Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

VIII - Thou Shalt Not Steal

Someone please save these people from themselves, because neither their brain nor their god (oooo, lower case 'g') seem capable of doing so.

Remember when you were back in year seven (whoops, best say "seventh grade", lest I get banned for British grammar) and you were given that particularly irksome essay to write? You kept procrastinating and getting "distracted" time after time until, whoops, it's due tomorrow. It may have been a natural reaction to pop open Encyclopædia Britannica (this was back in the bad-old days before Wikipedia, after all) and copy your essay word-for-word. On the other hand however, you were only a child then. As soon as, if not before you left school, you should have learnt the importance and responsibility of producing your own work.

Yet it would seem that this is a lesson that the logically-inverted chums over at CP seem to have missed. Time and time again, we see examples of copy-and-paste, ridiculous claims for fair use, and downright theft with no attempt at justification. While I'm by no means a communist, I'm not a huge supporter of capitalism, however I have the brainpower (as do most people) to understand that you should at least make a decent effort to live within the bounds that your society sets. Well, guess what sweethearts? In a capitalist society, you need to pay for things that aren't free, or make do without it.

Back when I was in college, we had our major project for "Produce Client-Side Script". Basically, we needed to create a computer program for use at supermarket checkouts. A classmate of mine was struggling, so I offered him a peek at my code so he could get the gist of how to make it work. I was later surprised when the lecturer failed my completed assignment because a large chunk of my code matched that which was handed in by my classmate. Luckily, he confessed, so he was failed instead of me. He got what he deserved, and ever since I always keep my source code to myself. It's because of sewer-crawling, amoral thieves that I can't even bear to leave the room my computer is in without first setting a password.

I should imagine that if Encyclopædia Britannica were to plagiarize its articles and illustrations, there'd be hell to pay. Of course, Conservapedia can somewhat detach themselves from said scenario, you know, given that their encyclopædic content is lacking in... existence.

We've all learnt over time that CP is divided into three groups: The Haves, the Have-nots, and the Wandals. The Wandals are, understandably, blocked due to their intentions. The Have-nots (regular editors) get blocked for breaking the CP commandments, or for any reason really. The Haves however, consider themselves above all rule and regulation. We know that they have no respect for their own commandments, and it certainly seems they have little regard for the law, but time and time again we see them going against the basic rules of their own religion.

Let me stress that the following question is open to all who would answer it, RationalWikians, visiting Conservapedians, or even the Assfly himself. What is the point of devoting your life to worshiping an alleged omnipotent superbeing, only to damn yourself to hell for failing to follow his rules? Please, if someone can tell me why these thieves believe they are above the laws that their country, the laws that their god set for them, I would honestly like to know.

/deadhorse

Sorry about the rant, but thieves piss me off. Don't ever get me started on Conservapedia vs Commandment IX, we'd be here all night =P -Redback^G'day 10:47, 21 December 2008 (EST)

It's all for the greater glory of _god and and the Uni†ed S†a†es, so the end justifies the means. Auld Nick 11:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Your Haves/Have-nots/Wandals conception doesn't mention the parodists, who now make up about half of the "Haves" and most of the "Have-nots". It's pretty rare now to see a new editor with honest intentions, plus account creation is off as often as it's on, so the gene-pool at CP is now very narrow indeed. The parodists and bullies don't care about fair use, and the established sysops either think they're above it, or that the end justifies the means - I.E. their mission to promote conservative values excuses their copyright violations and plagiarism. weaseLOId~ 12:33, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Quite a good point you portray, WeaseLOId. Yet, if the higher-ups (particularly the "lawyer") are as devout as they claim to be, shouldn't they be actively shepherding their flock, leading them on the right fabled path to heaven? If not for religious purposes, then at least for legal reasons. I think you may both be correct that many Conservapedians are using the "end justifies the means" logic, particularly if it's done in the name of god flying spaghetti monster (after all, that was the justification for the crusades, right?). Such being the case, I think someone may want to point them in the direction of Matthew 5:18. Thanks for the insights. -Redback^G'day 12:48, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Well, not so much conservative values as Conservapedia values. Though I definitely agree that they seem to think they're above the (albeit mostly online) law. Which is disturbing for a group who is lead by someone who's primary qualification is lawyer! ArmondikoV^bomination 12:51, 21 December 2008 (EST)

You also have to take the CP (and maybe US fundie, I dunno) mindset into account. They are under attack. Liberals and atheists rule all the institutions and are exposing good, decent, god-fearing (who wants to worship something you fear ffs) AMERICANS (the rest of the world - or the bits that don't have oil - can go to hell in a handbasket for all they care) to everything from baby genocide to fornication in the classrooms, and to fight back, they must use any means available - fair or foul. If they steal something, it's because they are god's appointed (or anointed) emissaries on Earth to fight back. Yes, Andy is fighting a jihad, folks. Add to this the fundie point of view of "to hell with turning the other cheek it's eye for an eye time" and you've pretty much got the thug mentality at CP sewn up. Although I should also mention that Andy's abysmal managerial skills and his refusal to back down on any point ever also contributes significantly to the whole mess. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:09, 21 December 2008 (EST)

It would seem to me however, from what you describe above, Psygremlin, they are using any means to promote their cause, even if it means having to crap all over said cause in the process. I think what may be hindering my attempts to understand how Conservapedians are able to (attempt to) justify their conduct is that I am looking for logic, where I should instead be looking for reasoning. Reason and logic are closely related, yet it seems Conservapedia serves as a wonderful social experiment to see just how far apart the two can be pried. -Redback^G'day 13:39, 21 December 2008 (EST)

That's always been the problem for me when trying to figure out what's going on over there. Like you said, you look for logic or reason, but the problem arises in that I'm trying to apply my definition of logic and reason to a bunch of people who believe as fact the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and TK has CP's best interests at heart. Their logic and reason works on an entirely different level and I can probably guarantee that they would be able to justify doing anything, if it was "the Lord's work". --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:52, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Not to forget that Saint Ronnie was the best thing since sliced bread!

^Marmite

on Toast

13:59, 21 December 2008 (EST)

And the Germans tore down that wall because he told them to. --Kels 14:50, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Well, rationality is, of course, slightly subjective so maybe they ARE being rational (by their own standards). But, there are clearer terms where objectivity really can be universal and they very usually fail at that too. Fair enough, you can take the stance that any worldview can be true (even if just for a given value of "true") and that Andrew Schlafly can be, and is, right about everything but when you have lines of enquiry shut down and closed off, statements that go no deeper than "just because" and dissenting views eradicated rather than refuted you justknow something is up and which side most likely to be talking bollocks. ArmondikoV^bomination 19:42, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Obama and the Koran

Andy wondered if an Obama-gerbils-anus riff might stick...

They're discussing it here. Proxima Centauri 12:57, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I can't decide whether that's Andy trying to smear Obama any way he can (maybe he thinks the campaign's still not over), his inability to admit he's wrong about anything, or just plain lunacy. Or maybe a frothy mixture of all three. --Kels 13:06, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I think it's clear that this has gone way beyond party politics. Andy has likely been carrying some grudge for the last 20 years (maybe he did run against the Prez) and suddenly he's been given an outlet for his bile. Add in Kels' points above and away you go. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:16, 21 December 2008 (EST)

<EC> Most people commenting in that section are obviously parodists. And as long as there are plenty of them around to take Andy's side on every issue, he'll never have to have doubts about any of the crazy crap he comes up with. Most of the people who vocally oppose him on this issue have left or are lying low. weaseLOId~ 13:27, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Someone update the :Clueless count: "You're apparently clueless about Obama's beliefs and your postings demonstrate that you're clueless about the swearing in process also.--aschlafly" TWO IN ONE SENTENCE!!!!!

^Marmite

on Toast

13:22, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I read this from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology about 6 years ago (well before my interest in CP) but had forgotten about it. Recently I came across my printout of it and it seemed to sum up teh Adny. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 13:37, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Not just Andy, the same applies in spades to Ken as well, although I'm convinced there's something along the lines of Asperger's in there as well. Ed too, if he's actually not just putting on an act. --Kels 14:20, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I'm waiting for Obama to swear on not-the-koran, so Aschlaughable can remove all references to muslim!Obama from CP and deny he ever said it. Totnesmartin 14:15, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Not gonna happen. One of the parodists has already given him the "out" that Obama will swear on the Koran in his heart, so the actual book at the ceremony would be irrelevant. And knowing him, if someone actually reminded him to remove the reference to him swearing on a literal Koran, he'd get resistant and find some excuse to leave it in. --Kels 14:20, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Perhaps so, but either way he'll look ridiculous. He's painted himself into a corner on this. Totnesmartin 14:29, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Somehow, I think Andy's left worrying about how he looks far behind. --Kels 14:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

He sure has, assuming he ever did. Self-awareness is a trait usually lacking in fundies of any stripe. Totnesmartin 14:39, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I just have to add that that article is amazing. Though now I'm going to be paranoid that I'm actually an idiot whenever I rate myself highly on anything... ArmondikoV^bomination 19:36, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Totnesmartin, you're clueless. Obama swearing on the Bible is one more proof of Obama being a Muslim in disguise. Please open your clueless mind and Godspeed. Barraki 13:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Flaws in Kruger and Dunning Paper

Having skimmed the paper and decided that I know far more about these things than anyone who holds to the liberal notions of "expertise" I have decided that it is clear that the paper is fatally flawed. The key bit is that the paper claims that incompetent people over-estimate their abilities more than competent people because they are also incompetent in judging their competance. But look at the graphs. All the estimates of ability were roughly the same leaving open the possibility that estimates of ability are not causally connected with any judgement of ability at all. People may just say they are around 50% to 60% because, well, people just do: there is no "because". Competent people are not using a reliable method of judging thier ability, they just think its 50% to 60% anyway. 50% to 60% people aren't the best at judging how good they are: they're just lucky guessers. Incompetent people are not worse at judging than others, they do exactly what all the others do. --Toffeeman 06:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Look at figure 4, the one for logical reasoning ability. If ability to accurately judge your logical reasoning skills was correlated with those logical reasoning skills why aren't the top quartile of logical reasoners in the top quartile of estimators? We can "save" the top-end correlation by introducing a level of universal bias. Say people tend to estimate that they are around 65% and don't give themselves full credit for their movement away from that: if they are 10 points higher than this they'll only add on 5, if they are 20 points higher they'll only add on 10. But this is what we see going the other way: the incompetents recognise that they are incompetent but start from 65% and reduce half the "falling short" that they, correctly, perceive. Other than adding in a baseline of 50% this describes figure 4 with equal judgemental ability across all logical reasoning abilities. --Toffeeman 06:14, 22 December 2008 (EST)

LOL Ken!

Haha, this is classic Ken (image). Full of sound and fury, signifying Ken DeMyer is a total moron. Hey Ken, lemme fix a sentence in the last paragraph for ya! "...because while Conservapedia invariably raises points that are a pack of lies..." You're welcome. --Kels 13:45, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Is Ken a shoe-thrower too? It obviously means that he's of Middle-Eastern origin. Shouldn't we inform the CIA or something? -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 13:52, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Am I a bad person for finding it insanely funny that in a rant about other people being OCD, he takes six edits to add half a sentence and a cat? (correction: nine and growing! LOL!!) --Kels 13:55, 21 December 2008 (EST)

So does this mean the red phone has just been upgraded to a mystery? Wow we are moving up in the world --BoredCPer 14:03, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Say, isn't Ken admitting there that us folks who make fun of him all the time are a significant portion of CP's traffic? Sounds like his promotion and SEO schemes haven't amounted to much after all. --Kels 14:37, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Time for another boycott maybe? To mark the New Year? weaseLOId~ 15:01, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Boycott! Boycott! Boycott! xMas to New Year's? ħuman 16:54, 21 December 2008 (EST)

The hell? How would I avoid practicing during my break if I didn't have CP to distract me? --Kels 18:05, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I second Boycott. - User $\pi$ 19:23, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I vote "meh". I've never seen anything much come out of the boycotts, aside from people who like making fun of CP going "I'm bored, when can I post new WIGO's". It doesn't hurt CP particularly, since we all come back anyhow, and it's actually against the Mission, isn't it? --Kels 19:31, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Greetings from Alaska!Ok, three things. First:Aynone else snort when they saw Ken claim that No one has ever pointed out a factual error in our article on _________________ Even though the talk pages are full of people pointing out factual errors and the articles are locked to prevent editing? Also, I laughed when I checked out his traffic link. One of the things that stuck out to me was the college level. 44% of traffic have college educations and 18% are in grad school. Does Ken really think that they're just getting really smart people to come work on the project? Really Ken, Vhen did you start having zees delusions? and Third: what's with him and the stupid cat hit by a shoe nonsense? I thought he was done with that. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 16:08, 21 December 2008 (EST)

No one has ever pointed out a factual error in Ken's ____ article because the facts are defined by Ken, when appropriate.-caius (spy) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken's a piece of work, no question. And yeah, I'm pretty sure he's convinced that he believes everything he's said is the 100% honest truth, and every single objection, since it hasn't convinced him, count for exactly zero. There's this huge disconnect between "almost every google hit for CP makes fun of it" and "CP is getting noticed, therefore we're successful!" that he totally doesn't get. More importantly, he doesn't recognize the #1 reason why people keep coming back to look at the site. Because it's funny! --Kels 16:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken has just made my weekend. "By the way, please don't tell anyone this, but there are at least a few times in my life where I lost my temper. I hope this secret is safe with you and please don't tell anyone." As posted on Bugler's talkpage! pssst! Ken, don't worry - your secret is safe with us... and everybody else who can read a friggin public wiki you doos. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:44, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, Psy, I rather think he knew that - it's a joke - don't all laugh at once.

^Marmite

on Toast

16:52, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, Ken's been pwned on every blog or discussion page he's posted on if he hasn't been able to block teh opposition,

^Marmite

on Toast

16:52, 21 December 2008 (EST)

You see, that's why I shouldn't stay out partying until 3am at my age... Sorry Ken. ha. ha. ha. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:03, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken seems to think that item 20 (Accept that good writing means rewriting) on his "20 Keys to Good Writing" link means that the more he rewrites his articles the better they become. However, he appears to have completely overlooked the first 19 keys. Ken, you could rewrite your articles every day until you die and they would still be turgid dross. You just have no sense of how to string two or more phrases together and make them interesting to the reader, and I'm charitably overlooking the actual content of your so-called articles.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:57, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken is the DeBeers of quote miners and his only ability is to join the diamonds he produces together using variations of "regards" and "stated". His "prose" is more (less?) than turgid, it's unreadable. No-one could read any of his "articles" thoroughly enough to answer them without becoming catatonic,

^Marmite

on Toast

18:13, 21 December 2008 (EST)

"Gemtlemen" - do you think that is that a reference to your diamonds dear Crumpet?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:18, 21 December 2008 (EST)

A while ago, when Ken first made his "no one has challenged any fact in article X" claim, I tried to go through his evolution article and do just that so he couldn't say it any more. The problem is that the number of positive assertions he makes that aren't of the form "Foo said Bar" can be approximated as zero. Congratulations, Ken. You are the master of accurately copying and pasting quotes. What do you want, a farking medal? --JeevesMkII 19:10, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ken is jonesing for one --Shagie 23:27, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Ooh, he's gonna be disappointed when he realizes that doesn't mean "performing orally". --Kels 23:45, 21 December 2008 (EST)

The Twenty Rules

Well hey, why not give Ken the benefit of a doubt? He wants us to pay attention to his list, let's just have a peek at how he fares:

#1 Keep your reader in mind - Fail. Aside from prose that makes it very difficult to make any sense out of his screeds, one only has to glance at any of the talk page archives to find endless streams of advice on how to improve the facuality, readability, and credibility of the article, all of which has been blown off by the author. That's what happens when you write for search engines, rather than humans.
#2 Determine your purpose - Debatable. If the purpose is "write an unreadable hate piece about [insert subject here], then well done! If the purpose is to inform on the subjects factually and in a readable manner, then abject fail.
#3 Focus your idea - Incredible fail. The lack of focus is one of the worst points of your writing, aside from the general dishonesty and flagrant disregard of the reader. Each of your articles wander around, tossing mud here and there, but there's no particular sense of focus at all.
#4 Start your piece in an interesting way Fail. While MOAR HITLER is eye-catching, the start of each of your pieces are unfocused muddles, and warn the reader away from reading the body.
#5 Get to the point quickly Again, fail. For most the reasons above. For example, the first paragraph of the Atheism article promises the reader they'll get to the point eventually, but wouldn't they like to listen to a rather judgmental lecture first? No thanks.
#6 Have your facts in hand Fail. Out-of-context quotes are not facts, Ken. Neither are misinterpreted polls and long-refuted apologetics that even AiG won't touch. All Ken's articles are as fact-free as Andy's "Obama the Muslim" rants.
#7 Involve your readers Fail. Poor prose and reliance on quotes pushes readers away. Again, refer to talk pages for many examples of readers (and potential editors) being rudely rebuffed.
#8 Add color Fail. Citizen Kane had more colour than your prose. There's little life to an article meant for robots.
#9 Write with conviction Pass. I'll give you this, Ken, you're convinced.
#10 Express, don't impress Fail. Ken's prose fails to be either expressive or impressive. I've read more exciting grocery lists.
#11 Whenever possible, go for short words instead of long ones Extreme fail. When "In regards to" is your basic unit of writing, maybe you should think about changing your hobbies.
#12 Prune excess words Fail. The entire Evolution article could be summed up as "Evolution is bad, mm'kay?" without losing any meaning at all.
#13 Be concrete and specific Fail again. Can't fault you for trying, though. You do provide lots of examples. It's just a pity none of them are actually true.
#14 Use strong verbs Fail. You use strong verbs, mostly to try to make it look like atheists, scientists and gays are TEH EBIL, but you overdo it. A lot.
#15 Use clichés sparingly or not at all Inconclusive. You don't use a lot of old aphorisms and such, but you do make stereotypes of atheists, gays, and so forth pretty frequently. I'll let this one slide for lack of evidence. Your personal writing, such as your shout-outs, are a totally other matter, and are filled with rather painful (and poorly used) cliches. But we're talking about your rather awful articles instead.
#16 Avoid jargon Barely pass. Your stunted language doesn't use specialized jargon enough to make your articles any worse. It just sort of gets absorbed in the rest of the awful.
#17 Avoid general nouns Pass. Generally speaking, you do avoid general nouns, but end up going way too far in the other direction. Using the word "homosexuality" as a specific verb four hundred times in the same article, for instance, is poor writing.
#18 Use the active voice Hard to tell. The prose is generally so stilted and full of "in regards to" and similar trash, it's difficult to tell what voice anything's in. Again, I'll be generous here and assume you're at least trying.
#19 Wrap up your piece crisply Fail, fail, fail. The pieces on Evolution, Atheism and Homosexuality don't so much end as stop. A list of one-sided quotes (almost entirely from opponents to each) is not a summation. Your prose is about as crisp as Jell-O.
#20 Accept that good writing means rewriting Surprisingly, FAIL. Ken, you don't seem to understand that "rewriting" does not mean "shift a few words around or find a new picture of Hitler". It means examining your prose, reconstructing it for readability and organization, and generally making stylistic improvements. There is no indication that you've done any of this, if your haphazard organization, stunning long-windedness, tone-deaf prose, contempt for your reader and potential editors, and general agenda to simply toss out smears based on lies is anything to go by.

To wrap up, being generous Ken gets a 2/20, with a couple of undecideds. Not a good showing Ken, I expect to see these marks much improved next time. Perhaps you should repeat the grade, and pay a little more attention this time. --Kels 19:18, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Actually, I think he suceeds with no.1. His readership are mostly people who laugh at him and the rest of those who don't know any better. Very sucessful, in a warped, twisted way. ArmondikoV^bomination 19:33, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Only counts if he's funny on purpose. That would make him a comedian. The way he does it makes him a buffoon, so fail. --Kels 19:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)

While true, we laugh with comedians and at Conservapedia. But either way, I suppose it's unintentional on his part. ArmondikoV^bomination 07:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Looks like Ken couldn't take the heat. Just as well, since he hasn't pointed out a single error in my assessment of his prose. --Kels 21:51, 22 December 2008 (EST)

TK's least favorite user

I think it's me. I just noticed that, but he seems to think the entirety of RW is my creation.-caius (spy) 16:18, 21 December 2008 (EST)

They don't seem to like you much there. Pity. It looks like you made some substantive contributions to the site a long time back. weaseLOId~ 16:25, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I made their conlaw section exist. Pity that CP has a grievance with the state of the law :)-caius (spy)

Apparently TK thinks Ames invented Reddit! Did the "Gallery of American Heroes" counter actually get above 50,000 at any point, or does Joaquín just lack self-confidence? I don't think "This page has been accessed 49,311 times" (the current total) really counts as "something wrong in the access counter." --Marty 17:15, 21 December 2008 (EST)

You've got it all wrong. Ames simply commands the evil liberal hordes. It's the liberals that run the world. They own the media, and now by extension reddit. They cook your meals, they haul your trash, they connect your calls, they drive your ambulances, they guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with them. --JeevesMkII 18:57, 21 December 2008 (EST)

No, we are ALL Ames. That's a fact, it's clear from the evidence. We all edit the SAME website (what a co-incidence). Our usernames all have, shock, LETTERS in them. And when you look at our IPs, they all take THE SAME FORM as several numbers with dots in the middle. It all adds up and is undeniable! ArmondikoV^bomination 19:31, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Pi's username has numbers. --Kels 19:39, 21 December 2008 (EST)

That only proves the lengths we'll go to to hide our Amesness. Barikada 21:01, 21 December 2008 (EST)

If TK mentions my name in block reasons again, I'm going to fucking shove RW's entire server up his ass.-caius (spy) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Pick up the server: * 21:58, 22 December 2008 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 174.133.58.242 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (CLouis, (sub-human grawert vandalism))- Looks like a tie between Human and Ames for TK's least favorite User. 193.200.150.152 15:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Andy explains his policy of discussion

He only wants to talk to those who want to believe him. [1] What we all knew, but now stated explicitly. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 21:29, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I love that, and he pulls out his obvious desperation move of changing the topic and accusing the questioner of something totally irrelevant. Way to show leadership, Andy! --Kels 21:35, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Few people (none?) are so explicit with their ideology tests. "What do you mean Thomas Jefferson was important? If you were a real conservative you'd accept that liberal presidents were all terrible. Your inability to believe this, and denial that all public school students are forced to have atheist-sex while watching Comedy Central indicates that your cited material and reasonable questions are liberal foolishness." - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (EST)

And remember, not mentioning a liberal position is the same as supporting it. So remember to give your credentials in every single exchange, although you're still a filthy liberal who's faking it. --Kels 22:34, 21 December 2008 (EST)

No, no, no. Not attacking and rejecting a liberal position is the same as supporting it. Have I mentioned that I'm against cancer? And child poverty? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 22:38, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I have no time for these lengthy rants. If you're going to present an argument, please fit it and your credentials into the first and only sentence, please. And keep it to less than five words. --Kels 22:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I'm Dr. Conservative; you're bad. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 23:01, 21 December 2008 (EST)

That's so mean . . .

• He only wanted a cookie . . . -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 22:32, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Google and Christmas

Jpatt has a bug up his butt about Google's alt text. It's funny how it starts off being relatively straightforward fake-controversy stuff, and by the end of the paragraph has become full-blown editorial. --Kels 22:36, 21 December 2008 (EST)

"Happy Holidays in several different languages than to offend others with their Christ worship." What? Barikada 23:00, 21 December 2008 (EST)

What I find funny is this conspiracy craziness about Christmas when it really originates from paganistic culture! It has nothing to do with Jesus (he wasn't born on Christmas, look it up, SRSLY) or being more "holy" than any other day. It's just tradition. Regardless of who says Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, the only people who care are people like Jpatt or people who just want to say it differently and have to put up with people like Jpatt. It irks me, and yet I can't help but laugh at such stupidity. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I make a habit out of stating the obvious, so get ready to say "der, ya think?". What never ceases to amaze me is how whenever criticism is expressed against CP, the response is generally "Aschlafly owns this blog site, he can run it the way he pleases". But as soon as another site (or blog, newspaper, researcher, I could go on...) does something which conflicts CP's ideology, the response is "MOAR EXPLANATION, secular atheist scum!". To make a long rant short, Happy Holidays Jpatt, I hope santa jesus brings you a new Neocortex, the temporal and frontal lobes in yours seem to be busted. -Redback^G'day 01:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I believe what they are trying to say is "HOW DARE GOOGLE (A COMPANY THAT REACHES OUT TO EVERY COUNTRY AND CULTURE ON THE PLANET) BE ANYTHING BUT MEGA-SUPER-ULTRA-PRO-AMERICAN!!!!11". But really, no one genuinely cares about the Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays thing except those so far left it's embarassing and those so far right that they just make "culture wars" stuff like this appear where it really isn't. ArmondikoV^bomination 06:55, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Galloping Gishies!

Sorry Duane, but I now love another.

Looks like Ken's had another abrupt about-face, and unilaterally decided he'd rather have a Henry Morris award, so sorry Gish, you're outta here! Funniest parts are how he just suddenly walks in and changes it without even any pretense at discussing it, and the other that he for some reason had to burn and restore his userpage, apparently just to change the award from one to the other. Guess Gish didn't have a website willing to give Ken a reach-around linkback. --Kels 00:47, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Actually Kels, I find it quite sad that Ken has to run around chivvying people to make a special medal for him, because it is quite obvious that "the most prodigious creator of anti-evolution and creation science material at Conservapedia" in any given month can only be Ken. (Nothing about quality I see, just quantity.) It's sad on two levels, first because Lord Schlafly hasn't recognised Ken's efforts and bestowed the award himself, and second that Ken wants (or needs) to get a bunch of coloured pixels which he can decorate his user page with. Ken, you really need to keep taking your meds and rehabilitate yourself into mainstream society; perhaps you might even find a not-too-bright-but-nice lady to take care of you, so that you can move away from your mom and pop and stop fretting about those homosexual tendencies which are obviously tearing you apart.
BTW - Gish must have one of the worst rugs going. How can anyone trust someone who wears a toupée? As they are not only lying to the world about their baldness but also to themselves. So I can quite understand why you changed the award name to a genuine baldy. --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 02:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

True, but only with a very, very warped version of "prodigious". ArmondikoV^bomination 06:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Prodigious as "Extraordinary in bulk, extent, quantity, or degree; very great; vast; huge; immense;" but not necessarily any good. -- Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 07:33, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, Ken should just join ratemyturd.com and compete in the correct class. ħuman 15:28, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Does TK want to drive JessicaT away?

JessicaT reverted an edit by Nerdsforever. She blocked him, first for the bad username, then for the edit. Jessica blocked him for 5 years. TK reinstated the edit and unblocked Nerdsforever despite a username that goes against Conservapedia rules. See here. The chance to put Jessica down was just too good to miss. He even welcomed the controversial user with an unacceptable username. This also shows how arbitrary and incomprehensible the blocking policy is at Conservapedia. Proxima Centauri 03:23, 22 December 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly hasn't seen a 5 year ban that's not justified. Most likely he hasn't seen Jessica's ban of Nerdsforever. Aschlafly doesn't look ready to turn against TK yet. Things may have happened through emails, chatrooms etc that we don't know. Perhaps Aschlafly's beginning to put TK in his place. Watch developments. Proxima Centauri 09:16, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I noticed that last night. Very odd - so now CP has articles with a NPOV. Wish they'd make their minds up. But back to your point, she's probably in TK's sights - she's smart and she doesn't back down to him it seems. And TK can't have that around if he is to carry on molesting CP. Actually, he's probably waiting for her to object so he can smack her down with a MYOB or something. Never a dull moment over there. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:58, 22 December 2008 (EST)

When Jessica was here I tried to encourage her to look for other wikis where she can contribute. I wanted to spare her this type of trouble. I don't think she intentionally bolocks blocks unfairly. If he hadn't the chance to get Jessica TK might well have blocked Nerdsforever instead of welcoming him. Proxima Centauri 04:11, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Good catch PC. Hi-fucking-larious. One tool of the torturer is to mix unpredictable pleasantness and pain... Your last comment is spot on. ħuman 04:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Now TK supported Jessica over WIKIPEDIARULES. Leave her frightened and confused. Torturer's art. I hope Jessica reads this here and learns. Proxima Centauri 07:11, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I see he's now calling himself a "senior admin" now. S'funny - don't see that in his user rights log. Lyin' shit. Also, Tk's behaviour is something I'd expect from bored college kids, but I seem to remember him being closer to 50 (LA Times aticle?) - which makes his behaviour patterns even more bizarre. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Actually I think TK's much closer to 60 than 50. So when he says "senior admin" it's shorthand for a "senior citizen with block & checkuser rights". --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 05:02, 22 December 2008 (EST)

After this lack of Christian charity towards Jessica he's telling teh Assfly that the United States was founded by Christians and not religionists. Well one person’s Christian is another person’s religious zealot. It’s the type of meaningless statement that pleases Aschlafly and gives TK an excuse to bully yet more. Proxima Centauri 06:46, 22 December 2008 (EST)

His use of the terminal "no" makes him sound like a dork. I wonder where he picked that up from? --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 07:30, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Should TK try to drive Jessica off, I'll firmly embrace her we'd be more than happy to have her with me us. :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 09:25, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Hey, Viking, cease your pre-emptive pillaging. D'you want to scare her off?

Seed dissension in the ranks - that's always been TK's modus operandi. On a similar subject: what's TK's interactions with HSmom been like? He should have had a go at her too surely?

^Marmite

on Toast

09:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

O Viking, my Viking, best thou preparest thou longboat to sally forth. Lo! It doth appear as if another suitor upon yonder horizon doth appear. Verily yet another of a more creepy persuasion hoves into view! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:38, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Aghast! Rally the oarsmen. We ride to war! Atsokn! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:46, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I saw some of this going on last night, but nothing seemed to be going on on RW at the time, so I didn't bother bringing it up. To me it just highlights the inconsistency among the admins. I was kinda disappointed to see JessicaT joining the goon squad permabanning a noob for one OK edit & one edit removing something silly. But TK's reasoning (if not necessarily his motivation) behind undoing it was that Ed Poor doesn't agree about that bit of the article either. That's what TK's "senior admin" comment on the revert & block is about - he means Poor not himself. In fact, though, Ed was talking about a previous edit saying the same thing (about witchcraft & paganism) but not supported by sources, whereas the text Nerdsforever removed was properly supported. Anyway, Andy's comment says Nerds was wrong to "censor a statement about Harry Potter that liberals do not like", that Jessica was right to block him, and that unblocking him "could have been unwarranted", although he doesn't outright say he disapproves of TK's actions. weaseLOId~ 12:25, 22 December 2008 (EST)

And seeing as she hasn't responded one way or the other anyway, it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup really. This reminds me of Jesus Camp, with that evil bitch crowing "If Harry Potter lived in bible times he would have been burned as a warlock!" FFS - she's talking to 12 year olds. Cow. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:31, 22 December 2008 (EST)

TK's just a bully. He sees someone who's less likely, or unable, to fight back, and verbally pulls their hair. Jessica's taken precisely the correct response: ignore the little twat.

^Marmite

on Toast

12:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I don’t think it’s over. Teh Assfly humiliated TK. Teacake got put down on the Assfly talk page where many people will read it. Teacake can’t easily revenge himself against the site owner. I’m sure he’ll think hard into the night and try and find a way of getting even. I don’t know if he’ll find any. Tune in for the next thrilling instalment. Proxima Centauri 14:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

TK can’t get Jessica while Aschlafly protects her. He gets several smaller fish instead. BRichtigen didn't cower when TK told him to. More blocks could follow. Proxima Centauri 15:20, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Notice TK has now put himself in charge of Andy's talkpage & is issuing commands on what can & can't be posted there. wassaiLOId~ 15:30, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Further trouble for BRichtigen. TK bolocked him before. Roger Schlafly unblocked him. TK may or may not feel strong enough to challenge a Schlafly. Tune in for the next thrilling instalment. Proxima Centauri 15:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Bugler’s going for BRichtigen as well now. I feel sorry for him. I wish he’d move over to better wikis where they don’t bully. Proxima Centauri 09:00, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I'm glad we don't have to deal with TK here as well. Proxima Centauri 15:35, 22 December 2008 (EST)

User:Tolkiendil stays blocked though many feel his block was a bit harsh. Proxima Centauri 03:42, 23 December 2008 (EST)

A good illustration of how silly things are at CP, when one of his block reasons was "ignorance or feigned ignorance re: Eowyn". wassaiLOId~ 08:47, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Can't make my mind up why Ed did that. Was it ignorance (he thought he was right), malice (he realised that Tolk knew more than him) or sheer bloody mindedness (he made a mistake, refused to back down & tried to justify it)?

^Marmite

on Toast

10:21, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'd say that Ed embodies an equal measure of all three. wassaiLOId~ 18:29, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly again

• Thomas Edison may have been a deist or atheist. Naturally Aschlafly doesn’t want you to know. Proxima Centauri 08:48, 22 December 2008 (EST)
• Aschlafly hasn't seen a 5 year ban that's not justified. I'm sure RationalWikians can give examples. Proxima Centauri 08:52, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Ha, "Little is known about the religious beliefs of the young Thomas Edison, when he was most productive." I.E. So, even if he was not religious in later life, when he was inventing lots things he was probably a real fundy and was driven by God. By turning to atheism or deism then he lost his intellectual vigour. --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 09:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)

From WP's article on Edison:

" ... what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter."

"I am proud of the fact that I never invented weapons to kill."

"Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution.
Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."

Yup, Andy's got a lot of revisionism to do there. CP's Edison article could be another Ben Franklin. --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 09:21, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Andy reverts someone's quote because it's not sourced, then speculates on Edison as fact without a single citation. IOKIYAndySchlafly. --Irrational Atheist 11:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I'm in remedial texxtspeak... What's IOKIY again? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:22, 22 December 2008 (EST)

It's OK If You're ... --Irrational Atheist 18:28, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Enormous WIGO

Here's what I commented out on the project page. Maybe it can be pared down like, 90% or so? --Kels 12:16, 22 December 2008 (EST)

---

The last homework of the semester is done! Grade it, Andy! "Contrast President Ronald Reagan with President Bill Clinton." WOW!! Reagan was a republican, Clinton was a democrat. ("Good.") Clinton took away our guns and Reagan gave us SDI. ("Model answer!") Reagen possessed some semblance of moral characters and had decent politics, while Clinton let everything go wrong. ("Superb.") Ronald Regan failed at almost everything he did, while Bill Clinton succeeded at most things. ("Interesting summary!") President Ronald Reagan had morals and did not have sex with an intern; President Bill Clinton did not have such great morals and had sex with an intern. ("Superb contrast.") "What is the most important threat to the future of America?" Atheism is more destructive than almost any political ideology or foreign threat. ("Terrific analysis.") Barack Obama. First of all, we don't even know if he was actually born in America. ("Don't lose heart.") With the theory of evolution, many people are reduced to believing that they are "accidental" creations that have no moral values. ("Excellent.") Sin. ("Superb.") 9/11. ("Concise and persuasive.") Totals: 26 students, only 2 got below 98%, nobody lost any credit for misspelling "Reagan".

I apologize for this being too long. I actually put a lot of effort into whittling it down to what I felt were a few of the best examples from the homework. I'm disappointed if this can't make the WIGO page, but, I understand. - 207.190.50.4 12:18, 22 December 2008 (EST)

We appreciate the efforts. I'm going to reinstate it with the same links but less text. It might take me a few minutes to sort it out. weaseLOId~ 12:32, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Well, that's why I brought it here, so maybe it can get reduced a bit and restored to glory. --Kels 12:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

The whole thing could go somewhere, surely. It's a pretty good analysis.

^Marmite

on Toast

12:39, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Haven't we got a page somewhere about the course? --Kels 12:41, 22 December 2008 (EST)

If we haven't then we jolly well should have. Perhaps we could start a Christmas Campaign to improve a lot of articles? --  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 12:47, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Don't you mean a Holiday Season Campaign? --Kels 12:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for rescuing it! Do with it as you see fit. :) - 207.190.50.4 12:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

As was mentioned on your anonymous user page, why not sign up and be part of the community? This holiday season we are doing a two-for-the-price-of-one offer on User names. ~--  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 12:47, 22 December 2008 (EST)

See Conservapedia:American_History_Homework_Thirteen_Answers

^Marmite

on Toast

12:51, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yesterday I read through the Assfly's 'marking' of the student's answers. I could only shake my head in disbelief. The man is stark raving mad. Anyone who leaves a child in his care is at the worst guilty of child abuse, or at best, serious neglect. How to get good grades? Parrot back the deranged musings eminating from the teacher. Those children need protected from that man. Some of them will have the where-with-all to get over it, but some less bright may end up as mad as the Assfly.

That stuff deserves a page of its own just to show the world (and hopefully concerned parents and authorities) what utter bollox that man is indoctrinating children with. Auld Nick 12:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I've finished pruning the WIGO; took longer than expected. I trimmed one out (student 33 on terrorism, as the other "threats" are funnier (atheism, gay marriage, Obama, etc.) and skipped the link to the students list - not really needed. People can see the full answers & Andy's "grading" for themselves by following the links. weaseLOId~ 13:12, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Nicely done, Stoat; & also Auld Nick on the Homework Page.

^Marmite

on Toast

13:13, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I wonder why Andy says it's 66 students being "the largest" class when we count less than half that? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:49, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Two possibilities: the other half only exist in Real Life, not on Conservapedia, & give their homeworks to Andy in person. Or else the only exist in Andy's imagination. weaseLOId~ 13:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Tsk, kid. I think you meant "Clinton took away our guns, while Reagan gave us GIANT SPACE LASERS! (conceptually, at least.)" The way they talk about SDI, you'd be forgiven for thinking it actually worked in some reasonable way. What the hell are these kids being taught? --JeevesMkII 14:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

How goddamned insane do you have to be to accept "Reagan and Clinton had different views and policies." as a good contrast? That's merely repeating the question in the form of a statement. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 17:27, 22 December 2008 (EST)

That's merely repeating the question in the form of a statement. I think you just summed up the entire history of organized religion. --Marty 00:11, 23 December 2008 (EST) deep, man

A nice daydream

Auld Nick's posts above just gave me the most wonderful daydream. Here in the NYC area one of the local TV stations has a consumer-advocacy feature on their evening news they call "Shame on you!". The S.O.Y. team fields complaints from people who have been ripped off, and who have been otherwise unsuccessful in getting refunds, etc. The money shot is when the camera crew shows up unannounced at the scammer's place of business and embarrasses them on tape while asking why they aren't making things right for the victim.

So picture a camera crew from Shame On You! showing up at Andy's home, or even better his classroom, hitting him with examples of his teaching and grading like the WIGO ones (plus the ones on his no-joke page), and asking why these parents aren't entitled to a refund. After Andy shuts the door in their face, I pictured the advocate looking into the camera and saying "It's sad that while many parents choose home-schooling to give their kids better education opportunities, there are scam-artists like Andrew Schlafly who use name-recognition to take advantage of their client's trust, and try to distract from their shoddy, uncredentialed instruction by handing out inflated grades. Parents - before you spend your hard-earned money on supplemental homeschool instructors, ask for their credentials, ask for sample lectures, and ask for examples of graded homework & tests, then decide for yourself is this is what you expect for your child. Educational rip-off artists like Andrew Schlafly operate in the homeschooling market to avoid the scrutiny of regulators, and fall back on "Let the buyer beware" as their only guarantee of quality."

It was a nice dream, at that. --SpinyNorman 13:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Er, howabout making it a reality? These TV stations are often open to suggestions for new angles.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 15:06, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Don't think the parents'd break ranks - protecting one of their own even though he's a wanker.

^Marmite

on Toast

15:09, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not a dissatisfied customer, so I can't call S.O.Y. to make the complaint myself. It might be good tragicomedy to have Andy produce parents saying that this is exactly what they consider a quality education, but poor material for a consumer-advocacy segment. I'd love to see any of Andy's clients manage to put out a credible testimonial with a straight face after reading through these graded homeworks. --SpinyNorman 15:15, 22 December 2008 (EST)

They might be a bit scared of going after someone who is trained to be a lawyer (however inept he may be). I can't see it bothering Andy too much, he'd use it as a practical exercise to demonstrate to his little puppets how the "liberal media" is always trying to persecute those with different views. And the parents might already have been invited to watch their kid's progress on CP, in which case they already know what a shill Andy is, but just don't care. Still, one can dream... -Redback^G'day 15:17, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Of course, we're assuming that the parents are smarter than Andy and would realize how bogus this class is, but the reality may be that these are the type of people who can't find Iraq on a map, think Africa's a country, etc., and believe Andy's material as much as the kids do because they don't know any better. --SpinyNorman 15:22, 22 December 2008 (EST)

The newest Liberal-xxx term

Kudos to RickD for coming up with "Liberal Sprawl" in this revert. I was trying to point out the irony of people picking and choosing passages being called 'cafeteria Christians" and Andy's invalidation of the Adulteress Story, but it lacked "conservative punch". Classic. --SpinyNorman 15:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Yes indeed. It was nice being able to laugh "with" rather than "at" for once. If only all of CP was run to be funny (intentionally) but from a perspective so different than ours. Then Ken's shout-outs wouldn't need to be deleted, they'd be part of the site's memebase. ħuman 20:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Andy and Spam

Andy seems to think people are as stupid as he is. Not everyone knows Spam is made from pork? Everyone from Hawaii sure does, and probably everyone older than 18 would. But, typically Andy, ignore reality, make crap up, and your argument somehow is still valid. --Irrational Atheist 18:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Spam, itz mad3 fRom LeTtres liKe diz. - User $\pi$ 18:32, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Linky? --SpinyNorman 18:33, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Here. Andy is now so far in with this shit that there's no turning back. Plus any theory that revolves around somebody being a secret fifth columnist has the magic advantage that it can neither be proven or disproven, since their every action can be explained away as deceit. Add to that Andy's love of talking about how taqiyya allows Muslims to break all their own laws in the name of jihad. I doubt that he'll ever stop believing that Obama is a Muslim. wassaiLOId~ 18:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

"I don't think beer is absolutely prohibited under Islam." - I mean, just how ignorant is this guy? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Doesn't really matter--Andy can always fall back to his "Muslims are allowed to disobey Islamic law to protect their secret identity" crap.--WJThomas 19:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Where did Andy get this definition of taqiyya from? It only permits denying your faith to save your life. I suspect he has broken his own rule that a site critical of a religion can't be used as a reference or does that rule only apply to the religious beliefs of a sysop? - User $\pi$ 22:12, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Kan we haz artikl on takiya??? Pleez? Not too CPish, just gud artikl? ħuman 23:22, 22 December 2008 (EST)

There is one. I wrote it when Andy jumped on the "All Muslims are evil, therefore it's good and proper to assign them the worst motives, and BTW Obama is a Muslim" bandwagon. Stile4aly 23:24, 22 December 2008 (EST)

OOOhhhh. Nice. We link in all talk forever to it. One "q", two "y"s, right? Dang. I go read. ħuman 23:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Spam isn't pork, it's people! Spiced Ham is PEOPLE!! ArmondikoV^bomination 14:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Fickle

Not Insane. Vote for Papoose!

Looks like Henry Morris just wasn't good enough, so Ken deleted his page and restored it with Gish again. I'm sure he'll be back to the "discussion" about the awards to either erase his thoughts about changing it, or just informing everyone it's a done deal. I'm sure Gish is proud to have his name associated with a hastily slapped-together award given for obvious lies, and suggested by a completely inept individual on an 8th rate political blog pretending to be an encyclopedia. --Kels 19:26, 22 December 2008 (EST)

"I think it may be likely for Conservapedia to have such an award". Really, English cannot be his first language. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:43, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Stoopid is his first language. English is optional - he dips in & out of it. wassaiLOId~ 19:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

I don't think I really want to know what Ken dips in and out of. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:47, 22 December 2008 (EST)

It's too much to hope for, but it's nice to daydream that the folks involved in the discussions about awards just turn around and say, "No Ken, we're not going to do your stupid award after all." --Kels 20:18, 22 December 2008 (EST)

LOL!! --Kels 20:57, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, this is too easy. Saved, uploaded and thumbed. ħuman 21:03, 22 December 2008 (EST)

RodWeathers, my hat's off. You truly are a parodist's parodist. Bungler's gonna have to up the ante after this. --Kels 21:19, 22 December 2008 (EST)

"Parodist's Parodist" just might be the highest honour we can endow someone with. Perhaps we should have a monthly RationalWiki Mexmax Award to the best Parodist's Parodist. I mean... it's likely that Mexmax will soon have an award named after him for parodist's parody. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Ken's award (Kels' diff link) makes it look like he's awarding himself the award by default. That is, if he had actually refuted anything but himself. Oh by the way, I called Bill Gates and he said I could have a billion dollars. It's true because I said so! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:32, 22 December 2008 (EST)

The medal is funny because it makes Gish look remarkably like Barney Rubble from the Flintstones. I'm pretty sure Gish thinks he actually existed, so it works out. --Kels 23:36, 22 December 2008 (EST)

You think that's why it's funny? Sure, he looks like a character from Futurama... but's that not the big funny! ħuman 23:53, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Well, that's one of the reasons I find it funny. Of course if you disagree with me, then by definition you have no taste. --Kels 00:49, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Oh yes, no, I agree, the medal is really STUPID looking. But the bigger funny - did they fix it yet? ħuman 01:04, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, I see what you mean now. I was distracted by the desire to hear him say, "How ya doin', Fred". --Kels 01:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Isn't it sadly awesome when the stupid is in several different dimensions? ħuman 01:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't even notice the typo before. It looks like RodW only noticed & corrected it in response to discussion here. At least we've got the typo version uploaded here. wassaiLOId~ 15:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

New Level of Stupidity

For the time being, I simply cannot read Stupedia, as it's frankly worrying to witness the level of paranoia that is displayed by Aschfuckly's demon-retard students. Obama a threat to America? America's world relations were butchered the day Bush came to power, and that has created much more hostility toward them forever. It's morons like this who are part of the terrorism cycle, with their absolute ignorance in anything outside (and inside) the Bible. This is sick. His students are fucked for life. No college for them.DSFARGEG 19:41, 22 December 2008 (EST)

No college for them? You fool. Bob Jones University, Jerry Falwell University... any number of southern baptist colleges for the mentally ill? They'll get high-ranking jobs in government. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 20:40, 22 December 2008 (EST)

They would have in Bush's. Super-embarrassment of the past eight years: high-tier law school grads were turned away from Bush DoJ jobs, while Trinity "University" grads were let in left and right. For those in the uninitiated, Trinity's a barely-accredited law school.-caius (spy) 22:56, 22 December 2008 (EST)

Some friends and I have a game we occasionally played in bars during the Bush admin, which was to try to name all of the scandals and abject failures which had occurred thus far, from obvious ones like Katrina, to less known ones attempting to sell American ports to the UAE. I'd never heard of this practice until you mentioned it, and found [2] by googling it. It's really very sickening. Can anyone say ideological purity tests? Why didn't Andy have a job in the Dept. of Justice or.... god save us.... Education? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 01:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Bush admin appointments were entirely based on political clout and returning favours, and let's face it, Andy's got nothing to offer. He might be St. Phyllis' sprog, but he's got the political muscle of a wet noodle. --Kels 10:52, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Not truem you can at least whip someone with a wet noodle for awhile, good for punishment.... Andy has no political clout whatsoever. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 17:19, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Quality WIGOs!

We've just had 9 WIGOs in a row (not including the commented-out one that was rewritten as a new WIGO) that were 10+ in rating. Let's keep it up! --Irrational Atheist 00:42, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Let's shoot for 40+. 10 is lame, almost a baseline, really. But I appreciate your sentiment! Let's make them all better, better, better... (oops, sorry, was arguing about some WIGO Beatles stuff elsewhere...) ħuman 00:47, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Damn, there's something I'd love to put in that I've been watching, but I'm certain it's a parodist and I don't wanna give 'em away. They're doing some pretty decent work. --Kels 01:08, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Kels: Yeah, I'd keep an eye on it, when the major players start getting involved, post it. Minor editors doing something that looks like parody may well be parody until it's okay'd by the senior managment, at which point it ceases to be someone larking about and becomes an actual view of CP that can be WIGO'd. WIGO can only "out" parody if it's truely slipped under the radar of the sysops, in which case it's best to leave it there and not directly mention it. Well, that's how I think it works best.

As for the original point of the section: The threshold for inclusion in "best of" was recently increased so 10 is, while reasonable, been fairly average over the past few months. Maybe they're just getting more insane over there so we can't help but bring up good stuff? ArmondikoV^bomination 14:18, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Oversight Powerz

Anyone know what RJJensen reverted?-caius (spy) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (EST)

That was me. I socked up and readded my parthian shot. However, the edit summary wasn't exactly "family friendly". FernoKlump^{Mr. Schlafly! Don't forget about this petition!]} 01:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

LOLZ. Well done buddy. Not even my "Open Letter" got oversighted.-caius (spy) 01:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Copy please, or lost forever? ħuman 01:51, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It was only copy/paste my parthian shot and my edit comment was "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!!!" or something like that. It wasn't really anything special... FernoKlump^{Mr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition!]} 01:55, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Ah, ok, thanks :) ħuman 02:22, 23 December 2008 (EST)

FIGHT; FIGHT!!!"

LT & RjJ are putting on the gloves. At least it's about something fairly academic & not ideological for a change.

^Marmite

on Toast

06:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

heh and RJJ shows us Conservathink at its best - no, it must be right, because conservative economists used it. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:28, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Wall Street Journal article

News entry is up regarding a Wall Street Journal article by Stephanie Simon the 'talented journalist', who also wrote the Conservapedia:LA Times article of June 19, 2007, which those at CP seem determined to read as a positive review, depsite the actual content. Worm ^{(t | c)} 10:11, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'm somewhat amused to see Andy apparently supporting (by advertising this article on the main page and calling the reporter "talented") such new versions of the Bible such as the Manga Bible (Jesus looks awesome there, though!), the Environmentalist Bible or Bibles with pictures of Angelina Jolie and Al Gore(!!!). Or maybe Andy once again didn't read past the first few paragraphs. --Sid 10:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Huh, I guess the Manga Bible actually is done by actual Japanese artists, although that's the only project they seem to have worked on. The shot of Jesus there looks pretty good, but that crowd scene is definitely not A-list material, more like the stuff in those cookie-cutter knockoffs of the How to Draw Manga series. Pity, it's actually pretty evocative stuff and would make great comics in the right hands. --Kels 10:50, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I would've expected Andy to read that article and then get on his high horse about the commercialisation and commodification of God's word and Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple, but then I remembered that he's 1. A money-grubbing rich kid and 2. a moron with no basic reading comprehension. PFoster 11:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I had a mental image of Ms Simon like this. It turns out she's actually like this. Now don't get me wrong, but I'm gonna stop looking for piccies of real people on the web - when I find they could almost stand in for me, it's a bit of a disappointment.

^Marmite

on Toast

11:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Really? The second pic could stand in for you? I might want to get your number, then. She's downright cute. PFoster 11:18, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I always thought that gentlemen preferred blond(e?)s.

^Marmite

on Toast

11:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

This gentleman prefers smart, geeky-looking girls who look like they spend more time reading than they do putting on make-up and fixing their hair....PFoster 11:48, 23 December 2008 (EST)

This lady (that was no lady ....) prefers tall grils who do spend more time reading than ... This lady is also probably old enough to be your Grandmama - I should have said that she could stand in for my daughte - if I had one.

^Marmite

on Toast

11:54, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Ladies agree, geek Stephanie looks way more attractive than the blonde version. But geeks are hot anyhow, especially girl geeks. --Kels 12:42, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Indeed. Geek's are hot. Exhibit A: Abby Sciuto. ArmondikoV^bomination 15:03, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I guess that with Ms Simon a liaison would ensure membership of the mile-high club. ;)  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 07:51, 24 December 2008 (EST)

How long does it take...

... for them to spot that nobody is playing with them?

• 23 Dec 2008 7:12 — Public editing Disabled
• 23 Dec 2008 0:40 — Public editing Enabled
• 23 Dec 2008 0:31 — Public editing Disabled

Someone toggled twice :-)

(Who made this tool? I forgot, I just added it to my bookmarks... Thanks, unknown!)

LArron 10:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

If I recall correctly, it was Interiot who coded this one. Quite handy indeed. Maybe Andy thinks that he finally "won" and that only his trusted editors remain after all the Evil Liberals left? --Sid 10:29, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It’s frustrating. I’m at a library computer and teh rangeblockie doesn’t stop me editing from there. By the time Conservapedia is open to ordinary editing my hour on the computer will be over. It probably doesn’t mean anything. If this starts happening often it will mean they’re not keen to get new editors. Proxima Centauri 10:31, 23 December 2008 (EST)

...were they ever keen to get new editors? It always seemed to me that the sole purpose of having registration enabled at all was to give people like Bugler and TK a steady supply of targets. --Sid 10:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

What's weird is Andy's adamant refusal to even consider changing it from open registration to some form of limited registration. I guess he considers it some form of deceit, or maybe he sees WP as open and wants to beat them on the same terms, which is amazingly stupid and prideful. But even somebody that profoundly stupid should be able to see that the benefits of limiting registration on a vandal magnet like CP. --Kels 10:44, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Kels, Andy is a troll and all other editors on CP are his beard. His motives are clear once you understand this. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 11:16, 23 December 2008 (EST)

So this whole CP thing is an act of long-deferred rebellion against his ideologue mother, and an attempt to discredit modern Conservatism using himself as a sacrifice? I dunno, it's a nice fantasy... --Kels 12:44, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I've edited the article on Conservapedia at Wikiindex. I've told them the wiki is not editable. Proxima Centauri 13:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It's amazing how calm and collected (ok and really really quiet) CP is when the marauding liberal hordes aren't swarming over the ramparts. From a distance (say Sirius B) it actually looks quite respectable there. PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:12, 23 December 2008 (EST)

There also haven't been any edits in the better part of an hour (12:35 - 13:13 at this point). --Kels 13:13, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Interesting... though I have to note that WikiIndex's description of "friendly to young Earth creationism and conservative Christianity, and USA-centric" and "hostile to liberals, homosexuals, and people who support or teach the theory of evolution" is the kind of understatment that would stand very well next to "Now, this Hitler chap, he was a bit naughty and wasn't fond of jews much was he?" (sorry for the Godwin, but it's the best example). ArmondikoV^bomination 14:09, 23 December 2008 (EST)

There's been a big fight over that. An independent arbitrator said it has to stay that way. It's on the talk page. Proxima Centauri 14:11, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I've started writing Fun:Alas! Alas! Fair Conservapedia may end! . If normal editing is restored at Conservapedia it will have to be changed drastically or deleted. Proxima Centauri 14:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, I'm not suprised by the battle and the independent result, which I do agree with. But seriously, it's still a massive understatment! At least the warnings that say "disagree with an admin and you'll be blocked" are there and not buffed up with some kind of neutrality policy (although since it's 100%, I can't see how it can be altered to be more neutral). Anyway, I doubt this is permanent, they'll just be on a break for Christmas. It'd be a bit hypocritical of them to be Jesusfreaking out for the whole year yet still edit on the big boy's birthday now! ArmondikoV^bomination 14:45, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sure it's temporary. It would make sense for Andy to restrict registration, but cutting editing down to those with "night editing rights" would essentially make those rights irrelevant (since "every" editor would have to have them). Andy is probably away doing his xMas visitations, and just shut things half-down for peace of mind. I am a bit surprised, since others have the siteadmin thing - maybe they chatted and none are around right now? ħuman 14:53, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Would this be a good opportunity to hold another boycott? (Sorry for repeating this, but I think only one person responded when I suggested it a couple of days ago). wassaiLOId~ 14:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It'd be the best time. We're at the time of year wear people should be having a bit of downtime. It's also easy to track when we can have ready known dates to base it on (such as with the Olympics). So, I'd suggest midnight between 24th/25th to midnight 31st/1st would be an ideal length and position. ArmondikoV^bomination 15:00, 23 December 2008 (EST)

"ideal length and position" - I dare you to say that on conservapedia ;) ħuman 15:25, 23 December 2008 (EST)

• 23 Dec 2008 17:33 — Public editing Enabled

wow,--LArron 17:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I think it's because someone mentioned it to Tim a few sections down from here. Maybe. Or Andy got home from Mummy's? ħuman 18:00, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Status worship

Somehow I missed this one when it was first posted. It's a nice mixture of Aschlafly, Bugler and RW, and is largely gibberish. Can none of them string a coherent sentence together? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:49, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It is truly vomit provoking.

^Marmite

on Toast

11:57, 23 December 2008 (EST)

The latter two can certainly string coherent sentences together. But why should they? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 12:23, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I think someone should point to that article the next time the argument is made that since Aschlafly is the site founder his word is truth. Patrickr 13:23, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'm almost speechless with the hypocracy of that one. I'm pretty sure it's those that are more conservative leaning that have the "status worship". Man at the head of the household because he's a man. The President mustn't be questioned even if he is a tool because he's the president. Obama is a muslim because he's black. Those clearly are conservapedia values and certainly are status worshipping (as in, the emphasis on the status, not necessarily "worshipping" them as people). What's their best examples given; "professors", I assume because Andy is jealous that he doesn't have ANY status. They could have at least gone for celebtiry obession, although I'm sure no one with a brain would consider it a liberal position, it's completely apolitical. GRAH! ArmondikoV^bomination 13:50, 23 December 2008 (EST)

After eight years of political appointees ("heck of a job, Brownie") taking precedence over qualified people in all branches of government, you'd think he wouldn't go so close to self-parody as those last couple of sentences. --Kels 13:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, I've just re-read that closing paragraph. Okay, so a school pricipal/headmaster who's liberal might not want some homophobic YECist as their biology teacher, granted. But such things happen on BOTH sides, Bush has apparently done a great job of kicking out anyone who's even close to left leaning from positions that he can influence. Schlafly just has no objectivity or any sense of... well, sense. ArmondikoV^bomination 14:01, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It is supremely ironic when all this stuff is going on at CP about not being allowed to question the decisions of admins. wassaiLOId~ 14:27, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Well, to give them their dues, the admins did "earn" their positions. Being as dumb as Ed Poor and as off the planet as Bugler can't be an easy task. I mean, most people fail miserably and get barred for not being that "good". ArmondikoV^bomination 14:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Koran Redux

It won't do a damned bit of good, of course, but just for kicks and giggles someone with access to CP should point out this: "President-elect Barack Obama will use the same Bible at his inauguration that Abraham Lincoln used for his swearing in. Obama will be the first president since Lincoln to use that Bible, part of the collection of the Library of Congress."--WJThomas 12:17, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Tim does the right thing. How long will it last? PFoster 13:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

(EC x 2, you swine!) I'm still sticking my funny in though. Andy and the Parodists (now there's a 50s rock and roll band) will be along shortly to knee him in the groin. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Well in, Timbo! Don't take any guff from those swine. --Robledo 13:10, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Who's to say that Obama won't sneak into the Library of Congress (Mission Impossible style) and hollow out the Lincoln bible so he can fit a koran in here? Also. The Lincoln bible includes the Adultery Story. therefore, it is lie filled and not truly Christian. (Way to go CPadmin.) Patrickr 13:16, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Who's to say he hasn't got the kalimah tattooed on his cock? Just throwing it out there - I'd enjoy seeing Andy or some other wingnut demanding to inspect Obama's tackle... --Robledo 13:33, 23 December 2008 (EST)

He'll have to fight Ken to see who volunteers first. --Kels 13:34, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, now he's complaining that Obama's gonna use his full name? Lame. --Kels 13:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'm very suprised the Obama government isn't suing these guys for slander right now... I'm sure it's not legally possible to do so, but it would sooo make my day! Would bring CP far too much good publicity and Obama bad publicity in the long term though. ArmondikoV^bomination 13:58, 23 December 2008 (EST)

If anything, he should be linking to them from his website, with "hey, check out these nuts, they're a riot!". --Kels 14:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, I believe we have that job. :P ArmondikoV^bomination 14:34, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Odd, really. Predicting the future is encyclopedic? Only in Andyland... ħuman 15:00, 23 December 2008 (EST)

What confuses me is, doesn't everyone use their full name when they're sworn in? Bush did it, and so did his dad. --Kels 15:10, 23 December 2008 (EST)

That fact has been burning in the back of my head too. It's such an irrelevant point. ArmondikoV^bomination 15:20, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I remember Andy bringing this topic up on the main page (Edit: Link added) once. He crowed about how even some liberal newspaper supported the idea of Obama using his middle name during the ceremony. Apparently he thinks that liberals cower at the thought of Barack HUSSEINOMGWTFMUSLIMNAME!!!11eleventy1 Obama using his full name because that would... I dunno... magically make them snap out of Obama's Evil Liberal Mind Control and challenge the validity of the election? I dunno... really, I dunno... --Sid 16:01, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Back on the original topic, Bugler is doing his best to supply us with Lulz even during the lockdown. (Links in new WIGO post) --Sid 16:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Yep. Contrary to his claim of "media hearsay", the original source of the information is a press release from Obama&Co.--WJThomas 16:29, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Crock o' Shite on Visual Thesaurus

Well looky, looky. Bad form, Dean, you should be leaving the lies on CP where they belong. --Kels 13:46, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I emailed 'em about it ages ago - can't remember what they replied, but it was in essence "not bothered".

^Marmite

on Toast

13:53, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Looks like a new entry, far as I can see. But I guess if they don't care about facts, accuracy, and so forth, then I guess there's no point expecting credibility for the rest of it. --Kels 13:54, 23 December 2008 (EST)

(Sorry - should have said - that was about something else he was bragging about on there)

^Marmite

on Toast

13:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I've emailed them again: "Thank you for taking the time to complete our Support Wizard, we will evaluate your submission and get back to you when we have addressed the issue. If you need to contact us again regarding this issue, you can reply to this email. Please make sure to keep the case number in the subject. Case numbers help us track all of our correspondence with you. Emails without case numbers will be discarded."

^Marmite

on Toast

14:09, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I just emailed them too, regarding the evolution entry and the obvious conflict of interest over the CP entry. Let's see if it makes the slightest difference. Seriously Dean, Parody on CP is all well and good, but don't involve innocents, okay? --Kels 14:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I included a link to the crock's page as well, asking them if they wanted to be associated with the site.

^Marmite

on Toast

14:32, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Bah, I was gonna do that, but totally forgot. Interesting, there's already an entry for "Evolution" itself, and he actually links to CP's crap pile of an article to boot, thus entering more of a CoI. --Kels 14:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Probably as well you didn't: they'd suspect collusion & probably disregard it.

^Marmite

on Toast

14:44, 23 December 2008 (EST)

previous mention was here (5th from bottom) & associated talk page. Toast 15:11, 23 December 2008 (EST)

(This is turning into an article)

Benjamin Zimmer is an American linguist and lexicographer. He is executive producer of the Visual Thesaurus and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. He is the son of Richard A. "Dick" Zimmer who is an American Republican Party politician from New Jersey, who served in both houses of the New Jersey Legislature and in the United States House of Representatives. He was the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from New Jersey in 1996 and 2008. Benjamin Zimmer has one brother: Carl Zimmer is a popular science writer and blogger, especially regarding the study of evolution and parasites. Toast 15:26, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Just got an answer, which basically boils down to "No, we don't plan on doing anything." They even used the phrase "We do not censor our customer's wordlists in any way," which sounds awfully CP. Guess I'll continue to avoid using the site, and recommend others avoid it too. They clearly think credibility is icky. --Kels 15:59, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Me too. Replied: "Thanks for your speedy reply. You have now reduced your credibility rating to zero. You *are* promoting the website by allowing it to appear as a defining entry on your website. I shall henceforth recommend that no-one use you as any kind of reference. I might only have a single voice but one "customer" lost is one too many." Toast 16:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Drop a not to his brother over at his blog The Loom it is one of the Discovery Magazine ones. tmtoulouse 16:23, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Eh, I wouldn't bug his brother about it, it's not his responsibility. I doubt he's involved, and who knows if the brothers even speak outside of family events? --Kels 16:28, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I take it there is no link between the "Discovery Magazine" and the "Discovery Institute"?--Bob^{bing up} 16:32, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Discover, silly. They've been doing pop science for almost 30 years now. --Kels 16:34, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, having actually clicked the link I see no link is possible. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 16:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

They're actually a pretty good mag, I think my uncle used to get it if memory serves. --Kels 16:42, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Kels has it: Am I my brother's keeper? Try this if you really need a word searchy thing. Toast 16:39, 23 December 2008 (EST)

So much for ideological purity

Andy cites the New American Bible for a Jesus sound bite, but didn't he criticize that exact same translation as not having enough goat hHell and not screaming "Jesus is LORD" loud enough? Andy, pick a version and stick with it, already. --Kels 14:12, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Schlafly's job is not to be consistent. If he was consistent, he would notice his own errors. So I think this is just his subconcious fueling some kind of willful ignorance. ArmondikoV^bomination 14:58, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I though I'd prompt the issue and see if folks were willing to put their names behind a specific version of the Bible as the "correct" one for citing on CP. No takers so far. --SpinyNorman 15:17, 23 December 2008 (EST)

MOAR hELL! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:19, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Obama middle name.

Look things up maybe before posting them? [3] --CPAdmin1 16:22, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Why is Obama using his middle name even relevant? EternalCritic 16:35, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Good question, although the original wording of the WIGO made it look like it was uncertain if he would. I fixed it. Can't fix Andy's racism or douchebagginess, though. --Kels 16:41, 23 December 2008 (EST)

And while you're here, CPAdmin1, why is CP still in the night mode? --LArron 16:56, 23 December 2008 (EST)

No clue --CPAdmin1 17:10, 23 December 2008 (EST)

CpAdmin? Finally I could find a CPer. Has teh assfly even mentioned why only admins can edit? Wait-- you said you had no clue. _{Praying to the God I don't believe in that I will understand!}--User:IcewedgeJr 17:23, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, Tim, it looks like the guy you do all that work for for free has shown his appreciation by reverting you on the whole "last three presidents" thing. Reagan didn't use his middle name, and that's all that counts. PFoster

Wait, so does that mean George Bush Sr., by using his middle names, was a traitor to Regan's legacy? --Kels 17:37, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry Tim, but smears trump facts. --Kels 17:49, 23 December 2008 (EST)

No, it means he was a double Muslim!!!!!!!! ħuman 18:03, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Gasp! --Kels 18:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)

You know, if it were me in your shoes, Tim, I would be extremely tempted to remove Assfly's sentence about Obama using his middle name with exactly the same edit comment - 'deleted obvious statements from introductory paragraph; can reinsert much later in the article if you really think it adds anything'. Zmidponk 18:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'd mention on the talk page that those who purport Obama being a Muslim all this time and being proven wrong should correct their "facts" and issue an apology for libel. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:15, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I'd just say forget it and go work for a real encyclopedia somewhere, and let CP fall into madness like Andy wants. Tim seems to enjoy the abuse, though. --Kels 18:22, 23 December 2008 (EST)

BRichtigen

Can't last long now. A few minutes maybe? Fair play to him though, still speaking out against unjust blocks after so many have already been banned for it. wassaiLOId~ 18:31, 23 December 2008 (EST)

El Kabong! --Kels 19:36, 23 December 2008 (EST)

• This slower version of the Night of the Blunt Knives is getting interesting, with many decent contributors to CP (but probably not "conservatives") who abhor the processes there gradually throwing themselves upon TK's sword. If they block enough people, there'll no point in turning "editing" on anymore, all they'll have left are sysops and "edit rights" people. That would be a nice xMas present, no? (Oops, I channeled TK's closing ",no?"! Where's my assterisk?!) ħuman 21:30, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, there it is! Thanks, M. Toast person. ħuman 23:42, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Still not over yet. --LArron 01:52, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Go on CP1!!! ArmondikoV^bomination 10:35, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Yet another unfair block

Bugler blocked AlexA for inserting Mlicious falsehoods. Which of his contributions is false? The block is only for 3 months. Presumably Bugler hopes Alex will come back brainwashed. Proxima Centauri 07:38, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I suspect it's over the Obama spam thing, although there was nothing malicious about it. There was a time when a three-month ban would be considered quite a long block. Not so anymore, when the banhammer falls for even the slightest deviation. wassaiLOId~ 08:42, 24 December 2008 (EST)

He could be talking about this on Ken's talk page. Ken's answer is classic idiot, of course. --Kels 10:33, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Global Warming and The Christian Right

Truly, there are some stances that the Christian Right takes that I simply don't understand. Perhaps number one is the environment. One would think that if God gave us this wonderful gift of the planet earth, it would be our sacred duty to take good care of it. Yet, that is not how most conservatives I have met and read feel about it. Why is that? It just doesn't make sense. The only thing I've ever been able to come up with has been that a. God will take care of our mess and/or b. This life won't last, so rape and pillage the environment as you please. Anybody have any thoughts? Jimaginator 09:19, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Jimaginator--if that is your real name, and what a stupid one it is at that--God gave us this world to use as he saw fit, and if the planet is actually warming, that is all a part of His divine plan. By messing with his processes--remember, He put the oil there for us to use--we interfere with His plan. PFoster 09:29, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, it's worse than that. Not only should we care about and take care of the earth, that's the only reason god made us. Genesis, 2:15 "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." So not only should we look after the earth, it's why we're here. And the christian right seems to forget that (or mabye that just more liberal vandalism of the bible).Z3ro 09:34, 24 December 2008 (EST)

PFoster--if that is your real name, and it sounds Muslim to me-- I simply forgot about the plan! I must read my bible more closely. Leviticus 23:1 says "And Lo, the angel said unto them, if thy world becometh hotter, pluck it out. And verily, they did." I just wish there was a single book that told me what to do, who to kill, who to hate, who to stone to death, what not to eat and so forth. Life is so confusing without it. 8-) Jimaginator 09:39, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Some parts of the Christian right believe that the second coming of Christ is imminent, so any damage to the environment is irrelevant. Frequently they also believe that this second coming will come after a global nuclear war or similar so a little bit of initial damage to the environment becomes insignificant. I'm not sure how often they articulate this.--Bob^{bing up} 09:55, 24 December 2008 (EST)

(EC)Jimaginator --please recreate your account using your REAL first name and last initial-- simply "forgetting" the plan --a likely story-- is not an excuse. It is wilful Liberal Ignorance of the Truth! But joking aside, I don't get that one either. Although you have to remember that there's a sub-set of Christian fundamentalism that basically says Jesus is coming again (pass the Kleenex?), and will rapture the faithful away. They therefore think that the world (or at least their presence on it) isn't going to last much longer. Therefore, rape the planet. Seriously. ArmondikoV^bomination 10:05, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and in addition to what Bob is hinting at with regards to the End Times, they basically don't see a problem with "speeding things up a little". ArmondikoV^bomination 10:06, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Great Machiavelli, "speeding things up a little", I never even thought of that one! That sends chills down the ol' spine. That would mean carte blanche to do as you please to those unbelievers. The rapture comment reminds me of what a friend of mine suggested. She says that the recent reduction in the bee populations that we are seeing is because of the "Bee Rapture", and God just forgot about us. As regards my name, Imaginator is my last name, and Jebediah is my first name. Surely you wouldn't doubt a God-fearing Christian would you? Unless I'm pretending to be a Christian? Scary isn't it? 8-) Jimaginator 10:21, 24 December 2008 (EST)

In Britain the selfish rich people vote Conservative. In the United States selfish rich people vote Republican. Some of them own oil companies, have shares in oil companies, have businesses or shares in businesses that will make less money if we use less oil. If they are Christians they interpret Christianity in ways that allow their favourite companies to keep on burning fossil fuel. If they aren’t Christians they manipulate Republican Christians in ways that allow their favourite companies to keep on burning fossil fuel. That’s part of it. Proxima Centauri 10:28, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I'll have to remember the "Bee Rapture" thing for a later date. While I agree with PC that a little bit of economics comes into it, the religious aspect of the Rapture is a great excuse for them to completely ignore the environmental aspects, which most companies are now taking into account along side economic (profit and cash flow) and social (jobs and community) factors. While they probably can't get away with publically justifying it that way, it's a way to relieve the ones who will be causing the damage of any personal guilt. To bad when it doesn't happen everyone else will probably be wanting their heads... :S ArmondikoV^bomination 10:32, 24 December 2008 (EST)

PC is right to an extent Re UK but anyone here who tried to mention, or even hint at, teh "Rapture" would be laughed out of business. We're just not that interested in religion - even the true fundies, of whatever religion, have little truck with such whackiness. Toast 10:44, 24 December 2008 (EST)

The Jehovah's Witnesses have convinced the faithful that the end of the world will happen soon for round about a Century. They keep revising things. The Rapture Ready Jesus Jerks can keep that up easily for 50 years. By the time it's clear they were wrong they'll be dead. Proxima Centauri 10:49, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Oh dear god no!

Ed's live-blogging again. Star Trek this time. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:45, 24 December 2008 (EST)

ED's a Tribble TWAT! Toast 10:55, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Don't worry, he got bored again already. --Sid 10:55, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I was looking at the Tribble entry with a mix of amazement and horror. Is there a way for his keyboard to get a restraining order against him? --Kels 11:03, 24 December 2008 (EST)

The article neither mentions the DS9 tribble episode, nor teaches you to knit your own tribble. This is very wrong. --JeevesMkII 11:44, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Just took a look at that again. Ed must have been watching reruns on cable or something and live-blogged until he forgot what he was writing about. Who wrote it? When was it broadcast? What season? What's this about flat cats, where do they come from? No mention about the entire book the episode's author wrote about it anywhere. Just a summary of part of the plot and a coy "but I won't tell you the rest". How unspeakably worthless. --Kels 11:07, 24 December 2008 (EST)

"The Scott ... "? Ed teaching writing?!1!"!!1? Toast 11:15, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Looks like he's got a protege. --Kels 11:36, 24 December 2008 (EST)

That was epic. Someone managed to bring up the one lesbian Star Trek episode, and make fun of Ed's liveblog style.-caius (spy) 12:01, 24 December 2008 (EST)

...causing Ed to open a fresh can of Hatorade. "No, we won't merge two Tribble-centered eps into a Tribble entry! We will merge one into the other! STFU, Curzon and Alan, I block j00 for pointing out the obvious! Everything must DIEEEEEEEEEEEE. PS: Merry Christmas from Uncle Ed!" --Sid 12:10, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Most sysops at CP elicit a different emotion. However, "Uncle" Ed is just so stupid that all I can do is scream in frustration and disbelief. The edit summaries for his deletions of the Start Trek entries are just so hypocritical, or is it just "Unskilled and unaware of it" - Inappropriate content: lack of context; unsupported opinion. Poorly written. Ed, have you ever thought of reading your own stuff with the same critical eye? Any thoughts you might have of becoming an admin at any WikiMedia site should be humanely destroyed, as your track record at CP is abysmal on all counts of contribution, arbitration, treatment of other editors, or just plain common sense. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:07, 24 December 2008 (EST)

While we're studying Ed, did anyone see this mini movie review [4] from the Roger Ebert of CP? --Simple 12:45, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Fairness, uh-huh

Ed has a pretty warped view of "fairness". He considers Bugler and BRichtigen to have the same offense (never mind that BR's was very mild (one might say, fabricated) and Bugler's was much more vicious, especially given his screaming fits when someone suggests he may not be genuine), he goes ahead and blocks Bugler for two whole hours, totally destroying what was said here about "blocks of increasing length", given it's the exact same as his previous block. Meanwhile, for what Ed considers the same offense, he tosses BRightigen twelve times that amount, which Tim at least has the honour to go and match with Bugler's. Pretty impressive. --Kels 11:51, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Usually high ranking Conservapedians like Bugler can make as many nasty personal comments as they like and get away with it. Ordinary users get infinite blocks for anything far milder. At least Bugler was blocked for 2 hours. That's better than usual. the improvement will be temporary. Conservapedia is arbitrary. Conservapedia conventions prevent Bugler unblocking himself unless he can make up a good excuse. Let's see if he edits again within 2 hours. Proxima Centauri 12:20, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, I'm aware of all that. But it's amazing, the audacity of Ed to be trying to show how fair he is by blocking both parties, but then using dramatically different lengths of time. Presumably the only reason he blocks Bugler at all is so it doesn't look like he's protecting a parodist, but this really isn't the way to do it. --Kels 12:37, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Just as I thought

Nowhere close to each other. --Kels 12:14, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Zuh? Phantom Hoover 12:20, 24 December 2008 (EST)

My mistake. Ed lives in New York, and he's nowhere close to Honesty. --Kels 12:39, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Big brother monitoring

Teh Assfly's monitoring of Conservapedians must be benificial. Does he see, yet moar Psychological projection? Proxima Centauri 12:37, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Didn't he just give an "excellent" to a student who talked about how good domestic spying was? --Kels 12:38, 24 December 2008 (EST)

We should have a RWikian join his next class and answer everything with brief, vague, factually incorrect answers, riddled with typographical errors, and see how "strongly" they can finish the course. Contrast Reagan and Clinton: "Regan was good caus he got us out of Vietnam but Clinton was impeached for watergate and di eveything wrong." - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 14:04, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Andy would read that as "Regan was good...Clinton was impeached...and di(d) everything wrong." and make it a model answer. --Kels 14:07, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Quote mining

That quote is out of context. Afterwards Darwin went on to exsplain how the eye could have evolved. Can anyone give the contest? Proxima Centauri 14:43, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Wow, that one's been refuted all over the place. WP has something here which pretty much says it. Talk.origins, Evowiki, etc. all have entries. Hard to believe anyone would seriously still use that, but then it is the guy trying to argue against altruism being useful to evolution. Hell, even AiG thinks it's embarrassing. --Kels 14:49, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Darwin's explanation in On the Origin of Species is rather long winded. But here goes:

    To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason
tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye
to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly
concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may
remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may
be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser
vibrations of the air which produce sound.
    In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has
been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors;
but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to
look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral
descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered
or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but
a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from
fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class
we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known
fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye
has been perfected.
    In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely
coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this
low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two
fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a
moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for
instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets,
within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other
crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and
which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are
convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their
lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With
these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show
that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living
crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living
animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see
no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other
structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the
simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and
invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as
perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
    He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that
large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the
theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit
that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be
formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know
any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his
imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of
natural selection to such startling lengths.

--Irrational Atheist 14:56, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I've added a link here. Proxima Centauri 15:06, 24 December 2008 (EST)