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

PZ pwns Andy

Yes, I know we did it first, but I liked his line "the only reason scientists huff and puff about what's actually out there is to get you to stop reading your Bibles." --PsygremlinTala! 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy must feel like The Omega Man.--Thanatos 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much PZ got when he pawned Andy. Can't imagine he has much resale value. --Kels 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now gentleman kels, have pity on an old man - I can't keep up with you young 'uns and your terminology. I'm still getting used to 'groovy' and 'daddy-o'. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "a" in PWN (pronounced Pown, memetically the offspring of "Own" and a qwerty keyboard) --Opcn 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, in my brain I've always pronounced it 'poon', because I learned the word cwm first. Thus I try not to say it out loud for fear of mockery.--Martin Arrowsmith 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My own embarrassing pronunciation story lies with "fuck". At primary school, my friends and I had only ever seen it written down so we said it as (and excuse my pron guide here) "phewk" rather than "fuk". Yeah... we were all a bit middle class. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah! PZ pwns Andy on a blog. Dawkins pwned him in a bestselling book.Toffeeman 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Replicant, we should get sound sample of you saying "phewk orf"? It'd be handy addition to the unwelcome template. That's assuming you're not busy hunting foxes or something. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely he isn't out hoonting phooxes. --Fawlty 10:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Phookz hasn't been here since his last freakout. Probably still drying out after that one. --Kels 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy continues

Oh, the gift that keeps on giving... Andy argues that he doesn't need to produce any references to back up his claims that relativity leads people to atheism (Cue Roger, again...), and that if someone doesn't believe him, they only need to go to a physics department and see for themselves. Good work, parody boy. --Irrational Atheist 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He also wrote "In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics..." which is an oddly structured sentence that seems to claim that there are more physicists who are atheists than there are physicists who use math. Unless he meant "mathematicians" instead of "mathematics", which is of course impossible as Andy is infallible and never makes mistakes. X Stickman 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a Conservapedia value...

...unless, you know, we disagree with you. TheoryOfPractice 01:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They must love the ACLU then--Thanatos 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand CP anymore. The hypocrisy is unreal. Isn't the very First Amendment of the Constitution the right to freedom of speech? And they're shitting all over it by saying get anti-Christian stuff off YouTube. They make me sick. SJ ^Debaser 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, on CP, it's God, then Country, then Mama Schlafly, then Andy's ego, then TK's power trip. Everything else is negotiable. --Irrational Atheist 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought Andy's ego always came first--Thanatos 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Right to free speech only applies to stuff that the government does. Youtube is a private company, and can censor all it wants from its own site. However, that doesen't mean they should, free speech is still inherently valuable, and shouldn't be thrown out of the window because they think something is offensive. They are anti-free speech, but that doesen't necessarily make them anti-first amendment. --Passerby25 03:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched the video on the xtian site linked from the CP "news" entry - that's clearly not a host biscuit. It looks more like a Ritz cracker, all thick, golden, buttery, and delicious. 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I googled host desecration when I saw the notice. I had no idea about that french Canadian kid. Making false allegations of firearm possession and intention to shoot up a school, another sterling example of Christian librul deceit.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Link --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I used the Petition to send a nice message encouraging Google to uphold Free Speech and keep the videos there. Hopefully they will wrap my message up in some nice HTML mail Jesusy packaging. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER! Some people need to get a grip on reality. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a year-old cracker. - Poor Excuse 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a cracker to a certain group of christians (I can't even remember which group to be honest. All catholics or only a subsect of catholics?) which I assume Andy belongs to. While a lot of christian groups view the bread and wine of communion as a purely symbolical thing (i.e. the bread and wine represent flesh and blood, they aren't actually flesh and blood), some groups honestly believe that after the priest has done his thing, the cracker actually literally and really becomes a part of Jesus. Then they eat it. Of course, if you actually believe this fully, mistreating a consecrated cracker is like punching jesus in the balls.

People like Bill Donahue and Andy expect us to accept this "bread literally turns into the body of christ and then we eat it" thing as something that is perfectly normal and respectful and they really blow their top when people don't (it is an inherently odd thing to believe) X Stickman 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Catholics are certainly in that group. But in terms of Quebec boy, I am under the impression that the object(s) in the videos were actual crackers - Ritz, Hi-Hos, Keebler Town-House, Wheat Thins, Triscuits, etc. No actual hosts, consecrated or otherwise were involved; this was playacting, not actual desecration. If I'm wrong, please someone disabuse me. But my point was that the videos are a year old, why all this new activity? - Poor Excuse 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point is that not only do they believe that the host becomes the actual flesh of Jesus, they believe that when the priest consecrates it he ever so briefly becomes Jesus. Or something like that. Corry 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. First part is essentially correct, second part is bizarrely wrong.--WJThomas 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my understanding, that the priest somehow assumes the persona of Jesus. If that's not the case, isn't there something of that sort? I believe it's one of the arguments against the ordination of women. Corry 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment of consecration, the priest speaks the words of Jesus, "this is my body", "this is my blood", with the pronouns intact. So if you're casting a male role, you usually opt for a male actor. At least that's how the theory goes. But no one (at least no mainstream someone) believes the priest becomes Jesus: he just play acts the rôle. - Poor Excuse 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Andy is a cannibal? --Fawlty 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Watergate, Shmatergate...

Lame WIGO is lame. Andrew Layton clearly wrote "biggest scandal in the history of modern science," not "politics." TheoryOfPractice 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Irredeemably lame. 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It looked very promising; conservapedoheads defending watergate, but then I clicked on it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO was Andy calling it "ClimateGate" as though it were as big of a scandal as Watergate (the whole -gate thing being of a huge, important scandal in politics). It's leaked emails from one place that are being quote mined, and nothing political, nor anything of relevance for what Andy thinks it is. --Irrational Atheist 12:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy is using NewsMax? They make WND look practically sane... tragic... just, tragic -- 18:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Newsmax really all that far out there? Always seemed to me to be a "regular" news source, albeit heavily right wing. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "-gate" thing is sort of apt, not because of any empire-shattering magnitude, but because the Watergate incident started with a black bag operation breaking into the opposition's offices to find usable dirt. Back then the only hackable network in existence carried voice conversations 3 kHz wide, and belonged to the telephone monopoly that was Ma Bell.

The Watergate on the Potomac had a bandshell barge in those days that hosted free concerts, not bad if you didn't mind a roaring departure from National Airport (now named for R. Reagan) every few minutes when the wind was right. Sprocket J Cogswell 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Something VERY interesting

I have discovered something VERY interesting, but in the interest of not exposing parody, I won't put it here. Who is safe to email this fascinating tidbit to? MisterEd 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about anybody. Try this guy.TheoryOfPractice 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about me? Ace^McWicked 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's worth the while, Ace, send it along. How you been? Thx. TheoryOfPractice 02:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I been OK, thanks for asking. And you? Ace^McWicked 02:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual--overworked, spending too much time pissed off at people on the internet and not enough time naked and out of my gourd. TheoryOfPractice 03:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You should be naked as often as possible - the rest comes naturally. Ace^McWicked 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you would be so kind Ace, flick it this way.Rad McCool 02:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, I actually haven't gotten nything yet. Ace^McWicked 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Always excuses.Rad McCool 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever gets it last, send it along to me please? ħuman 03:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pass the mustard, please. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And the salt, pretty please?Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it along to me, please. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That IS very interesting MisterEd. Nice detective work. We shall be watching developments. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wing it Josh's way could ya please sweethearts? SJ ^Debaser 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is certainly not a CP sysop in deep cover and would like to know what is happening with these electronic mails. Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent eleventy-one of you your eighth copy. Well, all except that "Wodewick" person who hasn't slept with me yet. ħuman 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please send the lulz this way.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ħuman 05:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, H? TheoryOfPractice 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your fifth copy. ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Human, that certainly bears watching.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it means, indeed. (tldr) ħuman 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, I had an all day rehearsal. Someone wanna shoot the resident token a quick email? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody send it to me too, please? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to sleep with you doesn't mean I'm not a dirty secularist :( It just means I'm a dirty secularist with good taste. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, nobody sent it to me and once again I feel all unloved. --Psygremlin말하십시오 09:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I have it too? Bastard harmonic Hoover! 10:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be eternally grateful if someone were to sling it this way. And some SDG if you can, I've seen none of that :(. EddyP 10:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

One for me, please. (Also, should someone create an "email list" for things like this, with links to Special:EmailUser for each person who wants these kinds of emails?) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good idea (or maybe a private intercom group), but it would have to be invitation-only or have some sort of vetting procedure, to make infiltration hard. Professor Moriarty 11:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the benefit of having it as an on-wiki page. If you see on that list Human, Pi, Totnesmartin, and SecretCPInfiltrator, then someone can just remove whichever one is the odd-one out (i.e. only allow trusted users on?). I guess it has the same overall effect as an invite-only group though. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a CABAL. There is no cabal. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I Read the e-mail. I refuse to believe such a thing about RJJensen BertSchlossberg GeoPlrde TK. TheoryOfPractice 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I want the e-mail ;_;. EddyP 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a copy too? Anyone? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to be cool too. Someone send me a copy; my curiosity is piqued by all this tantalizing talk. Fedhaji (Talk) 21:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Look

I've still not got a copy of whatever the fuck this is. If it's really important, post it. This use-a-wiki-to-say-how-cool-you-are-but-not-post-the-content shit is not on. Post it or die. You're just gonna end up sending it to a CP admin anyway. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Or email us both a copy. You can trust me. Seriously. I'm more trustworthy than would appear. Professor Moriarty 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a copy, but I don't care, because I'm not all hung up on having to be one of the "in crowd". --WJThomas 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SR. This sort of thing should definitely be shared, and definitely not posted on the wiki. Perhaps the protocol should be to simply bang off an email to the users you trust with instructions for them to do likewise, and make no mention of it elsewhere. Thus the trusted members will be in the know and the untrusted members won't know that they aren't trusted. Also, this should be saved for very important revelations only.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day the subject of the email is a CP sysop we've already discussed extensively. Nobody who got the email was surprised that the conclusions drawn in it were gained without any special knowledge at all, but straight from information readily available here and on CP. 20:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, CP has more undercover operatives than the CIA (except they're not their spies!). That is QI. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm interested. lol. At first when I saw this I was like, meh, who cares.. but now my curiosity is aroused. Anyone care to send me a copy, please? :p thank you. Refugee^{talk page} 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, nevermind. I don't want it after all.. if it were to get out I wouldn't want anyone saying maybe it was me.. and I like to stay out of drama of all types.. changed my mind, retract request. :p (wishywashy Refugee, lol) Refugee^{talk page} 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it to me. I'm too dumb to be a mole. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Email it to me, you godless heathen! SoldierInGodsArmy 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So much phail...

...in so small a space.^img TheoryOfPractice 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "moral relativity" is somehow linked to Einstein's relativity; is this something Andy just cooked up all on his very own, or is it a common meme out there in the conservative world? --Simple 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has failed to provide any links to back his assertions up. Ace^McWicked 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, a special Thanksgiving present for us! You never fail to please. ħuman 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest casualty of Andy's unhealthy "action at a distance" obsession? The Bible. Oh sure John may use "the word for hour," but only liberals would deny that Jesus cured him INSTANTLY with "action at a distance." Can someone burn a sock to ask Andy how the centurion's servants measured the difference between "action at a distance" and Jesus's blessing travelling at the speed of light (20 miles from Galilee to Capernaum = 0.1 milliseconds). Were they sitting there with an atomic clock waiting for Christ to break Einsteinian spacetime? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My head is about to explode if this guy writes anymore. "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible." The Tribe article he cites also uses Quantum Mechanics as analogy just like Relativity, wonder why Andy doesn't mention that? I just cannot understand how anyone who went to college and especially the Harvard Law Review can make an unfounded assertion like that and be completely fine with it in an "encyclopedia". Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I lived in the same world as Andy, where you can just make shit up and assert it as fact. I have a degree in psychology, which most people regard as a soft (or even a bunk) science, and even we need hard evidence before asserting something as fact. X Stickman 12:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually (speaking as somebody in a mathematical science), psychology is gradually gaining credibility as a harder science. The reason this is happening is just what you said: psychology researchers give hard evidence before asserting conclusions. --Fawlty 12:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy seems to go for the weakest bogus arguments to support his prejudices. He doesn't like abortion, so he argues that abortion causes breast cancer. It doesn't, but even if it did it wouldn't support his conclusion that abortion is wrong. Andy doesn't like atheism, so he argues that Dawkins isn't (wasn't) a professor at Oxford. Dawkins was, but even if he hadn't been, that wouldn't support Andy's conclusion that Dawkin's views are wrong. Andy doesn't like relativism, so he argues til he's blue in the face about relativity, giving one piece of made up evidence after another. But even if relativity were wrong (which it isn't) it wouldn't support Andy's belief that relativism is wrong. Andy is the most illogical person I've ever encountered. --Fawlty 12:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He also always - always - argues the "appeal to consequences" fallacy. Relativity makes people stop reading the Bible therefore it must be false! It's like the part of his brain that distinguishes between the utility of ideas and their truthfulness just isn't there. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

please email me I beg of you

If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A misreading of the Conservapedia article's title made me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to reality" article yet... Internetmoniker 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to reality, a better name for Conservapedia! Fawlty 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice the "Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury" bit? It really makes me wonder whether Andy just chose to ignore this whole epic thing or whether he just didn't understand it. --4perf 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered the same. It's almost as if he ignores everything he hears or reads, except for quote-mining snippets to bend to his own purposes. Is he deceiving himself? Doesn't he understand how dishonest he is? I just can't understand the man. --Fawlty 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity and Arabic

I love that according to Andy, all Arabic speakers are Muslim. There are no Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, Druze, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Yazidist, etc. Stile4aly 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the links from there is just hilarious. Parodists and sexually frustrated brothers ftw! ħuman 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that 1+1>2 for large values of 1 and small values of 2.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, $\lim _{1\to 7}1+1=14$. --127․0․0․1 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to be that Andy can't name an Arabic speaking non-muslim. Ignorance thy name is Andrew. Internetmoniker 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad WIGO

The protected Help desk one's not really right. It's a redirect page to cp:Conservapedia:Desk which claims to be the place to "...notify the Administration of matters that require attention." Not that that'll do any good, of course. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I assumed that after Geoff locked his talk page, his next step was to lock the help desk. TheoryOfPractice 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter examples of Relativity

Andy's counter examples for relativity seems to be a list of misrepresentations and outright false statements. for e.g pioneer anomaly is most likely to other factors including measurement error, internal heating etc., Action-at-a distance has been solved by general relativity, Gravitons have nothing to do with relativity but were predicted by quantum theory... I may be wrong. Can someone who knows better please list the counter arguments.

thanks --Buscombe 14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

KSorenson went through a lot of those things in CP:Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order. I can't say much about the science, but logic-wise...#2 is Andy assuming the measurements will be wrong if Mercury's measurements become more exact (they're accurate so far), #4 is just a question, #6 isn't even a fully formed statement, #8 is a wild tangent, #9 is an insult, and #10 looks like another tangent. Fun. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I especially like how his first example, the Pioneer anomaly, isn't explained anywhere in CP. I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what he was talking about. Thanks, Andy, for once again steering me to that haven of atheism. DickTurpis 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's better even than that. The reaction of (most of) the scientific community to the Pioneer anomaly has been "Cool! Get us more data so we can try to fix everything up!" Andy can't get his head around that. He thinks that because there's something new, everything old goes out in the trash. Scientists think that because there's something new, there's new shit to learn.

When the 22nd century equivalent of CP gets started, I'm sure there will be people who make comments like "Your unquestioning acceptance of Zog's 3rd theory ignores the long-established proofs associated with Relativity. You will be blocked for your continued empathy, empathy, empathy." –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching all the recent goings on about Andy and relativity. He just goes farther and farther off the deep end. The recent (last few months) upsurge is quite noteworthy -- so much so that I think it deserves another full-length article. Perhaps "Andrew Schlafly and Relativity -- late 2009". I will write same; I know where all the bodies are buried in this round. (They're in somewhat different places from earlier rounds -- quantifying order, new conservative words, etc.) We already have two articles -- Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity and Conservapedia:Einstein_and_Relativity,_Censorship_of. But I think a third one is warranted. This stuff just keeps coming. The notion that the study of certain fields of science should be suppressed if, in Andy's statistically-challenged mindset, they can be correlated with a decline in Bible reading, seems to be new. Or, at least, not expressed quite so stridently before this.

I have received a calculation about the Pioneer anomaly. (Got this from a rather circuitous route; suffice it to say that not all sysops are as loyal to Andy as they appear to be in public. I'm working on more direct contact. The private goings-on are fascinating.) This calculation says that the relativistic correction for the Pioneer motion (that is, the difference between the devout Christian Isaac Newton's formula and the leftist Jew Albert Einstein's formula) is about 0.75E-12 m / s^2, while the anomaly itself is about 1.0E-9 m / s^2. That is, 1000 times greater. That is, the Pioneer anomaly is an anomaly in gravity; it doesn't matter whether it's classical or relativistic. That's why the Wikipedia page refers to it as an anomaly in gravity. Duh.

Andy's other stuff is equally batshit-insane. I had no idea that Jesus' curing of the Centurion's gay lover slave traveled faster than the speed of light. I had no idea that people in Jesus' day could measure faith healing to the microsecond, and I had no idea that the Bible said that they had done so. I'll be looking for the conservative translation that explains this. This certainly puts Michelson and Morley (and Romer, and Fizeau) to shame. They had to use rotating mirrors and spinning disks. Gauss 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit I don't know much about relativity, but it does seem to me that most of these "counterexamples" deal with either weird ideas that crept from his brain or general unsettled questions of science as a whole, not with relativity specifically. Anyway, I think his war on relativity has a lot to do with the starlight problem, and relativity's role in striking down the idea that light once traveled millions of times faster than its current snail's pace. I do have to wonder what percent of Andy's batshit crazy ideas are stupidity and what percent are a bona fide insanity. I really do believe he has some rather serious mental issues. DickTurpis 18:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity is one of those things that I know enough about to bullshit most people, but not enough to even think about going toe-to-toe with a serious physicist. At the level of the recent and current CP debates, I'd say "Sorry - I don't know". Andy, of course, can't say that. He knows all and so defaults to arguments about classroom prayer and other irrelevant bullshit. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone directly demanded sources for Andy's assertions that merely being taught relativity results in people no longer reading the Bible? I went to Georgia Tech, and relativity was covered as part of the Physics III class that was required of all engineering and science students, and I know for a fact that many of them were quite devoutly Christian both before and after. I admit that this is just anecdotal, but I would imagine that a similar pattern is seen at most universities. I would really love to see Andy pinned down on where this assertion comes from. Has anyone, for that matter, pointed out that there are Jesuits who study relativity? I know this is Andy, so logic and reason don't apply, but this vendetta against relativity and bizarre, unsupported assertions about its effects is weirder than usual. Kaalis 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the real reason Andy started Conservapedia in the first place: to create sources for the stuff he pulls out of his rear-end. Andy got heavily criticised over his views on relativity in the Quantifying Order article, and instead of learning from it he went around looking for evidence of his BS claims. He didn't find any, so he created this essay, with some time and edits by lackeys/parodists it's proof! It's funny to watch the article and see him creating wiki-links to articles he edited to reflect his new proof, to make it "well-founded".

The Quantifying Order thing was essentially the same thing, no-one thought the translation of logos to "perfect order" was sound, so he created the page to prove it. And it's grounded look: Interesting! "Devil" is a translation of chaos!^img

So at the devil article: "simplified, clarified, improved!^img

Internetmoniker 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where does he get this shit? Devil is a bastardization of diabolos (διάβολος) in Attic Greek. It means accuser, slanderer. I can't even imagine where he got disorder out of that. 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual, when I dig deeper I find convoluted nonsense - the roots of diabolos are to "throw across." That's where Andy's getting this "chaos" and "throwing around" stuff. I need to log off. This shit drives me crazy. 22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Faith healing to the nanosecond

In the relativity debate, Andy argues that Jesus healed the nobleman's son, and the healing travelled instantaneously (not just at the speed of light), thereby disproving relativity. But have a look at the Bible verse (John 4:52). The Bible says that the healing happened within the hour. Andy says in a talk page that this is inaccurate, it happened instantly, with no delay whatsoever. So he wants to rewrite the Bible, to insert this bit of evidence against relativity. That's ok, because the Bible is only the word of God, but this new stuff is the word of Andy, who is above God. --Fawlty 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well that meaning's not supported by the bible or the LSJ. Hora(ὥρα) refers to anything but an instantaneous (or lack of) duration. 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection I think it just means "time of day" so Andy's drawing an action-at-a-distance meaning out of the verse that I doubt was intended, but is nonetheless a plausible though unsupported inference. 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So...when God created the earth, his actions couldn't be explained by such mundane ideas as physics, but when he came to earth as Jesus, his miracles had to fit within Andy's concept of physics? --Kels 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be daft, obviously the "within the hour" translation reflects liberal bias. Andy is already working on a new, conservative translation of the Bible to remedy all these obvious errors. Frummidge 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

December First...or mid-December...or possibly much later, if at all

I wonder if Ken's big event in some vaguely indeterminate time in December-ish is anything like what he was bragging about for this past February when, well...nothing at all happened. --Kels 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, "the evolutionists won't be very happy!" I love that they think anything they could say or do could make me unhappy. Just steaming in my chair at the crocoduck! Z? 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe there is a low possibility of something happening

I asked Ken for some clarification of what might happen on 1st December and got a stock standard Ken response. Ace^{Of Spades} 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Ken in love with planes or something? The pictures he links to are grass and planes. He is an unusual man. And that's saying something coming from a man who still has trouble remembering how to tie his shoes. SJ ^Debaser 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude is on a deletion spree right now. TheoryOfPractice 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He is an international man of mystery but I think I decoded his message. Once Ken shows the "Pink Lady" his "afterburners," she will have no choice but to maximize his search ranking? Is that what this is? He does know every single pageview of his articles is by an amused liberal, right? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone probably told him once that in order to exert dominance over others, you have to act as if you'd already won, and if possible disorient your enemies. Unfortunately he's so incompetent, all he ends up looking like is a buffoon, not a master manipulator. Fortunately, that perception is accurate. --Kels 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I love him quoting Sun Tsu. It's almost exactly the opposite of what he actually does. --Kels 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Chairman Mao's favourite book of pre-communist times? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"creation science paradigm artillery engineers are presently hard at work developing their heavy artillery so it may rain down on the evolutionary paradigm within your airspace"? That's some serious shit, right there. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Block Rules

JacobB blocks some guy for a 90/10 and then remembers that only the grown-ups are allowed to do that. Won't be the first time one of the minor sysops oversteps his bounds, I think... TheoryOfPractice 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx already tried to resign his block rights after getting warned about this policy by TK. --Retwa 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy sees blocking as an important and desirable activity. --Kels 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of a fresh, concise, block of a liberal in the morning... Try it, you'll like it. Hell, we do it all day here, so obviously it is universally fun. ħuman 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course. Surely you've sussed out by now that the single underlying message of Conservapedia is "stop saying that." Whatever Andy doesn't like, you should stop saying it. Blocking is the purest expression of Andy's "stop saying that!" ethic. --4perf 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All Things Considered

Not sure if this was already posted somewhere, but here Andy talks to Robert Siegel on NPR. --Retwa 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what indirectly alerted me to CP I beleive. I've the impression that the NPR story was sort of CP's coming out party. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I imagined Andy's voice to sound, but his actual voice is nothing like it. MDB 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Conservapedia:In the media. ħuman 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as I'm linking ancient media stories about CP (sorry, didn't notice just how old that other one was), this article comes with a nice illustration of the CBP. --Retwa 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A new quote machine string?

X is so prevalent among Y that Z.

• X: lack of Bible reading; homosexuality; depression and suicide; moral relativism; misunderstanding of elementary proofs; breast cancer; etc.
• Y: atheists; relativists; abortionists; university professors; evolutionists; the mainstream media; etc
• Z: I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it; only liberal deceivers deny the connection; no further talk-page debates are necessary or will be tolerated; I wonder why you spend so much time disputing this insight; Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to bury the connection; etc.

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That quote (or the whole thing behind it) is a pretty good example of the way andy operates. It's even quite scary. A few days ago he's asking if it's possible that belief in relativity leads to less people reading the bible. Then he's using it as a counter point in "discussions" about relativity. Then he's citing it as a fact (with no source) and now he's throwing it into sentences as if it's a completely undeniable fact of life, something that everybody knows. He's gone from "this sounds interestingly plausible" to "this is complete undeniable fact, so much so that I don't even need a source" within a few days, without doing any research into it whatsoever. What a strange man. I wonder if he actually believes it or if he's just saying it. X Stickman 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put. ħuman 01:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's a lawyer! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I especially like that his source is a user who's only been around for about a month. --Kels 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He did the same thing with "undeniable flooding." And of course all of his "mystery" essays go from "Did comedy exist before Christianity?" to "Nobody credibly denies that Jesus invented standup!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's things like this that always give me that creepy feeling when I remember he teaches kids.Internetmoniker 10:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Now you've gone and done it. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy commenting on the Swiss's anti-minaret stance

All I can say is, he's such an asshole. He is far more Islamophopic than the writers of that policy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's the link? 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO reads: "We here at CP want respect for religions..." but they don't. They want respect for a particular reading of Christianity with the occasional bone thrown to the Jews. Not for "religionS" at all. TheoryOfPractice 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They're for most Christian branches (even a respectful link for Scientology) and Judaism. So yes, respect for religionS, plural. --Irrational Atheist 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, they like both kinds of music: Country and western!--4perf 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Scientology thing is weird, and the Moonies and the Mormons are there by dint of the association of prominent goons with those religions. But liberal Christianity is out, and seeing as how that might be loosely defined as anybody who believes "forgive them Father for they know not what they do" is part of Christian dogma, you might argue that they see MOST CHRISTIANS as ideological foes. and the only reason they need to throw a bone to Judaism (without doing to much to make actual Jews happy) is because of the place of Israel in their eschatology. So, yeah, it's "religions," you got me there--but I still thing the term excludes WAY more than it includes. TheoryOfPractice 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering Andy once even referred to the Southern Baptists as "apostate", I'd say he has a very small list of denominations he considers to be real Christians. MDB 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a point about that WIGO; the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU Institution. Rather, it is the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, of which Swizerland is a member (and therefore legally required to observe the Convention). 81.137.227.129 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it's important to distinguish between the various European bodies. Switzerland's also party to the ICCPR (specifically Article 18) and ICESCR, which both could apply in this case. Of course, we all know how well those are adhered to. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

(unindent)The quote provided by CP - does it not occur to them that if, 'the minaret is a sign of political power and demand', as it claims, logically, that must also be true of Christian churches, and, as such, if you ban minarets because of this, you must also ban Christian churches? Oh, wait, I forgot, having a Christian theocracy is perfectly OK, according to CP. 92.23.203.226 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a constitutional ban on a form of architecture in a democratic country before? How bizarre. Corry 15:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The US has had occasional cases where residents of neighborhoods complained about the noise from church bells, and there's zoning fights when large churches want to get even bigger or similar matters, but this seems to be a pretty new concept. And an ugly one. MDB 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly disappointing that Switzerland seems to be turning to the right. This is on top of the "black sheep" controversy a couple of years ago. Despite some leftist policies Switzerland is quite conservative and predominantly Christian (percentages for atheist/agnostic seem to range between 13% and 27%). I also had the same thought about churches and those Swiss do have some pretty tall spires. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, should my equal rights for all triumph over my desire to see religion disappear slowly but surely? 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Popper writes on Conservapedia?

Ken should learn how to properly construct his sentences. --Irrational Atheist 14:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't wait for Andy's Writing Course

When he's the source of "improved" translations like this from the CBP:

"And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink."

becomes:

"They wave over their partners, who were in the other boat, for them to join and help. Those came and filled both boats with the fish, so much so they began to sink."

If someone has the inclination as well as the free time, this latest edit of his just inspired a new concept: the Schlafly Heuristically-Interpreted Translator. Feed in a bit of text, which is then run through a search-and-replace loop against a reference list of words/phrases and their "improved" substitutes per Andy (maiden = bimbo, Satan = chaos, "that they" = "they", etc.), followed by a few random changes of tense between past & present. Want to know what the Gettysburg Address would look like if Andy was Lincoln's proofreader? Run it through, and see what conservative insights his brain would have S.H.I.T. out. --SpinyNorman

Well, we do have a close equivalent: "Ann Coulter" live-blogging the Gettysburg Address. MDB 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this assignment from his old writing class[1]. I love how he characterizes the public school kid as a petulant idiot. Such an asshole, that guy. Corry 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I might interject, my favourite thing on that page is the essay title choice "New Jersey is my favourite state because..." Now I'm not American, and I don't want to cause any offence to any Jersey-ites out there, but isn't that state one of the ones which is ridiculed for being a shithole? SJ ^Debaser 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but mostly by people who either don't live there, or have only seen/lived in the industrial hellholes like Newark or Jersey City. I'm from the more suburban part of NJ, which is rather nice aside from the horrible humidity in the summer. --Gulik 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sweet merciful crap. If you look around some of the other homework assignments for the class, you'll see that the "textbook" for the class is a book called The Supremacists, a book on "judicial tyranny" written by none other than.... Phyllis Schlafly. God, Andy, have you no shame? MDB 15:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Got to keep up those book sales for Mommy. Shameless indeed, and worth noting that Andy's never published anything original of his own, unlike his mother, or his former Editor in Chief at the Harvard Law Review. Also worth noting that you could just as easily use some of the highly-graded homework submissions from his history classes instead of the "public school" example in his writing homework above, and there'd be just as much to clean up. I'd provide examples but that would be picking on the kids, who are the victims here after all. --SpinyNorman 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as this page was created in 2008, no one credibly denies that Obama's books were written by ghostwriters. I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andy has published two (IIRC) legit scientific papers. I'd call that publishing something original. Though I haven't read the papers, I'd bet that they're more worth reading that his mom's book. Coarb 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have cites on those papers? I just searched ISI for papers with him listed as author. Only one came up, and it was an editorial in, of all places, "Surgical Neurology", and it was neither serious, nor surgical, nor neurological. Indeed, it seemed rather out of place to my eyes. I would be interested to read what passes in his mind for science writing. Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM" Coarb 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which journals are those articles in?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Coarb mentiones is in the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 18(5): 525-532 (October 1983). Andy is listed as third author. The paper also includes one of the worst pictures of Andy I have seen. He looks a little like a young Bill Gates on crack. Kaalis 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kaalis. I searched for any other publications and came up with a total of 6. They are listed on the serious Andy page. We could probably use some commentary as well. I will leave it to anyone who actually works in those fields. As far as I know the IEEE journals are a bit of a joke, for anyone outside engineering, due to poor peer-review (and content). The law journals don't look any better.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. IEEE journals are not, broadly speaking, a joke. Some may be jokes, but in general they are not. See [2] or [3] or [4]. We should not assume that everything Andy does is shit. He might be a very good engineer or squash player or cook.Coarb 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Engineer? Nah, his math and logic skills are much too weak for that. Squash? He doesn't strike me as the quick-reflex athletic type. Golf, maybe. Cooking? Nope--that's women's work. I'll bet that Andy is a very safe driver, and a skilled bridge player.--WJThomas 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think another issue should be taken into account. Namely, the time factor. Those engineering papers of his were published quite a while ago, with the most recent being 26 years old. He might have been competent once upon a time, but that doesn't mean he is now. I have only been watching him since the Lenski affair, and his work on Conservapedia over that time betrays quite a degradation. I think he can pull together some semblance of reason and rationality when it is absolutely required, but I think he is in more than a bit of a delusional spiral. Yes, not everything he has ever done is garbage,but the garbage is making a greater and greater proportion of his work as time goes by (and the garbage is getting more and more rancid). Kaalis 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) @Coarb. As I said, I don't work in those fields, so I am happy to accept your correction. Although your second citation gives the top ranked Electrical Engineering Journal a rank of 293, which doesn't seem brilliant. Also, the rankings seem to be based on "impact" which can be problematic. I don't know if Andy is a good engineer or not, and it doesn't really matter one way or the other. This conversation started because you claimed that he had published two legitimate scientific papers. I would question how scientific those papers actually are.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That rank of 293 is out of all journals. The page I linked to is a ranking of only EE journals, and nine of the top ten have "IEEE" in their title. That is, 292 of the top ranked journals are not related to Andy's field. Andy published in #6 of the EE journals on that list.

Impact is a fine way to measure journals, as it measures what other scientists think.

I don't think you can credibly question how scientific those papers are until you are qualified to be a reviewer for a top-ten EE journal. Coarb 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem he was part of a team that worked on a 4K NVRAM, and staked a claim to that ground in an IEEE journal, most probably without revealing too much of the really proprietary stuff. That's nice. Around the time I was getting my BSEE, the half-life of an engineering education was said to be about 5 years, IIRC. So unless someone has really kept their chops up, after 26 years about 2^-5 or say 3% of their education in that field remains relevant.

IEEE journals are not noted for the jewel-like flame that is rhetorical exposition at its crystalline best. Good for what they are, but pretty much TL;DR at its dreariest. I can think of way better things to put on a writing teacher's CV. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits has a very good reputation in its field. Pietrow 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

@Coarb: I'm aware that 292 of the top journals are not related to electrical engineering. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I opined that IEEE journals are not very good. I meant that the journals are not very good, not that the IEEE journals in the field of electrical engineering are not as good as other journals in that field.

Impact does not measure "what other scientists think." It measures the number of citations to a particular journal. It's probably the best way to quantify the quality of a journal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.

You are right, I have wandered outside my field of expertise. I withdraw my query as to whether or not Andy has really done any science, I will leave that to people with more engineering experience. I also withdraw my judgement of IEEE journals, as from your remarks and the remarks of others, it is clear that they have a better reputation than I was given to believe.

However, I don't accept your last admonition to the letter. It is ridiculous to require that someone be qualified to referee a top 10 journal in any field in order for their criticisms to be taken seriously.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My language was not as clear as I meant it to be. I think anyone who can speak the language of EE is qualified to criticize a paper as a bad paper or of dubious validity. I expect a critic to pass a much higher bar to call something "not scientific" after it was deemed scientific, interesting, well-written, and plausible by some of the best scientists in that field.

I would set a lower bar if you were criticizing the peer review process ("Results aren't independently experimentally confirmed before they're published!" does not even require EE-specific knowledge to discuss) or EE in general ("Electrons are just angels!" is an argument I disagree with, but clearly one a layperson can understand). To call Andy's paper "not scientific", though, is almost like calling something that was at the Cannes Film Festival "not a film", rather than just "a bad film". Coarb 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As just another blind guy feeling my way around this "elephant" that some claim to have seen, I'll go ahead and say that I bet there wasn't a whole lot of science involved. They found some jigsaw puzzle pieces, put them together, and announced that they had done so. The main theme probably went like, "work up a different way to get 4096 bits to hold still when the power goes away, package it, and tell the part of the world that cares what diligent fellows we are." Sprocket J Cogswell 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if one's argument is "Engineering is not science," I would not expect one to be an expert just to say so. Coarb 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial

For those interested, the following is the complete text of his little editorial (Note that he lists New York as one of his associated institutions):

Editorial Ten things trial lawyers hope you don't learn

Andrew Schlafly Esq (a, b), E-mail The Corresponding Author

(a) New York, NY, USA

(b) Association of American Physicians, and Surgeons, Inc., 1601 N. Tucson, AZ 85716

Available online 27 July 2006.

Over the past 30 years, the number of lawyers in our country has risen sharply. And while Medicare cuts its payments, physicians suffer even bigger losses because of lawyers distorting, fabricating, and outright lying in their attempts to fleece doctors.

Trial lawyers have their seminars and trade groups teaching them how to game the system. To fight back effectively, physicians need to learn the lawyers' tricks. Here are 10 things they hope that doctors won't find out (or do):

10. Physicians cannot rely on insurance company lawyers for a full defense. Insurance companies impose limits on the lawyers they provide, and neither the insurer nor the lawyer cares if you are slapped with a huge judgment.

The insurance company will just raise its rates to cover its losses. But when you pay off a malpractice claim, you will be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. A single report can damage all future applications for a job or hospital privileges.

Successful physicians take affirmative steps both before and after being sued. They do not just rely on the malpractice carrier.

9. It often helps to attend the deposition of the plaintiff's medical expert. In litigation, a party has the right to attend all depositions.

The plaintiff's expert will not lie as much about someone who is sitting across the table. Also, physicians can strengthen their case by feeding questions to their attorney during depositions of their opposing expert.

8. Beware when seeing patients who were mistreated by other physicians. In malpractice lawsuits, all the doctors are sued, even the ones who tried to help.

Before seeing a problem patient who might bring a lawsuit, a physician should consider obtaining a fully informed release from the patient first.

(less o' tehh "darlin", sweety. )

7. Most malpractice lawsuits are for “failure to diagnose,” so your advice to obtain diagnostic tests should be documented. If a patient still refuses to have a test despite your warning, then consider having the patient sign an acknowledgment.

6. Special laws allow trial attorneys to pay for successful referrals. The public is unaware of this practice, which is prohibited as “fee-splitting” in the medical profession.

The malpractice crisis would end overnight if a referendum or statute prohibited compensation for referrals among attorneys.

5. Screening techniques can greatly reduce the odds that a physician will be sued. Office waiver forms, even if not fully enforceable, are useful in screening out litigious patients from a practice.

4. Develop a list of good defense experts in your specialty. Malpractice cases are won or lost based on expert testimony. Having a good expert means you will win; struggling to find one at the last minute means you may lose.

3. Make sure you depose everyone who might be called as a witness against you. Even the billion-dollar pharmaceutical giant Merck recently made the fatal mistake of not deposing a potential plaintiff's witness in the Vioxx trial. That $5000 economy cost Merck $253.4 million in the end, as the never-deposed witness sank Merck at trial.

2. Protect your assets beforehand so your exposure is limited. Although malpractice insurance covers you (up to a limit), you will handle the stress of litigation far better knowing your assets are secure no matter what happens in court.

1. Read AAPS's monthly newsletter and quarterly journal. Malpractice attorneys are forever developing new stratagems to ensnare physicians and so are medical boards and hospital peer review panels. Physicians need the latest information for self-defense.

Pamphlet No. 1097, December 2005. Reprinted with permission Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. To be fair to Andy, the above isn't a big load of crazy. Screening possibly litigious patients out of your practice brings up some ethical issues, and JPandS is a joke, but a lot of this seems like good advice. Corry 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I really meant non-serious for a scientific publication, especially for a very niche journal. Yes, it does look like decent advice, but much of it doctors should have been given long before. I have a feeling, though, that a doctor who turns away a patient for seeming potentially litigious would soon face a lawsuit. Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, they'd be more likely to face a law suit the more accurately they detect litigious patients. 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When I read the subhead I always read it as "Andy's writing coarse" ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think doctors have any obligation to treat someone any more than a lawyer does to serve him. As they say, the practice of law is not like driving a bus; you don't have to stop for everyone. Do we have any docs here other than PalMD (who is not presently active on RW)? 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure about that, what's the Oath de Hippo say? I suspect in an emergency their "options" are limited, at least. ħuman 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think doctors are bound by the Oath de Hippo. They don't even recite the Oath de Hippo in schools in the US. Doctor's certainly aren't obliged to treat anyone, regardless of circumstance. Just think of how far you would get walking into a doctor's office without money or insurance, in any part of the world.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the UK you'd get treated first then asked afterwards: that's why there's immigration control on e.g some countries. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit more googlin': "A UK High Court ruling on April 11 has brought some welcome and long-awaited clarification to the rules about migrants' eligibility for health care in the National Health Service (NHS). 1 In this landmark decision the judge ruled that it is not reasonable to expect UK health professionals to assess patients' immigration status and entitlement to free health care, and that care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." [5] ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your cite. What it seems to be addressing is insurance fraud, and yes it is entirely infeasible to expect doctors to verify a potential patient's immigration status. But if I walk into a UK doctor's office and say "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have a strange rash on my ass," I'm betting that they are going to ask either for some proof of travel insurance, or money. Of course, doctors are people too, and if I walked in and said, "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have just been shot in the ass," then they may apply bandages first and ask insurance-related questions later. The only point I'm making is that doctors are not legally bound to help people.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: "... care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." The doc'd probably examine the patient & either refer for treatment (if it's urgent or life threatening or similar) or tell them to see their own doctor when they got home. A GP is NEVER going to ask for money! Although if the person asked for private treatment then they would be able to get it wherever they came from if they could pony up the readies. If they refused treatment, or at least examination I think they'd be up against the GMC in short time. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Toast, I'm a bit too tired and emotional, but you're being a tad simplistic there. It is not a trivial matter to sign up with a GP these days. If you can't provide your NHS number you need to provide details of your previous registration with another GP. Even when attending an A&E department you have to say who you are registered with. You are extremely unlikely to be refused treatment for anything acute, but you are not likely to get access to the NHS treatment for a lot of stuff unless you can prove you are entitled to it. My late partner worked with asylum seekers and getting them into the system was not a trivial matter. Sorry for any in coherence Sphincter 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal: for about three years I wasn't registered with a GP (my old one packed up & I never re-registered). During that time I was travelling around in a RV. Several times I went to various (GP) surgeries without any paperwork or any ID & was seen & given prescriptions by GPs. Chiefly in Scotland but twice in England. Eventually I settled @ my present address & had enormous difficulty getting registered - but the first (insurance paid for, for pension reasons) examination detected a malignancy & I was treated (NHS: free) without question. I've never proved my entitlement to anyone - my current GP hasn't even got my records past 5 years as they apparently went AWOL when the old one packed up. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

High hopes

Oh wow!^img "Perhaps next year the Conservative Bible will be included in the accepted translations for the contest". Umm, or not. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That will undoubtedly happen the same year Conservapedia overtakes Wikipedia (and I get my three-way with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck). MDB 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when they're done with the CBP, we'll just have to submit a pristine copy of the completed work to the folks running the Bible Bee for their consideration, and make sure to publish the response. --SpinyNorman 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh good call. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how he says note the nasty comments by anti bible types... or something like that. At the time of me writing this, there are 4 comments on the article. 2 that are undeniably positive, 1 that says a sarcastic good job, but you'd probably be better off with a career in anything else and 1 that happens to mention that it's funny that the kid could know the bible so well, but keep all the money and not spend it on the poor, as the bible intructs one to do repeatedly..... Good read comprehension Andy. You're making us all proud. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To Andy, and many other extremist Christians, anything other than heaping praise on the kid is massive persecution. MDB 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)ooooo, now Andy wants CP to sponsor contestants^img for the next Bible Bee. MDB 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How funny would it be for somebody to get up there and say "bimbo." Corry 17:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the evangelical Christian community has widely criticized the CBP, an attempt by CP to sponsor a Bible Bee contestant would probably go over about as well as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (sp?) attempting to sponsor an entry in a (to my knowledge, non-existent) Judaica Bowl or a Liberty University team at the Gay Games. MDB 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that's where you're wrong! No real Christian has criticized the Codex Schlafliticus, only closet libruls like the World Net Daily. Corry 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy on Illiteracy

Andy stresses his point that illiteracy is the result of bad public schooling, which is the result of liberals running public schools. If I apply some superficial correlation by matching up the 2003 Illiteracy Rates by States list (including D.C.) against the CP list of Bible Belt states, it's interesting to note that 64% of the 25 states with the highest illiteracy rates are wholly or partially in the Bible Belt. Only 19% of the remaining 26 most literate states are in the Bible Belt. Another conservative triumph? --SpinyNorman 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Burn a sock and let him know. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's mind, liberals, as ubiquitous as they are, are a small, but vocal minority. They leverage themselves into positions of power in education through deceit and impose their atheistic worldview on the children of conservatives who are not fortunate enough to be homeschooled. High illiteracy rates in the Bible belt are, just like everything everywhere else, liberals' fault. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound lazy, but CP isn't worth the effort of creating socks so one can point things out to folks who only take their fingers out of their ears long enough to click on the "block" button. Once TK banhammered my DinsdaleP account on CP I was done there, unless Andy wants to hear from "a former high-volume Conservapedia contributor" again by unblocking it. I'll attend any in-person appearance by the CP leadership I can make, though, so if folks hear about upcoming NJ/NYC events they'll be at please let me know. --SpinyNorman 16:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Debate

Holy crap, how did I miss this^img? The comments at the top are incredible. Obvious parody, but undeleted. Only spotted it because of this new gem^img Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure sign of multiple parodism: most of the signature links are red... ħuman 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Poe's law

I'm struggling with this one. Do you think this person is a parodist or just a severe nutjob? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nutjob. an experienced parodist would know how to make his userboxen line up properly.^img TheoryOfPractice 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Corry 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to Andy

This post of Andy's and its classic line, "Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible", got me to wondering just what kind of topics they cover in Physics classes at Christian universities. Well, here's the official catalog for Patrick Henry College, "For Christ and Liberty", which sponsors the Bible Bee among other things. The description of their Physics class, required as a core component for just about every major there, is at the top of page 67:

"This course will introduce students to the classical physics topics of Newtonian mechanics and electricity/magnetism as well as the modern physics topics of relativity and quantum physics."

I guess "professor values" have infiltrated even the most trustworthy of institutions. --SpinyNorman 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just off the charts. Soon he's going to start arguing for geocentrism. Corry 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity is also explicitly taught in at least three physics courses at Wheaton College, which also has a course covering "big bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy". I guess the students have to check their Bibles into lockers outside the classroom before entering that one. --SpinyNorman 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh, Wheaton College "is an increasingly liberal institution of higher education" which "espouses liberal beliefs to Christian students, marketing itself heavily to the evangelical community but then indoctrinating them to believe in abortion and the theory of evolution" "Wheaton College has perhaps the smartest student body among evangelical colleges". Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was probably one of my all-time favorite backpedals by Schlafly. My imagined scenario was that he forgot that one of his former homeschoolers was going there, and he didn't want to lose the homeschool tuition for the younger siblings. --SpinyNorman 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfair dismissal of a christian

I'm surprised CP haven't jumped on this story yet. Do they not read the horrible librul BBC news site? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've put it here I'm sure one of them will read it and post it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They don't want to draw attention to the recently discovered real reason for Christ's death, so they're trying to keep their heads down.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh there you go. Nice to see TK is still reading WIGO. Hi TK! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Double WIGO?

Was has that chump ListenerX made two WIGO's from one link? Seems kinda superfluous does it not? Ace^{of Spades} 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly made two completely unrelated giggle-points in a single diff. I thought it best to have separate voting on each one. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fucking stupid. But that's just my opinion. Ace^{of Spades} 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprise me. TheoryOfPractice 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Programs don't generate insights"

I lolled at this one. But the more exciting part was Andy revealing that he was a full time programmer. That's certainly not in our article, and I've never heard it come up before. *thinks about it* On second thought, I'm not sure if I believe him. He's never demonstrated any programming knowledge as far as I can remember. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with his statement ( and that bothers me) but he was an engineer. Dont they use FORTRAN and maybe Forth or Pascal ? Hamster 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's true, I didn't think of that. But that still doesn't make him "a programmer." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel bad if you agree with him on that statement (I do too); even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as my Pa says. And remember that he is an expert in whatever subject is currently under discussion.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not Forth. FORTRAN was still alive and kicking in the early 1980s, and PL/1 may have been taught in aid of structured programming, as well as Pascal for the precious aesthetes in academia. There was IBM 360 assembly language for the ones who leaned more towards the "computer science" side, along with some new microprocessor assembly languages for the Z-80 or 8080. For the real hard core, there was unix, which at that time was restricted to Bell Labs and academic institutions, running on "minicomputers" the size of a Miata. C and grepping and emacs were still Very New Things. Sprocket J Cogswell 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang about a moment. Didn't Andy boast not that many Wigo's ago about how Conservapedia does not censor at all. Now he is saying they are "reluctant" to censor. What's next; that Conservapedia censors only when it has to, and then only what it has to? I know its a minor thing compared to some of the other bull$#!+ he's been called out on, but still. Concession to what the rest of us already knew or freudian slip? -Tygrehart

I'm guessing it's just the good ol' Wheaton College backpedal. ^{(If you don't get that reference good for you, it means you haven't been hanging around here too much)} Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every time someone mentions Wheaton College, I think of this and chuckle. TheoryOfPractice 03:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's defense (yeah, I probably shouldn't have typed that), sneakily renaming conservative bugbears using "liberal vocabulary" isn't exactly deep linguistic programming. Hai guyz, pro-choice advocates are "bigoted maternalists". See, I can do it too and I didn't waste years of my life reading Strauss and Schmitt. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea of MemeShock seems so dishonest. It even treats the people it is trying to support like marks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Behold Neoconservatism in all its incredibly creepy glory. Their followers are worse than peons; they're machines. What the hell is Jfraatz on?

Prescribed amphetamines for my ADHD. [{user:jfraatz|Johanan Raatz]]

I dare say he's further out there than a lot of CP's regulars, what with his grand objectives of social engineering. 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Theocrats only hate women and teh gays; neocons hate EVERYONE. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about Neo-Cons. read some of the early neo con work by Fukuyama and Kristol - it is a sound political philosophy that got raped by the religious right and creepy fucks like Cheney. The original tenants of Neo-Conservatisim and pretty sound. Ace^{of Spades} 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Neo-neo-cons? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I really want to see Andy (and maybe PJR) somehow rail against genetic algorithms. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Electrical Engineers and Programming

Speaking as someone who learned electrical engineering around the same time as Andy (I graduated in 1989, I think he graduated in the mid-eighties) and worked in a similar field (we both worked in microelectronics design), I can say the following:

• A lot of the people I worked with back then learned C.
• I'm not sure how much its used now, but back when I worked in microelectronics design, there was a "programming language" VHDL, which basically allowed you to write a program that described the function of chip, and then could be "compiled" into the design of a chip. It was very much like "actual" programming. I never designed anything elaborate in it, but it could be used for some very elaborate designs.
• He probably learned Fortran as an undergrad (and I dispute, strongly, the assertion above that doesn't make him a programmer. It may not require the level of skill it took, say, Linus Torvalds to create Linux, but writing decent code in any language takes talent.)

Admittedly, I'm just basing this on my own experience, but Andy's college education and early career and mine are quite similar. (Though, to be fair, he went to a much better school -- Princeton -- while I went to a state school most noted for its ability to field a collection of orange-clad muscle-bound jocks to toss an oblate spheroid around a field of grass on Saturday afternoons in the fall.) Based on my experience, I do not think its unreasonable for Andy to call himself a programmer. I doubt he could write code in any modern language, but the general knowledge of "how do you write code" is probably still in his head. MDB 12:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although Andy would be envious of the conservative Volunteers. - π 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

East Tennessee (where UT's main campus is located) is extraordiarily right wing. Andy would fit right in. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"And I say that as a former full-time programmer". Not an engineer with programmming skill but a FULL TIME PROGRAMMER! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know a number of engineers who drifted into full time programming. It's not unusual, especially for those who specialized in microelectronics. MDB 13:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have sometimes spent several days at a time doing nothing but programming. I guess that during those periods I was also a full-time programmer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting the way programming has been conflated with electrical engineering. Pushing electrons to and fro has had to do with getting massive objects spinning, or wiggling voice coils, or tickling phosphors, or pinging in search of distant objects, or producing devices to do those things, generally in commercial quantities. Programming in its pure form has more to do with capturing the raw stuff of poetry itself, making abstract ideas dance in predictable, useful ways.

The conventional wisdom used to be that you could generally cross-train a hardware person to do software, but not the other way around. I've been paid to write assembly code and C, but I've also dug in my heels and protested loud and long against being called a computer programmer. Oops, there's my bias showing. Nowadays I sometimes work with raw HTML and a barebones text editor, but in my own mind I'm still not a computer programmer.

I freely admit that I don't know the particulars of whatsisnutz's education and early career, but calling himself a full-time programmer may be resumé inflation, politely put. That assessment is mostly based on the obviously high BS content of other stuff he says. Those skills fade, and memory is selective, so bragging about pecking at a keyboard decades ago is one mark of a gas-filled douchebag, the way I see it. Sprocket J Cogswell 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying Andy is telling the truth, per se, about having been a programmer; I'm just saying its not an unrealistic claim that someone with a degree in Electrical Engineering eventually became a full time programmer. MDB 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, not a speck of disagreement will you get from me here. In his case, it smells very much like a horse's ass variant of the argument from authority, where the authority is self-proclaimed, that is. Genghis pretty well nailed it too. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Along the lines of resumé inflation, there's a huge difference between using a ready-made tool for semiconductor or board layout, and coding interactive user widgets or researching and designing AI. I suspect that what Andy did was more along the lines of the former, which amounts to holding down just another drawing board in the bullpen, doing glorified bookkeeping. AI experience would be a better backup for what he said, but if he had any of that, he would have screamed it from any handy rooftop. He hasn't, and is a douche. Sprocket J Cogswell 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

TK

I don't think this is WIGO-worthy, but I got a few laughs from this: If it goes against a Reagan quote, it must be wrong!^img Silly TK. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives don't "worship" Ronald Reagan, they're just very fond of the ground upon which he walked. --Gulik 06:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At least the Titanic floated before it sank

Lovely^img. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote mine Andy from the post above that one: "He wasn't an expert...so his opinion was irrelevant." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I hear "Nearer my God to thee" whenever I visit CP. Got to get that processor checked--Thanatos 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Andy and the Titanic...The subject brings back memories of one of my favorite Andy assertions, in which everyone who died that night did so voluntarily...--WJThomas 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockworthy??

I almost feel like burning a sock to let Andy know that Larry "banned for life" Johnson started for the Bengals on Sunday. He ran the ball 22 times for over 100 yards. If Andy let himself get down every time he was wrong about something, he wouldn't be able to leave his house. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 07:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For all we know, he might use the term "home school" much more literally than the average person - emerging only at night to give the odd rant to keep his mother happy. -Redback^G'day 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was against the Browns, I could go out there and rush for 107 yards on 22 carries. - π 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nutty WIGO

I don't get it. Can someone explain it to me? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some random editor at CP gets blocked as a sock of me. Nice wordplay from Human. Get it? A Nutty roux is a sauce? 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A sauce? Or a lousy WiGO? We report, we also decide. Now shut up and take it. --Kels 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Now I get it. It still isn't funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did get the 'sauce' joke, I just didn't see what it had to do with what was going on. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I tossed it up there was the direct call-out of an RW editor by name. Oh well, maybe one day it will be the lowest voted WIGO! ħuman 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Raatz

Where the fuck did this guy come from? He's going on about memetic vectors and "deep process", which probably only have meaning in his twisted little head. Have we found somebody crazier than Andy? ENorman 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are already many, many people crazier than Andy. Ken for example. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See here-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy is a legit wacko. I wish him and teh Arse got along better. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Access, with stretcher and small potatoes

His fans had a hard time accessing him, cause of the rest of the crowd. I can live with stretcher, since nobody uses the word litter in that sense any more, and gurney is mostly used by civilians. The rolly liftup thing you scoop a patient onto for loading into the back of the ambulinks is a stretcher, OK?

But "access" instead of "find [a]... way" to him? "Get to" uses the same number of characters if you count the space in the middle, and doesn't have the same tinge of computer-speak (neologism involving verbatization of a noun) about it. Must. Be. Concise. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

With stretcher, it was more of Andy saying his word choice made more sense, even though proper translations use the same word. Perhaps it really was a bed, a mattress, maybe a cot, rather than a stretcher? Andy wasn't there, and if he wasn't there, then he can't know (by Andy logic). --Irrational Atheist 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It may well have been a thin futon or a reed mat. In my parents' generation, when someone came out with nonsense of that ilk, the standard response was, "Was you there, Charley?" or actually, "Vas you dere, Sharley?" No idea of the source of that.

I just realized "access" may be a conservative word, with the free market including purveyors of face time with policy makers and all. Don't arsk me to research whether it is actually a c-word though. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also hidden in CP's Luke (translated) is avoid feminist rendition of "prophetess".... Here's me thinking feminists dislike the use of a diminutive of the masculine to form the feminine. CS Miller 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was Harry (for 2¢ plain) Golden who wrote a short bit about how "-ess" was used (maybe only in 19th century lit.?) to form the feminine for under-people, such as "Jewess" and "Negress." Sprocket J Cogswell 00:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"What doubt is [sic] your hearts?" Shall we be concerned that Jesus does not wield the english language properly? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

shit -> fan

The shit may be about to hit the fan. Stay tuned. 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, keep us posted Z. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, c'mon, don't troll us like that. That sounds like the "a mjor creationist website will soon announce a major effort to destroy evolutionism on the internet" stuff at CP, except even less specific. MDB 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people will have a very specific idea of what I'm talking about, MDB. I'm posting this really for one guy, but also so that anybody interested might keep their eyes out. 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okey doke. My apologies. MDB 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are talking about and it's a pity my work computer is completely blocked from viewing CP. Don't forget capture tags! Ace^{of Spades} 19:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did it hit the fan yet??? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF are you people talking about? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ewwww....creepy shout-out^img from TK. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny - TK told me a little while back he couldn't even view RW as Tmt had blocked him server side. And yes TK, I have the transcripts at hand. Ace^{of Spades} 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall him going on about being "404 blocked". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be surprised, he is a known liar. Ace^{of Spades} 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Trent's admitted to server blocking TK for a very short time (less than hours), but certainly not permanently. There's a discussion of this on TK's talk pages here. Trent confirmed the short server block to me at our Midwest Meetup and I'll take Trent's word over that of TK and the rest of CP put together in the blink of an eye. In any event, people's IP addresses cycle; at the time Ace IM'd with TK, it is my belief that TK was no longer even browsing from the same place Trent server blocked for mere moments years ago. 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Zomg, shit -> fan going to happen? Could someone email me this magnanimous prophecy that's about to happen? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Was that it? Did it just happen?????? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What's goin' on? TheoryOfPractice 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't smell anything yet. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This "hay guiz something cool and vague is going down that I'm just going to drop tantalizing references to" stuff is getting annoying. There's a reason nobody likes Ken Fedhaji (Talk) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on you people, do I need to spell out this silly drama for you? ħuman 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes you do. TheoryOfPractice 04:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that, as I have no idea what is going on. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough. One of "us" (well, probably many) is TK. They created a puppet on CP that earned block rights. Then they offered up said puppets "details" (name/password) here a few months ago. Then recently they took over the puppet again and said mean things to another, allegedly teenaged, puppet on CP. The manager of the second puppet chided the "owner" of the first that talking that way to a teenager was not good style. Then the first puppet blocked the second and named the puppeteer. Then TK in his own incarnation finished the "redlinking" we are all so familiar with these days. Clear enough? ħuman 04:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the offering of the details, it happened right here on TWIGO:CP. The rest I will try to figure out on my own. Thanks Human. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're welcome. I really thought that "explanation" would only make things worse ;) PS, I don't think no (new) shit hit no fan today. But I haven't studied the goat entrails carefully since yesterday. ħuman 04:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a couple of wonderful email from TK today actually. He moaned about me not playing fair. Well, sorry TK, thems the brakes. Ace^{of Spades} 04:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Clear enough?"

I have no idea what that paragraph was about. Why the quotes around "us"? What do you mean "is" TK? Is there no person IRL, or do you just have his password? Were the mean things said on CP? How do you know the teenaged character was a puppet? To whom was the puppeteer named? What is "redlinking"? Is it deleting userpages?

You don't have to answer any of those questions, but I thought I would explain why I found your paragraph baffling. Maybe it's just because what I like best about CP is when Andy says something bonkers, rather than when the underlings fight. Coarb 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that comes off mean. I only mean to say "I'm confused, but you don't really have to explain yourself". This is especially true if explaining yourself decreases lulz. Coarb 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if I explained it clearly, it wouldn't be funny anymore, and might compromise one of TK's puppets here. Yes, "redlinking" is deleting a user's page. ħuman 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny.

Ed Poor never fails to amuse^img. Ace^{of Spades} 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA!! I love how the first line repeats itself. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Raatz WIGO

A pat on the back to whoever wrote that one. That was one of the cleverest and (dare I say it?) most insightful WIGOs I've seen in a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agreed. Not because there was anything wrong with the WIGO, but because it linked me to this: "Ideally if we could viral the language enough." Verbing weirds language. --4perf 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks nounverbs are doubleplusungood. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes ftw!-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the C&H reference! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not used to seeing Andy act as the voice of moderation. This memeshock guy is just plain creepy. Corry 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Raatz the figurative Abyss staring back into Andy? Also, best use of 1984 quote in a WIGO. ENorman 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn brilliant. Best written WIGO I've seen. 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these Memeshock guys affiliated with neo-Nazis? I'm sort of thinking they are. DickTurpis 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, the far more mundane ideology that begins with "neo" -well that combined with some ideas on how to use left-wing tactics in reverse. -----Johanan Raatz, MemeShock director

I never in my life thought I'd actually see someone who read 1984 and went, "there are some great ideas here!" Wow. I feel like I've seen everything now. Fedhaji (Talk) 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)