Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

To prevent going over the same conversation over and over again if you think one CP editor is a bigger idiot than the rest of the idiots leave a comment at:

Debate:Who is the biggest idiot at CP? Closed

New debates on recurring themes welcomed.

Unfunny Vandal

Isn't that our phrase? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 17:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know, but the block earned him a treat.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Haha, and the reason is because they turned off account sign-ups again! I go to sock up and make fun, and only users with edit rights can make new accounts for now. I guess that's one way to "win;" ensure no new people can edit.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 17:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

What is the likelyhood that all these new accounts (its seems theres been a great deal more lately) are all Bugler creations to get in good with Andy? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 18:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it's all the attention from the Lenski coverage on the blogs. We have a lot of non-account IP address people and new accounts here recently too.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

It just seems like he's getting to them, and is recieving more praise than anyone ever has from Andy. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 18:18, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

It's true that Ed or Conservative usually have had to beg. "Here are my articles, sir. We hated a lot of gays, sir. Thank you, sir."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:29, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

And my conspiracy theory continues on that Bugler is a troll... Before he used tinyurl to get around the spamfilter to point to us. Now he's using our trademark 'unfunny vandalism'. And yet, all of this is circumstantial evidence and would never hold up in a court of law (though science can give you a good theory). Again rubbing Andy's nose in it, making jokes back for us. And if Andy blocks him after praising him so much and people don't see him doing anything wrong. The only thing he could do to make it more obvious would be to start quoting Poe in edit/block messages. --Shagie 18:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree, the block reason sort of implies that "funny" vandalism won't get you blocked. "Unfunny vandalism, nevermore!" "The [whirlpool] sucks down your bad goat edits!" ħuman 18:55, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Let's face it, Bugler is doing exactly what we all wish we were able to do - making fun of Andy without him even noticing. Etc 18:58, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

The problem is, I would never in my life expect Andy to get satire. Thats why all satirists and parodists are closet liberals (Colbert, Voltaire, parody vandals). Conservatives (at least Andy, Karajou, Ed-like ones [I've met conservatives who do get parody]) don't see funny vandalism, Unless they are actually fake. Like Bugler. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

@Shagie. Er, no. Bugler did not insert the tinyurls on the Lenski page. it was Macaddct1984 Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 04:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Super Bugler

My God, is Conservapedia some sort of video game? And Andy is so gullible. --JayJay4ever^??? 18:19, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

YOU'RE WINNER! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:32, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

VICTOLY! --Sid 18:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I just don't get it. Bugler is either a parodist, or completely insane, and Andy doesn't even seem to suspect anything. Etc 18:54, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't "You destroyed the vandals! They won't be back now!" exactly what the Romans said? --81.187.75.69 18:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

To answer JJ4evuh, yes, it is, for many. ħuman 18:57, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and then they lost, because there were no more barbarians. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:59, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see the flurry of emails going back and forth between TK Bungler and Aschlafly. CЯacke® 19:02, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I imagine Bugler being someone who hosts and is the lone attendee of his own LAN party; creating vandal socks for pure joy of blocking them and being congratulated by Aschlafly. I don't think he ever blocks IPs. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kettle-come-lately / talk / contribs}

He doesn't have Check user rights. By the way, 'sup. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:16, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Isn't Karajou jealous? --JayJay4ever^??? 20:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Where've I seen this edit pattern before? Hmmm

Nothing but vandal revisions; talking down to editors; and blocks. My mind is made up. Buggerer is a sock of an ex-sysop trying to make me think it's another ex-sysop socking up. CЯacke® 13:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No no - that's just what he's trying to make you think. Etc 07:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Or, rather, that's what he's trying to make you think that he's trying to make you think! Etc 07:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Insight

Whats the bet that this is due to be another Schlafly Insight. Liberal Creep describes how liberal values can creep into conservative values or some shit. - 203.96.84.33 19:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT) Ace McWicked

Full article here --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:14, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Good call Mr McWicked, if i do say so myself. conservative creep- Andrew Schlafly. Ace McWicked 19:19, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I was very disappointed, I was hoping the text "Lord Almighty" linked to Ronald Reagan, but when I moused over it that wasn't the case. --81.187.75.69 19:21, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I like the reference to Galileo and Christianity in that article. Everyone knows that the Catholic Church were great fans of his work! Alt 19:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Nah, Lord Almighty would have been more likely. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 19:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Off topic, but "Obama is attempting to President and acquire power over all Americans."[1] Orly? Projection, much? Feel free to WIGO if it deserves it. ħuman 20:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

More publicity (Guardian)

Does Andy relise he has linked to an article that someone in the comments has linked to us? $\approx$$\pi$ 19:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Dear Lord

The simplest wiki on earth has a new template. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 21:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw, that's sweet. The story of teh assfly's public life: "don't confuse me, put in third grade English!" ħuman 00:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

TrueValues

[2]

Is he a parodist? Or just insane? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 21:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

He absorbed new vocabulary at a silly rate (edit summary "Unsupported liberal creep drivel" used twenty minutes after Andy created the article), so I'd guess he was going for fairly obvious parody. Kinda sad that he was only banned for removing the Lenski claim. --Sid 21:49, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Can't think of proper snark, but I think this is WIGO worthy

KevinM seems to be sort of a slow learner:

• Monday: I can has block/edit rights?
• Tuesday: I can has page unlock (to ask JM why the fuck he used a Holocaust denial site as a source)?
• Tuesday, minutes later: My block, it has a flavr.

Poor kid, he apparently means well and did some good work. His only flaw is that he doesn't say "You're absolutely right, Andy!" or "Liberal atheistic evolutionists are teh devil!" every couple of minutes. I hope he realizes just how wrong he is on CP. --Sid 21:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed finally sees his award

I finally got ed to see his award. Very subtle Ed. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Huh? Really? ħuman 23:11, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Good work, though chances are he saw it before. Any change to his talk page will render a "new messages" warning. Not seeing any new messages he likely would have checked through the edit history to see what it was. Nice to have real confirmation though. By the way, does this mean his name isn't Edward? Edwin, then? Edred? Edgar? Edmund? (Special) Ed? DickTurpis 23:15, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it's actually Edmund. Searching for "Ed Poor" on wikipedia gives you this. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 23:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

That was his grandpuppy. right? And he wuz probably named after him. Can we play simple and smart and write the barnstormer to "Ed Poor" and leave it at that? ħuman 23:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Sure put I am out of socks I am willing to get dirty. Does anyone else have one? $\approx$$\pi$ 00:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Wow! You are SOOOO cool! Can I be your friend? 67.135.49.116 00:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sarcasm, Jinx? Haven't you even read Liberal Style? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 00:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Jason, we would be happy to be your friends. That is very sweet. You can feel free to make an account.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:58, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Now, now, Jinx. Just as soon as you do something as good a Ed you will get an award too. We're not running a charity here. But as Tom said feel free to join up. $\approx$$\pi$ 01:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yep, apparently it's Edmund. There's an Edmund W. Poor on Amazon, aka Uncle Ed aka edpoor.--JayJay4ever^??? 09:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Huh. Reading his book reviews on Amazon, he seems almost a normal, sensible man. Some of those reviews are 3 years old, others from 7-8 years ago. It is really scary that someone could undergo such a transformation. All because of the sect he belongs to? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, it's for reasons such as that that I thought Ken was a much better candidate for idiot-king than Ed. At times (rare times, certainly at CP) he does seem like a somewhat normal person of average intelligence. I haven't thoroughly examined his WP contributions, and from what I saw he generally writes brief sub-par entries there as well, but he was not the Ed Poor we see at CP. The fact that CP sysops are not only allowed but encouraged to go on powertrips and abuse what little authority they actually have with displays of intimidation that would do the SS proud has altered his CP personality. Ken, on the other hand, is the same blathering idiot whatever forum he's on, as we've all seen in various forums on evolution and atheism across the entire internet. DickTurpis 14:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

"Member of the Unification Church since 1977." He joined the Moonies the year Star Wars came out. Coincidence? I think not! --81.187.75.69 13:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah it is Edmund.W.Poor[3] - Icewedge (*bleet*) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Gee, he kissed Jimbo's ass as he kisses Andy's. --JayJay4ever^??? 17:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

KISS

Please write about the subject so that a child (or uncle Ed!) can understand it. Never mind that it's so effin complicated & non-intuitive that (some of) the greatest minds of the last century couldn't hack it! (If you can't simplify Quantum then why not try something else? (Barbie Dolls perhaps?)   ^Contribs_Talk 23:05, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I think she's whinging about what I keep whinging about. But I'm not sure, due to the lack of links. ħuman 23:10, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

And Ed is considering that he may be stupid. I wonder where he got that idea from.Damo2353 09:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In checking out his Quantum article, it's not bad compared to most of the CP articles. It needs some editing to make it a little more straightforward, but it's hardly obtuse. - Lardashe

If you want it approved quickly, figure out a way to use quantum physics to condemn Liberals. --Gulik 15:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

My take on Andy & Bugler

After the latest in a long series of over the top thanks to a relatively new member; after all the warnings to Andy, even by CP Sysops, that Bugler might a parodist, I think that Andy is just having fun: at the expense of Bugler's victims who, in Andy's mind, are enemies of CP regardless; and at the eventual expense of Bugler, who will be banhammered with "I knew right from the start that you were a parodist but I still used you for the dirty work. Godspeed!". Too far-fetched? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 09:20, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Another possibility is that Bugler is a sock of Andy, who is using Bugler to demonstrate the level of sycophancy demanded of his acolytes.Antifly 09:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

It looks as if Andy knew Bugler is a parodist. Or Andy's fapping getting too excited lately. --JayJay4ever^??? 09:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No way Aschlafly could write British as well as that. Ajkgordon 09:57, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. If Andy wanted to create a sock to do that, he'd use good-old American! Bondurant 11:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

For me, this brings out a larger question about Andy's psychology. On one hand, there is some reason to think he is a reasonably intelligent man (e.g. Harvard Law). On the other hand, he believes some very, very, stupid things. But if he can't tell that Bugler is a parodist, I might have to give up the "reasonably intelligent" assumption.Bjones 13:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Being smart doesn't mean you don't believe crazy things, it just means you can rationalize them really well. And I don't think Andy is smart; he's what Dr. Gene Ray would call 'educated stupid', having that sort of mental constipation people get once they've decided they already know All The Answers and stop asking any questions. --Gulik 15:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, you can find several examples on this very site. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

If you look back to last summer when the 'S' sisters where active, Andy gave similar high praise to them for blocking vandals. --Shagie 14:00, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's problem is his pride, and this prevents him from recognizing that his views are extremely unpopular. Thus the appearance of Bugler just helps him rebuild any damage that his pride has taken. When Bugler is unmasked, he will take it as further confirmation of his beliefs. A win-win situation doesn't require any of his intervention. - Lardashe

Fermoklump's Petition

Full marks to the guy for trying, bit I fear this kind of approach will only end in tears. --Psygremlin_Whut? 11:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah there we go, Andy's little pitbull lapdog makes his appearance --Psygremlin_Whut? 12:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Ed and math

He's really fighting hard to defend his title as "Biggest idiot at CP".....Shangrala 15:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone happen to have the diffs for mathoreilly's edits saved somewhere? Also, one of you might want to invite him. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 15:56, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

You have to love the irony that he has this on his user page: I've also taught SAT math prep, so if your article has any errors in arithmetic or statistics, prepare for a shock. I might just delete your entire contribution. Looks like "I have no idea what you're talking about" also qualifies as deletion. --Psygremlin_Whut? 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think Ed(mund) is actually quite proud of his award! Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

This, of course, assumes he understands it. CЯacke® 16:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Do we have anyone adept enough at mathematics to be able to assess whether or not MathOReilly was actually "inserting false information," as Karajou says, or if they just didn't understand?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 16:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think the edits were real and true, (though I do not have the expertise to know), I think the "problem" was that Edmund wanted it dumbed down so far that all real math was eliminated from the article. The math PhD obviously didn't want this, but he wasn't a sysop → wrong. CЯacke® 17:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm (hopefully) coming towards the end of a PhD in theoretical physics. I've not reviewed every edit Mathoreilly made in great detail or anything, but I didn't see anything wrong with the stuff I did look at. I think Karajou's talking nonsense (I know, I know, try to hold back the gasps of astonishment) Alt 17:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know any physics but I do know my maths, and his math entries and changes are all good. Especially his position on Dedekind Cuts. We have more proof of Kara<insertwittinesshere>'s ineptitude.Antifly 17:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Everything I've seen him delete from the gradient and integral articles was bullshit (probably added by a parodist or a sysop). I admit I don't understand the properties of the gradient but the rest of the article is correct (and the original article was utter crap). NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, everything he did on the relativity page that was reverted was completely true. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think I see now, whoever wrote the gradient article got "slope" and "gradient" mixed up. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 17:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

You scarcely have to had a Ph.D in Maths to correct their mathematics articles, I think the majority of them are laughably wrong. For example, from my own subject area, I notice their explanations of primality testing is completely wrong. Whoever wrote it couldn't read or understand Fermat's little theorem (or even notice it was called the little theorem) and apparently has no idea what a monte carlo algorithm is. And this is the material from which Andy was proposing to teach his (long abandoned) critical thinking in maths course? --81.187.75.69 17:41, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

What is even more rediculous is they article on manifolds, Ramanujan summation and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory from axioms, but they don't have simple articles like limit, summations and other elemenatry topics. 219.90.219.105 19:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

DanielB undid Karajou's idiocy, think he'll get in trouble? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

How the hell do people let a buffoon who cannot understand this teach their children? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 10:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

More Ed - He asks, "What did Lenski do with E. coli?"

Weeks after the Lenski debate started Ed asks: What did he do with E. coli.

Yes, please do!

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ARichard_Lenski&diff=486034&oldid=486033 Fretfulporpentine 17:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

This is "good enough"...I'll do it. CЯacke® 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT) Thanks fer the heads up.

This is priceless. "Hey Andy, you made a total ass out of yourself, but some people might still think there is a shred of sanity left on CP. So here is my suggestion to drive the point home!" With sysops like Conservative, who needs wandals and parodists? --Sid 17:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Side note: In typical Conservative Style, here is the crosspost to Andy's talk page. --Sid 17:45, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before, but RW's Lenski Affair page is now linked to from Lenski's own site [4]. Dmyerken 18:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Fame indeed!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:14, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sweetness. :) King Lenski Meets Ratwiki Uptown (little help?). In other news, Ken is definitely autistic. Somewhere in the lower-mid range - such spectacularly tin-earred social ineptness is a stone-cold clincher. --Robledo 20:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm still holding out that he got the Asperger's syndrome...High functioning autistic but lacking a developed sense of humor, empathy or irony. CЯacke® 22:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey! Don't insult us aspies by making him one! --_transResident Transfan^form! 23:02, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) And in other news, this entire line of speculation is distinctly tasteless and unfunny. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 23:04, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Speaking as an aspie, I second both AutoFire and Chaos. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:06, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it's called "thirding" if you do it after two people :) _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 23:11, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I've yet to meet a self-described aspie who is as bad as the clinical definition, which is what Conservative seems to fit in with. Far as I'm able to tell, most of those who self-describe tend to be near borderline, if even truly aspie at all. Big C generally fits in with the clinical archetype pretty firmly, and I don't mean that as insult to anyone. --Kels 23:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

FYI, Asperger's is my actual diagnosis; I am not a "self-described" Aspie. That said, I am very high functioning. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservative is a little obsessive

Is it me or his going completely mad? He is so fixated on one little thing. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

A little obsessive seems like gross understatement to me. He's never satisfied with his atheism or homosexuality articles, they're never finished, he keeps on expanding them to infinity to the point where I don't think even a true believer could possibly trawl through them. I don't think I've ever met anyone like him, just think what he could achieve if all that singular focus were channelled in to something sane and productive! Sadly, however, he strikes me as the Hans Reiser type, but without the saving grace of actually being good at something. --81.187.75.69 20:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Andy's publications

• So far, all I've been able to find is a "White Paper of Medical Financing" from the Journal of the AAPS. -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:10, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

• And "AMA's Secret Pact with HCFA" in Vol 3, No. 4 of Medical Sentinel . . . also published by the AAPS. -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Two possible hits; anyone know what sort of engineer he used to be?

• Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM
• A 5V-only 4K nonvolatile static RAM

Alt 19:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, amusingly enough, that pair of papers are peripherally related to my field. I can't get access to them online, but will try to pop into the library for a quick read tomorrow if I get the chance. Alt 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think those two are from him, as he's clearly A L Schlafly (ie, there's the extra disambiguation of the middle initial). So those two are in journals, but are they in peer reviewed journals? The two one of the ones I found is a conference proceeding, and they're not always reviewed. I will attempt to do some digging. Alt 19:38, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

• Did Flawed Science and Litigation Help Bring Down the World Trade Center? - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 8, No 3 (Link is to Google's HTML version) -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Invoking 9/11 for a bout of ranting about how Asbestos Is Our Friend. Classy.

(He should apply the same risk tolerance to abortion's breast cancer link... --Gulik 22:54, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

The conference one was in ISSCC, which is, now at least, peer reviewed. It's only two pages, (one of figures only), but it's in a "digest". Coarb 20:05, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Engineering isn't my area. Is the fact that he is towards the end of the list of authors significant?Antifly 20:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm inclined to think it means he did some menial stuff as a student and didn't have a terribly big contribution to the work. If I remember rightly, some of the IEEE journals have brief biographical info on the authors and a note about what contributions each author made, though I don't know if they did so back then. Alt 20:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In large research groupings it is usally; authors who did the work and writing (2-5), research assistants who did not write the paper probably did not know what they were doing (2-50), head guy lab manager biggest name in the field does too much admin to even know what is going on. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:20, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I thought authors were listed alphabetically? So "S" would usually be late in a list... ħuman 20:22, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Authors are generally list based on their contributions to the paper. The closer to the front, the more the person contributed. Of course, Andy would probably tell you otherwise just fulfill his delusions of grandeur. Sandman 20:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

It very much depends on the field. In some fields, it's alphabetical. In some, it's like pi said. In some, it's randomized. Coarb 20:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Right. In my field it is always alphabetical. But if you follow the link the first paper, the authors are not listed alphabetically...Antifly 20:38, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

In maths they are alphabetic, in more practicle research there is a seniority aspect to the naming order. $\approx$$\pi$ 20:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Domestic goat (Capra hircus). The brown one is Stacey

Did this little gem sow the seeds of discontent? ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 20:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't get it. How does one go from being a greasy nerd with a real job, as depicted on the left, to suddenly deciding actually you've wasted your life and what you really want to do is retrain as a lawyer and get a pathetic sinecure from mummy (he's a fine one to talk about affirmative action, unless he seriously expects us to believe the honourable association of Harold Shipman wannabes advertised his job, and he really beat out all the other candidates fair and square.) As someone from whom you can pry greasy nerdom from his cold dead hands, it makes no sense to me. --81.187.75.69 20:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

That's the true tragedy of Andy. He had every chance of doing something useful and meaningful with his life. :( --Robledo 21:21, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Like his brother who has a love hate relationship with sausage? --Shagie 22:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

For the order of authors, I'd expect this sort of paper to begin with the people who did the bulk of the hands-on work first, ordered from largest contribution to smallest, and to then have project manager(s) at the end. In the case of multiple managers you'd normally then have them in increasing seniority towards the end, leaving the middle for those who did less. Let's see:

• First author: MS in electrical engineering from University of California, Berkeley
• Second author: MS in electrical engineering from University of California, Berkeley
• Third author: BSE in electrical engineering from Princeton University (guess who!)
• Fourth author: Manager of design team at Intel
• Fifth author: Department manager at Intel

so Andy looks to be the least significant author. As I suspected the issue which that paper is in was specially for work presented at a particular conference. The time from submission to publication was about 5 months (looks typical for that conference issue), whilst flicking through the rest of the volume suggests their normal review time is anything from 9 to 14 months. Surely Andy's paper wasn't subject to less meaningful review than most papers in that journal? (the 2 page "conference digest" one is just a summary of the longer paper by the looks of it, which is normal)

Also, the typical measure of paper quality is the number of times they've been cited. That paper has been cited twice, so is clearly a highly significant work. Alt 05:45, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

(Oh, in my library I found that journal under the classmark "TK". Surely highly significant, no? Alt 07:09, 3 July 2008 (EDT))

More Hypocrisy

So when the courts rule that Strip clubs and porn shops can't advertise near schools because it's potentially damaging to the children, conservatives cheer. When the court rules that the Bong Hits for Jesus banner was within school jurisdiction, conservatives cheer. This sets up a standard of the school being able to control speech and behavior.... However, when the court rules that Anti-Choice groups can parade around disgusting photos of aborted babies, they still cheer How the fuck do they rationalize this stuff? really? someone on that side give me a clue. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 02:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Not quite on target, but here's more Schlaffluence: [5] Inspired by his epic victorious battle against the forces of deceit and evolution! ħuman 02:41, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It's funny how that article seems to be part of a deliberate strategy of "argumentum ad nauseum" The Lay Scientist 07:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It seems like Andy is going insane trying to rationalize his epic pwning.... Everything about this debacle screams historical rewrite SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 07:28, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Planned Parenthood should respond to that billboard by making a giant image of something like this with the intent to discourage having your teeth removed.Shangrala 08:36, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia challenge

"A Conservapedia challenge is an unsolved problem or task that offers the promise of bettering society when lawfully accomplished", and "The first Conservapedia challenge is to find a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's federally funded data". Can you come up with other as worthy "unsolved problems or tasks" to better society? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 10:06, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

That was going to be the point of my WIGO on this, but I was beaten to it. The heck with feeding the poor, building homes, curing disease or solving conflicts - THIS is the top priority for the betterment of society! --SpinyNorman 10:15, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to change the WIGO entry! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 10:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, here's my Rationalwiki Challenge - come up with additional Conservapedia Challenges that are accepted additions to Andy's page, which cannot be distinguished from idiocy based on a Poe's Law test. --SpinyNorman 10:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Hah! He's gone over the edge in to obsessive stalking territory now. Lenski should just run `dd if=/dev/random of=~/keepbigbabyoccupiedforyears.bin count=1048576 bs=1024` and tell Andy its his data. He'd never know the difference. --81.187.75.69 10:20, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It's a Conservapedia Fatwa! --SpinyNorman 10:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You have to appreciate the style. Talk:Lenski_Dialog gets too full of people telling him he is wrong? Move to Talk:Richard_Lenski. They follow? Move to Talk:Main_Page. They are still following? Create an entirely new page. It's a sort of iterated version of the Schlafly Rearguard. It's ingenious tactics like these that keep CP bias free--ShooFly 10:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)