Talk:Lenski affair

Inferences from second reply

From the second reply I wonder how many of these things are safe to infer...

• Lenski looked at a fair bit of CP - especially Andy's contributions.
• Lenski has looked at RationalWiki - including WIGO.
• Lenski is familiar with wikis - reading edit histories and seeing Andy's reverts and blocks of people
• Lenski is pissed off enough that if Andy continues the slander he may send angry letters by way of people who tack on similar letters to their name as Andy does. The 'PPPPS' is an indication of writing the letter once, reading it, still being angry, adding another bit, reading it again, adding another bit. Thats four iterations of still being annoyed ending up with the bit on 'deceit'.

Any others? --Shagie 01:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Just in case an html version of the lenski talk page from CP is here. If it comes back up tomorrow I will grab the actual XML version. tmtoulouse ^beset 02:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Got them. CP:Lenski here, and Talk:Lenski here. Single revisions only, though. Linus (not logged in)

I loved the postscripts, yes. I imagined his wife coming into the study at, say, 8 PM, saying "Honey, you'd better send that now before you have your second drink." "Oh, but, this guy is being even wronger on the internet than I thought!".... ħuman 04:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

How do we know he has looked at RW/WIGO? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 06:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I have been in contact with Professor Lenski since he replied to a June 19th email from me on June 23rd. I directed him to RW and the CP:Lenski dialog talk page. I later directed him to WIGO. I take no small amount of pride in believing that I had some part in the crafting of his second reply to Andy. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 07:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Eggsellently done, Mr Edge.   ^Contribs_Talk 07:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. It really does feel good. :) --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 07:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Good work for pointing him in the right direction. I had suspicious that he'd looked through a few RW pages too. Professors aren't stupid, I'm pretty sure he'll be familiar with wiki software anyway (if he does any teaching, he'll definitely be familiar with wikipedia and possibly wikidot or similar, which are used for some undergraduate projects). Even a brief tour around Conservapedia (with or without WIGOs pointers) should have given him enough info about how to slap Assfly down quite nicely. All in all, his response is awesome. I cannot wait for the responses from the other end, if they can pull the big, fat nails out that Lenski has crucified them with. Armondikov 09:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Namespace

Shouldn't this be under Conservapedia namespace? Genghis^evolving 02:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

To be honest we have always been a little slack with that. It does make the Conservapedia category look odd. Beside this is also covered by some other categories. 3.14159 02:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is open to debate I think, people mentioned keeping it in the main space because of its prominence. tmtoulouse ^beset 02:37, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Mainspace. This is srs bsnss, not just some CP crap. It's named for a prominent biologist. It also happens to intersect with CP, so the cat makes sense (what others are on it? Several come to mind that should be there). ħuman 04:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

The talk page

Should we ad details of the talk page. That is were this is whole indcent was funny in that, with the help of vandals and parodist (didn't Andy ever think of googling Dr Richard Paley), the lack of response built up in Andy's mind to convince him that Lenski was hiding from him. 3.14159 02:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Another fun bit to consider - Andy's calling out of Lenski and the exchange brought Lenski's work to a much wider appreciative audience than would otherwise see it. The IDers and creationist types already where fussing at it - even some quite loudly. Still, it was Andy's hasty and rude requests that bloggers commented on and people then went out and read Lenski's work - many more than would have read it in the journals. --Shagie 02:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see not just a "copy" of the talk page, but the whole history archived as a sub page of the article. It's not the way a "nprmal" wiki talk page works - Schlafly deletes comments, moves things around, there were the sign-ons to letter#2 and the sign-offs.... it's really a classic that should be preserved in all its "depth". ħuman 04:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Shagie, of course it works the other way too. Probably increased traffic to CP. He doesn't care about the credulousincredulous, only the incredulouscredulous. If he gets potential "acolytes" out of it... Ajkgordon 04:27, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Hehe, you said "acolytes". I note that Lenski switched from "followers" to "acolytes" after the first usage... ħuman 04:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't reckon Able will be pleased with that label. Poor bastard. Ajkgordon 04:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT) (I'm a poet and didn't kmow it.)

Dr. Richard Paley is... awwww, I got Punk'd by OBJECTIVE: Ministries AGAIN!

To my defense Freedom777/Ken said something similar. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 06:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I laughed so much it hurt

I must confess that I've not been following this so this was the first time I'd read about it. It's a hoot - had me laughing all the way through. What a put down!!--Bob^{bing up} 03:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Conservapedia

I am usually skeptical against "revolutionary" discoveries, but after reading Lenski's responses and parts of his publications, I am truly convinced that Lenski actually achieved exactly what he claims to have achieved.

Of course, he didn't really "achieve" anything at all, he just found evidence of evolution; which we all just assume is true anyway, simply because it makes sense. Evidence of the evident isn't very interesting - except for people like Schlafly, who, sadly, seems to just dismiss it all as a hoax.

Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered to get into all this if it wasn't for CP. Thanks to CP, my understanding of evolution is better, and the results and conclusions from Lenski's experiment have been shown to be able to withstand strong criticism.

Thank you CP for spreading the truth, for once! Etc 05:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's second letter is awesome pwnnage. Any one of us would be banhammered instantly if we made just a fraction of the derogatory comments he makes about about teh Assfly. The beauty of it all is that Andy brought it on himself by making it a public issue in the first place. He was so full of his own "rightness" that he couldn't see how his demands for disclosure of the evidence could blow up in his face, despite PJR's warnings. Unlike our modest site which Andy can largely ignore, Lenski's position gives him possible access to a much wider audience if he so chooses, and Andy was therefore obliged to host the reply. I only wish Kettleticket was around to give us the inside on Andy's real reaction to it all. Lenski's reply is a model of decorum and restraint and carefully parries any suggestions of being anti-God. The fact that CP has gone off-line just after the letter was posted is frustrating in the extreme as there promises to be the mother of all lulz parties once they are open for editing again. Forget FBI, the words Lenski, E.coli and citrate will need to be added to the spam-filter. I just hope that this is a real-life equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes. Genghis^evolving 06:24, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Can anybody shed any light on this bit: [Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]. Somebody asked about it on CP as well. --Bob^{bing up} 07:49, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

In my email exchange with Professor Lenski, he indicated that his reply would have a link to RW. Of course, my next reply to him mentioned that it would be edited out. Either way, I can verify that the cite is to RW. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 07:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I have just returned to RW/CP after some weeks and all of this is new to me (and sorry if I ask questions for which there already is an answer in RW). But was is just an informal e-mail as Edgerunner76 or on behalf of RW? What did you discuss about? Should Lenski be "officially" invited to RW? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 08:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I took it upon myself. My initial email was little more than an introduction and a warning about Andy's probable intentions. I pointed Professor Lenski to the CP:Lenski dialog talk page so that he could get a better idea of what he was up against. I did mention RW initially as to its mission. In a follow-up, I directed Professor Lenski to WIGO for some dark disturbing humor if he were interested. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 08:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

We were cited as a reliable source! And by a notable professor with a genius grant! Take that, Wikipedia. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 08:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy just confirmed it was a link to us. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

But I want to pressure him into at least admitting ... something ... nevermind, will never happen. I already got banned just for agreeing. Etc 10:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Invite

There has been nothing formal or official, but Professor Lenski is as welcome (or moreso) as anyone to join. What would be really great would be if he did join and wrote a few appropriate side-by-side refutations of CP articles. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't really think so: it'd remove his impartiality & allow Schlafly to put him down as " One of those R********i people"   ^Contribs_Talk 09:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but he could be as anonymous as any of us. It coud be that we just happen to get some very well written side-by-side refutations of CP articles "all-of-a-sudden". --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Correct, he should disassociate with us "cyber terrorists" if he's seriously trying to convince Andy of his integrity (then again, the Dr. doesn't have to take him seriously). NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 09:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

He might be here already!   ^Contribs_Talk 09:33, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No body takes Andy seriously. So, that can't be the reason. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 09:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)#

As an honourary member, it makes sense. But I do see the point about that sort of thing removing impartiality. Although a big "well done", "thank you" or "your second response was frakking awesome" letter signed by the site would be a good idea. 144.32.180.39 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

BSE, JD

Pardon my ignorance, but when Schlafly signs his first letter as "Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.", what do BSE and JD mean?

I read that BSE stands for "Bovine Spongiform Encelopathy otherwise known as mad cow disease", but even this doesn't suit Schlafly. Thanks, --JayJay4ever^??? 09:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

BSE is Bachelor of Science in Engineering and JD is Juris Doctor, a law degree. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 09:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you! Definitely anybody can be a BSE and a JD. --JayJay4ever^??? 09:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe I should start signing things B.A.H.? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 09:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

You know if Andy worked for a firm that dealt with legal matters in enginering then I could understand the need for his BSE, however it just looks stupid considering that his legal practice deals with medical claims.TimS 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It goes without saying - it's only considered appropriate to advertise degrees if you are corresponding in a professional capacity. This does give more credibility to the possibility of turning CP into a diploma mill. - Lardashe