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

The most logical book, etc...

Don't know if anyone has been following this and its talk page. It's basically standard-issue Andy, but might develop into something interesting. Johann (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is hilarious. Classic, classic Andy. And probably a few more lines for the Quote Generator.... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My favorite part is near the end of the talk page: "The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion." Maybe if he actually read and understood the essay, he would realize that that assumption is THE POINT BEING CONTENDED. -- JArneal 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work indeed. Has anyone else noticed that Andy has his own version of on-line spluttering? Whenever he's really wound up, his writing becomes full of grammatical errors, missing words, etc. I also love how he calls the individual pages of his blog "entries". ħuman 00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Most excellent. Andy moved it to cp:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity to reduce offense to the laud on his blog. ħuman 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how it's developing! Andy: "Ur doing it wrong." Eoinc: "Tell me where I'm wrong." Andy: "Ur still doing it wrong." Eoinc: "Please tell me where I'm wrong." Andy: "You're...doing all of it wrong! Yeah! That's it!"-- JArneal 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He really is a spoiled child, isn't he? The fact that he expects to be taken seriously through this is unbelievable. --Kels (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I love it. Andy refuses to have an argument unless it begins with everyone assuming that he is right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he didn't win the arguments if the premise does not include "Andy is correct," such as the case he had when he worked for AT&T. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy knows what the point of contention is, he is demanding that the contention be dropped because he thinks it is DELIBERATE AND PHONY LIBERAL PEDANTRY MEANT ONLY TO UNDERMINE JESUS and is not in any way a genuine statement. His thought process is 1. My beliefs are derived from the Bible and therefore the infallible truth of God resides in them 2. Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with God and is a liberal/heretic 3. Liberals/heretics are defined as the antipode of conservative/Christian and so they are associated with the opposite of divine truth, the devilish Lie 4. Everything Liberals/heretics say is purely malicious and meant to lead the flock away from God and his representatives on Earth (Conservatives/Christians) 5. Therefore I should not entertain this lie, which is purely destructive and by definition has no insight to offer. He is not irrational, he is in fact quite logical. The problem is the narrowness of his perspective, namely that he admits no evidence other than that which meets his existing conditions and is unwilling to synthesize his own view with those opposed to it. Of course, I am sure I am preaching to the choir here!99.225.14.16 (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy was asked several times to clarify what Christian teaching really is, and each time he ignored the question or went off on a tangent. Which makes me wonder, how much of an asshole does he have to be? This goes beyond ordinary question-dodging. What if Eoinc died suddenly, having been an atheist because he had been taught an incorrect form of Christianity? And what if Andy could have set the record straight? Would that weigh on his conscience, I wonder? Johann (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy doesn't need to clarify. He knows the Truth, and anyone who questions him is ignorant and doesn't merit a response. Of course, every person ignorant of the Bible is a liberal who refuses to be openminded to Christ Jesus THE LORD and so is doubly unworthy of explanation. If someone dies and is not a proper Christian, Andy would say good riddance. He would never admit that his teaching is wrong, because all wrong beliefs are deviations from the Truth in his beliefs. 70.53.42.189 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to burn a sock and grill assfly on all the Biblical contradictions that, by definition, can't be logical. He's so perverted the meaning of the word "logic," one can't argue with the guy. In assfly logic, validity plays no part. Cgb07307 (talk)

If we accept that the universe can be comprehended through logic, then we need to accept that all things in the universe are inherently logical. It is a fool's errand to try to prove to Andy, who is ignorant of rationalist doctrines, that he is irrational. His beliefs are logical enough for him, and no attack from someone with superior logical skills will ever unseat him. Any attack must come from a different direction, so don't waste that sock until you know what to do.70.53.42.189 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chess and the Best of the Public

Andy explains. Kasparov would not be playing against 100 people. That would be silly! No, he would be playing against 100 opponents, each of them representing 'the best of the public' i.e something like 100 people concerting among themselves (and then someone qualified, like Andy, would discards their results and do whatever he likes, in true CP style -well with CP it would be two parodists trying to convince him that the bishops are invincible cuz' they have faith). Kasparov would essentially be playing against the brain power of 10 000 individuals, and unfortunately for Andy, would almost certainly still win all the matches (don't forget we are talking about the public...none of them should be a so-called 'expert', grand master, or -gasp- professor). But don't worry, Andy! I am sure we can extend the analogy: Kasparov should play blind-folded and drunk, against 10 000 people, in a game of chess Chess Boxing! That will show liberals the power of the Best of the Public. Next week in 'Andy day-dreams', we shall see who would win: Christian laser-toothed sharks or Muslim ninja grizzlies! Stay tuned! --Ireon (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit like taking a large group of babies and assuming that their combined abilities would equal those of a fully-grown man. I question Andy's engineering prowess if he seriously thinks that increased manpower would consistently achieve positive results. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys! All the best ideas come from a committee! DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's do it. Voting buttons on the page, tactical and strategic discussions on the talk page. Someone can sock-up and post our moves on Andy's talk page. Ken can "shout out" the best of the public's moves. E4 anyone? Toffeeman (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the idea, in a way, but it won't work for obvious reasons. Too bad. DickTurpis (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Challenge established. Discuss and participate. Plus it'll be for a worthy cause. I'll even purchase one of the chess sets right up front! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

2 problems: 1) Andy will not acknowledge our existence, much less play chess with us. 2) discussing strategies in an open forum lets out opponents know what we're doing. Other than that, I'm game. DickTurpis (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Andy won't acknowledge us, and that discussion of the challenge will likely meet with memory-holing and banhammering the post and individual. That's the point. Someone offers a way for Andy to test his idea, and Andy will just move on without ever being held accountable. He'll be predictable. In a few weeks he'll get a new quote and forget his whole "best of the public" rant he makes. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And if the game does go through, it's win-win for rationwiki: RW wins, Andy throws a hissy-fit and backpedals all the way to his bible shitheap; CP wins, and Andy goes on a splurge of smug-induced "best of the public" crazy. Lulz all round. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone burn a sock and tell Andy? If not, I'll email him. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy cannot bring himself to acknowledge us. He's too big of a man to admit to reading our CP blog. We are liberal scum unworthy of his time or efforts, even though you know that self-obsessed prick reads this shit. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does any of us have affiliations with a chess wiki (create one, perhaps?) that can thus *legitimately* challenge Andy on their behalf? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In which Andy makes it a little more clear what he's talking about, but remains an idiot

So Andy's explained his public v. experts treatise, and some of what he's saying actually makes some sense. He's talking about talent vs. credentials, and it is certainly true that there are a lot of talented people out there, in certain fields, who do not have credentials, and a bunch of people with credentials but who are still incompetent idiots. Ironically, Andy belongs in the latter group. Certainly Andy's 2 degrees "entailed years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits." And his sinecure with AAPS is certainly a political appointment, not based on talent in the least. The Olympics are still an awful example, because training for the Olympics always involves specialized training (usually lasting longer and starting earlier, and at the expense of almost everything else), as well as credentials, and, for many sports, subject to a panel of experts who decide who's the best. If Andy had said from the beginning that there are many people who are just as talented and able as many credentialed "experts" in numerous fields, an left the "they're all conservatives kept down by the liberals" bit, he may have made a half decent point. Of course, finding them is the hard part, which is usually why credentials exist. To Andy, of course, people editing Conservapedia are de facto the best of the public. But, again, his a fucking idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The more honest the process for getting credentials, the less people with the requisite talents will not be able to become credentialed. I think the credentialing process is much more honest today than it has been in the past. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There are credentials, and there are "credentials." Big differences among Airline Transport Pilot papers refreshed every six months, LICSW credentials, and ordination in the Universal Life Church. Of those three, the ATP is the only one I would trust without getting to know the individual a lot better. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing has basically come from Andy making a throwaway, soundbyte comment in an interview with some newspaper that he thought would sound cool, and now he's been backed into a corner and is having to justify what he said. He *could* have gone the sensible route and claimed that "the best of the public" are the best way to write an encyclopedia. In a way, that'd be right; it's why wikipedia is such a great source of information. It has hundreds and thousands of people all going out and collecting data on a subject from a huge array of sources, and then sorting and sifting through them to come to a consensus, which is far better than a single person ("expert" or not) or a small panel of people doing the same thing. That would have been a sensible, easily explainable and defensible position to take. But no. Andy being Andy, he has this "everything I say is 100% applicable to everything" so he's trying to apply his line to everything possible, and he's sounding like a god damn retard while doing it. X Stickman (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just Andy being Andy. When he gets hold of an idea, he won't let go of it until he finds a new one. EddyP (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Uncle Ed's in the brouhaha: You're a maverick if you disagree with experts, even if you're an expert yourself. We're going to need a Reality - Conservapedia translation dictionary at this rate. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They seem to have trouble differentiating between people whom they admit are actually experts and people who they believe are merely celebrities posing as experts. This allows the definition to be fluid and interchangeable to suit their purposes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed's example is ill-chosen. Feynman wasn't involved in the Challenger disaster until the very public post-mortem. It was the real experts who were ignored by the project managers ("What, you don't want us to launch til April!!?!?!!") on that one. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more, in my opinion, it's a bad example because Feynman was brought in precisely because he was an expert. He was hugey respected as a scientist, and was well known for problem-solving and creative approaches to difficult issues. He wasn't just some bloke off the street for god's sake, he was one of the greatest scientists of his time, possibly ever. Also a suspected Communist sympathiser and general liberal no-good hippie, so Ed better choose his heroes carefully. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

With the smarts, the presence of mind, and the gleeful inclination to puncture ill-informed windbags, Feynman was a true hero. All that, and a Nobel prize...

More careful reading of Ed's sycophancy shows that he claims the govmint coverup artists were the "experts" in that situation. Rubbish. Further, he seems to think that Feynman "deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked" when everyone with open eyes and ears already knew that. A lot of Feynman's "expertise" for the Rogers Commission had to do with finding a glass of ice water while the cameras were on, and demonstrating how those O-rings responded to cold. That kind of practical ability, and I'll say it again, presence of mind, gets my respect every time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wow. Apparently now Galileo's contributions were not substantial. Jerry 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I learned something new today

I keep gaining new insights from CP, although, naturally never the ones that Andy intends.

One of the ideas behind CP that I actually think is good is that Andy openly admits that he writes from a conservative viewpoint, which argually is better than, for example, having a liberal bias but deny it.

However, Ed's edit comment - "I'm biased, because he's Jewish" - made me think twice about that. He could just as well have said "I'm biased because he's male" or whatever. The point is that whenever you realize that you're biased, you should straighten your bias out the best you can before stating your opinion. In the end, you should have formed an opinion that you, yourself, believe to be unbiased. If somebody - rightfully - criticizes you of being biased anyway, you correct yourself and change your opinion. Which of course is the opposite of the Andy way; pull something out of your ass and then insist it's true whatever people say.

What I am getting at is some kind of open question - what do people think about this? Is it better to be open about your bias, or should you try to incorporate different points of view until you believe you are unbiased? Etc 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the context. If you are a scientist or a police officer or a judge or a civil servant, you have to make all efforts to be unbiased about your work. On a Wiki, I think one should be open about one's bias and just try to avoid unnecessary editorializing. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course ... not really sure what my original point was. Etc 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Feynman was Jewish in 'name' only. He was completely a-religious. Well done Ed. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like a WIGO:

Press the red arrow. Don't remove it. Coarb (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A WIGO can be commented out if it makes us look like fools. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes us look like fools, but it's not a great WIGO. The term "Jewish" is quite vague, and there's no reason why moonies and atheists can't be described as being jewish. It'd be a different matter if there was an allusion to Judaism. By the way, thanks for the correction on the Chick article thing. I read too many Christian views, and I end-up getting a bit muddled. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That can be a confusing point, because Protestants have sola fide and Catholics put more emphasis on good works as a part of the equation. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sane people do not use "Jewish" to describe people who are practicing Christians.

Regardless, it's bonkers to go around removing WIGOs you disagree with. It doesn't make us look foolish if it has a score of -10. Furthermore, it's not standard practice, as anyone can see from the multitude of negatively-scored WIGOs every week. Coarb (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of those WIGOs are only ill thought of, and not factually inaccurate. A person born to a Jewish mother is still Jewish even if they convert to another religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal is rare, but it does happen. Personally I only remove stuff that is totally inaccurate, but I think ListenerX does have a point. Besides, Ed's foot is never far from his mouth. There'll be other chances to get him in a WIGO. By the way, yeah, my background is Catholic, so that's probably where the works and sacraments come in to the question. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the most common definition. Most commonly, being "Jewish" means "practicing Judaism, or at least not practicing any other religion".

In fact, even though Jewish-born Christians are, by Jewish law, still Jews, Jews do not call those people Jewish. Even Jews who believe in that absurd law do not call those people Jewish. Coarb (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Once you quit expounding for us your personal differences with Jewish law, perhaps you should read about why the term "non-observant Jew" is used at all. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's used for Jews who believe in Judaism but don't do the rituals, or Jews who don't believe or practice, but never, in my experience, is it used to describe Christians. Is your experience different? Coarb (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the extent of my "expounding" is the word "absurd". Minus that word, there is simply no expounding on how I feel about Jewish law. That's pretty succinct for "expounding".

I do express how I think the word "Jewish" is used by the public at large. I'm not saying that's what the word ought to mean. My claim is that words mean what people use them to mean. My judgment on what "Jewish" means is based on my experience hearing or reading its uses. Coarb (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It was meant to illustrate your continual disregard for the fact that there is an ethnic component to the concept of being "Jewish." Among the more liberal denominations, the concept of matrilineality has been scrapped in favor of the policy that if either parent is Jewish, so is the child. Many Jewish communities do not accept conversion, and for those that do, conversion is essentially a process of cultural assimilation.

I am not a descriptive grammarian. It does not change the meaning of the word if people have been touchy in the last 65 years about mentioning the ethnic component of Jewish identity. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that if it really were just you and Ed Poor left in the world who used the word "Jewish" to apply to Christians with Jewish mothers, you two would be the only correct ones, and the WIGO should be removed? I must be misunderstanding you. Do you really think words mean what they meant 65 years ago, regardless of the way they are used? Coarb (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Being a “Jew” has more than a religious connotation—it is, for better or worse, an “ethnic” identity that trascends personal belief, mostly thanks to the weirdo racial thinking of the late nineteenth and first part of the twentieth centuries. Don’t forget, in the eyes of the Nazis, a Jew was a Jews was a Jew, and there was no way you could convert or disbelieve your way out of your “race.” The way that played out has had lasting effects in the way Jews have continued to see themselves and be seen by others. There’s no real contradiction between calling yourself a Jew and a Moonie, ir even a Jew (as an “ethnicity”) and a Christian, in a world that saw—and in many ways continues—to divide people up by arbitrary, socially-constructed racial categories. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a historically, religiously, and culturally valid point, but a linguistically inaccurate one. Have you heard anyone in the last 50 years refer to someone who practices Christianity as "Jewish"? Do you think words are not defined by their use? If so, I am surprised to find myself in the minority on this issue. Coarb (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Linus. Q.E.D. Professor Moriarty 21:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coarb, I have heard literally dozens of people describe themselves as "ethnically" Jewish but religiously "X". TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they say "ethnically Jewish", but that's not saying "Jewish". If it meant the same thing, people would occasionally drop the adverb, right? Do they ever, in your experience? Furthermore, people who do not share a gene pool or home life commonly found in Jewish families do not restrict their language to calling themselves just "religiously Jewish", right? They just call themselves "Jewish". I think this highlights an important distinction in the way these words are used. Coarb (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coarb, Ed is allowed to think of himself as "Jewish," and a "Moonie." Categories like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion are historically and culturally contingent; they are social constructions and people navigate and negotiate their way through them in very fluid ways. Not a problem. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't WIGO it because I think it's "a problem". I made a WIGO because I thought it was funny. Coarb (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In my simple little world, adherents to Judaism are called Jews and the ethnic group that developed the religion are called Hebrews. ħuman 21:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But "Jewish" isn't a true ethnicity. Before Nazism, Jews were not considered an ethnicity—the Nazis pulled that idea out of their ass. In fact, because it wasn't a real ethnicity, they could only determine that a Jewish ethnicity was defined by a lack of other ethnic characteristics. Jews today accept the whole "Judaism as ethnicity" concept only because Zionism radically redefined what it meant to be a Jew, in order to support the existence of an exclusively Jewish state (Israel).

Even if you accept that Judaism is ethnicity—which one are you going by? The Sephardim (Spanish/Mediterranean-descended Jews)? The Mizrachim (native Middle Eastern Jews)? Or maybe the Ashkenazim (the "stereotypical" Jew)? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know a Jew when I see one. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quasi-racist aside, "Poor" has got to be the least jewish name EVER. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Seriously though, this growing debate is proof alone that the term "Jewish" has more than one meaning. The ethnicity thing was around before the Nazis what with Jews tracing their heritage back through the original tribes, and Jews themselves are divided as to what constitutes a Jew? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"But "Jewish" isn't a true ethnicity." RA, there's no such a thing as a "true" ethnicity. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is an "Irish" ethnicity, which I find rather odd... Professor Moriarty 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a recent court case in the UK which hinged on the defining of Jewishness. Basically a Jewish school was deemed to have discriminated against non-ethnic Jews in its admissions policy. Personally I think it's a mine-field because the religion is so tied up with the cultural identity and people should be very careful of levelling accusations of racism where it is a case of trying to untangle the two. There was also an article in the Grauniad about a week ago, which discussed how the writer's wife was Jew-ish but not Jewish. Additionally there was this piece about celebrating a kosher Christmas. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Before Nazism, Jews were not considered an ethnicity—the Nazis pulled that idea out of their ass." What the Nazis plucked out of the air was a pseudoscientific theory that the Jews constituted a race of their own, hence the paranoia about "purity of blood," etc., etc. Now, for fear of being construed as saying this, people tend to soft-pedal the fact that the old Jewish law contains ethnic criteria for "who is a Jew" and that Jews indeed have a separate culture, having been culturally segregated for centuries, speaking their own languages and otherwise maintaining their own culture, often resisting cultural assimilation when emancipated, etc. The issue of culture and religion among the Jews can be confusing for many people because, not being familiar themselves with ethnic religion, cannot easily get their heads around the idea of a close bond between religion and secular culture.

"Categories like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion are historically and culturally contingent; they are social constructions..." As to the latter, Orthodox Jews would disagree, holding that instead of being a Social Construct as the Reds say, their religion was made by God as the Bible says.

As to the apparent re-insertion of the WIGO, note again the term "non-observant Jew." Even if it is agreed that Christian converts are no longer Jews, that does not apply to atheists. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine told me once that all those laws about not mixing fabrics, planting different crops, and similar were references to not mixing Jewish blood with other sorts. So a lot of allegorical references to ethnic purity. Makes sense, although I don't know if it's correct or not. --Kels (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

BotP (Part 97)

"...the Tour de France. Anyone can enter..."

No no no no no. The man is an idiot. He knows less about cycling than he does the Bible. Little Pierre can't just send in an entry form and race through the French countryside on his Schwinn against Lance and the rest. Le Tour is open only to professional teams. Professional. Teams. And the organizers don't just let any and every team race--they invite which teams they want (which are generally, but not necessarily the "best" teams). And not even the whole team races--just about a third of each team invited. Idiot. Blockhead. Dimwit. Dunce. Fool. Ignoramus. Imbecile. Moron. Muttonhead. Nincompoop. Ninny. Nitwit. Pinhead. Simpleton. Dumber than a bag of f***ing hammers.--WJThomas (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Damn, he is so desperate to defend his little slip of the tongue that he is pulling bullshit out of every orifice. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See above on my foiled plans to go compete in the skiing races in Vancouver next year. apparently "anybody can participate" in the Olympics. Apparently the Canadian national ski team was not aware of this development. Elitist bastards. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, (almost) anyone can travel to (Hence "The tour of") France, guess that might have been in some other context where it has the wrong capitalization. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They do open at least one stage to the general public, although they obviously don't race with the pro riders. A couple of friends of mine did a stage a few years ago - one of the mountain stages I think. Despite being keen cyclists, it just about killed them. User:Bondurant 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the image they are using to illustrate the BotP page. And who created it. And when. ħuman 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the whole BoP thing, and the fact that CP is the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia, I found their disclaimer^img worth a laugh. "Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate" (repeated twice, I see); "in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk" I know it's all legalese, but it does cast some aspersions on the whole "trustworthy" thing.

Surely that should be Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone from the public to ensure that it is accurate ?? Worm^{(t | c)} 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What's this ominous hissing sound? Oh, hi, TK!

This can only end in tears. (Most captureworthy diff so far: here^img) --Sid (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When someone trying to be the best of the public meets a Conservapedia expert sysop, it's never going to end well. --SpinyNorman (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Sid, don't imply that everyone's outcome will mimic your own. I thought I was most respectful and nice in my response. Perhaps you are sounding more bitter than you did years ago because of that sad socialist state you live in! Maybe its just the snowstorm? :D (j/k) XXOO - --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG! He speaks! He even X'd and O'd Sid! <333333 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kelsi! You really should try to let go of things from years ago. Really. But Merry Christmas to you anyway! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 02:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For those of you with more experience with TK... I noticed a link on his Talk page about a "Conservapedia Discussion Group". I know there was an official one back in the day that he showed to everybody but is this the same one? I ask because I can't find any reference to a Discussion Group on CP and my paranoid mind went immediately to a trap specifically set for users of RW who then proceed to tell the admin on the discussion group exactly who they are over there. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It lives! This should be fun. Whoever woke him up by editing his talk page, have half a mug of stale beer on me. ħuman 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but that isn't really TK, is it? Keegscee (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the block log referenced in our own article on him, it is. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It is TK. He whined about Trent blocking his account somehow, but the truth is that he simply forgot his password. I reset his password and sent it to the email address on his CP userpage. -- Nx / talk 09:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What have you done?! Professor Moriarty 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DerekE... Appealing to "the community"? What community? The only people who watch recent changes are sysops and parodists, and both of them think headlining Climategate with a pic of Al Gore is dandy. We are not a mobocracy Only sysops can edit and you should know that by now. Merry Christmas! Fuck you! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nx, shame on you for being a liar. Trent admitted here to making a 404 block. Perhaps you don't recall his post? And even Trent fudged the time he had it in place. Since that time, I tried to logon many times, to answer questions of users here who evidently didn't know I couldn't just use the email link. And no, I use Norton Password Safe, and it didn't "forget" my password. Now someone nudge the witch, and have it put up another troll banner because I answered a blatant lie fabricated by a Nx. Ta! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 09:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The 404 thing was for a very short time (as in a few hours)
2. Your account was working.
3. You had an email address set, it was tfk92270@hotmail.com, which is yours: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1^img
4. I do not know what the password was or if someone changed it, but with the above email account you could've reset it.

-- Nx / talk 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, from the person who asked you, Nx, I tried many times to reset it, and it never happened. I don't care how or why, it just didn't happen. You reset the email address, as I did get an email at my AOL address, and that did issue a temp password, and I could then log in.

So please tell me, Nx, how are you not a liar when you stated "He whined about Trent blocking his account somehow, but the truth is that he simply forgot his password. I reset his password and sent it to the email address on his CP userpage." Now you post again, suddenly knowing of the 404 block, which you omitted before, and also omit the fact that not only did you change the password but also the email address I had used here since the place opened. Why was it important for you to post here and claim I had forgotten my password and try to pass over the 404 block? What is your motive? And what was my motive for lying about not being able to get in? Why would I have been emailing several Admins for over a year about it? Why would I have gone to the trouble to try and answer users questions by putting them on my CP page? Finally, why can't you just stop trying to stir trouble? I thanked you in the edit comment on my user page, never raised a stink about the problem, and was, I think, very nice to those posting on my talk page. Are things that bad that you think you need to stir the pot about me to get interest in this wiki? I did notice Colbert isn't beating the door here to talk about RW. And the 404 block lasted several days, and I have emails to/from Bureaucrats back at the time, where they didn't have a clue as to what had happened, and from another, now departed one who did. Unless you have first-hand knowledge back at that time, there is no way for you to know.

The truth is, Nx, that you don't know why I couldn't get in (unless you helped someone alter the DB to effect that) anymore than I do. Why was it necessary to post an explanation that was indeed a lie, since you never asked me if I lost my password, nor explored the problems I was having until another administrator asked you to? Now can you at least admit you had no real proof of what you stated as a fact, and let this go? What's the point? Is that part of your liberal tolerance showing? --TK_/MyTalkEditor 10:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh hello Terry sweetheart. Does this mean we can now sit back and watch you block yourself for being a member of a "vandal" site? Or does CP's block reason refer to another site? Or are you just a hypocrite? PS Your 404 block was a pathetic excuse, seeing as how you were commenting on things being said on TWIGO at the same time as you were whining about being 404 blocked. It was fun to watch though. --PsygremlinSnakk! 10:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I changed your password after you said you cannot log in. I had to break into your account to be able to change the email address. (well, no that's not entirely true, but it's easier that way). I changed the email address because you were unable to reset the password with the old one (maybe you forgot the password to that one too?)
• The 404 block was a long time ago, and is no longer in effect anyway, so that was not preventing you from logging in. It is completely irrelevant. That's why I did not mention it. I seem to remember Trent saying that it was a few hours, but I can't be bothered to find that and if it was a few days instead of a few hours, so what? It's irrelevant now.
• You claimed that Trent inactivated the account from the database. This is not true, as I was able to log in once I changed the password. At that point your hotmail address was set and verified and the password reset function worked.
• I do not know how many admins you emailed, and I do not care. You could've asked on my talk page and I would've gladly reset your password after you verified your identity.
• I am not the one stirring trouble.
• I thought you didn't post here because that would mean you'd have to block yourself at CP for being a member of a vandal/parodist site. -- Nx / talk 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

TK, logic does not require such verbosity. I've skimmed your rant but found little substance. You have free will to deny the truth, but if you were right you would be able to express yourself in far fewer words. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 11:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha, Terry, you idiot, you really picked he wrong guy to try to tilt windmills against this time. Nx is probably the most admired and respected contributor to this site, tying in general with Trent (mostly because Trent is away so much, so not all people know who he is). Nice way to introduce yourself to the more recent editors here. ħuman 05:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Moar Relativity

[1] andy claims that the results are so off now that a bullshit term had to be added to rig the data, but in fact, if you read the paper [2], measurements have become so precise that they now have to account for the fact that the object in question is accelerating with respect to the sun. 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, a classic Andy Rant: People apparently got the Nobel Prize only because the committee only read the abstract but not the full paper, and experimental physics are apparently wrong unless they have 0% error? Oh, and no news means no news that the scientific community is withholding the damning truth from the best of the public. Excellent. --Sid (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but this page was retouched today. "Grade inflation is the term used to describe the increasingly lenient marking of student examinations to compensate for the falling standards of public/state education brought about by liberal educational schemes. For example, eight out of ten Harvard students graduate with honors and almost half get A's in their courses. One professor admitted that he gave no student a grade lower than B, and that if he did, his teaching career would suffer because no student would want to take his class." How many more times does Andy have to illustrate that what he does is liberal before his flock calls him on his liberalism? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange thought...

Given how awful, non-poetic and far-fetched the CBP has been, I had a strange thought. If this were the Bible that the church used back in the 4th and 5th centuries to try to win followers, the religion would never had gone far. There is a beauty to any translation of a book of mysticism and hope; to muddle it so that cranks and morons can understand it makes it lose all its charm. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that he's making it easier to read, mainly in the sense that it's becoming more palatable to a specific school of fundies. There is value in modern translation of archaic texts, but personally I prefer having the original text with added commentary. Let's hope Andy stays away from Shakespeare. "I pray thee, do not mock me, fellow-student" could end up as "I do not accept liberal name-calling. We are here to learn. Godspeed, Horatio." --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would pay money for a copy of Hamlet in the original Schlafly. --Phentari (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Then don't forget Fun:Conservative_Shakespeare_Project! --Retwa (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet baby zeus. Poe's law strikes again. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course I didn't notice it was on RW. Silly me. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bad morning but the authors of the Conservative Shakespeare Project have made me smile - no, laugh hilariously - again. Well done. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubly dubious

I thought that Andy was only putting the Bible in his own words from the insane slant of conservatism. I didn't realize he is starting with a list of words to be sure to use. "If it's there, we might write it down. If it's not there, write it anyways."^{— Unsigned, by: Cgb07305 / talk / contribs}

Welcome to Andy's thought processes - "I have this assumption, now let me mould some random data to fit the assumption, now let me apply this assumption - which has now become a CAST-IN-STONE-INSIGHT ^TM - to everything in sight, until my ADD kicks in and I find something else to screw up. --PsygremlinSiarad! 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even seem like he's doing that anymore...he's just making shit up. I speak Hebrew and a bit of Greek and am utterly dumbfounded by some of these "translations" of his. As anyone with with the basics of these languages would be. Cgb07307 (talk)

Point, but I think this is more about the larger image. In this case, the CBP was based on various "insights", some of which are connected. The "Word Analysis" is one part, and others I can remember would be the "Disputed Bible Translations" and "Best New Conservative Words" (which was in turn part of his language hard-on that also included various articles). --Sid (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Triply so

I love how the KJV is right there on every page... because none of the translators need the original text... because none of them can read it. Someone should burn a sock just to ask Andy to put "the original Greek" on the left hand side. You know, to make it easier to create a faithful translation. Then pick a random Greek string from the NT and ask him how he'd translate it... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what happened with the first Bible Retranslation Project: Andy got the awesome idea to translate the original texts... and then pretty much relied on everybody else to do the work. I didn't really follow that trainwreck too closely, but I think just ONE (non-sysop, non-block) user volunteered with actual knowledge. Dunno what happened to him/her, but the project quickly ground to a halt. So... yeah. --Sid (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

But it makes him feel so clean when he starts his day with a little Bible Desecration Project editing. And ending it the same way. With a few blocks (they make me feel so good!) along the way. ħuman 02:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz makes another unperson

Gee, Terry Koeckritz, no power in your real life? Memory holing someone just for disagreeing with you? And you guys wonder why you have so few contributors who aren't parodists and vandals? Here's a hint: you get rid of people who want to help but don't worship you. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for that for days. DerekE was far too valuable a contributor to be allowed to stay. EddyP (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

But looking over his talk page, he may have been a parodist. But that would beg the question of why he got into a fight with TK, rule one of parody being don't conflict with TK. EddyP (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he was dead the moment he reverted TK. And going by the hammering log he apparently asked another sysop to help/mediate, which is pretty much like lighting "KILL ME!" flares. --Sid (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

But what you all forget is that TK is really a fair and merciful person, not some kind of horrible internet monster, so DerekE is back. Broccoli (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he is a generous god. I enjoyed his comment on unblocking Cambrian: "Second chances are important in life, especially for students". Heartwarming. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Karjoujoujoujou's new toon

What on earth has environmental protection got to do with communism? Of all the pathetically weak non-connections CP try to make between things, this is the weakest. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Karajou's toons are usually even more far-out than the rest of the main page (yes, including Ken's occasional shout-outs to Dawkins and the "news" section). He's pretty much doing his own thing. --Sid (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how Venezuela and Cuba were among the 5 nations preventing any sort of deal in Kopenhagen. Communism=Environmentalism indeed. Internetmoniker (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ECx2Personally I think that the problem with the toons is not his ideas so much as the fact that he spells out absolutely everything for the reader. The best cartoonists hint at what they are getting at through symbols and obvious caricatures, not with names and by spelling out exactly what the joke is supposed to be. IMHO Karajou would do better if he learnt some subtlety. --Damo^Hi 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 3, getting a bit annoyed) I think it's a combination of "working for the common good instead if profits is communism" and "communism is a scary word, so I'll connect it to something I don't like to make it look bad". Logic that would embarrass a five year old, but it's the Koward. Par for the course. --Kels (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like World War II era propaganda, but modern and created by a guy who feels awkward in the company of anything with a pulse. Strawman ftw--^{Ask me about your mother} 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In defence of the Karajou, the strongest calls for environmental protectionism tend to come from the left and in particular the extreme left. I don't find this cartoon to be so outrageous. --Damo^Hi 23:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In defence of Karajou, he's probably not being paid to produce these things. Yeah the left traditionally lean towards environmentalism, but he's approaching it with the subtlety of a drunken hammer wielding estranged husband banging on his wife's door at 2am. Besides, equating left-wing environmentalism to communism is Godwin's law in reverse. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Doh, well of course the 'left' are the ones most likely to protest against environmental controls. The 'right' are the ones saying fuck 'em we just want to make lots of money for ourselves and don't give a shit about the planet. The rich right are the ones who can move to higher ground in their fortified mansions while the poor plebs get driven out of their homes by the rising waters. I know many on the right talk about enlightened self-interest but it doesn't seem to cross the minds of many that by taking a modicum of care about the fate and disposition of the plebs ultimately means not having to lock yourself away in your own gated community. Not being too greedy is actually the more sensible position to take.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a Jfraatz meme? "Watermelons: People who use environmental issues to support wealth redistribution and hurt rich countries. (red on the inside, green on the outside)" MWAHAHAHAHA ITS WORKING JOHANAN! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a group of more radical environmentalists (e.g., green anarchists) who explicitly mix up environmentalism with left-wing political ideas. Many environmentalists also have the unfortunate tendency to turn environmental activism into a moral crusade, going not against harm to the environment in general, but against the large companies and "capitalist" government who are responsible for some of the harm. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, you are tiresome. Damn reds ruining everything! And they are so obviously wrong in every way. ħuman 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me. Did I mention communism? I have said this once before, I think, but Reds are too obsessed with class divisions and (if in power) industrial megalomania to give a hoot about the environment. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All the reds I know are seriously obsessed with environmental quality. You are too obsessed with Reds to have any clue about reality, in my opinion. ħuman 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it came down to a question of helping the environment vs. not taking the side of capitalist powers, most communists would pick the latter. As evidence of this, the Soviet and Chinese Communist parties have always emphasized "socialist" industrial development, the dickens with the environmental consequences. For example, the Soviets' Virgin Lands Campaign and China's Great Leap Forward both made colossal environmental messes, and the Three Gorges Dam is also raising issues in that area. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course, Western Capitalism has always put the environment ahead of profit. LX, you are such a fucking idiot sometimes. ħuman 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not denying that the First World has its environmental problems, but at least our governments give freedom of speech, which has enabled environmentalists to speak out about the problem and a great many reforms to be enacted, which was not done in the Second World. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really had me until you said "our governments give freedom of speech". Read much 18th century political philosophy much? The point you were trying to make is "our governments don't limit freedom of speech". The day my government "gives" me freedom of speech is the day I don't have it. Or will have to come steal your handgun to defend it against a 60 ton tank. ħuman 05:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not hold with the idea of "God-given rights." What we have are chartered rights. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that industrializing nations pollute a lot because they are socialist industrializing nations sounds like a real Andy Insight™. Obviously if only China were capitalist it would have been able to build a modern economy out of Yankee ingenuity and rainbows. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way China managed to build any economy at all was by switching from a command economy to market-socialism. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you look at that? Ya'll make fun of poor Kara's Kartoons, and yet they lead to such deep and passionate discussion, which is exactly what editorial cartooning should do.--WJThomas (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty ironic, especially given that he intended it to be blatant propaganda rather than thought-provoking cartooning. 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to say the same thing in a slightly more subtle way. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say I like

Our new reptilian overlords usage of the multistage WIGO recently. I really like it when they tell a story, using a half dozen difflinks or ELs, and piece together the whole thread. Such is the work of an exemplary WIGO, in my opinion. Sid would be proud. ħuman 05:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is nice. Saves having to manually go through the edits to see the finale. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? I find them long winded and annoying with little wit by the writer. I especially hate the ones that are about 1000 characters and with only one link. If I get bored reading it, I vote it down. - π 06:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just showed Mrs Practice the Colbert interview....

...and she said, and I quote.: "I hope you're pleased with yourself. You and your little internet friends are picking on someone who obviously has some mental health problems." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it that obvious, or does she have some training in psychology? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We are picking on him?--Thanatos (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

no training, it's that obvious, yes we are. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's schadenfreude. He believes he's right, when all other evidence shows he's wrong. If he won't get help, and his family won't get him help, why not enjoy the hilarity that ensues online? It's not like any of us are forcing him to be a moron on a television interview or keep running a site full of lulz. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "your little internet friends" includes the parodists on CP, who may be forcing Andy to become the moron that he is today. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ToP, have you shown your missus The Ken DeMyer Anthology or The Wit and Wisdom of Ed Poor? 17:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm imagining Ken doing an interview blacked out in silhouette with voice changing applied. Just to maintain his (im)plausible deniability as to his/her identity. --Kels (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've often had the same thoughts as Mrs. Practice: that maybe we should leave him alone. But then we have similarly mentally-challenged people trying to run the world. "Sarah Palin" springs to mind, as does "Nick Griffin". Andy is a good study into a terrible phenomenon: the idiot taking themselves seriously and being taken seriously. FFS people are dead because of George W. Bush.Toffeeman (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Double FFS: Andy made us think that Philip J. Rayment was rational!Toffeeman (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that Mrs. Practice refers to us as "your little internet friends". And, yeah, Andy should really have stopped off at a barber on his way to the TV studio from the hospital. ħuman 22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, I never thought PJR was rational. Just polite. --Kels (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always said that I will leave that man alone when he stops being responsible for young minds. I agree with Practice's 'Er Indoors that Andy's not quite right and could use some help, but the parents of the children he 'educates' have a right to know either that, or that he doesn't provide a very good education, to say the least of it. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this interview online anywhere other than the Colbert website? You can't view it on the site from in the UK, probably not from anywhere outside the States. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think crazy people should be left alone, I have a Youtube video for you! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use?

I know that's the handy catch-all for the CP goons, but somehow I think Disney^img might have a differing view on the whole 'fair use' thing. --PsygremlinPraat! 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OH boy. TK is playing with fire now. The Disney Corporation is one of the most lawsuit-happy companies in the world. Disney sued a day care center because the kids painted a mural with Disney characters in it. I hope they come down on CP like a ton of bricks. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe in such a case it's justified. Trademarks (that's what this logo falls under I believe) exist not to promote creation of new works (the official justification for copyrights) but to make sure customers aren't confused and fooled. The logo is only used in the CP Disney article, where it illustrates the company. So, no problem there. I do remember Fair Use is only for copyright, so the formality of the justification is not enough. On a sidenote, Wikipedia uses the same logo [3], claiming no copyright but "with other restrictions" (trademarks I would guess). Pietrow (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. As far as the copyrights go, the logo is used in Conservapedia within the bounds of fair use - Conservapedia just don't take Wikipedia's approach of meticulously explaining why it qualifies as fair use in this particular instance. Disney doesn't like fair use, though, so anything could still happen, though it's a bit unlikely. What I find it more funny is that, based on the file name, the logo was obviously ripped off from some other mediawiki site. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't Disney cracked down on the use of 'Mickey Mouse operation' - ie something jerrybuilt?

Andy hates liberal dictionaries, but...

conservative, first definition: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." heresy, fourth definition: "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc." incoherent. None of those definitions fit the sentence. So the College Board's answer is correct, and Andy's is wrong. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course andy's wrong. He's always wrong.--WJThomas (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's become commonplace to see conservatives coopt the language of liberal activism (for example successfully using minority-rights arguments in church&state court cases to allow public displays) but claiming that the SAT is a plot by the (liberal) Man to keep conservatives down? That's hilarious. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, conservatism is not a religion." LOL. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just another step in Andy's war on words. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Lardashe

Note to Andy: if they want "incoherent" to be the answer (Yes, the method to make conventional multiple choice questions is starting from the answer) the sentence would have been formulated differently. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is semi-right. Multiple choice questions like this tend towards "do you think like the examiner?" "Incoherent" is just as good, if not better, an answer than "heretical". Are we to assume (the question gives no indication) that the co-workers are concerned that Joshua disagrees with them, that they are not worried about reason but just concerned to conform? Andy is wrong in thinking it particularly "liberal". Conservatives (which to Andy is the set of non-liberals)are just as likely to think what they are thinking is spectacularly obvious. The question is a bad question. Much like:

Which is the odd one out:

A The moon

B Pizza

C Pont L'Eveque cheese

D An apple

Toffeeman (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't a bad question, because it uses adjectives to help guide which other word would fit. The term "conservative" in the context of the sentence means "disposed to preserved conditions," and "radical" means "extreme change from the norm." Therefore, the only correct term is the one which fits those definitions, and that's heretical, not incoherent. Because Andy wants conservative to mean only what he wants it to mean doesn't discount that the English language and its lexicon existed long before he was a zygote in Mama Schlafly's womb. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he didn't even notice that by providing "meticulous", "precise", and "sagacious" as wrong answers (ie, being conservative traits), the question and answer set are actually putting being "conservative" in a good light! ħuman 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comrade Andy?

What is all this "best of the public" stuff. His campaign against experts reminds me more of something from North Korea or the Old Communist Bloc. He is getting very close to talking about the "proletariat"! ^{— Unsigned, by: BON / talk / contribs}

In short, the "best of the public" campaign is all about Andy trying to convince someone (himself?) that he and his little band of slow learners are just as likely to be right about a given topic as any group of so-called experts out there.

If you have a set of truly stupid views about the world, you will eventually look around and wonder why no knowledgeable person agrees with anything you are saying. Andy has done this and, instead of wondering whether his views are, in fact, stupid (which would require some insight as to his own stupidity) he has come up with the "best of the public" concept.

It is a masterstroke of stupid genius! It cements all of Andy's stupidities at one fell swoop. It justifies any stupid idea he has from now on because he is Conservapedia and Conservapedia is the best of the public. --Horace (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's defence, a program that chooses random numbers between 1 and 1,000,000 would at some point arrive at the answer to any mathematical problem with an answer falling within that range. The drawback to Andy's million monkeys approach is that there's no reliable arbiter of accuracy. The kids can (and do) at times get it right, but Andy is likely to dismiss anything that agrees with the "expert consensus". There's no point in having his little army of monkeys eventually arriving at the same conclusions experts would have reached in a fraction of the time. --^{Ask me about your mother} 07:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about this

http://www.conservapedia.com/Stephen_Coughlin^img Somebody seems to have an axe to grind. I wasn't aware that the Assyrians were such a put upon crew. Mick McT (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more about "Best of the Public"

Here's the funny thing: I doubt Andy would be going on a "BotP" binge if he didn't (accidently?) mention the phrase on Colbert. It seems like the article (and ensuing discussion) are nothing more than a huge rationalization on Andy's part. It's nothing more than an extension of his "I am never wrong" syndrome. The freaky thing, though, is that by now he has repeated it to himself so many times that he actually believes it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a train heading toward the bridge that was blown up weeks ago, with only mountains to the sides and a wide river in the valley below, and Andy is the engineer pushing the throttle thinking that it can jump the river if he says the train can. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But Andy's never wrong. He spends five percent of his time reading the most logical book in the world. TKEtoolshed (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why it needs rewriting! (Don't forget the countless hero cows the train has and will run over) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, this is another one of these bizarre moments when I try to agree with Andy but just can't do it.

What I mean is that in certain fields, especially music, arts and cinema, it is my opinion that many of the most interesting works come from amateurs rather than professionals. But Andy's over-protection and over-generalization of the concept, not to mention his incredibly stupid examples ... I just give up. I can't agree with this man. Etc 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Punk rock was all about three chords and the truth - the idea that passion, a desire to be heard, and a 'fuck the begrudgers' attitude was all you needed to write a great song changed everything in popular culture. Out went the dreadful, self-indulgent tired old musos who could play the shit out of a triple-necked Gibson in a half-hour guitar solo, but who had completely missed the wood for the trees when it came to the idea of writing a powerful, meaningful song. In came a yell, a thrashed-at crap guitar bought for twenty quid in the Oxfam shop, a haircut and a mighty fine three minute song like Teenage Kicks, played by people who had learnt to play their instruments last Tuesday. No-one in The Human League had ever actually learned to play the piano but still they came up with some of the most simple and sublime pop songs of the Eighties. Andy's right - the mere fact of expertise is not enough, it's all about inspiration. But his argument is so arse-about-face that it's simply impossible to agree with him. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy has a great point about the insights of nonexperts. The problem is, being Andy (that is, a pathologically obsessive absolutist), he has to figure out a tortured way to refine his definition so that it does not include any people or projects he dislikes. So Wikipedia which has a series of incredibly arcane protocols for resolving conflicts, is the "worst of the public"; whereas Conservapedia where 40%+ of the mainspace material is by editors who have now been blocked for parody or heresy, is the "best of the public." Since every insight explains everything and is never contradicted, it naturally follows that "Wikipedia has never helped a single student in any meaningful way." Nuance is for liberals! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Raw-assed, passionate punk rock and wikipedia, to me, would be the best two examples of the "best of the public". It's ironic that, really WP is the sublime perfect example of what people - just regular folks - can do given the right inspiration and software. For fuck's sake, the mediawiki software that it continually pushes to new heights makes insane places like RW possible. ħuman 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with Wodewick on this one. Andy is incapable of finding a middle ground, he has to take everything to extremes. I hope someone has the nerve to point out the WP analogy to him to see how he reacts. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of punk here, I think that the "self-indulgent" Rock was an echo of the Baroque period of music, and had it continued to develop, it would have become as timeless as Beethoven. Instead we are bombarded with "powerful, meaningful songs" that are neither powerful nor meaningful. In the words of A.J. Ayer, nothing is being said; punk rock is an exclamation with no content or meaning. I will take musicianship and craft over amateurism any day. 74.15.55.175 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(1^2) Andy provides a new definition: "John, an 'expert' is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be 'flashes of genius' too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic.' If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that." So if you lack the credentials, or you are not recognized by your peers, or you don't play by the rules, then you're not an expert. It doesn't matter the skills and experience you have, just whether or not you're positively political.
I'll just point out that Andy has fully admitted he's not an expert in anything. Remind him of this with any socks you can burn whenever he asserts his expertise in anything. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how RJJ is taking all this. EddyP (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if andy knows that Battle Hymn of the Republic is an abolitionist song, and that it has a long and fruitful history amongst liberals and liberal politics.--WJThomas (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Andy, he's not exactly a slavery apologist (had he been alive in 1850, however, I have no doubts he'd staunchly defend the practice). He considers abolitionism a conservative trait, because everything that is currently widely considered positive is, of course, conservative, and everything bad is liberal (hence both communism and Nazism are liberal). He likes to cite that the Republican Party was as close to an anti-slavery party as you'd get (as if the Republican Party of today and of 150 years ago are interchangeable), and the act that most abolitionists were Christian (as were slave owners, and basically everyone else). So, yeah, it's a conservative anthem. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While he's not quite dumb enough to come right out and call for the re-institution of slavery, he's certainly taken a number of positions to try to deny the USA's culpability in same. "It's not our fault--the Africans and Arabs forced it on us." "Triangle trade? Myth!". Stuff like that.--WJThomas (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he will deny America's involvement as much as he can (which really isn't all that much, as it was pretty significant), but that's still him trying to distance what he considers good from what he considers bad. He completely considers abolitionists to be conservative. After all, they were mostly home-schooled! DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just andy trying to take credit for a popular position that he doesn't agree with, like pointing out Republicans were instrumental in getting civil rights laws passed in the '60s (while simultaneously railing against same every time it comes up).--WJThomas (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's definition is pretty good. He's separating 'expert' from 'expertise,' obviously, but he is also trying to find room for divine inspiration in all of this. I don't think we should denounce the Romantic idea of the genius loci. Some amateurs are genuinely inspired by their own latent genius; some experts are totally lacking in genius but make up for it in dedication to training and practice. Now, obviously, it would be best to have inspiration AND expertise, which would make one an authentic expert, and worthy of accolades. Andy contradicts common sense, but that doesn't mean he's wrong even if he says this in the most brutal and idiotic way possible. He is not an expert because he has no inspiration, though he would love NOTHING BETTER than to hear the voice of God (He should drop some cid with Syd, but DIRTY LIBERAL COMMUNIST HIPPIE ATHEIST HERETIC NAZI ANTISEMITE OBAMA CENSORSHIP EUROPEAN TOBACCO SMOKER) 74.15.55.175 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He may be on to something, but his definition is still crap, because he insists on creating a false duality between experts and non-experts, just so that he can favor one over the other. The most accurate definition of "expert" is someone who has achieved expertise at something. Therefore Olympic runners, professional singer/songwriters, and genius mathematicians working out of mom's basement are experts. Idiots "translating" the bible without knowing a word of Ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic are not. Junggai (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The brilliant mind behind most of cp:Best_of_the_Public has now been rewarded with block rights. --Retwa (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy

Actress Brittany Murphy died, at the very young age of 32. Sad, though I can't say I was a huge fan of hers. Cause of death unknown for now, though they say it was "natural". So how long before Andy makes a "Hollywood Values" news item, regardless of what the cause of death turns out to be? I'm a bit surprised he hasn't yet. DickTurpis (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dancing on graves, etc. When you run ahead of Andy you are more guilty than he. ħuman 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Human here. Unfortunately, any sort of speculation on her death, and on CONservapedia's reaction to it, is premature, at the very least, and distasteful at the very most. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt already did. In his expert opinion, it was anorxia. Keegscee (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, on his part, that's disgusting! Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That whole 'Hollywood values' page is just apalling, it's like they're gloating over the death of people. Just disgusting. On the whole I find conservapediaheads funny, but that page makes me angry. Very angry. What a dispicable bunch of cunts. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait until you get a load of cp:Young mass murderers. DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Asa only killed himself and yet he's a mass murderer? cgb07305 (talk)

(EC X 2)No shit. And the funniest part is that you could almost say it violates the part of the Bible where Jesus said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." Although, for people who don't like what the Bible says because its too liberal, it makes sense that they'd ignore it. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy has already specifically addressed that particular passage. But I'm not surprised about their eagerness to profit from tragedy - remember how they gloated over Columbine? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(shudders) I don't even want to think about what they had to say about Columbine, considering I have very strong, personal opinions about it. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in their article if you want to take a look. But if a huge tragedy like that was fair game for CP, why would they even stop to consider the ethics of exploiting the death of an actress? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I probably won't look at it, since I have very strong and, arguably, controversial opinions about Columbine. I promised myslef long ago that I would avoid any CP articles that I knew might piss me off. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Did this

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for adding and/or improving information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to Wikipedia to do that, where censors delete conservative information daily.--Aschlafly 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

come from the quote generator, or that terrible article's talk page? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative information"? They've got their own set of information now? Barikada (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We all have our own set of conservative information. Haven't you? It's usually located in the circular filing cabinet. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And lets not forget how they were slandering Heath Ledger hours after he was found death. Before any real information was even known, they were gloating on how he died because of drug abuse as per hollywood values. Honestly, what is wrong with them.. --GTac (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

They are sick and evil sonsabitches, that's what's wrong with them. As to the "young mass murderer" page, anger-inducing though it may be, it's one of those pages you need to read to understand CP's encyclopedic standards and methods.--WJThomas (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Did they start talking about this young actress on Conservapedia yet? Jerry 14:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just Jpratt adding her to the Hollywood Values article. Don't know why she died, but it obviously had something to do with being liberal and immoral. If it turns out to be swine flu (which, according to one report, it might be) I'm sure her name will be immediately removed as an example. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken needs his meds.

62 edits to the same article in less than an hour. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? really. And "other Female Sexual Orientation Groups." You mean straight women, right? Jerry 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap. Has he never heard of the preview button? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See here ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Definitions

I presume the liberal values being complained about are those of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia?

Slow day

Slow day at CP; only about 50 edits in the last 10 hours. Looks like someone forgot to disengage night editing. DickTurpis (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I got it

Next insight... Expert values! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nailed it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Closely followed by a list of "Experts Who Were Wrong, About Something." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)