Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

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

Andy's idea of what's Biblically relevant.

I noticed another nugget of Andy's conservative insight in the middle of this comment.

"Taking one, I feel the term "Pharisees" means nothing to people today, and their biblical views seem irrelevant."

The Pharisees and their Biblical views were irrelevant to the story of Jesus? I can't wait for Andy to offer a Bible study class when he's done with Economics.
He also didn't seem to have much luck replacing "Pharisee" with "intellectual" or "liberal elite", so now it seems that they are the close-minded "incumbents" who needed to be replaced. Yeah, I'm sure you'd be calling your bad guys "incumbents" if this was 2007 and not 2009, right Andy? I'm not sure it's WIGO-worthy, but it was worth calling out IMHO. --SpinyNorman 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to watch the clash between Andy, who really just wanted to go through the KJV, update the language, add conservative bias and remove anything he disagreed with, and Terry, who seems to be going for the New Poorly Translated Bible. Looks like Terry is winning at the moment, since Andy is out of his depth with all that Greek. Broccoli 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit like when the project first started a few months ago, someone called GloriaM started pasting in the Hebrew text of the Book of Esther and asking specific questions about that. Andy soon put the project to one side until she (or he) went away. Sic transit Gloria M.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was clever. Nicely done. Corry 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Andy includes some Greek words in his replies, but only ones that he could have copied from a prior post.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of goat. I think TerryH doesn't know how to decline Greek nouns. Does anyone else agree? 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No! Because I can't decline Greek nouns either. I'd just have to ask my funky chunky Greek girl friend (and I don't mean girlfriend) Nicoletta to do it for me. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionist lies & Robert Smith

Those last two WIGOs are top-notch Andy. The 47million year old fossil may need to be classed in a different evolutionary family (arrived at due to open discourse and academic investigation based on evidence), ergo evolution is false and humans were created by a magic man 6000 years ago (right after he created the entire universe). Logictastic!

Then I was very confused as to why a member of Robert Smith's band would be donating money to Planned Parenthood, but once I understood my mistake I could then search for the evidence posted by Andy to back up his claim that "The link between abortion and breast cancer is clear". (Note: quoting from another evidence-free wingnut site does not constitute evidence).

Speciationspeed! DeltaStar 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is a Lie" would be an appropriate theme song for Andy. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

“”Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, an author of the Ida paper, said he welcomed the new analysis. Darwinius is an example of a group of primates called adapoids, and "we are happy to start the scientific discussion" about what Ida means for where adapoids fit on the primate family tree, he wrote in an e-mail.

See the way evolutionist censor debate. - π 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pi" (inappropriate name), I've cleaned out the junk you inserted that violated the rules of this page. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and you say in several places "data not shown", so my confidence is over three standard deviations away from the mean that you're a victim of Professor values. Furthermore, you are in denial that God stops sexually transmitted diseases. Observation and logic dictate that "playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise. Go back to Wikipedia.--aschlafly 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Love will tear us apart..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This 'debate' on conservapedia's talk page led me to the oh-so-beautiful 'conter-examples to evolution'. THAT talk page is a delight for amateurs of Andy's debate skills. There are two very nice 'if 2+2=4 I'm right' gambits, finished by the classic '99.99% of the world is with me' delusion conclusion. --Ireon 10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty." - The man is insane! At first I wanted to smash my computer up and scream at his idiocy, but this quickly gave way to uncontrolled laughter. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

At home he's a tourist. 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, just to summarise, people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have been saying all along that the media were way overblowing the significance of 'Ida'. According to Andy, there are now indications that this is 100% correct - so this proves evolution false? 92.19.42.164 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily not liking the Conservative Bible Project

This can't be good - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113599 - Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily (already a foaming rightwingnut site in it's own right) has vented on Schlafly's Conservative Bible.

Choice quotes:

"I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by "conservatives" in my day, but this one takes the cake." "It's nutty." "Enough of this foolishness!" "A plague on the houses of anyone and everyone who would tamper so frivolously with God's Word."

I almost want to give the guy a beer, although it'd be a half. Of shandy. With flat lemonade. And ice. SҚ_ 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This the greatest moment in clogo history. My two favourite self important wingnuts mouthing off at each other. - π

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA-*wheeze*-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, this is BRILLIANT. CP worships WND like crazy on their front page, and WND replies by saying "a self-described 'conservative' is spearheading an effort to rewrite it to his liking" - with quotation marks around "conservative"! Schlafly, have a taste of your own "You may call yourself a conservative, but you are not one!" medicine! =D --Sid 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not appearing on CP's main page in 100,000...99,999....99,998.... Totnesmartin 08:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I love how Farah will never describe himself as conservative, even though he clearly is, but he is willing to push Andy straight of the boat - despite his "heroic" mother. - π 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, I just reached the bottom of the page: "Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND" <-- OUCH! --Sid 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Farah was one on the organisers of Mumma Schlafly's idiot convention. He probably has know him for years. - π 08:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eff! they've got night editing on: I was gonna burn a sock to spam that link all over. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, have you seen Farah's blog? He don't care for them Islamists, do he? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Nice spottage Piez- it's reasonable to assume that JF and AS have met, given their "fame" in Conservative circles, so what did Andy do to deserve that kinda coverage? Has Queen Phyllis actually come out in favour of the CBP, or has she kept a dignified silence?

I'm not presuming that all Conservatives are quite as "movement" as the Schlaflys (Farah seems quite populist in comparison, more a rabble-rouser in the Murdoch/Fox News style than an ideological purist like Phyl and Andy), but that's quite a stinging rebuke from WND nonetheless.

/me wonders if there are a few calls to be made when the sun rises over NJ.

(What with the WND-Conservapedia smackdown and Nick Griffin of the British Union of Not-Fascists-Honest-Guv-We-Just-Care-About-Indingi-Ingenid-Injun-Indengi-er-Locals behaving like an arse on the BBC last night, one could - at a stretch - feel a bit sorry for the global ultra-right wing, they're not having a good week) SҚ_ 09:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut to the next scene: A montage of Andy walking on the beach, interspersed with scenes of Farah and himself enjoying trips to Disneyland, fine restaurants and the theatre. As he gazes in to the sky, wondering what went wrong, the song "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" plays softly in the background. Fade out to Andy trawling CP to remove all links to WND. --^{Ask me about your mother} 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If we're lucky, WND will become like the FBI and Andy's "confirmed bachelor" brother -- insta-ban for even mentioning it on CP. MDB 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow... when you're too whacked out conservative for World Nuet Daily... its not just that you're 'not playing with a full deck'; you've shown up at a Texas Hold 'Em tournament with Pokemon cards. MDB 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When was this? When did they take it off the front page? I wonder if words were exchanged. Momma Schlafly could have that zapped in no time. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A commenter at freerepublic(!) about Andy: "Is he the homosexual son?" LOL larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ON. Can't wait to see Andy's reaction. Will he denounce Farah as a liberal? --Ireon 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They will probably declare that Farah has always been a liberal, and that CP has always been at war with EastAsia WND. MDB 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put! I am F5ing conservapedia's talk page, can't wait! --Ireon 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You need a hobby. or a girlfriend/boyfriend. Or something. RaoulDuke 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For those of us enjoying the show check out this edit on the Joseph Farah article. Bob Soles 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah!! As for RaoulDuke, I do have a hobby, and it's browsing the internet. And conservapedia is a lot of fun. BTW: Farah is *gasp* close-minded! Not yet calling him liberal, but it's getting there.--Ireon 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This will all be ignored. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Assfly claims Farah has his priorites wrong. They should be attacking only the liberal rewrites, not all of the rewrites. I'm surprised he acknowledged this rather than burning the link. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WND over the top? Say it an't so! tmtoulouse 15:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here... but could his "doubting a serious response is even necessary" be a retreat to save face? Make the bad men go away? WND and Free Republic criticising the project is a lot of conservative opinion going against him. SҚ_ 16:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. We say that creationism is not worth a serious refutation, but when we are pressed we can give one. On the other hand, I doubt he can see any way to refute Farah. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes he can, he can call him a liberal. :P SҚ_ 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy is calling it a preservation of the Bible. Preserve the Bible by changing it. I love you, Andy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"We had to burnchange the villageBible in order to savepreserve it." MDB 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Andy was wining and dining with Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, Trent Franks, Janet Folger, anti-health reform lobbyists bent on destroying it, and conservatives who instead of worrying Obama will fail, worry he'll succeed. --Crazyswordsman 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the schadenfreude so much I actually went back to re-read the article with the Chorale from the 9th playing behind it. Seeing the scare quotes around "conservative" with the choir kicking off felt almost like cocaine... :) --Robledo 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I love it - Farrah calling Andy "Nutty" and saying, "I'm almost too embarrassed to write about this kind of trivialization and politicization of the Scriptures". I was wondering what the right would make of this. Any idea what WND's numbers are in terms of readers? Maybe we should drop a note to fellow right wing travellers like Malkin and the Coultergeist so they too can tell their followers how batshit insane Andy is. --PsygremlinSpeak! 11:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Insanely high, several million a day. It is comparable to MSNBC.com. - π 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay the actual website is msnbc.msn.com - so not a good. Although they do fair well compared to the redirect. - π 12:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see from Alexa - they kick CP's butt. Also just dropped a mail to Michelle Malkin asking if she knows what these so-called "conservatives" are doing giving the movement a bad name. Trying to let the Coultergeist know, but I need an admin to approve my account on her forum first. (why are conservatives so goddam paranoid??) --PsygremlinSprich! 13:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting aside

WorldNetDaily only stocks the King James and the 1599 Geneva Bible. Is that unusual for King James Only or is that part of a certain demographic's mentality? - π 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people are KJV Only purely for aesthetic reasons, so it's not necessarily a dogmatic thing. Plus (according to WP) the Geneva Bible is very similar to the KJV. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sibling rivalry again

Holy crap, Roger goes for it again, and Andy promptly gives him a bitch slap. Will it ever end? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger must be a masochist of the highest order. MDB 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if they'll both be at momma Phyllis's for Thanksgiving? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As a lawyer I find myself puzzling over what exactly "factual information" is. I understand this to be a common wikiphrase, but it nonetheless rings hollow to me. There are far better claims to make about "information" than it being factual. "True" or "verifiable" come to mind, but I'm a newbie at this. 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "factual" is Andy's pet word - if he knows it, it's a fact, whether it is true or verifiable is nitpicking. ħuman 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordered pair

Just letting you guys know that polar coordinates needn't be an ordered pair.

An ordered pair suggests that each element has a unique $a$ and $b$ for an element $(a,b)$. Owing to multiplicities of allowed angles ($0,2\pi$) in the polar formulation, this needn't be true. You can restrict the angles, but there's still an ambiguity for the point at the origin, as any angle is as good as any other for $radius=0$. And whilst his explanation is bad, he's not necessarily wrong. Every ordered pair does correspond to a unique point on such a graph, even is that isn't its intended representation.--Star trooper man 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, though, a pair of polar coordinates corresponds to one point on the plane, although one point on the plane can have infinitely many polar coordinates. --Crazyswordsman 11:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is wrong. An ordered pair is simply an element $(a,b)$ of the cartesian product $A\times B$ of two sets. The sets need not be the real numbers $\mathbb {R}$, or even subsets thereof. For instance if $A=B=\mathbb {C}$ is the set of complex numbers, $(a,b)\in A\times B$ doesn't correspond to a point on the real plane. A more abstract example would be a combinatorial structure known as a graph. So, Andy is wrong, but not for the reason given above.-Antifly 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I agree on further reading, that I am in part wrong above, and your example is indeed illustrative (though I do know a way to put the reals and the complex numbers into 1-1 correspondence, allowing one to define a total order on the latter!), my primary quibble is that "represent" suggests, at least to me, a bijection, and thus I don't really regard polar coordinates as a legit interpretation of an ordered pair per se. Also, I'm not sure if it isn't possible to define a total order on all sets. I can't think of a case in which is isn't, but that doesn't mean such sets don't exist. Open question: Do you know a way to construct a set that isn't amenable to a total ordering?!--Star trooper man 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read my post, and the sentence "This is wrong" is wrong. Sorry. Your post about complex numbers as ordered pairs does make sense. What is wrong is the approach taken by the WIGO. What I should have said is "The WIGO makes no sense, and the above clarifications don't address the real problem."

On to your quibble... represent may suggest that there exists a bijection to you, but the words are not interchangeable. Mathematics, perhaps more than any other discipline, requires precision of language. Polar coordinates are ordered pairs $(a,b)\in [0,\infty )\times [0,2\pi )$. It is easy to show that there is a bijection between $[0,\infty )$ and $\mathbb {R}$ and a bijection between $[0,2\pi )$ and $\mathbb {R}$. Thus there is a bijection between $[0,\infty )\times [0,2\pi )$ and $\mathbb {R} \times \mathbb {R} =\mathbb {C}$. These bijections may not preserve any of the algebraic structure imposed on these sets, but that is outside the requirements of a bijection. You are, however, right that the correspondence between pairs in $[0,\infty )\times [0,2\pi )$ and pairs in $\mathbb {R} \times \mathbb {R}$ known as "polar coordinates" is not a bijective map. As to what constitutes a "legitimate interpretation" of an ordered pair, I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean.

To your open question: see here. Of course, you must be pro-choice to accept it.

Mathematics is the second only to the Bible in logicality. Deny that and loose all credibility. Gauss-speed.-Antifly 19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The polar coordinates (I was thinking within $[0,\infty )\times [0,2\pi )$ only, which makes them ordered pairs) seemed an easy shot at Mr. Schlafly's analogy with coordinates on a Cartesian graph. Another, only slightly more arcane, example of where Mr. Schlafly went wrong there is that an ordered triple of real numbers (which requires a three-dimensional graph to represent) is, by definition, also an ordered pair. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia day awards (sticky)

Okay, I had loads of fun organising this last year and being the sad, lonely person I am, I have decided to kick this off again. So here we have The 2009 Conservapedia day awards. Please fight amongst yourselves. - π 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the arguing is going to take place on talk page again. - π 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Some lame Bible Project wigo

"Yes, into all thinking you're completely hatstand"

WTF does that even mean? Please try to write these things is something resembling English. ħuman 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not as bad as all that. The sentence you're looking at borrows its verb from the prior sentence - Christian denominations are united in thinking Andy's completely hatstand. Hatstand means crazy, but I agree with you that it's obscure. It ain't my WIGO but I'll change hatstand to something more clear. 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the hatstand part. What I don't get is the mess of word salad before it. By the way, does it have to pay interest if if borrows a verb? OK, I see now I guess. Wow, that was really bad writing and whoever inflicted it on us should get seven whips of the goat's tail. People, it's not that hard to write clear sentences. Especially when your "message" consists of two sentences and a link. And thanks, Nutty, for clarifying. Also, PPPPPPS, I don't give a fuck "whose" wigo it is. If they suck, let's re-write them. People's got weird possessionally egoy things on here sumtimz (how's that for Ingrish!?). ħuman 04:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not the best WIGO, but I don't see what's confusing about it. It is pretty clear (apart from the somewhat obscure 'hatstand'). Or has it been re-written since this was posted? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it was re-written by the time you saw it, DS. ħuman 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't wait for A. Schlafly's Dickens: It was the best of times - it happened to be the worst of all temporal configurations larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

@LArron - Fucking funny! Hahahahahaha!......@Human - quit your fucking ranting. Ace^McWicked 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The new version is clear and coherent, thank you. I felt comfortable changing my vote to "up". ħuman 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Surprise

Does anyone else think that Ken's response to this made a lot more sense than usual? Broccoli 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly better than Andy's drivel. Corry 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was very clear and well-put. Wasn't Ken expecting improvements in his health? ħuman 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see the publicity. I'd have expected a brain transplant to hit the headlines. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the UK we sedate them and hide them away in care-homes. I guess that in the USA, without adequate health insurance, they just wander the streets and make a spectacle of themselves. I think the US approach gives more amusement to society in general but only at the expense of the dignity of the serially bewildered. Free-market captalism definitely loses in the humanitarian stakes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

dear genghis,

I have a masters in counseling and have the unfortunate privledge of working in America. In America we put them in "boarding homes," there are essentially care-homes but quality varies considerably . . . we like to sedate them too . . . and give their relatives the bill. Long time reader first time poster. Ill set up an account ASAP as greepigfoot

The entire thread

This whole section is brilliant - classic Andy. He is true to form. Ace^McWicked 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My absolute favorite line is "You list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based." Because that's what being an agnostic means. It means that you spend half of your time being an atheist and half of your time advancing a particular strand of a particular faith. 98.206.143.163 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who is good at messing around with that quote generator thing definitely needs to add that some how (I couldn't find a place for it). Here is the diff. - π 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I had so many things to say... let me reduce them to "fucking classic Andy". What a tool. Why Phyllis did not name him Stanley no one knows. ħuman 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought no one had noticed this gem. I should really scroll all the way down before adding something to WIGO.TallMan 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly takes the bait, makes moron of self

"I wonder if it is possible for some public teachers to work less! How does someone work less than zero??" [1] Nice work, ThomasGret, if that is really your real name. ħuman 03:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"ThomasGret", you've posted ten times, all talk. That's in violation of our 90/10 rule. I looked at your contributions and there is an anti-Christian tone to your postings, so there's a 95% chance you're a victim of Professor values. Like all atheists, you deny that Obama refuses to salute the flag and that including the phrase "under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance helps resist Evolution Syndrome. Observation and logic dictate that school prayer is necessary for education. And you still haven't answered the question. Suit yourself, but I'm moving on.--aschlafly 06:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RJJensen

What do you think of him? Considering he's perhaps the best representation of a conservative scholar we're likely to find on the internet, do you not think he makes your catchall anti conservative insults a mockery in themselves? MarcusCicero 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jensen's takes on history might have been appropriate for a ninth-grade class thirty years ago. They're simplistic and do nothing to engage with recent trends in the scholarship. If he represents conservative intellectualism at its best, no wonder its a bankrupt ideology. BTW: How's your brother? RaoulDuke 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

TOP, you are an idiot. Your irrelevance is painful. I'd also hate to judge liberal ideology from a simplistic, frankly hysterical mind like yours. Just patter away off and attempt to do something useful with yourself you fucking dimwit. MarcusCicero 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have nothing with which to counter my argument so you take off on a baseless, mean-spirited ad hom. Typical. Tell your bro I said hi. He should come by more often. He was a nice guy. RaoulDuke 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the most innane piece of shit every to grace this website, honestly. You don't say anything of value and I honestly don't expect you to have any ability to even understand Jensen's writings, never mind expect you to honestly and without bigotry read what he writes. In short, you are a scumbag, a real parasite. You don't make an 'argument', you yap on about my brother and pretty much say Jensen is an idiot - you are the fucking idiot living in a delusional state of mind. Just fuck of TOP, honestly. What the fuck do you even know about recent trends in scholarship? Your a fucking ignoramus. MarcusCicero 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say he is the greatest assest Conservapedia has: an actual historian. However, I can't judge his quality as a historian, because I know nothing much about history. It seems his area of expertise is recent American history, which I know less than nothing about. The strangest thing about him is his willingness to edit CP. Broccoli 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of foaming at the mouth, why not show me where Jensen does something that critically engages with emerging trends in historical scholarship? RaoulDuke 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RJ has quite an elastic definition of "fair use", and seems to think that "for commentary" covers using an image to comment on anything you like, when in fact it only covers commenting on the image itself.

That aside, I'm sure his scholarship itself is perfectly good, and I can't begin to fathom why he bothers to lend his talents to a batty enterprise like CP.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we might be seeing an RJ event soon. He has just begun a massive expansion of cp:Welfare state, creating a reasonable page. If Andy notices, however, then it will swiftly be trashed again. Jensen's response is often to back down and let Andy or RobS change the page to match their personal obsessions. Broccoli 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For such a scholar his contention that Winnie created the UK welfare state to stop socialist nationalisation is debatable at least. Bob Soles 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember of history lessons, the welfare state in the UK was first created by the Liberal party in 1906, though one motivation might have been taking the wind from the sails of the increasingly popular socialist Labour Party. At the time, I think Winston was pretending to be a Liberal, and supported the welfare reforms, but I don't think he was a driving force behind them. Broccoli 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In it's current form it owes most to Beveridge and was mostly implemented by the post WWII Labour party. The very earliest roots were mostly down to Lloyd George. Giving Winnie the kudos is a major re-write of history. Bob Soles 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lloyd George didn't start it but he did give it a big push, and Winnie was Home Secretary (I think) when Lloyd George was PM so would have had a big say in it. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (and here is a link. I should Google before posting) –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But Lloyd George implemented the reforms when he was Chancellor and Winnie wasn't Home Sec until the People's Budget mess up. Lloyd George wasn't PM until 1916. Broccoli 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. That was from my increasingly-frail memory. I should have noted my mistake on the followup that got the information right. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RJJ is a sad egotist. Most of the articles he creates are the absolute best on CP (where they will never be read), but he was such a pushy ass as to get kicked out of Citizendium, and now ignores all of the utter filth and insanity at CP because it gives him a place to dump articles. He's not just a "Conservative" scholar, but it would appear a reactionary who has it out for Obama. What I still can't understand is Conservativenet, which seems like only he actively contributes to, with the odd respondent. 17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Jensen says here, "anyone who want a conservative interpretation of the economics of the depression should read my articles, especially The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression"(1989)." Well let's see what he says. On page 20,

• "Supply-side economics was central to the New Deal. The main difference from the 1980s version was that the New Dealers worked vigorously to contract the supply of labor..."

On page 21,

• "The final, and successful supply-side remedy was the draft, and after 1940 the increase in military personnel paralleled the reduction of unemployment. The problem with the supply-side remedies was that they cut output as much as input, made the nation poorer, slowed long-term growth, distorted personal choices, and increased unemployment."

In his conclusion on page 31,

• "The refusal of the New Deal on ideological grounds to consider wage subsidies or training programs guaranteed that the hard-core would stay down, even as they hailed Roosevelt for rescuing them from utter destitution. Subsidies and training would have reduced the structural unemployment that was the greater problem after late 1933."

I'm not certain that that is a "conservative interpretation." In this 1989 article Jensen cites Ben Bernanke and several of Lawrence Summers works. In footnote 27 continued on page 23 to a discussion on Keynesian stimuli, Jensen says "My argument is congruent with Blanchard and Summers." Contrast those sentiments with User:Conservative who refers to cp:Obama#Larry Summers - Corrupt and Incompetent Chief Economic Advisor to Obama (nobody told User:Conservative Summers served on Reagan's Council of Economic Adevisors at the same time Jensen was commenting on supply side economics).

Jensen also gives special thanks to Eugene Genovese, a Marxist historian. [2] But Prof. Jensen pointed out Genovese got religion [3] at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, a plausible explanation. Many communists did repent and convert in the early to 90s, with the now obvious exception of Obama & company. RobS 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite on this subject. RJJ is probably the only contributor to Conservapedia that I have an ounce of respect for. He may be batshit insanely conservative, but he, at least, makes quality contributions there. I never have understood, however, how a high quality conservative like RJ could wind up writing articles for a garbage site like Conservapedia.Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he was kicked off or marginalized on other sites for putting a rather obvious pro-Conservative spin on his articles? Just a thought. (amusing to see that when RobS does indulge in personalities, it's always because communism can be injected into the discussion) Megaten 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Get used to it. You have years and years ahead of this, [4] unless you wish to be tarred as an apologists for an ideology of mass murder. RobS 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, take your meds. Seriously. DickTurpis 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Rob. After reading that I just lost a lot of respect for you. "Obama wants the American economy to fail"? Give me a break. If he wanted that, he would have done nothing instead of trying to revive the economy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to revive the economy? yah right. Fed Chairman says the recession is over but 85% of the stimulus is unspent -- and we're already talking about Stimulus III. Obama spent $700 million to get elected but Congress now has $800 billion to get themselves re-elected in 2012. You think people can't see through this bullrot? My closest liberal Democratic friends keep asking, "Where's the jobs ? Where's the infrastructure improvement?" RobS 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, the idea is that the banks can use the money so they can loosen credit, revitalizing the economy. It also prevented them from falling into bankruptcy, which would have sent the economy spiraling into ruin. Let's not forget about that. Yes, it is lacking in infrastructure improvement, but the fact that it has failed to create a bazillion jobs does not make it a complete failure. And more importantly, just because it hasn't cured all of our economic problems it isn't necessarily a Commie takeover plot. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, Genovese, tough now somewhat dated, wrote what is in all likelihood the single most important book about American slavery. Have you even read Roll, Jordan Roll? RaoulDuke 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth did you all...

...miss this? EddyP 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As regards the whole wine/grape juice thing - it has always got to me that, if the 'wine' at the marriage in Cana was grape juice then why the fuss about serving the best last. It's alcoholic wine where you serve the best first so that

(a)the palate is not ruined and

(b)the tasters are too drunk to tell the difference when you serve the vinegar.

Hey, someone of my vintage knows just how palatable flat Watneys Red barrel (complete with floating dog ends) can be when you're drunk enough. Bob Soles 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, neither Noah nor Lot became drunk on grape juice! ListenerX^TalkerX 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why fuckwit TerryH thinks the new grape juice will burst the old bottles (Mat 9:17, Mar 2:22, Luk 5:37). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As good and phenomenally self-important as this letter is, it somehow lacks a certain something. In other words, I wish Andy had written it instead.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Terry took it upon himself to write it. I like the opening: "As the administrator-in-charge of the Conservapedia Conservative Bible Project". Wasn't that title self-issued when he just stormed in and said "Right, this is my project now"? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that TerryH asks Farah

First, where were you when the New International Version came out?

Well, I can answer that for Messer Farah: The NIV edition of the New Testament was first released in 1973, with the whole Bible following in 1978. Joseh Farah was born in 1954, so he was in his early twenties when the NIV was released, and hardly in a position to comment on anything. MDB 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose its possible TerryH meant Today's NIV, which is a much more recent release, and is quite disliked by conservative Christians. MDB 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Might comment on the essay/letter itself later (first wanna shower and then eat dinner), but just a quick comment about the NIV/TNIV issue: You make a good point about him being fairly young and thus not really being in a position to comment in a public way (especially in the pre-Internet age). If Terry meant the TNIV, we can answer this question more easily: Farah was at WND, writing "Today's New International Perversion" --Sid 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it TerryH does not partake of the Blood of Christ during communion131.107.0.85 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to your point, but I think you're assuming all Christian churches use wine for communion. That is not true; many Protestant churches use grape juice -- some because they think consuming alcohol is a sin, and at least one denomination (my own Metropolitan Community Church) to honor any members who might be in recovery. (And as a humorous aside, I know of at least two MCC's, including my own, that use white grape, because it doesn't stain.) MDB 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit!! This is amazing. I'm hoping Farah will reply and this will turn into another Lenski affair. It is interesting that Terry started this, not Andy - he's playing a power game, I presume?

"What are you laughing at?"

I didn't bother reading any of that - my short attention span is getting the better of me these days - but I saw the first line and thought "I wonder if it was Andy or Terry that wrote this?" Lo and behold, it was Terry. I started laughing at this, forgetting that all my housemates were in my room at the time, prompting questions as to what I was laughing at. Jeez, TerryH is delusional... SJ ^Debaser 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From my remote, and admittedly-informed-largely-by-teh-internetz point of view, this sums up the American Conservatives right now. There have been one or two blog posts suggesting the Republican Party is getting worried about its own base, and this is a perfect illustration: utter conviction in one's own POV; refusal to engage with most of a debate and focussing on only one or two points; etc etc. From what I've read elsewhere about the Bible Andyfication Project, comments fall broadly into two groups: "Liberals" laugh; "Conservatives" scream hubris. Both are right. If you want to put your own spin on the bible, you could make it say anything you want. "Rich man" -> "Idle rich" well... why not "Celtic and Rangers supporters"? Supporters of those clubs are rich in that one of those two clubs has won about 95% of Scottish Football League titles - pity the poor supporters of East Stirlingshire.

I'm looking forward to discussing CP's latest project with my god-bothering relatives this Christmas. Should be fun. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BM knew from the start WIGO

I don't think Assfly Andy suggests such a thing. At least not in that diff. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly said: "The British Museum raised or took money for decades by claiming that the Piltdown Man was real. In fact, it was a fraud. Do evolutionists support some level of accountability for that?" The term "accountability" generally applies only to those who actively took part in a scam, not those who have merely been suckered by it. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is does read as though he is saying they knowlingly defrauded people. Anyone fancy burning a sock asking him to clarify? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But we need all the socks we can get for the Conservapedia Day awards... Evil stupid Hoover! 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "accountability" generally applies to those who have taken part in any action, intended or otherwise. e.g., you will be held accountable for involuntary manslaughter. Shitty WIGO. Just sayin'. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew wants his refund for the Piltdown Man, and he wants it now!! [5] ħuman 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, Andy apologised for getting that wrong. I was going to sock up and point out the error myself but OurMike beat me to it.

Thanks for the additional info about the unusual policy of the British Museum. I apologize for my error. That said, there is no free lunch. If the visitors are not paying, someone else is. Taxpayers, perhaps? The underlying issue remains the same. — Andy Schlafly 09:23, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The post referenced by the WIGO was, I believe, dated after the post where Mr. Schlafly admitted he was wrong. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to know exactly how and where these monies should be accounted for, collected and redistributed. It's got to be a fascinating scheme. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)