Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] 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.

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

Point of etiquette

What's the proper thing to do if I see a WIGO that's clumsily written and getting low scores, and would be far more effective funnier if it were rewritten to make its point more succinctly? Should I (a) rewrite it, (f) leave it alone and add a new WIGO for the same CP event, or (q) ignore it entirely and go watch 'Ninja Warrior' on my TiVo? - Cuckoo 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

a and q are good options. This has been discussed before and previously users felt quite at liberty to alter other people's WIGOs. As long as it doesn't get into an edit war I think that's fair game. It isn't about personal vanity so much as a colaborative project producing a well written page. It's by far the most viewed page on here so it's in everyone's interest to keep it punchy. INO duplicating a WIGO is always a bad plan. If you edit a WIGO you may also want to post in here saying why. StarFish 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to remember what the "goal" of WIGO-CP is...pointing out the mind numbingly stoopid hypocrisy that drives away the very people it claims to serve.

CP, (if it were run by a less insane person, [we're talking TK here not Aschlafly since the latter doesn't do much day-to-day besides finding new "insights" at the bottom of his Jack Daniel's bottles]), could have been a credible resource, just think what an intellect like William Buckley would have made CP!

As such WIGO's are individual's perspectives on the sheer insanity that seemingly drives the wiki into Never-never land. The "scores" have nothing whatsoever to do with anything save how each item hits the mob on any particular day.

In general I leave badly writ WIGO's to fial on their own, though I have rewritten a few as well. If I wanted to be mean I'd ask to have ye "appointed" to be the official WIGO gatekeeper. You could have the power to decide which WIGO's were "good enough" and I'd sit back with mine popcorn and watch the lulz as it unfolded until you left in disgust and revulsion.

THAT'S WHAT THE ARROWS IS FER!

People eventually learn "what sells" (higher scores) and write them accordingly or stop writing them altogether.

CЯacke® 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was actually a bit worried about that in the first place, CP actually being run by someone competent, if intellectually amoral. Basically think of that, a right-wing slant on all topics, presented plausibly and as a valid take on the facts. Believable misinformation that supports Conservatives, all slant all the time. Could have been problematic, but fortunately we got an incompetent nutter who immediately surrounded himself with fruitcakes and sociopaths, and credibility quickly went in the dumpster and we could all just sit here and laugh at the clowns. Philip, on the other hand, had a much better chance to do something similar for Creationist "facts" over at aSK, but he made one huge mistake. Letting himself be questioned and joining in the debates. Not smart, Creationists must never let themselves be questioned, or their arguments fall apart (even if they don't recognize it happening and handwave it away). There's a reason CMI doesn't have comment sections on their articles, y'know. --Kels 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reality has a lib-burr-rul bias, so that is actually impossible. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, the danger is a FoxNewsWiki, where you can get utter bullshit analysis, where moron commentators rewrite history (the New Deal worsened the depression. The US won both World Wars virtually alone) and people believe it because they have fancy titles. Luckily, a conservative project can never be sane so long as it is collaborative. In politics and media, the sane do their best to keep the nutters quiet (see the Canadian Conservative Party), but that's hard, if not impossible, on a wiki. 20:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, to maintain ideological purity from the inevitable hordes of Liberal Saboteurs and apolitical pranksters, they'd need to patrol it like a print-shop in the USSR. Pretty much like CP, in fact. --Gulik 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

<insert name here>'s unfunny WIGOs

Lest anyone accuse me of being altruistically interested in the good of RW, let me clear that up: no, my only thought was of myself and my belief that I am much funnier than, for example, <insert name here>. I sometimes look at a WIGO and think, "Hey, I could have written that better!" But then I think that if I were to rewrite it, the original poster would tie me to a stake and light me on fire. - Cuckoo 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting the bar kinda low there. Pretty much everyone is funnier than <insert name here>. --Kels 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey you jerks, leave <insert name here> alone. Why is all your guys ever do is sit around and pick on valued editors who try and make good contributions. I wouldn't be surprised if <insert name here>. got sick of your crap and left. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, ChuckB. In everyone's defense, though, my dry wit comes across much better in person. <insert name here> 23:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with improving wigos, regardless of their "score". Fix typos, spelling and grammar, obviously, but also if something just isn't "reporting on the lulz" well, I say fix it. I see no reason why this one page on the wiki should be immune to "merciless editing" to make it better. I know people are a bit "possessive" of items they add, but still, it's not like they solved some important math puzzle, CP's RC is there for all to see... Also, the possessiveness sometimes leads to premature wigoing (IMO), often a story can be told better once it is finished unfolding. ħuman 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If one of my WIGOs is sucking it, I'm happy to have somebody improve it if they think they can.--WJThomas 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We really need to clarify this "ownership" of wigos, which in my opinion makes for crappy wigos and ego wars over who saw what first on CP:RC. Come on, folks. ħuman 05:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never understood it either really. Meh, its just like sharing a joke and when sharing a joke its the worst sort of people who lean over and say "I made that up myself you know". Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 05:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give in....what have I done to upset you lot? Isn't it bad enough to keep getting banned over the road without you lot picking on me? If I knew how to exercise my Syop powers here I'd be tempted to set a goat on you all. (The real) Mick McT 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh bolloxs....just spotted what's going on! Please ignore the above, I withdraw any threat of goat. Mick McT 08:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It always catches me too. Then I remember where I am. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 09:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope the person who invented the myName thing develops itchy balls or something... at least until I stop falling for it. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Mick, it catches everyone. I made a twat out of myself once many times, but with the Myname thing on "who's going to hell" list here. Boy was my face red! SJ ^Debaser 10:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna lie... almost went off over this one. Definitely a WTF?! moment, seeing as I have one world WIGO to my name and almost no other contributions in the past thirty days. --NTemple 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Acedemics and Athletics

I know this is old news, but for those who haven't yet followed the link under the Home-Schooled football league WIGO, the picture there gave me one of the best lulz I've had in weeks! Junggai 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One of Pat Conroy's novels (I think its The Prince of Tides) includes a scene where the narrator remembers when he played high school football, and a pre game pep talk. It goes something like this...

Coach: I want you men to go out there and hit them, and hit them hard!

Team: Yes sir!

Coach: I want to see their fucking blood! I want to see their god damn guts spilled on the field!

Team: Yes sir!

Coach: I need hitters! Do have me some fucking hitters?

Team: Yes sir!

Coach: Let us pray.

That being said, church state issues aside, I see nothing wrong with an athletic team praying prior to the game, asl ong as its asking that they conduct themselves as athletes and gentlemen, no one is injured, etc etc etc. ^{— Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs}

That dialogue sounds as if the prayer immediately following would be to Sol Invictus rather than Jesus. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who spent some time in locker rooms before football games (I was a manager -- read "waterboy"), Conroy's description was a bit over the top, but not far from reality at all. And both my experience and Conroy's novel were in the American South (me: East Tennessee, Conroy: South Carolina's tidewater region), so the prayer was definitely to Jesus. MDB 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. First ListenerX and MDB evoke southern football culture, then JDWpianist goes and creates an article on Gram Parsons, whose "Hickory Wind" always makes me think of my own southern roots. A day for nostalgia, indeed. Junggai 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Southern? Wasn't he "country rock" in the sense of leading to the Eagles, Linda, Jackson, etc.? Or am I wrong? ħuman 05:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gram preferred to call what he was doing "Cosmic American Music," and apparently wasn't thrilled with the Eagles. But the country rock scene in many ways started with the Byrds' Sweetheart of the Radio, which Gram contributed a great deal to inspiration-wise. Anyway, "Hickory Wind" is a great song about being from the south, and having complicated feelings about it. Junggai 07:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should do some listening :) Thanks. ħuman 07:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You should! No one's life is made the poorer by listening to Gram Parsons. Junggai 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PS, I thought this was one of the better recent wigos. That sign... ROTFLMAO! ħuman 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had to correct the spelling of this section header. Генгис^mutating 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is It Just Me

Or does the CP server appear to be suffering a little. I'm getting "503 Internal Server Error. The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request." for about one request in five. StarFish 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I just checked a few talk pages today and got 500/503 errors every now and then. --Sid 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They're getting a lot of hits lately, probably a patriotic surge of interest due to the upcoming 7/4 celebrations. Apparently people are visiting approximately as often as the server can manage to keep up (sentence?). ħuman 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I have trouble reading CP too since this morning (it changes from a 503 yesterday to "Forbidden/Not found" ?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to even view a page on CP since yesterday morning. Had to look at the screenshots of WIGO diffs. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Try to view via proxy. Is it possible Andy has taken to blocking your IP from seeing the site? 18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. Is it possible in wiki software to block an IP from even viewing? The site is coming up now, just very slowly. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible at some level, yes. Trent pranked TK once by 404ing his IP address (I think it was the IP, may have been the user name...), blocking him from even viewing the site. But I suspect it was a server-level exploit, not a MW one. ħuman 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The 404s are a consequence of the recent patriotic surge of interest, as Human so lyrically describes it, just like the 503s and 500s. I don't expect any decrease in 404 frequency for at least the next twelve hours. Mountain Blue 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This shows that the MediaWiki software can be used for blocking even viewing by certain IPs. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The competition

I found a blog that has some interesting insight on it about CP. We get a few shout-outs as well. Can anyone here claim this as their own doing? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced it's one of us or someone who reads us. On of the links on the side is SirChuckB's blog and that's pretty obscure (sorry chuck, but you gotta update that sometime!) It's quite a good one though, boils down CP's recent greatest WIGOs into readable English. Totnesmartin 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is Psy's blog. - π 08:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Er... yup... guilty as charged. (Thanks for the comment too!) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think it's CUR's. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly, please pick up the red courtesy telephone

Yo Assfly! Why don't you get off your ass and GET A JOB or something so you can afford a decent WEB SERVER? Huh? I can punk your bitch into a FUCKING COMA with two netbooks and a free hotspot in FUCKING MAYFIELD. You know what Mayfield calls itself? Mayfield calls itself THE CENTER OF THE NEW ZEALAND PIG FARMING COMMUNITY. And it FUCKING IS! No offense, but WHAT THE FUCK? Seriously, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?? You have SYSOPS that take it up the ass harder than that. I recognize you're not exactly SCOTUS material but you could at least SELL THE YUGO or something. Be creative, man. If you can weasel your way to a fucking LAW DEGREE without opening TWO BOOKS, you can weasel yourself into some FUCKING CONNECTIVITY. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mountain Blue / talk / contribs}

Ahhhh its always nice to see a fellow countrymen losing his wick, I think may have even been to Mayfield. Rant on good sir. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 20:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see someone rolled through a liter of whiskey and posted. Love it. Epic rant is epic. --PitchBlackMind 06:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

He has a job, with a decent sized nest-egg to boot. Conservapedia is not a top priority.. It's not in his top 5, but probably still in the top ten though.

He has lots of books in his library. I quizzed him on a few, and he faired better than you would have expected.

Just because you say "no offense", doesn't make it any less offensive. Kix, they're not just for kids~ 06:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

At PBM, yeah, well, people do rant here because we don't mind. At KTLTLKKAMES, yeah, we know he has a fat bank account. "Real job"? Lawyering for his mother's Eagle Forum? Retainer for AAPS? Lots of books? So do I. And I haven't read 2/3 of them, but I could still convince a 20 year old I had. No offense, of course, but I wonder if maybe you knew what was in those books well enough to quiz him? ħuman 07:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm sleepy and that wasn't supposed to be as rude as I read it. But in case it needs to be cleared up, I said I loved the rant. Should've bolded it apparently.--PitchBlackMind 07:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I might have really been referring to MB's rant not your comment on it. </scotch> is no excuse! ħuman 07:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Kektklik, I am curious. If he seems to a be half-way decent, thoughtful person in real life, what do you think is the basis of his extreme ideological blindness, ignorance, and bigotry online? I understand that CP is not his highest priority, but lack of priority does not explain what happened in the Lenski affair last year. I know you have a different perspective, and I am honestly wondering what your thoughts on this matter are. What is with him that he behaves the way he does at CP or anywhere else online that he has posted? Kaalis 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

People behave differently on the Internet, simply put. We are capable of hiding behind our usernames (for the most part) and act accordingly to whatever fantasies we want. I am a woman~ *flirts with Radioactive afikomen* (just giving an over-the-top example)

Andy lawyers for more than just EagleForum, he also has a few petty cases here and there. (I saw his hours typed up on the family computer a few times). If I didn't answer the question completely, then I guess I can't read too well.

Per the comment below, his primary employment (and income) is being a lawyer. The homeschooling "business" only earns him--I would venture a guess--about 1/6 of his income (after taxes). Kix, they're not just for kids~ 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that he earns money from being a lawyer. I wonder who his clients are and what kind of work he does. My research of his federal cases reflected the he basically has very little federal practice experience and isn't a great legal writer for someone with his educational pedigree. I have no idea about state court cases because the databases aren't located in a single place and are hence a pain to research. Oh, and Foucault's Pendulum was a best selling novel, hardly obscure, a sort of Illuminatis! meets The Da Vinci Code written at a college level rather than a 6th grade level. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So very little federal work and 0 New York state court appearances in more than 12 years. See here. I'm checking to see if New Jersey has a similar database online. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I'm not finding a NJ database, just sporadic references online to a few amicus briefs he did for right wing outfits and some other political hired gun work he's done, like suing the West Virginia Trial Lawyers Association on behalf of a physician for the Associations part in the state's "unfavorable medical liability insurance climate." I wish he had a website up describing his practice. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at liberty to discuss Andy's clients. >.>

It was obscure in my high school. I was the only one who chose to borrow the book from the school library in the past 4 years. (he didn't own the book). "Filename: Pinball" Kix, they're not just for kids~ 02:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be very clear, my wondering about who this man's clients are, aside from those mentioned in the press and that I can find in briefs and decisions, was exactly that. Wondering. I'm not looking for any comment from you or anyone on that stuff, as what you may or may not have learned in that house on this subject is not for public consumption. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, here. Which is his primary employment - joke lawyer or horrifying homeschool teacher? (is anyone else confused how it can be called homeschooling when they gather together under an educator for a scheduled class?) But I'd be fascinated to know what is on his bookshelf, though Human is absolutely right - owned certainly != read. In a way, I can see him reading quality literature, but just not getting it, given his unimaginably warped lens. Then again, I've never found the far right to be interested in the western culture they so ardently defend. 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Their idea of "western culture" is probably John Wayne. Totnesmartin 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

YOINK!...SUCKER!!

Andy invites Flanagan to a gun-control debate (twice!). Flanagan begins badly. Andy repeats desire for an open-minded debate, then kicks Flanagan in the nuts. Flanagan tries again. Andy throws dirt in Flanagan's face, and TK hits him from behind.--WJThomas 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonus Schlafly Statistic (see his edit comment): Guns are used for defensive purposes 40 million times/year in the USA (guns used defensively 100 times more than criminally--100 x 400,000 = 40,000,000). Even Loony John Lott and his ilk don't claim more than a million or two defensive uses/yr.--WJThomas 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun control is a very entertaining subject to attempt to engage Assfly on. Reality is very skewed toward the efficacy of gun control. Attempts to mount counter-arguments require very careful quote-mining and cherry-picking which Andy is not exactly capable of. Instead, we get awesome Schlafly statistics, references to unsourced "research" and, of course, teh banhammer. Fun indeed. And yes, Andy, I was very amused. Thank you. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 18:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If only JFK had been packing heat in Dallas, he'd probably STILL be President. --Gulik 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All you libruls don't know what guns are really about. Not only can they fire bullets, but if one is in your possession, bullets fired at you actually bend around you and don't hit you. This is fact, 100%. X Stickman 22:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just watching DL Hughley's stand up special, he did a great bit about that. "I saw a car with a bumper sticker that said "I support the NRA" then right next to that was another one that said "What Would Jesus Do?" I'm sure that when Jesus was crucified he said "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do" and NOT "When I get down from here, I'm gonna bust a cap in you muthafuckas." SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he's saving THAT for the Second Coming. --Gulik 07:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Autism

Does anyone know what started Andy's recent fascination with autism? I appear to have missed the trigger. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been around a while. He shills for an anti-vax (among other things) doctor club, has for years. The vax-autism "link" is made very readily. ħuman 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Human! Ah jeez, I can't believe I didn't put that together. He seems to be especially preoccupied with it at the moment though. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(editing from phone so might screw up) THIS is what first drew me to Rational Wiki, the whole vaccines cause autism nonsense. Anyone with half a brain cell can surely see the lack of any link between them (besides one guys dodgy lawyer funded study based on the opinions of a few parents) and that the complications that MIGHT arise with a vaccine are actually more likely to happen through catching the disease itself! Smg87 22:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always been flabbergasted by the anti-vaccination cranks, I just don't get it. Even if you honestly believe in the very shaky theories about vaccinations being a cause in autism... you have to completely ignore the positive effect they have, and that's bloody hard to ignore. ESPECIALLY considering it means you're putting your kids' lives on it, and possibly kids around them. Honestly, what the fuck people. --GTac 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The anti-vacc people I've met have exhibited some of the most immoral thinking I've come across: they unabashedly don't vaccinate their kids because they're convinced it's connected with some sort of diseases/disorders, but gladly leech off the vaccination of others by relying on herd immunity (while blaming sundry random problems on vaccination). "I don't want my kids to get sick, but if others get sick/get autism/get ADHD/are retarded/fund Merck while protecting my kids, so much the worse for them." There'd be a bit of schadenfreude involved if the parents got rubella rather than their poor kids. 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they're too far removed. The people who now front the Anti-Vaccine crap weren't alive for the true epidemics. They weren't alive when Polio was destroying America, or the Flu, or Measels, Mumps and Rubella.... Or any of that crap. So they can convince themselves that it's just a government/big industry plot to make money. PS, anyone else notice that a lot of the people who front this are the ones who also argue against government regulation of the same industry they claim is knowingly giving kids Autism for profit? How do they function with all the polar opposite positions they take? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, there is no real evidence for an MMR-autism link, and the guy that faked results did more damage to that cause than any one else. But why refuse to give seperate vaccines? MMR is available only as a triple shot. Say what you like about autism, that's definitely a health risk. Why not three seperate vaccines over a period of months, less likely to cause an adverse reaction. Why not? Because then you might not take them all. Drug companies have no interest in creating a cure, only a treatment. Laurent Cousin 06:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you. The medical rationale for making a triple vaccine is simple: less likely to miss shots, better overall protection. So many people miss their shots and suffer the consequences (myself included). Why not combine them? There is no danger with a triple vaccine. Also, there is more chance of an adverse reaction with single shots, no country in the world advocates them over the MMR vaccine. --Smg87 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The MMR vaccine is given at a time when the child is most susceptible to those three diseases. Single jabs for each one would be delayed over periods of time, during those delays the child continues to be at risk for the other two diseases. So let us play Russian Roulette with a child, and pick which of the two diseases the child remains at great risk for, right? Should we let the parents chose maybe? That's a hell of a Sophie's Choice. How is having the three vaccines in a single shot a greater health risk than having them in three separate shots? There is certainly no evidence that I am aware of that there is any increase risk, and when the alternative is randomly leaving open a child to a debilitating and often deadly disease...well there is your answer. tmtoulouse 07:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AndyPandy and the Half-blood Prince term 'Continental Drift'

I knew that Andy was an ignorant git, but this made my jaw hit the floor. Jebus, its not like you have to know a lot about geology to realise that continental drift was an extremely controversial topic in its day, and the only reason it stopped being controversial was the eventual death of an entire generation of geologists.--Precumming Storm 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Andy recently arguing that continental drift was happening at a rate of several feet per hour or some such? --Kels 21:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we point out to Andy that conservatives and the church held up recognition of Drift Theory because.... Wait for it...... The Bible said God created the World and said nothing about moving continents apart? It wasn't until the evidence was mounted so high that they couldn't deny it anymore that they finally changed their stance. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh Kels, I remember that too, he said something like that just a few dozens of yards each year is still pretty slow, or something like that. Also this thread title amused me. --GTac 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was on the Old Earth talk page. Andy lost interest after Addison poitned out that by Andy's calculations the continents were drifting apart at the rate of 8 feet per hour or something After checking the talk page I see that by Andy's calculation they were moving at 8.8 feet per second. Which is pretty quick. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Someone stop that continent, it's doing 6mph", if I'm not correct? --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

6 Imperial miles per hour, yes. But it's OK because the continents are only moving apart, right? It's not like the Earth is a globe or anything so nobody's in any danger. Mountain Blue 00:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So I was looking through Conservapedia's wonderful geology section when I found this piece of crap. I'm sorry if I'm highlighting somebody's parody here (Hey, Terry!) but what the hell is this supposed to mean?

"Uniformitarianism is the view that the forces affecting the universe are the same now as at any time in the past. It was proposed by geologist Charles Lyell, and was a major influence on Charles Darwin. Although uniformitarianism has been geological dogma since the time of Lyell, over the last half century, there has been a noticeable shift away from uniformitarianism. It is now, for example, widely accepted that the extinction of the dinosaurs was the result of the collision of an asteroid with the Earth."

What?!? Bil08 01:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is "serious" creationist "science". If you take courses in biology, geology, chemistry, they do talk about the assumption that the universe is constant. Fortunately in physics where they debate that assumption, they have found that it has been constant or that for the time frames biologists, geologists and chemists are interested in, it is true enough. Creationist see this as a way to wedge there ideas into science by claiming they are just working under different assumptions, however they don't like to draw attention to the fact that their assumptions are false. That last example about meteors is an exercise in equivocation.- π 01:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just whack. A rock crashing into Earth is as "uniformitarian" as the orbit of Jupiter. Shit happens. ħuman 03:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The uniformitarian assumption is that rocks crass into earth at about the same rate, or a rate proportional to the number of available rocks, now as in the past. Huge ones that wipe out dinosaurs show up on average once every few hundred million years. The idea that on catastrophic event effected the earth's geology so the earth's geology must only be effected by catastrophic events is an attempt to squeeze the flood in somehow. I wouldn't try to understand it, creationist are always trying to create controversy and debate where none exists. - π 08:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy's rate of drift was calculated purely on the width of the Altantic divided by 6013 (2009+4004) years but completely ignoring current measurements which show it to be of the order of a few inches per year. It's quite likely that the rates have varied over geological history as the physical makeup of the earth has changed but it is unlikely that anything approaching 6 mph has occurred for anything more than a couple of seconds in a localised area. Why Andy thinks it surprising that the idea of continental drift is so surprisingly recent as it is "such a simple concept" just shows how dumb the guy is, but anyone who studies geology by reading a dictionary is obviously not going to be in any shape or form an authority. Geology is quite a recent science and macro-geology rather than petrology has only progressed in the last fifty years with developments in geophysics and geodesy. Being able to measure accurately things like distances, and "see" deep structures through analysis of seismic waves or underwater survey techniques. As the continents move so slowly why would anyone think that the continents drift? The initial concept was basically just looking at a map/globe and thinking "hey, doesn't the coastline of Africa fit rather well with that of central and south America?". Early geology was very much about local issues related to mineral extraction and quarrying, so a global perspective was lacking. It's only after we have mapped rocks all over the Earth that we can finally start to piece everything together and most of that has only happened within the last century. Andy's presumption to expound on any and every subject with a confidence and authority derived solely from his religious and political views is simply breathtaking. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No kidding, with all the things he's a self proclaimed expert in, you'd think he could find a better job than half assed lawyer for his mom's business. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that the liberals are done helping Andy reach 100 M pageviews

Can PiBot archive this page already? I'd do it if I wasn't scared of knocking PiBot out of it's groove, that slick little fucker. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least hang on so that the 100m thread - which is the top thread - can greet the posting of the 100m hits, no? At some point this week Andy's bound to post it. After that, vamonos. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do pages have to get archived in order? Seems trivial to leave that one thread at the top, archive everything after it, and then stick it back into the archive next week when we're completely done with it. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I last ran Pibot just over 12 hours ago, I try to run it once a day at about the same time. It will archive any thread that has been not been edited for 72hrs. I will see about getting it running soon as I won't be able to run it tonight at the time I normally do.- π 01:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pibot is cool. It just archives old threads, it doesn't matter where they are in the page. The 100M thing is at the top because it's the oldest extant page. I recently let pibot have its foul and inebriated way with my talk page, saves me a lot of toil and trouble. By the way, Pi, I recommend making the default archiving be "one" thread. ħuman 02:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy done. I keep meaning to fix it so that automatically archives without you having to tell it the archive location, so all you need to do is stick down the template with no parameters. After I get that working I'll put it on the bot server.- π 03:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nutty, I done did it. Pibot is pretty innocuous from what I can tell - when archiving it just reads section headers and the last timestamp in them, and cuts and pastes to archive pages, making new ones when they hit the preset size limit. Manually archiving results in things that look exactly the same to the bot, so no big deal. Hey Pi, is there a way to make a "magic button" on a talk page so pibot will run on it and it alone? After it goes on the house bot farm, perhaps? ħuman 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like Slutty has a point regarding the order. The top section, as far as I can see, was last edited a week ago. Doesn't pibot look at every section separately? ħuman 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Pibot did indeed yank the 100m views thread. A shame really, as some day soon Pandy will acknowledge the hits. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Powell

What's the problem? Powell was later rehabilitated? [1] RobS 02:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your a witty man Rob. - π 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you said emancipated that would have been a bit more clever, although possibly slightly offensive. - π 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

très encyclopedic, Rob. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rob, endorsing Obama does not get Powell a pass on lying to the UN to let us go to war. His Obama presentation was good (words good, ad hominem does not weaken them), but he utterly destroyed his credibility otherwise years before. ħuman 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is rehab service for that? I thought they only know rehab services for homosexuality, alcoholism and drug addiction. Or are we talking about something so profound that people don't want to talk about it? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well duh (why does it always fall to me to explain this?) Gulag stands for Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps; read this section of Sozhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo for a clue 451-452. Enemies of the People (like Powell once was) were issued certificates of rehabilitation. RobS 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this?

File:Andy-paper.jpg

Andy's scissors-paper-stone 101 class

Seems like it has a lot of potential. http://www.archive.org/details/DidLitigationAndJunkScienceHelpBringDownTheWorldTradeCenterAndrew

That is where he advocates the continuing use of asbestos or something like that isn't it? I think it use to be on his page when it was the joke page. - π 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Andy explains how to educate great thinkers. Looks like the whole conference is a goldmine. 03:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty new. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is sleep inducing, could you imagine him as a teacher? tmtoulouse 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice suit, I wonder who it was made for? - π 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, his delivery style isn't too bad. It's just his grating voice, and his content that make his speeches appalling. I love how he switches gears half way through his educating great thinkers speech. He switches from his long and tedious list of "homeschooled" people (congrats to the member of the audience who called on his "anyone who was ever taught to read by mum and dad is homeschooled" bullshit) and rolls extremely seamfully in to bitching about how Lenski was mean to him. (Oh, yeah, and just tacking on Brigham Young on the end of his list of genius homskollars struck me as a bit odd. Surely the Arsefly has no sympathy for evil heretic Mormons?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good one. Moar breast cancer abortion facts. Andy knew three women who had abortions and got cancer. The chances of this happening without some sort of correlation are small. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Jerry Falwell said that the gays were the cause of the WTC attacks. That should be good enough for all of youse! Lern!Jimaginator 15:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I like how he's prepared to condemn 10,000 students to ignorance and poverty on the possibility that one of them might be another Thomas Edison. Генгис^marauding 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is hilarious. He whips Lenski out of nowhere (though not by name). I always wondered if Andy took himself as seriously as he comes over but, jeez, theres no doubt. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is he deliberately ironic?

I notice Andy posts an article about schools in Tampa Bay wanting as 40-100% grading scale, which he heavily criticises. Given that he use an 80-100% grading scale (he marks a student wrong and only deducts 2 of a possible 10 points) isn't that a little rich? - π 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed the WIGO, I stopped reading them a while back. - π 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy/Addy and the 2nd Commandment

WIGO has AddisonDM (whose name always makes me think of cough syrup) challenging Andy's contention that the Bible forbids images of humans, and tweaking Addy for forgetting the 2nd Commandment. Except...that's not what the 2nd is about--it proscribes "graven images", but does not mention humans specifically, and is generally interpreted as a caution against worshiping "false idols" and statues and whatnot. There's potential for fun here, by the way--While Andy bemoans the good ol' days of image prohibition, he seems fine with it on his website, and there's a long history of graven images (particularly people) within Christianity, particularly in Andy's claimed denomination. I suspect Addison realizes all this, and that this is where (s)he is headed.--WJThomas 10:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thought: Andy can go three ways here, and I'm not sure which would be most fun. 1)"Oops, I was wrong." (unlikely) 2)"I'm right--we'll have to remove all images of humans from CP" (highly unlikely) 3)"I'm right, but now I'll twist myself into a knot to rationalize the painfully obvious exceptions". (likely)--WJThomas 10:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and of course...4) ignores Addison (most likely, if he tries to think it through)--WJThomas 10:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Expect a talk-page archival soon. Генгис^marauding 11:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Awhaaaaa....I just read this comment by Andy and my brain tried to scurry off and hide in the closet. --Kels 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the Second Commandment was a blanket ban on all images, which was why there was not very much of a Jewish art tradition. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I always understood it as a ban on images of god which gets interesting when you consider the number of images of that man being strung up. Silver Sloth 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Like any other aspect of Christianity, what it means depends on which wackos you're listening to. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone interpreting it as a ban of images of people or images in general. All it says is you shouldn't make and worship "idols", which I believe refers to images, statues etc. representing God or of false gods. All images aren't idols. Etc 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the pictures in the masterpiece section on their main page has to be removed if Andy stands by that statement. And then there is the problem of painting of the picture of Jesus/God/Trinity, as seen in Vatican and a lot of painters around Europe/America. All of a sudden they don't look like human anymore. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad news for CPalmer

With the unfortunate demise of Tago, his list is back down to nine. Maybe TK wants the spot? The reason can be 'not blocking me yet'. EddyP 10:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He may want to get rid of the list altogether. It is cursed. At least my list only had 2 people forcibly removed from it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 10:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Craven Obama

In yet another example of Obama's socialist tendencies and hatred of self-defense for Americans, he has cravenly thrown himself at the feet of America's great enemy the USSR Russia and agreed to destroy all of America's weapons. EddyP 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Chuck Norris will provide a fair and balanced analysis for WND. Silver Sloth 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please knock it off with the TK WIGO's already

Jezus christ knock it off with the TK WIGO's already. Is anyone surprised at anything that guy does anymore? He's a transparent hate-troll. Poking him with a stick by going anywhere near his talk page is going to get you blocked. Wouldn't surprise me if he also used it as an opportunity to rangeblock part of Western Europe. Please for the love of goat wait for him to do something out of the ordinary. Intellectually dishonest news posts, blocks of unremarkable users, "look at me, Andy" brown nosing, it's all par for the course. Fuck this guy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He does things at CP, therefore, he belongs on this page. Trying to understand CP's collective insanity without mentioning TK would be like trying to understand the Bush administration without mentioning Dick Cheney. --Gulik 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As a normaly outspoken anti-Tk-WIGOer, I thought the latest involving TK's userpage was hilarious. It's all about moderation in all things, including TK WIGOs. Z3ro^talk 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At least it gives the beautiful mental image of TK falling for the trick over and over again until finally catching on and blocking the culprit in blind rage. Vulpius 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PhilipV

He was an incredibly obvious parodist, guys. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My god, was he ever. I always wanted a silly pretext to ban him, but never got one. 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Never mind, checked it.) It amazes me the stuff people can get away with there, as long as they slag off Liberals enough. --Gulik 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There goes another one off of CPalmer's list. He'd better make a list of users he doesn't like so maybe they'll be knocked off as steadily as those on the list he does like. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RobS' new pet

Behold: Lib-burr-ull haet speach! I can't believe how many spelling errors and borken links there are. Some of these might be WIGO worthy. Check out "the most vile hate speech" (which also somehow qualifies as race-baiting) backed by the borken link proving it was "[a]n anonymous editor at the New York Times". I never thought it was possible, but I think Rob could be a parodist (or he has completely lost his mind). ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh he lost his mind long ago. - π 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mad as a bag of hammers that bloke. Hatstand. Off his trolley. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another good one: Michael Moore's "liberal hate speech against South Asians" backed up by (of course) a borked link with no video. Here is the video...did you catch it? Yeah...probably not. 14:32... HATEFUL...er...not really. $20 says he's never seen the video. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He probably has, but he so genuinely dislikes "liberals" that he is convinced it is hate speech. Have a read of Conservapedia:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem and Fun:Clinton and the Gay Bomb: A play in two acts to see how he operated in the past. - π 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a little one: Conservative hate speech against people with abilities: RobS implies that the Special Olympics are for children, potentially offending 2.5 million athletes worldwide. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore is high on Michael Moore. He needs to stop doing so much Michael Moore. As for the racism charge, I really think he was just saying the name facetiously because Gupta styles himself as such a credible reporter and Moore believes he is full of shit. It's no different than Steve Martin saying "well excuuuuuse meee" in his signature way. But what do I know. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think he should madonna/michael jackson himself into Michael Lesse? That's gonna take some diet and exercise to pull off... ħuman 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that when I first started browsing Conservapedia (a year ago? A year and a half?), Rob was barely active, so most of his stuff that I saw was found by stumbling across old talk page debates. This stuff fascinated and bewildered me, even more then Schlafly's complete lack of civility or any other major contributor's "style". I felt a bittersweet sense of both regret and relief that he wasn't around to continue his impeccable style of censorship and non-debate. Seeing him (and to a certain extent TK) return and begin to go back to work is kind of like finding out that some kind of infamous local legend has come back to a city you just moved into, like a never-proven mob boss or long-suspected sexual predator. Seeing him cut references from the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity articles because he doesn't like the sources... 76.105.223.232 05:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Senator John Edwards viciously attacked social commentator Ann Coulter, calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace of ideas a "she-devil"". Holy christ talking about inserting bias! Or is that her official title? --GTac (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the way that implying that people with an extra 21st chromosome are inferior in some ways is hate speech, but stating that people with an extra X chromosome are inferior in most ways to those with a Y chromosome is A-OK. To be honest, the whole article smacks of the much-hated political correctness. Perhaps Rob suspects that a political correctness advocate is hiding in his closet and watching his every move; perhaps it exchanges notes with the communist under his bed. EddyP (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

She's six foot tall plus the heels. If it wasn't Rob, it would undoubtedly be parody. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we've highlighted Rob's lust for old horseface in the past. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Conservapedia links to a graph mentioning things that happened 24,000 years ago"

CP is not expilicitly YEC, never has been. Yes, they are anti-evolution, and have some YEC crap in their articles, but the uber-God-siteowner has never pronounced on CP that YEC is the only answer (yeah, he's made a YECdiot of himself on talkorigins, etc., but not on CP). No big deal, since they are whack anyway. ħuman 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, yes he has made a YECdiot of himself on CP, thrashing belief in an old earth (creationism or otherwise) on the Moon's talk page comes to mind. Flare^Talk 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He has constantly reverted edits which assume Earth's existence to be longer than 6000 years. Usually with an edit summary of ‘Removing liberal bias.’ Matt oblong 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, Andy mentioned YEC being the only answer a couple of times. Furthermore, since CP's administration is such a mess, they never really make explicit claims on CP's position about anything. Hell, even them having a conservative viewpoint has been confirmed and denied by several admins. --GTac (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy might be, but CP is OEC friendly, as long as gOD did all the work, I think. ħuman 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Their articles on "Old Earth" and "Old Earth Creationism" contain nothing but criticism of these ideas. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Human, I think in various SDG posts Andy has said that CP should be OEC accomodating. However, all his own posts have been YECish and the various lickspittles have tended to echo their master's beliefs. So while the stated intention was not to reject the OEC view, I think all the evidence points to a de facto YEC stance. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Paging Ed Poor

Dear Ed Poor - there is math happening at Conservapedia.. Where are you to prevent this? And what happened to cp:User:Foxtrot? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr...did somebody oversight cp:Functional Analysis or did LArron give the wrong link? No text in the page, nothing in the logs. Wuzzup with that? Bjones (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave a wrong link - I don't know why I thought of Functional Analysis... cp:Fundamental group, that's what I should have said... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jpratt (again)

Watching that hate-filled little pustule suddenly start quoting scripture as he blocks people makes me itch. Moonshine must be good in his little backwater today... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When did he start doing that? I've only noticed it over the past couple weeks. Quoting the bible when blocking people is so over the top that I'd be positive he was a parodist....if not for that epic clusterfuck of a Twitter page. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll know his name is the LORD when he lays his vengeance upon you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Matthew 10:17 ban leads me to believe he is just randomly selecting these quotes...unless he is referring to the innocence of the guy he just banned or something... ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sotomayor on Main

Has anyone noticed how hate-filled racist bigoted ridiculous spiteful paranoid erroneous reasonable the Sotomayor featured article spot is? Is that WIGO worthy? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the section on "Terminology" in the Sotomayor article; apparently "anti-abortion," "pro-choice," "environmental," and "racism" are all lib-burr-rul words, and the first is less accurate than "pro-life." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All signs point to Andy supporting her (or at least not trashing her)...which I have to admit, scares me. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to moar Hitler?

Here's a revealing snippet that sheds some light on how Ken's activities are viewed at CP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When is he going to learn comparing to Hitler makes your argument look worse?--Nate River (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Astronauts and Global Warming

Dear CP, please try to understand how science works (with emphasis on the astronauts and global warming):

1. Science isn't always right.

2. Scientists aren't always right.

3. Science is a process, not a conclusion.

4. Scientists are humans subject to human frailty.

5. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.

6. Science probably will never have all the answers.

7. Some scientists may claim one thing, other scientists may claim something else.

8. Consensus is important in science.

9. Cherry-picking scientists who only hold your views is not having an open mind.

10. At some point in the global warming debate, there was probably a single scientist or only a few making claims about global warming.

11. Astronauts should probably carry more weight on science subjects like global warming then let's say a graphic artist, but that doesn't make astronauts right.

12. Experts on weather, global warming, the environment, etc. probably should be taken more seriously than astronauts on the subject of global warming.

13. The consensus of scientists working on global warming carries more weight than a few astronauts.

14. And yes, they still could be wrong.

15. But probably not. Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

16. The Laws of Thermodynamics are used only in matters relating to the energy of motion. Its use regarding such matters as, say, evolution, radiation, radioactivity and the proclivity of any system becoming more conservative is 0.

17. The term 'global warming' is a fudge developed by the media trying to understand science that lies beyond their high-school education, especially those parts of the media controlled by Darth Murdoch. The correct term is 'climate change'.

18. Weather is not climate. Claiming that it snowed in your area for the first time in 8 years isn't evidence that climate change isn't happening. It is proof that you are a sad git desperate to grab hold of anything you understand to try and disprove something that you don't understand.

19. Truth is a three-edged sword, especially during the Hour of Scampering. If you don't understand something that simple then something as complicated as climate change is beyond your comprehension.

20. Ka D'Argo's primal scream at the end of the fourth series is the most excellent example of a primal scream you will ever hear. This proves that climate change is real. Non-sensible? Not as much as almost all of the arguments used by climate change deniers.

21. Follow the money. Where climate change denialists exist, they are motivated by a vested interest in something that will lose money as climate change is taken more and more seriously. Never trust somebody who is in the pocket of the coal or oil industry. This goes double for people named Scargill. Unless they are named Arthur. Maybe. Or not. You'll have to make up your own mind about that.--Precumming Storm (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add to this list. Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Anonymous User" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you persist in repeating the liberal claim that Obama is not an affirmative action president, so let me guess: you're an Obama supporter. You also clearly deny that pregnancy helps resist research into gravitons. You can whine all you want, but the roots of homeschooling are in feudalism. Are you credentialed in this field?? If so, then state your credentials. If not, then forget about it here. Unlike Wikipedia, credential bullying is not allowed here. Please, please abide by the rules or blocking will result.--Aschlafly 20:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While CP's anti global warming stance is just CP being their retarded hateful self, merely denying it because a LIBRUL said so, I thought it's pretty good that a moonlander said it after Al Gore made that analogy. Even though it may be wrong and not an argument, it's pretty funny. --GTac (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

*yawns and blinks* Hmmm? Why is my name being taken in vain?--Tygrehart

Gotcha! Генгис^pillaging 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like something I read last night, where a polar bear expert was barred from a meeting because he did not believe in man-made climate change.--Tabris (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh ho ho ho...I see what you did there. Well played sir. Well played. *yawns, rolls over and goes back to sleep.*--Tygrehart

Two flaws with RobS's most recent Obama poll

Here they are:

1. This is the Raussumen poll, which is somewhat biased. The Gallup poll still shows Obama with a 58% approval rating (which I'll admit is also biased, but the best polls, the Kaiser Polls, only cover healthcare). Still the Raussumen polls are founded by conservatives.
2. Even if there were no biased polls, the poll shows "strongly approve" vs. "strongly disapprove." It doesn't show approve/disapprove. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, only showing the "strongly"s is utterly dishonest, not just "biased". ħuman 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I REALLY feel like signing up just to point this obvious lie out, but I'm not going to risk being banned from Conservapedia AND having self-esteem. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wait, Rob, Wasn't it the same Obama approval pollimg you showed the last timeimg?" No, it's not. Same source, etc., but it's a few days (or whatever) later. Look at the graphs, they are different. Lame wigo... ħuman 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WashingtonIsBroke

That guys webshite is brilliant. Always when a new person shows up complaining about WP I think parodist trying to build back story, but this guy has gone the whole hog with his own wiki. - π 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This fellow has a lot to learn about Wikis; I just signed up over there (making me user #2) to revert some vandalism to one of their main pages, and already I noticed that his main page is not locked down and that his copyrights page is a red link. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

5% of Conservapedia Users?

Where is Andy getting that Statistic? Is that just Admins, or Users with which he converses regularly, all editors, or readers? Plus, how can he keep track of such a statistic.

Plus, to say that 5% of Conservapedia users are going overseas implies that there are more then 20 regular users on the site, which I highly doubt. --Passerby25 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

More than 5%, so 10%, presumably. I guess TK finally convinced Kenny to take that trip to the lush rural areas of the DRC. Bil08 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He means his class of Heinz 57 communists in the State Department homskollars, not webshite contributors (so the answer is 3?). Also, "What percentage of liberals and public school students do? Probably less than 1/10th of 1%." I love how he just makes shit up. Funny how it's mostly "liberal" presidents who promote things like Americorps and stuff like habitat for humanity. Dontcha love how he never gives details about this "shadow" conservapedia, whose members are "conservapedians"? Like the trip to DC? Anyone start a public school CP club yet? ħuman 02:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have known some people who were in the Peace Corps, and it is pretty solidly left-wing, or at least its people are not as xenophobic as Terry Koeckritz.

By "impoverished areas of the world," Andy probably means Newark, New Jersey, where his crew goes when they want to show their obligatory Christian love to some At-Risk Urban Youth. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That cracks me up. 5% of CP users (including banned folk) would make them a sensational hit for their charitable deeds. 5% of today's active users would be a leg and an arm of one person. Shoop da woop'd those numbers right out of his ass. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can only think by "conservapedians" he means his homskollars (who don't actually touch his site except to submit their comedy homework), and by "helping" he means building churches and other such "helpful" activities. Isn't Christian charity a wonderful thing? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My church only has x<10 homeschooled kids... and about 1/3 of our total youth goes on missions. Lessee... to make it more simple 30 kids go on missions, but only 5 are homeschoolers.

My church is in the same town as where Andy lives/teaches. And there are probably 5 churches in that town. Ours being the only one primarily based on missions work (Christian & Missionary Alliance). Kix, they're not just for kids~ 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Liberal welfare queen demands donation

I'd appreciate if someone with a unspoilt and untarnished IP address could contact me. I need a certain contribution to me made to a certain blog site, and it has to be from somewhere innocuous. It's for a social experiment. I'm afraid Operation Hammertime might have burnt my proxies. Thank you. Mountain Blue (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)