Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

RING RING RING

Phil's answer is here. Are you sure it isn't red, Phil? It could be red, but painted over! :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:08, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Wow, two edits later Bungler tells him he oughtn't be having a discussion at all! ħuman 13:48, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Blue Telephone for PJR

PJR steered us in the way the article on information. Someone tried to tempt PJR over here, but got reverted and banned by Buggers: clearly they are not going to allow a debate on this on their turf. So...

Where information covers the same set of propositions it can be fairly straightforward to rank statements in terms of information content. PJR does it by quoting

She has a yellow vehicle.

She has a yellow car.

Which is pretty clear. However if one piece of information is different (other than in precision) the comparison in terms of quantity of information doesn't really make a lot of sense. We cannot choose on the basis of quantity of information between:

She has a yellow car.

She is going to vote for the Liberal Democrats

What matters is 'what' it is saying, rather then how much. The former is a lot of information to a car manufacturer. It means little or nothing to the political researcher, who is far more interested in the latter. Try setting the two statements to levels of precision where you think they are “obejctively” equal in information, say:

She has a yellow Ford Mondeo.

She is going to vote for the Liberal Democrats

You can then massively increase the information in the former without interesting the political researcher at all. He, frankly, doesn't give a **** whether she owns a 2002 car with 65,000 on the clock and furry dice in the windscreen. And 'tis the same with natural selection. Natural selection will select on the basis of 'what' a trait is, not whatever we can come up with as an “objective” measure of information content. In front of the court of Natural Selection a species cannot plea that its useless growth is a lovely useless growth that took absolutely loads of negative entropy to get just so complex as it is. The species that can run, simply, survives.

So we are after 'new' and 'varied' traits, rather than more information laden traits. We are after 'new information in the genome' Does it arise? Yes, of course it arises. It arises all the time, constantly, without pause. Let us define terms:

1.Information. Has to have specific entailements, something has to occur because of it or we have to be able to know something because of it.

2.Arising. To “arise” this information must not have been around at time T. Post T it must be around.

Can I give an example? Yes, new information in the genome arose 9 months before PJR's birth. The new information was “PJR”, the unique DNA that entails him (and would be plenty enough evidence to convince a court that Bugler is not his love-child). It tells us something, it didn't exist 10 months before he was born and it did 9 months after he was born.

Right. I'm going to read the Demski paper referenced by PJR. I don't want to do an Andy and rubbish a paper before I've read it. And so I have to see his argument that information “cannot be created by natural (non-intelligent) causes”. Seems like absolute nonsense to me: a river bed give plenty of information of where the river runs, the moraine tells us where the glacier used to be etc. Limiting “information” to “signal” information reduces the quote to a tautology: information someone produced to communicate can only be produced by someone. And, of course, that is not at all necessary for evolution.--Toffeeman 15:37, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's take on Blagojevich

..of course mentions Obama and combines guilt by association with the fallacy of many questions. "Obama preferred Senate Candidate 1" and "will have to explain what he knew." Not mentioned, of course, is that Senate Candidate 1 was the one who refused to offer Blago anything: "Blagojevich said he knew Obama wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but 'they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. {Expletive} them.'" Not the craziest lie Andy's ever told, but worth noting before the Obama article starts asking if he's going to get a cut. Godspeed 16:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Don't be surprised if he tries to make this his next Lenski case, by claiming the other side is willfully suppressing information on the matter. --SpinyNorman 17:23, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Well, I was close. He's added a new footnote to his American History lecture to talk about this, and to tie in an implied Vast Democratic Conspiracy to also put a new Kennedy in the Senate to replace Hilary. True to form, this innuendo rates far more time in his lecture than Bush's handling of the economy, the Iraq war, or the controversy over the Patriot Act. Hell, Katrina doesn't even rate a mention. --SpinyNorman 18:18, 9 December 2008 (EST)

That's because those things might require him to admit that a Republican had, in some way, failed. Therefore they did not happen. --Gulik 19:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

OK, wait. Lecture 13 is the last lecture? I sort of got the feeling they were speeding through history, but only 13 lectures? For the whole course? Reality check: Kids in AP classes get, roughly speaking, 160+ lectures, over 30+ weeks (9 months). Plus all those essays and DBQ's. I know homeschool classes often make up for the lack of class time with more outside reading, but trying to do all of US history in only 4 months? WTF? --Too tired to log in 21:59, 9 December 2008 (EST)

And although "Lecture 13" claims just to run through 9/11, he adds a big ole chunk of poop about a D-party scandal in late 2008. Arguably making his skipping of all the Bush scandals and disasters in between even more teh stupid. ħuman 00:03, 10 December 2008 (EST)

"Hsmom, you ..."

Would someone mind rephrasing that wigo? It doesn't really reflect what was going on, and it just seems rude to be calling a fairly decent and sensible seeming person (parodist or not) names. ħuman 20:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

It's also really just an update/repeat of the earlier Yale Daily News wigo item... ħuman 20:45, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I can see how it would lose some of its comedy value when you're not picturing Chevy Chase saying it. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 21:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)

You would be amazed how many times a day I don't think of Chevy Chase. - User $\pi$ 21:41, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Especially since it was Dan Aykroyd, wasn't it? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:55, 9 December 2008 (EST)

ħuman, is there a way to combine the items without messing up the voting thingy? I agree that they should be combined, as it makes more sense that way. And WTF is up with all that anyway? Hsmom: "By the way, there's an article on the front page that makes CP look stupid.", Andy: "No it doesn't, we like that article, it's praising us." Hsmom, DinsdaleP, et. al.: "Um, no it's not." Andy: <covers ears> "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Well, you can copy the text to the other wigo and comment out the defunct wigo poll number, but I don't know of a way for us lowly users to actually add the two sets of numbers up. And, yes, it was Dan Aykroyd. ħuman 22:42, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Was it Aykroyd? Randomly, Spies Like Us is one of my absolute favorite movies. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 23:13, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Absolutely it was Mr. Dan. Also, I am going to comment out the offensive wigo now. Calling Hsmom names has no justification, and only reflects badly on us, as far as I can tell. Aykroyd and Curtin aren't playing this game with us to make it funny. ħuman 00:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

You took out a Dan Ackroyd (who makes awesome wine, BTW) reference, with an edit comment from Jerry Lewis? Have you no shame?--Kels 00:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I don't remember my comment (that was like, minutes ago!) but I commented it out because we (RW) should have "some" shame. Calling La Home Skollar Mom an ignorant cunt seemed extreme to me. Even for us. ħuman 01:37, 10 December 2008 (EST)

While I agree with the changing, I just wanted to clarify that it said "ignorant slut" not, um, the other thing human said. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:47, 10 December 2008 (EST)

In case you haven't notices I changed it from "ignorant SLUT" to "ignoramus" & removed the HTML comment markers. Couldn't someone have done this, or similar, ages ago without all the theatrics? _and marmite 02:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If we didn't have minor theatrics, how can we possibly have a base from which to launch Headless Chicken Mode? - User $\pi$ 02:58, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Disputed Biblical Translations edit warring

Article history and talk page. This time, Phil didn't waste any time calling Andy's bullshit (on WIGO). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:32, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, Andy keeps taking that kernel of truth about the textual criticism of John and running it into the crazy endzone. I'm willing to bet that that's the only bit of textual criticism he pays attention to, except maybe about the bit at the end of Mark that the snake handlers like so much. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 11:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Art Cities

What a completely fatuous article. Once again JM shows that he hasn't got a clue. If it weren't so ignorant it would be really insulting. Silver Sloth 04:36, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I wrapped one of my orange trees with duct tape = art. Add Orlando to the list plz. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:49, 10 December 2008 (EST)

<taps Norseman on shoulder> You are Christo and I claim my five guineas. Fretfulporpentine 09:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

TK suppresses discussion as usual

A number of well established Conservapedia users criticize the Range Block culture. They fear the range block policy will prevent large numbers of people from editing Conservapedia and making it even funnier. Their concerns are reasonable. At least people who imagine Conservapedia is a good site will think they're reasonable. TK’s response. He doesn’t even try to answer the arguments. He just deletes everything and reminds them the discussion is closed. See here - Added by a user who forgets to sign things

User's castle violation! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:49, 10 December 2008 (EST)

He may not get away with things this time. PJR reinstated it and others added their comments. Await developments. TK may win or lose this battle. Unless Teh Assfly gets tired of him TK will win the war. Proxima Centauri 08:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Proxima Centauri 08:51, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, Phil's irritated. He even edited comments on BRichtigen's talk page (see WIGO). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:59, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say that was tantamount to a declaration of war! _and marmite 09:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Some priceless advice from TK.--Bayes 13:55, 10 December 2008 (EST)

PJR's deathwish

Not long now, I reckon. Ajkgordon 09:32, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Have to agree. Apart from striking TK's words of wisdom, his Adultress spat with Andy's getting out of hand. _and marmite 09:40, 10 December 2008 (EST)

not sure how this will play out, and I have mixed feelings. I feel bad if PJR is kicked because he is doing his best to make what conservapedia is 'supposed' to be, and so it is a great injustice for him, as one of the few good editors and admins, to be forced out of the project. On the other hand, conservapedia will become even more of a joke without him, which might be better for the world in the long run. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 10:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, conservapedia. The only place in the world where being a young Earth creationist makes you the reasonable one. I don't get all the love for PJR; he's slightly less stupid and insane than Andy or Ed. I suppose that counts for something...PFoster 10:19, 10 December 2008 (EST)

In my case at least, I don't have to agree with PJR to appreciate that he's a fair-minded guy who's always respectful, and tries to back his points up instead of just saying "because I said so". Those are standout qualities among the elder statesmen of CP. --SpinyNorman 10:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, Because my favorite edition of the bible says so is so much more valid and persuasive. PJR has only got his hackles up now because he has been attacked personally and likely gotten his feelings hurt. y'all can characterize it as a quest for the greater truth if you please, but I know^TM it is simple and petty pissiness on his part that is driving him on. He may be polite and civil but he is still a lying hate-monger and a fascist. Saying something nicely is not the same as saying something nice. That said, let's pop some popcorn. Hi Phillip! Go to Wikipedia! Stop whining and make a difference ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, conservapedia. The only place in the world where not being a total fucking bully makes you a stand-up guy, and having a modicum of justification for your completely unreasonable beliefs makes you reasonable. PFoster 10:38, 10 December 2008 (EST)

As far as those who like PJR, I'm pretty much ont he other side of the fence. He knows how this project works. It took him this long to get fed up with Assfly bullshit, so its pretty clear it only matters to him when it affects his views, or when its too obvious for words. I respect that he's standing up to Andy right now, but I don't think it makes him any more reasonable than any other YEC proponent. EternalCritic 10:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I can only say Bravo Philip!!!1 Better to die as a brave man than to live as a koward forever. JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 10:53, 10 December 2008 (EST)

PJR is probably like 90% of the others over there - happy enough enough that Andy has given them a platform to spout their personal beliefs, to ignore his ravings and stomping on anybody who messes with their writings. However, now that Andy has crossed the line into their turf, the daggers are coming out. I'm sure if Andy started deleting all Ken's Hitler piccies, Ken would come out spitting too. That said, he's probably among the best of a bad bunch. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:17, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Didn't this start when PJR came back, said that there had been family medical issues (which I hope are going well, if you're looking in the sock drawer, Philip) , and Andy pretty much said "meh?" He got a nicer response from RW than he did from Andy. There might have been bullshit happening before this, but I wasn't paying much attention then. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 11:27, 10 December 2008 (EST)

He's willing to take the support for his lunacy as long as his Christian beliefs (biblical infallibility) and Aussie sense of fair play (Obama & BRictigen) aren't being called in to question. So really we shouldn't applaud him when he selfishly fights for them. Anyhow, it all adds to the entertainment. Again "Pass the popcorn". _and marmite 11:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If I had a quid for every time someone predicted the "end" of PJR, I'd have enough money to buy a few pints of beer at 1997 prices. Bondurant 11:30, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry for Philip He said somewhere that he was raised indoctrinated and brainwashed by a Baptist family. He can't see how irrational he is. Perhaps it will be better for him if he is away from the cantancerous atmosphere at Constipedia. Proxima Centauri 11:38, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Ideally, PJR wouldn't be on our radar. I disagree with him and I know there is some heavily resistant snark from people who think liking him is only a reaction to the company he keeps, but I personally like what he has shown of himself as a person, and would enjoy hanging with him at some point. We could even talk about religion, since he can keep his cool and isn't a dick. I want him to go to Wikipedia, where he can have his fair say (even if it is against the prevailing atmosphere). I'm actually surprised he hasn't... it must be a heady sense of power knowing you personally are one of the bastions of the Trustworthy Encyclopedia.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 18:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I"m surprised he doesn't start his own. Hosting's cheap, and Wikis aren't hard to set up. --Gulik 18:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Personally I like the guy too. He's probably one of these people who is difficult to dislike whatever his views. His apparent reasonableness, his politeness, his thoroughness, his sense of fairplay.... all these are endearing qualities.

But, and this is a big but, his theology is dangerous. Not so much his YEC on its own - that's an intellectual position at odds with the secular world and the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christian theology - but how his theology would impact on politics and power.

PJR fundamentally absolutely believes that his religion, nay, his take on religion, is the only one that is true. All others are deviants or opposites of this. He knows that everyone who is not aligned pretty closely with his faith will perish. If you don't believe the Bible to be literally 100% true, then you don't really believe in anything at all and will spend an eternity regretting it.

I imagine he sees it as his God-given duty to evangelise his beliefs. And, if he had the power to do so, his evangelism would be forceful. He has admitted as much.

He would install a theocracy based on his brand of Christianity. He would support the expansion of that theocracy across the world.

It would mean the end of all science that contradicts YEC. It would mean an end to religious freedom. It would mean the total outlawing of things like homosexuality, abortion, divorce, pornography, blasphemy, inappropriate dress, sex outside wedlock, and a host of other things. (And, for those used to Aschlafly's brand of Christianity, there would probably be no capital punishment, guns or water-boarding either.) And there would be a lot of war.

This wouldn't be a power trip. This is not about social control as it is for the likes of Aschlafly.

This is about saving eternal souls. And our petty worldly differences and suffering pale into insignificance.

PJR, if you're reading this, I apologise if I've got this wrong. But that's the way it comes across to me. Ajkgordon 05:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)

American History "Cleanup"

Something tells me the original text in the first changed paragraph of this revision is what really happened. --SpinyNorman 10:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

...Your teacher = Andy? O_o Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:39, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah... and wait, I missed the funniest part! He's about my and Obama's age... so he was but a wee lad in 1968. In fact, "27 April 1961" - making him just over seven at the time. ħuman 14:44, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Exxxxxactly. So Mama Schlafly took little Andy to the convention, and he showed his good conservative upbringing in manners and chivalry by laughing at the Reagan supporters. Oh, for a tape of 7-year-old Andy acting like a snotty little brat. --SpinyNorman 15:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)

It's not enough we have a whole wiki of a (nominally) adult Andy acting like one? --Kels 15:58, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I am staggered the number of time he mentions himself this lecture, I know he was alive then but still, it is not like he was a part of any of this. - User $\pi$ 19:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Also doesn't "pinned on" imply the allegations are false? - User $\pi$ 19:14, 10 December 2008 (EST)

!! "Reagan is credited with ending communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union" !! _and marmite 19:20, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I remember a Gorba-something, but I doubt he really did very much. --Kels 19:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Ed 'n' Pi

Ed thinks "... mathematicians have struggled for centuries to provide an exact value" of pi. What a silly fellow. _and marmite 11:45, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure which way this should be taken: are irrational numbers an absurdity, as they impugn the majesty and perfection of god's creation, or are they a sign of the unknowable complexity of his creation? Publius 12:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Someone point this at Ed: "Being an irrational number, π cannot be written as the ratio of two integers. This was proven in 1761 by Johann Heinrich Lambert. In the 20th century, proofs were found that require no prerequisite knowledge beyond integral calculus. One of those, due to Ivan Niven, is widely known.] A somewhat earlier similar proof is by Mary Cartwright." Don't tell him it's from WP though. _and marmite 12:34, 10 December 2008 (EST)

But did those proofs use complex numbers? The axiom of choice? Proof by contradiction? Buncha commies!

By the way, this, by Uncle Ed himself, contains the classic case of proof by contradiction. Don't tell Andy! Gauss 14:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

It will be a proof by contradiction. I feel dirty that Ed is thinking about me. - User $\pi$ 18:39, 10 December 2008 (EST)

There's a surprise

Even Special Ed thinks the parody's getting a bit out of hand. --Kels 12:06, 10 December 2008 (EST)

He's become quite conciliatory on WP too - he's probably working up a good history so that he'll be able to get sysopship next time he tries there. Using this to demonstrate his fairness etc. _and marmite 12:39, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Naw. He's subtly trying to say he is trying his best not to punish them and sooner or later (much later) he'll have to actually do something about it. 'Cause hey, how many times can you warn someone over a single month period before you actually have to up the ante? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:37, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Deutschland has an Anti-English Bias

Apparently, Ed doesn't want historical foreign countries having non-English names. [1] Publius 12:42, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If English was good enought for Jesus, it's good enough for me. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 16:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Aschafly would like to marginalize Phyllis Schlafly

Apparently, Ed loves Mommy much more than her own son. Ed: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&curid=8822&diff=583137&oldid=574794 Andy: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=prev&oldid=455594 Patrickr 13:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I think they saw the same event in different ways - Ed didn't like any reference to students disrespecting the Conservative Madonna, while Andy liked it because of her put-down of the protesters. --SpinyNorman 15:08, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Final Replies

Halfway through a discussion, A. Schlafly tends to give final replies - sometimes two in a row.

Has anyone taken a closer look at this amusing phenomenon? --LArron 14:48, 10 December 2008 (EST)

That's the chivalrous way of saying "Now STFU"... --SpinyNorman 15:06, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I think it's the delusion that his marvelous insights will settle the debate, once and for all... --LArron 15:09, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I would like to offer my opinion that the Assfly knows that he's losing badly, and thinks that by making a subtle threat he can cause everyone else to back off so he can come back screaming a triumphant I WIN, I AM A MASTER DEBATER!!!!! SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 17:23, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think Andy even thinks of it as a debate. He's just frustrated that people won't open their minds and see the truth as he so clearly does. ħuman 18:17, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I don't know if he thinks of it as debate, more like open warfare. The idea here is to bludgeon your opponent into submission and open-mindedness. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 18:38, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Under the Bus you Go!

What is with Conservatives and throwing their own people under the bus when it suits their needs? I mean, here were see ASchlafly claim that Bush, GEORGE W. FUCKING BUSH often takes liberal issues. He also claims that those positions led to his defeat. The only liberal position Bush has ever really endorsed is the whole let Mexicans in, but even that has more to do with his business interests than his personal regard of illegals..... I'm glad I'm a liberal, those bus wheels must hurt a lot. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 17:32, 10 December 2008 (EST)

This is rich, too: "You seem to think that conservatives deify people the way liberals do. We don't." Right...--WJThomas 17:55, 10 December 2008 (EST)

What gets under Andy's skin is that he hasn't been deified for his brave truth-telling on CP. ħuman 18:29, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I love the whole "Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough." Right. People wanting the party further to the right were the ones that nominated McCain and elected Obama? Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 18:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

This seems to be the 28-percenters' new mantra. It allows them to maintain that their beliefs are 100% true and accurate without having to acknowledge that they were just rejected en masse by the "Silent Majority" they claim to represent. --Gulik 18:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Conservatives do NOT "deify" Ronald Reagan. They're just very fond of the soil on which he walked. --Gulik 18:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

And feel compelled to invoke His Blessed Name at least once during every presidential debate. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 18:59, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Well, George W. Bush is probably more Liberal than Andy. But then, so was Richard Nixon. --Gulik 18:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

RJJensen and Citizendium/Wikipedia

Are RJJensen and D. Matt Innis the same person? Looking at RJJensen's writing on Wikipedia, it's doubtful he is the same author as the version that now appears on CP, unless he had an editor tweak everything and give him credit for everything. To go from "At Smith College he published his dissertation The American Peace Crusade, 1815-—1860, and books on William Jennings Bryan and world peace, and on Austria and the United States" to "Curti taught at Smith College (1925-31), where he introduced the first course on the history of American thought. He taught at Teachers College, Columbia University (1931-1942), where he was influenced by John Dewey and in turn influenced numerous promising graduate students, including Richard Hofstadter" have the writing styles of two completely different authors. Anyone buying his "I wrote the article!" statement?

A quick look at another of Jensen's articles shows Jensen as the author, and Innis nowhere to be found. It's doubtful they're socks of each other, so it looks like this one's a straight ripoff. Wonder if there's any others? --Kels 00:01, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Homework

Oh the stupid - its spreading. I wish I could dig up my old history teacher and sic her on Aschlafly and his students . Since when is one sentance a DEBATE ! Perhaps a paragraph or two rather than Freaking "Evil" arghhh ... I fells ill .. repeat after me class "paper or plastic maam ? Hamster 18:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Are you kidding? I Want to go after Andy. He may think he's the world's greatest educator^TM but he is just hurting these kids in the long to line his own pockets and, frankly, that makes me sick! Nobody, in any fashion, could realistically look at this tripe and think that it comes close to preparing these kids for an AP exam. But, 5'll get you 20 that around April or so he'll start bragging about how his kids all got perfect scores on the AP exam. Hey, when he does that we should demand that he scan and release certified copies of their score sheets.... You know, like a birth certificate. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 18:42, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, or e. coli bacteria. I've been tempted to go through his "American History" lectures and do an analysis here. They're long on test taking hints (which merely make the same points you find on the test administrators' sites) and right-wing political commentary, and very short on, you know, actual U.S. History. Godspeed 19:17, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Andy's response to student0 question 6 - "There was an exception for religion. But you're thinking for yourself, which is good." And I thought teh assfly was against students thinking for themselves.....^{— Unsigned, by: 121.91.28.111 / talk / contribs}

This bit's interesting. "The relatively scarcity of questions before 1776 imitates the weighting used by the college boards." This sounds fishy, but as a Canadian I don't know from college boards. Can anyone verify this? Aside from whether Andy's making this stuff up or not, it's another indication that yes, he is intending this "course" to be used as college prep. Which is delusional or scary, I can't decide. --Kels 23:38, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I find it BOTH delusional and Scary . I wonder if the French in VietNam even got a mention or the Chinese involvment in Korea Hamster 23:47, 10 December 2008 (EST)

and another OMG or WTF , I cant decide Student Four answers "I disagree with those who are fine with Korea being separate, nearly two different countries in belief and government" , NEARLY !!! *hamster runs shrieking out the door *

From my memory of the AP test, the 80 multiple choice questions cover evertything from 1492 to about 1995

(There were a few Bush related questions on mine) and Andy would have to pay off a lot of people to get his kids decent scores. The DBQs and essays may be about anything from the long time period... I would kill to be a scoring and read an answer to something like "Explain what problems occurred during the Reagan administration?" - None, he was sent by God to save the soul of America and everybody loved him. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 00:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)

LowKey

My prediction: Bugler answers with something rude and dismissive. TK or Dean or someone memory-holes it (get a screencap fast, folks), and LowKey gets banned for eternity and then some. Maybe another editor or two comments, maybe not. If Andy answers at all, it'll be something that ignores all points, calls LowKey a liberal, and supports Bugler as a "trusted editor in good standing" or some such. Other sysops, regardless of personal feelings, avert their gaze and pretend not to notice. Policy doesn't change, general pretense continues. --Kels 00:13, 11 December 2008 (EST)

LowKey thinks Bugler is not a parodist?! Remarkable. What then IS a parodist? Publius 00:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Andy won't read it as he loses interest in everything more than a few sentences long and dismisses it as a "rant" (which in his dictionary is defined as 'a paragraph'). If he does respond, he will just dismiss it as such, perhaps with an adjective or two sprinkled on for variety. Kallium^talk 00:59, 11 December 2008 (EST)

That strikes me as the basis for a very good article: Conservapedia:Rant according to Andrew or some such - please feel free to edit the red link to suit yourself, if you create the article. ħuman 01:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Load test

Hey guys, since you all hang out here I am going to post this here. Everyone should go here, poke around and let me know if 1)they see anything "weird" but more importantly 2) how it runs speed/load wise. Thanks! tmtoulouse 00:39, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Seems okay to me. Pages load nice and quick. --Kels 00:42, 11 December 2008 (EST)

ok for me , a bit slow but same as RW , I am on dialup :( Hamster 00:51, 11 December 2008 (EST)

It loads OK. I've got sysop buttons there. When I added it to my fovourites the computer said I already had that site although recent changes is a bit dfifferent and the URL is different. Proxima Centauri 05:28, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Do Ed and Bugler see that TK is a threat?

A few times Rationalwikians have reported that others have supported PJR against TK. Other times they fight PJR as usual. It must be hard for those 2 to decide. Which is a greater threat to the way they want Conservapedia to be? Is it TK or is it PJR? Proxima Centauri 05:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)