspoor public. Even he wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that anyone is better than an expert. The Best of the Public are a very elite few, identifiable only by him, and, coincidentally, every CP sysop and homeschooler happens to belong to this elect group. Andy's hypothesis actually holds true in certain instances in certain fields. Andy, of course, takes it to a ridiculous extreme. DickTurpis (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's next insight needs to be a doctrine of abrogated insights. Burndall (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen

He's crossed TK and said some very un-conservative things today. I predict he won't last another week. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

which is good 'cause CP loses any credit it had left. Dr. Jensen's name was probably the only feather in their hat... JeffD (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the hat is made of horseshit and concrete, I doubt that feather has any impact anyway. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

TK invited an email exchange (so he could play his admin power games). RJJ responded by calling out TK as a nonconservative who "passes" the same way Bugler did, by bashing libruls. Effectively calling him a parodist. I smell a Template:Vacation in the very near future.

Not to mention RJ made some very constructive edits to Islam and Antoine Lavoisier earlier today, the sort of contributions that would make Conservapedia a decent conservative encyclopedia if, say, it weren't run by Andy Schlafly, Terry Koeckritz and Ed Poor. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember the old adage. "If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you get a barrel of sewage. If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you get a barrel of sewage." --Kels (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if you add the best of the public to Conservapedia, you get Conservapedia. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I approve the above messages. ħuman 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is RJJenson? I saw him telling TK to read his book, so I assume he's not some troll in his mother's basement. -Ravenhull (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

very much a prof, which means he falls foul of Andy's Prof values and Best of the Public... so no doubt his days are numbered. Especially as he too is calling out TK on his duplicity, lies and general uselessness. However, seeing as he does block vandals (and everybody else) the best, as well as give Andy and Ed the best blow-jobs, RJJ has no leg to stand on when it comes to accusing TK of wrongdoing. Andy will just do his la-la-la-la can't hear you routine. --PsygremlinTal! 08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think TK will have a much harder job in persuading Andy to de-sysop RJJ than he did for some of the others. Besides being a significant contributor of content he has a public profile and I think Andy won't want to lose him unless he really starts going against Andy's party line. On the other hand major reversions of RJJ's work by Andy might piss the old duffer off and as he's not a member of the sooper-seekrit-sysop club he can't cajole the others into supporting him. Генгис^pillaging 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

so much for my prediction that he'd be out by Christmas... :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope RJ doesn't share your point of view; from where I'm standing Andy would be more than happy to get shut of him. It would only take a small argument for Andy to turf him out. MaxAlex (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PSY--that is a different Jensen, and since the link contained his cv/home address/professional info, I'm sure he does not want to be associated with a discussion about CP. RJJensen from CP is a retired historian who taught at a few different places and wrote a few articles, recently on labour history--the guy you linked to is an economist at Notre Dame. See RJJ's CP user page for who RJJ is...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, he's still at it today - RJJ wants out. Subtle digs poorly executed. Hope Andy isn't watching.... MaxAlex (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think RJJensen finally got fed up with the stupidity. Anyone who has some intelligence is sooner or later. He's going down the same path as PJR, TimS, Kotomi, LearnTogether (remember him?) or any one of the many sysops that quit or were railroaded out of CP. Bye Jensen, you did a good job, now go find a project worthy of you. Refugee^{talk page} 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

More Conservapiracy

Licensed under the GNU FDL, which requires any reuse to be licensed under the GNU FDL, including a link to the license. This is the same file, not properly documented. This requires attribution of author to repost. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off already. Didn't you know that even if there's no rationale stated it's fair use? FAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSE? FAIRUSE? 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a CP meme. Joaquin even claims Fair Use for pictures which have been put explicitly in the Public Domain. Генгис^pillaging 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

http://conservapedia.com/File:Fried_rice_by_Adonis_Chen_in_Keelung,_Taiwan.jpg ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.19.166.106 / talk / contribs}

Well it will certainly be interesting to see exactly how they are going to commentate upon or parody a plate of food..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Caption: "Potatoes". Done. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this finally confirm that CP is parody? Vulpius (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is Jacob getting at here? Is this somehow going to be used to parody multiculturalism? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh! *buzz buzz buzz* The answer is it's a 100% frivolous claim of fair use because the image doesn't link to anything commenting or parodying it, not even its upload summary. 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Answering further, I think whoever asked this question is jumping the gun a little on this one, if my answer is what he was looking for. Woohoo058947982 only started working on these particular Chinese food articles yesterday, so JacobB's frivolous fair use isn't any more frivolous merely because CP's intended use is impermissible: window dressing in an article. Why can't they just comply with copyleft licenses like decent human beings? 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's called "Copyleft", and is therefore morally tainted. Overt theft is more Conservative. --Gulik (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, dim sum. I had some once in NY, somewhere near the Met. Yummy! ħuman 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's the advantage of living a 20-minute drive away from NYC. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?

Heading unchanged^img into its 3rd week now. Maybe they've given up. Maybe there are no more acceptable articles (if they come to this conclusion, there might just be a god). Maybe because they don't know that the Liberal Democratic Party that got trashed, is actually conservative. Maybe Joaquin is sending a signal to somebody. Enquiring minds want to know. --PsygremlinTala! 10:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Though he forgot to actually link to the article itself... --Sid (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Sid (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article of the Year

Either Evolution was voted in agin or Ken is simply too lazy to post his other opus nauseum as AotY. It's been 381 days. 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Ken's likely still waiting for green light for Operation Diving Turducken before announcing the new article of the year/decade/whatever. My personal bet is still that he'll try to get both year and decade covered on the frontpage with two of his babies. --Sid (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken, darling, if you decide to make a certain article that starts with E the article of the year and the article of the decade, don't forget to make separate sections on the main page for each and include at least 1 picture of Hitler per. You might also throw in a picture of Michelle Obama and mention that any racism she's been subjected to by all the fucking rednecks in this country is due to evolutionary racism (even though the hillbillies are all young Earth creationist fundie shits like you). Sokay. You have our permission. 21:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sid - Ken seems to have already launched Operation Flying Cockring. You must have missed his recent shout outs on a Whorehouse of Knowledge. 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans = apes?

Juliet sqabbles with Alex^img. Has anyone tried this on aSK yet? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy stamps his mark^img & TK does what TK does^img with the debatable comment: "I am not an Ape! I am a man!" ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Did TK read the (terrible) "Superman: At Earth's End"? (Or, if you're curious, here for a full, bitter, hilarious and spoilery rundown of the comic that puts the panel into context.) --Sid (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

yes TK, knuckledraggers are men too, don't worry. Your monobrow is safe. --PsygremlinTala! 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone feel like making a picture of Assfly looking like an ape? ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.115.17.183 / talk / contribs}

The perceived extra "specialness" of humankind has always baffled me. Instead of trying to find our place in the universe, we must be more than that somehow. Sure, we have more brains, but I can't outrun a horse. So what? If we encounter ETs someday, and they don't have the Jesus story, it will make us even more "special" than the crummy old aliens. Andy: Something is what it is. Defining that is not a bad thing. Keep your paws off me, you damn dirty ape! Jimaginator (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans are special. WE are all descended from Noah. He was a great Boatbuiler in Gopherwood and sailed the seas with his wife and kids and a few pets. It seems odd to me that there is no holiday , not even a religeous one. I propose a NOAH DAY holiday and t-shirts saying "I survived the Flood" on one side and "I am NOT an Ape" on the other. We will float paper boats on any pond, stream or lake available and toss straw men into the water to represent all the drowned peoples. Hamster (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

March 31^st gets my vote for Noah Day. Better get cracking, folks, it will be here before you know it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not double up with St. Swithin's Day? --Kels (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That animals page on CP makes me cry. There's so many things blatantly wrong with it. Ed just added to the stupid on that page today. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Two for One Day!

In a moment of brilliance, DanielPudenda manages to combine^img a Ken article, with an Ed stub. The boy is destined for greatness. --PsygremlinPraat! 11:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

*sniff* It's... beautiful! --Sid (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno...it's not short enough to be a Poor stub and not crazy enough to be a Ken article. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all the more baffling that nothing links to that little sharticle stub since the failure of atheists to do a single useful or practical thing in this history of the known universe (that's 4004 BC to you, friend) has been a topic of scintillating discussion on CP as we all know. So it's not as if the stub appeared for no reason. Where are cp:Atheists don't help little old ladies cross the street, cp:Atheists tracked dog shit all over the new carpet, and cp:Atheists don't build rockets that go into space, which is a liberal boondoggle anyway. 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CP feeds straight lines to New York Times

"Hey, the NYT called us amateurs!" I don't see how that is anything to brag about. Furthermore, "repeatedly" is an inflationary way of saying "twice," which is enough for me to call bullshit right there. Both times the CP quote is immediately followed by a "maybe so, but..." which can only boost CP in a Streisandesque kind of way. Andy has his head up his ass, and doesn't care who gets to see it there. Or doesn't realize it. News for you have I none. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how it says the NYT quoted CP to explain "a principle of economics"...um, no they didn't. They quoted your entry on Ron Coase. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And the references were in the context of how conservative GW denialists see the issue, hardly "relying" on Conservapedia for information. 84.87.218.188 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how "the NYT uses CP as an authority!" It's an OP-ED piece! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Bible Project

Andy reveals his true, socialist intent to bring the original intent of the Bible to anyone, even those who can't read it in the original Greek. No doubt they'll read a poorer version or have to wait ages for the page to load because of all the people trying to read it as a result. And there'll be scare stories of typos or homoerotic passages (one of which I put in myself). When will they learn that a privatised Bible is the only way to go? EddyP (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans are not Eukaryotes?

I hate to defend Ed but this does make a twisted sort of sense from a creationist POV. There is after all no such thing as Eukarya, just God parsimoniously repeating design elements like mitochondria in specially created kinds that have nothing to do with each other. The problem here is not that Ed's logic is wrong, just that creationism is stoopid. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that scientific classification is just categorisation based on physical features. Even if we were all designed according to the whims of a Creator, the scientific classifications would still be perfectly sensible. No, the problem is that Ed is a cretin. Johann (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, chaps. Read it again. It doesn't deny that we are members of the Animalia kingdom in fact it implicitly accepts it. The comment denies that the term "animal" is applied to this particular member of the Animalia kingdom. And, in common parlance, it isn't. So the comment is correct.Toffeeman (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(victim of malicious EC) Personally, the whole "how dare you call me an animal!" business strikes me as not only stupid, but pride of the highest order. But then, the whole damn religion is based on "I'm better than you", so that's hardly a surprise. Personally, I'm proud to be an animal and an ape, it means I'm part of something way huge and awesome, the whole family of life. It's something to be proud of, not get away from. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Toffee, Animalia includes human beings, because humans are animals by biological and technical definitions. We are composed of eukaryotic cells, are multicellular, and do not have cell walls. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they use "kingdoms" when they talk of baramins? Trying to impose a scientific order on a creationist perspective seems like ... well, something that's a bit silly. Генгис^pillaging 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus Ed: "Granted that the human body is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of Nietzsche here. Calling a person an animal is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term 'redneck', I can't see how they can tolerate classifying human beings as animals." Human beings are animals. I can tolerate that. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, Ed. They can tolerate it because they're not...what's the word...fucking stupid? --Kels (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Animalia is a biological term and, of course, we are members of Animalia. Animal is not a biological term and covers a different set of entities for which different things are true. For example you get to own and eat animals, animals do not get the vote and animals don’t qualify for a whole host of rights. The peculiar subset of animalia that is humans can be neither owned nor eaten, do qualify for the vote and whole host of other, species specific, rights. So the term animal’’ is useful.

But this ignores the straight logic of the statement. To define “animal” as “the subset of animalia that excludes humans” simply doesn’t deny that humans are part of animalia any more than “crap teams are that subset of football teams that excludes Everton” denies that Everton are a football team.

Animal is used pejoratively, though not always (at least I don't think Mrs. Toffee saying that I am an animal in bed is pejorative). I think Ed mixes up the colloquial use and biological use of the term. Biologically we are animals, socially we are not.Toffeeman (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

God tried to set Adam up with an animal helpmeet, he finally created Eve when Adam refused to pick one. Does that show Adam was an animal in Gods opinion ? No cell walls ? what holds the squichy bits in place ? Hamster (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have never met a liberal redneck and, as a liberal, don't object to the term. It's highly descriptive these days. 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever everybody thinks about scientific families vs baramins etc, the fact is that Ed agrees that we are animalia but not animals, and he agrees we are mammalian but (presumably) not mammals (since a mammal is a kind of animal and we are not animals). To me, this is just moving the goalposts - the difference between "animalia" and "animal" has nothing to do with people, he is just trying to redefine words here without afterthought. Etc 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy believes that non-church charities line ACORN's pockets

Just how far does his paranoia go? And Red Cross's CEO makes $565K a year, thus making it a bad organization? They organize half a million plus volunteers each year through thousands of disasters all over the world, and 92% of their donations go to relief and humanitarian work. Yes, the Red Cross is a great organization. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely Andy's not suggesting that market forces be expelled from the charitable sector? That's commie talk! --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this stupid argument is not uncommon. When working full-time for a charity organization, you always encounter people that hate you because "make a living off other people's suffering". Yes, just like doctors, firemen and policemen. Etc 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy accuses major charities of corruption. His preferred alternative? Send money via snail mail to "Dayspring Ministries" in New Jersey. If I wrote a check to them on the evening of the earthquake, it might still not be there today. The ministry runs an orphanage and a school, both wonderful charitable enterprises but not the personnel needed for an emergency response effort. So Andy basically took the opportunity of an earthquake to pimp some ministry he probably knows from church, while dissing the Red Cross. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Geo just kick Ed's ass for... copyright violation?

Interesting:

• Ed auto-patroled his edits to "Template:Post office monopoly"
• Ed inserts the template^img into an article. It's the only page that includes it.
• Geo deletes the template ("Copyright violation") and removes the inclusion^img

Now, the history is gone so there is no sure way to show that Ed created the template, but considering that he edited it twice and then was the only one to use it, I think it's a fairly safe assumption. Did anybody see it before it was killed? Was it some Wikipedia template? --Sid (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen is on the case! Poor guy... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as RJJ's been foolish to stick around CP as long as he has, I don't feel sorry for him. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good spot, Sid! I have no idea why that Jensen fella's still there. Is he a well know prof in the states? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

the template was restored with an edit comment that short quotes were not copyright violation. Hamster (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why create a template for that? I don't get it. It's just a quote, why not just put it into the article the regular way.

I wonder if this is more common. If I try to edit the evolution article will I just see: {{evolution}}? Internetmoniker (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's^img an^img Ed^img thing.^img He^img does^img that.^img Sometimes.^img Okay,^img often.^img Shuddup.^img (Bonus lulz for this^img hilarious template: "Don't worry, it's okay to admit that we're right, even if we have to change the rules in the middle of the discussion.") --Sid (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite is Liberal style, which just has example of liberal bias included onto it. - π 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct and to the point

Just thought this was worth a cap!^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice cap - I laughed, although I'm not really sure why. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I know what you mean, Tet. It's not hilarious but there's just something 'nice' about it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So a parthian shot is any departing post that doesn't compliment CP before leaving. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I love Andy's comment just above that "Using the same IP shouldn't be a problem, if edits are legitimate". Andy, you might want to share that memo with TK and Karajerk. --PsygremlinPraat! 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

movie/slapping women

Good writing on that one. I was on my way to WIGO it when I saw that it already had been WIGOed. It literally made me LOL.

This is the stuff good WIGOs are made of: confused, self-righteous, bloggy Andy. I hope someone challenges him on it so he gets all indignant and gets backed into a corner, making absurd assertions like "Jesus invented humor" or "Obama's bad dancing proves he is a Muslim". Coarb (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody could just say, "Mr. Schlafly, not slapping the ladies is one of those conservative values..." and then watch the fellow squirm. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that Andy was raised by Mother "marital rape is ok" Schlafly, he probably sees a bit of face slapping as foreplay. --PsygremlinZungumza! 10:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It could explain why conservatives tend to be kinky fuckers (well, I'm basing that on one episode of Sexcetera that visited a fetish club in the Bible Belt, it's just all that social repression taking its toll!). ^gnostic 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakly Toon 21

Now this could be funny if we recaption it, change the board around and such. As it is, it barely makes sense unless you understand CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it makes the great point that the public at large is generally ignorant about science and misinformed about evolution, therefore things like opinion polls are not how science should be settled. What? What do you mean that wasn't what he meant? --Kels (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that as well Kels; it's an excellent example of just how little creationists understand the theory of evolution. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By opinion and hearsay I assume that he means extensive fossil/geological and genetic evidence. Corry (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that no judge has actually been asked to make a fiat ruling that evolution is a fact (Indiana Pi Bill, anyone?), only that it is unconstitutional to teach religious ideas such as creationism in the schools. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the best weekly toon yet for parody! The scientist's expression inspired my version. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why K doesn't just send the drawings over to us uncaptioned for the finishing touches (words) since as a team we work so well together. ħuman 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A WIN FOR CONSERVAPEDIA!

Andy declares victory against a site that's no longer active. Or it could be the owner let it expire and it's available for sale. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ANDY FTW!!!!!! Corry (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick, somebody buy it and point it at RW! Coarb (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for Andy to somehow take credit for Coakley's near inevitable loss next Tues (worstcandidatevar). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed on WP

WP: "Hello Ed Poor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons." Quelle surprise! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Down, girl!

Daniel1212 has just "written" (quoted a whole load of crap actually) Complementarianism to justify women being kept in their proper place. What does that make me think of? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(lovely bit from the talk page^img:"let me say that i think women are like butter on toast, and we men are the toast ") ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. I wonder what they could be referring to, miss Toast? ;) Mr. Butter 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. But I'm not surprised that Daniel1212 is such a misogynist - he is obsessed with 'homosex', after all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Uncle Ed will take him under his... wing and groom him properly. Btw... would it be remiss to insert a 'spreads easily' comment at this point? --PsygremlinParlez! 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Psy, It would. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find women more like honey on a warm summers evening , or Godzilla depending on circumstances. That article at least did not explain that Rape in marriage is impossible for a Christian family, because it is the duty of the woman to submit. I dont remember a woman ever wearing a head scarf during sex though, Is that normal ? Women are generally physically smaller and weaker than men, thus are dependant on men for those tasks, and yes , on average their brains are smaller. Not saying anything else about that, just little brains :) (always willing to help someone complete his arguements) Hamster (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal trap

Ha! Another slap in the face for liberals (and women too probably) from Andy. First a reference in his edit summary. Then another I-pull-it-out-of-my-ass article. How long until we get a best new Conservative word? (I'm still waiting for "quite good conservative words" and "useless conservative words". TK, please mention it to Andy next time you have some pillow talk). --PsygremlinHable! 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Andy - psychological projection much? (He basically defined quote mining and attributed it to liberals). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ FTW^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh: RJJ disagreed with TK and Andy; he's done for sure. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This Great Insight has led to a hilarious editing chain in the Palin article:

• DanielPulido: "Master has invented a new term! Must use!"^img
• RJJ: "Why do we even stress that Couric is liberal? I'm sure conservatives would have liked to know^img what Palin reads, too."
• TK: "Couric is liberal!^img So we must of course stress it! Duh!"

At this rate, I would honestly be surprised if RJJ lasts until Easter. --Sid (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Easter? I'll be surprised if he's still here at the end of January. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

EC) Great minds, Tet but I said Monday. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IT'S ON, BITCH!^img--Psygremlin話しなさい 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OH SHIT!! This is going to be good! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thought I was the first to notice that! Oh well. EddyP (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for WIGOing it though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Space/Time Distortion

Please tell me Andy's about to launch into a tirade that the Taurus constellation is only just around the corner. Oh please, oh please^img. --PsygremlinHable! 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does he understand light years are a measure of distance and not time? He should know the starlight problem has long been "solved" by a series of goddidit arguments, no need to go into that I would think. Of course I do hope he has a remarkable new insight on this subject, I'm looking forward to it being added to every astronomical article on CP. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw! Is widdle TK all butthurt?

Clearly grumpy because he has no banhammer and oversight here, TK is taking it oUT on CP users. Oren1neu1dag (how did he get past own name & surname?) - member since Dec 6^img - asks that an article be changed in the same tone of voice that TK uses. TheKunt's measured response? Die! --PsygremlinPraat! 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus he nuked the guy's user page and talk page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Must.cover.up.Unmember.was.doubleplusungood.--PsygremlinKhuluma! 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, that's weird. Can't say I understand why that was done, the editor only made a few spelling type corrections... guess he didn't make his banhammer quota this week. Refugee^{talk page} 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy shows decency and humility (not WIGO worthy)

I know, I'm as surprised as you are.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Decent maybe, but by using the majestic plural I think he's far from humble. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the thread, and this rates a "ho-hum" in my book. The term was on Andy's "questionable" list to begin with, so giving ground on this doesn't cause Andy to lose any face, and as a bonus he gets to use this as an example of his being open to be corrected. If ChrisY had tried to correct him on one of his pet topics you'd be looking at red links to where his account used to be. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent is now a conservative word! I can think of a couple of others for you if you're going that way Andy: Stupid, Illogical, Dumb, Ugly, Moronic etc... all words that describe liberals.

He updated the word total as well, we now have 16 in the 1600s which means we'll see 32 in the 1700s, 64 in the 1800s and 128 in the 1900s. This all fits nicely with the article, which has about those numbers for all these centuries. But what's this? Only 6 in the 2000s? (preliminary of course, nice to know this century isn't over) We need 256 in this century to adhere to the geometric growth of his essay. I'm not an expert mathematician like Andy but are we not about 20 words behind at this moment? Are we going to get a "conservative word-boom" in the 2090s to make up for this eventually? Or:(Insight!)the new conservative word growth has reached its peak! Internetmoniker (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The rapid decline of conservative word growth is likely to be 95% due to Obama and the liberals holding congress. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy stupidity wears off on another equally stupid target

That word doesn't mean what you guys think it means.^img --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely it does, as long as Obama is Nappy? ħuman 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)