Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

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

Presidential height wigo

Height doesn't appear to be completely irrelevant: e.g. http://www.hackwriters.com/tall.htm. What would It would say about Palin's chances I wonder.

Ed's Momma

Wroted a booky wook^img. (Note the Edit comment^img) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

I wonder if Ed's mummy dearest is an anarchist? The 4 day work week is a very typical anarchist plank. I guess if you're dumb enough for moonieism, them more or less any other movement that promises you free cake can count on your vote. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the article, I think it is the most productive thing I have ever seen come from Ed. ETA: It is of course a sub and needs to be re-written, but it's still a contribution. --Opcn (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything of substance to this man, or does he have to continue riding of the coattails of his ancestors? Right now the best purpose I can see him serving is to visit schools and warn children to do their best to avoid becoming Ed Poor. This would at least provide a welcome break from screwing the dead. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How dare you! maligning the personality^[sic] of user 188, the famous creator of the Age template at Wikipedia. Are these not qualifications enough for one man? 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)   ^Contribs_Talk

Granted, that is impressive, although not as amazing as his one-man attempt to categorise movies featuring coaches with eleven year-old daughters. Still, I'm sure someone could use his kidneys. --^{Ask me about your mother} 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed's edit comments on the WP page for her are kinda funny. Corry (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the 4 x 10 hour work week in manufacturing, at least, is it screws up the "overtime equation". To get the magic time and a half (and the extra production mgmt needs) people either have to work really long days, or come in on Friday, a day they probably made plans for. PS, I improved the WP article, because I can. The CP article is still as it was. ħuman 03:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that Ed's Riva Poor article isn't too bad, in that Ed resisted the temptation add one of his "related to the WP editor, Ed Poor" notes. It made me think that if Ed had been born the n'er do well son of Caesar, he'd have spent his time wandering around the empire, scrawling "father of Edus Poorious" on any any monument raised to Caesar. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(@human) Perhaps the economy shouldn't be organized around the needs of the managers... — Pietrow ☏ 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The OT part is based on the needs of hourly employees. The 40 hour 4 day week fails both workers and employers. Now, the 32 hour 4 day, on the other hand... ħuman 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was given when talking about 4 day weeks? After 8 hours you just get tired and make mistakes (well at least I do). — Pietrow ☏ 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor tidbit

I do like the delicious irony in the latest Ed Poor WIGO (and well done to the WIGO writer for not using the term "irony meter"), but my favourite part is the edit comment. How does Ed know that liberals hate pointless 81byte stubs about crap films? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concise, accurate, no-nonsense article. "The Celestine Prophecy" is, in fact, a movie. Ed got 100% of his facts right. --Maquissar (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get that edit comment either, "liberal" moonbats are pretty much the target audience for that book & movie. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless Ed is getting self-referential and by "this sort of thing" he means his Ed-stubs and by "liberals" he means us, in which case, we don't hate them, Ed, we just find them a source of mirth (about as much as you calling Lara Croft "slutty"), coming from the much-vaunted user 188. --PsygremlinTal! 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So I just looked at CP's Tomb Raider article and noticed a few things. First off, it's complete and well written. Where did they steal it from? I looked into wikipedia, but I don't see it there. Second, about 95% of the article was done by Karajou.... Guess we know what the swabbie does when he finishes with the "girl in the yellow dress." SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not be a contrarian but I believe it was RobS who has a thing for girls in yellow dresses. Correct me if I am wrong. --Damo^Hi 08:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question on English

Is it lying low^img, laying low, or some other phrases? (I know that with Ken it should take more than 4 edits, but still) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Both technically make sense, and reference.com's aggregation stuff seems to recognize both in some way. That said, "lay" always sounds better than "lie"^{[citation NOT needed]}, and anything Ken writes is wrong by definition. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Chickens "lay." Everything else is "lie." So says Mrs. Practice's grandmother. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would try to make fun by saying "From what Mrs. Practice's grandmother said, people got 'lied', not 'laid'", but that'd be beyond my linguistic ability. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that "lay" means "putting something down"--laying an egg, laying pipe, laying a new floor, and "lie" is positioning one's self in relation to the ground....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Granny G said something similar: you lay a table but lie on a table. 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

But a chick can also get laid on a table? --GTac (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Many times: many, many times." (UK oldies [Round the Horne] humour) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I'm going from memory on this. "To lay" means "to place". (I'm going to lay the book on the table) "To lie" means "to put yourself in a horizontal position". (I'm going to lie on the floor.) There are also various idiomatic and set usages. --Bob^{It's windy!} 20:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's lying down the law on the matter! ħuman 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of English, have a guess who wrote this belter: Barack Obama's diplomacy skills are substandard and members of the British government are displeased and some citizens of the British public are displeased. Three "ands" in quick succession, but not a comma in sight. It can be only one! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it boggled my mind when I read it. 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I only count two "ands". But it's still a wonderful piece of illiteracy, as were his next dozen edits to MPR. ħuman 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! How can I criticise someone's writing when my reading is just as shit. I'm blaming it on the repetition of "displeased" casuing my brain to fail. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously considering using Conservapedia as proofreading exercise in their English class (If anyone is teaching it)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Maybe that's the masterplan! Assfly is planning to teach an english writing course (whatever happened to that?), so maybe he diliberately gets his admins to fill CP with hideous abuses of the english language, and it's the homeskullers' homework to spot them? Boy, will we feel stupid then! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the INTERNET writing course has been delayed by snow. Too lazy to link, but it's on Aschlafly's talk page. ħuman 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ask, and you shall receive^img. By the way, shall that be WIGO'd? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew US infrastructure is obsolete and fragile, especially as regards to small business internet connectivity, but... the fiber freezing shut? Can it be really that bad? Mountain Blue 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly the copper becomes superconductor and the electrical resistance screws up somehow at the local level if you call that the worst case scenario, I would think. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Subediting the Bible

I do hope someone's checking for typos. They might wind up with the Adulterous Bible if they're not careful. 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

They aren't - the "live" pdf version is full of them. ħuman 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice they haven't started on the song of Solomon yet. Isn't that the one with breasts as flocks of goats or similar? 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

"Come...blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits." Let's see what they do with that!--WJThomas (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The traditional conservative Christian response to Song of Solomon is that its an allegory for God's love for the Church, and its not about sex at all, huh-uh, no way, no how. Which is crap. It might also be an allegory, but its pretty clearly about intimate love.

There's one passage in there, though I can't remember which one exactly, that I managed to crack up a former pastor of mine by describing it as saying "why don't we go do it in the yard?" MDB (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Song of Solomon ain't got nothin' on Ezekiel 23:19-20: "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." --98.204.160.254 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fun (or sad) part is that I wrote TK an e-mail telling him about the typos and misspellings in 1 Corinthians 1-8, and I wrote a list of corrections, saying that it's more fun to criticize their ideas than their ortography - but I guess he just doesn't read my emails anymore. But would they accept spelling corrections from a godless lie-beral anyway? ;) --Maquissar (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead guy goes on tour

Andy is absolutely certain that Kim Jong Il is dead, and that we're clueless for not believing his magnificently precise guess. But for a dead guy, Kim sure goes on a lot of tours recently.[2]--^talk 05:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Andy is certain that Felix the Castrator is dead. Please pay attention. ħuman 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't they all be dead? Crushed by the logic of the bible...--Opcn (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim appears to have only one anorak style jacket. (or lots of identical ones) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I guess when you're a brutal megalomaniac with the power of life and death over your subjects, fashion is what you say it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heck, if you can make 2+2=5, you can make any kind of fashion statement you want. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Views per Namespace

all name-spaces at CP	eight name-spaces at CP	pages in main space at aSK, RW, CP, and Citizendium
all name-spaces at RW	eight name-spaces at RW	all pages at aSL, RW, CP + wikifactor

Discuss (just a try :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thick me: what's "Rank"? 06:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

The pages are just ordered by the number of views they get. So: page rank n = n-th most viewed page larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Without going to the images, are the scales the same for both/all? ħuman 06:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. For a direct comparison, look here:

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! ħuman 07:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Magic! 07:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Thicky's back. What's a "wikifactor" 11:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)##

wikifactor is an rather obscure but useful metric for the impact of a wiki-site. It's based on the wp:h-index (The h-index is an index that attempts to measure both the scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a scientist. ) for scientific publications. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

top ten most viewed pages per namespace at conservapedia
Main		Talk		User		User talk		Conservapedia		Conservapedia talk
Main Page	6904629	Talk:Main Page/Archive 1	221412	User:Aschlafly	67464	User talk:Philip J. Rayment	35530	Conservapedia:Debate Topics	427214	Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog	72568
Atheism	4874276	Talk:Main Page	211870	User:Ed Poor	27307	User talk:Ed Poor	31670	Conservapedia:Commandments	276350	Conservapedia talk:Commandments	20996
Homosexuality	3491328	Talk:Barack Hussein Obama	118443	User:TK	22537	User talk:TK	18865	Conservapedia:Index	196373	Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics	14018
Barack Hussein Obama	1340723	Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	47302	User:Philip J. Rayment	20515	User talk:Aschlafly	18013	Conservapedia:Lenski dialog	140234	Conservapedia talk:About	9715
Wikipedia	878242	Talk:Homosexuality	31746	User:Will N.	17386	User talk:RobSmith	17172	Conservapedia:About	105512	Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia	6945
Sarah Palin	742611	Talk:Conservative Bible Project	28869	User:Karajou	16261	User talk:Jpatt	12752	Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia	65902	Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1	5400
Adolf Hitler	716529	Talk:Theory of relativity	27100	User:DeanS	14873	User talk:Iduan	11055	Conservapedia:Guidelines	33453	Conservapedia talk:Featured articles	5336
Liberal	669096	Talk:PNAS Response to Letter	27003	User:RobSmith	14505	User talk:Karajou	10746	Conservapedia:General disclaimer	29053	Conservapedia talk:Critical Thinking in Math	5134
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	648546	Talk:Richard Dawkins	25266	User:Iduan	12011	User talk:BethanyS	10317	Conservapedia:Privacy policy	28074	Conservapedia talk:Index	4716
John McCain	581377	Talk:Liberal	23539	User:DanH	11593	User talk:Learn together	9412	Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math	22993	Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage	4377

In the (hidden) table, the effects of the creative archiving of pages at conservapedia is shown. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Confused Jesus

"And to the married, I order this-- No, wait, it's not me, but the Lord who says this-- A wife should not leave her husband."

A moment of aberration, or a more calculated denial of trinitarian doctine? Perhaps it's just that voices are sometimes difficult to hear even when they're in your own head... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's 1^st Corinthians, meaning its Paul speaking, not Jesus. No contradictions there -- the earlier parts have Paul saying "its just me, Paul", but this time, he says "this is from God Himself, not just me." MDB (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaker aside, it was the "no, wait" bit that caught my eye. I'm not saying it's a contradiction - just a very odd turn of phrase which doesn't do much for the speaker's authority. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For another example of an odd, tin-eared, anachronistic turn of phrase, there's "You're allowed to do what I'm saying, but it's not mandatory." There's also "abstenance" at the top of the diff. Maybe one day we will build a machine that can check people's spelling. Cantabrigian (talk)

The "no wait" part was just stupid. Even if they're going for modern phrasing, something like "this comes from the authority of the Lord, it is not just my advice" would work far better. MDB (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

...especially since it's a capital-E Epistle, a solemn formal memorandum, methodically drafted as a document to be preserved for generations. Hard to imagine he'd have allowed himself to sound like a snarker on a blog comment thread. Mountain Blue 14:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You act as if DanielPulido isn't a parodist. 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, who can tell who is and is not a parodist at CP? Hell, I'm not even sure the entire site isn't a parody and "Andy Schlafly" isn't laughing his head off at the people who think he's serious. MDB (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a swim in my parody pool and place your bets ;) MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia running stats 5, Kendoll's version

Has this been discussed (for some odd reason it starts at 2, and I can't find the one unenumerated one or the one with index 1) or does it require attention at all? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The one without index is here. Easy if you have a mirror on your local file system you can run find and ls on. :) I don't see how it requires attention though. Mountain Blue 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very important because we see how we liberal atheists are losing the battle. Every time I see those pages I weep. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that cp:User:Conservative knows which of his perhaps 100 sub-pages (here^img and here^img) are somewhat of relevance... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who are curious, Conservative has a more-or-less complete index of his subpages on his talk page. I guess those links are too petty and meaningless to put on his user page - they'd only distract from the important things like the list of every song he's ever heard. Anyway, his subpages are a hoot, especially the half-finished pages listed under "sandbox." This one's my favorite. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The fruit of the prickly pear cactus... is he talking about himself? Mountain Blue 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The in(s)anity of those subpages! Could anyone who was active here and on CP in 2007 explain what this^img is? Weird. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fucked if I know. Weren't there some experiments with obscenity filters once? mb 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say it was him trying to understand how wandals kept sneaking past the word blacklist. Such sysop experiments also gave us "Hot. Science. RationalWiki", after all. --Sid (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered about that one. What's the story there? DickTurpis (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then again, since he's CP's resident expert on anal sex, that might have been him trying to edit his own pet articles. --Sid (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot. Science. Sandbox.

Since the question about "Hot. Science. RationalWiki" came up:

• Ed tests^img "ifexist", resulting in "hot science"^img
• Andy stumbles in, showing us what he knows: Lemon Party^img and tub girl^img
• And finally: Rationalwiki^img
• The resulting page became a motto: Hot. Science. RationalWiki.^img

There you go, a handy history lesson. =P --Sid (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Those were heady days indeed. I still thrill to the fact that Schlafly wrote our best slogan. But not that he made me google LP and TG... ħuman 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon about Phyllis Schlafly / Texas board of education

Is now at The saloon bar. CS Miller (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats kinda lame I don't get it. --Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Immature trolling or completely accurate?

Or can it be both?^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Or quite possibly, both. CS Miller (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold text--Radioactive PIzza (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC) HAHAHA what a tool!!!

Oversighted already. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 09:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

This is just too perfect. If anyone here has an unused sock, now would be a great time to head over there and add some inconvenient facts to their articles. Nothing snarky, just add some genuine truths and see how long it takes them to get shot down. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

one more that might be added to the wigo as a PS. That whole story made my brains turn inside out. "Huffpo censors crazy ex-wrestler for being 9/11 truther!" Also, I was amazed at how many people everywhere can't parse "levels" of truthism - all Venture is questioning is why and how WTC7 was brought down, and he's basing his query on what might be a very legitimate petitiony thing. Big question I did not see anywhere: are some buildings built with demolition materials already in place, knowing none will last "forever"? Or not, ever? ħuman 03:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this petition, but Venture's claims are straight Trutherism. He certainly uses all their memes - thermite, free-fall acceleration, "straight down into their own footprint," the obsession with WTC7, etc. There may well be degrees of crazy among Truthers - say, between those who proffer conspiracy theories and those in the "government let it happen" camp. However, Ventura clearly falls into the "9/11 was an inside job" camp (he wouldn't have shown up on Alex Jones's site otherwise) so I think your concern is unfounded. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

JacobB now has a FBI all for him alone: Lagrange... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My God, he oversited that entire conversation. Jacob has been taking lessons from TK. Their deceit knows no bounds. Keegscee (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He's learning from a pro. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! he gets oversight handed to him straight up. The CBP has benefits! Even Ed and TK had to wait for their 'promotions' to oversight ability. Clearly the need for deceitful cover-ups over there has become great. Lovely to see Jacob oversighting people pointing out his own lies. Straight from the TK book of How to be a Cunt. Well done to Jacob for overtaking Bugler as Best Parodist on CP. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm still more of a Bugler fan. He operated more through hilarious ad-homs, whereas 90% of Jacob's actions are blocks rather than parodic comments/additions to articles. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In that respect I agree (altho I'm biased against Bugler, thanks to the sleepless nights he gave me over on CP). However, no other RW mole has managed to get oversight before. Maybe he can go for bureaucrat next. --Psygremlin話しなさい 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that Jacob got oversight rights so quickly - perhaps he has had some private chats with Andy? In any case, it would be awesome if he becomes a 'crat. I wonder what he would do with it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK none of the current goon squad were given oversight at the time of their sysop promotion. Karajerk, Ed, TK and JPratt were all "promoted" to oversight last year, as Andy felt the need to cover up more and more.PsygremlinHable! 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is ironic how Andy repeatedly claims that "CP doesn't censor" in spite of his liberal (haha) oversight policy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think Bugler was the best parodist of all time, in that parody is supposed to be funny. Bugler's brilliant work made me laugh out loud many times, and I'm snorting right now just remembering some choice examples. JacobB, on the other hand, is occasionally funny, but he's far more akin to TK than to Bugler. Jerkishness for the sake of jerkishness isn't funny. And yet, I think a case can be made that JacobB is the greatest parodist of all time, for at least two reasons. First, no parodist has ever earned the rights he has. Second, his encouraging Andy to jump in with the CBP led directly to a lot of attention to CP from the outside, culminating in the appearance on Colbert. Not all of that is on Jacob, but he needs to get some credit.

If you're reading this Jacob (and I'm pretty sure he is), why not try taking more inspiration from Bugler and less from TK? Burndall (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Nicely put, Burndall! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. However, Jacob good at getting little digs in, like reminding us^img that Holy St Ronnie's wife consulted an astrologer, even though there's a special place in hELL for them. --PsygremlinSprich! 15:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's gone.^img Burndall (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's back again!^img. JacobB is teasing TK again. This can't end well. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugler lived in a different time, a time when a bit of back and forth could go on. If anyone argued with JB about something JP,TK, or KJ would block then for arguing liberal points, and no digs would remain. He has to race to earn those sysop points. --Opcn (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're letting nostalgia (and your desire to make a point) tint your recollection of Bugler. His "Best of..." reel would have some serious funnies on it, but day to day his "cover" was incredibly asinine. This very page had loooong debates as to whether he was even a parodist or not before that became settled lore (and then of course he outed himself). Ask Helpjazz if you don't believe me. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not he was funny himself, what was undeniably funny was the fact that he was only "outed" when the Arsehole wanted to sysop him and he slipped up on his "name". Up until then he'd been seen as a epitome of all that was conservapedian. His arrogant manner was exactly suited to the atmosphere there and good old Terry K is no different. 14:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Er, yes. And the thesis put forward slightly above was that Jacob should emulate Bugler instead of TK because of the Bug-dog's joie de vivre or somesuch. So, despite the tone of your comment, I'll read you as agreeing with me. Cheers! 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS I can't remember if his handle was ever discussed, but has anyone heard the Podcast "The Bugle"? They call their listeners "Buglers" and a Bugler would be someone who might very well enjoy winding CP up... nothing conclusive, just occurred to me while swimming my dog at the lake a little while ago. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd never heard of 'The Bugle' until Bugler was well under way. Nor British BNP neo-fascist Dominic Bugler, or whatever his name was. I just thought Bugler sounded like a nice name. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

More Jpatt Twitter Stupidity

Anything to pass the time while I'm hot and bored here.
"Rape is no excuse to kill another human being" says the stupid one, who clearly has no problem with a woman being lumped with an unwanted child on top of the trauma of being sexually assaulted. Let's hope it's a situation he's never faced with.

However, taking Johnny's statement a bit further, it would appear as if several justice systems disagree with you, Johnny boy.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Or is it the Conservative double standard about "Aw, he's too tiny, Festus. Throw it back, we'll get it when it's big." --PsygremlinПоговорите! 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Very ironic that a strong pro-death penalty conservative would be make such an extreme statement.... Guess we know how Jpatt stands on capitol punishment. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At least people who say fetus=human being are consistent when they reject abortions for rape victims. Certainly no one would condone killing a baby who was born from rape, and in their view it's the same thing. (The notion that they are the same is, of course, ridiculous, but given that they hold these views I can at least appreciate the consistency. This logic also seems to condone the murdering of abortion doctors.) DickTurpis (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Stupid is as stupid does. I don't care about your brilliance nor your website. I am against capitol punishment, the person should rot in jail. The guilty put to death is nowhere near a crime. --193.200.150.137 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't getting enough roughage today. Your word salad is just the thing I needed. DickTurpis (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh the agony of insults. You know if ou rearrange the letters in your name- it spells sick turd pi--193.200.150.152 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that JPatt wants to pull this out is that he plans to do exactly that in order to reproduce. I suppose Phyllis the elder has said the wife has consented to it so it till death or divorce do they part so it isn't called rape then. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know he is married with children. If all you are going to do is make vile and potentially slanderous accusations against CP sysops, could you please save us a law suit and not post here. - π 02:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment edited. But still that sounds like a plan to suggest people to act like that if not Jpatt himself. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Truly a thing of Beauty

From the ABC News Forums (they linkied to moi's blog! glee!). I'm not sure who Razmanian Devil is, but I think I love him:

“”Sadly, I know Andrew from my law school days and time has not mellowed him in any respect. He is still a collosal jerk from the looks of it.

--PsygremlinPrata! 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to make comments about Andy without all the rabid hate you'll display. Something to ponder. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Is that an actual question? Megaten (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something to ponder indeed... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

^{Don't Feed} _{The Paranoiac}

20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ContribsTalk

Good blog post there, Gremlin. Yup, that poor son of Phyllis is having a rough time of it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Razmanian Devil might present a very unique opportunity. I always wanted to get an account of Andy from someone who knew (or knows) him outside of his little online kingdom. Might be worth extending Raz an invitation and seeing if Andy is indeed as unpleasent and ignorant as his online babblings suggest he is. - --Tygrehart (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Tygrehart

@Rob - I treat Andy with the same respect and courtesy he treats people he disagrees with. I've signed up on the forum, with the intention of chatting with RD and see if he will provide any more info on Andy. --PsygremlinSermā! 11:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear Andy isn't as loathsome in person as he is online (various first hand accounts point to that, and, in fact, no one ever is). Some information I would like to know that he may be able to supply is this: was Andy a candidate for President of the Harvard Law Review the year Obama won? I recall there were some inquiries made a while back, but we never got an answer. I think it would be quite telling indeed if Andy lost his bid for this rather prestigious position to Obama so many years ago. Apparently there were many candidates. DickTurpis (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just it though. Andy always struck me as one of the those people who saw the world as being populated by two types: Superiors and Subordinates. Superiors are to be toadied and sucked up to, subordinates are to be used for his purposes or ignored. Take his appearance on the Colbert Report. He knows he is not the big fish in that pond, thus he tones down his usual craziness and goes along with the gag. On Conservapedia he is lord and master and all who edit there do so at his pleasure. This is where the more @$$holish nature comes out. From that PVP palace he saw fit to write not one but two curt, demanding, and arguably rude emails to Prof. Lenski with a vague threat to turn over "all the data" or be exposed as a fraud and huckster. Lenski, who has more training, experience, and even basic understanding of the mechanisms of evolution than he ever will was nothing more than a lowly peon to Andy who felt he could boss around as he pleased. This is who I believe the true Andy is. Given Raz's comment it sounds like they either had to work under or beside him (which, in his world translates to below) on something and I would be curious to know how he is when the cameras aren't rolling and he is not beholden to anyone. - Tygrehart

Geezuz Gawd. Would any of you describe the above posting as "Rational Analysis"? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You really should learn what words mean before you use them, Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What about you, Dick? Find any faulty structures in that posting? or are you so blinded by hate and ignorance, I bet your next step is to attack me, too. Huh? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Take your fucking meds. DickTurpis (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen, bro. Case closed. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob your complaints about rabid hate would hold more water if you yourself did not smear every person left of Rush Limburgh with rabid hate. - π 03:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And for the record I am a Rational Pagan. I realize that doesn't mean much to you, but please learn the distinction. - Tygrehart

Smear? Any particular example? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, check it out! My Obama+mao entry is #1 on Bing! [9] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job answering your own question. - π 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of an idiot grin for us CP geeks? -- Mei (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Scarface said, I never screwed anybody over who didn't have it coming, or as Jim Hightower says, the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill (to wit, Sen. Ben Nelson is a good example). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you babbling about? Have you been drinking again? SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 04:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

EC Thanks Rob! This is going straight in my collection. I also love your work on talk:Communism (off the top of my head). Pure genius. -- Mei (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes! Memory lane. [10] Let's reword the commie protagonists words and substitute "Nazi" for "communist," the argument would read, "'We should not enact Nazi policies because past Nazis were evil people' is not really a rational argument."

Anybody here care to sign thier name to that gem of an argument? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob never change. -- Mei (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the choices under Obamacare, I'd choose the firing squad. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't stop! I can barely breathe! ħuman 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My girlfriend says that, and guess what, she's a communist. She says "you see commies under the bed, you need to keep the commies in your bed." RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop choking her with that red scarf! ħuman 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

is this your girlfriend, Rob? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[Unindent] She's a few years older than that. Her father was a commie union organizer subpoenaed before Congressional Committees(Communist activities in the Chicago, Illinois area, pre-Obama). She knows Ayers, Dohrn, the Meerpols, Kathy Boudin, and many others. An incredible wealth of information. And she remains an ardent left-winger. Right now she's leaving town to visit old friends in a vegetarian hippie commune in Las Vegas New Mexico were they debate if leaving the bathroom door open is beougois. I kid you not. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean she finds you, the cunning linguist, unmoving? Surprise surprise... --Opcn (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I am calling you out. I say "Bullshit". You would never spead your herpes to a lefty. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of herpes, any of you guys read this classic yet, Black Like Mao? Truelly inspiring. Check out Mao's quote at the start of the chapter, "Black World Revolution" on page 6. Til now I only had it sourced to Mao's Little Red Book in cp:Barack Hussein Obama#Early life and career, but now we got a piece of commie agitprop targeted at American blacks using the same quote. God is good! RobSmith^{don't bother me} 07:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So your fucked in the head then Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Um "Las Vegas New Mexico"??? Really? ħuman 08:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If Rob told me the Earth orbited the sun,I'd convert to Geocentrism. 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

If Rob told me the universe revolved around your girlfriend's left ankle, I'd fight you for the first chew on that bone. ħuman 09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

@Human: To be fair to Rob, yes, really. Strangely enough, it's close to San Antonio and Hot Springs, NM. Junggai (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not the Imus Ranch. These mountains are full of wacked out old communes. Must be something in the water after all the nuclear tests they did here. And it's not Madrid New Mexico, either. [11] RobSmith^{don't bother me} 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I think you should look into some support group. Maybe a Communist hatred therapy discussion or something. You seem to have some pretty serious commie paranoia issues. I don't know if you noticed, but there are NO communist states anymore. The states that do call themselves communist are either some strange socialist/capitolist hybrid with totalitarian leanings (China) or just a straight dictatorship (Cuba). You won, let it go. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Truly a thing of Beauty, part II

Sorry, Psygremlin, but I really couldn't think of any better title. Read Andy's new statement on censorship policy at Conservapedia. ... Just WHERE do we start? --Maquissar (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, some parts of that statement^img are true in a way: "Our rules are specific and their application is clear and almost never disputable." - Absolutely true when you consider that the various rules are tailored explicitly to favor sysops and that most people end up being banhammered for all eternity with mail disabled. Oh, and let's not forget that if you manage to contact sysops, they will show their true colors and will either tell you to accept that you're wrong by default or drop some more abuse on you, followed by a quick "I never said that! He's obviously faking these mails and is thus a lying liberal! Good thing I banned him before he could hurt the project!" if you expose said abuse. --Sid (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the WIGO again, but Ed Poor just called raised Andy with his statement^img "We have articles on every viewpoint, and I myself am particularly devoted to controversial ideas." Honestly, they're just begging for vandalism at this point. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand blocking for "liberal vandalism", but how can you block for "inserting liberal multiculturalism and world view" and say you do not censor anyone for their ideas? Really, people at Conservapedia... if ANY of you is reading this, please make a RW account and come here to partecipate in the discussion, because, I admit it, the logic of this keeps eluding me. I promise I will treat you fairly and not abuse you, censor you, or block you, but PLEASE, explain to me just HOW this works, from a purely logical point of view. --Maquissar (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I promise to block you, but never for more than 3.15 seconds --Opcn (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I and my sock (D something or other...) feel strongly that Andy recognized that he fucked up this bit of news right away, and then had to reinvent reality around his position. When Andy is wrong at least he is Definitively wrong.--Opcn (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reinventing reality seems to be a popular pastime at Conservapedia. The first rule of intellectual honesty apparently is: never admit you are wrong, unless you happen to be wrong about an inconsequential and secondary matter, in which case you can gallantly acknowledge your mistake and show the world how open-minded you are. --Maquissar (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Opcn is right. Notice that this^img comment has gone unanswered. Basically, CP would have attacked HuffPo no matter what. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems definitive: [1]^img DickTurpis (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That whole thread is IMHO a contender for the biggest load of shit that's ever been written by Andy. SJ ^Debaser 11:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed "Kill the" Poor

I just love it when Ed pops in his two cents to a discussion. He chimes in with his opinion on something or otherwise tells us about things which he's previously done on the incorrect presumption that someone/anyone cares; "I used to boast that I could "get any idea into any article" at Wikipedia, but when they started letting users game the system to censor unpopular ideas, I decided to spend more time here instead.^img" Snore. SJ ^Debaser 11:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Remind me about that when Ed next(?!) tries for office at WP. 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Heh heh, that quote is comical on so many different levels. Ed's problem is that people actually began reading the stuff he was contributing, and came to the unfair conclusion that the esoteric ramblings of a lunatic moonie/fucking useless monkey didn't really make for encyclopedic content. Moar women who wear pants, Ed!--^{Ask me about your mother} 11:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed always makes a morning better.

I started out a little sick, but I was laughing like crazy halfway through this wonderful comment. Tell me Ed, what exactly is controversial about your creepy obsession with.... Oh, never mind. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the second WIGO-T section with this diff. Stop pestering him. In the words of the great poet "Surfer Dude":

Ya need to wake up and smell the fresh air

and hear the seagulls calling

and the surf rushing to the shore;

feel the sand beneath your toes and more.

Ever questing for that perfect balance

between wave and board

Swimming out eager for a thrill

and riding happy homeward.

Internetmoniker (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone else mentioned this? Where at? I looked around, but I didn't see it. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the bug that crawled up Andy's ass about relativity?

A Harvard Law Review article on modern physics and law, supposedly edited by Obama (of whom Andy is infinitely jealous). I haven't read it yet, laptop is dying, figured I'd post it before hunting for a power cord. --Opcn (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Soooo long. Anyone want to read it and sum it up in a paragraph? Keegscee (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what the fucking abstract is for! --Opcn (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Physics theories applied to none physics things usually equals postmodernist bullshit. - π 22:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Found a power cord! Did you read the abstract? I will load it on my kindle and read it this evening but from the abstract it seems like it is talking about the need to pay attention to the judicial footprint on the social landscape and using physics as an analogy. Which is valid. --Opcn (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the analogy is valid, I'm suspicious because the abstract used the words "paradigm shift" and "context," both of which usually indicate that the work is postmodernist. But I'll take a better look at it tomorrow when I am awake. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the analogy is not valid. As suggested above, it's postmodernist bullshit. By the way, Andy has railed about this article (it's a twofer! Obama/Law Review and relativity!) several times in the past. Gauss (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Using an idea from physics as an analogy is a valid thing to do, using a weak analogy is not. I have not read the analogies in this paper so I was not commenting on their validity, sorry for the confusion. If you poo-poo the idea of physics analogies for political things then you should expect a backlash (get it, because backlash is a physics analogy that has been universally accepted)--Opcn (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr - laws affect society, which in turn affect the laws society produces. 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

I think TSpencer owns an eighth-grade science textbook and is looking up buzzwords, because I don't understand what he's going on about^img. – Nick Heer 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the Creationist's kind of Second Law of Thermodynamics. (i.e. Bullshit due to lack of understanding of what the laws should be)

He is referring to the problem that since Mice can regenerate limbs before the mutation that disables such ability (which the mutation is in the set of mutations they referred to as "the Fall"), There is no such thing as "beneficial mutation" [that, or all mutation that occurs randomly are harmful]. Ergo, he argues that evolution is false.

Meanwhile, If deleting a gene gives the mice limb regeneration, that means If mice are created, one can GE the mouse to make it the state before the Fall (by combinatorial modifications) and thus The Fall isn't done by God because if God is anywhere near omnipotent, there should be ways to prevent mortals to reverse the process (otherwise God isn't in charge of everything or "sovereign" as they call it). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that no mutation can be beneficial it's that they all "loose information". Lensky found the his E. coli lost specificity in a sugar transporter and were able to take up citrate, if you were to have the mutation revert you would then find that the citrate transporter lost the ability to transport citrate. Evolve to grow wings? You lost the ability to not grow wings! Creationists have re-framed "loosing" to be something that sounds profound but isn't true, or something that is true but is not profound, and now they are trying to cram both ways of being into one spot. The typical "have your cake and eat it too" story. --Opcn (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

JacobB and TK

I notice that since JacobB has ascended the ranks, there's been some occasional, shall we say, defiance in his dealings with TK. Noted above is a good example - TK deletes an article and JacobB takes exception to this, :restoring it. No one else would get away with insubordination like that, but JacobB's rank now lets him get away with it. Does anyone remember any other such instances that stand out?

Now that JacobB has gained the same privileges as TK (c/d?), and that, despite his relatively recent appearance, he's probably a little more trusted by Andy than TK is (given TK's controversial history), TK must be feeling pretty stung that he now has to suck-up to someone who was formerly well beneath him. I wonder if he wishes he had banned him as the parodist he so obviously is, back when he could have gotten away with it? I wonder if JacobB will ever rise above TK and get cratship?

Whatever the case, I'm glad TK made this immense fuckup, because JacobB is a lot more entertainment than TK ever will be. And now he's here to stay. TK has ever so slightly lost his grip on the reins. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"reins" ħuman 09:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion log 09:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Thanks both, I thought i'd fucked that word up but decided to take a gamble. Edited. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt's new creative block excuses

• 20:28, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked Jaydon3987 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP is blacklisted in seven lists. )
• 19:20, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked NornamJB (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)
• 18:57, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked BenJ (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)
• 18:43, 16 March 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked HenryC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Trolling / Liberal Trolling: IP blacklisted on four sites)

"Blacklisted on four sites": Ooh, sounds serious! Pray tell, Jpatt, which websites would those be? Junggai (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We couldn't make this up

At the blog We couldn't make this up, there is an entry on Conservapedia’s Zeugloden Blues chat room. It claims to be the original chat of some of conservapedia's sysops from Feb 2008 until Feb 2009 - and it surely reads like it. As usual, I looked for the mathematical highlights, and I was rewarded:

On Jan 4, 2009, cp:User:Conservative reports that a blocked user mailed him (of all!) and complained on two mathematical articles, cp:center and cp:decimal number. As Ken is out of his depths, he asks the big ones for help. And he gets the advise of a veritable expert, cp:User:Ed Poor states his credentials: "I think that a 760 SAT in math (in high school) qualifies me as a math expert and I am suspicious that hardly any one but me has been able to produce an error-free article on any aspect of math below the university level. He has no problems with the articles, so everything is okay. And so, still today, at least the article on cp:center is a fountain of joy: The center of a cp:geometric shape is a point that, on average, the points of the shape are cp:equidistant from. This point does not have to be on the shape itself. - how can points be on average equidistant? Oh, the marvels of conservapedian mathematics!

If the archives are true, well, it's everything one expects: Ed Poor is a pompous ass, TK is just an ass, Aschlafly chimes in with absolutely uncorrelated remarks, which get interpreted by his acolytes. Tim S. looks like an ordinary guy, struggling in vain to keep some decency for conservapedia... If they are faked - as TK will claim - well, it's fun to read.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't be fake. There's thousands of posts there, and it matches up with the timeline. Personally I'm astounded by how they let TK back in and Andy's complete lack of leadership. EddyP (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I briefly looked into it and found "How long are we going to tolerate TK?" (860/d0f1c0a9e00ee7da.html). And man, Geo managed to exceed my expectations when it came to failing as a parole officer:

PJR: TK has also repeatedly violated the "Civility" section of the Guidelines page, as I also documented a short time ago.

Geo: When did Andy specifically approve civility? It provides a stick for RW to hit us with.

PJR: Are you really suggesting that users don't have to be civil?

Plus other gems in the same thread, like Geo being against permanent bans and for rehabilitation of users... as long as "users" means "TK".

Oh, and if someone can supply a CSS file that fixes the horrible formatting, I'd be quite thankful. --Sid (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/ -- Nx / talk 13:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that's awesome! Thanks! =D --Sid (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Though it sometimes seems to remove short messages. :/ For example in "260/cb6952f5e2b70b6c.html". Guess it wasn't really made for this weird reason. XD --Sid (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TK might claim they're fake, but he released them... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. These aren't fake, but they're not real either - someone has messed with these, consistently, each page. Not sure what they're trying to cover up, but these aren't straight downloads. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

they fit PJR's tale of the events - and they remind me why PJR seemed so exceptional at CP: he was the only one to stand up against Andy, questioning his erratic behavior, and he didn't regard every editor at first as an enemy... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

628 - the battle over MYOB between PJR and Dean - is good. I've gotta admire PJR (and Tim) for standing up for the right thing in so many places, despite massive opposition. Also, check the Saloon bar for a proposal of mine regarding this. EddyP (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Geo just a kid? (no offence intended, young uns) Putting him "in charge" of TK is like puuting a sheep in charge of a hyena's diet. 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Which is probably why a couple of weeks later TK quietly removed his own parole restrictions and nothing more was said about the matter. Geo made about as effective parole officer as Mary Poppins would. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Geo's not as old as most other CP sysops. His user page says "While I am not yet in college", which gives you a rough estimation. And the MYOB discussion sums up CP in a single line:

"The liberals are taking advantage of our compassion": WHAT compassion?

Small wonder that Philip lasted as long as he did, really. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Guantanamo discussion (same folder, it apparently triggered the MYOB thread), Karajou nicely sums up CP's double standards (emphasis mine): " I'm not going to tolerate any liberal individual who tries using force to control the content of the site." Man, this archive is a gold mine... --Sid (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I love you guys. What's a zeugloden? mb 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeuglodon --aSKTim 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Andy has said this before but I found this concerning why Andy keeps TK around despite his attempts at "harming" CP. He's never vandalized the site and his self-initiated "double agent" work (which Philip documents in another thread) was merely that. It was not a sincere effort to harm the site. This is in folder 250, very bottom of the folder. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No dice, that's the plot line from Hairy Potter!--Opcn (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugh, Ed refers to the group of sysops(him included) as "The Talented Ten". (860, last one) Internetmoniker (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Think that's funny? Here is something hilarious: they have another special "more secret" sysop group called "Cp-Fab-Five" for TK's elite chosen sysops: ASchlafly, TK, Ed Poor, Geo and Karajou. They talk shit about the other CP sysops there. LOL. News flash: it's not as secret as TK would like, obviously. 193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a separate page just devoted to this. I've barely scratched the surface and I'm already floored by the insanity of TerryH. This is going to take up a good deal of my time for a while. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How about creating a project page we can use for discussion and ideas on how the conversations can be used? Kind of like a clearing house. The page could be messy, but we could archive or delete it once we're done picking through the conversations. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Completely in favor of this suggestion. There is just too much material to be restricted to this section. And do I read this correctly? At one point, Philip wasn't in the group, but KEN was? WOW. --Sid (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the Saloon Bar, I think that we should create a page pointing people towards the interesting messages so that they don't have to trawl through all 900. Also, would like to remind JacobB to start making copies of their new SDG. EddyP (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You crap lovers have nothing again. When will you learn that we move forward and nothing, nothing will stop us. Go ahead and read through all the glorious nothings posted. Liberalism is on the ropes so I understand why your pea-brains are interested. You're all a big joke that amounts to a circle jerk. Enjoy as you climax.--193.200.150.152 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)