Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Go Bethany, Go!

Beth is giving Bugler the red ass treatment. I like it. Bjones 15:50, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It has to be said that the distaff side on Conservapedia are generally quite sensible and have a degree of integrity. They obviously need to be got rid of. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yay! Someone has backbone! JazzMan 16:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz, I detect that you've decided to give up on night editing rights. Bjones 17:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I have high hopes for Beth. I hope that, once she gets out of the grasp on Andy and people like him, she'll look around and see how the world really is. Before anyone jumps on me, No, that does not mean I think that Conservative or religious positions are wrong, there are several religious and Conservative people here that can contribute to debates in a very logical and respectful manner. I see Beth as one of those people. Keep fighting girl. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Her input is a good insight (UNDENIABLE TRUTH!) on what Andy's students probably think about CP in general. Since her stance on the equal testing for boys and girls, she really hasn't shown anything but distrust for Andy's blog. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:33, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure how old Bethany is, but I believe that in the past Andy has (quite rightly in my book) insisted she not be contacted off-wiki. So a bit worrying to see TK trying to talk her in to dealing with him and Bugler in such a way. I'm assuming Bugler is a parodist so hopefully would not want to do anything nasty out of the public eye. But TK... I'm not so sure. Matt 20:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

How old are Andy's students? She's been on CP for two years now, so she is at youngest 15, and probably more in the 16-18 range. Doesn't make TK's actions any less creepy though. Hactar 18:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think that she is about 14 now maybe even 15. She was certainly young when she started and don't forget her older sister Sharon (where she go?) is probably about 17.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I stand corrected and disturbed. Creepy. Hactar 20:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Image Protection

What's the point of protecting images if you have to have upload rights? Seems kinda redundant and a waste of time. Jrssr5 16:07, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Because they don't even trust the people with upload rights, or block rights or even sysops thanks to Andy promoting the obvious parodists just because they kiss his arse. Conservapedia's just one big giant suspicion fest. --JeevesMkII 16:13, 3 December 2008 (EST)

That "rule" (Unless I'm mistaken, it's actually not really a rule, just one of those unwritten things they kept doing until everybody "knew" it's "policy") came into effect before they took uploading rights away from everybody else introduced "Upload Rights". Some people wandalized images by replacing them with Goatse and stuff, so they first came up with the "protect every image instantly" plan, and they kept doing it even when almost nobody was able to upload anymore.

Or what Jeeves said. It also sounds plausible in a very sad way. --Sid 16:17, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I think in this case Sid is closer to what happened. It had to do with the Conservapedia logo or something. It was slightly before my time so I don't remember the details. I'd look them up, but I'm really lazy. JazzMan 16:39, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I remember that happening and them instituting the "policy". I just thought it seemed odd to keep doing it. But the parodist point is a good one. Jrssr5 08:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure, but doesn't the protection also (or maybe just) apply to the image's description page? That is, protecting the image also keeps normal editors from being able to give information about the image and its provenance on the description page. For example, nobody can post <blink>NOT A BANANA</blink> on cp:Image:Banana.jpg. (That said, it strikes me that there has not been enough use of the blink tag on Conservapedia to date. I suggest blink should be used in addition to bold to introduce the very important subject of the article. For example: "<blink>William McKinley, Jr.</blink> was the 25th President of the United States of America, serving from 1897 until 1901 as a Republican." Okay, I'm done now. --Marty 01:07, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, it protects NOT A BANANA, but more likely it protects from NOT FAIR USE. JazzMan 02:02, 4 December 2008 (EST) PS: Blink doesn't seem to work on my browser. :-/ JazzMan 02:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Then you are a lucky, lucky man Jazz. *carries on sticking needles into Marty's voodoo doll* --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz are you using Opera? I remember being incredibly happy when I read that it didn't allow the blink tag. I'm almost tempted to go back to it just to avoid that. Hactar 18:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Range blocks

This is a wonderful conversation about TK's range blocks. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 17:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah. I thought this was an interesting edit that got removed. I'm also not pleased with TK trying to enforce the whole "we don't discuss anything interesting in public" policy. But what can you do? Bjones 17:42, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Man, TK is obsessed with getting people to email him. Why? W H Y ?--KrissAkabusiAwoogar 18:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Because on a one to one basis he can seem quite reasonable and will lull you into a false sense of security. _and marmite 18:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

My guess: purely ideological blockings, discussing it on CP means it might eventually be called out for what it is, and to keep it censored, they'll stop any talk about it before people catch on that they yet again can't follow their own damn rules. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Another reason TK gets people to email or IM him is because then his words can't be used against him. If he says something that runs counter to his actions later, there's no proof, and anything offered would be either labeled as made up or at the very least an invasion of privacy somehow. He's done it loads of times in the past. --Kels 18:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

It also means that all conversations will be filtered through him. The entire setup is simply a Secret Court in which only certain people will be heard. And because TK always makes sure to stress that whatever he decides is simply what Andy wants (based on him "suggesting" quite a few things to Andy in the past and Andy just going "Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever you think..."), he becomes the judge and thus Second In Command.

People with actual knowledge are simply ignored, which ensures that all important decisions will be based on the technical knowledge of the sysops (BWAHAHA) and the guy with the most convincing style in private (TK). And since none of these mail convos will be officially on the record, what's to stop TK from making whatever claim he wants? People will take TK's word (or the word of Ed/JM/Geo/etc., who will confirm that whatever TK says is likely true because how could their great friend not tell the truth?), and the case will be closed before people even know that there ever was one. --Sid 18:49, 3 December 2008 (EST)

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

You all make him sound so sinister. It doesn't really square with my mental image of him, which looks like the popular British TV personality Terry Nutkins.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 05:03, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Terry Nutkins? TERRY NUTKINS? I will not have that man's name mentioned in my presence. --Tony Soper

TK, your range block of 81.210.0.0/16 blocked IPs of several central European (esp. German and Polish) internet provider. Your blockreason is:

Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy My own provider at home uses a chunk of these numbers. This provider serves ~450,000 households and gives them fast internet access. Of course, a couple of the clients will allow nets like TOR to use their connection - that could count for the anon proxy part. But that will happen at most private providers. As the numbers are dynamic, multiple accounts are a possibility, though concurrent accounts should be very improbable. Is there any event which triggered this /16 block? Currently, I'm assigned one of these numbers at home, so I'd rather like this block to be lifted.

IMO, range blocks of this magnitude are more disruptive than productive.

Chiming in, these quite recent blocks: :04:26, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 193.200.150.0/24 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: www.anonymouse.org - Germany ) :03:17, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 163.118.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: This IP is also black listed several places) :02:00, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 81.210.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Blacklisted at multiple sites -- anon proxy) :00:59, 2 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 207.58.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.html IP is even blacklisted by WP, and listed as a black hole by several sites) :21:04, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 219.93.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) ‎ (IP of vandal: Per consult with Geo -- also RobertPressley,RandallE & IrvingMichaels, this is anon proxy ) :20:50, 1 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 212.116.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Blacklisted IP @ multiple sites it is from Saudi Arabia.) lock out 327,936 IPs if I didn't miscalculate.

I think it would pay off to invest more time into calculating better block ranges. --AlanS 15:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)

--BRichtigen 15:43, 2 December 2008 (EST) [1]

What will happen to sad little BRichtigen? Proxima Centauri 12:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"So a humble user asks teh assfly for upload rights to add to his article. "

What the hell is up with those diff links? PFoster 18:56, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Fixed, apparently. PFoster 19:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)

OOPs

better than a link:

See that comment above from BenjaminS? That should never happen. No user should ever be forced to think that they have no say in a matter.

I weep for the future of Conservapedia. It has become a dictatorship where opinions against the leader's are silenced. It has become a hive for people who put on conservative masks and hide underneath the protection of this leader's infinite powers to further their own ends. It has become a shelter to those who deny the necessity of logic and reject the importance of evidence. It has become a slum where those who make every effort to end the poverty are stopped, so that the dictator's ultimate rule is preserved. It has become a battleground whose spectators laugh and whose warriors destroy the very thing they are fighting for. Conservapedia has become a failure. But it is not over yet. Conditions may yet improve for this endeavor. -- JArneal 19:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

And there's the block. _and marmite 19:34, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Round of applause for TK! Well done that man, no one can do more damage to Conservapedia than their own f**king brute squad. Sod the wandals, it's the real editors that are the problem. ArmondikoV^postate 05:09, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nightline and Poor Ed

A miss is as good as a mile? ħuman 22:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Oh dear! Too hasty, wasn't I/ I'll comment it out. Sorry folks! _and marmite 22:34, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Hehe, no biggie, I presume you were thrown off by the "auto comment" that listed the text at the edit? ħuman 22:38, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Right! I thought it read like Ed's blustering too. _and marmite 22:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Had me fooled for thirty seconds... ħuman 00:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(talking about this edit summary) That's not an "auto comment" — auto comments only appear on the edit that creates a new page. (Also, the edit summary does not match the text Ed changed; it's a quote from the same paragraph, but that's where the similarity ends. Also, it's a full sentence.) No, Ed deliberately cut and pasted that quote into his own edit summary. Why? Because he's f--king ED POOR, that's why! --Marty 01:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Not really CP-related, but...who reads Questionable Content?

I think my favourite webcomic might be reading CP or RW. Or not. It's still pretty funny. PFoster 20:52, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Nice, thanks :) ħuman 21:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I can't even remember how long I've been reading QC (which means at least a week). Didn't know he had it up that early, though. --Kels 21:43, 3 December 2008 (EST)

I only read Explosm daily comics, but that QC stuff looks good. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:32, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Heh! It just came up on StumbleUpon! _and marmite 05:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Too Good

I love Andy. About 4 months ago I thought I would take the piss by adding one of Australia's most conservative politicians to the list of "liberal" politicians who have received a professorship after he was given a visiting professorship at my university. Unsurprisingly someone eventually noticed but was reverted on rather good grounds so he thought he would clarify that he was conservative. Andy after finding a conservative was given a token position (as well deserved as it was) redefines a conservative to reflect his view. Now Downer is pro-gun control, his government introduced the current laws, but given he voted against the us of RU486 in Australia, most pro-abortion is a big stretch. I just love how Andy will defend and even shift the boundaries to keep what was a piece of snark in. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 03:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

So basically, Andy can't bare to say "I was fooled by the wandals, therefore I'm going to undo it and put in real info". No, he has to be "oh no, it was deliberate. He's librul, he's librul, he's librul, he's librul if-I-say-it-enough-times-it-becomes-true, he's librul, he's librul, he's librul." What a f**king idiot. Really, this would be hilarious if it wasn't so beautifully tragic. ArmondikoV^postate 05:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Hmmm, by Andy's warped logic Fred Nile would be a liberal because he supports gun control! Jimbo 05:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

yes, it's like you have to tick every conservative box otherwise you're a secret liberal. Totnesmartin 05:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think we have the beginning of a game here. Think of the most conservative politician you can (non-US so that Andy won't have heard of them). Find one cite of a stated opinion that doesn't comply with Aschlaflyism. Insert said cite into their article (create one if you have to) and add cat:Liberal. One point for each such insertion that stays in place for 24 hours. Ten points if Andy defends the inclusion. Matt 06:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I accept your challenge. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 06:29, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's Messianic inability to admit he's ever wrong, or made a mistake, or doesn't know as much as the next person, has probably done more harm to CPs cause than any amount of vandals. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Actually it has been known for him to admit as much. Just rare. Ajkgordon 07:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The last time I've seen Andy admit to a mistake was months ago, when he blocked someone for reverting vandalism instead of the vandal. He actually responded on his own talk page with an apology. Nowadays, he wouldn't have cared. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Rare Like rockinghorse shit. _and marmite 08:07, 4 December 2008 (EST)@~

Double points for getting BNP members into the liberal category?ArmondikoV^postate 09:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I think I can stretch to that. Anyone know Pauline Hanson's views on school prayer by the way? Matt 16:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

She would meet Andy's definition of pro-abortion, despite her gun loving. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice block & Nasty block

1 nice block and 2 nasty blocks so far

Nice block

Aschlafly thinks that was a nice block. Note! He hasn’t tried to counter the arguments in the links that CharlesG made. Perhaps he knows he can’t. Proxima Centauri 09:11, 4 December 2008 (EST)

What argument would that be? All he (you?) did was hide links to pro-evolutionist sites within random words. Not only was no argument actually made, but you have given Andy more evidence to claim that "evolutionists" (and by extention "liberals") are deceitful when it serves their purpose. JazzMan 12:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Well, the words may have been random, but the links at least look to be "on topic" for the words chosen. ħuman 16:45, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, PC, but that was a fair block. It would have been censoring of a legitimate argument if the argument had presented openly instead of through a backdoor. --SpinyNorman 13:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I guess anything that helps protect him from the real world counts as 'nice' to him. Still, when last did he actually congratulate any of the peons over there for anything other than a block? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Here's one, though it may not count due to 'Godspeed'. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 09:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice-ah block! Speakerface gets it. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 10:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

He congratulates people on blocks and when Ed and similar idiots beg for compliments by showing off their pathetic little pieces of shit on his talk page. Speaking of which, hasn't Ed written enough one sentence articles, quote-only entries, and external links that he's due for a "Daddy! Daddy! Look what I did!" DickTurpis 12:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nasty block

TK blocked JArneal, presumably for this comment.

• This comment got teh blockie as well. Surprise, surprise. Proxima Centauri 09:22, 4 December 2008 (EST)

WIGO?

What IS going on over there? I can't seem to be able to bring up their page today. Did they crash again? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 09:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nevermind. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 09:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Freudian slip?

I loved this little gem from TeaCake: "removed, discredited sysops, and ones who constantly argue with Andy" ... er, that's actually an accurate description of you, isn't it, TeaCake? Fox 09:36, 4 December 2008 (EST)

HA! So in other words, he's tainting poor Bethany. COLD SHOWER TIEM! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Statistics for Conservapedia Day

top 100 RW vs CP

Well, though there was a project at CP for CPDay :"A statistical analysis of the first and the second years' growth, accomplishments, and major contributors. ", nothing happened. Surprise, surprise.

As a substitute I've updated our information on active users at RW and CP.

Enjoy, LArron 10:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

What do you use to make those graphs? They're very pretty. --JeevesMkII 10:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I use R. --LArron 11:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nice stats! Well done. Interesting to see that there only 30-odd (ok, strange) people actually running CP these days. The site is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Not to complain, but how come I don't turn up on those graphs (the CP side)? My prefs page over there shows that about 1900 of my edits still survive... or am I missing something? ħuman 16:53, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Of course. The instant I hit "save" I found me, right between CPAdmin1 and Hsmom... nevermind :) ħuman 16:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

PS, can you re-run it and exclude the bots? (capturebot and bestofbot run a lot and are on the graph) Although maybe we should include them? I dunno... ħuman 16:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks all of you for your appreciation! I excluded the bots in the tables RW and CP, but I don't plan to exclude them from the graph --LArron 17:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I am surprised Conservative has so few edits given the number of edits he makes to one paragraph. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 19:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Actually now I think about it his edit count would be kept artificially low because he keep deleting everything he has ever contributed to. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 22:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Having fun

With the Homosexual obsession article. UPDATE: Received Infinite Block from RodWeathers

Ed again

I think he's high on something again. His The Shadow reference was weird, but what the hell's with this? If you look at the kid's user page, he's got one misspelling and hasn't edited it sint 4th of July. Too much coffee? Smyth 12:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Kid needs to capitalize things, too. 74.7.166.234

meh EC, but anyway. Ed's also seen that the axiom of choice has been causing problems. How shall we fix it? By letting somebody who knows what they're talking about fix it? Nah... I'll take the easy way out... and we can start the whole process over again. Excuse me but... FUCK! The man drives me mad sometimes. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:41, 4 December 2008 (EST)

WHAT THE HELL, ED? I didn't have (m)any problems when Ed before he went on his little vacation, but since he came back (at the exact same time that TK came back, I'm just sayin'...) it's almost as if he's actively trying to make Conservapedia worse. (Not that this isn't a new tactic, however. He did the same thing months ago on an article I was working on. I had to find a Google cache of the page to even know what he thought was wrong with it. Turns out there was nothing so wrong with it that it needed to be deleted.) JazzMan 12:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Jazz baby, he did the exact same thing to me when he brought TK back last time, deliberately creating bullshit articles and being a dick to provoke me into quitting. It's just S.O.P. with CP's resident Dumb and Dumber/Himmler and Goebbels. Fox 15:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm Jewish, I admit we can be pretty paranoid at times. Let's not get into that, mkay? But... but... I've never quite gotten over the Ed/Moonie/CP thing. You know that feeling you get, when you KNOW there's a connection somewhere, but you can't... quite... join the dots? I know this may seem like heresy, but I have to say that on the few occasions I have had exchanges with Andy, he has seemed a decent chap with a decent plan ... albeit one that has gone awry. PJR - really nice, likeable bloke. DeanS likewise. LT... HJ... BrianCo... In fact, I've only ever really come to dislike Teacake and PaedPoor.

What exactly is Ed's interest in all this and what exactly is his hold over Andy? I've considered that maybe the UC is funding CP. I've considered that the UC wishes to "normalize" (ie have every article written from a UC pov) CP. And why isn't Ed - the self-proclaimed ultima hero of wikis - involved with the UC's "New World Encyclopedia" wiki? Is it because he's a public embarrassment to their project? Incompetent as an editor? Is he trying to undermine CP to the point that the UC can buy it out? Is he ensuring that it will never challenge the conservative position of the NWE? We all know the name alone "CONSERVApedia" is worth its weight in platinum. It should have been something worthy to behold. But it got warped, twisted. And along the way I think Andy lost sight of his aims and intentions. Like Yosser Hughes and Wormtongue? Andy and TeaCake? Back in the day, he admitted to me that he had little control over TeaCake, that he was like some guard dog that had gone rogue and was now a liability but at least still attacked vandals - as well as everybody else. I dunno if I still have that email, it's doubtful, I'll check though. The constant attacks from RW have really entrenched Andy in a position where he has become almost a caricature of himself. I'm not saying that anybody should stop. After all, the shite that some people are writing there deserves to be countered and the he fact that they have blocked all discussion means they have invited hostility. It's often difficult for me, as I have friends there, and have enjoyed email exchanges with a lot of the "faces" there - PJR, Tim (CPAdmin1), Taj, Joaquin, Dean, to name but a few - but ultimately all I see is Ed Poor and TeaCake destroying it from within, creating a fascist, right wing, intolerant hate site. Back to the thrust - Ed poor isn't there for anything except to discredit the site. TeaCake has admitted as much here that that is his only motive. Between the two of them, they will continue to undermine good-faith editors and the encyclopedia's credibility. Bugler, RW, et al don't count, because they're 5th column anyway. Fox 16:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Ed, look at the relationship between Moonies and conservatives. The Moonies tend to attach themselves to conservatives and give them money in exchange for influence. Here, you've got a conservative website (related to Phyllis Schafly) with a number of young minds. The conservatives are not hostile to Moonies and he has a chance at advancing the Moonie philosophy and maybe get a convert or two twenty years down the road. Notice that Ed likes to show up at Conservapedia events. Why its Ed there rather than a more skilled Moonie? More local than others? Skill appropriate to the website? I don't think he's intentionally trying to destroy CP but rather has found a place where people don't laugh at him to his face. That he is an incontinent buffoon is another matter. --Shagie 20:20, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I reall hope you meant to write "incompetent buffoon" there. Otherwise, that's a level of knowledge of Ed I'm really not comfortable with. --Kels 22:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Fox you're right, the few e-mail exchanges I had with Andy that weren't "I'm suing you, Trent, and everyone at RationalWiki" were quite pleasant. I think somewhere under the dogma and paranoia cultivated by TK, there's probably a decent guy. Whether he's retrievable at this point is another question entirely.-caius (decider) 16:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Although one can't make direct analogies, Ed strikes me just like the pointy-haired boss from the Dlbert strip - he thinks he's a good administrator but he can't write a half-way decent article with formatting and categories and when he doesn't understand what other people write he throws it away. I can only surmise that the CP biggest idiot award isn't enough for him he wants it magna cum laude.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Now There's a new one...

Andy just demoted Deborah for among other things, not keeping Kosher. --SpinyNorman 13:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Wow. So inserting incorrect info into an article is now punishable by demoshun. When will Andy be demoting himself then, I wonder? Although, fair play, Debs has been rather silent lately, apart from her anti-Mormon burst just before CP Day. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Inactive? She just edited a couple months ago. JazzMan 14:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Her last edit was like November 19 or so.... By that standard, CollegeRepublican is clinically deceased. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I meant weeks, not months. JazzMan 14:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Thing about Deborah was she was definitely pulling the wool over someone's eyes. Back in the day, I caught her on checkuser as a previous vandal/sock/troll/RW freedom fighter, call em what you will, and also had reverted a lot of her socks' previous dubious edits. Originally she/he/it claimed to be an Orthodox Jew. Then in later incarnations was a fundy Christian. I always suspected it was TeaCake because of their "I love all Jews and Christians but not those Messianic Jew assholes" attitude. Sure, we're not popular, but *sometimes* you just know when people are aiming directly at you, not just the crowd you're in. He/she/it also did a lot of 404 page not found stuff. As regards the kosher page, I seem to recall starting to correct it and make it a bit more encyclopaedic, but then got banned and run out of Dodge by the Parodist's Posse and TeaCake. I never did remember to go back and fix the absolute shite she'd written. Fox 15:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The edits to Kosher were back in July, and "her" recent inactivity is due to a self-ban for calling Moonies and Mormons "cults", and then apologizing and grovelling to Ed and Croc. I'm guessing something else has been going on behind the curtain, probably unrelated to all of the above.--WJThomas 15:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

She'd started by reappearing within a matter of hours of my first edits to CP on my last appearance. I'd begun work on the Messianic Judaism article, and she jumped in and started firing off both barrels about what scum we were. I took it to her talk page, where she carried on, and eventually took enough rope to hang herself. Fox 15:43, 4 December 2008 (EST)

An article very close to Ed's heart, being the frum that he is. Apparently. Fox 15:45, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(Leans over) I'll just be taking that 'frum' as my word of the day, thankyouverymuch.--Martin Arrowsmith 15:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

You're welcome, go have fun with it. Be aware that it also has a delicious use - often by me with a butter-wouldn't-melt-expression - when being snarky in that it is also an acronym for "Fiel Rishus, Veinig Mitzvos" which means just the opposite: lots of evil, few mitzvos. Fox 16:01, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Would that be 'frum' as in 'drum' or 'frum' as in 'doom'? Do I need to clear my throat in the middle ('fffrughm', I guess)?--Martin Arrowsmith 16:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I guess there are regional variations, but I was raised to pronounce it "froom". As in "mushroom" however, not simply "room" (which is longer) (and I really can't be arsed to look up the correct phonetic way of explaining that lol) Fox 16:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Funnily enough, Deborah just had a pet article featured. More funny is that she pretty much just cut and pasted from some webpages. Also, here's her "heresy list" that she posted on her user page while telling Fox what level of hell he's going to. For some reason that probably seemed good at the time I didn't take a screenshot. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 17:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

There was more, regarding LDS, but the Messianic Judaism talk bit she deleted is here. Fox 18:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Last I checked she had blocked herself for a month to "cool down." I think that was about 2-3 weeks ago, so that may be why she hasn't been on in a while. Hactar 18:47, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sure Ed's Andy's decision had something to do with this little side project of Deborah's. Notice that she removed "Moonies" from the list of "biggest threats to Christianity" only after Ed noticed it there. --Marty 22:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Advertising

Some of you might find this debate interesting. I'd certainly like to know if any of you have any good ideas. OneForLogic 14:12, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Karajou and Irony

Our old friend spent way too much time swabbing the deck and not enough studying. I don't about you guys, but I count Three seperate ironic grammatical errors in this deletion. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I got this: should be "an," not "and"; should be "idiots'" not "idiot's"; what am I missing?-caius (decider) 15:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Hm, not sure, but I'd have corrected it to "An idiotic page about an idiots'/idiotic website" Any advances? Fox 15:33, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(Edit conflict, damnit) I'll argue that since 'idiot' is a noun, not an adjective, it should say "An idiotic page..." or "An idiot's page..." for "an idiot's website" or "a website of, for, and by idiots" or "an idiotic website". Also, I think that both "idiot's website" and "idiots' website" could be justified: a website enjoyed/owned by an idiot or enjoyed/owned by multiple idiots.--Martin Arrowsmith 15:40, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Still funny anyway. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 16:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Axiom of choice ?

oops, see alse Ed Again section above Hamster 17:44, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Well , the article was too contentious and nobody understands it anyway , so leave the talk page and DELETE the article , that'll do it Hamster 16:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)

1st in the list of very thin books: All the maths Ed Poor understands --LArron 16:29, 4 December 2008 (EST)

To be fair, he has written one in depth text. Okay, so it was called "Niggers, Jews and Arse-Bandits - Why They Should all Be Jailed", but credit where it's due. Fox 17:14, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Don't think they make 1 page books. _and marmite 16:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"This page intentionally left blank" ħuman 21:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)

From Andy's talkpage:

Could you restore the article on the Axiom of Choice? Granted, it isn't elementary stuff, but that's exactly the point... --BRichtigen 15:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Did someone delete it??? I'll check this out.--Aschlafly 17:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Surprisingly enough, he did check it out - and restored! Ouch, Ed Poor --LArron 17:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I was about to say he would, Andy has a weird hardon for bashing the axiom of choice. I'm not sure what his gripe is really. Probably something to do with liberals, no doubt. --JeevesMkII 17:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's part of his view of how mathematics should work. Keep in mind that he also regards Proof By Contradiction as vastly inferior ("When resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself." - Andy on cp:Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math). --Sid 17:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nah. He'll realize that Foxtrot valiantly tried to smear it and that nasty liberals (AndyJM/BRichtigen/AlanS) tried to censor Foxtrot's "insights". Ed's deletion will be completely forgotten (Rule #1 of CP: "Sysops can do no wrong." Rule #2 of CP: "If a sysop does something wrong, see Rule #1."), and we'll see a few "much improved" edits, along with permabans and/or warnings. --Sid 17:24, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Andy said its an important article . He also needs it for his homeschooling class om fermats last theorum , or somesuch. Andy should understand math well, cause he an engineer ;-) Hamster 17:34, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I should've become an engineer, too. Somehow, that would have given me expert authority on physics, biology, theology, maths and whatever else. --Sid 17:48, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Indeed. All this historian's "Well, we can't really say anything certain about anything" thing is no fun. :-( --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

And Foxtrot is back in business with promises about how he and his buddy Andy will valiantly fight the facts lies! And he starts by replacing factual statements with anecdotes about how he was deceived by a "guise" of the AC. And always remember: "It's not a bad analogy to compare it to drug dealers who get you hooked, and then you won't know how you could have done mathematics without it." - God, I love this place so much. Even though I'd probably throw a screaming fit if I actually tried to improve articles there. --Sid 06:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

PJR, Come home!

Holy shit, that's an ass whuppin. Please come over here PJR. I'll gladly talk to you about gun control, evolution, whatever you want. And I promise I won't just make it up. Bjones 17:51, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Philip will never come here, because he is the "real deal" in as much as how he describes himself. He is a genuinely faithful Christian who has adopted YEC because of his sincere belief in G-d and the inerrancy of the Bible. I'm not criticising that - I also believe without a shadow of a doubt in the existence of G-d and that Messiah Yeshua is His manifestation in flesh. I differ only in that I believe the Tanakh to be a layered document which should not be read literally. Philip was - and he has told me so - seriously offended by some of the verbal "tongue foo" (by which I mean not the intellectual criticism but the personal insults) he received from ... some people here, and hey, that's not a crime. Being slagged does hurt, and when you realise that he perceives that he is defending something as important as his immortal soul, then you should at least accept why he feels the way he does. I'm a little ashamed to say "Philip, I TOLD YOU SO" insofaras that in our last emails, some months ago, I did warn Philip that this was exactly how he would end up being treated at CP. After all, first they came for the Jews... Fox 18:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

For me, I don't want Philip to come here, he'd probably hate it. But I'd like to see him go somewhere he wouldn't be treated like trash all the time. Certainly there are loads of places like that. --Kels 18:25, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's funny- my exposure to CP and WR has actually shown me that there are people with views extremely far away from mine who actually can be reasonable and thoughtful. Seeing the infighting at CP with PJR trying to be reasonable and fight back (especially in the Obama article) makes me more willing to actually sit down and try to figure out why people believe the way they do. So, I suppose, in one way CP is working, although not the way Andy meant it to. (Fox, you and Jazz both have my respect even though I think my politics are fairly far away from both of yours.) And I agree with Kels to a degree, I think that PJR should get out of CP and find somewhere where he'd be respected. I would hope that RW would be that place, but I'm not so sure...Hactar 18:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Exactly. PJR is someone I respect - he is nothing if not polite, but more importantly his beliefs are intelligently held and very, very internally consistent - even though I totally disagree with them. I'd very, very happily sit down and chug a few cold ones with him, and if I were in politics, I could 'work across the aisle' with him. I'll bet we'd both enjoy it too. Whereas on the other hand, I would run screaming from the company of every single other senior admin at CP. DogP 18:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I'll add my Internet pint to the ones already waiting for him here on the bar. ;) --Robledo 19:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Don't hold your breath: A) his views have been ridiculed here too much; B) he doesn't drink. _and marmite 19:10, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Is there a site (not necessarily an attempt an an encyclopedia) that you guys know of where people of differing political opinions actually can talk to each other without people giving them crap? Or is this just me being sicker than I thought and hallucinating? 71.183.183.21 19:49, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it, for this reason. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:02, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Try our debate space BlueSprite has been having a good go in there recently. - User $\scriptstyle {\sqrt {12}}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1}$ 20:06, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The problem with Phil is that he keeps doing that thing where if someone (with power) goes off on a tangent, Phil follows it while trying to stay on track. More tangents (Andy, Bugler, TK) and then his posts get longer and longer answering each one, which dissolves his argument. What he should do is this:

1. IF Gun-related deaths in the US: over 10,000 each year.
2. AND Gun-related deaths in AUS: less than 70 per year.
3. THEN Population difference: AUS x 15 = US, so 70 x 15 = 1,050
4. SO 10,000+ divided by 1,050 = ~10%
5. THEREFORE Australia's gun homicide rate is only 10% in comparison to United States.

Disclaimer: I may be wrong, but I'm trying to express the simplest form of math to prove Andy and TK wrong. 12% to 14% "United States is the winner" my ASS. That's a good indication that TK returned just to wreck havoc, because nobody (aside from Andy) is that stupid. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:35, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Classic Andy: "Basic logic dictates this result, as defensive uses of guns inevitably outnumber criminal uses by a 100 to 1 ratio or more.--Aschlafly 23:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)"

I think we just got another thank you note. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 19:59, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Aw. He wuvs us (even if there are a few holes in the socks). -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 20:31, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Please, PJR is just as nutty as anyone over there. His pleasantness just makes him insidious. He'd gladly urge his jack booted Christian soldiers onward to burn us all just to save God the trouble. And his latest rant--though so very sweet--is complete poser bullshit. It isn't as if he has suddenly had some epiphany and discovered Andy is a . . . dishonest person . . . it is simply now Andy's sliminess is direct at him,. So now PJR takes it personally gets all bratty and righteous and takes a yank at the polite fiction (AKA the big fat lie) that is Andy's integrity. Fuck them both and their collective horses. Bonus: The place PJR could prosper and do well as a contributor is called Wikipedia. He just couldn't go all postal. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 22:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The sliminess is now directed at him in regards to gun control, but it seems like that's blowback from his taking a stand on the Obama/Muslim issue. I'm left to wonder why he picked that particular hill to die on when there are so many other clear examples of ASchlafly's dishonest debate tactics: Lenski/PNAS, Hollywood/breast cancer, blatant falsehoods on the mainpage news section, etc. If PJR could ignore those other episodes, why did he draw throw down the glove over the Obama article? Has he always known that ASchlafly was a shitbag, or did he just now twig to it? I might understand if he suddenly got his back up over some doctrinal distinction-without-a-difference, but an article about an American politician seems kinda prosaic.--Martin Arrowsmith 23:13, 4 December 2008 (EST)

The gun control issue isn't new, it's just resurged. I think he was so pleased to be able to put forward his own whacky ideas(6000 year earth & Biblical infallibility) that he was willing to overlook the general tenure of the site. When Andy started to know more about Australia than Australians, though, it seems to have triggered some sort of "Road to Damascus" event._and marmite 23:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

It's the wacky ideas that'll keep him off WP for the foreseeable future. He seems mostly interested in arguments against evolution, bogus information theory stuff and a bit of apologetics and general biblical scholarship on the side. Not stuff that flies too well in an atmosphere where "the bible is history, not science, even when it's contradicting science" is not considered a compelling argument. But honestly, there's got to be places that do accept that junk that are huge amounts better than CP. --Kels 00:03, 5 December 2008 (EST)

But at most of those places he'd be one among many. On CP he's the authority. _and marmite 00:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Is he? He doesn't seem to be on a power trip, to me, at least. But, there must be a reason why he wastes his time there, after all our generous suggestions of slightly saner places to expend his efforts... ħuman 00:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't mean that he was power mad, just that no-one knows more than he & he'll be appreciated more. _and marmite 00:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent) I can't say I have any problem with PJR.... He seems like a good guy who actually joined Conservapedia for decent reasons. I think he's a little....fervent in his defense of YEC, but that's religious figures in general. Hell, I think we had the crusades for that reason. Anyway, I would welcome PJR on this site and I would really hope that we could be civil in person.... I mean, we were even nice to that fuckwad TK until he shitted all over everything and I tried to be nice to the Jinx....for a minute or two. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 00:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)

RE: Why would he "just now" be up in arms about all this, even though Andy's always been illogical: he probably discovered early on (as I presume most rational people who edit CP for any longer than a week before being blocked also discover) that you have to pick your battles. He indicated before that he ignored the mess on the Obama page for a long time. If all you did was avoid anything Andy wrote, you actually would have a pretty similar editing pattern to that of Philip's. JazzMan 01:47, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I think he tolerated some of the antics as serving a greater good , but pebble by pebble it bothered him more and more until he finally had to say THAT is intolerable , and battle was on, it might be a subtle ploy though , to lull people into complacency while they set up the destruction of the evil evolution religion , maybe in Ireland Hamster 02:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Seeing all of this going off between Aschlafly and PJR is pretty amusing for a couple of reasons.

The first, mentioned above, is that PJR has been wilfully ignorant of Aschlafly's (and his cohort administrators) more unpleasent (and frankly, un-Christian) side for so long simply because CP gives PJR a platform to spout off his wacky views that he struggles to get elsewhere. PJR has been an appeaser of a despotic regime because it suits him. Does that make him better than the others? I doubt it. A decent man would have left long ago.

The second is that when PJR is arguing with Andy on gun control and Obama, he's experiencing exactly what it's like to argue with a young Earth creationist. Basically, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, Andy is deliberately ignoring it, quote-mining, taking things out of context, making ad-hom attacks, changing the subject, making up "facts" and figures and so on, just like a YEC-er.

It'll all die down again, and PJR will get back to his YEC articles, Aschlafly, and co. will get back to their usual unpleasentness and Conservative will do... whatever the hell it is he does (linking to copyrighted stuff on youtube, from the looks of it). Bondurant 05:51, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) If you think that arguing with Andy about Obama is the exact same thing as arguing with PJR about YEC then you clearly don't know PJR very well (or Andy, for that matter). More evidence of this fact is that you think PJR actually has some sort of malicious intent for arguing against Andy. Also, I think you are ignoring the fact that Philip isn't the only one arguing about Obama; he's arguing with the support of several other sysops (and let's face it: are any of the people he's arguing against, except Andy, actually serious? I doubt it). JazzMan 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

An excellent insight. PJR, used to being on the 'faith' side of faith v. reason, now finds himself on the 'reason' side. Do you think he realizes that Andy puts the Obama=Muslim stuff in there because it is an article of faith for him? Obama could change his name to Jesus Christ Superstar, eat bacon three meals a day, and nuke Mecca on Jan 22nd and Andy could still crow about how deep undercover he is because of the taqiyya loophole. Someone should burn a sock and ask PJR how it feels to try to counter faith with reason.--Martin Arrowsmith 13:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Except that Philip doesn't argue based on faith, wheras Andy more or less actually says "I believe it so I'm logically right". There's a *huge* difference between PJR saying "this is what my faith tells me, and here are the logic and reason that I use to back up my faith" and Andy saying "You are a liberal [ad hom]; nobody seriously denies this [ad pop], etc.". PJR is finding out what it's like to counter baseless faith with reason, which I highly doubt is something he's ever been on the other side of. JazzMan 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Best bit

"...it's a fool's errand to debate with anyone who has a closed mind...": So now I'm a fool? Philip J. Rayment 17:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Slow down, pardnuh! When Andy said "fool's errand" he was referring to himself. --Ed Poor Talk 19:16, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, Ed, I know he was referring to himself. My comment apparently went over your head. Philip J. Rayment 20:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Superb! Oh boy, you're gonna burn in hell for that one! (Not really, PJR. It's a line from some film.) Ajkgordon 04:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

That's a win. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 10:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Answering the 'phone

Ken's call on the Red Telephone... I have to admit, I do enjoy his tongue-in-cheek nature, and the way he calls a spade a spade and outright directs people to this site. /chuckling. Fox 19:28, 4 December 2008 (EST)

(L-R) Bungler, TeaCake and RationalWeathers.

It'd be awesome if he kept adding to the dancing irish jailbait pic, making the caption text reeeaaaally long. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:37, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"...I think you know by now that I believe in using the tactics of speed and stealth to help achieve victory. :)" Indeed. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:21, 4 December 2008 (EST)

He's been using the tactic of speed for what, a year or so now? At least he's bragging enough about the stealth to keep us all up to date. --Kels 20:38, 4 December 2008 (EST)

"Our chief weapon is speed...speed and stealth...stealth and speed.... Our two weapons are speed and stealth...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are speed, stealth, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as speed, stealth.... I'll come in again." Fox 20:39, 4 December 2008 (EST)

And brevity. Do not omit in regards to brevity, which is of course bad news for evolutionary nonsense regarding brevity!-caius (decider) 20:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Still awesome. Fox 21:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Heretoforth the trio will be known as Biggles (that's just too damn close to Bugler), XiminezK, and FangWeathers. Publius 02:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I wonder what this big 'victory' is. Let's try Googling conservapedia evolution to find out. Could it be the article on noscope.com mocking it, or the forum thread on bigsoccer.com mocking the appearance of Hitler on it? Could it be the entry on the blog intheweird.com calling the whole site 'insanely stupid'? Could it be forum post on richarddawkins.net, in the 'Debunking Creationism' forum, where even the opening post calls it 'really biased' and notes that, 'it doesn't make a clear distinction between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution'? Or maybe it's the entry on the 'Nondiscovery Blog' calling it 'pure and simple propaganda'? And that's just the first page of hits on it. Zmidponk 21:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, none of those. It was the entry at The Pacified Citizen calling Conservapedia "a scary part of the internet". DogP 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Antics vs. content - an observation

CP is obviously stuffed full of ridiculous antics at the moment, especially since the return of TK and Ed. But what of the content? Is refute-ready stuff still being created under a smokescreen of comedy? Or is everyone busy trolling and arguing? Ajkgordon 04:45, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Not just trolling and arguing--There's categorizing going on, too.--WJThomas 08:05, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, as no one outside of CP thinks it's a genuine encyclopedia, just an extended blog using Media Wiki and a red colour scheme, "actual content" and "talk page antics" are pretty much indistingushable. ArmondikoV^postate 08:20, 5 December 2008 (EST)

There hasn't been much lately, as far as I can tell. Andy has been pretty quiet lately (not even an essay, or mystery to chew on) and apart from the tiff surrounding Obama and Ed et al trashing maths again, I can't think of any significant entries. Maybe 'Counterexamples to Evolution' with the usual 'irreducible complexity' arguments. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I'd love a new mystery to ponder upon. They're always so....inspiring, those mysteries. I'd do a mystery myself except you can't edit articles with a question mark at the end ot the title via most proxies. DogP 11:11, 5 December 2008 (EST)

They should just make a category named "Fucked Up Articles" because that's what half of all the articles would fall under (being generous, probably 7/8 of all articles). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 10:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Possibly not, 7/8 of the articles are probably too short to be considered fucked up or otherwise. ArmondikoV^postate 11:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Though, I miss the days when all the articles had citations to some big book o' creation science or other. I want to say The Junior Encyclopaedia of Space, but google tells me it was "Exploring Creation Through General Science." It is kind of sad to observe the standards for citations have gone somewhat downhill since those days. --JeevesMkII 11:52, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Jessica's OK (Except when she's blocking) & Bert's really done that KAL thing well. Apart from them - forgetit._and marmite 12:07, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I bet "in the old days" you didn't think the standards could slip even further! ArmondikoV^postate 12:12, 5 December 2008 (EST)

And as if by magic, Andy wants nominations for Group of the Year. I vote for ABBA. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:59, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Plagerism!! ArmondikoV^postate 13:15, 5 December 2008 (EST)

We should absolutely support his nomination of LDS for group of the year in passing prop 8. Continued association of the religious group with the political just helps further the argument that they should loose tax exempt status. Go Andy! --Shagie 14:13, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Is it?

SusanG. _and marmite 12:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Doubtful. From what I remember Susan has always claimed to have never edited CP. Why would she start now when she's not even editing here? JazzMan 12:58, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well, we don't know that she's no longer editing here, just not under her old name. Also, I believe that I have seen her sticky fingerprints round CP, they just didn't last long. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:14, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well *sure* if you want to be all paranoid about it. Maybe Susan was really TK. And TK is really Andy who's really Ames, who (we all know) is really Bohdan (who's really HenryS). JazzMan 13:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Regardless, I'm Bugler. You can never know online so it's best not to worry about it and treat every individual post as if it's from someone completely different! :P ArmondikoV^postate 13:32, 5 December 2008 (EST)

(undent)I'll go ahead and put the rumors to rest by claiming the sock. I tried several variations of SusanX and SusanG was just the first one that wasn't already taken. Goodbye little sock, goodbye....On the bright side, we'll get to see which CP idiot is perusing the cesspit. Bjones 14:04, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Whatever happened to SusanG anyway? DickTurpis 14:21, 5 December 2008 (EST)