Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Playboy

Last night I was flipping through October's Playboy (great articles). They had an article on micro-breweries around the country and Schlafly Beer was listed as one of the better ones. I got a laugh out of this as I'm sure it made Andy and mommy-dearest very uncomfortable to be in such a liberal rag. But now I do want to try that beer. Jrssr5 09:13, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Playboy has articles??!?!? PFoster 09:26, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I've had it, and it's good. I am, however, investigating further before buying it again. -Smyth 10:53, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I love how the Schlafly Beer site explicitly mentions that Phyllis Schlafly is not connected to the business:

“”Q: Are you guys related to Phyllis Schlafly? A: Phyllis Schlafly is Tom Schlafly's aunt. She is the widow of Fred Schlafly, Tom's father's brother. She is not involved in the business.

Yep, they sure are proud of their family... :D --Sid 11:21, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Hahahaha, that's awesome. We should add that to our snartikle on her. human 11:41, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Whew. I was a little worried there for a moment. Next time we're all in St. Louis, I'll buy a round. -Smyth 11:59, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

That was mentioned here on CP. Auld Nick 12:34, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Don't knock Playboy's articles, I know Nudist Monthly has a great gardening column (© Round the Horne 1966). 134.146.0.19 13:28, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Playboy is actually one of the hardest literary markets to break into, and heavy hitters often get pages there (I recall actually buying one for the article when Joseph Heller wrote a piece). And they's got pictures of nekkid girls with no clothes on. Czolgolz 13:35, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

True, and I do read them too. Also, Shel Silverstein got his start at Playboy and look how popular he became among children. Jrssr5 14:23, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Schlafly beer is delicious. Way better than the other brewery in town, which is better marketed but is much, much crappier.--Bayes^update 17:31, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

You are, of course, talking about the American issue of Playboy. If I remember from my teenage years, the UK version is only interested in - shall we say - graphic art.--Bob^{bing up} 07:08, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Inequality is bad, but equality is also bad?

So it's a horror that there is no gender equality in India, but it's also not good to have gender equality in the US (see the Phyllis and Andy's position on the subject)? CP confuses me on some days... --Sid 14:03, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

In Schlafly land and Coulterville, gender equality is only good when the boys are more equal than the girls. It's like Animal Farm. Except the pigs live in the suburbs and go to church.PFoster 14:11, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Archive?

I just made Archive 10, but I can't figure out how to add it to the list at the top. Anyone got more mojo that can fix that? --Kels 21:21, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

It's something with the template... lemme see if it can be fixed easily... --Sid 22:54, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Ah, good. It was as easy to expand as I had hoped. Should work up to 14 or so, I think. --Sid 22:56, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

That's a relief, my talk page was gonna hit 10 on the next archive. Any way to make it "infinite"? human 12:00, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

There might be, but I'd have to read into it. I didn't come up with the first version template, so I currently don't even know how that one works. I'll keep it in mind, though. --Sid 13:43, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there might a good, different approach. I'll keep looking into it. --Sid 13:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Archives are now infinite - the switch happened a few minutes ago. I think the implementation is without major bugs (certainly none I could find right now). The new approach uses "Dynamic Page List" (which some of us prodded on some template a while ago) which is a very handy tool for... uh... listing pages dynamically. ;)

An additional advantage: The number of "wanted" links dropped massively because each talk page now only produces one wanted page link (instead of up to ten or so).

If there are bugs, prod me on my user talk page. If stuff breaks beyond all recognition, you can just undo my one edit to Template:Talkpage.

But for now: Sleep. *crawls to bed at roughly 5am and mutters something about needing a healthier sleep cycle* --Sid 00:00, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

"Swinging" and "Shagging"

LMAO hilarious! Anyone got a screenshot for when they eventually get around to deleting it? TheIPguy 00:26, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Genghis Khant 20:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Austin Powers? Why sould I spend $8 and 2 hours on commie agitprop?

RobS 15:20, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

If you haven't seen it then how do you know what it contains? Or do you get all you opinions from other people as you're not smart enough to decide for yourself? Genghis Khant 20:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I'd like to see that edit about wife beaters in Reprobatewiki's Best of; I'll see what I can do about it. RobS 15:20, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Dammit Rob, my Pathetic-Self-Promotion-O-Meter just went off the scale! --Kels 15:36, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

"Reprobatewiki"? That's pretty weak, Rob. I know you can do better than that. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:45, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I think their dictionaries are running out of negative phrases starting with "R". :P --Sid 19:01, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I'm still holding out for "RapscallionWiki", personally. --Kels 19:02, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Yummmmmm, scallions in gangsta sauce! human 19:39, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Maybe they'll have to go for RotationalWiki. Genghis Khant 20:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I'd have said "RascalWiki", but "WascallyWiki" sounds so much better. XD --Kels 21:09, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

<--

Hmmm, you may recall, once upon a time I was quoted as saying dictionaries do not give definitions; let's look a Mirriam Webster's online definition:

1. A morally unprincipled person. 2. One who is predestined to damnation. adj. 1. Morally unprincipled; shameless. 2. Rejected by God and without hope of salvation. tr.v. rep·ro·bat·ed, rep·ro·bat·ing, rep·ro·bates 1. To disapprove of; condemn.

2. To abandon to eternal damnation. Used of God.

Look's like I was proven right again. "Rejected by God and without hope of salvation." No one is rejected by God and without hope of salvation, not even RW types. RobS 14:33, 4 November 2007 (EST)

What about once youve died and gone to hell? Any hope for salvation then?--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 14:37, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, I stand corrected. RobS 15:09, 4 November 2007 (EST)

WTF? Are you drunk? tmtoulouse ^oppress 14:36, 4 November 2007 (EST)

A friend just told me, "I have a drinking problem, I'm broke."

AtheistKathryn

Looks like it's been killed (which makes me think it was great?)- was a screenshot taken?

It wasn't that great, TK asks her to remove quite a few redlinks from her page and then gets owned when she refuses and says that if he wants to he can. So he posts to say that he wasn't offended by her comments and makes a lame joke when deleting her page saying that she gave him permission to remove the redlinks. -- the.ip.guy/69 Talkroute 07:07, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I clicked to see the talk page and when I clicked Recent Changes five seconds later, I notice it was deleted. I clicked back, saved source, screenshot the red link comment (though I don't care for it much, just a "just in case" moment). Nice to see TK abusing girls. T_T Norseman^Wassail! 11:34, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

We know that according to cp:Liberal Hate Speech, TK hates all women, blacks, gays, Asians, Hispanics, and persons with disabilities. --Ζωροάστρης 11:52, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Worst Court Decisions

Andy is against "one man, one vote"? Is this some sort of Conservative position that I've never heard of before? What's the deal? Ames, I'm sure you're just boggling at this article in its entirety, but do you have any idea? --Kels 06:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

It's weird that examples like that are included but Plessy v. Ferguson isn't. Right to privacy? Abhorrent! Segregation? Eh, not so bad. By the way, anyone with a spare sock should sneak Brown v. Board of Education in there and see how long it stays. DickTurpis 07:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Even funnier is how they're ordered. Slavery: not QUITE as bad as abortion. Slink 08:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Actually, what's REALLY funny is that Baker wasn't actually the case that decided one-man, one-vote! That was a later 1964 case! Slink 08:26, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Hardly surprising. Does anyone actually expect Andy to know anything about case law? What I find funny is some of the redlinks. For a guy who creams his jeans daily over how many Supreme Court cases are covered at CP with their two sentence articles on obscure cases, Andy has no article on Dred Scott at all. DickTurpis 08:31, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Another "horrible" decision: Roper v. Simmons. The state can't execute kids. Damn. DickTurpis 10:33, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Another "horrible" decision - Miranda v. Arizona. Shit, now I have to tell the hippies what I can and can't do?" --Ζωροάστρης 11:58, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

The whole list displays a completely warped set of priorities. Rights for blastocysts? Incredibly important. Rights for fully grown, sentient humans? Nah, they shouldn't have them. I still don't understand how you can be anti-abortion, and still support the execution of children. Apparently Conservatives feel the right to life begins at the first cell division, and ends when they cut the umbilical cord. --Jeeves 13:33, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

First of all, these people on CP aren't conservatives, they are radicals and in the case of the core at least a little bit crazy. . Second of all, its not about some glittery ideology handed down in jamesian English, it's about control. control of a woman's body before delivery and of every human being's body thereafter. See, it makes perfect sense in a horror show sort of way. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{I said what?} 21:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

The idea is simple: that which offends me ought (1) not to exist or, (2) to be punished or (3) all of the above. If you remember that the linchpin is intolerance, the rest falls into line.-αmεσ (blackguard) 21:29, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

• I'm not an expert on American Law, but Schlafly should take an intensive course (or better, ten) on Constitutional Law and Fundamental Rights. His opinions are beyond ideology, he's just plain stupid and narrow-minded. At least he could offer a good reasoning on his position. Take Lemon v. Kurtzman, on which he's unable to think that there are atheists in America, and that religious speech is very different from free speech. | DINESEN^yep? 22:31, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

The sad thing is that Andy does know the law: he's an HLS magna grad. How does he manage to affirmatively forget the nation's entire constitutional history, where convenient to bolster his viewpoints? My only guess is that crackpot ideology is more powerful than we can possibly imagine. If we could harness it, think of the green power benefits.-αmεσ (blackguard) 22:37, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

• Yeah, we can only guess. Anyway, fundamentalism blinds too. | DINESEN^yep? 01:32, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

You make it sound like the dark side, Ames. Strike Andy down and you will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine! ollïegrïnd 08:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)

No Right to Edit

Ames already hit on TK actually admitting that CP is for Christian Conservatives only, but I'm also amused by his comment, "...we do not provide explanations to anyone other than the person who was blocked." From all reports, they don't provide explanations to them, either. --Kels 23:31, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, it's funny in that sad kind of way. This is definitely the point at which they're abandoning the pretence of being a proper encyclopaedia project governed by rules that are fairly and equitably enforced. Rule one of their blocking policy is that they don't block for idealogical reasons. We've long suspected that, in fact, they do all the time. Now they feel they can openly admit it. --Jeeves 01:27, 4 November 2007 (EST)

PZ Myers

Man, Kenny boy blows my mind. Not only is he describing commenting on a 10-month-old blog entry "CP critiquing an article", but he only posted his comments a few hours ago and is upset because they haven't been answered yet. He also gives the game away on that other entry, where he "defends" his ToE article against another blog entry that doesn't mention it. What an obsessive weirdo. --Kels 23:59, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Oh, he actually recycled his Peter "I created most the Conservapedia atheism article" Moore name? (Ironic side note: I think I'm linking to the only forum where Conservative wasn't laughed at for his ultra-shiny-awesome-cool Atheism article during his spamming trip) --Sid 00:06, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

I just registered there :-)-αmεσ (blackguard) 00:10, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I think he thinks he's being clever by coming up with these names, or that it makes it look like there are more people who agree with him. It's sort of hard to tell, really. If he had some awareness of how others view his shit stuff, I'd say he was using different names to disassociate himself with the ones that have been painfully discredited, but we know that's not the case. --Kels 00:13, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

The 'Peter Moore' account is almost certainly not being screened. There's no evidence whatsoever that he's being treated any differently to anyone else. The ScienceBlogs spam filter simply holds up posts with too many links in them. One would think the fact that his posts complaining about censorship have made it through uncensored (and, presumably, more or less instantaneously) would have clued him in. But perhaps Ken thinks PZ is so threatened by a few badly-chosen quote mines that he's sitting at his computer, obsessively watching for new posts by Ken, and immediately passing or trashing them based on content.

Which, to be fair, is precisely what Ken would do were the positions reversed. Tsumetai 09:21, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Reality, evidence and logic hold no sway over Ken. His rants over at pharyngula are just a microcosm of how is brain works in general. Hence why he is able to deny the evidence for evolution. tmtoulouse ^oppress 11:01, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Deleting main page template

My guess is he thought it would remove the main page from the statistics Special Page so his homosexuality article would be "first". What a fucking...I don't know I lack a descriptive noun to describe him. tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:09, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

I sort of figured it had to do with self-interest. That seems to be Ken's sole motivation. --Kels 00:14, 4 November 2007 (EDT)

"Tool" is the noun you were searching for. Kind of all-purpose. human 01:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Just Curious

But what is RW's "official" stance on TK? Troll? Vandal? Seriously batshit insane conservative? What? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:33, 4 November 2007 (EST)

The official policy is that there is no official policy...there is no cabal and there is no TK.............. tmtoulouse ^oppress 01:38, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Little defensive there TMT? Don't worry, we all know that you're TK's sock..... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:42, 4 November 2007 (EST)

There really is no official policy - on anything. No one knows what the hell we are doing. Or why. But we have a pretty main page!!!!! And goats. Want goats? We got 'em! Oh, and as far as TK? Again, no official stance. But he's a psychopath. human 01:49, 4 November 2007 (EST)

I know that we have no official policy, I guess I just meant to ask if Tk was considered a parodist/backstabing little punk by the RW masses in light of the Hoji chat logs. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps, Human, I would be allowed to post Hoji's own words from the RW forum, arguing the opposite? Is that allowed? Do you really want to continue this another day? --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 01:55, 4 November 2007 (EST)

You're the one continuing it NT..... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:57, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, that is apparent from all my comments above....sure, right! --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 01:59, 4 November 2007 (EST)

TK's behavior reminds me of that old joke about office politics being so vicious because the stakes are so small. --Gulik 14:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Well said! Reminds me most of Wormtongue, personally.-αmεσ (blackguard) 14:57, 4 November 2007 (EST)

[Hoji's post put into edit history quarantine by some German idiot. Limiting to that post because it stood out and because the next best alternative would have been vaping half this section]

*rolls up newspaper and thwaps Hoji and NT* Drop it. I don't want this drama to spill into next week, so if BOTH side could grow up, it would be much appreciated. I'm seriously tired of it. You need to wank? Then do it in private. (Yes, Sid is pretending to have authority. Hell has frozen over.) --Sid 15:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, NT hasn't been back in a while. Perhaps the saga has ended.-αmεσ (blackguard) 18:55, 4 November 2007 (EST)

wow....

You've got to be shitting me. Quote: "Hype by liberal media and experts ends: the "mysterious, ugly, big-eared animal found in the desert was just a plain old coyote, not a 'chupacabra'." First off, how is hype over a chupacabra "liberal media".... also, this is the second time that i've seen CP directly get a news item from RW, and slapping a bit of false conservative spin onto it. (another example of CP getting news from rationalwiki here.) --♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 15:28, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe covering the chupacabra wasn't liberal, but you gotta admit- that article about universal chupacabra suffrage WAS a bit biased. Slink 18:48, 4 November 2007 (EST)

The chupacabra is on record as being pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage. When it isn't busy spreading terror, it spends its time taxing and spending.--Bayes^update 19:33, 4 November 2007 (EST)

You'd think CPers would be more friendly to a creature that eats goats. Slink 20:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Is this WIGO?

We've recently posted on blogs, but I didn't want to just open the floodgates, but... this is as concerning (Mother of God, CP is leaking!) as this is bewildering and hilarious. Slink 20:38, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Bizarre. But I suspect "Kenservative" is not our Kendoll, more likely a psrodtst mocking him by patching that bit of CP weirdness onto WP. And, um, Kendoll wouldn't revert it. No way. He'd mean it. After all, it's cited... human 20:49, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hmmmm, and it's been ID'd as a sock and banninated. The other sock run by the banned operator? "GoodsWiped". Isn't that almost a "Godspeed"? human 20:52, 4 November 2007 (EST)

It's more WTF than WIGO...PFoster 20:52, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Sexual healing

Someone needs to add Marvin Gaye to the "see also" section over there. DickTurpis 08:55, 5 November 2007 (EST)

YES! OMG! Love that song! :D I actually thought the article was about that song, but then I realized that it's just yet another "There is nothing good about sex!" rant. --Sid 15:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Ed needs to get some.-αmεσ (blackguard) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (EST)

It would appear that Ed has had sex at least twice, the second time about 12 years ago[1]. Of course if it was more times, then it could only have been for pleasure and that would be a SIN. Genghis Khant 15:30, 5 November 2007 (EST)

err. . . that's 18 years ago . . .Last updated 06/09/2001 19:57:19 204.248.28.194 15:46, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry didn't notice the date. It's good to see that he keeps up to date with his home page though. Genghis Khant 02:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Block quotes

...Aren't really that new for Ed. Almost all of his new pages consist of a long, semi-related quotation with no definition, wikilinks or categories. [2] [3] [4] [5] Those weren't particularly good examples, but if you go back further you can find a lot more. Lurker 14:56, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Pie

We need a pie chart for the Wikipedia article, now that Rob has made about 400 edits to it in 4 days. Has anyone actually read it? Man, is it a disturbing combination of bad writing and poor logic. From reading it you'd think Wikipedia primarily a forum for 2 cranks to hash out their private battles, not a reference work with 2 million entries. Utter crap linked with non-sequiturs. DickTurpis 01:27, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I just made a quick program to survey Rob's contributions, as of this moment he has made 346 out of 511 edits to the wikipedia article on conservapedia. - Icewedge 01:54, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I'm curious, if measured from Rob's first edit to the Wikipedia article, would this number change? If I recall, he discovered it fairly late. --Ζωροάστρης 02:06, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Once CP is back up, I'll be on it. VirileSterile^yawn! 09:24, 6 November 2007 (EST)

So Rob hasn't quite Pac-manned it yet, eh? Looks like he's on track to soon, though. DickTurpis 10:53, 6 November 2007 (EST)

CP down?

Is it just my computer or is http://www.conservapedia.com/ having problems? - Icewedge 02:02, 6 November 2007 (EST)

CP appears to be down. Has it been long? Has Old Ma Schlafly finally stopped bankrolling Andrew and told him to do something constructive? Matt 02:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Same for me. What's going on nao?! :O Norseman^Wassail! 02:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I concur... down for me too. --Ζωροάστρης 02:06, 6 November 2007 (EST)

And me. Looks like my "cyber-attacks" have finally paid off. Genghis Khant 02:10, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe the FBI raided Andy's place after a complaint from Richard Dawkins. Matt 02:13, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Still down.--Bob^{bing up} 03:16, 6 November 2007 (EST)

It's obviously a cunning ploy to frustrate night-time vandals editors, reduce the number of page views, and er... Kenservative 04:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, most cunning. Actually they shut off nighttime editing anyway - so this is a a plan to shut off night time reading as well. Perhaps their content is only deemed suitable for citizens in appropriate time-zones.--Bob^{bing up} 04:20, 6 November 2007 (EST)

No, there are exalted souls who can still edit at night! Kenservative 05:31, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Really? Shows how much I know. Anyway, they're not editing tonight.--Bob^{bing up} 05:38, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Actually I believe this is the ultimate TK revenge by depriving us of our daily LULZ. However, I know that he is a good sort at heart and doesn't hate us enough to keep Conservapedia offline for ever. :( Kenservative 06:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I'm bored. I'm actually having to do some work this morning thanks to this. Bondurant 06:52, 6 November 2007 (EST)

It's got to be more than a night time turn off now - what's the time over there - @ least 9:00 am? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 09:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Andy's put more money in the meter. They're back up. Genghis Khant 09:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)

And Ed's tryig to make a connection between his actions at WP and CP being down. Sorry, Ed, it wasn't me this time. DickTurpis 09:54, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Actually Ed's claiming the opposite - his post at WP got CP back up! Genghis Khant 10:52, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I thought they were doing their early Christmas shopping as good christians. JayJay4Ever^??? 09:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

It's down again.-αmεσ (blackguard) 10:46, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Sigh! Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. VirileSterile^yawn! 10:48, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Yes! And through nothing but the sheer willpower of my mind! Yes, Karajou, that is a confession. My brainwaves crashed your site! I'd do the same to rationalwiki.info too, except for the fact that we all created it and endorse it 100%. DickTurpis 10:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I think Ed's being a little deceptive. Just what did he type into Google to find rationalwiki.info? It only went up last night and I can't find it on Google. I think he saw the claim here that a cyber-terrorist cell had done it and having been told of RW.info saw it as a way to garner publicity. Genghis Khant 10:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Wasn't there that British forum that was coordinating a DoS attack? I seem to remember it was supposed to take place some time in November. Does anyone else remember that or am I just making this up? Lurker 11:37, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Is it me or...

Did CP start having it's hiccups (it's down again, BTW) right after RW.i went up? CЯacke® 11:18, 6 November 2007 (EST)

It's up again, but now editing has been disabled. Czolgolz 13:05, 6 November 2007 (EST)

That's the first step to truly improving the site. --Kels 18:08, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Tech support

I now know the Mediawiki software from the inside out, I am just offering my help to fix the problem free of charge, just e-mail me Schlafly. :). tmtoulouse ^oppress 12:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Apparently your help worked, they are back up as of roughly now. human 12:18, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Heh, Indeed

http://conservapedia.org/Main_Page Close, but no cigar.

??? human 18:12, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Ah, I missed the .org vs. .com human 19:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I don't get it....-αmεσ (blackguard) 19:37, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I didn't either - the half-assed joke is that the cp.org is a mirror, not a redirect. human 22:57, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry guys, I thought it was an attempt by the peeps at Conservapedia to escape Rationalwiki's wrath by changing domain names.--142.68.94.120 20:53, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It is more likely an attempt to increase search rankings. --Shagie 21:49, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Atrocity of the Month

What I find funny is that after all the noise about the media not reporting the Good News From Iraq, CP studiously avoids highlighting it's Iraq article. Seriously, I'm laughin' here. --Kels 21:34, 6 November 2007 (EST)

FRANCE

Seriously, that made me laugh out loud. --Kels 15:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)

At first I thought "oh okay the rest of the image will load now" but I was sorely disappointed.-Shangrala 16:00, 7 November 2007 (EST)

OPGU?

Is that meant to be us? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Wonder what it stands for. "Objective Poster Gives Up"? Sounds like an acronym that should be used more frequently. Slink 16:44, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Can someone fix that "showcasing" link so I can figure out what they mean by it (like the diff where the errors were introduced)? human 19:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Whatever

You know what, fine. Keep your childish diatribe. For the record, this reveals much about this page and this site. Why can't you just admit you are wrong? The page was deleted because it was terrible. It was unencyclopedic. Why do you have to mock and insult? This is very disappointing. Bohdan 17:42, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I am so ashamed!

But then it wasn't parody, was it? So deleting something that might not be widely known but still interesting (to some people anyways) is a Good Thing?

Okay have it your way.

I am SOOO ashamed!

CЯacke® 17:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Please be rational and remove the post in the article. Bohdan 17:50, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Go right ahead. CЯacke®

I tend to agree with Bohdan, actually, if for no other reason than that I think the WIGO entry isn't that lulz worthy, and not worth the blood.-αmεσ (blackguard) 17:57, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I was under the impression that the appropriate CP admin policy for poorly written articles was to instruct someone else to write it. Unfortunately, now that only admins and favored editors are left, they don't have any liberals that they can say "you go write it" when pointing out errors. Surely, Bohdan, you could have done a little bit of research and written a new one that was at least up to Ed's standards of quality in the time it took for TK to delete the old one. --Shagie 18:02, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I read the page before it was deleted. It wasn't that bad. It wasn't consistent with the style of other articles, but it contained about triple the content of the average article (that is, it had three sentences).Shangrala 19:11, 7 November 2007 (EST)

If it wasn't worthy of WIGO before, it looks like Ed went and sealed its fate... take a look. I don't even know if you can call this an article at all... Uchiha 19:19, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Looks funny to me. Only question I have (that I can't answer now, of course) is whether the CP article was accurate or truly parody. human 19:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Assuming we're all talking about the article on Cockney Rhyming Slang, no, it wasn't parody.Shangrala 19:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks for confirming. That is what I meant. Making the wigo entry hilarious. human 19:46, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Disinformation and Andy's Talk Page

Any reason why TK doesn't want the link appearing there? I'm guessing its something to do with the page appearing under special/WhatLinksHere but that really doesn't make sense because evolution and stuff will probably be linking there too... -- the.ip.guy/69 Talkroute 23:58, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I think it's just TK trying to fellate Andy as usual. I can imagine that he's in pretty bad shape right now - he thinks he's impregnable, but the most recent scandal must have done some damage.-αmεσ (blackguard) 23:59, 7 November 2007 (EST)