Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

Revision as of 23:30, 5 February 2010

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

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

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)

Blocks in 2009

Just a few numbers:

Blocks in 2009
	CP	RW
Blocks against editors	5868	5910
Blocked editors	5641	609
Blocks against active editors	3226 (55.0%)	5398(91.3%)
Active editors	4317	1132
Blocked active editors	3039 (70.4%)	509(45.0%)
Returned after block	185 (6.1%)	374 (75.6%)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

block-lengths at RW and CP

Is there a way you can factor out our block-wars (e.g., any block under 32 seconds does not count)?

ListenerX^TalkerX 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

315 seconds would probably be a better number. What defines an "active" editor? --Opcn (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Active may be a misnomer: lots of editors are blocked without leaving any trace, i.e., an edit in the database - those I called inactive. Active editors made a (surviving) comment in 2009. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather show blocks lasting longer than a day. Just a guess, but I bet 95% of all blocks on RW are less than a day, while 99% of all CP blocks are more than a day. Unless those block wars against MC, TK, etc. lasted longer than I thought.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is made way better this way: We regularly block each other tons of times for shits and giggles, and we still only have less than a hundred more blocks than CP. --Sid (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the pic help? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What does "blocked editors" mean? "Current blocks" still fits on one screen... ħuman

00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As many editors were blocked several times at RW, the 5910 blocks involved only 609 individual editors. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So 309 people received infinite blocks? or a handful of people received multiple infinite blocks? How do block issued to force login factor in? Also, do we have the data for all time? I would imagine that the traffic slowdown slowed down CP blocks until the Colbert bump. --Opcn (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

there were 309 infinite blocks: it's very probable that some were made for the same editor. I didn't check
these are only blocks of editors, not of IPs. So the blocks issued to force login don't factor in at all.
of course, as MC's HCM speeds up our blocks... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and can't quite get the same figures as LArron (which is certainly my own failing), but quite a few of the infinite blocks are for MC, with the others spread around generally. Would need to do more work to see how many of those are still inplace, but I would guess that not that many. For instance Ace got at least 9 infinite blocks, and I'm fairly sure he's still here ;) --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's a glitch on my side: blocks for negative amounts of time ("yesterday", "-314s", etc.) were counted as infinite: The number of blocks made explicitly for an infinite or indefinite period is a meager 134 - according to my numbers...

Here is a list of those who were blocked at lest twice for infinity:

rank	editor	number of infinite blocks	blocked by
1	MarcusCicero	25	Ace McWicked (9), Gooniepunk2010 (7), JeevesMkII (2), Tetronian (2), Antony (1), Kels (1), Nx (1), Theemperor (1), TheoryOfPractice (1)
2	Ace McWicked	9	Ace McWicked (3), Doggedpersistence (3), MarcusCicero (2), TheoryOfPractice (1)
3	Mei II	4	Mei II (1), Psygremlin (1), TheoryOfPractice (1), Weaseloid (1)
4	Armondikov	3	Doggedpersistence (1), Psygremlin (1), Sheesh! (1)
4	Neveruse	3	Gooniepunk2010 (2), Javascap (1)
4	Tricksy	3	Tricksy (2), Nutty Roux (1)
5	Armondikov is a lying bitch	2	Nx (1), The electrocutioner (1)
5	Concernedresident	2	Concernedresident (1), Nx (1)
5	CPAdmin1	2	Π (2)
5	Example	2	Ipatrol (2)
5	JArneal	2	FernoKlump (2)
5	Javascap	2	Phantom Hoover (2)
5	Jfraatz	2	Antifly (2)
5	Kels	2	MarcusCicero (2)
5	ListenerX	2	ListenerX (1), Neveruse (1)
5	Neveruse135	2	Π (2)
5	NightModeBot	2	Arthropleura (2)
5	Nx	2	Nx (2)
5	Phantom Hoover&action=delete	2	Phantom Hoover (2)
5	Qwertyuiop	2	ListenerX (1), Nutty Roux (1)
5	Theemperor	2	Human (1), TheoryOfPractice (1)
5	TheoryOfPractice	2	Arthropleura (1), MarcusCicero (1)
5	TK	2	ENorman (1), Judge King (1)
5	Tolerance	2	Phantom Hoover (2)
5	Un-Human	2	Arthropleura (2)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

and the most common combinations (infinite blocks)? Ace blocking MC (9), Goonie blocking MC(7) and Ace blocking Ace (3) ;) --Worm^{(t | c)} 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea, I added a column to the table! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

rank	editor	number of blocks in 2009	blocked by
1	AndyJM	5	Foxtrot (2), TK (2), Aschlafly (1)
1	DerekE	5	TK (2), DouglasA (1), JacobB (1), RJJensen (1)
1	DWiggins	5	JacobB (2), Aschlafly (1), Jpatt (1), TK (1)
1	TimS	5	TK (5)
2	JosephMac	4	Aschlafly (2), TK (2)
2	PhraseCop	4	Aschlafly (1), Foxtrot (1), JessicaT (1), TK (1)
3	Chinapwns	3	RJJensen (2), Foxtrot (1)
3	ClementB	3	DeanS (2), TK (1)
3	Crem004	3	TerryH (3)
3	DinsdaleP	3	TK (2), Aschlafly (1)
3	EricFelix	3	DuncanB (1), JessicaT (1), TK (1)
3	Gantczak	3	DeanS (3)
3	Ieuan	3	JessicaT (1), TerryH (1), TK (1)
3	InnocenceIntent	3	Jpatt (1), TerryH (1), TK (1)
3	JDWpianist	3	DeanS (1), Karajou (1), TK (1)
3	Jfraatz	3	JacobB (2), Jpatt (1)
3	Jinxmchue	3	TK (3)
3	KBinbota	3	DeanS (2), Aschlafly (1)
3	Keepkhristklose	3	Jpatt (3)
3	LindseyE	3	Aschlafly (1), Jinxmchue (1), Jpatt (1)
3	Metzky	3	TK (2), JessicaT (1)
3	RobertWDP	3	TK (2), DeanS (1)
3	RonAbdul	3	TK (2), Aschlafly (1)
3	ShawnJ	3	Ed Poor (1), Foxtrot (1), TK (1)
3	SionapGruffydd	3	TK (2), DuncanB (1)
3	Sunrise	3	DouglasA (2), JacobB (1)
3	TaKess	3	TerryH (2), TK (1)
3	TK	3	TK (2), MikeSalter (1)
3	TomMoore	3	TK (2), DuncanB (1)

Just for comparison: A list of those who were blocked at least three times in 2009 at CP (no, not only indefinitely) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I see a trend here: TK "doing Andy's bidness" of blocking prevaricators and troublemakers!

16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Longest Blog Logs at CP
rank	editor	number of blocks at CP	blocked unblocked reblocked
1	AmesG	52	Aschlafly, Aschlafly, Aschlafly, Conservative, MountainDew, TimSvendsen, Conservative, MountainDew, Conservative, ColinR, Conservative, Tsumetai, Ed Poor, Hojimachong, TK, TK, TK, Hojimachong, TK, Geo.plrd, Aschlafly, TimS, TimS, ColinR, TimS, TimS, Hojimachong, ColinR, TK, TK, Hojimachong, TK, TK, Ed Poor, Aschlafly, RobSmith, Ed Poor, TK, TK, Conservative, Hojimachong, Conservative, TK, TK, Aschlafly, Karajou, MexMax, HelpJazz, Fox, Karajou, Karajou, Karajou
2	Fox	40	Aschlafly, Aschlafly, TK, Aschlafly, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, MexMax, HelpJazz, Geo.plrd, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Fox, Fox, Jinxmchue, Fox, Jpatt, Fox, Jinxmchue, Fox, Jinxmchue, Fox, Ed Poor, Fox, Ed Poor, Fox, Fox, Ed Poor, Fox, Jallen, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, TK, TK
3	BRichtigen	32	Bugler, Bugler, Bugler, Philip J. Rayment, TerryH, TerryH, Ed Poor, Philip J. Rayment, Ed Poor, RSchlafly, Ed Poor, Philip J. Rayment, Foxtrot, Aschlafly, Foxtrot, Philip J. Rayment, Bugler, Bugler, Bugler, Bugler, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, TK, RSchlafly, TK, TimS, Ed Poor, TimS, TimS, Bugler, TK
3	HelpJazz	32	TK, TK, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, RobSmith, Ed Poor, MexMax, HelpJazz, MexMax, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HenryS, Bugler, HelpJazz, BrianCo, BrianCo, HenryS, HelpJazz, Bugler, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HelpJazz, HenryS, HenryS, Ed Poor, Learn together, TK
5	TK	31	Jinkas, Samwell, Aschlafly, Jallen, Ed Poor, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Ed Poor, Fox, MexMax, HelpJazz, Geo.plrd, Geo.plrd, Geo.plrd, DanH, Geo.plrd, Geo.plrd, Geo.plrd, Philip J. Rayment, HelpJazz, Bugler, HelpJazz, DeanS, MikeSalter, Aschlafly, TK, TK, TK, TK
6	DinsdaleP	30	Ed Poor, Philip J. Rayment, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Aschlafly, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Fox, Jpatt, DeanS, DeanS, TerryH, TerryH, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Bugler, Bugler, Learn together, Learn together, Aschlafly, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, RodWeathers, JessicaT, RodWeathers, TimS, Aschlafly, TK, TK, TK
7	Iduan	29	Aschlafly, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, Iduan, Iduan, Iduan, Iduan, Philip J. Rayment, Iduan, Iduan, Philip J. Rayment, Philip J. Rayment, Iduan, TerryH, Iduan, MexMax, HelpJazz, Aschlafly, Iduan, Iduan, Iduan, Iduan, Geo.plrd, TK, TK
7	Kektklik	29	DanH, Aschlafly, Karajou, Aschlafly, DanH, Aschlafly, Philip J. Rayment, Fox, TerryH, DanH, NathanG, NathanG, Aschlafly, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, Ed Poor, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, BethanyS, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG
9	NathanG	28	Philip J. Rayment, NathanG, Bugler, Bugler, Fox, Jpatt, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, Karajou, Karajou, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, NathanG, BethanyS, BethanyS, TK
10	TomMoore	22	DeanS, Ed Poor, Philip J. Rayment, Ed Poor, Ed Poor, DeanS, Ed Poor, Philip J. Rayment, Learn together, Karajou, Joaquín Martínez, DanH, Bugler, Bugler, HenryS, Aschlafly, Aschlafly, TK, CPWebmaster, TK, MikeSalter, DuncanB

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Conservapedia's problems with Einstein's Theory of Relativity

Hey, I just found this site. I don’t if this is the right place to ask this. The people of Wikipedia told me I should ask my question here. Anyway, I’m familiar with objections creationists & conservatives make against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I never knew these people had objections against Relativity too, so this is pretty new for me & also, I’m not familiar enough with the theory itself. Discovering Conservapedia was the first time I’ve seen & got exposed to objections against the Theory of Relativity. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Here is the the link. Thanks for your help.^{— Unsigned, by: 71.98.169.172 / talk / contribs}

Andy's brother Roger (Rschlafly on CP) has even told Andy his arguments are bullshit. It's not CP's criticisms of relativity, but Andy being the ignoramus on matters outside his scope, like normal. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy has a scope? Jaxe (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Take your time to read:

There you'll find loads of knowledgeable people running in vain against a wall of ignorance... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICTS!):The objections to relativity are all from one editor, namely the site owner Aschlafly. He believes strongly that relativity leads to moral relativism; primarily because they both start with the root word relative. He has not provided proof that the two are related. His entire argument stems from the Genetic Fallacy, He thinks that since the one is related to the other (in reality this is false) that since relativism is wrong (which he has not shown) that relativity must be false (again, this is a fallacy). Every other editor on the article wanted to see it changed, including many conservapedia Sysops and his own daughter and Brother Roger, both of whom know more about physics than he does. Andy considers himself an expert in all things, he is not. --Opcn (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is if Andy dislikes relativity so much, is why the cp:quantum mechanics page seems (to my limited understanding of subject) fairly accurate, when quantum mechanics has even more weirdnesses that relativity. I found (but forgot to bookmark) a page on WP that states that relativity precludes an omni-potent deity from being able to predict the future state of system; perhaps that is why Andy doesn't like relativity. However, quantum mechanics also states that it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the future; it can only predict the chances of each possible outcome. The classic example of this is the wp:double-slit experiment, which has been repeated with macro-molecules like buckyballs. (Does the ball have the wave-nature?) CSMiller 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Weirdness has nothing to do with it, it is all the association in Andy's head. he is convinced, that's all. --Opcn (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

He's done an Andy: made a pronouncement totally off the top of his head and now has to stand by it no matter what. He does it all the time. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy like Quantum mechanics because it allows for action at a distance. As explained in the Bible. Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. By the way, I really liked the debate between Johanan Raatz & Andrew Schlafly on the Archive 3 of Conservapedia’s Theory of Relativity talk page. That made it one of the best wiki talk pages I’ve ever read. One thing I noticed while I was reading that debate was that Andrew Schlafly doesn’t seem to realize is that most “creation scientists” actually support & embrace the Theory of Relativity (I went to the Answers in Genesis website & looked up the Theory of Relativity) although I don’t think they don’t understand it well in my opinion. I didn't understand their explanations about something called Dr. Humphreys’s White Hole Cosmology & John Hartnett’s Cosmological Relativity. They sound very wacko to me. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.98.169.172 / talk / contribs}

unsigned said the magic word of the day , here's your Gerbil... Dont let Andy see it

@BON: Andy will nitpick on you via "although I don’t think they don’t understand it well in my opinion"... beware if you still edit CP. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CP's denial of relativity is certainly a wonder to behold. As far as I know, Andy is the only relativity denialist, unlike other topics, such as the axiom of choice and complex numbers, in which various other sycophants have joined in the fun. Andy denies relativity at many levels. The confusion with "moral relativism" only scratches the surface of his craziness. While the connection with moral relativism is something that conservatives could rightly be alarmed about, Andy goes far beyond that. Even in discussions in which it is completely clear that the topic is just the technical correctness, he is batshit insane. He has some other non-technical problems as well:

The confusion with moral relativism is well documented.
He claims that the study of relativity can lead people away from reading the Bible. In one discussion he asked (KSorenson, I think it was) whether she would still support relativity if she knew that its study led people to read the Bible less. He has argued with people, during discussions of the technical correctness of relativity, how much time they spend reading the Bible. (I'm only saying this because you're a newcomer. Those of us that have been around for a while know all about this kind of behavior.) And, of course, he claims a negative correlation between Bible reading and studying relativity in college, these statistics being researched with his usual thoroughness.
On one occasion, I don't have the reference off the top of my head, he claimed that (left-wing, of course) professors teach relativity for the purpose of leading people away from the Bible. Maybe it's just me, but it seems an awful lot of effort for such a dubious payback. All the books, courses, lectures, seminars, conferences, space probes, and particle accelerators, just to get people to stop reading the Bible? The connection isn't well established, nor the motive. And there might be more cost-effective ways, like firebombing some churches maybe? (The preceding was a joke!)
He is in utter denial about the technical aspects. He denies that relativity explains the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and got in a big fight with KSorenson. He refused to understand the numbers right before his eyes. KSorenson left shortly after this, along with MarkGall and PatrickD. KSorenson's departure was a great loss for CP; She, along with PatrickD, was writing up a wonderful article on general relativity. (PatrickD seems to be taking this material over to Wikiversity.)
He insists that "nothing useful has ever come out of relativity", unlike quantum mechanics. When called out on the comparison, he moves the goalposts relentlessly. He claims all of electronics and computers as trophies for QM, presumably because QM explains the behavior of the electrons and atoms that make up transistors and such, but won't accept the role of relativity in explaining the magnetic fields that make disk drive motors work.
He insists that relativity has nothing to do with the correct operation of the GPS satellite system, and gets into nit-picking arguments over whether the technicians uploading correction data for the relativistic gravitational time-shifting understand relativity. If they don't personally understand general relativity, then relativity has nothing to do with GPS.
He cites with great pride the few crackpot scientists that have denied relativity, including one who was involved in some Michelson-era measurements of the speed of light.
He cites a magazine article about an experiment comparing the comparative accuracy of relativity and the alternative Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, failing to note that the article explained that the experiment showed that Einstein was right and Brans & Dicke were wrong.
He carries on and on about the politicization of the scientific community, at the same time complaining about the leftward tilt of the Nobel prize committee and crowing over the fact that only one Nobel prize was ever awarded directly for relativity (Hulse/Taylor, 1993.) And he denigrates their research, pointing out that they are no longer conducting their experiment. (Galileo is no longer dropping cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Does that mean classical physics is wrong?)
He claims that it was pure (left-wing, of course) politics that caused Brans and Dicke not to get the Nobel prize, and caused their theory not to prevail.
He quotes Isaac Newton's statement "I feign no hypotheses" in support of Newtonian gravity rather than Einsteinian, without having any understanding of what Newton meant.
He confuses the (local) curvature of spacetime near gravitating bodies with the (very nearly) flat geometry of the universe as a whole.
He has this funny notion that the Bible "proves" that relativity is wrong because of the account of the Centurion's slave (some say it was his gay lover, but I digress) in John 4:46-54. Apparently Jesus performed a faith-healing of someone who was not immediately present, and the biblical account requires that the healing effect took place instantly. There is no explanation of how the healing effect could be measured to microsecond accuracy, but I admit that I am not a biblical scholar.
He has also gotten into some utterly bizarre arguments with people about objects having different relativistic mass for accelerations in the direction of their motion vs. accelerations transverse to it. No amount of just explaining how the equations work were able to help him.

Andy's brother Roger has not drunk the anti-relativity Kool-Aid, and occasionally spars with Andy on the technical aspects of this. However, Roger takes a back seat to no one in denying Albert Einstein's role in it. He repeatedly edits the various articles to give major credit to everyone except Einstein. In one case he cites a paper by David Hilbert (I think) that predates Einstein's major announcement of general relativity, concealing the fact that the paper was co-authored by Einstein. Of course many people contributed to relativity, but Einstein's role was central, and all sensible people know that.

An explanation for the Schlafly brothers' disdain for relativity and Einstein is hard to come by. His liberal, socialist, internationalist leanings are of course major factors. His religion may also have played a role.

Gauss (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Einstein (liberal) > Theory of Relativity >>>>> Moral Relativism >>>> Evil Liberal Things

is simple really , + Andy the engineer seems to hate Maths Hamster (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

) Deny Einstein
) ????????????
) Profit

Opcn (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I forgot about the argument that "Jesus healed someone instantly over a distance, hence relativity is wrong"! So many things wrong with that one, like HOW WOULD THOSE BOTP OBSERVERS WHO WROTE IT DOWN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AT TOTALLY DIFFERENT PLACES? --GTac (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, couldn't Jesus have violated relativity? I mean, he is, y'know, God and all, and it was a miracle. This is just one more example of the fundamentalist trend to limit God with their hatred of science, just like they limit God by insisting that He could only create life that doesn't change. MDB (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's position on the Theory of Relativity (the theory of relativity is wrong and Einstein didn't invent it) is even more obscure than the view of the Deutsche Physik in the 1930s (the theory of relativity is wrong because Einstein invented it) or the 1940s (the theory of relativity is right but don't mention Einstein). The latter one is somewhat Roger's opinion - he doesn't like Einstein at all. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The blog that respects freedom of religion...

...doesn't seem to do so when they heard the news that the an Air Force Academy allow space for Wiccans to practice their religion. --Dark Paladin X (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not - then it qualifies as "forcing your religion on someone else." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone's free to ~~wear sunscreen~~ be Christian equally. --Kels 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"We must coexist with evil, such as Wiccan beliefs"... and so must they... ħuman

03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

*Headdesk* It's funny to watch them blow minor things out of proportion, but other times... you just pity them. Not just them, but for all of humanity.

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedians only support "freedom of religion" insofar as that means, "the State stays out of our wingnut churches," which in turn means, "the State does whatever the people in our wingnut churches say."

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

young fit women dancing naked every full moon , whats not to like. The demon summoning and hardcore demon sex might be off putting. Hamster (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You seems a little confused or joking, it is hard to tell. - π 05:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Paganism has to get a little more cultural clout before beautiful women will become pagans in volume, and seeing as how neo-pagans run screaming whenever someone mentions the word mainstream, this is a pipe dream.

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, one of the hottest girls at my high school was a Wiccan. And yes, we saw her naked all the time - the tool shed behind the theaters, the dugouts, etc... she's a UU now, with three kids... weird...

05:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pagan, Christian or atheist? (And another thing: why would the Conservapedians make such a big deal out of this if the Buddhists already have their place?)

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting away from the CP hysteria (almost want to create a pic of a 'chaplin' with a pentegram on his collar just to give them a heart attack, but they don't need the help), this is a positive thing to me. It was only a few years ago that there was a big todo at the AFAcadamy due to right wingers trying to shove Christianity down the throats of a couple non-Christians there, and the brass trying to blow it off. - Ravenhull (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that the one that Mikey Weinstein went so emphatically against?

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was when it hit the news. - Ravenhull (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I dabbled in Wicca for a while, until I realized I found it extraordinarily stupid. While I wasn't especially inclined to notice the women, I do remember that some were reasonably attractive, but I don't remember any as especially hot. (Word of explanation: Just because I am not attracted to women, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate that a woman is attractive.) MDB (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree Wicca is "extraordinarily stupid", and more than a tad intellectually dishonest, but it is a religion and so in s secular country like the US is meant to be, it's followers should have exactly the same rights as followers of other faiths. Coming back to the WIGO... I just love this nice bit of slippery slope argument... a true Jpatt classic...[1]^img--

20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My description of Wicca as "extraordinarily stupid" was in no way meant to suggest that Wiccans don't deserve the same rights to practice their beliefs as do any followers of any other religion, and I'm sorry if my statement implied otherwise. MDB (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wicca is a religion, ergo it is "extraordinarily stupid" by definition. But as has been said, if your going to 'respect' certain religions, you've got to respect them all. Here in the UK, a 'Pagan Police Association' has recently started - good for them! If the extraordinarily stupid Muslim Police Association exists, why shouldn't they have a piece of the action too? I'm still hoping a Pastafarian Police Association will pop up soon... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bunk; religions must stand or fall on their own merits, and Wicca has less going against it than creationism.

ListenerX^TalkerX 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's you being incredibly stupid in a nutshell. "Religion stands on it's own merits! Wicca has nothing going against it!" Complete non-sequitur. You're an idiot, psuedoscientific, a paranoiac and a crank. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note the complete lack of arguments in your mini-rant there. Note also your stuffing words in my mouth.

ListenerX^TalkerX 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and list the merits of Wicca/Odinism/whatever. Note your disassociation from the burden of proof you just heralded. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that Wicca has less against it than creationism, by which I meant that the ideas of Wicca have not been blatantly falsified by 150+ years of geologic and biological science. There are arguments against Wicca, but they are primarily philosophical in nature, such as, "Wicca rips off every pagan tradition that doesn't run away fast enough," or, "We have laws of physics. Therefore, certain phenomena cannot be attributed to magic."

ListenerX^TalkerX 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that you did not list any of the merits of Wicca. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said there were any.

ListenerX^TalkerX 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You simply said it stood on them. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also said it could fall on them, or the lack of them...

ListenerX^TalkerX 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are both feeling the same way essentially. How about "Wicca has no merit whatsoever as an explanation of the world, but still, it is less batshit insane than creationism". There, you can be friends again now. — Pietrow ☏ 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Prof. Jensen?

The good Professor hasn't been around on CP for a few days, and he normally doesn't let more than a few hours pile up on Recent Changes without his name turning up. Is real life keeping him away from CP? Is he a little disenchanted with his recent slapdowns? Or has he finally realized what a colossal waste he's been making of his golden years? Burndall (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The longest time the professor has been absent from CP was nine days: so tomorrow, we can start to worry... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

....and? Gone? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now we can start to worry: since the insomniac academic started to comment on CP in August 2008, he was absent from CP for less than fifty days - and the longest time in a row were eight days (between Jan 19, 2009 and Jan 28, 2009).

So, what happened? Perhaps he is just skiing.

But I may dream: perhaps he read some of Andy's stuff - probably some of his statistics or on the theory of relativity. The good professor has quite a good grasp of stats - and takes some interest in it (Andy should read his Historians Guide to Statistics sometimes). And as a historian, he should be aware of the similarities between Andy's view on physics and the Deutsche Physik.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course in Europe a minimum of two weeks holiday/vacation is pretty standard. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More inexplicable from Karibou

Latest Toon is not just weak, but really tremendously unfunny. "Shadow acquisition unit"? My, that's a baroque way of putting it. And he misses the big news: "Pawx T. Phil" predicted six more weaks of winter! Surely this must mean the game is up for the climate change denialist claque! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed this story, which might make the latest toon make more sense. PETA has attempted yet another publicity stunt, suggesting that Punxsatwawney Phil be replaced with an animatronic groundhog. MDB (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps his least funny one yet (though it's sort of hard to say, it is anti-funny, like most of his others). Really, Karajou, could you set your sites any lower? Making fun of PETA is like shooting fish in a barrel. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean sea kittens. -- Nx / talk 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an inexplicable joke, but a childish one. This is the sort of thing you'd see in a junior high newspaper, not something that makes the grand claims of trusworthiness that CP does. --Kels (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I kinda like the 50s style robot, although I am bugged by the fact it has wheels on the end of his legs. That just wouldn't work. Either go with a bipedal robot that can walk like a human, or one on 4 wheels that can move like a car. This one couldn't go up a hill without keeling over. As for the joke Karajou got stuck at "draw a funny robot". This one didn't need a speech bubble, it adds nothing. This is a problem with more of his cartoons, he thinks all cartoons should have a speech bubble so he draws one. Then he has the problem of filling those bubbles without the ability of putting something pertinent in there. So we end up with a robot-groundhog asking a real groundhog for a ? turnip ?? Internetmoniker (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

At least the groundhog is cute. Vulpius (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the turnip is a reference to PETA opposing eating meat (but aren't groundhogs herbivores, anyway?) And the robot reminds me a bit of this famous robot. MDB (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"I am bugged by the fact it has wheels on the end of his legs. That just wouldn't work. Either go with a bipedal robot that can walk like a human, or one on 4 wheels that can move like a car. This one couldn't go up a hill without keeling over." The way-too-deep analysis cracked me up. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deny the Segway and lose all credibility. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tachikomas make a mockery of your primitive notions of robot design. Barikada (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Tachikoma wheels are retractable (IIRC), so they can walk on their proper feet if that is better suited for the terrain (and the speed requirements). --Sid (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but this is the first one I thought was funny. Maybe it's because his signature looks a bit like my old one (because of the grass growing on it)? ħuman

00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they just locked the wheels, but I could be mistaken. Barikada (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If they do replace Paux with a Faux Paux, then some ingenious kid somewhere will hack the thing. I'm just waiting for the gopher to poke out, look around, and say "You shall be assimilated. Resistance is Futile." to the assembled, now frightened masses. -- CodyH (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This toon is so last week Internetmoniker (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible that they just locked them. It's been a good while since I watched the series. --Sid (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those liberal atheists and their assumptions...

Andy's slow motion bullying^img of BMcP continues: "BMcP, on this site when someone states something as true, he should be able to explain why he thinks it is true. It's not enough to say the equivalent of "my assumptions are the same as that of liberals and atheists and I don't even know what those assumptions are." If you have no idea what the basis for a claim is (other than the equivalent of "liberals say so"), then please find out first, reconsider it with an open mind, and only then consider posting it."

The very possibility that a star can be 8000 years old is apparently a very radical (and liberal and atheistic) statement. His standard for proof is very interesting though, considering almost everything Conservapedia deems to be true is the equivalent of "World Nut Daily says so." Junggai (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The amazing thing is bmcp never claimed it was 8000 years old, he claimed it was light years away. Does Andy believe the Andromeda galaxy is 4004 light years away at most?

22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, but you see, something 8000 light-years away would indeed mean that it is 8000 years old, because a true YEC believer doesn't believe in the Starlight Problem. Therefore, only a librul astronomer would discount the possibility that time-dilation designed™ by God makes all celestial objects in the mirror closer than they appear. BMcP is fucked. (BTW, your sig makes me hungry. Time to pull the Gruyere out of the fridge...) Junggai (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Pork pie & Stilton for supper: AFK ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Or BMcP can admit that the theory of relativity is within the assumptions and get over it, and since the theory of relativity is no longer correct, things can be assumed to travel at infinite speed (at least at some point in time), and as such the term "lightyear" is no longer meaningful. Q.E.D. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! Relativity has nothing to do with that, just the term light years does. He's converting from parsecs, which are units of distance which don't depend on relativity but simple geometry. If you accept that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is 150,000,000 km, the distances of the closer stars (ie, this side of our spiral arm) follows from simple geometry, and nothing else.

02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Geo-metry is only useful for measuring the Earth. For anything else it iz librul deseets. ħuman

02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the "assumption" Andy wants admitted here is the idea that lightspeed is historically constant. BMcP risks losing credibility if he continues denying that Jesus can make light travel at whatever speed He wants (in addition to changing the rates of erosion, radioactive decay, genetic mutation, continental drift, etc etc etc). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been brought up before, but I really can't get my head around Andy's way of thinking with regards to miracles, or displays of divine power. His definition seems to be "something we can't do, but still within the confines of nature, i.e. they conform to natural rules", which is why he's so obsessed with enforcing this idea of historical consistency of the speed of light etc (with Jesus and the bible being the baseline). Why can't he accept the idea that god and/or Jesus, being *freakin' deities*, can change the laws of reality as they see fit? Why does he try to pick and choose what parts of science he accepts in order to make sure god and Jesus aren't breaking the laws of "reality" (his reality, that is), rather than saying "god can do what he wants because he's god" like pretty much anyone else does? X Stickman (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not just Andy, it is the entire field of creation "science" that does this type of cherry picking. Whenever they can "prove" something they use "science" (like the laws of thermodynamics for instance), whenever they can't they go for special pleading. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine Cheeses & Wine has it right above... There is no assumption about relativity, or the speed of light, in finding the distance to the Crab. The angular velocity is measured geometrically, and the radial velocity is based on the red shift (this assumes that a shift in a spectral line is caused by radial motion, and I've never heard anyone dispute that). Everything else is geometry, and the distance is in pure distance units (meters, miles, what have you... light year is also a pure distance unit, with no time involved, but its name confuses people). The only way that the speed of light comes into this is in working out the *age* of the nebula. It's possible that BCmP hasn't realised that when he talks about distance, Ashlafly thinks age. Why isn't Ashlafly concerned about large distances to other objects? Simply because we know the exact year the Crab nebula was formed, and combining this with distance - and the assumption of a fixed speed of light - that gives almost exactly the year the Crab was formed (sorry, couldn't bring myself to say "created") --Fawlty (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a small wonder he hasn't brought up the naming convention yet. Why is it taking him so long? — Pietrow ☏ 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@Fawlty: If things (particularly light) can travel at infinite speed then the minimum age of any celestial objects can no longer be determined by distance from it (or any practical method since we can't yet take samples of anything there). therefore the linkage is decorrelated if speed of light is assume to be finite. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a short week...

We already got a new toon^img again. And Kara already returns to one of his classic themes: "It snows, thus global warming doesn't exist." --Sid (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did Kara actually just have a setup followed by a punchline? "Cold winter day == no global warming" aside, did Kara actually just do humor? HumanisticJones (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Humor? No, no. Not at all. DickTurpis (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Worse, look at some of the lines - I think his felt-tip pen is running out. Is there a fund somewhere so that we can contribute to a new Sharpie for him? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with HumanisticJones -- if you accept their basic assumption that the harsh winter disproves global warming, the idea of Al Gore getting bent out of shape by some kids wanting to shovel his driveway isn't a bad joke. Not really hilarious, but its kinda funny at least. Its the underlying premise that's flawed, not the joke itself. MDB (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is an actual joke in there. Global warmists get amusingly angry when confronted with the new reality : snow. He did use it before though. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's effin' blizzarding here now. Just back from shop (cat food & Mars bars) & I was head to foot white. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm, cat food and Mars bars! Yummy combination! When will they appear on your zig zag zug? ħuman

21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe his cartoons would improve tremendously if his pen completely ran out. Vulpius (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're exaggerating... I found the White House not too bad. You could certainly laugh with it if it weren't for the complete misunderstanding of weather/climate. — Pietrow ☏ 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CP is now pro-gambling

It seems to me that CP has never been a fan of gambling.

Until now.

Since Obama has suggested not "blow(ing) a bunch of cash in Vegas", they're all for gambling. MDB (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CP will support anything as long as it's against Obama. If Obama said "Smoking is bad!", Andy and TK would be crowing about how Evilbama tries to destroy the poor, poor American tobacco industry. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama could endorse Spring flowers, fuzzy kittens and cute puppies, and CP would be demanding he apologize to allergy sufferers. MDB (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

More Ed on WP

Another piece of User 188's silliness is up for deletion ^yummy &^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's still sulking. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Page

CP:MPR - 27 Jan 2010

I noticed a WIGO about the number of Obama pictures on the main page, but did anyone notice the situation on 27 Jan before JPratt archived MPR? It had seven. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They sure are classy. Here is another one for you TK. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stealing this for Fun:Conservafake!--

^talk

21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, just this afternoon I was wondering whether I should start making posters of Andy with the text "Child Molester", just to show them how childish they're being. But then I realized that would be a more truthful poster than theirs, since Andy does molest children on an intellectual level. --GTac (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think just one that says "Gerbiller" would work well. There are rumors this one is true. DickTurpis (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to ElReg, the original image was used with attribution. CS Miller (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I meant without attribution. CS Miller (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Abortion & Breast Cancer

I note that Ken's^img reawakening the debate just to get a link to one of his pets. ^yummy &^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Monique^img is the one who awakened the beast. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eff me! Nice screed. I missed that! ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See here for the full text

^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken is asking for a comment by someone blocked on the same day he created the account, in September. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[2] is a complete dismantlement of the entire medical issue. I'd really love to see Andy tear into this guy in his own particular way. It'd be Lensky all over again. --Opcn (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing Andy get trounced by Gorski would be awesome. (more) Of course, he was totally impervious to Pal, so who knows. Corry (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Tragically Hip...

Are a heavy metal band^img. They wrote a song about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In 1989. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Parody? --Opcn (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having known a lot of Hip fans in my time, I'm not sure. Many of them are pretty brain-damaged. Or have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, JacobB^img!!!! TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey come on now, don't knock the Hip, they are awesome, its stupid americans who are brain damaged

Definite parody; I wrote some of it. They're not heavy metal, the song 'New Orleans is Sinking' was written at least 20 years before Hurricane Katrina and the band name comes from an old music video that has a rehab center for "the tragically hip." Anyway, the page was deleted while I was writing this. Too bad! PrincipalScudworth (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TK only knows the cheap stuff

Someone doesn't eat a lot of foie gras, hmm, TK?^img – Nick Heer 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And probably has not read The Wind in the Willows...

ListenerX^TalkerX 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Luburrral reedin' – Nick Heer 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how a member of the Schlafly family is hosting a website with members bitching about how rough things are for workin'-class folk. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone read the article? They listed that it was JW red in their complaints, ignoring the fact that JW red is one of the cheaper varieties of scotch available. --Opcn (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of a Lagavulin guy myself. how's that for snobbery? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that comment by TK and though he was talking about Astroturf. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lagavulin, eh? I think ToP just got one of my votes. DickTurpis (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Better check the spelling on Wikipedia and Google, Nick Heer. Cheap shots usually are just that...cheap. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the spelling of Dean & Deluca, TK. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't need to check the spelling – I know the difference. That said, I did Google "faux gras" and it seems it's a knockoff, cheap version of foie gras. – Nick Heer 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and bad spelling is always just that...bad. Ignorant troll. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And if 3 billion people claimed that rock was bread I would quite happily buy tickets to watch as you break your teeth in that brainless sheep-reflex you seem to have going there, T'Cupcake. In many ways a fitting end for a troll.--

^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A really cool Idea, that I haven't got the faintest idea how to do

I have no programming skillz. However I think it would be a really cool idea if someone could write a scrip to report here with say a traffic light or something like that, if registration was available on conservapedia. They shut it down often, and rather than running around like a chicken with my head cut off looking for a clean IP to soil it would be nice to know if it will work first. Can we do that? --Opcn (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. Just check any CP page while not logged in. If it says "Log in", account creation is disabled. If it says "Log in / create account" (if I recall correctly), it's enabled. If you're too lazy to log in and out, you can also simply go to the Account Creation page and see if it gives you an error or not. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If like me you don't have a clean IP to look from then it's kinda hard. ^{— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs}

Then log out and simply look at the top right corner. That should work no matter how your IP got hammered. --Sid (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a lot of IPs have been server-blocked because of page-bumping. But you can always use a web-proxy, which will at least let you view the page even if you can't edit. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel TK is talking about us

Here. TK usually just takes the first lines from the article he quotes but he added some words this time. TK's additions are bold:

"Need a Job? Cyber Thieves / Vandals Are Hiring.

The people who brought the world malicious software that steals credit card numbers from your personal computer, empties bank ATMs of their cash and have their own vandal sites to attack other sites, are hiring, and they're advertising online!"

My my, this "vandal site" is in the same league as cyber thieves. Who knew? Internetmoniker (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

He is just bitter because I blocked him for three days when, according to him, he has donated vast sums of money to RW and anyway, who am I block him when he has been around far longer than me. Ace ⁱ⁹ 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for abridging his human rights, you monster. --Kels (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed how he has added RW User #45 to his sig as both a bit of a joke at Ed and to show how long he has been here? - π 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That just might be a bit of hyperbole on your part, Ace. I don't recall saying I had donated "vast sums" of money. And I have been here longer than you, that's a fact. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm apparently User #7. I doubt that means I'm the seventh user on the wiki, though. --Kels (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen up, butter-cup. You sent me an email bandying around the fact that you have donated money to RW and you have been around here longer than me as if that gives you any currency whatsoever on whether or not I can block you. As if I don't have any authority. Well bugger you sweet heart, didn't work for Ed on WP either. Ace ⁱ⁹ 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only your good idea of what I meant, Ace. See things as you like, that's your right, doll. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wha Wha Wha. Ace ⁱ⁹ 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you look up what user number you are? What number am I? I want to put it in my sig if it's like, 27 or something.. but on the other hand if I'm number 859 or something, forget it. Refugee ^{talk page} 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its on your preferences page. Never mind though because your User#1 for me! Ace ⁱ⁹ 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Awwww... my sweet baby love *hugs* and more... Refugee ^{talk page} 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refugee: User ID: 281. Drats, that sucks. Refugee ^{talk page} 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am User 212: Affirmative Action worked for me. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do I end up as User #7, when I'm sure there were more than six before me? Or is that seventh since the switch from RW 1.0 to 2.0? --Kels (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(checks myprefs) 2,190. Fuck. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2'827. Brilliant. SJ ^Debaser 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone admit to being #188? ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3,161 here - I'm safe. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain why Ace can block you, TK. Let $A$ be the respect the members of RationalWiki have for Ace, let $T$ be the respect members of RationalWiki have for you, TK. Than $A>T+x$ where $x$ is any number such that $0<x<\infty$ . - π 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

HCM much, π ? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about you silly little man? Ace ⁱ⁹ 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the logs, out user 188 is Fibonacci is a dago, someone whose only edit was a revert reinstating a Metapedia link on someones userpage. I was expecting it to be someone a little more, well, important. Pi is user 182, though, so only off by 6. A mere 3% error! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not me by the way, I am user 1,154. - π 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea is correct, Kels, that is since the switch from RW 1.0 to 2.0. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, looking at the User Creation logs, Kels is #1, TK is #38, and Ed Poor is #40. I wonder who the 6 prior to Kels are? Trent et.al. perhaps? Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be Colin, Trent, Doc, Linus perhaps....odd the numbers differ from the pref page...must have something to do with accounts already there, or accounts removed, etc. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking @ that log: allowing for Kels being 7. see here^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, make me do work...

RWadmin, Linus, Colin, Trent, Human, and Huey gunna getcha are 1-6. I want a cookie.

--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Users can be created at the time the software is installed, there are 6 users that do not appear in the user creation log as they were probably created on the install. See Human doesn't exist. - π 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we all know that Human doesn't exist. He's probably just the most cunningly-programmed spambot ever. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Kels was the first non-RW1 person to join RW2, by the way. But we hung out with her, or her with us, somewhere else in the late days of RW1. And, yeah, there's a glitch in the U creation log that for some reason doesn't show those first few entries. I created my account manually, btw. ħuman

02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I was a member of RW1 for about a day before the changeover happened, and somehow that didnt' get saved. So I signed up for RW2 right away. So in a way I was the last member to join the original RW, and the only one at that time who'd never had a CP account. Pretty sure of that last bit, anyhow. --Kels (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have been here longer than you, that's a fact. - It all depends what you mean by "being here", TK. Let's not forget that you have "been" at CP since March 2007, but you were noticeably absent after your UCLA plagiarism humiliation. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, TK is also users 73 & 348. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pi

Out of cooriosity, I had a look at the Pi mentioned above; Not a lot of contribs but one's quite nice. Wonder what happened to him/her. ^yummy &^honey_{(or marmalade)} 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He gets around. (ahem) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

^{(self promotion warning)}? ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not nearl clever enough to be Pi, which as my faith teaches is exactly 3. CЯacke® 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cracker (nice to see you around b.t.w.) I'm a ~~bit~~ lot thick when it comes to jokules. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gambling WIGO

I've neevr been to Las Vegas before, but does spending a lot of cash in Las Vegas have to involve gambling to some degree? Unless it implies so, CP is not implying that people should gamble there. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, there's also prostitution. --Kels (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

there's also drugs and alcohol. Ace ⁱ⁹ 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

and Siegfied & Roy, and Wayne Newton.--Simple (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality and animatronics? --Kels (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be "CP is encouraging people to spend a load of cash in Las Vegas -- we encourage CP to share the methods of doing so without sinning."? Oh shit. People usually go to Las Vegas on weekends so some of those people are working on sabbath and as such should be immediately executed. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those Sigfried & Roy and Wayne Newton shows still put money in the pockets of the casinos, since that's where they play. The better part of the city is tied up in gambling and support industries for it. --Kels (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And the theaters where they perform, plus pretty much all the rest of the non-gambling attractions like restaurants, are placed so you can't avoid going through the casino on your way to see The Flamboyant Magic of Gunter and Ernst or whatever. (And at least at the hotel where I saw Blue Man Group, its even difficult to find the theater.) The only way to avoid even entering a casino during a vacation in Vegas would be to stay in a non-casino, off-strip hotel, and only see attractions outside the city, like Hoover Dam and the Liberace Museum. You couldn't even fly into the city; the airport has slot machines in the terminal. MDB (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Annotating Conservapedia?

Hey, uh, this is going to be pretty vague. I just had an idea but I don't know how to present it sensibly or if it's already been discussed.

A while ago I read about a phenomena related to high-end cellphones (perhaps the iPhone in particular) where people (in Japan, I believe) were using the various functions of the iPhone to leave comments in "real life", so you could point at somewhere another user had been and see what they had to say about a restaurant or a statue or something. I'm pretty sure there's actually quite a few apps like this, but I don't know anything about mobile devices except the games being made exclusively for them are starting to look really nice :(

Just now, I flashed back to that and also to some other app for desktop web browsers, a plugin or some such that would create chatrooms based on URLs you went to - so you could go to www.ohlookagoat.goat and talk to everybody else who had this chat program running and was surfing that site. Once again, I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff out there like this, but I don't know anything about it (and once again, there's about ten zillion flash games, so there must be like two or three hundred that are actually good, etc etc).

These two thoughts merged in my mind to form a new one....are there currently plugins available for Firefox/Chrome/whatever that allow people to "tune in" to the information on one site that will pop-up as they visit another site? And you could set up something like....someone connects to a RationalWiki database of some sort, then they can browse over to Conservapedia's relativity article and read the kind of stuff that was posted above?

You'd probably want to keep the people who wrote these annotations limited to a small, closed group (to avoid outing parody or pointing out things that would get flushed down the memory hole by certain parties). But if something like this could be done - and I emphasize again, I have no idea if it can - it could serve to make a very interesting "guided tour" of Conservapedia possible. Megaten (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was a recent(last 2 weeks?) discussion in the Saloon Bar about a Google tool that would allow you to comment on websites and which would be available to other users. Can't remember what it was called though. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

google:Sidewiki. -- Nx / talk 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK made a mistake

TK made a mistake. (*gasp* no! - yes, it's true. lol) So, this is what he did: DannyD http://conservapedia.com/User:DannyD^img - wrote on his user page: "Was reminded by φ to help out here." So TK, mathematical genius that he is, blocks dear old Danny D: "02:55, 2 February 2010 TK blocked DannyD with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked - Member of a website supporting vandalism: Bye-bye American Pi)" apparently assuming that Danny D is RW member Pi. But φ is Phi. NOT π Pi. Phi is a mathematical term (the golden ratio: 1.61803399) and not the same as Pi (3.14159265). even I know that. But the bigger mistake is that Danny "Was reminded by φ Phi" to help out... and Phi is lil' Phyllis, Andy's daughter. even I know that. TK blocked her little friend. Just wait until Andy hears about this one. Capturebot anyone? Before it's oversighted away and thus, never happened. Refugee ^{talk page} 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy'll just undo the block and they'll go on living their lives as normal. They're all dicks over there - the fact they give five year blocks for being guilty of nothing proves what terrible human beings they are. SJ ^Debaser 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The block log^img, since you ask. Hope I'm using the cap tags right, I never mess with these... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - just the stupidity of this struck me as funny. Refugee ^{talk page} 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was KettleTicket's (see block log list above, waaay above - aka NathanG)way of referring to P Schlaf. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FTR, I was just wearing my phi t-shirt whilst giving a computer tute. (I am still wearing the shirt, I am no longer in a tute). Keep trying TK you will block me eventually. - π 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think she referred to herself that way, too. ħuman

03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hai. Thanks for raging about this too.

As far as I know, I gave her the nickname, "Phy". And she does use it to refer to herself. *talked to her a few days ago*. Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, but I never considered that it was Pi. Just someone foolish enough to say he was sent by him/her. Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, please learn to read. The user was sent by "φ" - that's "PHI". There's a difference between that and "Π" - that's "PI". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png

IP blocks at CP

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? This may be new to your over 19,000 currently blocked editors... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since 18,800 of them are duplicate blocks and socks (past and present) of users here, not a big deal! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this should be good. *gets out the popcorn* --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Amusing example of a Schlafly statistic! But even 200 wronged editors are considerably more than the 82 active ones... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And the more than 22,000,000 IPs that are blocked would no doubt all be socks as well. Gosh we have been busy. --Worm^{(t | c)} 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL only 82 active users. If that's the 'best of the public' then those are some stringent standards (that somehow also still allow Ed Poor to qualify).-- Kriss Akabusi ^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) PS Hi Nate, I wondered if that was you!

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? yes, but only when you (likely! allegedly!) blackmail someone via email, get a 12 year old kid to "parole" you then quietly delete the terms of your probation. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Editors at CP	Shorter Blocks at CP

One of the areas in which Conservapedia excels is the hypocrisy in blocking editors: today, less than 30 editors of the currently blocked 19,000 have a chance of returning in the foreseeable future, i.e., in less than a year. Most blocks are made for eternity - or at least for five years, the internet's equivalent! So, there is nothing educational in this blocks, they are meant to repel the editors. That was (somewhat) different in the beginning of the project - and at the end of 2008. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh someone just got owned - science style!--

^talk

21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Owned? Well yes, if one accepts the postulation that block lengths equal reality. Of course they don't, but LArron knows that already, his graph is just for dramatic effect. I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. Blocking people for violating CP's rules, when they know the rules, isn't some bad thing, to most people, only here where they seem to agree with violating the rules there, but want people blocked here for disagreeing, and blame them for the reactions of others. Odd. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying you have never blocked anyone that hasn't violated any CP rule? Ace ⁱ⁹ 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, the blocking rules are just broad enough that you can block everyone. You can not edit Conservapedia without conceivably committing one blocking offence. - π 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the figures quoted are, as far as I know, blocks currently in place, not historic blocks that were made then unblocked. over 20 MILLION IP's are currently blocked at CP. --Worm^{(t | c)} 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worm, who cares? That is each site's power and decision. Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? The 20M figure isn't literal, just a possible number, if all IP addresses in a given range are actually being used. It isn't something others can logically criticize, if that is what some site wants to do....it would be the same if some other site says it is "bad" for RW to sysop most users. I mean, WTF, who cares? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's arguing whether the IPs are in use; the argument is that over 20M IPs are blocked. That's insanely large for such a podunk blog of conservative craziness that only gets recognition when its owner goes insane publicly. Just look at the history: The only times CP got any press happened when Andy was in way over his head. Lenski, Bible project... Otherwise, even conservative Christians couldn't care less about your site. RW has far more active editors because we don't allow you to have any powers here. CP had more active editors when you had no powers there. It's too bad that Andy can't see what a delusional piece of troll shit you are; but it's funny when you fuck up CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? - we'll never know will we - because they're blocked! Personally, I couldn't care less - block the whole world if you like, just don't pretend it doesn't happen. And you know as well as everyone else does that breaking the rules is a nonsense - anyone can be deemed to have broken the rules. You yourself were blocked for doing so on more than one occasion I believe? --Worm^{(t | c)} 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My only point here on RW has always been the same: The same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. The fact that most have a strong hate towards me is the point...demonstrating the same mind-set as many conservatives have towards liberals, which you constantly complain about, but demonstrate your commonality with CP daily, by the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives, which surpass (in actuality) anything CP says. If RW were truly open to contrary opinions, there wouldn't be the automatic personal insult mode for anyone posting what you disagree with. There is a difference between personal insults and insulting ideas, something RW hasn't yet taken up, or made an enforcable policy about. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more Conservative Concise by just saying "no u" every time you post. Fake anecdotes aren't any more effective. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"...the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives..." You don't have to cite things that are obviously true.

--Kels (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, I am curious about two things: 1. Is your life really so impoverished that you have to boost yourself by abusing your power on a site that is really little more than an internet joke? 2. Will you now do the honorable thing and ban yourself from Conservapedia for posting on a "vandal" site? You would do it to anyone else, so, really, do your hold yourself above your own rules?

And remember, it is always possible to step back, realize that you could be a better person, and make a change to your life. Are you really that happy with how you have treated others? With the power games you have played? A change for the better is always possible. Remember that. Kaalis (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors's return after a block at CP

Blocks/Unblocks per month at CP

I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. No, we are. No, it doesn't. Only caveat: whether the editors actually violated the rules before blocking can't be seen. I leave it to your fellows at CP to automatize the evaluation of intentions.
the same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. Judging from these rates of return, editors seem to be less bullied by a short block! Quelle surprise!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Science ftw. TK, you idiot, LArron is querying the CP database, these graphs are simple "facts". PS, did I call TK a congenital liar on enough pages yet tonight? ħuman

07:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Human, your de jour knee-jerk insults aside, mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? That is the problem with statistics, they can be bent to show all kinds of things....like politicians do daily. And Aaron, your stats for RW do indeed reflect what they do, because of the multitude of blocks, which can be undone by most here, right? No surprise, so sorry no cigar for logic in your comment. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an "insult", it was a statement of fact. Eh, TK, TK, TK, when will you learn how to write English? It is so easy to find your puppets because they use commas as badly as you do. Oh, what was your point, you lying, power hungry loser? Ah yes, some of those zillion IPs you blocked on CP might have used dirty words. Funny how that's the way you got Andy to kick you off CP for a while - sliming a dirty word in his email. You'd be funny if you weren't so toxic. ħuman

09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some might say what is toxic is you continually making comments as if you knew something, which you don't. I was blocked on CP by what were eventually found to be RW users who lied continually to get promoted there, typical deceit of the kind you embrace. Odd you talk about power-hungry losers, when you still are emailing around trying to get unblocked on CP. Why? And odd, just like Obama, you and others here continue to ignore the points about how this place acts the same as CP whenever you don't like what someone says, and only focus on other issues. You would be funny too, if you weren't so transparent with your cheap shots at the ready. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks in 2009
	CP	RW
Blocks against editors	5868	5910
Blocked editors	5641	609
Blocks against active editors	3226 (55.0%)	5398 (91.3%)
Active editors	4317	1132
Blocked active editors	3039 (70.4%)	509 (45.0%)
Returned after block	185 (6.1%)	374 (75.6%)

TK: I suppose you are talking about these values. Let's have a closer look: In 2009 there were 4317 editors who made an comment on CP, and only 1132 who contributed to RW. But the number of blocks issued on both sites was roughly the same: 5868 blocks on CP, 5901 blocks on RW. First of all: mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? Yes, to a certain extant, they do: Comments of an insulting nature - and a by someone with an unsuitable name - would be reverted: these editors have no comment left at CP. Of course, this is no exact correlation, as some edits are removed without being insulting, just for being inconvenient like this one which I took from User talk:TK /Archives7#Deceit:

So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Would you care to answer, please?). 2602 blocks at CP are issued to users for whom no contribution can be found - this leaves 3039 editors blocked who contributed to CP in a way that not all their edits were reverted: they seem to have said at least something inoffensive. These are 70.4% of all the editors who made a comment in 2009! Only 185 editors came back after being blocked at least once, so at the end of 2009, there were just 1463 editors who contributed to CP unmolested - or cared enough to come back. And the situation at RW? Not 70.4% but only 45.0% of the active editors were blocked, 512 editors were blocked without leaving an evidence in the data base, i.e., for spamming and such. The return quote of blocked editors is much higher, so the blocks don't seem that repellent. At the end of the year, there were 997 editors unblocked or returned... So, while CP has roughly four times as many editors who made a un-reverted contribution, at the end of the year, there are only 1.5 times as many left interested in CP as in RW... And now you may interpret the data. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm in love with LArron. --Sean ^talk 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

♥ larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to WIGO the kids...

...and I apologize for crossing that line, but I'm not out to ridicule this student^img. I'm just wondering if someone is writing a "PETA is great' essay as a tongue in cheek way of amusing Andy or if he's just being a jackass. Or was the assignment to write a position paper on something you don't believe in, as an exercise? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fucking satire, TOP. Student10 seems to have a netter sense of humor than you, apparently. I, for one, found it quite hilarious. All he's doing is pointing out the inconsistent, bizarre, and just fucked up behaviors of PETA. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite fun trying to reverse engineer the vocabulary list from the essays. Words like "populace", "transcend", and "alluding" (to pick the first three that sprang to the eye) a) make me wish we could hack the list to include words like "frot" and "ringpiece", and b) remind me of the "Little Johnny" jokes like:

Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "centimetre"?
Little Johnny: My aunt arrived at the station and I was centimetre.

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The favorite of those was always:

Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "gladiator"?
Little Johnny: A big hairy monster ate my teacher and I'm gladiator.

-SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "isthmus"?
Little Johnny: Isthmus be the place! MDB (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only read the first few lines and lol'd. Nice work. ħuman

12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to steal that student. The satire could be more subtle, but it's damn funny and arguably one of the more intelligent pieces posted on CP. --

^{Ask me about your mother} 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Teacher: Who can give me an example of the word "contagious"?
Little Johnny (for it is he): My next door neighbour was painting his fence with a one-inch paintbrush and my Dad said "That'll take the contagious" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly astray, but always a good one. Dorothy Parker: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think". An apt description of Andy and Conservative methinks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "perturbed"?
Little Johnny: I have to take a scoop when I walk my dog because the city charges five bucks perturbed.

and:

Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "fascinate"?
Little Johnny: My shirt has ten buttons but I only fascinate.

If only he learned phonics when he was in kindergarten! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Debate WIGO

Gotta love how they say the atheists have no chance, because their stance is 'illogical'... same planet, different worlds... -Ravenhull (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, in a Monty Python sketch where an atheist wrestled an Archbishop to determine the existence of God, the Almighty won, three falls out of five. So, at least the Pythoners felt it would be close.

Y'know, that's what RW and CP should do: hold a wrestling match over the existence of God. As a theistic RW member, I'll volunteer to be one of the officials. MDB (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It always pains me immensely when people use phrases like 'logically' and 'rational' etc, whilst in the same sentence shouting "I believe there's a magic man living in the sky!". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to represent the RW side under the guise of my militant black power character Isiah Luther Evers I'm really not kidding, I have done a few wrestling shows as that character SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. In my college amateur professional wrestling collective we had a character called Black Rage, the Nubian Nightmare. He wiped the floor with southern redneck Rebel Yell. I was just a manager myself, but I was not above hitting someone with the occasional folding chair. I volunteer to do the same to Andy at any time. DickTurpis (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Really? You have a militant black power wrestler character? Blimey, my hobbies sound rather mundane in comparison... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating how the main page entry could only be Ken. He has such a wonderful (lack of) command of the English language. I wonder if he's thought of taking Andy's writing course. Come to think of it, wasn't that what U188 was allegedly

teaching last summer: haven't noticed a lot of input from him on the course. ^yummy &^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we get some school to host a live (in person) debate with Andy/Ken regarding existence of God? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time we challenged Andy to a debate he demanded an outrage price for a deposit and then said he won because Ames would not accept the conditions of the debate, so his case can not be that strong. - π 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Take a look at the TOC on cp:Canada. Since when did Religion and cultrul style become sports? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the article for 'Atheism' that they link at their main page? I do warn you, red herrings, misconception and quote mining abound, as well as a negligence to get a decent sample size and a perchance to listen to moonbats. Also, it can be overly and needlessly wordy, as with the 'Atheism and the Euthyphro Dillema' which they stretched out over eight paragraphs to say 'Things are good because God said so'. I think they need a bit of Mr. Schlafly's help in toning down the word count. -- CodyH (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Depraved NZ!

Aside from the fact the NZ must be depraved in some sense for having brought me into form I always find it amusing that NZ, by CP standards, is a disgusting leftist pit of socialism. What with our clean environment, low crime, booming business, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, zero corruption, parliamentary democracy, 99% literacy, international peace keeping......We are MONSTERS! Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arrogant monsters, at that. Harmonic educated Phantom Hoover! 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

overly sexed, drunken, arrogant monsters. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I always understood that the consumption of alcohol increased the desire but decreased the ability among the male of the species, so the arrogance is probably misplace. ^yummy

&^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll see about that later tonight. Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So the story is that some Kiwi girl auctioned off her cherry for $30K? And that makes the whole country depraved? what about the American girk who got 3 million bucks for the right to deflower her? What does that say about American depravity, TK? Or about the law of supply and demand? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its depraved because she only got 30K? Ace ⁱ⁹ 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The American girl isn't too much of a looker AFAIC, no way would I have ponied up that much dough. Can't find a pic of the Kiwi. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The American girl seems to have drawn her eyebrows on with a felt-tip pen. Harmonic educated Phantom Hoover! 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course New Zealand is socialist, just have a look at this Karajtoon:

QED. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced! --Kels (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're a lying sack of shit! "Since this is an American encyclopedia, New Zealand is a socialistic government, more than America is now becoming, being not greatly unlike the U.K." That came after the user referenced the Heritage Foundation ranking. So, this means, when an American organization ranks NZ above the USA in terms of economic freedom, it's still socialist because you say so? This is factual relativism, which is worse than moral relativism, which you guys claim to be against. I can't wait until you block the poor sap for "contradicting admin (with inconvenient facts)." Junggai (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kiwis, just give it up; TK's got you bang to rights on this one! Your country is socialist because he says it is. End of story. Maybe your socialist leftist government run public school education has left you all unable to understand logic? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, the US as a base income tax rate of 31-odd% on all income over a few hundred dollars (15.7% FICA - employer+employee plus 15% income tax). Maximum rate? 39.6% on millions of dollars, since the FICA stops at about 100k. Talk about your flat taxes. Oh, and of course the wealthy who make money on buying and selling only pay, what 15%? 20%? on capital gains. ħuman

08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was once in New Zealand, and I rolled down a hill inside an inflatable ball. I'm sure that says something about the political climate of the place, though I'm not sure what. --GTac (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to sock up anymore...

...Jpatt is now bringing up arguments against his own cause all by himself: "Awesome Christians totally desecrated that Wiccan site by placing a cross there! High-five!"^img --Sid (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

God, Jpatt's a despicable human being. ChrisY:

I wouldn't characterize that as "Christian" behavior. Sneaking a cross into another group's place of worship like that was a cowardly act of disrespect, not an act of people who are proud of Christ's message. The cross is also a symbol that is to be respected, and not used as a prop for childish pranks. A true Christian would show character by meeting with the wiccans openly, treating them respectfully, and starting an honest dialogue as to why the wiccan faith isn't the road in life to take (and the consequences of staying on it)...

Jpatt's numb-nuts reply: "Good thing your advice was discarded during the Crusades or all of Europe would have been Muslim."

I wonder if the bastard's ever opened the Bible, much less the part about "turning the other cheek?" Junggai (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he only got to the part about wetting your sword and dashing bitches' heads to pieces? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case this response^img disappears... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What I love about Jpatt's response is the idea that wars are won by passive-aggressively putting wooden crosses in various places on the ground. -- Coarb (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, speculation plus a quarter may buy you a soda, but I'd venture to guess that if there were real persecution of Christians, like of the "Lions' den" variety, these clowns wouldn't be the first in line to publically affirm their faith. Their kind of smug boorishness is only possible in a comforable society that allows free speech. They would never strike me as the heroic type that early martyrs were. Junggai (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about conservative Christians that makes them especially Christian. If they grew up in Egypt they'd be conservative Muslims. If they grew up in Soviet Russia they'd be conservative (in the sense of pro-government, authority-respecting) socialists. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone have an idea what the fuck Jpatt is talking about here? "Why ChrisY, why must Christians have tea-time with evil? Christians had better fight evil less they succumb to it. Turn the other cheek if evil ones try to murder your family? That's not what Jesus meant." Junggai (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments on that news article are incredible, e.g.

“”I never understand, how you people focus solely on the so called ‘wrongs’ of others. you’re SO perfect that you need not focus on your own life. pathetic. i hope your family is raped and murdered and you spend the rest of your life burning in hell you f*cker.

Nice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That muslim homosexual Obama

This^img may have been deleted from the mainpage talk page, but I can still imagine something similar making it on to the hallowed mainpageright... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I chuckled warmly. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Islomosexual, for short. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatles

News flash, it's a fucking stupid idea to build your home on the edge of a cliff! --Opcn (talk)

Best fucking band evah! ħuman

06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

link^img--Opcn (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or to be more correct, on the edge of a fucking cliff that is known to be fucking eroding away beneath you! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More like Rolling Stones! Hahaha. Ha. Geddit? Ha! Internetmoniker (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or Jimmy Cliff. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or The Beatles! _{(amidoingthisright?)} --GTac (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

he listed his religion as being "atheist"!

By that logic putting 'unemployed' in the 'occupation' box means you're no longer jobless.[3] Jaxe (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You can put "Unemployed" or "None" at 'Occupation', it's the same thing. With religion you could say "None" and "Atheism" are also the same thing. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Internetmoniker: Then should agnosticism correspond to "I don't know what my job is"/"I don't know whether I have a job" in the occupation field? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...and is "bald" a hair colour? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who brought the unemployed metaphor into the mix, but if the form asked for "Hair" then "bald" & "none" would be synonymous answers I guess. @k61824 as I've learned from Andy that would be a part time job (50%) Internetmoniker (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with this, I-Mon. By making "atheist" an appropriate answer for the question "what is your religion?", as interesting thing happens--atheism becomes a religion, something it avowedly is not. And then, suddenly, millions of people who don't have a religion all of a sudden have one--not something that they necessarily want. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you see atheism as a synonym for none though(like unemployed is a synonym for none) then there really is no problem. I was just trying to point that out to Jaxe who said unemployed now means job. Of course Buddhists are technically atheists as well, so what I said doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Buddhists can and do believe in the existence of god(s), but belief in their existence isn't necessary to follow Buddhist teachings. For instance, it isn't unknown for liberal Christians to also be Buddhist as there isn't anything in either belief that contradicts what the other philosophy/religion espouses. In such cases the person would be Buddhist, as they follow the philosphy of Buddhism, but also Christian as they believe in both the existence of God and that Jesus is the Messiah.--

^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

ShockOfGod

Anyone know who this is? They're always linking to CP, which means they must be an active member there. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's a very well known YouTube Creationist, but I doubt he's a regular editor there. And I base that on nothing at all. SJ ^Debaser 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Think yr right. Richard Garcia? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"He's a very well known YouTube Creationist." I think you're stretching the meaning of "well known" by describing YouTube Creationists that way. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My generous description referred to the creation/evolution, theist/atheist communities of YouTube. By real life standards, he's as much a nobody as you or I. SJ ^Debaser 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't SoG one of Ken's "friends"? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand escalates a bit

TK may hate you, but that doesn't make him less of a friend:

And Ed decided that only bumbling around in the CP talk page isn't enough, so he decided to also bumble around on the WP talk page. --Sid (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, before it disappears^img and ChrisY is "politely removed" from the site. Junggai (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He forgot the emphasis: it should be "Congratulations to our Kiwi friends!" - i.e. not the nasty depraved liberals and socialists. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Feb 6th is NZ day - which it is here for me but not for TK. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. TK - The day is Waitangi Day, it is never known as NZ day. I added that here so people would know what the fuck Waitangi Day was. Ace ⁱ⁹ 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting, it was Waitangi Day, then it was changed to New Zealand Day, which wasn't popular so it was changed back. --Sean ^talk 19:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct title is Waitangi Day and celebrated on the 6th, which I kept in mind when saying "today" was it, in a hat tip to all those Kiwi socialists who run on a different day than the normal world, just to confuse us. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I love that you included the word 'socialists' in that comment. I'm not even sure what a socialist is, but apparently Conservapedia thinks its bad and 4 million people can be put into that one category. Anyway, there's no such thing as normal. I get very confused trying to figure out time differences between New Zealand, the UK and Canada. --Sean ^talk 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that in this case, ol' TK was trying to make a funny... -Ravenhull (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

it's a clue that he's a deep cover liberal - he's saying "socialism is the future". Real first name and last initial (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is that day/date thing.....the liberals need to be elite causes them to always be a day ahead. Sean, "normal" of course, is the US and West Europe. All them odd places like Oz and NZ should at least run on our time, but noooooo! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how the sun always rises in the east? Think about it. -- =w= 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(At TK) I don't know if to take that as a joke or not. Living in another country is one of the best experiences I've ever had, made me realise how I just come from one culture, and that there are many, many more to consider. --Sean ^talk 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a joke. His second post is basically 'yes that was a joke'. -- =w= 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing serious ends in 'but noooooo!' -- =w= 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah my bad. --Sean ^talk 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is certain with TK. Be ever vigilant! -- =w= 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mei for getting the obvious... ~~Mei is helpful!~~ Sean, I have lived for extended periods in more than one country, and find it odd anyone wouldn't instantly recognize my humor, as several have. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're new to me. --Sean ^talk 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I never realised that lying and plagiarism were forms of humor. (I left out the "u" especially for you, most noble one.) Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets celebrate racism or, TK's a douchebag part 876

So TK wants to celebrate Tom Tancredo. I'm sure he didn't miss the part where he suggested that the US return to literacy tests and claimed that Obama wouldn't be president if we had them..... No racism there right TK? Fuck you SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 22:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You say you want a revolution? You'd better free your mind instead. The ability to be able to read a ballot, in English, isn't racism...just thought you should know that, SirChuck. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off. You know damn well that literacy test have nothing to do with reading English. PS, in order to vote, you have to a be citizen. In order to be a citizen, you have to prove the ability to understand basic English? If someone is voting, they have basic English skills. On top of that, if you pick up a history book, you might do well to learn how literacy tests were used in this country. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very well aware of how they have been used, and find it odd you, full of hate, have assumed I wouldn't know about such things. What else about me, including my race, have you also assumed, you ignorant fool? You are so full of hate and self-loathing, you couldn't stand to see any thread with me without insults, you made it your mission to ruin the fun. Good going. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it Terry, I said... "Damn, TK is just such a nice guy, but I hate myself and everything about life, so I'm gonna start up some shit." Your mind tricks don't work on me TK, I know you're a douche, and always act accordingly. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Go back to your hole TK. Everybody knows what Tancredo meant when he said we should bring back the literacy and civics tests. Just like what we all know people mean when they start talking about "states rights" ENorman (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why're we feeding the troll? Barikada (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a lie-ber-rul thing. Conservatives don't feed trolls, as they know it only encourages a cycle of dependency and undermines a troll's self respect and work-ethic, making them into welfare queens.--

23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so ignorant as to suggest I am trolling, when this thread was clearly started by one, Barikada? Have at least a shred of decency, huh? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey B, to answer your question, I'm just warming up for the Jinx baiting season. I believe this years season may be interesting, as we'll have to travel. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"In order to be a citizen, you have to prove the ability to understand basic English" noooo... being born here is enough. Only naturalized citizens have to meet any standards. ħuman

23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's black, so he clearly gets a free pass and the label "not troll" due to Affirmative Action. Maybe you should bitch about it in the News section at CP Liberal troll SirChuckB censors dissent ant terrorist liberal vandal site!

@@ Line 865: / Line 865: @@
 :Hey B, to answer your question, I'm just warming up for the [[Jinx baiting]] season.  I believe this years season may be interesting, as we'll have to travel. {{User:SirChuckB/sig|}} 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 ::"In order to be a citizen, you have to prove the ability to understand basic English" noooo... being born here is enough.  Only naturalized citizens have to meet any standards. {{User:Human/sig|}} 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
+::::He's black, so he clearly gets a free pass and the label "not troll" due to Affirmative Action.  Maybe you should bitch about it in the News section at CP [[Liberal]] [[troll]]  [[User:SirChuckB|SirChuckB]] censors dissent ant [[terrorist]] [[liberal]] [[Main Page|vandal site]]!