Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

Trust

Who cares if CP trusts us and why? tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I certainly don't, but if you will look up the page a bit, you will see Ames (your sockpuppet) complaining about CP not trusting you. My point is, its not fair to criticize them for not trusting you when you still have pages like the infowarriors handbook. Bohdan 20:40, 18 December 2007 (EST)

!!! A voice of reason !!! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 19:16, 18 December 2007 (EST) (this was put here before B****n stuck his oar in) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Well, if some kind of dialogue can be established with those who edit CP (rather than with the owners), then perhaps we can show them that we're not evil, and help to open their minds. Perhaps a lost cause, and definitely not one I care too much about. (CP is mostly harmless IMO, and the ones I fear more over at the other-other place seem completely unreachable.) Researcher 19:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Well if you exclude the sysops from the list, and the homeschoolers...who is left? There is not many people to engage over there. I am just confused about the "trust" word being tossed around, if people really want to have a dialog I don't see why trust is a key ingredient before it even starts. Besides...I stand in complete and total opposition to just about everything Schlafly and his gang of religious fascists espouse and will fight them to the bitter end to keep them from destroying this country and peoples lives and wellbeing...and ultimately the destruction of rational thought itself. Where is there room for trust? Eh, whatever, just as long as people don't expend too much energy. tmtoulouse ^annoy 19:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, thinking more about history and diplomacy...yeah, forget trust. The USSR and the US didn't need trust to talk; the US and the PRC did not (and do not today) need trust to debate and negotiate. (And after agreements were reached, all that was needed was to "trust but verify".) I personally care NOTHING about CP, so overall...not my deal. Researcher 19:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Ames a (quotemined) quote for you: "... peace with honor. I believe it is "peace for our time." Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." Susan^{purrrrr ...} 19:38, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Forgive my ignorance, but have we actually proposed such a dialogue officially? I mean, has someone contacted Andy and his sysop buddies for a good ol' heart to heart? I agree somewhat with Researcher in that trust is not necessary, but in this case I see it as more of a backdoor for Andy to avoid discourse. "What? The deceitful liberal atheists want to talk?? It's just some atheist plot to get us to abort our babies!" I doubt he will see any outreach as more than something to be refused out of hand as unworthy of his time. Still, I would absolutely love to be a part of an open dialogue between us and CP. AdamNelson 19:45, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Ames did try, and they have even unblocked us (!) on occasion, but, in his example, he was permab& within the grand total of 44 hours. I don't think that a dialogue with Conservapedia as an entire entity is really that feasible an idea. Dialogue with individual members is possible, but experiences with TK and HoG have shown that it's not exactly full of happiness and joy. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

• I am always open to discussion with people of opposing views. But my feeling on this is that the only people who are going to be willing from their side are the lower level editors, who aren't really at the root of the problem since the sysops completely control all of the controversial stuff. And as has been brought up before, if the sysops, and specifically Schlafly, wanted to have open discussions about these topics they wouldn't whip out the 90/10 rule whenever someone tried to start a discussion on their site. So I am not sure what this forum would hope to accomplish. At best, I could see us managing to convince some of the low level people that not everything Schlafly says is true, but my guess is that most of them already know this. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 19:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I understand their reluctance to accept invitations posted on CP... but what if a proposition were posited directly to Andy outside of teh confines of CP? Also, if any such projects already exist which people may point out to me, I will do a hundred Hail Darwins in thanks! AdamNelson 20:03, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Dialogue is all well and good, but personally, I don't really see what the people at CP stand to gain from it. For the most part, they're convinced that they possess the objective truth, and that those of us who disagree are misguided at best. In the end, they don't have much of a reason to listen to what we have to say, and they know there's no real chance that their evangelism is going to work on us. There's simply no incentive for them to enter such a dialogue. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 20:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I guess you're right. When one believes they have a monopoly on truth, why listen to what anybody has to say? AdamNelson 20:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

One possible incentive for them (I'm grasping at straws here) may be a downturn in vandalism/arguments on CP (after all, they consider them to be nearly the same thing). In many discussions, they pull out the "we're building an encyclopedia here, not debating. Don't debate" warning followed by multiple selective deletions. Assuming they're actually seriously concerned about disruption of CP, and not just using that as an excuse to supress any and all contrary ideas, a neutral-turf discussion area would provide a place for non-CP adherents to post dissent and engage the CP sysops/editors without "disrupting" activity on CP (it would work the other way around too, but people here are pretty much ok with dissent being posted on-wiki). Of course, for this to work, the CP sysops/hard-core editors would actually have to engage the people at the forum to prevent it from becoming RW3.--Bayes^update 22:58, 18 December 2007 (EST)

The one advantage we'd have in that sense is that most of the sysops there still believe RationalWiki or affiliates are responsable for 95% of CP vandalism. But then again, wouldn't they feel betrayed when we "refused" to stop? 206.248.133.240 01:03, 19 December 2007 (EST)

On a lighter note ...

Go to Conservapædia for really in-depth & vitally encyclopædic entries. (and don't forget to leave a tip) Susan^{purrrrr ...} 20:28, 18 December 2007 (EST)

The guy's style is awesome - this is quite good too. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

If you guys weren't talking about it here, and the sole editor of those wasn't a redlink user name, I'd have thought they were written by a sysop during a cut and paste fest cp contest. Hey, wow, "contest" is entirely included in the phrase "cut and paste fest"! Oh, shoot, no it isn't, there's no "o". Dang. "cut or paste fest"? Just doesn't have the same ring to it. And it loses the "n". Help me out here, folks! human 21:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

"copy and paste fest" works. leftovers: "pyadpasef" Feppadays! human 21:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)

'sniff' nobody loves me 'sniff' HAHA, my crap got ignored. Will someone archive most of this page? human 01:50, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Don't be sad Human, I read your insights. Sadly I think "Feppadays Contest" is the best we're going to do. DickTurpis 11:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

moon article

This has been up there for awhile now I think, but the following sentence from the article on the moon is staggering:

“” Atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon, widely taught for decades despite lacking the falsifiability requirement of science (see Philosophy of science), have been proven false."

To try and put this in clearer (if that's possible) words: "Theories that are unable to be falsified have been falsified." --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 20:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Remember, kids: if it's atheistic or liberal (or if somebody calls it that), then it's bad! AdamNelson 20:39, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Tsk, you've ruined a sweet parody now... Still, absolute genius while it lasted :D --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 20:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Isn't the size of the moon thing completely wrong anyway? I thought the moon's size appears different relative to its position in the sky.-Shangrala 20:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)

It changes depending on its position in the sky and also the time of year, since the orbit is elliptical and not perfectly circular. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 21:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)

But it's not as much fun as the talk page. (see also origin of the moon cp:Origin_of_the_Moon). Susan^{purrrrr ...} 20:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, PJR noticed that some time ago. See the Moon talk page. Personally, I thought it was poking fun at Andy since he claims basically same thing in the "Origin of the Moon" article (my heart still weeps that my old version of the article got reverted again). --Sid 21:00, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I know all about the talk page here, believe me. When the talk page turned into a debate on creationism I was blocked in part for suggesting that Adam and Noah don't count as witnesses to the creation of the earth 6000 years ago (in the vicinity of this edit [1] for those interested). --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 21:10, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Someone wrote a long "moon size" rebuttal here, analyzing moons from all over the solar system. human 21:03, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I think this is what you're referring to, human? --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 21:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Yup, thanks for the link! human 21:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Bill, moon talk & dawkins talk are on my required weekl reading list - lulzful from start to finish. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 21:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)

So who smokes?

I'm interested in knowing, since I heard on CP there are these "cigarretes" that homosexuals prefer to puff up. Norseman^Wassail! 21:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

It's "cigarettes", and they are joints, and gaysecks inevitably results from their consumption! human 01:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Well, considering the extremely amerocentric nature of the site, I doubt that they're referring to the British slang for cigarette: "fag" --Eira ^yay! 01:53, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Aside from the whole British slang thing, it's kind of weird for me to see them putting smoking down as a Bad Thing anyway, since it's only been a few years since conservatives were all up in arms defending the tobacco companies and downplaying any possible risks. --Kels 06:46, 19 December 2007 (EST)

CP's aims are solely limited to advancing their own influence, which is basically the YEC view permeating every facet of society. Any other viewpoint is changed at will to coincide with their greater aims, ergo their flip-flopping on tobacco when it suits their purposes. AdamNelson 11:40, 19 December 2007 (EST)

"Don't like our principles? We got others!" --Kels 18:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Jose89

He's also the author of this, in any case, should we really be pointing out seemingly minor users?

That would likely just be petty of us. So, I don't think we should... unless someone can do it in a REALLY funny way. --Eira ^yay! 00:30, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Dude's made a lot of edits in just a couple of weeks. day. He's not totally minor, IMHO. PFoster 00:39, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Right. He's certainly accomplished a lot in a day. He may not be minor forever. AdamNelson 11:50, 19 December 2007 (EST)

math is liberally biased

Does anyone actually know what he's talking about here? I just can't see what he thinks is being concealed, why anyone would try to conceal it, or why concealing it would be liberal bias. Is this just another example of his liberal tourette's? --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 18:39, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Christ, he'll be having his left eye gouged out soon, (it's in the skriptures!). CЯacke®

I got into a bit of an argument with Andy about that here. I still don't think it makes sense. Master Bra'tac^Kree! 19:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)

He's stating that wikipedia hides the fact that Wile's proof is not elemental due to it using the AoC (He and/or I might be wrong on this), it is not being concealed by anybody, merely not made explicit because it is irrelevant and evident, and from what i can tell the liberal bias part comes from the acceptance of non-standard mathematical stuff, which older mathematicians, the Christian ones, didn't use, which is obviously a liberal plot in Andy's mind. 22:45, 19 December 2007 (EST) NightFlare

I can buy that he certainly does seem to be disappointed that "Christian mathematical techniques" (i.e., those used a few hundred years ago) are no longer on the cutting edge of math theory, so to speak. Good insight NF. But he seems to dislike complex analysis, and indeed i itself--which was certainly used by guys like Euler back in the "good era". I still don't fully understand why he feels that way.--Bayes^update 22:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Good point, Andy's mind is much more complex than that. (Pun intended.) My reasons for thinking that were his own statements, I'll bring a quote soon, they should be easily obtainable from the Conservapedia: conservapedian mathematics article. NightFlare 23:14, 19 December 2007 (EST)

"Liberals prefer instead to claim that mathematicians today are smarter than the devoutly Christian mathematicians like Bernhard Riemann and Carl Gauss." quicker than I thought, but a better question is what does Andy have against proof by contradiction? NightFlare 23:18, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I remember that quote now. I wonder if he thinks that if Riemann and Gauss--whom he considers smart Christian guys, with God as a co-investigator, and are therefore the pinnacle of mathematical knowledge--didn't come up with something, then nobody can. Or at least no atheists can. His ideas on contradiction might be due to its association with Marx (found that here. Kind of interesting, although if that's Andy's motivation it's a little strange...)--Bayes^update 23:35, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Strange, though not new NightFlare 23:43, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Somebody should try to convince him that the Axiom of Choice is the reason abortion rights supporters think what they do. "If moral relativism follows naturally from relativity, doesn't pro-choice follow naturally from the Axiom of Choice?" I bet his head would explode.--Bayes^update 23:58, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Fox

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

You think he's referring to TK's departure? I worry that Fox is a sock of TK. Remember he told us that he had socks on CP.-αmεσ (soldier) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I never saw their big hissy fit at CP; now I'm sure he's referring to TK, but I'm also sure he's not a sock of TK... :-). Does anyone remember TK saying that, though, that he had multiple socks? Hm... -αmεσ (soldier) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (EST)

TK says a lot of things. Fox is definitely not him. If I remember correctly, Fox is a reactionary brit messianic jew.162.82.215.199 20:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to point out that Fox isn't really a Jew. He's Christian. "Messianic Jew" is a codeword (at least among Jews) for "I caved in under pressure and converted to Jesus". Calling oneself a Messianic Jew is a classic technique for making conversion to Christianity acceptable, aka "Jews for Jesus". Worshiping Jesus and claiming to be a Jew is kind of like accepting the Pope as the final word on all things Christian, and then still claiming to be a Protestant. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 03:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Hehe. How wrong and misguided. You show a distinct ignorance of both Judaism and Christianity; many Jews pray daily for the coming of Messiah and the accompanying restoration of the Temple; we "Messianic Jews" (as very definitely distinct from "Jews for Jesus") believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, as opposed to eg Simon bar Kosiba et al. If it was simply about converting to Christianity, trust me: that would be so much an easier choice to adopt. And we could get to eat cheeseburgers and bacon sandwiches. 89.241.172.19 03:58, 20 December 2007 (EST)

You think if he was a real Jew he would've been made sysop? On Christofascipedia? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 04:01, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Feh. As RationalWiki supreme leader TK points out, Fox is not a sysop :P ^{— Unsigned, by: 89.241.172.19 / talk / contribs}

So I was wrong. But he is still a fake Jew. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 04:11, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Fake as in how? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 13:30, 21 December 2007 (EST)

lol! I'm sure you are well qualified to spot fakes, nebekh /winks ^{— Unsigned, by: 89.241.172.19 / talk / contribs}

He quotes AC/DC on his userpage. So I suppose he can't be that bad. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 04:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)

New sysop

Damn it, why does all this stuff happen after midnight in my timezone? I wanna see the major censoring once people start asking questions like "Why did a guy with zero contribs get promoted a minute after joining?".

Seriously, who is that guy? --Sid 21:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

My new sockpuppet! If he were my sock I would have several million digits of dollarses! So I guess our office pool got pwned by teh assfly... human 21:10, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Damn am I glad I put my money on you winning. Also, since I was hugely bored and curious I decided to try and get an idea for just how big a number with 370 million digits is, to get an idea for how much I actually won because of your 9 ^{9 9} :1 odds. 300 pages of size 10 font in MS Word seems to hold about 1.2 million digits, so there you go. I'm accepting payment in the form of countries, continents, and small stars. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 22:20, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The first contrib was to the Breaking News. Major WTF there. Did Andy hire a dedicated news guy? --Sid 21:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I suspect he met a nice boy in a gay fern bar last night and decided he was splendid perfectly qualified for the job. Sorry, didn't mean any homophobia, just ripping on Andy's sekrit life. human 21:26, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, someone needs to add this person to the Newcomer's guide, and I think the uniqueness deserves a timeline entry, too? human 21:28, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Yes to both. It's certainly notable, especially since nobody over there talked about it. Will this go like when TK got de-sysop'd? Nobody says anything and acts like nothing unusual ever happened, and any query about it gets silently removed? --Sid 21:34, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I've added a timeline entry. Once there is some sort of official statement, it should be updated. Alternatively, it should also be updated if there are hints that this is a "The Ten know all they have to know, and nobody else needs to know anything, so stop asking about this user." case. I'll leave the Newcomer's Guide snark to you :P --Sid 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I think it's (1) someone Andy knows or (2) a dummy account he's creating for a homeskolaring project. Notice he hasn't announced it as the "new sysop" suggesting it falls outside the purview of that esteemed contest.-αmεσ (soldier) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (EST)

It's apparently not a dummy account: "Rarely, but occasionally, we promote based on demonstrable achievement outside of Conservapedia, as in rallying and educating College Republicans in this instance." (from here) Damn, I'd feel pretty cheated if I was a sysop candidate there. Imagine constantly fighting wandalism, improving articles, fixing dead ends and making categories... and then getting shafted by a guy who allegedly did something good outside the site. Not even to mention that it potentially keeps up the tradition of giving power to people who may not even know how to use them properly. --Sid 08:39, 20 December 2007 (EST)

You speak like this hasn't happened here on RW. One word--Teratornis.

Well that sucks. (Not sarcasm this time. I actually am a li'l pissed at this move). Lurker 00:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I'm guessing it's his son, Andy Jr. My digging on the Assfly turned up an Andrew Schlafly who's at Harvard and is active in the Republican Club there. Could well be wrong. --Robledo 14:54, 20 December 2007 (EST)

If that is the case, at some point they're going to have to give up calling it a meritocracy and admit its nepotism or cronyism. --Shagie 15:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Outstanding bit of detective work, Rob. Whatever happened to kids rebelling against their parents' politics, anyway? It's like the Schlaflys are genetically programmed to vote Republican.PFoster 15:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, fella - only a guess so far, though. Holding fire on links till we know more. As for rebellion, that's why they homeschool 'em before sending them out to mix with lots of other young minds ;) --Robledo 15:32, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I'd be careful about linking to real people's identities unless CP made some sort of official announcement. That being said, Tash (I think it was Tash) has already asked the "Who the hell are you?" question on the new guy's talk page - once a few CPdians read what you've come up with, I imagine that sort of questioning will either get more pointed - or driven deep into the memory hole. PFoster 15:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

It'll be interesting when Jr comes out though! CЯacke® 15:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Eh, they're already there, even if this isn't Andy's son. Just look at Andy+Roger and Sharon+Bethany. And this case broke the meritocracy rules anyway since it's the first sysop (aside from the starting team) who got promoted without ANY contribs. Andy just made up the new rule about these exceptions when somebody did something great outside of CP. --Sid 15:24, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I don't really see a problem with him promoting someone he knows to being a moderator on his blog immediately that they join. It's actually a smart tactic, esp. if they already have some wiki experience. The "meritocracy", such as it is, is for people he doesn't know, or who are wikidiots and need to learn first. Just my .02. human 15:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)

As a matter of fact, I agree with promoting people he knows he can trust, but...

Since a wiki is a community project, it hurts to have a new guy who doesn't interact with the community. So far, he has two contribs, and both are simply Breaking News edits. No intro, no reply to the (by now two) queries about him, nothing. Likewise, Andy's lame explanation after the fact (and the complete lack of ANY explanation or announcement when it happened) makes things look even less transparent than they are already.

On the flipside, family ties are played down (for example in Bethany's case, where Andy censored TK's comment about her being Sharon's sister, IIRC), and everybody pretends that the "surprising" promotion of a sibling is the result of a meritocracy.

And Andy is still boasting with his sysops being the quality editors, and yet, we see how the majority of wiki maintenance is almost exclusively done by non-sysops (only serious exception would be PJR, and only because non-sysops can't move pages) while the oh-so-great sysops are completely absorbed in their little worlds and basically don't give a damn about the big picture (and usually don't even stick to their own Manual of Style, causing even more work for the maintenance crew).

In the meantime, the little guys at the bottom barely get any real respect for their work while (for example) Ed gets praised like whoa for showing off his twenty most recent one-liners or quote-dumps. It's all completely off-balance and far from the meritocracy Andy claims to follow. --Sid 15:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with Sid as well as what I said above. What Andy did was fine, except for utter lack of respect for the "community" - a nice little intro would have gone a long way, whether it's a relative or just a trusted friend. And he could also have said there will still be two new 'sops. But, Andy, considerate? Thoughtful? Nah... human 17:51, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Open Letter to RationalWiki

A significant part of Conservapedia's own "origin saga" is the opposition—that is, the Great Satan, RationalWiki. What do you think would happen if we showed that we really didn't care anymore, and collectively moved on? I know you're all going to say, "Absolutely nothing." And you know what? You'd be right. But by playing into that demonization, we act as enablers to that mythology.

Shouldn't we be trying to move beyond Conservapedia? You obsess over a site of no real import that, if it weren't for blogs and newspaper articles constantly mocking it, would've fallen into the annals of obscurity by now. We need to move on. True to this wiki's name (RationalWiki, as in rationalism), shouldn't we be focusing on more general issues, more relevant to the grander goal sanetizing the world? (Get it? Saneitizing? Oh, never mind...) I myself looked at Conservapedia, shuddered, and moved on.

The only real argument against this hyperfocus on Conservapedia is that it boosts our Google ratings. But why don't we set ourselves to a higher goal—like being in the top five for "rational" or "rationalism" (where we're not even in the top thirty)? Doing so would attract more serious contributors, and possibly elevate ourselves out of obscurity. In a way, the fact that we haven't tried to match our focus with our name shows that we suffer from the same problem that Conservapedia suffers from. Conservapedia's name suggests it targets conservatives, but it really doesn't: it appeals only to the exceedingly narrow vision of Christofacism. RationalWiki has the same problem: its name suggests it appeals to rationalists, but, all attempts at diversifying aside, who really appeals to an limited band of people whom have beefs with Conservapedia. --My cat is smarter than Andrew Schafly RA ^{harass stalk} 23:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You say "you" as if you aren't part of the CP-hating RW crowd. But your sig insults Andy Schlafly's intellegence. Lurker 00:18, 20 December 2007 (EST)

His pronoun of choice seemed to be "we", I don't know how you're parsing it differently. --97.96.225.254 01:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

He switches between the two ("what do you think would happen;" "You obsess over a site"). Not that that really detracts from my main point. Really, it makes it stronger, I would think. Lurker 01:27, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Unhappily we've said this before- many times - I think that most editors here are purely otivated by CPitis (and feel guilty about it) Just googled "rational" went to 250 before I got side tracked - no ratwiki. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 02:43, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Unhappily, no one seems to be willing to address the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with my signature. I would expect vague, half-assed motions towards formulating a response on Uncyclopedia, or even Conservapedia, but not here. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk} 03:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I agree that that would be a better way to go, and the idea has been brought up before. But the problem is that RW users are individuals not a coherent group. Consequently what is needed is not an "RW decision" but an individual decision by many users to focus on other subjects while posting on RW. That is what I do. Individual users, such as yourself, may make this decision any time. Another issue is that we continue to receive new members from CP and they typically arrive with some initial desire to continue to making comments about CP.--Bob^{bing up} 03:51, 20 December 2007 (EST)

My opnion is that CP continuing to exist as a laughingstock is far more useful to than for it to up and die. And, let's face it, Andy would keep it alive even if he was the only editor and reader. Still, I think we need to confront any general religious and/or anti-science whackiness from wherever it comes from. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 09:36, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I agree. CP's very existence is bad for its supporters, and the more people who are aware of it, the more it discredits itself and secures its position as a laughingstock. I think we're doing exactly the right thing in making their hilarity as public as possible. AdamNelson 12:17, 20 December 2007 (EST)

• RA, thanks for bringing up a key point, but yes, unfortunately it's something that we've confronted time and time before, and put off. I think it's important for us to move beyond CP in the sense that we need to contemplate something other than just Conservapedia, but I'm fine with it being a key part of the site. After all, it is, for many of us, the tie which binds us together as a group. I'd be very much in favor of moving away from the hyperfocus on Conservapedia, but not for CP's sake, for our own. Do you have a suggestion of another target? I really think that's what we need: something big to get involved in, where we'll see results, even if the only results received are pushback and anger.
• That said, I don't think a removal of focus from Conservapedia would have any result but positive on Conservapedia. I've been heavily involved in trying to get a peaceful resolution, or some mutual understanding, with Conservapedia, but at the risk of stating the obvious, it's done nothing but hurt my credibility around here. What I've learned from it is that Conservapedia's hate for us may be bilateral at the moment, but if we pulled out, it's still exist; it'd just be unilateral. They need us to survive, but what they need is not our focus on them; they just need our existence. So all this is to say, the idea of resolving nicely with Conservapedia was good for my own self-validation, as confirming that the problem in the relationship was them not us, but that's as useful as it is.
• But, I'd really like to have another focus for us. I think we're doing fine without one; we're starting to get more generalist, but a focus would help... I just don't know what it would be...-αmεσ (soldier) 13:01, 20 December 2007 (EST)

This has definitely come up before, many times in fact. We try to "lower" the CP profile here a bit - the wigo link on the main page is below "what some people think"; and almost all article that refer to CP are in a separate namespace (so they don't come up under "random". We have had at least 3 boycotts so far, and some or many people really try to wean themselves off CP. We have seveeral editors who aren't CP-centric at all. But, as someone mentioned, we do tend to be the first stop for people after they get off the CP bus. So quite a few new people are fresh from the trenches and at least need to debrief. It's a service we provide ;) but not our raison d'etre. Also, as previously mentioned, anyone is free to rock this wiki while paying no attention at all to CP. human 15:19, 20 December 2007 (EST)

...which is why I'm really glad we have people like Researcher, who seems completely disinterested in CP but consistently makes the site better and bigger. Thanks Researcher :-). Are there more of you somewhere...?-αmεσ (soldier) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Speaking of Mr. R. I just demoted him to janitor for his persistent efforts. Goat party on his talk page! human 18:44, 20 December 2007 (EST)

It's kind of funny...I don't check this space very often, saw the heading "open letter to RatWiki", thought it was interesting. Glad I did. You're very welcome. As for more of me...well, I actually found the place because of CP. I read about CP on Andrew Sullivan's blog, tried to find it on my own, and found this place. CP held very limited amusement for me, but this (combined with my tendency to be VERY pedantic) held quite a bit more interest. All of which means that taking all of the focus off of CP might not be a good idea...it'd be hard for anyone to find/care about this otherwise. However, I do think some focus on other insane groups might be useful. (I'd like to see more about a full scale refutation of some of the racist crazies, but I don't want to delve into them too much from work, which is where I do this.) Researcher 17:11, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah that's a very good point. Couldn't we focus on CreationWiki or the foundering Creation Museum?-αmεσ (soldier) 17:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

You claim that you are "rational", yet anyone who disagrees with you is "insane". user:Bohdan (←User:GodlessLiberal) 17:18, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Racists, cranks, and denialists are crazy, in the most commonly accepted use of the term. (Note that I am definitely leaving conservatives off that list--there are plenty of rational, reasonable conservatives who I happen to disagree with, such as Andrew Sullivan. I'm talking about some small but vocal crazy groups.) Researcher 17:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Besides, anyone that edits science to make it conform to his version of reality is pretty crazy. Deceitful mountains? Variable speed of light? Ugh.-αmεσ (soldier) 17:34, 20 December 2007 (EST)

You know, if President Bush supported cloning, then at this point, seven years into his administration, we could literally have more than one Researcher by now, and the world (or at least this wiki) would be a better place. But alas, such is not the case. So we'll have to settle with the next best thing: Researcher's offspring. Would you be willing to sell them to us? Between Human and me, I think we can afford a generous down payment of $7.62. Interested? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 135 edits!} 19:10, 20 December 2007 (EST)

While rather flattered, I do not have any offspring as of yet. (Seriously, you guys, I'm starting to blush at all the compliments.) Researcher 19:12, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Playing hard to get, eh? Well, I deal in child futures as well. I'll even throw in the Target card my aunt mails me every Chanukah as a bonus. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 135 edits!} 19:17, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Wii wil pwnz yur kitteh! kthxbai

CЯacke®

I just wanted to point out while we were praising Researcher that EVDebs, I think, falls into the same category (not CP-centric, adds a lot to the site). There are probably a few more, sorry if you were overlooked and aren't getting any glory here. human 15:51, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Speed

I presume it's just me & my normal snail's pace but is anyone else having extremely slow (like minutes!) loading on cp? Susan^{purrrrr ...} 02:41, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I do too. Sometimes I can't connect at all. Must be on their end. AdamNelson 08:55, 20 December 2007 (EST)

In my day we had no internets. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 135 edits!} 14:41, 20 December 2007 (EST)

They are always slower than RW (except during our rare downtimes!). I suspect randy andy is paying for crappy server service and doesn't realize it. human 15:20, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Malevolent moron makes mockery of mathematics with amateur mistakes

Wow I had to read that one a couple of times to make sure that my eyes weren't playing tricks on me. 1 ³ + 1³ = 1³ ? I would run that one through your calculator Andy/Ed, I think it's wrong. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 22:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

What a bunch of zeroes. (Hint to CP lurkers - that's a hint!) human 22:50, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe he was trying to say 1 ³ x 1³ = 1³. Which would still be technically wrong but also correct in an "I failed algebra" sort of way. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 145 edits!} 22:53, 20 December 2007 (EST)

About time, it's fixed. And getting fixeder. So anyway, 'bout the infinite solutions to the 2-power version, there's one for every odd number starting with 3. (And others, of course. But that's enough to prove them infinite.) human 22:55, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Technically it also has infinite solutions for the cubed (or any odd power for that matter) case; (-1)³ + 1³ = 0³, (-742)³ + 742³ = 0³, etc, for starters. --BillOhannity^godvelocity. 23:14, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I like how they stated it was "obvious" right before being frighteningly wrong. NightFlare 17:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Look at him go!

Wow. Just look at all the contributions made by CP's latest sysop [2]. That's two more edits prolific Conservapedian Robert Turkel (remember him?)! DickTurpis 12:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Turkel... wasn't that the Dragon of CP or something? And yeah, the new sysop really works hard to integrate himself into the community. ;) --Sid 14:09, 21 December 2007 (EST)

The Puellanivis-Eira Paradox

It's true that I am the person who was Puellanivis on Conservapedia. I'm female, and this would be obvious to anyone who has even a rudamentary lesson in Latin. "puella" => "girl". "nivis" => "of the snow". My name here is actually the Welsh word for "now". I chose a different name because I did not want to alert the CP people that I'm also contributing actively here, because I'm criticising them here, while supporting them there. Both done entirely honestly: "Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans." On Conservapedia, they accept a different set of sources than RW, and WP do. As appropriate, I take the sides with what the sources that are being depended upon say. --Eira ^yay! 14:44, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Relative activity of Conservapedia and RationalWiki

Looking at the Recent Changes of both, I would say that RationalWiki is now more active than Conservapedia. Interesting. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 14:44, 21 December 2007 (EST)

That's because they ban everyone who either thinks opposed to them, or that they believe is opposed to them simply on the basis of what that editor's edits say. Don't make them look bad, actually don't even represent them honestly and fairly, because then that makes them look bad. :) --Eira ^yay! 14:46, 21 December 2007 (EST)

It is Christmas time though, there's a lot of praising and bein' seen to praise to be done, innit? You aren't a proper Christian unless you're ostentatious in your worship. --Jeєv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 14:48, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Methinks that "this site is growing rapidly" may be a conservative deceit, along with a lot more bullshit. Meritcracy? My ass. (Three cheers for Andy Junior/Conservative Republican). Genghis ^Marauding 16:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I'd toss his "meritocracy" shit in with his heaping pile of trolling tactics. Plenty of evidence (or lack thereof, as with the obvious new minuteman sysop). I'd even bet if you made 300 contribs and made one silly talk page edit or rubbed a sysop the wrong way, you'd still get canned. :P Norseman^Wassail! 16:33, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Although few people satisfy this literally, I think MOST bans (excluding the obvious wandals) were overall losses for the project. When somebody makes a bunch of useful edits and then wandalizes one page (or calls out sysop idiocy), they get punished almost as hard as somebody who joins and only trolls. That's the fastest way of scaring away all but the most dedicated editors. As we can see now, few people are actually left to do much on CP, aside from The Ten and a handful of non-sysops.

A relatively recent example of this "One wrong move, and you're gone, no matter how much good you did" pattern was Jenkins who made the silly Mercury edit between two major phases of improving CP (fixing tons of double redirects, taking care of dead-end pages, and lowering the Wanted Page count). The punishment? One freaking month (which is actually surprisingly low, given CP's track record of permabans for the slightest prank). And to top it off: A sysop even restored the silly edit (although he was reverted again)! --Sid 17:18, 21 December 2007 (EST)

All the CP editors are too busy praying for the Holy Highway in Texas. (lol) GrandSoviet 17:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)

RW Hubris

All this to do about Conservative Republican and his stellar rise at CP puts me in mind of Teratornis and his stellar rise at RW. Is he yet to make a contribution? I will admit to not knowing or particularly caring, as I gave up on RW at that time, and although I still read WIGO, that is the limit of it now. Sid got it right earlier when he made the following comment:

"Damn, I'd feel pretty cheated if I was a sysop candidate there. Imagine constantly fighting wandalism, improving articles, fixing dead ends and making categories... and then getting shafted by a guy who allegedly did something good outside the site. Not even to mention that it potentially keeps up the tradition of giving power to people who may not even know how to use them properly."

In this instance CP is lagging RW by months, and yet you are here pointing and snickering at CP like you are free from the same thing. (former user Remarcsd) 203.214.101.46 02:05, 22 December 2007 (EST)

You know, whenever I hear the word "hubris" I think of orange construction barrels, because "hubris" sounds like "debris", and debris makes me think of construction sites, which makes me think of those aforementioned orange construction barrels. What's that? This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand? I'm just a noob posting random crap wherever he thinks people will read it? Oh, dear... --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA ^{talk stalk}_{Over 160 edits!} 02:25, 22 December 2007 (EST)