Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] tab above when adding a new section, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting within an existing section. This will minimise the incidence of edit conflicts. New sections must be added at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your attention.

For non CP related talk, go to the saloon.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Push to 100M by on July 4 Status Page

I spent the last couple hours cobbling together a bot to monitor the CP statistics page and provide an ongoing report about how we are doing. The stats are updated every minute and the current rate of progress is based only on the last hour of data. Currently we are lagging far behind. Fedhaji 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need stats updated every minute. Oncce a day is sufficient. Otherwise it floods our recent changes and I'll have to vandalbin it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I requested it be flagged as a bot, which means that it shouldn't clutter up RC at all. Fedhaji 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's better. But it still doesn't need to update every minute. Surely hourly would do? Генгис^marauding 12:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to every hour, averaging over the past day. I intended for it to be fairly quick to respond to changes in the overall rate, but I guess you are right. Fedhaji 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know if history views count as page views in this context? Mountain Blue 12:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We need WesleyS back over there, categorizing and finding links for orphaned pages. They would have easily hit 100M views already. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what you're talking about. What am I missing? Mountain Blue 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When I was at CP, as WesleyS, I made like 8500 edits in 5 months. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I had my computer running all night, viewed 15,000 pages, is there any chance the bot could be modified to feed out when we will finish at this rate? --Opcn 14:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a communist or anything but I don't really understand the point in this. Is it just for a bit of a laugh? I would have thought if they reach 100M Andy will be the one laughing? I feel sure I'm missing something obvious here. StarFish 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's to see Andy's reaction. 100 million site views will instantly gratify and embolden him. It will become serious business, and the true insightz will flow like wine.

I was thinking about notifying local New Jersey news networks. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What, are you from New Jersey? Wisest bastard Hoover! 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but I was thinking that might not come up... "Hi, I'm calling to report the wild success of New Jersey local Andrew Schlafly's on-line encyclopedia, which recently surpassed the amazing milestone of up serving 100 million page views of Christian, family-friendly truth. I thought it might be appropriate for you to do a story on this local hero." Something to that effect. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not condone any sort of wandalism / page bumping. That said, one should recall Andy's consternation when the last wiki upgrade was done. The page count is stored individually for each page, and for the site. Different counters - but they get updated at the same time. When a page is deleted, it doesn't reduce the site counter by that much. However, when the wiki software is updated, the site counter is set to the sum of the page counters. Andy was a bit disappointed to see the page count for the site drop (I think he called it a liberal counting scheme or something like that, though by all accounts, it is likely a more conservative one). If one was to bump the site count with a page that would be deleted for having too high a page count and Andy trumpets the 10M number, when the software is upgraded and it drops below 10M (anyone want to do the actual count? I know a number of high volume pages have been deleted) we can once again enjoy his disappointment at dropping below another imaginary number. --Shagie 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of you wondering I use firefox with the iMacros add on, I set the macro to go to )i.e. click on) random page every time a page finishes loading. I also went under the edit menu to preferences, then to the content tab, and shutoff pictures javascript and java and that speeds it up and uses less bandwidth --Opcn 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it doesn't really matter, but I'd try to be a bit moar discreet. "If I was going to bump page views, this is how I would do it...etc...but of course, I wouldn't do that". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, should those of us who might or might not be operating clickbots spread out the traffic among a number of pages or aim en masse for a single page (such as Law Terms D, per above discussion)? In the interest of traffic maximization in the face of burning, I think we should spread it out, but inflating a single embarrassing page of our choosing has a certain appeal. Also, is there a page (or pages) that contribute to view count but minimize server load? The number of views we might or might not be generating is around 4/sec, and we do not want to bring the site down or degrade it significantly. Fedhaji 17:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of reducing bandwidth consumption on both ends, disabling image loading is an excellent route (especially if you're using Firefox & ReloadEvery, for example), or not accessing monstrous pages like Evolution or Alger Hiss. 17:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

100 mil? cratcratcratcratcrat oh pleeeeeeeeeeez! The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Law terms D is a great target largely because there is so little on the page, but I think perhaps the whole law terms list might be a good idea. Just now D with out pictures took 2 seconds to load, I, C, and K all load in under half a second. If we tried with Alger Hiss then we would crash out the server and no one wants that, I used to hate the CP server, the one that was slow as mud, I do not want to recreate that experience for others. --Opcn 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we aiming 100 Mil on July 4th instead of by that day? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am not sure how to manage this, though. I propose that everyone stops at, say, 6 hours before we hit the 100M mark, whenever that is, then we can sit and cool our jets until midnight EDT, July 4, and then make the final sprint in the early hours of the 4th. If I invested some time in making a nice GUI-licious downloadable tool to automatically do clicks and manage this throttling, would people download it? Fedhaji 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As we get close to 100M we can slow down, if its the 3rd and we are at 97M there is so way we can make it --Opcn 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't stop too close to 100M, as there is (surprisingly) actual web traffic on the site that may cause 100M to be achieved too early. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Having this occur on the 4th of July is a must. It will push Andy into a patriotic state of delirium...he will be completely overcome. The ensuing insights will be priceless. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am changing the section title now. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot back up

Bot was not tolerant of occasional HTTP errors and went down. Now it is back. Fedhaji 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor issue

I'll preface this by whining about how I'd don't approve of this sort of thing, especially using the wiki to discuss it. Which isn't to say that I don't find the goal funny. With those delightfully contradictory statements out of the way, aren't DoS attacks illegal? Not that this is one, and people are even actively trying to make sure they don't break the CP server (well, someone mentioned it, at least), but the activities might look like a DoS thing, which might have repercussions. I'm probably wrong, of course. I do acknowledge that this isn't "vandalism", or "trying to mess up a website", by the way. The "plan" is to actually give the site owner some more of what he likes to boast about, as far as I can tell. ħuman 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. It's an awful lot of trouble to make Andy smile. --Kels 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current pace is just fine to satisfy the goal and the server's response is well within normal limits. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was curious about the legality as well. I don't think they're illegal in the US, but they are in Sweden and the UK. In any event, your ISP can get rid of you for doing it. Are there guidelines for what's appropriate for number of requests per second? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. I clicked on the next CP link I saw and got "503: The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." Coinkydink, I'm sure, but still... ħuman 20:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. But it's back up now. Fedhaji 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was having a hard time reading articles because of that. I'm glad CP is back so I can keep reading. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Slow Down!!

I just got a 503 error on 7 out of 10 tries, we have to slow down, even if we cannot make it. Anyone who is working with random pages, or with Ken's homosexual anthologies has to stop permanently, stick to small pages please. Keeping CP up is more important than reaching 100M by the 4th --Opcn 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy is making threatening noises

This may just be a coincidence, but a half hour ago Andy created this, talking about the illegality of bots. He seems to be bothered by our 4th of July celebration. Now we've been through this before—it's in the archives somewhere—but CP is not a "protected computer" in the sense of Federal law. Also, there is no "intent to defraud", and there is no "obtain[ing] anything of value", and the value, if there were any, is not "more than $ 5,000", and that there is no intent to "obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter". But other than that, Andy is, as usual, right on target. Gauss 01:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy read your own rules:

“”The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited*. *Search engine and read only bots are exempt from this Commandment. To get authorization please post a note on User_talk:Aschlafly, stating what the bot will do, what username it will be under, and whether you have a working prototype. Bot owners are responsible for their bots' actions.

They are read only bots, but seriously if you are going to do this you can't interfere with the normal, smooth operation of the site. So keep the clicks down to a pace where you can't be reasonably accused of a DoS attack. - π 02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it says "exceeded authorized access", requesting a page does not exceeded authorized access, as any one can do that. - π 02:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence, TK told him the ebil librul vandal site was gonna run scripts to muck up his site. Who knows how much "truth" was involved in what TK told Andy, since We all (us and TK) know Andy doesn't read here, but presumably, Andy and others have been seeing the 503's too, and are konfused. TK explained. This reads like an episode of Schlafly Doo. But it's what is really happening. ħuman 02:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems plausible. Also, we now have this. Fedhaji 02:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think:

“”Defendants need to something more than merely using a public website in the manner it was intended to be liable under the CFAA.

might be applicable but I don't understand what it means. ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT? - π 02:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, he has yet to respond to my formal complaint of accusation of fraud on his site by a senior admin... f'ing twerp. Certified letter goes out Monday if he ain't on it... ħuman 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you can do that (Complaining to whom? Send a legal demand letter to Andy demanding to remove your name from the site? I would be surprised if he actually cares) ? No wonder everyone want to graduate from Law school. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though... would Andy really want to risk FBI II? Mountain Blue 03:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Has Andy paid/lost anything of monetary value due to the FBI incident? I don't think so. Since this is FREE, I think he doesn't mind doing it again. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Would the FBI really care? I highly doubt it, I mean they would have to look into the complaint but any amount of researching would point to this not being a DoS attack or anything of the sort. Alot of wackos, CP included, make claims to the FBI and are filed in the wacko pile. No fear gents, gman has limited reasources and tends to spend them on more important issues. As long as WE keep it civil, we are golden.--DylanB 04:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

K: I don't think Andy has lost anything tangible; you don't need a lawyer to report people to law enforcement. Andy seems to be pretty embarrassed by the whole thing, however; even mentioning the FBI incident over at CP means instant banhammer. For some reason or other Andy understands how much he's humiliated himself with this particular fuckup, and I don't see him wanting to repeat the experience. Mountain Blue 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy lost his marbles late December 2008 when he decided to let Terry Koeckritz back into the asylum. Генгис^marauding 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bull fighting pictures on Mainpageleft

Is it just me or did the evolution article become so bullish that it got itself skewered? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the creationist seagulls. ħuman 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was sort of weirded out by that. Are those creationist carrion birds eating Atheism's corpse? There's gotta be a commandment against that. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ken thinks too hard about his metaphors, or indeed anything at all. In any case, I think seagulls are a pretty good metaphor for creationists. They're vermin living on the trash of human society. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I failed to actually read his caption: "Conservapedia is certainly in favor creation science birds of prey feasting on the carcass of evolution!" Creation science birds indeed. Who even refers to creationism as a science anyway. I thought even AIG was promoting intelligent design as independent of faith or biblical sources. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume the pun in the first post was a misspelling of skua-ed? LQ 82.23.209.253 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the bull fighting pictures associated with the evolution article (first link) and Atheism article (2nd link). I would assume the Bull in the first one is the evolution article, which is dead in the later version. But oh well. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

seagulls are a pretty good metaphor for creationists - that reminds me, I must start on the ring species article I've got some stuff about... Totnesmartin 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The best bird of prey Ken could come up with was the seagull?! Worst metaphor ever! He makes it sound as if creation science is just an annoying nuisance that survives on discarded scraps... Actually, on second thought, that kind of works. Great job Ken! Best metaphor ever! Kallium^talk 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

koyaanisqatsi

So, Andy has added "red tape" to his list of "conservative words" (see WIGO), giving him an unbalanced century chart count of 11/23/44/88. To keep everything geometrically kosher, he'll need to shoot for 12/24/48/96, which means he needs one 1600s word, one more 1700s word, four 1800s word, and 8 1900s word. Also, according to Andy's theory, the current century should have produced at least 16 new conservative words so far, and he only has four listed. Considering how much he's had to stretch thus far to find words that are "conservative", there are serious chuckles ahead.--WJThomas 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Or, he could just take the lazy way out and remove one of his 1700s words, but he still needs a bunch of 2000s words)--WJThomas 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Conservapedia" already on the list? I assume stuff like wiki, web 2.0 and blog are "liberal", as they're things that are used to push the liberal agenda on the masses. ^narchist 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been lazy several times already: "it's amazing how removal of clear mistakes like this one restores the perfect geometric fit" 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO'd 24.13.203.96 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the WIGO that just was added from the 15th was already done once, or at least discussed.--PitchBlackMind 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure was. People really shouldn't WIGO things that happened a week ago, unless they are part of a current one. So I done voted it down one pip. ħuman 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How about a membership drive?

No not for us silly, for conservapedia. We all probably belong to other online communities, we could put out a shout out and get some attention. It would be fun to try and get more traffic. --Opcn 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

........... Well that idea was popular. SJ ^Debaser 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dying of the light

I don't know if you like Twilight or not. But let's see what Conservapedia thinks.

First: Twilight redirects to Twilight (book). Hope they will speak about the end of the day someday.

Even though some of the many characters are vampires, the book and series are about the importance of true love and waiting until marriage.

ORLY? Some of the many characters are vampires? Come on, every novel has many characters. But this novel has two main characters, and one of them is a vampire.

the importance of true love; well, I guess it's the author idea. I think this book should have a warning don't believe this book! love won't be as perfect as this is the real life.

waiting until mariage: hum, waiting for what? Can you be more explicit?

So, I think it's sooo predictable. But I wonder how they'll do when it will come to Breaking Dawn. Will they hinder the pedophilia controversy (Jacob and Renesmee...)? Barraki 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They can't get past Breaking Wind...oh and GWB really read Albert Camus, yeah, right. Warren Terra 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, Barraki, but I wrote that bit. Never read Twilight, never will, but I wrote it. 00:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Outed Parody

I was sitting on this, cause it was one of my favorites, but it got fixed a few months ago.... Whoever slipped in this Moar Hitler congratulations, it lasted four months. That was my personal favorite obvious parody on CP. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic. I think Hitler could last for a while just about anywhere on CP. I've always wanted someone to plaster it on the vegetarian page. --PitchBlackMind 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, so they basically didn't look at their gun article for four months. I find that more staggering than the Hitlerium. ^narchist 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of a real doozy from 2008, and a few others from earlier this year. Really good parody is hard to write nowadays, since everything gets inspected very carefully. Contemporary vandalism / parody has a half-life of about 1 day, unless it's done very cleverly. A recent bit of parody was successfully slipped in, I think. Just a second; let me check; Yup, still there. Congratulations. Gauss 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say I recognized the style, but it's not the same guy. I thought perhaps this was him deciding he'd been too low-key up to now. I'd point you to some of his "contributions", but they're pretty subtle, and a couple have been there for over a year. I wouldn't want to end their run prematurely.Cyclical 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Armond: That's the essence of Social Conservatives. What they like (guns, liberty, Jesus) is less important than what they don't want you liking (gays, peace, science). --Kels 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. There are a number of articles that should be...mmm...important to the cause, but which contain obvious parody. I'm thinking of one article in particular (and I'm going to be purposely obtuse here in order not to expose it) that deserves special attention from conservatives, and which is indeed quite lengthy, but is substandard due to the work of a vandal/parodist. And the damage is obvious to anyone who reads the article past the first couple of paragraphs. And it's been that way for over two years. And in those two years, darn near every sysop has made changes of some sort without apparently detecting the larger issues, including multiple edits by every single member of the current power structure. And the article has received special attention due to persistent vandalism. And yet they've still managed to completely miss the problems with the article. --WJThomas 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, WJThomas, I've intrigued now.... Please send me a very important email so I know which article you're talking about. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also interested in knowing of this parody of which you speak. The problem is being able to share the good stuff without giving the game away to possible moles. I was saddened to see the recent demise of Llap Doch which Ed had for some reason changed to Llap Goch I think someone had pointed out was something from the The Brand New Monty Python Bok. The main joke was that a llap doch was medieval archery field, and all adult male welshmen were required to visit the llap doch at least once a month. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats the story on Rjjensin?

His entry here reads like he wrote it. Is he really in intellectual? Did he really write those books? He certainly doesn't have the foggiest notion of a clue when it comes to fair use, but outside of that is he worth anything on a mental level? --Opcn 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has proven that he doesn't have the slightest clue about architectural styles. In my book, that's pretty weak for a professor of history. --Just passing by 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose within the realm of CP, if RJJ is called "Dr. Jensen", it's good enough. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Another of CP's great failures, is all. A failed historian fits in nicely with the failed engineer/lawyer/teacher, failed car salesman, and failed swabbie. --Kels 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He's really a Professor Emeritus of American History, and his motives for going along with CP are enigmatic, to say the least. Mostly he sits by himself, putting up articles he's already added to citizendium, but other times he's been a downright asshole, and clearly has no interest in so much as touching the content of Andy's "history" lectures or other sysops' treatment of users. Intuition tells me that he is a bit mercenary and opportunist; he must find his company at CP disgusting, but is more interested in the medium. He's occasionally argued with Andy, naturally having actual facts and scholarship on his side (Hitler and Evo., Gulf of Tonkin, Machiavelli, etc...), but to no avail. 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO with same difflink

What's with the entries with the same difflinks like Ed Poor on Hell (wigo2104 and wigo2105); Andy on paradigm shift (wigo2118 and wigo2120)? should they be merged? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure about the Ed Poor diffs, but I made the first mention of the Andy diff as part of a series of diffs demonstrating Andy's last-wordism, and the second to address specific content of the last diff. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I just combined the two Andy WIGOs, preserving, as best I could, the two points being made. Both points are good, but I think it overlaps WIGOs too much to have two of them use the identical difflink. Then there's the matter of votes---they both have votes, but not yet very many, so it probably doesn't matter in the long run. The votes will pick up. Gauss 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people just get excited and wigo whatever their short attention span allows for. Tis' the ugly of the WIGO - idiots contribute as much as geniuses do. ħuman 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Freudian Slip

Did anyone else notice this from Andy: "And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing." found here Does he understand what he really just said? SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Already WIGO'd. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see why he is upset. If he has a constant increase then the result would be that the number of conservatives grows linearly, not geometric. - π 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps it will go beyond 100% at some point (geometric increases can converge to a certain value)? Guess it didn't start increasing till Andy says it is increasing was born. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometric series are only convergent if the common ratio is less than 1. Mr. Schlafly is using a common ratio of 2 in his Best New Conservative Words list. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the words and the percentage of people increases in different ratios. Oh well, guess Andy is more stupid than I thought. (Not to mention geometric sequence and z-transform are pretty much fundamentals if he is really has electrical engineering background) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A short and thoroughly wrong calculation (Andy should be pleased): According to this, the English language has 1,000,000 words - and adds 14 words each day, i.e., 511,000 each century. The number of conservative words roughly perfectly doubles each century , and at the moment, we have ca. 200 conservative words in Andyland. And so, in the 37th century, there will be more conservative words in the English language than there are English words. Then total conservativeness will be reached, and the Lord may return. Brave yourself! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Larron. I will be braved! ħuman 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Freudians in one short message: thanks for changing the link, and spotting the typo - I'm afraid, with this typo I lost all be credibility larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At least Andy is trying to make toward the goal (more conservative words in the English language than there are English words). If he has to make it before 2061 (when he hit 100 years old) the geometric pattern has to have the following factors:

• words in the 16th century has to be more than 50
• words increases in rate of at least 13 times per century (the first 2 rules can be in other combinations like 11 to start(current number), 19 times per century)
• all words for the 21st century have to be discovered before 2061

Let's sit back and see him work his arse off. (also it goes all the way to the 54th century for the current rate of increases if the increase of english words is also geometric (51.1% each century?)) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a worthy project. Even under Andy's own inexplicable analysis he's doing 8x as much work coming up with 20th century "conservative" words - I've got all kinds of suggestions for 17th century words with which to multiply his efforts. You can search by year here - not sure this is a tremendously reliable resource, but it's a good starting point for diving into the OED at your library. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Animated PNG of range blocks

London centric map - click to view!

New York centric map - click to view!

Range Blocks at Conservapedia - TOP 10 blocked countries (Jun 21, 2009)
	\16	\17	\18	\19	\20	\21	\22	\23	\24	\25	\26	\27	\28	\29	\30	\31	\32	Σ
United States	81	10	18	29	65	6	118	15	119	3	5	2	2	10	1	0	491	6607455
United Kingdom	83	9	7	18	17	2	19	0	15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	85	6093653
Germany	23	2	4	3	2	1	5	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	55	1679159
Canada	22	0	4	1	6	2	24	3	21	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	44	1575788
China	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	788239
Italy	10	1	0	0	1	0	2	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	695052
New Zealand	10	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	688393
Sweden	10	0	1	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	677894
Australia	8	0	0	2	4	0	6	1	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20	566548
Ireland	7	1	2	3	0	0	3	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	553484

I made this little animated png to show the range blocks in - and around - London, the city with the most blocked IPs at Conservapedia. The file works fine with firefox and opera, I don't know how it reacts with IE and suchlike. So the question: Can you view it? As an animation? Or just the first frame?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

With IE 8, I only have a still frame. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Firefox) I can see it if I click on the pic, but the thumbnail just gives the first frame. Looks good - like I'm doing a parachute jump.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What he said (Firefox Portable) + You need to get out more dude :) Worm ^{(t | c)} 09:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in reading that as 10% of British people blocked? EddyP 09:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it. Most of that figure comes from massive range blocks, and within those ranges it's unlikely that each single IP would be assigned to a different individual. It's still a whole lotta blocking though.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NUMBER 1 BABY, YEAH!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, are you sure that's a map of CP blocks and not Kim Jong Il's plan for the next 12 months?--ConservapediaRoolz 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure it is not "plan", because 1) Kim is old, perhaps retiring soon, 2) their missiles can't reach that far yet, and 3) plans to involve chooting at the hand that feed him (China) usually ends ugly. "Fantasy" perhaps is a better word. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad we don't know much many percent of the local address pool these respectively represent. It's not just that Australia has had 8 /16s dropped on it, it's that pretty much the whole of New South Wales is banzored. The address I burned when I signed up at CP last Saturday might easily have been the last conserva-capable IP in all of Sydney. Same with parts of New Zealand. Mountain Blue 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a script for one of my abortive wiki projects that tells me this, apparently "AUSTRALIA has 82417983 IPs assigned to it." So, 8 /16 represents some 0.6% of the total address space in aus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not despair

I know that in the TK-dominated CP, comedic events are fewer (as are users) and more repetitive. But do not despair; there are over 80 main page talk archives, so if you're ever bored, pick one. For example, I found a post from March '08 informing all that 'liberals' at CP was in the top page at google. And it was so. But, of course, the article has been changed since then, so when anyone searching for liberals comes across the CP link, the abstract is "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards;". Classic. EddyP 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the cp:Liberals page for the first time in a couple of months, and Jeeeeeee-sus! It has got so petty and pathetic-sounding that it is just incredible. Fair enough if you're viewpoint is different, but this article reads like a hate speech. SJ ^Debaser 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you want to see what CP used to be like, go back and read the first few Main Page Talk archives over there. Ken hasn't changed, of course, what with ranting about "The Evolutionary Position" and trying to get JoshuaZ banned for posting a mildly critical statement on his WP userpage, but Andy was a lot more tolerant. This was when Human, and Sid, and Cracker, and others were still active and tolerated, lots of good and illuminating conversations. Sort of what I was hoping aSK would end up like, only with a somewhat less insane/crankish site owner. Pity. --Kels 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the top rated WIGO's of all time?

Yes, go to the WIGO page and click on the link to "Best of Conservapedia". ħuman 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I really wish I'd found CP earlier back in it's heyday, it would've been a lot more fun to actually engage in debate and conversation rather than just troll like people do nowadays. But I didn't discover it until about September/October last year, and even after that I joined Liberapedia first in November. I only came here about 3 months ago. (My life wiki story, ladies and gents) SJ ^Debaser 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How many blocked users?

We talk a lot about range blocks ande IP blocks and how very many there are, but there is seldom mention of how many user names are blocked. I'd really like to know how many active users there are on CP after all of the blocks are taken into account. --Opcn 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there is a strong correspondence between what we perceive to be "lightning rod" pages and the reality of whether there really is a higher likelihood of getting blocked if you edit pages like TalkObama, TalkMain, anything in the Debate space, etc. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. cp:Special/Statistics has the current number of registered editors 30,060
2. At the begin of this month, there were 15,904 out of 29,740 editors blocked - or 53.3% (see here)
3. For the number of active editors, take a look here.

And here a table of the articles to which the most editors contributed. cp:Talk:Main doesn't show as it was recently deleted by TK (ooops). Aschlafly's talk page does show, as the data is of June 6, 2009, prior to TK's last archiving,i.e., deleting of the page...

article	# edits	# editors	# blocked editors	quota
Barack Hussein Obama	2529	623	362	58.1%
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama	2573	513	259	50.5%
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	2243	300	114	38%
John McCain	1009	276	170	61.6%
Talk:Homosexuality	1104	269	133	49.4%
User talk:Philip J. Rayment	1871	261	143	54.8%
Christianity	587	242	144	59.5%
User talk:DanH	729	222	131	59%
Global warming	990	218	101	46.3%
Dinosaur	719	218	124	56.9%
Bill Clinton	473	215	96	44.7%
Ronald Reagan	556	205	100	48.8%
Democratic Party	634	205	109	53.2%
Conservapedia:Debate Topics	635	193	96	49.7%
Atheism	2177	189	93	49.2%
Islam	352	187	90	48.1%
Richard Dawkins	960	184	91	49.5%
Talk:Liberal	885	181	84	46.4%
Jesus Christ	526	176	107	60.8%
User talk:Ed Poor	726	174	102	58.6%
User talk:RobSmith	1324	172	105	61%
Communism	496	169	88	52.1%
George W. Bush	423	162	76	46.9%
talk:Aschlafly (pre-delete)	752	157	95	60.5%
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	868	155	70	45.2%

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By "blocked usernames" are you meaning something like Conservapedia:Unusable names? ^narchist 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CPUSA

LOL, the neocons have my political party as their Featured Article. Its actually funny how they describe it. *chuckles* *then cries* --Beishanlong ^grandis 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Communist! SJ ^Debaser 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, they got this much time to write about the party which have no seats in the federal congress, and the article is even longer than Sarah Palin! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of the front-page description of the CPUSA is incorrect? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One sentence: With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democratic Party. ROFL, hollow shell, that's funny. Everything on that side is funny. Scary funny, knowing that people actually believe the shit they pretend to write about. --Beishanlong ^grandis 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the PWW was wetting its pants with excitement when Jeffords crossed the floor in 2001. This document promotes support for the Democrats as part of a "broad-tent" strategy, since some left-wingers have been able to get representation through the party. And what else but a hollow shell do you call a party that, having lost its primary financial backer, does not actually run any candidates even for state office? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A party that still has supporters, conventions, meetings, and still want justice in the world. Don't tell me you agree with Conservapedia on this? --Beishanlong ^grandis 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Loonies, feel-good grandstanding exercises, and whine-fests, more like. Justice? Give me a break. Reds would not know justice if it bit most of their south ends off. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you characterize all such people in that way? True, there are idiots out there who claim to be communist, and have no idea what that entails. Justice? I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were opposed to justice and liberty, civil rights for all people and the end of discrimination, be it Classism, Racism, Sexism, or Agism. But I pride myself on my moral values and want for justice. Maybe you don't know what Communism is, but I have a fairly good idea. And so what. If loving people, wanting to end all this evil in the world, and fighting against prejudices is so wrong, then I don't care. I still do it because it is what I believe is right. I gladly fight for communism, not because of oppressive imperialism, but because I believe in the better side of people. So fine, retain what you believe Communism is, I can't stop you. You can continue to be ignorant. In the immortal words of John Lennon, "Maybe I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". --Beishanlong ^grandis 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me; I was unaware that any communist state had at all delivered justice or liberty, extended any sort of civil rights, or brought about the end of any of those sorts of discrimination. Anybody can jabber on ad nauseam about "justice," but practicing it is a slightly different matter. Reds are full of hot air on the topic, but that does not help them here outside of the World According to Marx^TM, and when this is made quite clear, instead of owning up and admitting that they were wrong through and through, they just trumpet the party line all over again. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a communist state. True there have been those which have called themselves communist, but see the various " Democratic Republics" around the world. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone associated with the CPUSA pulls the No True Scotsman to disassociate themselves from those inconvenient truths, they should remember that: (1) they are a Marxist-Leninist party whose platform bemoans the collapse of the Soviet Union and cheers, among other countries, North Korea; (2) since their party is run along democratic-centralist lines, every member of the party is expected to back the platform to the letter. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it. From my own limited analysis, I'd say pure Communism is like pure Libertarianism: Nice in theory, might work on some other planet if tried by some other species, absolutely disastrous here on Earth. --Gulik 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I put that no unworkable theory is "nice" at all, as such theories do nothing but cause great strife as people fruitlessly attempt to implement them. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(UI)Just a little late to the discussion, but these theories are just that; theories. They are abstract concepts meant to apply to abstract ideals. When applied, pure communism works no better than pure capitalism. This is because unlike in theoretical exercizes, you have too many factors to account for and will be unable to predict all outcomes. The best system is a combination of systems, that utilizes that strengths of one while eliminating the weaknesses of others. Z3ro^talk 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is probably why capitalism works so well, because it saw its beginnings as practice rather than theory. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What I love with that article is it shows just how ineffectual their "Featured Article Commitee" is. 4 votes - 2 pro from the mindless twins and 2 against, with valid comments, but Joaquin still puts it up on the main page. Beautiful! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

CP and CMI, feeding off each other?

Is this what little Kenny was talking about? Look at that tl;dr page. --Irrational Atheist 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone mind explaining what "tl;dr" refers to (perhaps add to the list as well)? Thank you for your time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the part where they try to equate atheism with paganism. I also like the fact that if you took out all the quotes from that article, you would barely have two words to rub together. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

@K61824: "too long; didn't read", usually used when a post or article has overkill length while a much shorter one would have been a lot better. Prime examples: Ken's pet articles. See also the top entries in "Quantifying Obsession" --Sid 19:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the term onto the list. Thank you for the heads up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikingly, these two articles aren't similar enough (and it isn't in the reference in the main article by Ken). Quick, someone encourage Ken to add that to his articles and wait for the great merge. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is terrible. The tortured logic when they try and turn all the atheist's arguments back on them, it burns. You'd think they might be able to come up with some arguments of their own. Even Kendoll's MOAR HITLER is better than this. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And look who the article is written by: our old friend Mariano, the only guy ever to give Ken the time of day. Hardly surprising. DickTurpis 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, was Mariano the guy with all the blogs that kendoll wrote suck up articles on CP for? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Ruylopez's talk page on ASK. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link. A challenge has been laid by a colleague(or peon, I ain't familiar with aSK to tell). Shall it be moved to WIGO:ASK? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding theTodo list

Is it mostly mainspace only? The idea is since CP is teaching Economics in the fall, perhaps some of us can collaborate on Conservapedian Economics (which I have no idea if it is different than Reaganomics) before then? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's whatever you want - I'm taking the economics class if I can maintain an account there long enough to finish. My parents want me to get some extra homeschooling in a Christian friendly environment with a chivalrous and powerful instructor, natch. Little Susie Jaansensensen

Feel free to add a "Conservapedia space articles" section. As, um, "little Susie" says, it's whatever we want. ħuman 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thank you. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wtf just happened? The page just disappeared! ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.55.145.178 / talk / contribs}

System went DOWN back up thanks to Trent. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ALL HAIL TRENT! Etc 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Public School WIGO

Did Andy just advocated the idea that the homeschooling parents to claim fees (for his courses/private school) due to the kids being (mentally) disabled? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Likeunto the guy who shot his parents, then asked the judge to show mercy to an orphan? --Gulik 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

One wonders if there is a wheelchair ramp for the church basement where Schlafly's "classes" take place. Warren Terra 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy tidies up

1. 23:38, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:Philip J. Rayment's user rights from Block, Check users, edit, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, Oversighters, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha and Upload to nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO and nsTeam2_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
2. 23:37, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:BenjaminS's user rights from Check users and Administrators to Administrators. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
3. 23:37, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:DanH's user rights from Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Siteadmin and Administrators to nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO and nsTeam1_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
4. 23:36, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:Learn together's user rights from Block, Check users, edit, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Siteadmin, Administrators and Upload to nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO and nsTeam1_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
5. 23:35, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:HenryS's user rights from Administrators to (none). ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)

( Emphasis shows removed rights) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicely formatted for clarity! So was this tonight's cocoa/scotch edit? ħuman 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What utter bollocks. What about the other inactive admins like College Republican, DeborahB., ChrisS., DavidR, Freedom777, Will N., Ymmotrojam? I imagine most are still homeskollars and he doesn't want to upset them even though they don't do anything on site any more. Also why doesn't he get rid of all those stupid competition namespaces? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer to last question: he doesn't know how. Also, keep in mind these are just checkboxes when he adjusts user rights, so unchecking the competition boxes would actually be extra work. ħuman 05:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seventeen administrators edited in June, 2009: AddisonDM, Aschlafly, BethanyS, Conservative, DeanS, Ed Poor, Geo.plrd, Jallen, Joaquín Martínez, Jpatt, Karajou, RJJensen, RSchlafly, RobSmith, TK and TerryH.

administrator month of last edit Admin Mar 2009 BenjaminS Mar 2009 CPWebmaster May 2009 CPanel Jun 2007 ChrisS April 2008 CollegeRepublican never DavidR Apr 2008 DeborahB. Apr 2009 DuncanB May 2009 Ed Bot Dec 2008 Freedom777 Jul 2008 PhilipB Feb 2009 SharonS May 2009 Will N. Nov 2007 Ymmotrojam Jul 2008

former administrator month of last edit Philip J. Rayment Mar 2009 BenjaminS Mar 2009 DanH Jun 2008 Learn together Jan 2009 HenryS Dec 2008

So,five administrators ChrisS, DavidR, Freedom777, Will N., and Ymmotrojam didn't edit for over one year - and the famous CollegeRepublican has no edit left in his list of contributions. All of these ceased to edit before DanH did so - and he is the former administrator with the longest period of inactivity. Of course, these editors are - most probably - personally known to Aschlafly and there is only little danger that they will turn bad. But instead of giving a valid, though biased reason, Aschlafly prefers to state something sounding objective larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This supposed inconsistency isn't a valid criticism. In all probability he emailed all the inactive admins and then demoted the ones he didn't hear back from, or something like that. Not every action has to have its exact rationale relayed here for ratification you know.--ConservapediaRoolz 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're going to give Andy benefit of the doubt, undeserved though it is in this instance, why not go over to aSoK and ask PJR if that was the case. I think you'll find it isn't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go bothering Phil about who said what to who and then did what that they told so and so that they weren't going to do, because I'm not interested in silly, liberal gossip. You would have more credibility if you restricted yourself to valid, verifiable criticism and maintained more of an open mind about the rest instead of imagining sinister motives underlying every administrative procedure.--ConservapediaRoolz 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Having been privy to all three iterations of the CP administrator's mailing lists, I don't need to imagine their sinister motives, I know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but to a newcomer to this site it just looks like possibly baseless insinuation.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 11:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that you were mistaken newcomer --Opcn 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This supposed inconsistency isn't a valid criticism. I beg to differ: A. Schlafly stated in 2007: As I've repeatedly said, Conservapedia is a meritocracy.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT), and according to CP, a cp:meritocracy is a a system in which promotions are based on merit rather than friendship, seniority, or quotas. I have to suppose that this is true for a demotion (or the lack of it), too. But merits are gained in the past - or present, and can't be promises for the future, as any email from an administrator to Andy would be. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Statistics: Episode II:

"A New Hope" "The Phantom Encyclopedia"

Tl;dr: They're boned.

Fig. 1: All edits

Fig. 2: Welcome edits

Two weeks ago we discussed how many edits Conservapedia gets every month and how this number changes over time. Fig. 1 is a refined version of the chart we talked about back then. The height of each bar represents the number of edits made over the course of the corresponding month. The height of the red portion of each bar indicates the number of edits to actual articles, where the set of "actual articles" is the main namespace minus redirects, debates, essays, lectures, and homework pages. Note that both numbers have been in freefall for more than half a year. Also note that less than two out of three edits are made to actual articles; Andy remembers his 90/10 rule when he needs a hammering pretext but must have largely given up on it otherwise.

Fig. 3: All users

Fig. 4: Welcome users

Gauss suggested it might be interesting to know how many edits Conservapedia gets that Conservapedia actually wants. In Fig. 2, the green portion of each bar indicates the number of welcome edits, where a welcome edit is an edit that (a) does not get reverted right away and (b) is not made by a user who goes on to get the banhammer within one week of making this edit. The percentage of welcome edits is higher than I expected. I suspect part of the reason for this is that many unwelcome edits are edits that create new pages, along with which they subsequently disappear from recorded history. Remember how, in the SPastel incident, the team killers burned about fourty perfectly good encyclopedic articles because Karajerk felt vaguely threatened by the presence of a scientist.

Note, however, that the number of welcome edits is in freefall in direct proportion to the number of edits total. Andy's freak show doesn't just attract less and less incredulous disaster tourism; it attracts fewer and fewer bona fide contributions as well.

Gauss also suggested it might be interesting to know how many editors there are. In Figs. 3 and 4, the height of each bar indicates the number of users who made at least one edit over the course of the corresponding month. Red indicates the number of users who made at least one edit to an actual article; green indicates the number of users who made at least one edit that neither got reverted nor got them banned. Observe that none of these numbers decreases, all three of them are stable. Together with the precipitous drop in the number of welcome edits, a stable number of welcome editors suggests Conservapedia doesn't have an advertising problem; they have a retention problem. There are still enough people who learn of the existence of Conservapedia and decide to give it a try; there are just not enough crazies who can tolerate them for any length of time. Mountain Blue 04:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the 90/10. As most edits are made by sysops the 90/10 doesn't apply to them anyway. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My biggest surprise in this great report is that it wasn't signed by lArron. --GTac 06:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they block users within seconds for lies and vandalism which strangely are deleted instantly from said user's (blank) editing history. That's probably why they don't get a lot of edits they don't want. Tarantallegra 06:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, what portion of those "welcome edits" are contributions of a) sysops and b) 3-4 regulars (FOIA, Daniel1212... JDWPianist?) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by regulars

The current sysops and the three regulars you mentioned contribute between 20% (Jul 08) and 60% (May 09) of welcome edits. Their share has been rising more or less steadily since last July and is in excess of 50% for the fourth consecutive month now. This statistic seems to neither corroborate nor contradict my hypothesis from yesterday. Note that RJJensen is a sysop. Mountain Blue 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blue (if that is your real name)- Please send all your data points to us in a plain brown wrapper. Open your mind and youse will see that a downward trend is an upward trend when you flip the charts. I know for a fact that every non-mentally ill editor is making nearly 50,000 edits per day, all of a substantive nature, with no trivia, and no Hollywood values. We am doing great! You're speling is uhtrohshis! Lern! Jimaginator 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a little bit of plagiarism

In Feb 2009, TK writes knowledgeable about the math markups^img. It should come as no surprise that the whole section is an unattributed copy and paste job. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be more wigo worthy is TK wrote something that wasn't in whole or in part copied from elsewhere. Evidence suggests TK is an android exquisitely programmed to block and harass, but sadly lacking in original thought. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice shout-out^img, Terry Koeckritz: "I take it our friends noticed that the math symbols I posted in answer to your question, months ago, came from Media Wiki, right? Oh, wait, they didn't....just another example of how wrong liberals typically are! :p"

No, I didn't say that you stole them from Media Wiki. I said (see the link above) that you stole them from CFD: an online center for Computational Fluid Dynamics. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like another example of how wrong TK typically is. Hey TK. StarFish 10:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey TK. It's not really attacking just pointing and laughing at you. Because you are very, very funny. Especially when you're angry. As you're obviously reading this I want you to know, sincerely, every day the first thing I do is look at CP to see what you have done for my amusement. Dance monkey, dance. StarFish 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"typical of cowards, they attack, yet give no way to be responded to. Typical of liberals!" Right...I'll just sign up and respond on CP...oh wait...they blocked over 100,000 IPs to make sure I couldn't. Hmm... ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's kinda cool that anybody from CP would actually peruse RW. It's always possible, though implausible, that they could learn something about logic, or how talk pages really work or something. Lern! Jimaginator 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of oversighting in the morning

I signed up as "ATypical" (eg A Typical Liberal) to let TK know that if he wants to shout out to RW it would be easier if he just started doing "Gentlemen" screeds like Ken rather than putting it in his edit summaries as he did on the L'Hopital's Rule page. TK obliged by popping my oversighting cherry. I feel so dirty. Stile4aly 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it me...

...or does this list read like an adolescent boy's vocabulary (for the most part)? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great link! What have they got against Aardman Animations?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How many of the young Christian homskollarz get a snicker when if they find this page? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

None! Because they have chivalry and Christian values, and they know that Jesus invented humour and he certainly didn't invent anal sex or wallace and grommit, dammit! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice find; it's like the user graveyard, where evidence they existed goes when they die are blocked. EddyP 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like using the dicktionary to look up rude words. ^narchist 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait- Is this the stuff I SHOULD look at, or the stuff I SHOULDN'T look at. Confused. Gotta go, Mommy's calling me...Jimaginator 14:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the antithesis of the Best New Conservative Words? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we have an article about it? I am putting it on the todo list. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if it shows geometric regression. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can get the timestamp from here (The list has both functional titles and potential titles, I am not competent enough to know how to separate them) and see if there are any worthwhile patterns? Thanks. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy fils the trojan horse

Firstly, if Andy is conservative then the trojan horse was liberal, lets look at the symbology₢ Troy with its high thick walls represented establishment, and Odysseus utilizing his intellect to defeat it represents liberals tearing holes in Andy's faulty ass logic. If I were a liberal I'd totally want to take credit for the horse (sorry I'm a libertarian). Irregardless of that I do love the fact that Andy thinks that the trojan horse was deciet from within (also known as infighting) rather than the more traditional deffinition, which is a gift with hidden drawbacks. ^{— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs}

He is tarring any "subversion from within" as liberal. I suppose that means Operation Valkyrie was liberal deceit as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the horse was pretty successful. How many Trojans have you met? Corry 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the Trojans were the liberals and the Greek horse represents crazy liberal ideas that the Trojans (liberals) were gullible enough to let in, like atheism, evolution and several hundred warriors in full battledress lead by Brad Pitt... Conclusion, symbolism is arbitrary nonsense! ^narchist 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, You guys also know that Trojan is also a popular brand of sinful antenna attenuation covering, right? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of the mouths of atheists

"Anything out of the mouth of an atheist is a lie, surely you know that?". All together now - Terry Koeckritz is a decent and honest guy! Генгис^{Gum disease} 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I do realise that TK is just engaging in hyperbole.

"Christianity is the best religion, ever!" --Irrational Atheist 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of solid lulz over there has us liveblogging even mundane TK trolling. What has the world come to? I sincerely wish people would at least wait until he does something truly evil rather than the merely par for the course griefing of an internet creep who thrives on negative attention, even if he has to stand in your front yard calling you an asshole and waving his arms (the equivalent of calling atheists liars, or something like that). User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do need to do a membership drive for them? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If everything any atheist says is a lie, and the atheist says he is lying, does the universe explode? Z3ro^talk 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Went for genghis's link above: Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Twice! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I regret that. It's hard to fine tune the difference between viewing and overviewing. I've been very interested in Andy's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act article and reloading it 8-10 times a second just to make sure he hasn't added the substantive analysis bit. Law Terms D is also a thrilling entry - I've got to make sure I don't miss any entries in that category. But, all in all sorry for the inconvenience, dear. 76.73.47.42 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

May I be the first to add that Ken DeMeyer is completely heterosexual. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I that Andy has stopped beating his wife.Toffeeman 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're clueless, Toffeeman. Andy Schlafly's wife hasn't come forward to state Andy no longer beats her. I don't know if he does. Do you? Errr... Aschlafly

"Either Terry Koeckritz exists or he doesn't." Now prove it false! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one. What about: Andy is thinking of promoting someone to sysop. This person is either an atheist or a Christian. What question can he ask which will determine the matter? Can he ask a question where the answer will always be "yes"?

Raymond Smullyan could do a few "On this wiki there are Christians, who always tell the truth; Atheists, who always lie; Trolls; who are dangerous and Rats, who are safe....... Toffeeman 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a joke

Someone else must have seen this, the autocomplete on google has for "Conservapedia " 1. Conservapedia Obama 2. Conservapedia is a joke ... 6. Conservapedia Lenski 7. Conservapedia Hitlist

The I'm lucky for the joke one goes to this ^{— Unsigned, by: User:Teabag / talk / contribs}

Reminder: link no long function properly due to the question being deleted.

Hint: do a screencap of it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When I do it from .co.uk, "Conservapedia Bugler" pops up as a suggestion! ^narchist 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Link not work because formatted wrong I, I fixed. Space for els, not pipe... ħuman 01:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's their greatest hits collection here--Nate River 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I get (UK, FF3) "Conservapedia hitlist" and "Consevapedia down" as well. I'm sure a certain editor on Conservapdia who places great emphasis on the importance of Google in regards to his articles will find this thread very interesting reading. Totnesmartin 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

More made up statistics

It seems to be a favourite pastime of CP, but at least they let someone else make them up this time it seems. Their news story links to this article which claims that by 54-41 people want smaller government, except that this statistic is nowhere to be found in their quoted source article from the Washington Post. Jammy 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, if you click the link near the top of the article to the Washington Post-ABC News Poll Data, and actually find those exact numbers in the raw data... Hydrogen 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a cherry pick they did there. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More useless statistics more like. If you ask the average voter if they want smaller government, they say yes. If you then ask them if they want government to provide more services and regulation, they answer yes. See California, in which voters pass laws requiring services and then pass laws so they don't have to pay for said services. Frankly, I'm surprised the split is so low. 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The question asked seems to incorporate both.

7. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"The problem" as the cartoon at my local tax collector office used to say, "is that the taxpayers and the voters are the same people". ħuman 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Prostitutes

Creepy Ed cites Reagan Christ: "[I]s anyone naive enough to believe that prostitution just depends on willing employees coming in and saying that’s the occupation they want to practice?"

Ed's pretty fucking stupid, but I suppose personal incredulity passes for cold, hard logic over there...especially if RR says so. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it might be mildly entertaining for someone to put their socks on and cite a quote from a willing, happy prostitute (which would technically falsify the claim) and see how and why that does not falsify the claim...then I would like to know what would falsify the claim (which is nothing, of course). Then the inevitable: "She's a prostitute, so it's no stretch of the imagination that she's lying." I wonder if we can't find a quote from a Christian prostitute... but I guess no true Christian would be a prostitute, right? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how St. Reagan and Andrea Dworkin would agree so closely on the subject of prostitution. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that shit's great! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to generalise about prostitution. When people condemn prostitution I think it is mostly concerning forced prostitution where women are doing it against their will, often as part of organised crime. Sex is such a powerful component of living that there is money to be made from it and therefore will probably be with us pretty much for ever. The problem is who is engaged in it and are they doing it voluntarily? Poor women may choose to be prostitutes because it is the only means of earning money and would forgo it if other paid work was available. Of course, you could say the same about a lot of jobs; do people aspire to be toilet cleaners for example? Many people do a job which they may dislike or find demeaning, it's just that in our society we have a taboo against purchased sex. Of course there are some jobs which people actually do enjoy (which others find repugnant), and there may be women who actually enjoy their job as a prostitute because of the satisfaction they give. The difficulty is when the relationship becomes abusive in some way. There are also women who actually choose prostitution over other jobs because they can actually earn a lot of money from it, however we tend to euphemise it by referring to them as call-girls. And like it or not there is often a degree of "prostitution" within marriage where a spouse may use sex as a bargaining chip in order to obtain some sort of advantage. It could even be argued that some women object to prostitution because it undermines their own bargaining position. I'm not condoning any of these viewpoints just trying to put an economic slant onto the question rather than the usual moral arguments. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, please...the vast vast vast majority of women who work as prostitutes do so because they are (literally) forced to do so, or because they are so goddamn desperate that they don't have other options. Hiring a prostitute is, in effect, rape. (And the "she does it because she enjoys it" defense is the exact same rationalization that pedophiles and other abusers fall back on--"She wanted me to! She came on to me!")--WJThomas 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that also apply to prostitutes in the Netherlands, where they have, i.a., prostitutes' labor unions? ListenerX^TalkerX 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly relative like everything else. The crackhead down the street who's selling it for 10 bucks a pop is in a much different situation than the $10,000 a night hooker for the high-rollers in Las Vegas. I'd agree that most are forced, but there's many exceptions to the rule across the globe.--PitchBlackMind 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about legalised prostitution. If the shit was legal, shit would be different. I'm sure we have some German members who can vouch for the laufhaus, or some dutch members who can vouch for the red light district? Yes, most of us live where prostitution is illegal (e.g. US, UK, NZ, Oz, etc) and I believe for many reasons there is a correlation with a lifestyle lending itself toward susceptibility to a strong pimp hand. It's borderline an association fallacy. If you make something illegal, some nefarious characters are sure to fill the niche. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The question of voluntary vs. involuntary prostitution should only be considered where prostitution is legal, as it is obvious that a disproportionate number of people in illegal trades have been shanghaied into them. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Prostitution is a combination of sex and free enterprise. Which of those two are you opposed to? (I keed, I keed, don't get mad) Hactar 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Erotic moves" (Blow jobs and hand jobs), not exactly sex, as indicated in most of Japan. Thought experiment of Prostitution without the free enterprise... Mandatory matchmaking + Mandatory erotic services? It won't be as bad as involuntary abstinence (I am unqualified to comment from other POVs). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, K. ħuman 03:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick message, dont have much time. I’m from the netherlands and have talked to these people, and in no way they are being forced or anything and they could easily get another job if they wanted. Not saying they’re in it cause they like it so much, they just chose it cause this is easier money for them. For these people, it’s just a job, and it’s pretty rude to insult them like that. --GTac 07:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So let's see...

Tamar wasn't actually a prostitute, she just dressed up like one to get her father-in-law to fuck her. Rahab was a legit prostitute (who according to the Talmud could make men ejaculate with the mere mention of her name). Ruth fucked her employer Boaz to redeem herself of her widowhood. Bathsheba makes a cuckold of her husband Uriah with David (who David then sends to his death). All of this in Jesus' lineage. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Ed Poor missing something?

If it isn't a blatant attack on everything Ken stands for, I don't know what is. Perhaps all Ken's articles are all marked "tl;dr" by Ed to result in this discrepancy. Another episode of "Do as I say, not as I do" brought to you by [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Ed Poor is mising something - a brain. Генгис^unbelieving 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot integrity, honesty, and common decency. All missing in Ed, sadly. --Kels 05:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should be bursting in to song... o/` We're off to see the wizard.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though all of those things you guys suggests are missing I don't think Ed would go attack his fellow colleague Ken unless there is some good reason for it. Really missing the brain → mindlessly controlled by Andy or TK (Ok, maybe TK do want to get rid of Ken at some point.) and no [integrity, honesty, and common decency] means he probably will co-operate with Ken in other articles (What, you think Ken as any of that?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did RobSmith made his own graph?

News bite in question The exact replica isn't found within the article he referenced (perhaps he edited a bit or rip it from somewhere else). But if he says the Y-axis denotes growth, shouldn't he hide the portion of the previous 2 Presidents (delimited by gray vertical bands) since Clinton got massive growth and Bush Jr. never got any positive growth? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That graph makes Clinton look really good and Bush really bad, doesn't it? In the Bush era, the economy barely scrapes to achieve growth levels that were in place as Clinton healed the Reagan/Bush I disaster... ħuman 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fun graph, too, for all those conservatives who love to gripe about fiscally irresponsible liberals.--WJThomas 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for them to label Eisenhower as a conservative in 3... 2... 1... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bible retranslation project: the first half year

The Great cp:Bible Retranslation Project was started half a year ago, time for a first celebration. There was some small minded critique in the beginning, claims that this project wouldn't be in the reach of Andy's gang of homeschoolers. But after six month, Andy has proofed his critics - right. It's true that there are some great achievements made by teenagers. But teenagers are better known for being easily inspired and then lacking the stamina to carry a project through. Certainly Andy will give an outline for the next six months: maybe a second verse will be translated... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He needs DeniseM back from wherever she's gone. Totnesmartin 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The irony of that being, that Andy in his infinite wisdom let his humongous ego get the better of him for a change and drive away the one person that could have contributed to the project. But then again, expertise is a liberal trait after all. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: excluding reverts, The last edit was in February. Maybe put this to the list of evidence that Andy may have ADHD. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Time for a test to see if this becomes another FBI incident - go to the Andy's Talk page and ask how the Bible Retranslation project is going, and see how fast you get banhammered for trolling... --SpinyNorman 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Baseline traffic data for Conservapedia?

Does anyone have (or know where to look for) a figure for a "non-clickbotted" Conservatisms average pageview rate? I would measure this directly, but someone appears to be clobbering the site with a clickbot right now. In related news, thanks to whoever is currently pounding their server, the 100 million pageviews on July 4 project is on track. In case you care, whoever you are, you have about 5 days at the current rate before you overshoot the July 4th mark. Fedhaji 10:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just look back at the frequent andy edits to mainpage left

You mean separate out "legitimate" traffic from the click bots? There is nothing that we have access to, the server logs should contain the info needed to sort it out but we don't have access to those. tmtoulouse 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea. I know a precise number isn't possible, but an upper bound based on the slowest-observed CP activity would be good enough for my purposes. Fedhaji 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a flag?

Looks like Kenny has officially laid claim to the Richard Dawkins article.--WJThomas 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly dash cunning of him. --Tygrehart

Prediction his next edit marathon will last at least 35 hours. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken: Because even the kids in special class need someone to make fun of. --Kels 15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Ken, the power to add MOAR HITWIN is now all yours. Please to follow up with locking of Alger Hiss, that needs MOAR HITWIN too, I'm sure. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saving Christianity from Libb-burr-ulls

Okay, Andy's latest blog postessay is How Conservatism is Essential to the Future of Christianity.

I note two points he makes:

• "The decline of the Southern Baptist Convention". Excuse me? The entire past 20-30 years of SBC history has been a steady march to the (far far) right, spearheaded with pretty much a complete takeover of the denomination by fundamentalists and a purge of anyone who disagrees with them.
• "Liberals use politics to exploit a literal interpretation of a phrase in the New Testament that God chooses the political leaders." You mean like the numerous Christian conservatives who argued that God supports the Republican Party, not just on moral issues like abortion, but even on things like taxation? Or even the ones that argued George Bush's election was divinely ordained, or that God actually intervened during the 2000 Florida recount?

MDB 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the two points from your two points:

• The first point: I can't tell whether they are doing it on CP.
• The Second point: They probably do. Please thank them for putting words in God's mouth.

[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it smells like the Andy of old, throwing around ridiculous assertions with no evidence, laying claim to saving the world from liberalism. A rich vein of teh stupid, me thinks. Z3ro^talk 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My favourite bit: Andy: "conservatism, like Christianity, focuses on the future" . Hilarious. 194.6.79.200 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a joke Jimaginator 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@BoN: It does, in a way. They are still waiting for the Rapture, that's why they don't care for the conditions on Earth/material world (or shaping it like hELL for the non-believers). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see why Andy has to save the Southern Baptists from godless libb-burr-ull-izz-umm. The article he cites as evidence says the SBC is considering a resolution that acknowledges the historical importance of Obama's election. That's it. That's his idea of liberalism. MDB 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"several big threats to faith postdate the King James Bible, such as pornography and gambling" - I don't know how he can maintain such consistency, but Andrew Schlafly has made me do more double- and triple-takes while reading than all the rest of the universe combined.71.193.206.116 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Addison continues to commit slow wiki-suicide: "Christianity does not need conservatism to survive. It needs only its own traditional teachings..." Way to go. Count down to liberal, last wordism rant from Andypants in 3... 2... 1... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a focus on traditional teachings... you know... conservative? 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Andy moved the goalpost, it seems. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual impropriety which runs rampant throughout the bible along with the casting of lots are all liberal interpolations. That's why we need the Bible mistranslated retranslated. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs}

I have posted a side-by-side for the entire essay. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I big bravo to you, sir. Very well done. MDB 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe kendoll could upload some hot ancient Greek porno for the perusal of the Arsefly. Maybe he'd deny it existed and claim that Jesus invented porn. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this seems to be relegating Christianity as an "also ran" to Conservatism^TM. No other gods before me and all that....18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot serve God and money" (Matthew 6:24)- it's scary how we know the Bible better than they do. Totnesmartin 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's contend that you can't know all of Bible in order to be a religious Christian; because once you know all the inconsistencies, either you'll stop believing or your brain will blow up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I need my non-Christianity confirmed, a read of the Bible does it every time. Totnesmartin 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh...Phyllis Schlalfy on Radio 4

She got a mention this afternoon on a radio programme about the Moral Majority, part of a series called America: Empire of Liberty. I only caught a bit of it in the car but it seemed very interesting. Ajkgordon 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to hear more of the old crone in action tune in on Sunday's to http://www.bottradionetwork.com. 12pm EST. Dial in show too: 1-800-736-3202. Have fun everybody. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrr...

Someone went and got my branch public library blocked. Now I can't poke Andy for conservative insights. Thanks. 18:20, 13 January 2009, DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked 64.107.0.0/22 (Talk) (expires 18:20, 13 January 2014, account creation blocked) (IP of vandal(s): Mihunjong, Laura54, Pauljohnson, Victorfernandes, Marcopeterson) 64.107.0.78 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And congrats - by posting here as a BON, TightKnickers is going to block that IP address until the entropy death of the universe. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

4000 years is a long time to wait to troll Conservapedia again. Teabag 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please to re-reading. My IP is blocked until 2014. As far as I can tell from a few visits to different branches, the enter wifi network for the Chicago Public Library is on a few IPs in the range DeanS blocked. Way to go DeanS, don't want those homeless people to take a break from jerking off to hawt teens to pop onto CP for some churchin' up. BTW, CP won't be around in 2014, so I might as well be sitting around a landfill waiting for the former server to give me a gumball. 64.107.0.78 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

TK can go fuck himself. 76.124.12.32

Spot the difference

I cant tell TK from Andy anymore. This could have come straight from the quote gen. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await the day that TK does start using the quote generator. Fedhaji 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowing TK he probably did. --Kels 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's much more strongly worded than teh Arse likes to put it. Andy likes to think he's still being all intullecktual while he evades, insults. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bushism WIGO

Okay, not that anyone here can understand what people at CP are thinking, but what was with the Bushism headline? What was the supposed Bushism? Or are they simply calling something they don't agree with a Bushism? The referenced article doesn't even mention Bush. *confused* Z3ro^talk 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement appears perfectly coherent to me, and I was able to follow it completely. I was looking for the confused word salad that punctuated most of Bush's ramblings over the years. My best guess is the complex sentence structure was too difficult for Rob to follow and so it "made no sense" to him. tmtoulouse 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been around long enough to really experience him, but is Rob that stupid? There was nothing in the sentence that was jumbled or difficult to understand!--PitchBlackMind 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a perfectly coherent piece of English as far as I can tell. It says a lot more about the ability of the guy over at CP to read rather than Obama's ability to speak coherently. Jammy 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone add this to Fun:Sudden Moron Syndrome? I suppose it is not exactly like Assfly the chronic case. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is perfectly coherent. RobS really mucked up on that one. Did it get any talk page flutters? ħuman 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, the "they" in "they say the government can't run anything" obviously is a reference to "insurers." Now, the President and apologists would be hard pressed to find evidence that "insurers" ever said "anything," for example General Motors or the Post Office. It appears here Obama has confused opposition critics and free market advocates with "insurers." Is he really that paranoid already? RobS 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford

Just popping down to Argentina for a second, dear. No, I'm not having an affair! Notice how Conservapedia is still sticking with the hiking story. Czolgolz 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)