Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Ed Poor's got a fan

Whey! Susan^purrrrr 13:40, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

A few new words for me - 'barratrous' was a good one, and appropriate for an ex-swabbie. PoorEd 14:55, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Oldcopypasta is old. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Doesn't seem like a very efficient tactic. The first few paragraphs are just random, esoteric words strung together into vaguely intelligible insults, so I don't see why anyone would even bother reading through the whole thing and being offended by it. :/ GrandSoviet 15:56, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I should be offended if my opponents didn't think enough of me to compose their own insults. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 17:44, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Christianity and the Holocaust

Just to clarify: it's pretty clear that the Holocaust was not a Christian thing. However, Christian Europe was steeped in antisemitism long before Hitler. Many of my relatives refused to leave Europe because they figured Hitler wouldn't be any worse than any other pogroms they were already used to. The Church, for centuries, encouraged and codified anti-semitism in Europe. Hitler had fertile soil in which to plant his seeds of paranoia and genocide.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 14:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Anti-semitism has been rife for centuries - "Merchant of Venice" anyone? Susan^purrrrr 14:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

The Nazis used very profound and pervasive anti-semitic sentiment among Christians to further their own ends. There were many Christians who were complicit in the Holocaust, and many others who were willing to look the other way. In Poland, for example, cooperation by the largely Catholic population with the Nazi persecution of the Jewish population is well-documented (as are some examples of Christians who helped Jews at considerable risk to their own lives). PoorEd 14:28, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

And there were many Christians who fought against it - Dietrich Bonhoeffer comes to mind as an example, who, at the cost of great anguish, set his pacifism aside when he heard of the Holocaust, and tried to assassinate Hitler. Just like every group, there were good people, and bad people. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

It is easy to say 'just like every group', and I accept the concept, but 6 million died. PoorEd 14:57, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

So? Does that mean that it's time to 'play the blame game for ulterior motives'? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I guess my bone to pick with Christians is that I see so many conservative Christians today deviating from the Christian values of mercy, forgiveness and helping the downtrodden. PoorEd 15:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. But they don't represent the whole. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

And where do you get off with 'ulterior motives?' Sounds like that is the game you are playing. We are discussing the well-documented role that Christian atitudes towards the Jews played in the Holocaust. PoorEd 15:03, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, I interpreted 'It is easy to say 'just like every group', and I accept the concept, but 6 million died.' as trying to argue against the idea that there were good Christians and bad Christians with respect to the Holocaust. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I was trying to say that I accept the concept that there are good and bad people in every group, but that profound prejudice against Jews was so pervasive, and so deeply ingrained, that the Nazis had no difficulty carrying out their program of evicting Jews from their homes, confiscating their property, herding them into ghettoes and finally exterminating as many of them as they could in death camps. The number of 'bad' Christians, which includes those who had no problem going along with the first phases of the program, seems to have far outnumbered those who were 'good', judging by the consequences. These were Christians who blamed Jews for the death of Christ, and who blamed Jews for the economic difficulties that followed the First World War. PoorEd 15:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It's clear that lots of Christian individuals and organizations participated actively or passively in the Shoah, but there were also many who opposed it. After all, Churchill, Maximilian Kolbe, von Stauffenberg and de Sousa Mendes were just as much Christians as Hitler, Göbbels and Heydrich were/may have been. Also, many different churches did much to protect the Jewish communities in their respective countries - the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Roman Catholics (despite much poor historiography claiming the contrary) and many churches in Germany itself, at a considerable risk.

Speaking more generally, of course one has to recognize that that Christians have been doing bad things to each other and to non-Christians for millennia. So have Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and, for all I know, Australian aboriginees. Sometimes, these bad things have happened because of elements in the contemporary understanding of Christianity; at other times, in spite of them. At all times, however, they have been actions carried by human beings for reasons that usually have to do with relations with other human beings, and not by that social construct known as 'Christianity' - assuming it is even possible to speak of that as a singular group.

Therefore, I am and remain deeply sceptical of any approach that views a religion or an ideology or any other kind of social construct as a whole and as detached from the human beings who follow it. When dealing with any kind of historical process or event, we need to examine carefully who the people involved are, what their motivations are (and not just what they themselves say they are), and what kind of wider contemporary social processes are at work. Otherwise, we're treading dangerously close to the two fallacies of reification and single cause. Cherchez l'homme! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:50, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

in b4 Le Chambon. Also, I've been reading a little bit about the persecution of "witches" in Salem Village, and I think there is much the same issue here. The Christian belief in the malevolence of witches isn't what sparked the disastrous witch hunt, it was numerous social factors and interpersonal tensions, and witch hunting was a convenient outlet for all of that resentment. GrandSoviet 16:07, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Your point is well taken. I think we are talking past each other. I am trying to address the conservative type of Christian epitomized by many at CP who seems to feel that being a Christian somehow immunizes the believer from committing evil of the type that occurred during the Holocaust, and that it is liberal atheistic secular humanism that leads to evil of the kind experienced during that horrendous series of events. I am arguing that it is people who considered themselves Christians who were responsible for the horror, and that it was in part their very identity as Christians that led them to partake of the demonizing of Jews that made it all possible. I wonder if the same couldn't be said of the Salem witch trials. PoorEd 17:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

HPV

Really the headline on Conservapedia should just say "Sex- BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA"Shangrala 17:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Apparently if you have unprotected sex with a teenage girl, you have a 1 in 4 chance of contracting an STD. Who else likes those odds? GrandSoviet 21:09, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess the lesson is to stick to the (previous) abstainers? (or, doh, use a love glove) human 21:15, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I wonder what CP would say about those Virtual Reality Sex gadgets seen in Demolition Man... it's sex, but seriously safe sex! --Sid 21:17, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

RedCobra

While I don't approve of the duration of the ban, or the fact that it's just random unlulzy trolling, I liked this block message. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Ed and Polar Bears

I love the part where Ed warns the poor guy against "politicization of science". Because we all know that never, ever happens on Conservapedia. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:49, 11 March 2008 (EDT) _{(It's true!)}

If there was an "Irony of the Week" award, that comment by Ed would be a strong competitor for it ;) I think that Andy also often engaged in similar irony, moving stuff around with the reasoning "remove placement bias". --Sid 21:07, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I have never felt such frustration as i did when debating global warming with Ed some months ago, he is just... i have no words for it. Even by CP standards he is unbeliavably pigheaded. His way of just ignoring all the facts, studyes, evidence against his position just makes my head explode... ARGH Timppeli 21:16, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It's kinda like Andy and breast cancer, except that I get the sense that Andy might actually not understand that he's wrong, while Ed is deliberately ignoring the stuff that would contradict him. Dmyerken 00:30, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone else notice that Ed didn't use the user's talk page?--142.68.208.110 01:51, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

This is why the loonies running Conservapedia NEED Conservapedia. When they're out-argued, out-researched, out-numbered, and out-witted, at least they can make the bad liberals go away with just the touch of a button. --Gulik 01:53, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

A Woman's Palace is in the Home, Schooling

This whole conversation makes me weep for humanity, seriously. --Kels 21:40, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I note that Bethany (BCS), despite her protestations about mommyhood, etc., says "Williamsburg is awesome. I am going to work there when I get older. ;P" Wouldn't that be a man's job??? Shouldn't she be focusing on finding a willing donor to pump her uterus full of semen so she can... matriculate? (I don't think she was really taking the discussion seriously - I think she's gonna try to steal Phyl's boyfriend!) human 22:17, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I think that is the first time I've ever seen someone long to be oppressed.Greenmango 00:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

That was a sad discussion, but it was heartening that Sharon seemed to push back. I wrote them another open letter but it was reverted pretty quickly. Bummer.-αmεσ (orator) 00:25, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Sigh, apparently it's going to be oversighted away, just proving my point again. Anywyas, I've saved it here.-αmεσ (orator) 00:27, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

You'd be surprised. I have a very religious friend who once wrote a long blog explaining why it would be great if she and other women didn't have to think about anything and just had their husbands take care of them and explain everything to them. I vomited a little while reading it. GrandSoviet 02:17, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Poor old Bethany, her homskoll history class can't have been all that great if she wants to live in the 18th century. Did no one ever explain to her about Cholera? They don't have _that_ in Colonial Williamsburg, history's Disneyland. What sort of brainwashing to you have to apply to a woman to limit her ambitions to having endless babies and voluntarily surrendering any and all semblance of individuality. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 04:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

That whole thread just makes me want to weep.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 05:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

It makes me want to grab them, individually, by the ears and scream into their faces: "THIS IS THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!" but it'd be absolutely pointless. So I guess I'll join in with the weeping. Susan^purrrrr 05:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the MP3 Pla.... The transistor radi.... no, wait.... the phonogra... oh damn. I couldn't hear you over the sound of Effy playing the harpsichord in the other room! Yes, that's the one. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 05:37, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

OK this is the discussion I wanted to comment on, before I got sidetracked with changing my signature color. I usually don't post on debates for a few reasons, first, I'm not great at expressing my views, secondly, I don't want to say anything unless I have an *informed* opinion, (this is why I seldom say much) and last, if what I say isn't likely to be "heard" by the person, meaning if they probably won't be receptive to thinking about the point of view I am presenting, why say anything? But I found this discussion very disturbing and so many points came to mind... I think BCS is still quite young, and tends to romanticise that period of time. She just doesn't realize the harsh realities of life for women (and men too) in that period of time (18th century) It was not the paradise she envisions. Women were restricted in many ways, relegated to certain activities. The basics that we take for granted were not assured, clean water and food, the ability to travel as we choose, infant mortality was high, there wasn't a clear understanding of the causes of some illnesses, treatment for them was not available, average life span was much lower than today, and so many other things, I could go on and on. It would be very naive to believe women were better off at that time, or would be better off in a society in which their activities were so limited, and they were valued only for their ability to have and raise children. One can only hope that she will read more real history, think about it, and come to some more balanced viewpoints about womens role in society and her own. Refugee^{talk page} 07:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, said, Refugee. Women were not only likely to die during childbirth, they were all but guaranteed to lose some of their children to disease. PoorEd 08:35, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

If they lived long enough they'd average 1 child/year for about 12 years so the odd cholera typhus (typhoid - is that different), consumption (TB) and of course Measles death didn't really matter. It was really a great time to be a man.</snark>Susan^purrrrr 08:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Bethany, if I was a doctor back in the eighteenth century, I think the first thing I would do is to invent vaccination. ;)  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 08:47, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

And don't forget smallpox! About 25% of all kids got smallpox, regardless of wealth or social class, leaving them with horrible scars for the rest of their lives. Assuming they survived, of course. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:11, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

But they had afternoon tea with little china cups and doilies on the table, simply divine little piano concertos in the conservatory, feather beds, breakfast delivered by black servants who while a little slow were terribly loyal, flower arranging in church, and lots of suitors in uniform. Ajkgordon 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

God help Ms. S if her suitor in uniform is Karajou. Ah have always depended on the insanity of Karajou. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 10:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I think that is the first time I've ever seen someone long to be oppressed.

Read 'em and weep. (Or projectile-vomit. Whatever.) --Gulik 01:58, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Did you know?

...that, according to Assfly, a characteristic of liberals is that they want to be President? Or maybe Andy is just an illiterate moron? I can't tell which. DickTurpis 23:25, 11 March 2008 (EDT) Save yourself from adding to their page view count. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:28, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

And is it just me or is Larry Craig still in office, after trying to buttfuck some guy in a public men's room? DickTurpis 23:27, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

He's still there. His office is right down the hall from Senator Vitter. Vitter's is the one with the disco ball and the D.C. "escorts" walking in the door. --Jdellaro 06:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Turns out, too, that liberals have appointed Elliot Spitzer "their leader". Guess I missed that on NPR, but Andy wouldn't say it if it weren't true.--WJThomas 23:43, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Your edit comment was totally a Simpsons quote/rephrasing. J'approve.-αmεσ (orator) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, one of the benefits of a liberal education is a thorough knowledge of the classics.--WJThomas 08:32, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

At least he rewrit his original illiterate rant... look for this one to be the big exciting news of the week on CP. human 02:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Unwilling to let go of power? Was Florida 2004 so long ago?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 03:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Clear & concise

Well that explains everything. Susan^purrrrr 05:30, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and this makes it much clearer. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:37, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I saw that and suffered boggling of the mind! Susan^purrrrr 05:43, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

It's about education, though... I'd say there's a 96.825% probability it has something to do with classroom prayer. Or maybe with teaching creationism. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

It could be about school v homeschool. Susan^purrrrr 05:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I gave up and checked WP... which wasn't really much help. Seems to be something about whether citizens can sue over discrimination or something. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:59, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Strangely it seems to be about discrimination against women in some way. Susan^purrrrr 06:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) provides in part that

"[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Petitioner instituted litigation in Federal District Court, alleging that she had been excluded from participation in the medical education programs of respondent private universities on the basis of her gender and that these programs were receiving federal financial assistance at the time of her exclusion.

From here. Now why couldn't Andy have said that?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 08:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Why do they do it?

There are obviously a number of, if not liberals, then not-like-us Christian conservative regulars at CP. The parodists they block pretty much straight away and those with an obvious anti-CP agenda. But why do they keep the others? I mean, CP's positions on politics, gun control, Iraq, religion, global warming, universal healthcare, homosexuality, etc. are very narrowly defined. And yet the articulate aforementioned regulars regularly pwn the CP sysops. Why don't they just banninate them? Quash dissent and have done with it? CP content must conform to CP or AS ideology. Yet they are, despite Karajou's best efforts, remarkably lenient in letting a number of regulars repeatedly show them up. I don't get it. Ajkgordon 04:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

One has wondered. Could it be that they realise that they've got to keep them or there'd be only 5 contributors (& AliberalhaterSchlafly). In other words "block/ban averyone who dissents & it would be Andy's blog. Susan^purrrrr 04:57, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Susan is right on the point. They realized how narrow their field of editors is - and the quality too! Tell me one true CPedian who provides good entries. Joaquin was versed in everything Catholic, but hasn't contributed much lately. Those two hour blocks would have been banhammers back in the good ol' days. And you, Ajkgordon, would have ceased to exist in CP just because you contribute here. Incidentally, that's why I took this pseudonym here: back in those times I thought I would have some activity both here and there, instead now I have more or less stopped in CP. Some people will come and say that the difference is TK not being anymore at CP, but I don't agree: Crocoite and Karajou more than make up for him. Леушка^{(Editor at CP)} 06:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

But any contributions that aren't ideologically aligned are instantly reverted. The only lasting contributions then are talk page dissent much of which shows AS et al up. So what on earth is the point? Ajkgordon 07:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

They are left with a residue of good edits (alright, it's only 10% of the original) which help to mount up the total. Susan^purrrrr 07:34, 12 March 2008 (EDT)#

I have been editing CP for a few months now. To test the system I started off with a few bits of rubbish inserted into otherwise factual articles on non-controversial subjects, and not one of my obvious lies has yet been reverted. It's not like there is so much going on there that it would be hard for the sysops to check the factual accuracy of what has been added by a new editor, but they don't bother - or are too ignorant to know the difference. All they care about are the non-encyclopedic bloggish rants opinion pieces masquerading as "articles". Lately I have been doing a bit of provoking and challenging here as well - on the talk pages, and in the articles themselves, but generally getting very little response. Arguments that undermine (destroy, mock, point out the ridiculousness of) the values and methodology of CP are just left there unchallenged for all to see. I'm quite disappointed by my failure to provoke a ban. They must think it's better to appear open-minded and maintain the "encyclopedia" fiction than to admit that CP is in fact the blog of one man who is too lazy to write it all himself and has enlisted a band of ignorant sycophants to help him out. GNUSMAS : TALK 07:44, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I've wondered if home schoolers are instructed to avoid talk pages on pain of losing their souls. PoorEd 08:42, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Seeing some of the posts on CP at the moment, I imagine there will be a purge sooner rather than later. Unless AS believes it shows up the dissenters rather than CP. Ajkgordon 10:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Naughty Homeskollar?

Asswipe removed John Poulson (a British fraudster) from the list of the great and the good. Susan^purrrrr 08:15, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, they obviously can't have any criminals being hoemschkooled, can they? It would suugest that homeschooling might not be effective for at least some.... Spica the Hiver^{The Embassy Centre} 08:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

And how about Vitter and Craig?

If Andy thinks 2 days is an eternity[1], what must he be thinking about the amount of time it's taken Vitter and Craig to resign? I'd ask but, alas, IP banned. --Jdellaro 13:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

...And somebody has. Now try to work into Vitter's CP entry that he reportedly has a diaper fetish, and that New Orleans prostitutes referred to him as "Vitter the Sh***er". Good luck with that one!--WJThomas 16:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Israelophile

I don't think that it is incorrect to say that extreme left wingers and extreme right wingers who have links with Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations share a common goal viz the eradication of the state of Israel. I'm not quite sure what the point of that WIGO is. V. vulpes 14:08, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

To me, it seems to tie into CP's delusion that their enemies are organized. Like the loonies who honestly seem to believe that us Filthy Liberals just CAN'T WAIT to DESTROY AMERICA so that us Atheists and Feminists can enjoy living under... Sharia law in the ....global Caliphate...? Wait... how's that supposed to work...? --Gulik 02:05, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain

I didn't make that claim for McCain in the first place. But given my comments on Billdozer's talk page, I believe he is more qualified than Clinton or Obama. And Billdozer was invited to add an edit showing he isn't. The block was for continuing to play silly buggers. V. vulpes 16:02, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy has often stated that the person making the claim needs to support the claim. As it stands, it is an opinion (is the willingness to commit troops a good attribute of a commander in chief - that is certainly up for debate. I could make a good case for the unwillingness to send troops until the last resort as a preferable attribute - Obama/Powell ticket maybe?). One should instead, ask the person who added the statement the first time[2] to support the claim with facts and citations. Otherwise, it would be quite proper to remove opinion material in accordance with CP rule #5. --Shagie 16:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Aren't you kind of answering your own question with that? V. vulpes 16:17, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Fundamental question. Is it an opinion or is it backed up with facts? If it is an opinion, it should be removed in accordance with rule #5. If it is a fact, it is the responsibility of the person who made the claim to back it up (not the person who contests that it isn't true). People adding the {{fact}} tag before have been banned for unsightly templates. Now, the person removing it without discussion could be an issue, but whatever the case, the person making the original claim is the one that needs to add support. Alternatively, someone could add to the Obama page "... is the most qualified person to be commander in chief." and you, the person removing it would need to prove otherwise. That way leads to madness. I believe the statement is purely opinion - the qualifications for commander in chief are not well defined and what I feel makes a good commander in chief are not necessarily what another considers good qualifications. --Shagie 16:22, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Correct, you didn't make the original claim - you just made sure it stayed there, and blocked someone for repeatedly trying to remove it, despite the fact that CPs own commandments state it shouldn't be there in the first place. As for your comments on Billdozer's talk page, a couple of those comments are themselves personal opinion, and the others are really only reasons for you forming your opinion. There is nothing that, in and of itself, objectively proves that McCain 'has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief', as the sentence in question puts it. Indeed, as Shagie pointed out, even if you accept your comments on Billdozer's talk page as being 100% accurate and correct, even the opinionated ones, you could successfully argue one of the other candidates should be CINC for other reasons. Zmidponk 16:26, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Will a similar point be added the John Kerry article, regarding his military experience making him a better choice for CINC than George W. Bush, at least? human 17:00, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Bush put his LIFE ON THE LINE defending Texas from the dreaded Vietcong Air Force! --Gulik 02:06, 13 March 2008 (EDT) fnord

Just for the Hell of it

Someone should change ed's 2 meters entry to read 6.74 inches instead of 6 3/4 inches and write "improved" in the summary. Just to see what would happen. --71.57.54.19 22:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah! That 39.37 inches thing has been echoing in my brain all day. human 02:35, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm still wondering what made Ed think that was a good idea for an article. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 03:00, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, why 2 why not 75 or 9 or 1? Susan^purrrrr 03:03, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Maybe he thinks "2 meters" are used more than 75, 9 or... 1. Someone should start making more articles like that. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 03:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

BTW: A meter is a device for measuring a quantity, the unit of length (Everywhere but North America) is the METRE. Susan^purrrrr 03:38, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I just tried to swap it around from: Two meters is 6 feet, 6 7/10 inches. It can also be spelt "two metres." to: Two metres is 6 feet, 6 7/10 inches. It is spelt "two meters" in the US. But the page is locked... Spica the Hiver^{The Embassy Centre} 05:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey, Canada spells it "metre" too.Shangrala 10:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

So its just them 'dam yankees' is it? Susan^purrrrr 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why two meters? Because we aren't supposed to say that Ed is two meters tall! (Only two pages link to "two meters" - that one and the "Talk:Progressives and choice" page, where DHayes called it "ridiculously useless". --Sid 08:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was funny that of all the technical terms on the original talk page (pi), only "two meters" got writ. And doing so was such an RW thing to do! human 15:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

LOL

This isn't good enough for WIGO.... but did anyone else get a chuckle out of this? whoever iconoclast is, I salute you for your correct impression of Andy's Racism Buzz words SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 02:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

People still read CP? Besides us, that is? It's a loony bin... human 02:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Poor old douche bag

It only goes to show what happens when a credulous mind reads political woo. Obviously Ed is reading horse-face slime-molds mould's book and loving every minute of it when her superior "insights" agree with his own petty prejudices. Genghis ^Marauding 03:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Sir! I call you out for mental cruelty to horses! Susan^purrrrr 03:05, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I have amended it. I can't think of any animal that deserves such a disparaging association, so I just picked something appropriately mindless and primitive.

Apologies to the slime-molds moulds. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:38, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Help, help, I'm being oppressed! If I have to be censored by liebruls then I demand British spelling! Genghis ^Marauding 04:50, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

God! As a card carrying spelling fascist I missed that! SHAME on ME Susan^purrrrr 04:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

What, pray, is a douche bag? Ajkgordon 07:04, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Nevermind. I googled. Ajkgordon 07:06, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

wp:Douche (I had the same query) Susan^purrrrr 07:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Is Ed turning into autobiographical articles? Is this mine bad humour and is it in bad taste? Леушка^{haven't visited www.RWguide.com !} 07:23, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I found this picture of Ed Poor courtesy of his WP page. I guess he's the one in the middle with the brown jacket. I presume this is some Moonie service. Genghis ^Marauding 09:29, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

That's a bit creepy, Ghengis. Although waste not want not. Caption competition? Ajkgordon 09:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"Lord, let us pray. Our father, which... holy shit! Somebody stole our shoes!" Ajkgordon 09:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Guy in brown looks a little bit like Giles from Buffy... but didn't he say that he's six feet something tall? The guy in brown is hardly taller than the Generic Asian People in the crowd. I would've thought he's the Really Tall Guy to the left in the second row. Also, where'd you find the pic? I briefly checked his user page, but no dice (then again, I still didn't have any caffeine...).

Post-edit-conflict note: Ajkgordon, you just made my day! :D --Sid 09:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, it wasn't strictly his User page, I did a Google image search and got this link. Genghis ^Marauding 09:50, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah, I see! Well, on the second picture, Guy In Brown seems to be not-really-visible, but Really Tall Guy is featured prominently again... (although it's likely that there are other overlaps between the two pics, so this is hardly total proof - I got no idea what Ed looks like) --Sid 10:34, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Is that an Angel or a Devil on your shoulder, Ed?

Here's poor Ed. Perhaps those symbols on the wall in the second picture (above) can tell us whether that's a Moonie cult meeting or not? Auld Nick 10:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I resemble that remark! PoorEd 11:17, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, so he's the tall guy on the second row, about a third of the way across. Genghis ^Marauding 11:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Just playin'. Susan^purrrrr 11:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Random comment - did someone break Ed Poor's brain? he's odder than usual lately.-αmεσ (orator) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

probably had a ticking off from the Rev. Moon's hit God squad for being a member of a reactionary warmongering wiki. Susan^purrrrr 12:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I have ascribed it to him reading the slime mould book. Genghis ^Marauding 12:46, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

He does seem slighty nuttier than usual, but he seems much more confrontational lately. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. His almost-articles are really a protest-magnet, and the way he defends those things is stunning. Thank God that (so far) nobody really fell for his "Discuss the content with me! Prove the quote wrong! I dare you!" tactic (Didn't Ken use that one all the time back when people actually tried to change his pet projects?). I don't think anybody (except for Ed) would survive such a discussion. See, here's the first(?) 90/10 reminder already! --Sid 13:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Ides of March

Remember when (mists of time) Ken DeMeyer prophesied "great things" on the 15th? Did anyone then connect it with being L. Ron's birthday & the date of the proposed Anonymous picket of Scientology 'Temples'? Susan^purrrrr 04:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Not really. I just assumed he was blathering. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:00, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

You know, Julius Caesar was murdered by his friends and underlings on the Ides of March. Hmm... What does Ken have planned? Arcan 05:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"Et tu, Conservative?" doesn't scan too well. "Et tu, Karajou?" perhaps. How far does the conspiracy reach? (Also, a suggestion for his headstone: "'Neath here Andrew Schlafly ever entombed doth lie / buried six feet about two meters under, with a liberal on each side") --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 05:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Buried? I thought we were going to drag his body through the streets and then feed it to the dingos and vultures? (Or would his flesh poison them?) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Nono. A magnanimous and worthy victor should always allow his opponent an honourable funeral. It's in the rules. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Just this once? Please? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:24, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Foxy's had enough

Fox's goodbye

Looks as if fox has left. He's used the words ("I am just going outside and may be some time.") of an Antarctic explorer who sacrificed his own life for his fellows (in vain as it turned out). Susan^purrrrr 06:49, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

He's stayed to defend against vandals though. Susan^purrrrr 06:53, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I think that was just a last look round the room before closing the door. I like the way he took down "Two meters" and "Liberalism and immaturity" with a few snarky comments aimed at Ed. Maybe it's just me but I always got the impression that Fox never appreciated Ed's apparent anti-semitism. He also gave PJR a farewell keep your chin up mate. With Iduan and Fox gone, CP's only salvation is Kens's Atheism article. The Ides of March cannot come too soon. Genghis ^Marauding 07:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Connected since Fox mentions it in his note to PJR: I only noticed now that PJR throws a minor hissing fit on his user page because the evil RW people said mean things about him. Yeesh. I would feel more offended if that wasn't coming from a site that taunts and insults all liberals on the planet (with "liberals" meaning "everybody who is not a heterosexual, abstinent-till-marriage, gun-loving, Creationist, Christian conservative") in multiple articles. I was okay with PJR so far, but I think that was fairly petty. Especially when we got his fellow sysops insulting multiple people straight in their face (Hello Andy, Kara, Croco... and by now, also Ed). "Ohhh, it's okay when our sysops do that because we just CP-swiftboat dumb liberals who do not accept that Christianity is The One True Religion!" Bah. Anakin to Vader indeed. --Sid 08:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Hey PJR, since you like to read us, I got one for you.... How about listen up you (delete) idiot... Have you ever heard of sarcasm? No, how about Irony? Damn.... Well, sometime adults say one thing and really mean another... Seriously? Do you think we dislike Christians? cause I don't. I have no problem with your average Christian. I do have a problem with someone who souts his beleifs from the mountaintops while telling everyone else to shut the hell up because they're wrong and will continue to mock anyone that does so... You're welcome SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 10:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

The userpage comments are nearly as bad as the original, and even if they weren't, what exactly did we twist? Oh, and there's a difference between expressing your beliefs and forcing it on others, specially young children. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

He built up to his exit with a series of links from his User page. First, he removed his speech against CP's direction, then posted a pair of Pink Floyd video links at YouTube:
This revision led to 'Brain Damage Eclipse'
Next 'Hey You'
Then, a little rant
Finally, the goodbye

One suspects we are meant to interpret something from all of this. DogP 11:29, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I rather suspect that Fox will pop in and see what we're saying about him. So, Hi Fox! We don't expect you to stay around here as it isn't really your scene but you're welcome to give us your version of events. Genghis ^Marauding 11:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

At least we say something. I didn't see any reaction on CP yet... was he thrown into the memory hole already do they just have bad reaction times? --Sid 11:53, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"If you ignore it it never happened" (but I'll bet the emails or new Special Forum, or whatever's been buzzin')Susan^purrrrr 11:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Fox, we'd love to see you here, and have you enter as enthusiastically into good debate as per CPAdmin1/Tim's recent forays. You wouldn't regret it. DogP 12:46, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Koba (who he?) pleads with Andy.Susan^purrrrr 18:38, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Is that why I got banned by DanH? I can't think of any other reason, but nothing of mine was reverted. Fretfulporpentine 13:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia HAS one reader

"What is the best place to find trustworthy information on Barack Obama", Geraldine Ferraro asked to herself (at least, according to news reports here on the Old Continent). Леушка^{haven't visited www.RWguide.com !} 07:57, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

How fitting that this story is among the first Google results for her name right now:

“”"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued.

Yep, she definitely got Andy's "Affirmative Action President" vibes... --Sid 08:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Barikada just got pwnd

Couldn't think of WIGO snark, so I'll just post it here: Is it can be arbitrarily increased block time now plz? --Sid 09:17, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Love the reason: "Repeated unappropriated conduct." What the hell is "unappropriated conduct"? Is that conduct that you didn't put in a requisition form for? --Jdellaro 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, to "appropriate" something means to take it, and often there's an undercurrent of non-permission to the word (that is, stealing). So "unappropriate" would be to not take/steal, or perhaps to return something. So, at CP, stealing is to be encouraged. Either that, or JM meant "inappropriate" (English ain't his first language, after all).--WJThomas 09:50, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

It's true: it isn't easy to guess/know if it's un- or in-, for those of us whose native language only contemplates in-. It's not something you learn in English classes in school. Леушка^{haven't visited www.RWguide.com !} 11:54, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I feel sorry for JM - a minnow in a school of sharks - he's trying his best to improve the site cp:Adrian_Vander and the masterpieces but I think he's the token non-WASP - is that "Affirmative Action"? Susan^purrrrr 12:05, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, that's only half the time I thought I'd get. Yay? Barikada 21:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Those damned liberals and their obsession with religion

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Templeton_Prize See AssFly's comment!

OK, I admit, it was a bit of a test, albeit originally unintentional.

Templeton claims to be non-political but is heavily criticised for being both conservative and religious. It even helped ID in its formative years. Hell, Templeton Jnr, the original Templeton's son who has taken over as president of the foundation, is head of Let Freedom Ring and is an evangelical Christian. Dawkins' book The God Delusion is riddled with shots at the Foundation because of its stated aims of promoting science that attempts to conciliate with religion - pushing science's boundaries into the metaphysical. Its annual prize is set to be more than the Nobel Prize purely to help counteract what it sees as the secular march of that organisation - it's keeping God in high level respected science. This year's winner, a priest and cosmologist, looks for God in the universe. He attempts, even claims, to prove through science that God is alive and well. The list of previous winners also demonstrates the foundation's conservative and religious credentials.

It cannot be described as liberal by any reasonable American definition.

But we're not talking about reasonable, are we? The reasons listed above as to why Templeton cannot be described as liberal are pretty solid - established even. But that's not how it works in Schlaflyland. To take an example of how its religious conservative credentials crumble to dust and therefore must default to liberal and deceitful, we must spend at least thirty seconds scanning an article in the NY Post and discover that this year's winner doesn't criticise evolution \o/. I mean, come on! He might be a hugely educated and respected theologian. He might be an incredibly sophisticated intellectual and scientist. But a true Christian? An evilutionist?

I'm being sarcastic but the point is surely made. Or re-made. Or reinforced. As if it needed to be. This little episode demonstrates beyind all doubt that Aschlafly's ideology is fundamental - it will not allow him to make a reasonable judgement on anything that has even the potential to conflict with it. His ideology is so narrowly defined that one point left, right, up or down and he, she, it or they must be liberal and deceitful. Even if they are religious and conservative by any other definition.

Thank you for listening. Ajkgordon 05:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

CP has an article about at least one Templeton Prize winner, cp:Charles Townes, who famously said: "Science and religion are quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge" V. vulpes 09:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

They have article on quite a few: cp:Charles Colson, cp:Billy Graham, cp:Mother Teresa, and cp:Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and perhaps others. I really love Andy's response to the list, as it just backs up the WIGO. To paraphrase: "I haven't heard of most of those people, and there are a bunch of un-American names there, so it's mostly Liberal." And PJR, in his feeble-minded mentality, basically says that since a bunch of the people are of non-Christian religions (though he curiously leaves out Jewish) and therefore liberal too. I guess all non-Christians are liberal, eh? Idiots. DickTurpis 10:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

IRC channel

Just advertising the RW IRC channel

Server: /server irc.freenode.net

Channel: /join #rationalwiki

If you are new to IRC, here are some instructions Timppeli 18:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Feebas

To be honest, I'm surprised that his doings on Encyclopedia Dramatica aren't monitored likewise. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Yikes, I just looked. It's a good thing Conservapedia sysops don't read WIGO tal- oh, wait.

1. Conservapedia Sysop types, if you're reading this, I wouldn't suggest heading over there - and hopefully WIGO won't have unintentionally sealed a fate....
2. Interpreted... what are you doing over there anyway...?

Uchiha^KATON! 21:18, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

What am I doing over there? Why, I'm chillin' out, relaxin', and providing moral support to the troops over at Chanology. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

<smirk> DogP 21:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Done

i am down with pissing around over at conserva-fucktard. Bunch of ignorant bastards they are MetcalfeM 22:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I saw the last remark. Expect permab& shortly, but you went out in glory. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Well said, my friend. If I had any heroes, you could well be in the running. Better add you to banwatch before it's moot. (Linky, for those who are interested: [3]) DickTurpis 22:21, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Bah, I cant believe what a mutant swine he is. He is probably polishing his hood and drooling over the keyboard as we speak in anticipation of banning another liberal. @sshole! It felt really good though MetcalfeM 22:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I enjoyed your exit lines. The one at Randy Pandy's talk page has been deep-sixed already, lest some innocent homskollar stumble upon the truth. Please, folks, don't make seven different wigo items tracking this! human 22:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

After that all I get is a one month block. Wait until next month AShaffles. Fucker. MetcalfeM 22:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Only one month? Wow. They've become a lot mellower since back when I racked up about a century in blocks on various accounts. --Gulik 22:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Up to 5 years! 217.171.129.75 23:05, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Like it's going to be there in five years! CЯacke® 23:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Nice to see Crocodile actually acknowledging that a 5-year ban is effectively permanent. Weren't they discreetly trying to avoid saying that before? --Kels 23:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

*Sigh* Learn together completely missed the point of your post. Also, I'm afraid Andy may catch your liberal spelling (the "your" in your last sentence should be "you're") and use it to prove the inferiority of public schools. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Regarding LT's asinine "point" - can someone who plays sockpuppet please mention that that the CP editors themselves could add to the "many non-controversial subjects that could be expanded"? Instead of the liberal-hating, homophobic, racist, sexist articles that are the hallmark of the site? human 04:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, because Andy never confuses the two... Barikada 09:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't that the point, though? You become a sysop (or, in normal language, "co-blogger") to gain the right to post whatever insane screed you want, while the regular editors (or "plebes") do all the work of dressing the place up to look kinda like an encyclopedia. Seems like the division they've been aiming at for months now. --Kels 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me or was anyone else reading metcalfe's parthian as if he was one of monty python's french knights? "you're bad at maths and your mother smells of elderberries". just me? i'll get me coat. air 10:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

International Alternative Home of Conservapedia In The News Page

Here is another item for the CP Main Page - Pope Benedict Busts Catholics For Accelerating Too Hard Away From The Lights, Setting AC Too High, Running Hot Tap. Iis1stConservapediaSockMonster 04:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Crushing children's self-esteem

"Write a flawless... essay" —ASchlafly[4] This is unequivocally one the worst things you can tell a student. Where did this man thing get his ideas about teaching kids? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I was pretty disgusted myself. A normal teacher/human would find a better way to express what I think he meant to say: "Write an essay with no spelling or grammar errors..." I have to admit, it is pretty annoying to see glaring spelling errors in a formal, typed essay (I mean, come on! Spell check is right there!), but his phrasing here is so poor that no one can truly complete the assignment. "Flawless" has a connotation that none can live up to, but I'm starting to think that may be the point. Arcan 07:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

And apparently, this is their textbook. Very charming. Also very edumacashional, I'm sure. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:28, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So far science, religion, history, mathematics and orthography has been politicized, what's next? 190.73.152.141 07:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Physical education? Damn those liberal team sports! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Food? Damn those liberal vegetarians! Ajkgordon 08:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Biology? "Today, class, we're going to be dissecting frogs, and examining how an Intelligence Designed their internal organs." -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Design and Technology? The 4069 IC is full of deceit! --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 09:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, what I like best are the major, glaring errors in grammar...

Here's the whole thing, with no retouching done by me:

.Write a flawless, well-structured essay of at least 900 words on one or more of the following topics: 1. I have two words to say about my parents: “thank you.” Actually, I have 900 words more to say. (This topic will appear again.

2. A right to armed self-defense is essential to maintaining and preserving a free society. (You may refer to the pending gun control case before the U.S. Supreme Court, D.C. v. Heller, which is explained on www.conservapedia.com .)
3. John McCain (or someone else) was not my first choice for president, but I like him (or her) now and so should you.
4. Judges should be elected, and then they would not rule against prayer and the Ten Commandments.
5. It is never too late to do what is right.
6. Write an essay on any chapter topic in our textbook, The Supremacists.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Writing_Homework_Five"

Ok, in the interest of keeping this somewhat brief, here are the major errors I find: Number 1 is the most unprofessional and delusional essay topic I've ever heard of... and it's written in a very sloppy fashion. Number 2 is actually the "best" topic on the list, if you exclude the thought-pushing. Number 3 is incredibly awful... Even in a persuasive essay, a good writer refains from using I or you, and the damn topic sentence uses them both Number 4 I can't comment on at the moment...I'm vomiting blood and Number 5 is about the broadest topic in the history of schools.... and for those of you who can't tell, yes, I do work in public schools. That's why I thank Andy for making us all look that much better... When drivel like this passes for schooling, I understand why Republicans win elections SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 10:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Hahaha Went to the link provided above for the "textbook" and the first "review" by a user is from....Roger Schlafly! ROFL!!!--Jdellaro 10:37, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So, has anyone ever called Andy on his brainwashing bullshit? NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 10:54, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Of course. They were all immediately banned from the site. Hell, I was banned for things like correcting spelling. Czolgolz 11:20, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Admit it: You were actually trying to promote a really liberal and deceitful form of spelling. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 12:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Damn liberal "U"s, how dare ye! -- Armondikov 12:58, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy sounds like a parody of a WWII B-movie Nazi. "You vill write a flawless essay or you vill suffer ze consequences." PoorEd 13:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:D -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:37, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Workin' on my night moves...

Not quite WIGO-worthy, but ever wondered who what Andy does at night when he turns off the edit rights? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Haha --RyanB 05:28, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

The stuff of nightmares. PoorEd 13:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Contest Fallout

If you never have, take a look at the list of Orphaned pages at CP. Those contests really do wonders for that place. Smyth 12:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

3,517 items listed. Imagine—that's only 3500 sentences to write on CP! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

just for fun

[[5]] 91.45.189.92 12:00, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

That's nothing short of amazing. I'll bet 10 internet dollars that he's gone within 4 days. --71.57.54.19 18:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Just curious

The photo of PJR that was posted earlier was removed, even though it was basically just a link to a very public CP page. But now we have several pictures of Uncle Eddie, even though they were attained via a slightly more stalking method, and have now been photoshopped in a mocking way, with snarky captions. I'm not saying I mind, but why the double standard? I get it with Andy, as he is undoubtedly a public figure, but is that true of Ed? Or do we just find him that much more despicable that we tolerate it more readily than we do with the mellow-mannered Phil? Just wondering. DickTurpis 12:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

You ask a lot of questions. Typical liberal... -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Since we have no policy as such, we just have to fight it out. My take is that unless someone is a public figure or we have compelling reason to post a picture, we probably shouldn't (assfly is public and open for general mockery). Ed has been quite vocal with his WP break, but who knows. It's worth a long, arduous and possibly pointless discussion, I think. I'd hate to see my pic go up on CP.-- -PalMD ^{--Grüß Goat!} 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

While I didn't post the pic of Ed, I did post one of the links. Ed has made himself something of a celebrity with his early WP history and he voluntarily posted the links to those pictures, similarly PJR has posted links to his church website and uploaded the picture of him and another CP. There may be a double standard at work here but if people post their personal pictures on the internet with links to their names what can they expect? Try going to Facebook or Bebo and you can easily find Andy's kids, nephews and nieces, as well as a dozen or so of his homschoolers. Andy seems very keen on protecting children but I have to ask what is he doing allowing his own to appear so publicly? Genghis ^Marauding 17:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I know what you mean, so I guess my question was why not PJR rather than why Ed? My personal preference is to provide links to photos on public sites, if so desired, but uploading them here for mockery perhaps a bit much. I'd be a bit uncomfortable if they started doing that for us. I just thought it odd that PJR's photos came down rather quickly, but Ed's are still there. Now, dare I go to myspace and search for the third generation of Schlaflys? My morbid curiosity might get the best of me. DickTurpis 17:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Interesting....[6] DickTurpis 17:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Quiz Time

Guess the author of the following quote, written on a CP article talk page:

this is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

Check here for the answer.
Matt 21:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Bah, we already knew Ed was a liar, that's nothing new. --Kels 22:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

But the irony, it burns. (Even though it's a relatively old post, so it burns a bit less than normal.) --Sid 22:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yep, if there was a WWGO section, it could have gone there! I thought it particularly amusing in light of his recent Andyesque articles. Matt 22:40, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, his "title and block quote" articles seem to be more like Crocoite with a side order of Conservative than Andy's "pull articles out of your ass" style. --Kels 22:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but he bought into Andy's "Liberals suck because..." vibes. He's just lazy and lets others do the writing. The "quote of so much power that I don't need to say anything else" gig has been trademarked by Conservative, though, that's true. --Sid 22:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Atheistic rebellion

Nice wigo - written by "real" CPers, not random socks. Also, wonderfully insane! human 04:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, ChrisWa already admitted to being a parodist (not that there's a difference though). NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 04:52, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

The article before "deletion", if anyone cares to read it before it actually is. Uchiha^KATON! 14:36, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Brrrrr! Bit chilly out there!

Captain Oates returns... http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Fox

[7] I just popped back to top up me flask, and tidied up while I was in there. Robert Scott is a messy pup. V. vulpes 07:38, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

You could have left Atheistic Rebellion though. Леушка^{superstitious animist} 07:58, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Seriously, the changes to Liberal Christianity are good work. If more sysops were interested in accuracy like that, then I'd expect 80% of the criticisms you lot get would fade away. Not that I'm expecting Andy to let it stand for long, though. Or you, if you keep doing it. --Kels 09:58, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, agreed. Fox is acting far too sane right now. "Liberal tools" is gone, "Liberal Christianity" was defused, he questioned Conservative's sudden protection spree... this can't end well. But respect for trying to induce some common sense! --Sid 10:21, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

$5 (to the wiki) says Liberal Christianity is changed back within the day. --Kels 10:27, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Fox: "For the love of G-d, am I the only one who tries to write an encyclopedia article without constant references to liberals here?" --Sid 10:29, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

That would be a yes, Fox. Well, you and the lowly non-sysops, who are directed to only edit non-controversial articles and leave the lies and propaganda alone. --Kels 10:59, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Did everybody go even more crazy while I was asleep?

• Fox deletes (and restores) Andy's "Liberal tools" article and then just wipes it
• Crocoite finally got enough of people criticizing sysops and blocks DHayes, Jimmy and TomMoore (DHayes for whining, Jimmy for pointing out DHayes's block, TomMoore for pointing out Jimmy's block) for a day each. (See WIGO for links)
• Ed suddenly declares "natural selection" to be a theory that's rejected by 40% of Americans, but then realizes that even creationists accept it. (See WIGO for links)
• Ed tags an article as a copyvio using a non-existent template and a silly inline comment.
• Ed is the most recent victim of the Public Googlegasming
• Oh dear God, Andy woke up and also joins the Public Googlegasming

I know that's a silly question on this talk page, but... What Is Going On? --Sid 09:13, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Holy jumping mother o' God in a side-car with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib! It must be T-H-E-M at work! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:18, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservative is sending Andy a Very Important Email.[8] human 15:27, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I sure hope this new Very Important Issue is not something that will distract him from his other Very Important Ides of March project. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:33, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Super Bowl XX - testing, 1, 2, 3...

Okay, I've had bad starts into the day myself, but this tops even my "I did not sleep at all last night, but I'm not as think as you sleepy I am!" phases. --Sid 11:41, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Wow, I wonder what he was testing? human 15:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

His keyboard? Genghis ^Marauding 15:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Site down?

Or just me? Not able to access CP at the moment, browser times out :( V. vulpes 12:25, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

No, 'tis fine for me. They might be serverblocking you ... -מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Try restarting your browser, and if that fails, your computer. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 12:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Clear the cache! A technique known to work in at least 95% of cases! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I'd tried all those to start with, even switched browsers, renewed my IP address, etc, but for 30 minutes just nada -- back in now though. Strange. I've noticed it has been real sluggish lately though. Is contemplating DoS paranoia..? V. vulpes 12:38, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Access is funny. Sometimes I have been unable to connect to their site for a couple of days, but then find I can manage it through a proxy. Genghis ^Marauding 14:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

This could be handy: http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ --WJThomas 16:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

240 and counting

Hey, the last WIGO addition just hit the 240 mark. What's the status on the counter reset? Just asking now since we're still a day or two away from the critical mark. --Sid 16:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Someone email Trent, he's the only one who can reset it. First a bunch of older ones should be archived, too. human 17:09, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Masterwhat of the week?

The new Masterpiece of the Week is Jean-Honore Fragonard's The Swing. Here's what a quick google-ing finds: "(Fragonard adopted) the erotic subjects then in vogue and for which he is chiefly known, of which The Swing is the most famous. This picture became an immediate success, not merely for its technical excellence, but for the scandal behind it. The young nobleman is not only getting an interesting view up the lady's skirt, but she is being pushed into this position by her priest-lover, shown in the rear." Family-friendly, indeed! ^{— Unsigned, by: WJThomas / talk / contribs}

Thank you. I thought I was the only one went "Dude, he's totally looking under her skirt!" --Sid 16:44, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

So basically, we had a prostitute last week, and an exhibitionist who's into group sex this week. What's next week, the Bacchanal? --Kels 17:19, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Hollywod values are okay if they were expressed a century ago. PoorEd 18:07, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

I see it as a clear example of the seductive and deceptive nature of Rococo Painter Values! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Many editors on CP, like many fundies, are obsessed with various kinds repression, perversion and implicit sexual violence-- the priest lover, the furitive and stolen glimpse of bloomers. They are only interested in homosexuality because they see it as dirty and thus fascinating. It is so blindingly obvious that I'm surprised the FBI is not more involved on the site. Andy et al are obviously diddling or preparing to diddle Some little home schooler. I can't wait to wee how CP handles that news. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?}

Ed, Modern Science, and the growing dent in my wall

Oh, Ed... how dearly I wish you were just a parodist. But no, you're serious, and you just used Creation On The Web to define start an article about Modern Science - conveniently reminding us that There Is A Creator and that Atheism Is Wrong.

I'm seriously bashing my head against the wall here. Not even because it's propaganda, mind you, but because he doesn't even take the time to weave the source into an article. He just writes articles by dropping some quote he likes into an empty document, and then he walks away. Nothing says "I don't really give a shit about this..." more than that. And then he claims that he's a great encyclopedia contributor and gets a "Wow! Great job, Ed!!!" from Andy. GRAH! Why must the stupid hurt so much? --Sid 17:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

If only stupidity was as painful to the stupid as to the rest of us, eh? --Kels 17:59, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes... yes... but there they are, merrily going on and on. What's worse is that any attempt at fixing this one would be screwed up because the sysops would insist to credit Christianity every other sentence and to point out that Atheism is totally bad. Oh, and they'd have to find a way to blame liberals for something! BWAAARGH excuse me, I need a brief CP break. Gotta vent all this crap into creative writing of some sort. --Sid 18:07, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Don't forget Script Frenzy is coming up. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:12, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Interesting! I think I heard of it, but I never checked it out before. Don't think script writing is my thing, but I know a few people who study things related to theater and plays in general, so I'll forward the link to them. :)

(In other news, Ed refuses to stop being a liberal-hating ass. *sigh*) --Sid 20:43, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

( undent) Articles like that are a great thing as they make it more likely that a casual reader coming to CP is going to stmble across a venomous hate screed early on in their browsing and thus know exactly what CP is about -- hate. That is why I've stopped my sock activity on CP. As every bit of non-crazy content I added only served to camolfalge the crazy stuff. That I suspect is the purpose of all the cutting and pasting activities. Ed is just a pathetic and disgruntled WP editor who wants a site to be important on. That is CP. Since its members are contracting -- Only Andy and his butt boys ( sorry kids that is what groomers like Andy, Ed and Karjou do afterall) -- Ed has a good chance of maintaining his status of big turd floating in a small pond. Obviously the intertubes exist only to feed his pathetic ego and provide him with fresh young boys to diddle. Hey Kids, Uncle Andy is going to teach you about man-parts today. Let's all suitup for gym! ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 21:16, 15 March 2008 (EDT)