Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] tab above when adding a new section, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting within an existing section. This will minimise the incidence of edit conflicts. New sections must be added at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your attention.

For non CP related talk, go to the saloon.

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

Quantifying Being A Fucking Moron

Has anyone noticed that one of Andy's Quantifying Openmindedness questions is incorrectly phrased? Andy wants a 'No' answer out of you if you're on his side, but one of the questions is phrased the wrong way and his 'correct' answer is 'Yes'. I'll leave it to you to spot, it's not fucking hard, unlike the rock that occupies that man's head. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

“”Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?

I tried parsing the above like eight times. My brain now bleeds into itself. The sweet taste of Death (and hELL) are all that await me now. CЯacke® 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want some ice on that.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like three copies of your birth certifi...no...the VAULT copy of your record of being bored...then prove to me you're not a Muslim trying to infiltrate our beloved wiki here and refute your own claim to being a doctor before I get any of this so-called "ice". CЯacke® 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That list is like a "greatest hits" of the last year or so. Someone disagrees, he gets stuck in a corner, so he defines their arguments as being close-minded, then accuses them of being close-minded for using those arguments because they're on his list (then accuses everyone else of circular reasoning). He really does think that his saying something makes it true, not to mention how childish he's acting. It's a bit like an elementary school student drunk with power over being the one assigned to take names of whomever misbehaves while the teacher is out of the room: "watch out, I'll put you on The List! You'll regret it! You will!" Kallium^talk 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] Sterile flap 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Sterile, Doc and Cracker all on one thread, after all these years... Cool. That's three of the seven dwarves! ħuman 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Kallium^talk 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fucking fantastic!

The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those in need of more Wednesday lulz need turn no farther than the rest of that essay. The triple-nested Follow-Up Questions are just epic.

1a. Do you haz a brain?

1aa. Haz you recently chekkt if you haz a brain?

1ab. If you haz a brain and hae recently chekkt if you haz brain, and you hazn't, then you lose a point.

Then of course there's the actual Open-Mindedness Formula, which is an all-time classic. I think this was all in an old WIGO but it's fantastic fun to revisit Teh Bestest Stupidz. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The video comments on YouTube are very interesting. All the people complaining about the video/science in general are using 'exactly' the same fallacies the video warns against. Most of them demonize science because they are so fixated on eugenics and involuntary human experimentation that they think those have a) have ever really represented science and b) apply to every scientist today despite the examples being so antiquated and completely irrelevant (ironically, one of these commentators claims to know more about the history of science that its defenders- sound familiar?). One actually uses phrenology to argue that science is unreliable! Why do they think we don't use it?! It boggles and severely depresses the mind just how incredibly misinformed and ignorant some people are about what science is. Not whether or not they trust in or agree with it, just in understanding what it actually is. Goes to show why a solid scientific education in primary and secondary school is so important. _{rant ends} Kallium^talk 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact two of them are the wrong way round: "Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?" as well as "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?". I thought the evolution one had the greater humour potential when I added the WIGO. BTW - sorry if that one has been done before. I did go back through several pages of previous entries but I'm still a n00b here so I might have missed it. Rpeh 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm mightily amused that despite the getting the Red Telephone message from us about the stupid fucking questions, Nitwit in Charge, Andy, STILL doesn't see that some of his questions are the phrased the wrong way, giving a non-yes answer. They sure teach those kids well at Harvard. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Openmindedness

That video above is awesome, gets me in the mood for some mind-opening Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, noes, not the 10th dimension again. My brain was blown the last time! Sterile flap 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, that guy's Wikipedia page is horrible. It's basically just an advertisement, and the talk page is full of his fans opposing any changes because questioning it qualifies as picking on him somehow. --Kels 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does he need a page as a woo-meister? I offer this review from Amazon. There's very little negative about teh book in the first 30 or so googles but someone thinks it's a Poe: So breath-taking are these assumptions, that it is almost impossible to spoof, but Rob Bryanton has managed it, which is a funnier version of my "borg" disproof. (That's worth a read btw, or am I late to the realisation?) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He's sort of like the Time Cube guy, except lucid. --Kels 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the "new sciences of quantum physics and epigenetics" bit I encountered was cool. He's like those cranks I think we were discussing at the saloon the other day... lone monkeys with typewriters who have developed a "new" physics. Article? Yes we should haz I think. ħuman 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and stuff

I am so sick of TK's failure to use English correctly: "Thankfully Pontiff's have most always ignored termporal clamorings and taken a rather long view, historically speaking. Of course their are notable exceptions" (emphasis mine) [2] Of course, his comment also had no meaning relative tot he topic under discussion... ħuman 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For a moment I thought I had just witnessed my first double apostrophe pluralisation/posession typo, but it turns out you just bollocked up the wikibolding. I cannot adequately describe how disappointed I am. 194.6.79.200 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for the tip, I fixed it. Two things he does that piss me off the most are the whacky apostrophes, and that moderately common crime, separating the subject from the rest of the sentence with a comma. ħuman 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He's parodying conservative spelling, duh.

Andy is a sick fuck

"I'm wondering myself, but I'm confident" of course you are, chump. "The Church even supported exhuming a heretic to burn his remains, and that certainly was not motivated by a desire to prevent future injury by him!" [3] What century is this idiot living in? This thread has been such a gold mine... and I'm not even caught up on it yet! ħuman 08:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the line that doing things to "persuade" others is a recent phenomena, due to publicity. Hello, draw and quartering folks? Public executions? Killing babies with the warning "I'll do it to all your children if you don't follow my orders"... Control of the public opinion has been going on since God told Moses to tell the Pharaoh that he would do all these bad things to the Egyptians, if he didn't just "let the people go".--En attendant Godot_{"«Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. V.Nabokov»} 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the "not so" live blogging

Every fucking comment is precious. Just follow the diffs, and I'll shut up now. ħuman 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it great? He's pretty well arguing that the church should and would be burning heretics if it weren't for liberal influence. What he fails to understand is that he would be burned as a heretic for having left the Catholic church. Corry 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone's missing an opportunity here - with some careful sockery and phrasing, it should be possible to get him to say that they should be burning heretics today. I'd do it myself but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing some stuff, but doesn't Andy still claim to be Catholic? He's certainly never admitted to becoming an evangelical that I can see, even though he acts more like one. His mom's still claiming to be RC, though. --Kels 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that after all this time we still don't know where he attends services (or what church basement spawned CP at a "homeschool" class). And, yeah, I suspect he is still some sort of Catholic, he doesn't seem hardcore YEC so much as several years ago he forsook the evil evolution lies. ħuman 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, I think both Schlaflys already started their own church. (maybe check RC for opinions on marital rape to see if Andy's mom is still a Roman Catholic...) Idea come from James P. Carse's book The Religious Case Against Belief that once you have a different belief system you are a different branch of the religion. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure--at some point one's own personal views might diverge enough that it makes no sense to identify oneself as a member of a particular denomination. But if you call yourself "X", and your whole identity and history and social ties and worldview and self-worth are tied up in your self-identification as "X", it's far far easier to complain that it's the others who are now "not-X" rather than to accept that you yourself are no longer "X". That's Andy. As I've said here before, I was born-and-raised-and-educated Catholic, and I've known a lot of crazy/extreme Catholics, but Andy is unlike any Catholic I've ever known; if I had to guess at Andy's denomination, "Catholic" would be just about last on the list. --WJThomas 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Assfly has got to be the worst lawyer ever.

Here he whines about how Sotomayor "has, however, joined panel opinions that have both...declared that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right...[and] declared that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, but only limits the federal government". The panel cited Presser v. Illinois...it's not like those opinions are taken straight from the landmark decision...oh wait. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the actual problem is history as he knows it only lasted for 100 or so days. (See WIGO 1981) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He forgets that history is written by the victors; and he's a loser. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of lawyers, my wife is away for the week doing her higher rights examination to get her rights of audience in court. Therefore please do throw suggestions my way as to what to do with my newfound (if temporary) freedom (aside from furious masturbation to transexual midget pr0n and drinking excessive quantities of fermented vegetable drinks of course). Crundy 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins and Darwin

This is interestingly revealing, particularly where it says, "However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read Darwin’s works." That difficulty understanding that there are other paths to evolutionary theory besides Darwin seems awfully common. I've never seen BenP as a malicious sort, but he seems to have bought something he was told somewhere. Maybe it's the authoritarian mindset, where the originator is inseparable from what was created, or the whole "evolution as religion" thing, comparing Origin of Species to the Bible. Not sure, but it's interesting to see the attitude presented so casually. --Kels 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Darwin as Jesus. They can only understand another worldview to the degree that it is similar to their own, even if they have to force and twist the other to fit.--WJThomas 12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you can do is quote Samuel Vimes from "Monstrous Regiment"; "Holy writ gets... written.". The basic problem for Conservapedian Nutcases (and other conservatives, generally) is accepting that there IS no holy writ for science and/or atheism. Everything changes with the facts. Dendlai 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I like this part from the same piece: "Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures." Dawkins wasn't famous until he became famous, and he's had to work to stay famous! Scandalous! --WJThomas 12:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I fucking loved Monstrous Regiment. --GTac 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. How can someone remain a relatively obscure professor when he was never a professor to begin with? Bluefish 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly might have remained a relatively obscure lawyer if not for ... oh! Sorry. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment made my 1:30 AM! --Opcn 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Liberal Style

The style of a liberal often includes these basic characteristics:

[...]

4. feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and conservative viewpoints

[...]

G.L.: [...] Is this the official policy of Conservapedia: there are probably no conservatives outside from the United States, so we are not interested in any input made by anyone living in a foreign country?[...]

Ed Poor: Andy, I'd advise you to keep this user blocked, if only due to his lack of courtesy. Remarks such as:

• Do you know the concept of traveling?
• [not] a good ambassador
• Your behaviour destroys ...

are out of place here. On the other hand, if G.L. wishes to study our policy page at cp:Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks and make a public apology, he could be given a second chance.[...]

ASchlafly: I agree, Ed. Thanks.

But, perhaps, they aren't liberals avoiding an inconvenient question. Perhaps, they have just such delicate little souls. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick, someone remove the conflicting words, so teh great leedur and His excellent assistants are not infringing the rules! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, deleting that phrase is to feign offense as a way to silence criticism. Or something like that. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a RW side-by-side to illustrate where CP engages in Liberal style"? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the server have the storage capacity to do that? Kallium^talk 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

True, we may need another fund-raising drive. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Their are probably a ton of examples of vandalism by the "conservative". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine the look of pure joy that spread across Ed's shining face when he read Assfly's thanks. *shudder* Rpeh 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is something I wanted to mention before, it's on the main page of CP and I found it utterly bizarre: "Liberals in charge of public schools claim they are offended by the word God." Why on earth does ASchlafly think that liberals are never offended? Doesn't he think they find conservatives offensive and that's why they want to censor them? Does he just not believe that anyone could be offended by the word God? After all, it is the ultimate conservative word and has the highest insights-per-letter ratio! --JumWeatherman

Oh, that's another one of his Meta CP delusions. It comes from the same roots as "liberals pretend to be conservative", which means that people who said they were Conservative disagreed with his batshit insanity, but he's right dammit, therefore they're just Liberals lying about what they are. And he applies this to the Real World, despite it being his CP-based delusion. So for this, someone basically said "I'm offended by your racist/sexist/just plain stupid position", but since they disagree they're automatically Liberal, and since he's always right there's nothing to actually get offended about. Therefore, Liberals never get offended by anything, and are always faking it, Q.E.D. --Kels 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, given the way Andy talks about The Liberals, it's possible that he thinks that they, being not actual human beings but soulless golems made by Satan out of manure and wrapped in the skins of murdered infants, are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of feeling any emotion beyond the seething hatred of all that is Good and Pure that powers them to further depravity. Fnord. --Gulik 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor and rimming.

Ed just made a fairly weird change to the Gay Bowel Syndrome page adding a wiki-linked reference to rimming. Check out the last change on this diff. I guess it's an open invitation to create the much needed CP rimming article. JoeDuffy 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is as fascinated by the details of gay sex as Christian Conservatives. Not even gays. --Kels 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the title of this thread and a shiver of disgust ran up my spine. Z3ro^talk 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, you can fool others about who you are, but you can't fool yourself. Corry 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else did that, they'd be blocked. Why did Ed make a link to the page? They don't even cover normal sex; god knows what makes him think they'll allow a page on deviant (homo)sex techniques. EddyP 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, how did Ed manage to make so many changes in that article with just one edit? That would have covered two pages of RC if Ken had done the same. Also I love the edit comment "rearrange into sentences". Sorry my bad it says "rearrange intro sentences" - dang that would have been funny. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In his own words, Ed is a "hetero phony". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Ed even know what rimming is? It's not a method of HIV transmission as long as the mouth is healthy (intact). ħuman 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Human, but that doesn't stop them from mentioning any number of things they think are unsavory, including the unscientific title of the article. A rimjob, presumably only among gay men, is now functionally no different than a Godwin. How meta. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken would love to assist Ed in doing some rimming... article. Vulpius 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nice! --AnonyMouse 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Test drive Capturebot2

It's currently running on my computer, which I'm going to shut down for the night soon, but it'll be up tomorrow all day. Just put wigo entries on User:Capturebot2/sandbox using the votecp tag instead of vote (don't forget to close with </votecp>!), and in a minute capturebot2 should upload the image. --  Nx/talk  22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With the new capture tag it is also possible to capture any external link to Conservapedia: <capture>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Computer&curid=12938&diff=668208&oldid=586193</capture> will generate the img link needed by Capturebot2: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Computer&curid=12938&diff=668208&oldid=586193^img. To actually capture the image, Capturebot2 has to be told to watch the page, by modifying the watch setting here (you have to be a sysop to do that). After the images are uploaded, the page can be removed from the watchlist. I've already added WIGO CP Talk, so once I save this edit, Capturebot2 will upload the image for this link. The capture tag can be nested with other tags, however it cannot be nested with itself (<capture>link<capture>link2</capture></capture> won't work properly), so you can surround a few sentences with a single capture tag to get all the links, but it's best not to surround a whole page. --  Nx/talk  14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Butterflies

Butterflies fly by magic, appearently. How about that. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? Materialism doesn't allow for "abstract programming features"? Are our computers magic too? What does he even think materialism is anyways, since he thought it doesn't allow for radar either.. And isn't intelligent design kind of a materialistic theory too? It merely states that our material bodies were "somehow designed", but it doesn't say anything about being designed with "divine guidance mechanisms". Oh Aschafly, you delightful retard. --GTac 23:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Let's not focus on actual definitions, but rather on everyday usage of the term!" - Where have I heard that one before? It's on the tip of my tongue, you know what I mean? --Sid 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me some information on the meaning of "meaning" please. If you can tell the meaning of "information" that is. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The best part for me was that he completely ignored the subtle attempt to get him to actually correct the evolution question. ħuman 00:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he ignored it, I think he just didn't understand it. You know Andy has poor reading comprehension; gotta spell things out v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y for him.--WJThomas 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now what would really amuse me is if someone went ahead and fixed it, and got reverted. That would be worth a laugh, I think. --Kels 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Conservative Songs

My first time to see this page! What a goldmine. I like the addition of Genesis' "No Son of Mine," about a son who's been disowned by his father forever after running away, and is continually spurned as he tries to make amends.

This page is just begging to get vandalized. I'm surprised more people haven't tried... Junggai 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this one? The talk page is rich with great Schlafly belly-laughs. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that where he said that Saving Private Ryan is a liberal movie because it doesn't explicitly talk about hell? Corry 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the same page when talks about liberals not understanding disabled people in relation to the "liberal Tom Hanks". Its classic stuff. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know we aren't supposed to expose parody, but I just have to give props to the person who added this: "Ghostbusters (1984). Fitting satire of an environmental regulator." --Passerby25 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Scratch that, I just checked, and that is truly pure, uncut Andy. That's some high quality stuff, and hard to get nowadays, ever since the government crackdown on stupid --Passerby25 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

From the conservative movies talk page: "I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith." -- Andrew Schlafly

Nice. Coarb 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. The man thinks "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is a conservative song. It's about heroin use, friend.--Woloct 05:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"61. Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions." Alright, who added that? Fess up. Also, where's "Kiss My Ass" by Ted Nugent, best conservative song ever and Aschlafly missed it?? Secret Squirrel 05:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"This page is just begging to get vandalized" - will you people stop exposing the endless parody entries? ħuman 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's face it, it even lists the Clinton/Gore election theme song. Oh shit, did I expose it? ħuman 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious. Aschlafly added that one. He also added "Still the One" by Orleans, whose lead singer is now a Democratic congresscritter from New York. Secret Squirrel 05:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the ultimate problem with parody. You'll never outdo the real thing. Corry 05:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for an RW side by side treatment of these lists? This could be fun. Secret Squirrel 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we already have the voluminous "best liberal songs" somewhere... ħuman 20:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That page is hilarious. I added "American Idiot" by Green Day and it lasted 6 weeks. I mean, the name itself should have been reason enough to remove it. FernoKlump ^{What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition!} 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, with that title it could easily have been the story of some liberal... ħuman 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely liberals are unamerican? Totnesmartin 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I added 'Deportee', a folk song about a bunch of Mexicans who die in a plan crash while being deported. I thought they'd like it, but they banned one of my best socks.Czolgolz 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Ken

I know nobody here likes Ken. In fact the guy can lick my balls, but good manners cost nothing, so Ken, congrats on winning Prom Queen buddy, you've earned it.Rad McCool 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting to wonder if Ken's a high function austism spectrum person instead of just a fundie weirdo. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not stigmatize the spectrum by conflating it with Ken-ishness. Corry 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WIGOWP

There's a possible RFC coming up on whether CP should be categorised as an encyclopaedia. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with it being in the encyclopedia category. Sure we joke, with good reason, about it being Andy's blog, but there are people who try to make it an actual encyclopedia, and that seems to have been the original intent. It's an encyclopedia, even if it's a shitty one. --Kels 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Susan, soliciting people to join in comments at WP on other websites is at the very least "mildly frowned upon". But you knew that. ħuman 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did, H, but I thought it would interest people &, as Kels comment above shows, hasn't furthered my view of the discussion anyhow. It's not as if I'd said "Come to WP & de-encyclopedia CP" is it? - that's why it's "Requests for comment", not "Requests to agree with me". ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to remind you before you slipped down the slope ;) You were also, of course, pointing out something of interest to CP-watchers. ħuman 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Screwed up vote numbers

Okay, I added a WiGO without realizing that K6 had gone and screwed it up by moving an existing number higher. I'm not sure what to do to fix it, honestly. Move his back where it came from? Simply make mine the next number (2014, I think)? Change both numbers? Can someone smerter than me either fix it or tell me how? --Kels 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Change yours to 2014 and cross fingers (I did it already). I have been asking without really useful results at tech support for a trick which tells an editor which is the next number to use on polls, I never expected WIGOCP to be a problem that needed this. Nice work K9 (shall we agree to call him K9 from now on?). What he did actually made sense - updating a WIGO should "move it to the top" - but then the instructions fail, since they say to "add one to the number before". ħuman 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing really fucked up: "File:Wigo2004 0.png" is now really the 2014 image, and capturebot allowed itself to overwrite the old image. A flagrant abuse of bot-power, I would say. ħuman 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

@Human: AutoWIGO works, you just have to activate the gadget. --  Nx/talk  07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not use your gadgets; I will alter my monobook.js like a real man! Evil wisest Phantom Hoover! 07:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

When can we have an extension that produces it for anyone on any page? Like <nextvote poll=wigo>, say, that simply returns the #? ħuman 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, you're a genius (seriously). I wanted to reimplement the whole edit form, but instead I'll just do what you said: when a page is saved, I'll simply run a hook that replaces <nextvote poll=wigo> with <vote poll=wigoXXXX>. Why didn't I think of that? --  Nx/talk  20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, why did you never think of that? Even I noticed it before, but thought there would be some reason why it wasn't set up like that. No offense though Nx, you're doing mighty fine work, that's why it just blew my mind that you seemed to have missed that ;-) --GTac 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't see the forest for the trees I guess. Anyway, prototype version is done: when saving, it takes <vote nextpoll=stuff></vote> (or <votecp nextpoll=stuff></votecp>), and converts it to <vote poll=stuffXXXX></vote>, except when directly preceded by <nowiki>, so <nowiki> Lengthy instructions <v0te nextpoll=stuff></v0te> </nowiki> will not prevent the replacement. (Which is why I had to write v0te there). There's no preview, since the replacement is done after clicking the save button, and the wigo extension will not render it because the poll id is missing. --  Nx/talk  22:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit shows how it works: the edit summary contains the text I typed in, but the extension changed it just before the article got saved, so in the diff it's different. --  Nx/talk  22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ħuman 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My cincere apologies for the stupid attempt to improperly move the updated stuff from the earlier entries upward. Maybe instructions in the "How to add WIGO items" box (about placements of updates) would be very nice. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, K, read the above. Your very appropriate "gaffe" resulted in making the system much more streamlined. And Nx wrote something I've wanted to have for several weeks now. So we should be thanking you for your awesome prodding!ħuman 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I take that as people aren't noticing the gadgets in the preference tab (AutoWIGO, Preference/Gadgets tab) (which I just noticed 5 minutes earlier); but oh well. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the extension is more error-resistant, since processing takes place after edit conflicts and other problems have been resolved, immediately before inserting the text into the database. --  Nx/talk  05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should "updates" be moved to the top?

Since the awesome new system automates the poll numbering, should we start doing what Kvwxyz did, and move updated items to the top? Also, Nx, if a wigo is commented out for epic phail, will the number get re-used? ħuman 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It should detect commented out wigos, so the number won't be reused. I like the idea of moving updates up, btw. --  Nx/talk  05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: moving updates up: agree totally. I t'other day bumped one that would have been better moved up. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia vs. Scientology

I am not really understanding why CP have "Scientology banned from editing Wikipedia" on their mainpage. It doesnt state what angle CP takes. Good? Bad? So it will be funny if someone prodded Aschlafly on this. I can see him defending scientology like he did the BNP. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's TK trolling. Any positive portrayal of WP is verboten, so I'm sure that TK is accusing WP of censorship. Coming from TK, it's very funny. That said, it's a pretty strong move on WP's part, but I imagine that they must have had tons of problems with the $cientologists. They're not known for being down with free speech on the internets. Corry 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

others are known for NOT being down with free speech on the internets--Lipps

tbh, I didn't really get the WIGO on their news item. For perhaps the first time ever, they didn't seem to take the oppertunity to make up a snide remark towards wikipedia, so it just seems like a pretty far-fetched WIGO... --GTac 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Some WIGO's write themselves

Terry Koeckritz lets everyone in on some sordid family business. TK's family being accused of toxic contamination of their own property? The irony is so gorgeous. I would WIGO it, except for the fact that his family might include some very nice people. Anyone with a stronger stomach can feel free. Junggai 22:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should someone ask him who his family stole the land from in the first place? Poor love.82.23.209.253 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote to leave it out. It's no good to laugh over a family's protracted court battle, even of that family contains a capital douchebag. Corry 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Remind me, who was running the American Government 5 years ago when the land was allegedly stolen from his family?Mick McT 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Logic dictates that it must have been some evil liberal, probably Barack Hussein Obama. Deny that obvious fact and lose all credibility. Etc 12:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this story is written a bit like something they would write. It isn't good practice to assume something bad about your opponents when it is not similar to any behavior seen before. We have seen a lot of informational contamination on the part of TK, but never dumping. --Opcn 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awww, poor Ken!

I;m not sure if this is WIGO worthy, but this may be the first time I've actually seen Ken whining on the main page. Poor baby Kenny, are the mean ol' Wikipedians saying bad things about you? There there....HollowPsycho 03:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how he repeats himself incessantly. And the WP editor who raised the question? A BoN! Get over it, Ken. ħuman 04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Transistor" is a Conservative Word???

Doesn't this finally prove that Andy is a parodist? Rpeh 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would help if he actually explained why they were conservative (besides the fact the Wicked Witch his mommee said it), but then that would show that he is pulling words out of his ass. Have we done a side-by-side on this yet? Especially as he can't even get the dates right. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What about internet? Or even better, telephone? I'm sure, R. Reagan used a telephone, so, it has to be conservative. Wait, that could lead to a new essay: Best Conservative Inventions... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he's just picking these words at random out of the dictionary. Let's give him some help: extirpate! metatarsus! rip! bouquet! purlieus! yonder! stevedore! gadget! cranny! tallyho! benzene! woolsack! rind! dreamboat! olive! larrup! diathermy! clank! mop! harquebus! lignin! snook! vernier! amputate! farinaceous! jerkwater! Our list is growing exponentially!--WJThomas 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see that 'transistor' is conservative word then you're clearly beyond hope. OncomingStorm 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Terry, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to exactly why "transistor" is a conservative word. Who knows, your pearly drops of wisdom raining down upon me, could just make a convert out of me. Or are you going to do your usual "We hold some truths to be self-evident, gentlemen." --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely 'teabag' is a conservative word now? Vulpius 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is 'Resistor' a liberal word? -- 15:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! --Kels 16:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy is Idiotes of Borg in the collective. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has updated his "reasoning". (Hi, Andy! Thanks for reading!) He says it's an example of "Yankee Ingenuity". Whatever. And that Bell Labs is a "conservative" lab. Whatever. And that the name (as opposed to the invention itself) was given by John R. Pierce, who criticized AI (that makes the transistor conservative?), and later developed Telstar (that makes the transistor conservative?) and that Telstar was a precursor to SDI (WHAT???).

John Pierce was also involved with the traveling wave tube, commonly used in UHF and microwave transmission, and pulse code modulation, used everywhere (telephones, CDs, digital audio in general). So I guess those (and Telstar too!) are conservative words too. Go for it, Andy! Gauss 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But the CP article on transistors says that modern variants use Quantum Theory, which I thought Assfly regarded as unproven? Or does this mean that transistors were a Conservative invention before being destroyed by Liberal Deceit? Or is reading CP simply burning my brain away? Rpeh 17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of each. Note that, aside from various problems Conservapedia has with quantum mechanics, Andy praises it to the skies in his attempts to denigrate relativity. I don't think he's really thought out his attitude toward QM. Unlike his attitudes toward complex numbers and proof by contradiction. Gauss 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

God, I hope he's reading RW. He can see our glorious articles on him! But nothing can penetrate his Upstanding American Conservative Protection Suit, bangin' out the best conservative songs and words all day long. SJ ^Debaser 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This one is both easy and complex at the same time, but offers valid insights (oh how I love the smell of an insight in the morning) into Andy's thinking. Right down at the end, you kinda get to where it comes from. Andy holds everything Reagan did to be Holy, and the Strategic Defense Initiative is, strangely, just about the ne plus ultra of Reaganisms to Andy - people are banned and branded liberals for suggesting that it didn't work, has never worked, and won't work. The very first time he wrote History Lecture 13 he claimed "President Reagan ....had the most original and influential idea of any president in all of American history: the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)". It seems likely that as a young engineer, forming his conservative, ahem, 'vision' at the same time, he found an engineering thing to be a wonky fundamentalist about - I guess he felt it was a topic he could 'own'. In an early debate here, he tells us a story about hearing an eminent IBM scientist in the 80's say it was unpossible - naturally the scientist was branded a liberal. So because the SDI is From God, and because transistors are certainly involved in the SDI, transistors are conservative. Sigh. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "transistor" could - Admittedly by a bit of a Stretch - refer to a cross-dressing sibling. Which would probably make it Sinful and therefore Liberal. --Tolerance 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Har har. When I was young, people would frequently refer to their small, portable transistor radios as their "tranny". "You going to bring the tranny with you today?", etc. You could have a very gay time if you were out with your tranny back then. Ah, how language changes. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow you're going back a few years there, but WP has a few words about "Danny's Tranny" - a children's cartoon. Anyway. Good to see that it's not just me in awe of the latest piece of conservative thinking. Rpeh 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

John R Pierce also wrote science fiction and made significant advances in electronic music - neither of these are usually thought of as conservative genres. Couldn't find out his views on classroom prayer, though. Totnesmartin 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I went to a lecture series a few weeks back by a few guys who worked at Bell Labs "back in the day". They never once -and they had ample time to do so- mentioned praying before starting their work, or protesting against abortions and the lecturers didn't thank God once. So Bell Labs cannot be Conservative! ^theist 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Inventing new technology is, by its very nature, anti-conservative, if conservatism is defined as "wishing to preserve the status quo or revert to older ways" rather than "whatever Andy says it is this week." Totnesmartin 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken's about to shoot his load!

Faster, Higher, Stronger: Just keep the wolf away from the door a little longer Ken! Matt oblong 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look out! They're citing the Conservapedia! --Kels 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to burn a sock and tell Ken how to embed YouTube. His quest for YouTube will be forever over. -- 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Or write a quick blurb to Groening's people about the use of "Homer's" skull as a prop for fundyfollies.CЯacke®

The World History Final Exam is being graded today.

Andy liveblogs the scores as he grades on the main page. ħuman 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr Tiller

In spite of everything Conservapedia stands for - essentially everything I stand against - I still think it shows they may have one or two shreds of human dignity left that they condemn the murder of Doctor Tiller. Of course, this could be a lie to cover their real opinions, but seeing as they don't have a problem speaking their mind everywhere else on their site, I don't think that's so. SJ ^Debaser 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be relevant. --Kels 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Glorying in the blood

It's not funny to pre-mock CP for what they might say. It's not funny to make hay of what they do say. It's just not fucking funny. RW vs. CP is game. A murdered doctor is not a game. Please stop making stupid wigos about this. Does the phrase "moment of silence" mean anything to anyone anymore? ħuman 04:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Silence speaks volumes. CP's previous policy seems to have been to pretend that anti-abortion violence doesn't happen. I thought that warranted comment. Feeble Lance 05:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

CP has on multiple occasions used the murder of others to promote their agendas- and I'm talking recently and in America (and by Andy himself), not just the Holocaust and not just by Ken. It is the single most vile and sickening behavior I have encountered on that site, with no close second. It is my opinion that we should avoid going down that road at all costs. These are real murders of real people, not something only found in a book or movie. We should condemn without apology any attempts to marginalize or find "humor" in such acts. Frankly, I think the WIGO in question should be removed and an appropriate rule added to the guidelines. My two cents: take the high road. Kallium^talk 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As natural law is impossible to break, what is truly holy cannot be defiled. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented out what was probably the wigo in question. It was already down to -20 or so, I only blanked it because it embarrasses - and pains - me to see such tripe on this site. I also wasted all your time with an intercom thingie. ħuman 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you did the right thing with the WiGO. However, I'd also say that the comments above by Josh and myself were appropriate given the situation. --Kels 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

One of my favorite Conservapedia extracurricular activities

Looking through links in the news section to find out what opinion article authors have written elsewhere. See that Pravda opinion article by Staislav Mishin? I browsed his blog linked at the end, and it's mostly paranoid pro-Russia anti-West ramblings. However, his labeling of Obama as a Marxist takes on another angle when you discover he thinks Lincoln was also a marxist dictator. Wonder what Conservapedia would think of that? 71.193.206.116 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I love that "...and rightly hung". You don't see many apologists for 19th century European monarchs (except maybe Queen Victoria). --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken's saddo friends

OK, this is good fun. Ken's friend, NephilimFree (the one who's destroying Evolution on the interwebs), is very upset and crying about not being able to save his online gaming friends. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dog - that's the funniest thing all week. "I'd love for you to be with me ... in paradise." Precious. Are we sure NF and Ken aren't the same person? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He ends his video with "I'd give everything I own if I could just save one of them". One of them should call him on that: "Sure, I'll accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior...just sign over to me the deed to your house...and everything else you own..." DickTurpis 02:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that offer include the sweet headpiece? Corry 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt his Mom wants to sell the house though. She might be happy if you took some of his hundreds of bobble head dolls, Christian rock CD's and old game consoles though. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The internet at large would be happy if you took his microphone and webcam, that'd do fine. --Kels 03:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr spelling

I'm not really one to pick about typos, since I'm kind of prone to them myself. But when spelling is clearly just utterly fucking borked, it makes it very clear that the person is, basically, uneducated and stupid. 'Hanus' is clearly not a typo of 'heinous'. If you can't spell, what credibility should I give to your arguments? Might you also be claiming to know more than you do about other topics? Jpatt - get yourself a fucking education, mate. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, their all a bunch of flamers.

Ooh ooh ooh I'm on fire... (the Boss) ħuman 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this time it's a grammar rant. Ken, you need to understand why your use of the word "and" is utterly wrong in your (Main Page , no less) sentence "The YouTube video producer SwordsmanofFaith continues to battle evolutionists over his anti-evolution video which cites the Conservapedia evolution article and the video was produced over 60 days ago!". I don't think a single one of those fucking morons over there ever took an English class. Why do I even bother? I don't know any more. "Some idiot on the internet is wrong". DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Knight picture

I can't believe nobody here or on CP is complaining about Ken's fighting paladin image, it is fucking annoying; the moment I see it I have to fight the urge to kill my browser. If you are going to make a moving gif file please have larger time delays between the frames.</rant> - π 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more comical than annoying. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the fighting Paladin, I think it forcefully presents a fighting image and makes Conservapedia look tough, mean, hard-hitting. But I think that in regards to evolution on the internet, what would REALLY help the cause of the Fighting Conservapedians would be MOAR HITWIN ON THE MAIN PAGE PLZ TO BE KTHXBAI. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It helps make CP epilepsy friendly. Silver Sloth 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but geocities and angelfire have established a long time ago that adding animated gifs to your website only makes it more awesome, there can't be too many. --GTac 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm at work on IE6 (yes, 6) so it looks pretty tolerable to me. I assume it goes nuts on Firefox? how long is a complete animation cycle for you guys? 194.6.79.200 11:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is 16 frames that are replaced every 30ms, so the whole thing is cycling less than once every half second. To give you idea of how annoyingly face that is a frame on TV is only replaced every 42ms. - π 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen that somewhere before. I'm not saying that Ken's abilities fall short of animated gifs but...er..oh...yes I am ;) Worm ^{(t | c)} 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ken's abilities fall short of putting his underwear on before his pants. --Kels 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Land of The Mother Tongue we tend to put our pants on before our trousers. LateralQuercus 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Titanic

Is it really update-worthy that somebody socked up and said basically what's in the WiGO, especially if it's just to ask if they're going to get argued against or banned? --Kels 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No. No it's not. Just reeks of self promotion even. --GTac 13:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but the reaction (to the WIGOish comment) might be. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not update worthy until Jpatt responds. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it would be worthy even then. So we have a reaction, either burning and banning or arguing and banning, that is entirely ordinary and we've seen rather a lot of times in the past, in reaction to an obvious sock. So what? --Kels 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If he makes an argument to an obvious sock for why this is an American story, it is WIGO-worthy because I'm sure it will be hilarious and delusional. That's about all we get anymore...these jackasses refusing to admit their wrong about anything. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Transistor is a Conservative Word!

Oh, the humanity. I'm going to die over here from laughter. Transistor? Wow! Assfly is either insane or a parodist, or both. This is fabulous! Jimaginator 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)