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

Site down

It's been five minutes since the end of Colbert and Conservapedia's server has already crashed... ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]}

bump to get pibot to archive ħuman 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Most Logical

So I took Andy's advice, and got out the old Bible to give it a read, and see if the Bible is the most logical book ever written. I came across part of Deuteronomy, chapter 22:

9: Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

10: Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. [OK, that makes some sense]

11: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

12: Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

13: If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14: And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17: And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18: And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19: And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Yes, Andy, MOST. LOGIC. EVER. DickTurpis (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And to make things even worse, Mr. Schlafly has rejected the Adulteress Story, so someone who is full of sin can still cast the first stone. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you deny the logic? If a man takes your daughter as his wife, then claims she wasn't a virgin, you go over to the guys house and look for bloody sheets. LOGIC, MOTHER FUCKER, DO YOU USE IT? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you're taking it out of context / you don't know how to read the bible / you're too closed-minded etc etc DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The constant repetition of the "most logical book in the world" bit has me thinking of how often Andy seems to get these phrases and assertions going that he just beats like a drum until he hits on the next one. It really isn't normal to do that to the extent that he is. I really wonder if maybe Andy has Asperger's syndrome. His emotional immaturity and lack of empathy would also make sense if he does. Something to ponder upon... Kaalis (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to take the armchair diagnoses too far or anything, but schizophrenia is far more likely (disorganized thinking and delusions being the primary indicators). ListenerX^TalkerX 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I too have been struck by the way he comes up with stupid soundbites and thinks to himself "Wow! That is so clever! I'm going to say this all the time now!", and then he does. All the time. First it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet", more recently we've had "best of the public" and "leading people from reading the Bible." There have been tons of others. Asperger's he might have, though I think Ken fits the bill there a bit. I honestly think Andy is losing his sanity, and schizophrenia might be it. He couldn't have always been like this. DickTurpis (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to compile a list of the Andy-memes I remember that fit that pattern here and I welcome any help, especially time periods they held sway. ħuman 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of fundamentalists show signs of Asperger's, and I don't mean that in a flippant way. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think he has Dissocial Personality Disorder. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actual Andy Explanation Of Why The Bible Is The Most Logical Book

1 Then a user said, "Why is the Bible the world's most logical book?"

2 And Andy spake, saying:

“”God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This is completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement. Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The man clearly hasn't got a fucking clue what logic is, which is quite something for a trained engineer. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the education of becoming a lawyer may explain the discrepancy. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not enough bimbos and beat its to fit the gospel according to Andy. Vulpius (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you assume that god is real to start with, then the bible is pretty logical, since god as the creator would essentially be able redefine logic whenever he wants to. If god is real, whatever god does is logical by definition. It's just that us poor mortals are too stupid to work it out, so just have some faith and listen to Andy, who is intelligent as hell. X Stickman (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's Hell of course, unless you are being über-ironical. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know any more. Trying to think like Andy has fried my brain. X Stickman (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If one assumes G-d is an all-powerful deity that is totally and completely infallible, it's not difficult to explain their completely irrational behavior. These are people who are so feeble-minded that the mere idea of chance shuts them off. Everything has an order and the idea of G-d is one way to fill unanswered questions. cgb07305

Father Joseph

Look like he isn't a parodist at all.[2]. ^ComradeGhy213^{Viva La Revolution!} 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there's a Father Joseph at St. Hyacinth's doesn't mean he's a member of CP. DickTurpis (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Based on his edits I doubt he is legit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This guy retired in 1992, so I doubt he's giving weekly sermons. The guy on CP has already claimed to give a couple of them mentioning CPB. --Retwa (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

None of us want to give the guy a call? The phone number is right there. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon -- its not like the guy on CP is using the name Father Ishkabibble or something; Joseph is a pretty common name. Assuming that's the one on CP is a big stretch. MDB (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah except FJ told Bert the name of the church (St. Hyacinth's) and town (Glen Head, NY). He's definitely a parodist, but he did enough research to impersonate a real priest. I'm interested to see where this goes. He somehow got reinstated despite being tagged as a dual IP, after emailing TK?... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He claimed that RobertZ was a member of his church and that they were both using the church computer. Keegscee (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed those points. My apologies. MDB (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. [1]^img 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That essay is laying it on a bit thick. Surely.Damo^Hi 02:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the public, close minded, liberal professors, Hell, gender neutral, liberal bias.....all in one essay? Andy is going to lose it. Keegscee (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Way too heavy for one essay. The dude needs to be more subtle and do it in small doses. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

if you thought that was too much, [3] 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) EDIT: n/m, andy ate it up [4] 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

*groan* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy calls BS^img on Father Joe, but the "Best of the Public" as the "Third Invisible Hand" is so brilliant it will be covered^img in Economics class. --Retwa (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! what a tangled web we weave / when first we practice to deceive. — Sir Walter Scott. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inept and obvious parodist is inept and obvious. Cmon, if you're gonna pretend to be Catholic at least know what the Tridentine Rite is. Just using the word "progressive" outs him - Andy uses "liberal" exclusively and the character FJ is pretending to be would probably use "modernist."

Also whoever's running JacobB, stop sticking your neck out, we need you much more than we need him. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Father Jospeph is blocked by Andy. I wonder if people were a bit less enthusiastic about outing parodists how far he would have got. It has been suggested before that Andy reads this page. Would it be possible to create some kind of restriced page (it has been suggested before)? One could discuss about parody freely on that page, and only release it after the parodist has been uncovered by Conservapedia. Pietrow (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with having restricted pages is that nobody knows who all the CP socks are so we can't guarantee that any secret discussions remain secret. However, if you really feel the need to share something then you could email me or TheoryofPractice (for example) but definitely not Human who is a known sock of Ed Poor. Although I'm actually a sock of TK I promise to maintain my facade and not let my fun at RW compromise my persona at CP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought most of us here were socks of Andy anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't e-mail ME....I'm TK TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were JPatt. No, wait, you're right. You are TK and I'm Jpatt. Sorry, I have been in character for too long that the stupidity is spreading to other areas of my life. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pietrow: Father Joe's first edit was this, I'm pretty sure Andy^{Hi Andy!} didn't need a heads up from us. Plenty of parodists have been outed here and remain active on the site because, thanks to Andy's Law, there is no way to take action against them without implying Andy's own craziness. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know. I wouldn't find it strange for Andy to swallow that sort of stuff without afterthought --- except if the whole of RationalWiki is screaming parodist. Self interest can be a very good protection against delusions. I know previously parodists have been exposed (see a few sections above) but never in such a exuberant way (except TK). I'm not blaming anyone, mind you, I just think it would have been more fun with some self-restraint on our part. Pietrow (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't laugh but.......

........well over a year ago now I noticed that someone, who shall remain nameless, slipped some very funny stuff onto one of the history pages. It's an obvious parody, but the stuff has remained there in spite of the attention being paid to the page by a number of senior CP bodies, several of whom claim expertise in that area. So much for "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". For obvious reasons I won't add a link but it got me thinking, anybody claim to hold the record for an unspotted parody? Mick McT (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the record, but I have a very subtle bit of parody that was created in February and only reverted in November. MDB (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think some parody might be there since RW1 times (March 2007?). --Editor at CP^{mały książe} 09:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I might have found the longest unspotted parodist. Around the time of the Colbert interview I spotted something amazingly obvious, was going to post it, then checked the user and saw he's been editing since early 2008. He's very subtle, not at all like Bugler or DouglasA. I lift my glass to you! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for him. Keep it up, mystery parodist! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is still a lot of really good stuff from early 2007 if you know where to look.

I wrote some false information about important non-US politicians more than 6 months ago. They're not a big deal, but they're still there. diego_pmc (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote some pretty obvious parody which has been there since since June '08, but it's something I added to an essay, so I'm not sure it really counts. DickTurpis (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Father Joseph

Hi folks. I am the benevolent priest known as "Father Joseph". Now that my CP account has been blocked, I don't really have a way to prove it, but I wanted to share a few tidbits about my experience. I don't have too much time to write now (must pray!) but wanted to show you something that JPatt wrote to me via email when he was investigating my original block:

---

Here is what ASchlafly wrote me about you...

"His postings are intelligent and tantalizing but there are some unresolved issues here. "

We want you here but suspicions remain. We are attacked daily by liberal vandals and many occasions when we thought we had a legitimate contributor, then they plot against us. Sorry for the process you have been subjected to but care deeply for the project and we are overprotective. You would be our first Father that has joined us since our inception in Nov. 2006.

As far as the other information, I am not sure what to ask for. Maybe you can provide some parish information which we could investigate.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

---

Somehow I managed to convince him I was legit (I had to mention that St. Hyacinth's church, which is why I had to stick to it later). The best part is Andy's quote though. I also got an email from Ed Poor, who wanted to "discuss things verbally" over the phone with me. Creepy! By the way, I am surprised CP kept my essay, and most of my other small edits. They also kept some of "RobertZ"'s Bible translation! I guess I am the "best of the public" after all.

One other side note - I wasn't expecting Father Joseph to last this long. I can't believe Andy fell for the original "I am using the Conservabible in church", so I just kept trying to be more ridiculous and obvious after that, seeing how long it would take him to catch on. --FatherJoseph (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your essay just got flagged for deletion not long before you posted this. I'm curious just how much of the CBP is written by banned parodists, and if they're going to do anything about it. Obviously even more is written by yet-unbanned ones. --Retwa (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, FJ, on superb parodist skills. Even when parody is obvious to us, Andy will always hold out that the person may be sincere and like what he does. No one's on CP for Andy or because they believe Andy. It's power, lulz or the combination of the two (or, for the unfortunate, because their parents signed them up for Professor Schlafly classes). --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We are all Father Joseph

As Andy Schlafly says, what better education writing a book, not just reading one? There are still several of us who came over to CP after the Colbert Show who are enjoying writing a Conservative Bible any right winger would be proud of. Chest Rockwell (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good example of...

Why we don't out parodists. While I'm not pointing fingers or conclusively saying the discussions on this talk page were the cause of CP's paranoia with "Father Joseph", there is a possibility. They read WIGO, and they also read WIGO:Talk. They read what we post. They search our feces to determine what we eat. They monitor emails and discuss stuff off-site. They masturbate while spinning a giant wheel to see who may be liberal or conservative. Disclaimer: some statements may not be true. Please be more careful. Meri Kurisumasu! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Father Joseph was actively trying to out himself as a parodist, as he says above. Note further that he was outed, not because of anything we said here, but because he made a facially ridiculous remark. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They never take our word for it about parodists. We spelled Bugler out for them dozens of times. I once replaced his userpage with the word PARODIST in something like 1000 point font. It made no difference. DickTurpis (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Norseman has a point. We (myself included) were a bit too obvious, and their "parody meters" are highly sensitive right now because of the Colbert bump. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugler was so deep inside it made no difference. But for small fry like FatherJoseph (I'm thinking MarkGall too), I think the guys at CP get more suspicious than usual if we tip them off. We KNOW every new member is a parodist (with 99% accuracy) so there's no point in spelling it out for them.--Ireon (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I like throwing the accusations around. It keeps their paranoia above healthy levels. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Parodists always face two opponents. The victims of their parody, so CP in this case, and those who are nominally on their side, us in some cases. Parodists are just going to have work harder if they're going to persuade the good folk at CP to defend them against our cruel accusations. Personally I don't really care if parodists get caught, since the alleged real posters generate sufficient crazy to keep me entertained. Well done anyone who manages to create a sustained and subtle parody persona, but the father thing was perhaps a little ambitious. As Neveruse said, our frequent speculation probably doesn't do much to help the poor dears at CP overcome their incredible siege mentality. If Andy's cult was not online, by now they'd likely be taking potshots at AFT agents and drinking their own urine. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no sympathy for parodists, and especially not parodists who are trying to out themselves. Parodists allow the crazy brass at Conservapedia (who produce nuttiness that no parodist could ever make up) to point a finger. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about several kinds of parody here. I have real sympathy for the deep-cover parodist who is subtly undermining Conservapedia by making up references, translating the Conservative Bible incorrectly (or outing Andy Schlafly's ignorance of Greek by asking his opinion of the meaning of Greek phrases or words). I have absolutely no sympathy for the "parodist" in the mold of Bugler, which JacobB absolutely positively is (contact me privately for a series of emails I received from TK outing JacobB, assuming you trust TK as a reliable source on such matters). Guys like Bugler and JacobB thrive on hatefulness and injecting scorn and derision into every communication with others. I don't think it's properly parody when they take it to a level the egregious non-parodist hatemongers on Conservapedia could not themselves muster. I'm aware others who think driving legitimate editors away from Conservapedia is a laudable goal. I don't think it is. Conservapedia will cook its own goose or it won't. It doesn't need some asshole like JacobB to drive away legitimate editors, which has the effect of also driving away real parodists attempting to develop and focus Andy Schlafly's insanity. Jerry 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent, ec)

We should stop grandstanding against ourselves. FJ's parody was blindingly "there's no way Andy will buy this" obvious from the start, he didn't even bother to build an editing career before starting to bait sysops, he was tagged with dual IP use right off teh bat, and his emails prove they were suspicious enough of him to go looking for his real-life identity before his hundredth edit. He wasn't exactly going to become the next Bugler. Above and beyond that, he admits he was trying to out himself with more and more ridiculous replies, and his disguise as a RCC priest fell apart at the first question about Catholicism. I'm pretty sure WIGO is not the reason for his block.

I have spotted several people doing funny things to the site - in subtle ways, not the Bugler/RodWeathers/JacobB MO - and I would never dream of outing them here or WIGOing their antics even without explicitly outing them. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's slightly more complex than should we / shouldn't we highlight parody; whilst I do think it's a bad idea to highlight subtle, slow-burning parody, I also think there is some benefit in a 'double-bluff' kind of way to hinting that several of their sysops/admins may be parodists. ie, if they are suspicious of everyone, then the relative suspicion of active parodists is lower. Or something..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. Most of the CP editors probably wouldn't know when we are kidding. Ok, from now on, if anyone says anything - except Andy, of course, then I'll say it "must be parody." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

@ListenerX: i couldnt disagree more. MarkGall's liberal-finding machine? maybe the sysops wouldn't have come up with it on their own but andy eating it up was hilarious wasnt it 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. For me, the whole point of 'parody' is to introduce the sysops to new, crazy ideas and have fun when they claim they are part of the 'dogma'. I have no sympathy for 'bully-parodists', though.--Ireon (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)::

I'm with you too. Here's my attempt at a classification scheme for parodists. Obviously there's some overlap here; for example any Type I parodist must work as Type II until granted block rights. It's really mostly Type III parodists who are vulnerable to being exposed here -- the rest seem little affected by accusations. --Retwa (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Type	M.O.	Goals	Examples
I	Liberal use of banhammer, abuse of users new and old	Drive away new users, create strife	Bugler, JacobB
IIA	Encourage Andy et al. to fully develop their "ideas"	Bring out CP's natural hilarity	Most contributors to CBP; any non-Andy contributor to things like Counterexamples to Relativity
IIB	Contribution of new "conservative" insights consistent with CP worldview	Create new avenues for expression of sysop insanity	MarkGall, FatherJoseph
III	Fly under the radar and insert false information, imaginary references	Undermine CP's credibility	Many, many unknowns
IV	Add over-the-top parody of CP ideas, e.g. "All Harry Potter fans are followers of Satan and should be executed"	?	Some instabanned users

Very interesting chart. Although the categories really overlap a lot; people like FP were skilled enough to be able to do all of these things with one sock. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say, he's definitely a parodist, and one who doesn't take the parodist's guide to heart. Suddenly breaking character to make a valid point? Wrong. You want to say something half way intelligent and completely out of character? Get a new account at a new ip. This is basic stuff here. DickTurpis (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is either a grand parodist or the most delusional person on earth

Does he seriously think that The Colbert Report would find his interview educational or that Schlafly brought quality to the show? And not because the lulz it brings to people who love laughing at ridiculous idiots? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Good test-taking techniques are particularly important to doing well on an economics exam. Simple questions are often intentionally disguised as something more complicated. It is easy to become confused and misguided in analyzing economic issues. 99% of the public would say that we would be better off if Congress put a price ceiling or cap on gasoline at $1.50 a gallon. It takes a bit more thought to realize that massive shortages would result, and we would all have to waste hours each week waiting in line for gasoline. Some who really need gas in hurry, such as people trying to take someone to a hospital, may not be able to obtain gas in time." ...WTF? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just... wow. And in a lesson on economics. The guy is barely qualified to tie hie own shoes, let alone teach children. --Ireon (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What that man doesn't know about economics could fill a book. Like, maybe an economics textbook. I just slogged through econ lecture one. Jeepers! --Simple (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy hell, he still believes that only translating the Bible reveals how logical it is. Can't just read it, talk about it or attend sermons. You must translate it. I wonder how often his mother translates the Bible? Or how long before he offers a class, "Translating the Bible (with some Greek language thrown in)," for the wee ones. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, god I love it. We've seen the ground shift beneath Andy's feet for quite some time, but I feel like it's becoming a landslide. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how he can claim the bible is the most logical and greatest book ever, and yet it still needs to be improved. I know it's an old problem many people have had, but damn, I still can't get past it. X Stickman (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Guy's an idiot. Colbert is running repeats this week (which is odd, because the DS is still new), and what they usually do is... repeat the previous week. Ha ha ha ha... ħuman 01:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Slate-wiping

Curious... Last night, Andy zapped Talk:Main without archiving it. See the Talk:Main History page^img and the archive listing^img, which stops with Archive 77^img on 3rd December. Any idea what he's bothered about?

The last set of edits were to the section about Lib'ruls believing in the supernatural^img (presumably, south-west Asian sky gods are not members of the set of supernatural beings) but those edits have been restored^img. Before that, JosephMac was asking pedantic questions about blatant contradictions in the Bible (e.g. Genesis 1 and 2 and the three accounts of Jesus's trial)^img. Did he get up Andy's nose? (Surely other people have asked those questions before...) Or was Andy embarrassed about the pathetic attempts by fundamentalists to justify the "logic" of the Bible? (Surely not...) Or...??? The Real James Brown (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy hasn't archived his own talk page for ages. He just deletes it now. Ace^{of Spades} 20:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why bother to archive when he can just memory hole it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just reading through that argument, what is Assfly on about here^img? Does he not grasp the simple concept that, if you start at the beginning of a book, and read it all the way to the end, you have read it, and therefore, even if JosephMac had finished doing so only 10 seconds before making his post, and he had just finished reading it for the 300th time, he would be absolutely, 100% accurate to use the past tense? 92.19.121.72 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy thinks that saying you "have read" something implies you only read it once or it was a long time ago in the past. Even though he is technically incorrect, it sometimes does have that connotation. There is certainly a difference between "read" in the past tense and "read" in the present tense, and Andy was just trying to say that if you don't "read" (present tense) the Bible regularly, then you are somehow dumb or liberal or something. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That just doesn't make sense, certainly in this context, but, then again, this is Assfly we're talking about. DouglasA said^img that JosephMac should spend more time reading the Bible than "atheists' little screeds". JosephMac responded^img that it's precisely BECAUSE he had read it that he's seeing these problems. That's when Assfly jumps in with the post I pointed out above. 92.19.121.72 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it doesn't make sense, this is Andy we are talking about. That's just the way he thinks - if he can find something that he can quote mine to make the person look bad then he will do it. He refuses to believe that reading the Bible can cause doubt, and will rationalize a response if he has to. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The "solution" to all this is to read Nietzsche^img? Does that make sense to anyone here?--Damo^Hi 01:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's making an analogy, saying that (just like Nietzsche) the Bible makes sense if you read it all and put every quote in the context of the whole thing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, though there is some irony in using that particular example, I should have thought. --Damo^Hi 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Coming from an obvious parodist? It's not even worthy of comment. ħuman 05:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It just strikes as loony that "Bible Believing Christians" say (a) the Bible is completely true in all respects and (b) all the self-contradictions don't matter. But I'm preaching to the disconverted here. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if pressed, no doubt andy and his ilk would say that since it comes from God, and God can do anything she wants, including the impossible, the Bible can contain stuff that's impossible (like contradictions). The reality, though, is probably that they're not actually aware of said contradictions, which means that they haven't read/studied/pondered the book as much as they like to claim--just the parts they agree with. This is a first-class book on the subject.--WJThomas (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is another. Quite heavy going but detailed and balanced. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "Andy would say that God can do anything he wants". Unless you're implying that Andy worships the multi-breasted mother goddess of Ephesus, which would be fun to watch. The Real James Brown (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote (I was calling God female, not trying to imply that andy thinks She is). The Bible (the OT, anyway) often portrays God with female imagery, as a being that gives birth, as a nursing mother, as a mother hen, and so forth. --WJThomas (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I realise you meant that - irony doesn't work too well on computers. What I meant was that Andy thinks his favourite south-west Asian thunder god is strictly male and anyone who doubts it will be turned into a pillar of salt. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Inserting liberal multiculturalism / world view into articles

Adding valid, scientific facts about a drug is "inserting liberal multiculturalism / world view into articles." --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we just stop talking about JacobB already? Jerry 03:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought he's not even allowed to block for that sort of thing anymore... "inserting liberal multiculturalism" is hardly the same as "obvious vandalism". --Retwa (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There was "evolutionist lies" not too long ago. I'm just trying to figure out how that insertion was multiculturalism or world view? Evolutionist lies is closer. "Sciency" fits nicely. "Liberal vandalism," sure. Maybe it was a flashback to Bob Marley that stirred the multiculturalism? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these reasons for block selected from a drop-down menu? Has anyone seen their complete list of options? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here. - π 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, great! I love the way they prefix some of them with 'liberal'; what is exactly is 'liberal vandalism' or 'liberal trolling'?^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We should do an article on the block reasons. ex: There is nothing to stop an admin from monitoring account creation and block every one of them with "Unused account with no edits after registration (removed without prejudice)" before the first edit can be posted. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I thought we had one by now? Search through [5]? ħuman 05:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would call Conservapedia:Block Reasons an outdated stub, perhaps. Maybe an update is in order. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajourajoujou blocked this guy as a 'troublemaker', but is you read the guy's contribs he seemed to be raising some fair and scholarly points about their bible-desecration project. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In their eyes that's what a troublemaker is - someone who raises valid points that upset their prejudices. At heart they're a bunch of bigoted red-necks who can only respond with violence when they can't answer challenges or criticism. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A Joint Effort

heres a proposal: we all want more lulz from Andy, and we all want the lulz to come from him, not parodists, eh?

imagine a completed conservative bible. watch as andy tries to find publishers, as andy tries to get REAL father josephs to read the c. bible in church. the media frenzy might be similar to what happened when he first came up with the idea, or if he self publishes (getting the eagle forum to foot the bill), maybe more.

but nobody's actually working on it, not really. if we all make accounts, and get to work on the project, and maybe even complete it for him... hijinks ensue! 10:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The current state of the Conservative Bible is very poor. Not much has been translated, the quality is mediocre, and pretty much no-one is working on it anymore. I agree that if we don't act fast, the potential for very big lulz will be lost, as Andy will loose interest in the thing, and it will be left to rot. So let's get to work, the project has had a lot of exposure recently, so there's nothing suspicious about volunteers coming in. --Ireon (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as there are no obvious parodists, this plan should work. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that RW starts posting a "Conservative Bible Verse of the Week" to call attention to the most insane reworkings, and see if that calls more attention to the CBP. What I've noticed is that most of the translations are pretty mundane, so it would be helpful to highlight the ones that highlight the conservative spinning. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be good indeed. I am sure people would be very motivated if they thought they had a chance to be recognized for their efforts. I'd like to stress one thing though: only cite verses that have been reviewed by sysops. There's a lot of tentative translations that would be disavowed otherwise. On an unrelated note, I would be very proud to own a first-print edition of 'The conservative bible', which I would cherish and produce to my grand-children one day. --Ireon (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I really want to see their take on the Song of Solomon. Things like "A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts." Talk of the "twins" has some biblical precedent - "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." (this is repeated a few times in other chapters). Or maybe "How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince's daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman." which could be "Your feet with shoes are beautiful, your kneecaps (hips aren't to be talked about) are the work of an intelligent designer." How about "O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother!" - breast feeding in public is liberal multiculturalism and to be removed from the bible. Not that Andy wants to picture Roger or John suckling on his mother's breasts either. And so on. --18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's breasts that John thinks about in that way... --Kels (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Phyllis was too busy being a rabble rouser to use her own breasts for that purpose anyway. 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

c'mon guys the user creation logs should be lighting up, we gotta get this bible conservatized 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy on the Colbert Report

Currently the video is only available to people in the US. Any possibility of anyone making it available to the rest of us? Many thanks. Jfofnian (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Like this one. - π 11:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Still can't see it in Airstrip One. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it will work but try this link. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, you can easily watch the interview on colbert's own site.. All of comedy central's videos are available outside of the US, or at least they are here in Europe. --GTac (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to differentiate between the UK and rest of Europe because of licensing issues. I can get the full Comedy Central videos in mainland Europe but not in the UK where the rights are held by one of the SKY channels, even though they are not broadcast. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Man, that sucks. Sorry, I just assumed comedy central wasn't doing any filtering on IP, since I could watch it from mainland Europe, while Hulu and the likes don't work. --GTac (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian viewers can see the episode here. None of the other links in this section work here. --Kels (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The new toon

Have I missed something about Democrats in congress and psychics?^img I'm trying to figure out the joke, I've come up with two possible readings:

1. Democrats are stupid because they rely on psychics for advice (I'm not aware of the real world reference this would be parodying if that is the case). Nancy Pelosi stepped in and told the heretic members of her party to go somewhere else for advice. (Kind on Pelosi if this is how Karajou meant it.)

2. Psychics are right, and they predict the Democrats losing in the 2010 midterm-elections (not just losing but being tarred and feathered!). This fact made Nancy Pelosi scared, so she censored her partymembers from going to the all-knowing psychic. (Heretical if this is the way to read it. Psychics are real and Democrats are stupid not to listen to them?)

Also tarot = a chrystal ball, and psychics only accept cold hard cash!

Internetmoniker (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are qualified to comprehend this kind of stupidity. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's because CP is harping up the "more Democrats believe in ghosts, psychics and speaking to the dead than Republicans" thing. Because more Democrats do than Republicans, it means ALL Democrats do and NO Republicans do. You'd understand the logic if you would spend more time translating the Bible instead of trying to censor it from your life. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Karajou tried to surf on the current 'democrats believe in the supernatural' vibe. Unfortunately, his toon implies that the psychic is right, which confuses the issue. Still, it's funny, if only for the fact it's crap. --Ireon (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's better than some of the other recent ones, although that's not saying much. The Al Gore / Milli Vanilli was a very obscure joke, and badly presented too. The "clowns have entered the ring" one was really weak, as was the other liberal clown one. This one at least has a potentially funny idea (stupid democrats consulting psychics), although I agree he undermines his own joke by implying that the psychic can, indeed, accurately predict the future. Perhaps if he'd given the speech bubble to the politician asking some worried question about the party's future, it might have worked better. Or he could have played on the fact that psychics will nearly always tell their clients what they want to hear, and had the psychic offering vague reassurances about the healthcare plan or something like that. The joke would then be "democrats make such daft policy decisions because they're consulting psychics". Or he could have applied the old chestnut of a "tall, dark stranger" to Obama. There's plenty of potential for lulz, but Karajou missed his opportunity. Johann (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Crap can be pretty funny at times, but I think I was too confused to actually get any lulz out of it. I think I might've completely missed the point of the toon. Sooooo psychics are a reliable source of information? --BalloonShark ^Win? 15:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it just a nasty rumour then that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer and influenced some of St Ronnie's decisions? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It was no rumor. MDB (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

She turned to her after the assassination attempt. That's when TK saved her by laying on top of her. I'd too need some spiritual guidance after such an experience.Internetmoniker (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, this is conservative-world, where

• Consulting Miss Cleo about what the tarot cards say about the future: super-ultra-bad!
• Consulting Reverend Cleo about what the Book of Revelation says about the future: just fine and dandy! Why do you hate God, Jesus, the Bible, America and Fox News? MDB (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To honour both Karajou and Mallard Fillmore, I've made a cartoon completely devoid of humor, instead concentrating on stupid political points. Enjoy. (Or, rather, don't). DickTurpis (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically your cartoon is actually funny, because you set a good context for it. If the weakly toons had an intro such as "I actually believe this stuff!" or "Ed's been drinking again, so I'm drawing this while hidden under my bed in an attempt to avoid a serious bumming", then his cartoons would become sort of funny. As is they're like reading 19th century satirical cartoons, except those may have actually been funny to the people of the time. MDB, that comment made me laugh. Didn't think about that comparison. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

DT, the first two panels alone made it better than anything Karajou whipped up so far. I only stopped laughing when I realized that this is pretty much exactly what Andy and his loyal minions are thinking. --Sid (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have always wondered about those old cartoons. Were they actually funny, perhaps in the way that a "Far Side" comic is funny today? Or were they always more serious? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That comic applet is silly, but fun: [6] 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

FAIL! You actually succeeded in being amusing. That's not what Weakly toons are for. May a present you with the ultimate Mallard Fillmoresque experience (which I wanted to call Beary Goldwater, but there was no bear character. What's the deal?): [7]. Note the complete absence of a joke of any sort. DickTurpis (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, it is a lot of fun. DickTurpis (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Cowvin Coolidge" is a fucking inspired character. But still not as good as Jon Stewart's take on Mallard:

• Panel 1 - Mallard: Liberals want to tie the hands of industry with more environmental legislation.
• Panel 2 - Mallard: Why must we punish our most productive citizens with an income tax?
• Panel 3 - Mallard: Ooops! I forgot to tell a joke!

The creator's even-handed, proportional reply to this parody was to accuse illustrate Jon Stewart as a hook-nosed pedophile, proving he can take it just as much as he can dish it out. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW I see your Cowvin Coolidge and raise one James A. Garfield. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but its been done. An old Bloom County strip featured James Garfield, drawn in Jim Davis' style, declaring "Presidents hate Mondays". (And if you say "what's Bloom County", thank you for making me feel old.) MDB (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

More good stupid

JPatt heralds the release of some think tanks report about how global warming is bunk. It contains such gems as:

"The claim that that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas is a myth "because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."

Aside from the rather plain fact that H20 is the most common greenhouse gas, I like the appeal to numbers out of context. CO2 can't be the most abundant greenhouse gas because it is .037% of the atmosphere and greenhouse gases account for 3% of the atmosphere!!! Never mind how many gases emit thermal radiation. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the same old shtick where you find a bunch of people who agree with your groupthink and have an impressive-sounding organization name, like "The European Foundation" or "The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons". These groups can and often do put out some insane drivel, like the AAPS comments regarding Obama and mind control, and because they sound like important, credible organizations people who don't do any fact-checking tend to buy into it.

What I find hypocritical about "news" items like this is the way CP is happy to drop references to the EF or AAPS when they want a wingnut position to appear to have the backing of credible "experts", but when holes are punched in these positions by actual experts, Andy pulls out his shiny new "The best of the common folk is better than a group of experts" B.S. Someone should point out to Andy that there are plenty of "common folk" living around Glacier National Park or Mount Fuji who will confirm that the glaciers and icecaps in these places are rapidly vanishing, no matter how many local record-cold-weather reports Andy wants to highlight. --SpinyNorman (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And water vapour is one of the more powerful ones, causing the majority of the greenhouse effect we experience anyway (the climate quite a bit warmer than it should be given our distance from the sun). But the point is that carbon dioxide provides a very fine balancing point that could knock the climate a degree or two in either direction, leading to various runaway effects and feedback mechanisms (warming oceans can't as effectively dissolve carbon dioxide, so the concentration increases more rapidly, but the exact rates of change there are still a disputed figures). I don't see what's so difficult for climate change denialists to grasp about this - with carbon dioxide it's very much a case of "the straw that broke the donkey's back". It doesn't matter if it's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the (very much undisputed) fact is that in less than 200 years the concentration has doubled, and that isn't good by a long shot and this can and will cause some issues. ^{d hominem} 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is H20? Did you mean H2O? Barikada (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

man marries video game, boy doesn't do research

Benp takes note of a man marrying his virtual girlfriend and insinuates that liberals and gay marriage are the problem. Considering gay marriage isn't legal in Nippon, I doubt they'd have let him marry a male character. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks more like he's being deliberately deceptive to me. Usually, if they're going to bash gay marriage, they'll come right out and say it. The fact that he's hiding behind the euphemism "liberalizing marriage" suggests that he knows he can't actually link it to gay marriage, so he'll just imply it instead. --Phentari (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should draw a chart to help us better understand the things taxonomy of these perversions, based on CP claims. I'm guessing it goes something like this:

"Holding hands => masturbation => homosexuality => bestiality => marriage to video game characters => elected to the British Parliament." --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot about "front hugs" - the gateway gesture. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Gave me the old trusty Christian Side-hug any day, combined with lead bromide, and I'm more likely to find wood on mars than in my trousers. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot another intermediate step, "being liberal." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What they're overlooking is that this is not a real legal marriage. It's a schtik. I can "marry" my pet turtle and my Admiral Akbar action figure if I want (if I had either). Anyone can hold a ceremony and call anything a marriage. It ain't binding. (I could tie this in with why I think we should currently be striving for civil unions rather than gay marriage necessarily, but I won't right now.) DickTurpis (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading something like this in a fan-made visual novel once. Thought it was nuts then, but to have it in real life...--Thanatos (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Kasparov vs. the public

So Andy's saying that if Kasparaov had played conservapedians instead of the public as a whole, he would certainly have lost? I'm not chess prodigy, but I'll play chess against conservapedia, and I bet I'd win, nevermind Kasparov. Oh, but they can't use computers, because then I'm not playing them, am I, Andy? No, I'm PLAYING AGAINST THE FUCKING COMPUTER, NOT AGAINST THE BEST OF THE PUBLIC. And do you know why Kasparov will beat the best of the public? Because HE IS THE FUCKING BEST OF THE PUBLIC, DIPSHIT! Andy, you are a fucking moron. DickTurpis (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. I have seen a mediocre international master hand 70 members of the "public" their asses singlehandedly. A quick Google reveals that an Iraniam master played a 500 board simo (I'm very impresed), and only lost 13. So much for the best of the public. I once did a 15, but they were weak and I swept easily (maybe if I did it blindfold Phil would consider me an authority on creationism). Also, Viswanathan Anand (probably spelled wrong) is the current World Champion with Topalov a close second, so noone cares about Kasparov anymore. Fail at chess, but that was expected.POSTSCRIPT: To prove my point, I will simo any Conservapedians (and therefore best of the public), just to prove that he is wrong. The gauntlet has been thrown. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And you have brought up something that has really been bothering me about this whole "best of the public" garbage: aren't experts, by definition, the best of the public at what they are expert in?!? And, really, the honest fact of the matter is that there is already a word for "best of the public", and it is "oligarchy", a rather old word some Greek folks came up with. Other words that spring to mind are "aristocracy" and "meritocracy". However, given how carefully screened Conservapedia is for people dumb enough to agree with Andy or smart enough to simply pretend to, a better word for his system is "idiocracy", though given how even this reduces to agreement with Andy, a better term might be "Andyocracy", which is much the same in meaning. Kaalis (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games." Actually, odds are, he would win them all, you moron. ħuman 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy feels that he, part of the "public," should be heard on any matters for which he has an opinion, and experts don't want to hear about it. To Andy, that's censorship. That's elitism. But in the real world, it's practical. Nothing would ever get done if people constantly had to wait to hear what "the public" felt about everything. I mean, some half-black man got to be the president of the Harvard Law Review, and then the United States. That should have been Andy, you know... "the public." --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I always just assumed that by "best of the public" he means "public opinion" (or "majority opinion") and he just couldn't come up with a more accurate term to describe it. He (and other conservapedians) certainly use "more people believe x than y so x is obviously true" logic quite often. X Stickman (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Best of the public" is a Scotsman fallacy as well. Any time the best of the public delivers results Andy doesn't like it's because they weren't the BEST of the public. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

By "best of the public" Andy means "Me and anyone who agrees with me". ħuman 20:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly if the best player in the world (You can take you pick of Carlsen, Topalov, Kramnik, Anand or Aronian, or if you have a time Machine mid 90's Kasparov) took on the public they would lose under two conditions: the public could use computers (See chessgames.com where the [chessplaying] public beat several GM's and one of the best correspondance players ever) and there was at least one person dedicated to compilating the massive amount of analysis generated by these computers (Kasparov was nearly defeated in his big game versus the public because they had one such central figure).24.215.78.110 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, can we get a game going, Mobocracy versus Conervapedia. Because that would be awesome. Though I will warn you, a similar situation has arisen before, chess.com VS Cheater_1 and ended with the single Megalomaniac (Cheater_1) launching accusations of cheating after losing a close game.24.215.78.110 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So, Andy

Let's say you needed surgery. (For instance, a brain transplant or a cranial-gluteal extraction.) Would you prefer:

• an "expert" surgeon?

or

• the "best of the public" reaching a consensus on where the next incision should be?

Or, let's say B. HUSSEIN Obama imposed Sharia law today, and you were among the first to be tried for blasphemy. Would you prefer:

• an "expert" Sharia attorney?

or

• The Conservapedia userbase deciding which verses of the Koran are most applicable?

MDB (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like he trying to find a middle ground between anti-intellectualism and acknowledging that some people are better at things than others. He doesn't want to admit that there are experts, so he avoids the problem with "best of the public." Although I think that this whole thing never would have come up if he hadn't said it on Colbert - the whole ordeal of defending the phrase just sounds like a giant rationalization. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is something to be said for Andy's philosophy about the wisdom of the best of public vs. the wisdom of experts. There have been worthwhile things that were created by "normal" people. One example that springs to mind is Linux -- it started out as the brainchild of Linus Torvalds, a computer science student in Finland who probably wouldn't have been considered an especially great expert in operating systems prior to that, and, with contributions from public, it turned into a major operating system, and the only serious rival Windows has in the server market, and one of only two rivals (along with MacOS) for desktop use. However, by doing so, Linus proved he is an expert. By Andy's logic, his opinion is now less valid because he's one of those gol-durn experts. If Andy wanted to argue that you shouldn't discount someone's opinions because they're not an established expert, that would be quite reasonable. But he stretches things far beyond that... as per usual. MDB (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think MDB hit on the right example of where Andy's principle has some relevancy. Instead of Andy's poor examples, open-source software would be a better and simpler case. Linux, Apache and Firefox in particular are all exhibits of the power that mass peer-review and innovation can have on projects where the barriers to collaboration are minimized. Firefox started delivering features like tabbed browsing before IE, and bugs were addressed more rapidly. --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but open source contributors are communists. Pietrow (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Parodists/interlopers

We're not supposed to mention them, right? Because today I have read two or three obviously hilarious interlocutors of Andy, but I don't want to out them if he doesn't get it? ħuman 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw fuck, Andy to parodist: "Brilliant point". Yes Andy, and CC repeated your interview for its educational value. PS, get a goddamn haircut before you go on TV again, you look like a drug hippie. Or a guy who lives in his mommy's basement and spends his days on the internet... oh, yeah, oops. ħuman 02:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck it, just do it Hu. They are so full of paranoia, thinking that the world is out 'to destroy them' that I don't think they can see the line between full-on right-wing bible-bashing idiocy and full-on piss-taking parody. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to see any truly stealthy parodists outed, but most of it's so obvious that I don't think it matters. http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Best_of_the_public is so full of in-your-face parody that I hardly know where to start.--Simple (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Two kinds of parodists

There are parodists like Father Joseph who come to the site and immediately start parodying. I think there is no harm in pointing it out if Andy momentarily buys their act because there is no way they are sticking around. They will just escalate as far as they can and eventually get TK'd.

The second kind of parodists are those who truly go deep-cover, making hundreds of good-faith mainspace edits and building a career of weeks months or even years of good behavior on the site, before poking their heads above ground and beginning to bait Andy et al. on talkpages.

Jumping on the first example of parody such an editor creates risks crushing them while they are in the delicate pupa stage. We should wait until they become a full-fledged parody butterfly, and no shoutout from us will affect their career on CP. It didn't hurt to point out that JacobB and MarkGall have a looooong history of parodying on the site.

Maybe a good rule of thumb is if you spot a parodist, check their talkpage edit history - talkpages are where nearly all Andybaiting happens. If their editing has ramped up only in the past month or two, don't out them. Just smile in the knowledge that most CP watchers also see what you see. If you're wondering "is this guy a parodist," odds are he is. Andy's vocabulary usage, thinking process and ideas are fairly unique. Anyone who repeats them is baiting him. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem "outing" any parodist. All we see is the same as they see. Why would any of the CP-editors take our deduction that someone is a parodist seriously? The thing Human is referring to at the top of the section seems obvious to me, it's almost a rule of thumb: whenever Achlafl Y. produces a page about one of his brand new brain farts powerful insights the talk page will fill up with a few people "agreeing" with him and pondering about the implications of this fascinating new concept. Of course those people are parodists. We don't have to keep quiet about that, we can just talk about Andy being fooled by them again. If Aschlafl Y. reads this (or someone else informs him about it) he can do two things: 1. acknowledge that the only ones agreeing with him on his revelations are parodists or 2. enlarge his delusion by rationalizing why our conclusions about parodists are false, and that the people agreeing with him were just blown away by his ultimate truth. Aschlafl Y. will always go for option 2. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

When someone is the butt of a joke it's always funnier if they don't see that they're being sent up. Things like the "Exxon executives' pay" in the Bush article are funny because they can't see what the joke is. It was only eventually removed because we kept pointing it out even though the LA Times article highlighted it. What you have to realise is that although we have the same data we often see it in a different way to CP (rather like creationists v evolutionists) so by saying "this is funny because they are being made fools of" only alerts them to the fact - even if they hadn't spotted it. TK of course is the longest-running parodist because he apes Andy's pet phrases all over the place. Even though we know he doesn't mean it, after all he's just playing his own little power game, Andy thinks he's passing on wisdom and insights, and is flattered by it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:39, 18 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)

Terry Koeckritz kisses up badly

C'mon, TK, pucker up. No big ideas ever came from experts? Wasn't Galileo an expert? Plato? Aristotle? Most all the people on the Nobel lists, those darned liberals? Even Ronald Reagen, the man he compares to Andy, was an expert in politics by the time he was elected president. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm sure no namby-pamby liberal so-called experts were involved in the moon landings, for example. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and obviously ARPANET was created by a bunch of random people, and certainly not experts. We can only hope that Andy entrusts his personal medical care to enthusiastic members of the public, particularly when it comes to surgical procedures. I'm sure he'd hate to have an expert suturing his colon when there are so many fine CP editors with access to soldering irons and whiskey. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And if they have computers, it will go even better! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, ConcernedResident, you just made me laugh. Out loud. The whole thing is hilarious, and I am half-tempted to encourage them and let natural selection do its job. --Ireon (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I even took the liberty to toonify that idea. Please disregard the blatant fault in the title.

Andy gets an operation CP style

--Ireon (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, nice. Didn't we use to have series of cartoons based on the day-to-day antics of CP? If not, it'd be a nice idea. For some reason I have this perpetual mental image of "Uncle" Ed having to compulsively edit in order to avoid touching himself down below. There was a minor explosion earlier this year in NJ. CP went down, leaving Ed with no choice but to release some pressure from his conkers. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy, you're contradicting yourself again

In regard to Andy's "Best of the public" wank-fest, I'd like to point out reason #14 why Conservapedia is better than Wikipedia: "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research." I thought the public was better than "experts". The notion "best of the public" is basically what makes Wikipedia work, when it does, and I don't see how Andy can say CP embraces this and WP does not, especially when only a handful of people edit CP articles. The day Ken DeMyer and Ed Poor are considered the best of the public in any sense whatsoever is the day I give up on the human race entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy probably already considers them to be "the best of the public." Along with everyone else who pretends to agree with him. That's the only qualification, really. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia has been around for a 3 years, and because of the process of time the "best of the public" have risen to the top. It's like 2+2=4! Sometimes I get the idea no-one here understands logic. Translate a logical book from time to time. It works wonders! Internetmoniker (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I like his Olympic comparison: "The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either." No it's either decided by raw numbers for competitions where speed, distance, etc. is the deciding factor, or, for those in which there is subjective criteria (gymnastics, diving, figure skating) it is chosen by a panel of experts known as judges. I mean, does he really think the Olympics is open to everyone, and that the people who compete in it are not "experts" in their field? If he thinks the Boston Marathon is not a good example of the best of the public because it has restricting qualifications that must be met, he's barking up the wrong tree with the Olympics. DickTurpis (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, describes "the Conservapedia process" as a "rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move." Debating, Andy? Discussing moves? Sounds like talk, talk, talk to me. Do you not realize Conservapedia has rules specifically against doing this very thing? DickTurpis (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

@DT: Obviously the Conservapedian process of "welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move" is simply more concise than the Wikipedian liberal version. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, what separates CP from WP is that "Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the 'worst of the public.'" Actually, Andy, WP has lots of rules (something you criticize them for). CP has 7, 3 of which exist on WP as well. I fail to see how the rule to always use BC and AD instead of just usually using those, as WP does, really makes one group better than the other. The rule against using talk pages is a hinderance to determining the best of the public. (Of course, the real rules on CP are the unwritten ones, don't contradict admins, don't say anything against CP on or off site, etc.) DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are the reason conservapedia exists in the first place, ironically. They're certainly the reason that Ed and Ken moved to Conservapedia. X Stickman (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Games

"Anyone can enter?" I'm surprised nobody has called him out on that. "Hi Andy; so I called Vancouver and told them I wanted to enter the Olympic skiing competition, and they hung up on me told me that I had to go through my national Olympic Committee, so I called them and they told me I had to qualify through the national alpine skiing association, so I called them and they said I had to be an expert skier who'd won tournaments at the national and international levels." Moron. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be a good one to press him on. He is incapable of admitting error, so his rationalization of how he's not wrong about this one would be spectacular. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:17, 18 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)

Paranoia is great

"You sound too good to be true. I'll be watching you closely." -- Uncle Ed. And Karajou was quick with the location of the user and his ISP. I wonder whether it's against the law to disclose personal information about users to a website if you do not let users know explicitly that you will do so? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the "personal information" and the circumstances of the disclosure. IP addresses aren't covered by any of the statutes regulating the use of certain kinds of personal or private information in the United States. This is just an example of Karajou being an unscrupulous bully. 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it just the 12 year old in me, or did anyone else read "(m196.dep.anl.gov))" is Karajuo's block reasons as "deep anal government"? Z3ro^talk 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that someone named "Sid" lasted long enough to set up a user page... --Sid (talk) 20:58, 18 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)

Something's missing on CP's front page...

Something's missing on CP's front page. I just noticed it today, and it's not apparent when it occurred, or even if it was applied at all. But it makes the front page nonfunctional in a sense, due to lies of omission. It's not a huge lulz, it's not WIGO worthy, but it's so subtle and shows that no one seems to care about the missing object that needs to be there. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Care to be a little more specific? Jerry 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section that used to show the majority of the most popular articles were about the cruder aspects of homosexuality? SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What's missing is a closing html tag somewhere, and it has been like this for weeks if not months. -- Nx / talk 21:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that they took down a bunch of Ken's cruft, like the "Highlighted Article," a while ago. I also saw that the main page's edit tabs are out of whack. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same problem I've seen here and some other places. I seem to remember it being due to indented userboxes. Professor Moriarty 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

One time the Saloon Bar became completely unreadable when someone left out a tag when updating their signature. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki's standard response when it sees a missing closing tag is to slap a </div> to the end, which in this case pushes the editing tabs out of their place and screws up everything. Good luck finding it in the wiki code though (Not that anyone over there cares about how their main page looks) -- Nx / talk 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If I pasted the source into Arachnophilia it would probably help highlight where the unclosed tag is. But I'm not going to bother. What I like is the hilarious template listed at the bottom. ħuman 22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know where the extra closing div is in the html source, that's easy. Finding the screwup in the wikicode on the other hand... -- Nx / talk 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Do any text editors do wiki syntax highlighting/matching? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Kate and Emacs both have rather shoddy syntax highlighting. Do not ask me how I know this. Professor Moriarty 22:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This one time this old guy told me about Emacs. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_editor_support Jerry 22:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never been interested in wiki code. Probably because it's the ugliest shit I've ever seen. Maybe this will help. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I lost interest in wikicode after I heard Nx say that WikiMedia would be placing more emphasis on CSS—so why bother learning anything more than the really basic stuff now? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki, not Wikimedia... Professor Moriarty 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I never said that anywhere. What I said was that using css (and templates) more is better. -- Nx / talk 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Click a ref-linked super anywhere on the page. Merry Christmas! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:37, 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^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My NEW favorite Creepy Ed article

cp:Homosexual denial. It doesn't get any better. 9000 internets says Ed had a homosexual encounter on a boat. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 23:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it'll begin with Ed and Conservative arguing over conflicting edits with the homosexuality-related articles. Of course that'll become heated, and they'll soon be grappling on the floor. By mutual agreement they'll get naked so as to not damage their clothes. Not even Christian side-hugging can save them from inevitable bumfoolery.--^{Ask me about your mother} 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All we know for certain is that Ed has information, which he will not reveal in public, on how to sodomize two hundred boys in just one day ... anybody remember what WIGO I'm referring to? Can't find it in the archives. Etc 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That was the one about some quote he pulled from a terrible book about Nazis. As to this article, I feel bad for Ed, some old lover of his denying their love. --Kels (talk) 02:20, 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)

Chess game

There seems to be a lot in interest in a RW experts vs. CP chess game. It would be awesome if it actually happened, and it would be a test of Andy's latest brainchild, the "best of the public". So, if you are a CP sysop (especially TK or someone equally influential) please tell Andy about this so that we can agree to begin the game. Or, if you are an RW editor and have a sock on CP you would be willing to burn, please leave a message for Andy somewhere where it will not get reverted immediately. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:56, 19 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)