Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election close on Sunday.

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive42

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Crocodil Tears?[edit]

  1. 10:17, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked Freeze (contribs) (mistake - cleared up by email)
  2. 10:16, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28154 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  3. 10:15, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28152 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  4. 10:14, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28156 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  5. 10:14, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28163 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  6. 10:13, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28164 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  7. 10:12, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28161 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  8. 10:12, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked #28162 (mistake - cleared up by email)
  9. 10:11, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked Heffalump (contribs) (mistake - cleared up by email)
  10. 10:10, 20 April 2008 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) unblocked Tolerance (contribs) (mistake - cleared up by email)

SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:15, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

and ed recants as well! SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:58, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
If by "recant" you mean "reverted an uncomfortable post only to have PJR unrevert him", then yeah, he's been recanting for a while ;) --Sid 12:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

ErskineChilders[edit]

Just to check - this person created their account at 10:49, then got blocked 9 minutes later. Is that a record, discounting people who are clearly vandals? — Unsigned, by: Zmidponk / talk / contribs

He created a page that was mocking CP. — Unsigned, by: Kektklik / talk / contribs ("unsigned" tag changed by Sid to avoid confusion)
Hmmm, Could Fuzzy here be guilty of deceit? Creating a sock and then banninating it and attempting to cover up his association with said sock by adding the "{{subst:Unsigned|Crocoite}}"???
CЯacke® 13:47, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Nope, why would he do that? He has enough socks to manage, and not enough time to impress Aschlafly. The Crocoite signature was for the user who deleted the page. Fuzzy|AFD 15:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
CP mocks itself quite well on its own, thank you. --Kels 11:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Erm, which page? Zmidponk 11:47, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
This one, presumably. It wouldn't show up in Childers' log if it was deleted. Besides, we all know Conservatives at CP don't have any values. --Kels 11:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
You're right. Here's a screencap of the article before it got vaped. --Sid 11:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Aha, that makes a bit more sense. Of course, considering such things as all the 'Liberal {insert random word here}' articles, that does kinda show a whopping double standard. Zmidponk 12:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
You're forgetting the fine old tradition of IOKIYAC, or in layman's terms It's Okay If You're A Conservative. Any lapse in honesty, morals, or indeed even basic humanity is acceptable so long as it's a Conservative doing it to someone they've called Liberal (whether they actually are or not). --Kels 13:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm loving Senex's work: 'Intellligent design and anal butt plague'. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Historical Quote[edit]

Conservapedia's 'Historical Quote': "Endeavor to be always patient of the faults and imperfections of others for thou has many faults and imperfections of thine own that require forbearance. If thou are not able to make thyself that which thou wishest, how canst thou expect to mold another in conformity to thy will?" Answer: Educate them. Right, Andy? But seriously, this seems to contradict the whole idea of Conservapedia, that is, ignoring your own faults, and attacking others' faults, even when you have way more. So... I just found it interesting. -All Hail Tuna 12:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Good one! I rarely check the Main Page, but the Historical Quote surprisingly often contradicts the spirit of CP, which makes them incredibly amusing. But this one is sheer brilliance: "for thou has many faults and imperfections of thine own" - unless you're an ulta-right-wing YEC conservative, of course! For we all know that having flaws is Liberal Style! :D --Sid 12:16, 20 April 2008 (EDT)


I disagree.
The CP conservatives (as opposed to REALConservatives®), will and DO admit to faults and failings among themselves, (should one of them actually ever make a mistake). And that's the key, like a cat that has skidded across the floor bassakwards, recovers with the "I meant to do that!" attitude.
CЯacke® 13:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Mister Sticky Fingers[edit]

Man, JM's feelin' the heat over his rather...liberal interpretation of "fair use". Gotta admire KTDiputsho there, although I'm a bit surprised JM hasn't just banned him outright given how touchy he is about being called on his theft indiscretions. --Kels 15:58, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

See (FrancisG) FrancisG 16:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
O HAI! --Kels 16:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, this is comedy gold. "Use the talk pages before removing images." - "I did!" - "Using the talk pages doesn't give you the right to remove images." --Sid 16:17, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Wow, that Lisbon image is total theft. But JM: "For me is fine" ought to hold up well in court (assuming the site owner gives a crap to complain... anyone email them yet?) On another note, I have "recently" been able to obtain permissions to use two separate images on RW from their owners. I'm so proud :) humanUser talk:Human 16:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Pure Karajou in his big thug mode:
"We are not afraid of your legal threats. The material is used under the cp:Fair use rights. That is enough."
Oh, my mistake it's Joaquin backed into a corner!  Lily Ta, wack! 18:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

KT gets the 5 year banHAMMER. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:36, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Bodhan blocked him for 5 years because of his name? Seriously man, you're not even trying any more. --Kels 18:46, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Read it backwards! SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:48, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
It's strange that Bohdan just popped up and spotted it like that when he apparently has been offline for a while. Unless of course TK is pulling his strings - Dance for me little Henry, dance! What a wimp! KTDiputsho may have been a sock puppet as Bohdan claims on the talk page, but Bohdan's just a marionette. Of course the block doesn't make the real issue of copyright go away. I've a good mind to contact the relevant parties my self and let them know they're being ripped off.  Lily Ta, wack! 19:15, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Come to that, I dunno how far back you've read, but Bodhan and TK used to be thick as lovers thieves back when the latter was trolling over here. He's not nearly so destructive, mind. --Kels 23:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Lol. We both appreciated a good bout of headless chicken mode. SHahB 23:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Flailing is good for the soul! --Kels 23:44, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
HenryS:"Your first contribution was to mock user TK". Actually KTD was just pointing out how TK's plagiarism was proved by the references - so catching someone out is mocking them? (It was that edit prompted me to write Conservapedia:Blatant plagiarism/UCLA‎, so I have to be grateful for the head start.)  Lily Ta, wack! 19:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, well, well. Despite Bodhan's "make it go away" block and JM's "I said Fair Use so no backsies" interpretation of copyright law, Andy just went and deleted all the images that were brought to his attention. Not bad, Andy. There's hope for you yet. Now go through your whole image database and check which ones are really fair use, or come under other licenses. --Kels 22:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a fair chance he'll get a few emails when people read their incoming on Monday! Nods.gif FrancisG 22:36, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Another user strikes SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:09, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
For what its worth, fired off an email to copyright@nobelprize.org pointing them to the image. --Shagie 19:18, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I wonder if this this is at all indicative of the fruition of your labours? UchihaKATON! 20:16, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

It is amusing watching the deletion log for what Andy has been doing. I'm willing to bet someone told him to clean up. --Shagie 20:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

see User:FrancisG (right down teh bottom) SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:19, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I sent one to the Smithsonian on minerals, and another to the nobel prize recently. I'm willing to bet that the AP or similar took note of CP at some point back when Crokie put the "don't upload from AP sources." My bet was they sent email to Andy and Andy forwarded it to Crokie saying "as primary news sysop, don't do this." At this point Corkie went and updated some page (forget which one). So time passes and then they came back and looked again and saw that Andy hadn't removed the images they complained about in the first place and sent him another email. The AP does have people looking for misuse of their images and will send out attack lawyers when needed (compared to random blogs that say "stop it please" and its rather hard to find those Mexican bloggers that write only in Spanish that JM keeps uploading from). So, I don't think the AP photos were me. --Shagie 20:37, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I think I can take credit for the AP images (both the original batch, and the current couple [Jindal / Repub candidates], plus a few others. And the Reuters photos [Pelosi, and the Obama one that just came down].--WJThomas 21:20, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Keep it up WJ - he's runing scared now! FrancisG 21:40, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

And another hit[1] - congrats. --Shagie 13:37, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

I think Andy's being a bit credulous here. An anonymous poster with atrocious grammar claims to represent a news organization whose image has "borrowed", and Andy ups and gives him upload rights to fix the image, no questions asked. Great ploy for a vandal. (sorry if I'm spoiling someone's fun here...)--WJThomas 14:23, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm confused. You think you're harming cp? You're doing them a favor by helping them get rid of copyrighted materials. SHahB 13:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
There is some question about the integrity of conservapedia in the eyes of the copyright holders. Other than that, no I don't think I'm harming it (unless Andy gets hit with a law suit which would be fun to watch). That said, why isn't more proactive verification of copyrights done at the time of the upload? JM is nearly obscene with his uploads and even Crokie's minerals[2] are in clear violation of the copyright[3]

MAY I PUT IMAGES, TEXT OR CONTENT FROM THIS WEBSITE ON ANOTHER GENERAL ACCESS WEBSITE OR CD-ROM?

No, unless permission has been obtained in advance from the Smithsonian Institution.

So, if you want to do the responsible thing Bohan, go clean out the pages where copyright is questionable now and do Conservapedia a favor rather than having us look up people and provide them the information to sue Andy. --Shagie 14:00, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm not trying to "harm" CP, either, I just think their cavalier attitude regarding the use of copyrighted material is appalling. There's a ton of free- and easy-use images out there on every and any subject, but CP is too lazy to spend the minute or two required to get and give appropriate credit, so they just swipe it and claim "fair use". I don't see how that is in any way ethically defensible.--WJThomas 14:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Trying to harm CP? No! Trying to get on Assfly's wick? Yes!! BTW have you noticed how "Fair Use" might be abbreviated to "Eff you"? SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:16, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Sticky Fingers encore[edit]

Somebody's had an effect:

  1. 23:55, 20 April 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Public domain sign.png" (Image for public domain licence tags Category:Tag Images)
  2. 23:55, 20 April 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:509px-CZ traffic mark C1 roundabout svg.png" (image for public domain license tags Category:Tag Images)
  3. 23:42, 20 April 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:GreatSeal.jpg" (Great Seal image for U.S. goverment licence tag Category:Tag Images)
  4. 23:24, 20 April 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Stop sign.png" (Proposed image for "No Source" warning tag Category:Tag Images)
  5. 23:22, 20 April 2008 Karajou (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Fair Use 1.png" (Proposed image for Fair Use" licence tags. Category:Tag Images)

Stable doors & Horses? Well done ohstupiDTK sorry I mean KTDiputsho

Does he think that planting a damn silly symbol on the image page will cover them? SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the 509 sign and PD sign are the same image, I think. He got it from Wikimedia Commons, and says it's actually released as Public Domain by the Czech government. What's amusing is his petulant labelling of each of them, in a sort of childish, foot-stomping "Fine, are you happy now?" sort of way. --Kels 00:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Blatant Bloggery[edit]

This item in the news section is the most blatant act of bloggery I've seen yet...

A student at Ohio State, America's largest university, takes issue with our professor values entry. [2] Then 40% of his comments reply that, duh, professors really do push their liberal views, and the other 60% are liberal comments implying that is what they want!

...it's just Andy ranting at some guy who writes a blog. The sad thing is the guy writing the blog is very fair and I don't think misrepresents CP at all. But CPs back-lash? Classic spinning, taking out of context, etc. Just the usual really. Sigh. RedDog 16:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

BTW that 40-60 is out of FIVE (5) comments of which in fact 1 (20%) is agreeing with the naughty liberal professor values slant. One assumes that CP is a parody site! SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that struck me, too. The entry is also about 3 weeks old. And has five comments. Clearly this blogger is at the epicenter of Western discourse on politics in education! I feel the need to be fair and balanced coming on, though - Teh Assfly got a math problem correct!!! He correctly calculated the percentage (well, 40 and 60 are 2 and 3 out of five, at least), although I couldn't really figure out which part of which percentage some of the comments were. He also used the always-front-page ready phrase "duh" - this from a man who only weeks ago was so unhip he thinks when you say "Dylan", you mean Dylan Thomas - whoever he was he thought calling him Assfly-Dawg was an insult! PS, thanks for archiving this page, whoever did it... humanUser talk:Human 22:08, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Intellectual (?!) Conservative[edit]

Crocdil's latest supporter of Expelled quotes Alan Roebuck (A professor of mathematics at Chaffey College (a community college in Southern California which certainly doesn't share his views) and a theologically reformed (i.e., Calvinistic) Christian. - their words not mine) If you're a Darwinist (which includes the creation of life for some reason) then you must be an atheist! Oh and the cambrian explosion proves the bible's right! I give up! SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Approach[edit]

My boyfriend seriously edits on Conservapedia, and introduced me to this whole mess. He was recently blocked for a week for standing up to them. But it seems to me like his head-on approach and the blatant vandalism of other people are both the wrong approach. A way better thing to do would be to dedicate ourselves to creating quiet users who go through various articles and change the unobjectionable items to make them false. CEOs of companies, the number of proteases, and so on... these are all minor facts. The more obscure, the better. Changing all of these would make the entire resource hilariously unreliable, and demonstrate the major problem with trying to make the world "us vs. them"... it means there's always a "them" to wandalize you.--70.126.243.83 17:44, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Been there, done that, got the T shirt. Sorry Bunchanumbers, but from the start there were, and still are, persons who shall remain nameless, doing just that. The hysterical lulz of the site sometimes takes over, however. Nods.gif SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Here's evidence of just one of the hundreds of efforts - have a look for unexpected mentions of prominent Sri Lankan cricketers.— Unsigned, by: interpreted / talk / contribs
O'tay! I didn't know that, and think it's great.  :) And this page is hilarious! I love it! Good work guys!--70.126.243.83 18:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
While I agree with BoN in general, I must take issue with "would make the entire resource hilariously unreliable". It never was remotely reliable, even left to its own devices. humanUser talk:Human 22:16, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Dear IP, make a user name and join the fight :-). We'd love to have you. Just don't post your boyfriend's CP handle or he'll get banninated.-caius (spy) 00:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT) These days, I usually go with the old saying:

A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats any lie you can invent.

Why make up stuff to make CP look bad, when the facts are just as easy to type? And when they deny or 'correct' them, they look like even bigger fools. --Gulik 01:41, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I am not as strongly into this stuff as he is. He actually will not shut up about it, so I told him to give up on the whole place. But I do read this page now, and it is funny. Thanks for putting it together, you guys.--70.126.243.83 16:06, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Even better than that is watching a sincere, well meaning editor throw up their hands and bang their heads against the wall. People really do try to help out, but run into the incredible stupidity that is Conservapedia. Case in point, I've been watching the Al Franken page and the talk page for a while now, and this won't end in a pleasant way SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 01:54, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Miss bunchanumbers, your boyfriend wouldn't happen to be Kektklik by any chance?  Lily Ta, wack! 02:25, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
While a hilarious idea, that fails the reality check that, obviously, Lil' Phyl introduced her adoring beau Fuzzy Kettle to CP, not vice versa. Was fuzzkettle blocked for a week recently? Oh, and back to Ms. BoN... being blocked for a week on CP is almost trivial. Many of us here were blocked forever, or for five years, simply for the crime of association - some even without ever having tried to log in or edit CP (that would be Ms. Kels). humanUser talk:Human 02:38, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, it was just a joke. I knew it couldn't really be him.  Lily Ta, wack! 02:44, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Actually, there are very few editors with a one week block (and they were all done by Mandy) so it's not hard to pick him out. Took me less than 30 seconds.  Lily Ta, wack! 09:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Has Lil' Phyl been beating up Fuzzy? I just wondered what triggered this.  Lily Ta, wack! 11:21, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Nope, just something that's been on my mind for a while--even though she does hit me playfully from time-to-time. I had an argument with one of her friends about it and I thought to myself, "Hmm, this is make a great topic for next week's assignment" =_= Fuzzy|AfD 19:13, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Holocaust Cause Denier[edit]

Ok, I'm giving odds. 1000:1. The next time someone says that Hitler wasn't a Darwinist, Andy will call them a Holocaust Cause Denier. Any takers? Stile4aly 00:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Forget the odds, but I'll take the bet, even up - - loser takes a 6-month Pi Pledge. PFoster 00:35, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not in the habit of betting against a certainty.-caius (spy) 00:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Pastor Values anyone?[edit]

I bet CP dont run with this story although it has at least as much merit as half the "xxxxxxxx values" articles they create. RedDog 07:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Tsk, you need some creativity ;)
A pastor who imported ammunition for Weapon of Gun? Definitely a good conservative! The poor man was just trying to make Russia a safer place (remember, according to CP, "more guns" equals "less crime"), but the Evil Liberal Government tries to censor him! --Sid 08:19, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Wow that IS a trustworthy interpretation. I feel like such a fool for not seeing it myself :) RedDog 08:26, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
See? The Truth Shall Set You Free! :P --Sid 08:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm sorry, but your source is the notoriously liberal BBC, which lies systematically and "finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world". Clearly not a reliable enough blog source to be used by the Tsutrtowthry Enclopiedy. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:10, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Not so wise monkeys[edit]

I'm sure I'm not the first to notice that when something uncomfortable appears on Mandy's talk page he seems to disappear. After the copyright vios were pointed out he made no further changes to his talk page but made a few edits elsewhere. Surely he'd see the big red banner advising him of a change to his talk page? Later he deleted seven images for "copyright issues" only one of which was pointed out by KTDisputsho. A case of hear no evil, see no evil and don't say a word about it? I wish we could have eavesdropped on the private channels of communication as they must have been buzzing last night, which probably explains why he didn't do much editing. The outcome of all this was Kowardjerk uploading those image license tags from Wikimedia (or was it Wikipedia?). I look forward to a lot more images being deleted and Ed Poo writing a new policy.  Lily Ta, wack! 08:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

ID a "scientific" sham[edit]

PJR admits that the scientific underpinning for ID is merely window dressing for the idea that a god did it all.

"ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself." Rational Edevidence 09:49, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Po'eD must be working hard to avoid the inevitable OeID/YeID schism... humanUser talk:Human 14:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
It really does put the sysops at CP at a disadvantage because they are so ignorant of the scientific method and scientific knowledge in general that they find it hard to maintain the veneer of science that is essential to the whole ID agenda. ID was designed to make creationism look scientific, and it takes a lot of attention to detail to support ID without giving away the fact that the science part of it is just a facade. Rational Edevidence 19:14, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Prayer NOT a scientific sham[edit]

Learn together reverts an edit with the comment:"(Incorrect, prayer leads to positve results in study after study; it's only blind prayer that is questioned, and even then unexpected positive results are often seen)" WTF? SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:29, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

It's amazing that any popes manage to die with all those millions of people praying for them.  Lily Ta, wack! 14:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Only the right kinds of prayers get answered. What are the right kinds of prayers. The ones that get answered. — Unsigned, by: 204.248.28.194 / talk / contribs
Yes, the article says explicitly that God doesn't intervene with people's path to their eventual destination (death). The prayers most likely to be answered are ones like "God, help me feel like less of a loser". humanUser talk:Human 15:08, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Those kind of prayers never get answered. BeermasterGeneral 07:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I happened to catch the beginning of James Dobson's Focus on the Family radio show (I known, I like to punish myself) yesterday. The topic was about strokes, Dobson's in particular. He first mentioned that he was greatful for all of the prayers for his recovery and credited them with such. He immediately went into what needs to be done if someone has a stroke, namely get to a hospital. This stuck me as odd. Shouldn't the prayers have been enough. What's with going to a hospital or seeing a doctor? My next thought was, of course, "if Jesus was really so keen on Dobson he shouldn't have had the stroke in the first place." --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 09:23, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Sticky Fingers again[edit]

Seriously, the boy is unable to learn. Although to be fair, his mentor seems to view followin licenses to be some sort of conspiracy against his site getting shit for free. --Kels 16:31, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Gee, given what a screaming drama queen JM was when PJR called him on his plagiarism "fair use" copying, he's been a lot calmer, if a bit defensive, at others doing it. Makes me wonder more if he wasn't being TK's catspaw back then. --Kels 19:39, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
And on it goes. Now he's ripping off the Guggenheim and calling it "fair use", which he doesn't really seem to understand. My theory is he thinks the definition of "fair use" is "can't be bothered looking for non-GFDL, PD images, so gimme". Although granted, finding PD images without GFDL or similar licenses isn't the easiest thing in the world, so you can't blame him for using the amoral way out. --Kels 21:40, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I think he, and quite a few perhaps at CP, think "fair use" = "anything CP wants to do with an image", since they are, after all, an edumakashunal institution. humanUser talk:Human 20:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

My mistake[edit]

I had always thought that PhyllisS was Andy's daughter, but evidently "Conservapedian Phyllis Schlafly" is obviously his mom. Should we tell Fuzzy?  Lily Ta, wack! 19:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure that PhyllisS is his daughter, who is also named "Phyllis" (but seems to go by Phy, maybe?). I'm not sure what Andy's mom's username is, if indeed she has one. I think she may just be considered a Conservapedian by Proxy --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:35, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
THIS is "Grandma" Schlafly's username. CЯacke®
When's Andy gonna slip up and call TK "dad" anyway? --Kels 21:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Really, what did Crocoite(?) mean with that? Is GrandMa really a user there? Or just a "honorary member"? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 04:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Known as Phy by only myself. Phyllie to most her friends and family. Fuzzy|AFD 08:34, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
No offence intended but isn't a filly a young horse? SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes (a young lady horse, dem boyz is colt automatics), but it's also a term of endearment for a young lady human as well. humanUser talk:Human 20:21, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

GDFL copyright faq[edit]

In response to Ed [4] - read https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope

Recently we've been seeing a lot of questions about the FDL's requirements for different kinds of multimedia work. People will ask what they have to do when they use an FDLed image to illustrate an article, for example, or an FDLed song as part of a movie.

In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we believe that the end result is a derivative work. So, in the examples above, this means that you would need to follow the FDL's terms for creating modifications when you release your article or film. Just because the components can be separated doesn't necessarily mean that they're not derivative. For a long time we've held a similar position about copyright for software: just because a program only optionally makes use of GNU readline, for example, doesn't suddenly excuse the author from the GPL's requirements.

The key here is that the derivative work (the article) is GFDLed. It is specifically addressed. Only the copyright holder has the right to create derivative works[5] and by using an copyrighted work that is under the GFDL, it becomes a derivative work and thus falls under the GFDL too. I can repeat myself several more times if necessary. --Shagie 19:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)


Just in case[edit]

I had never seen or heard the lord high executioner of Conservapedia before I saw this on YouTube, so I thought others might not have either.... My god, does the man ever breath through his nose? SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 19:54, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

First, I won't comment on his funny voice. Now that that's out of the way, he's amazing. His objections to the vaccine seem to be that it removes the risk of cancer from having sex, therefore preventing God's divine retribution. What a wicked soul.-caius (spy) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Wow do news organizations feel the need to find nutjobs to voice their opinion on these things? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:49, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm upset that they called Eagle Forum a "pro-family" group. It's not pro any family I know.-caius (spy) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Hmm.. I don't know why I never thought of looking up his name on YouTube. Oh well. Fuzzy|AFD 21:39, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
So, what's with his mouth while he's waiting to speak? Rational Edevidence 22:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
He's imagining what it will feel like to fellate Conservative that evening. Stile4aly 23:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
^I lol'd. UchihaKATON! 23:55, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Scratch that. I watched the rest of the clip and I ROFL'd. Oh jeez, what a voice... I'll be taking him even less seriously from now on. UchihaKATON! 23:58, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I now understand why Andy doesn't speak more in public. Not to mention why he keeps his little "Conservapedia" chats secret until he finishes, and then there's no public record. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 00:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to mock him for his attributes like that, but honestly, I'm coming to be of the opinion that by his actions he's derelicted the right to be treated with decency.-caius (spy) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
It only makes you look crude and silly. And, I should hope you understand this, it does not help prove your points. However, it does prove #23. Go on Ames, all the cool liberals are doing it. btw, was that you who signed up earlier as "orator" at cp? SHahB 01:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Shah, don't you have something better to do? Really.... like church or a book burning or something... anyway, I'm normally not fan of the Ad Hominem myself... but it's so funny that he carries himself with this air of authority and power on Conservapedia, I never knew quite what to expect, but I also imagined an upper class caucasion trying put a little bass in his voice... but that sounds like a 14 year old with the hiccups.... It's justa strange gap between the image and the real world SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 01:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Just because we use mockery doesn't mean we are wrong (of course, it doesn't mean we are right either, it just means we enjoy having fun at his and his circus' expense). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 01:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I haven't seen the clip but the Shah has a point. And about burning books, it was last advocated here in RW... Contributor at CPthanks Ed 04:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
? SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:55, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
I don't believe it was advocated here but the fact that some people justified it was reported upon. Not the same thing at all.  Lily Ta, wack! 07:05, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
The article was about Abimelech Society and I think eveyrone actually condemned book burning.  Lily Ta, wack! 07:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
People, don't take me always so literally! Anyway, GK's edits were quite sympathetic to that Society, and there was quite a bit of discussion on book burning on the talk page. But I just found a bit odd that someone would mention "book burning" to Bohdan while it was "justified" in RW. I don't remember any reference to book burning in CP, but I may be wrong. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 07:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Normally, I wouldn't make fun of someone for something largely beyond their control, but given his quick and petty criticism of the speaking style of others, I'm happy to agree that Andy sounds like a dork. I also notice that, in the YouTube video, he's not wearing an American flag lapel pin. I guess that makes him some kindofa commie, too.--WJThomas 09:57, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Andy labels anyone who disagrees with him an atheistic liar, so a little mockery seems pretty tame in comparison. Shabby, you sound like a broken record. Come up with something original and a little witty for a change. Rational Edevidence 14:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
This is going back a ways... I just thought I'd explain my book burning comment. I don't condone the burning of books, nor do I ever think it's justified (or worth the time and carbon emissions it causes) I simply wanted to point out that if you're just here to spew the CP party line, you really need to get a life... SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 19:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Some books should be burned: Zane Grey's Riders of the purple sage, I'm looking at you. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 22:16, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Most ancient[edit]

From Mexican painters - a subject apparently close tp JM's heart: "Painting is one of the most ancient arts in Mexico." - No! stands back in amazement. Everywhere else it's only come up in the last ten or so years. (Has he got a passport, or a green card, or a signed photo of ASchlafly or permission from the spirit of Saint Ronald to allow him to work on a Merkan blog? Or is he just cheap immigrant labour, to be deported when the job's done?) He certainly takes a tip from the conquistadores when it comes to pillaging. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Careful, Susan. Don't stereotype him by his name. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:59, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
'Twas intended to be the Conservapedian view of JM! not mine!! SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:23, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Vomit[edit]

If you really want to feel ill go to: this - it's been put on cp by the lovely & sensitive Deborah. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it wasn't Deborah. It was BryonRichards Now excuse me while I continue vomiting. Gauss 11:11, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Ha! The first 'site rule' is: Any racist, bigoted remarks or remarks of intolerance are not appreciated and do not reflect the opinions of the Katy Islamic Association .NET site. perhaps that's where CP gets its ironic rules from. (BTW - if you've not looked yet, it's ANTI Islamic SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
It smacks of being elitist too: It has a list of members of the mosque, which is in itself disturbing since it includes names and addresses of most, then goes on to "note the ZIP code!". Apparently there is some sort of law or cultural more that you must live in the same ZIP code as the church you plan to attend...or something, (or, more likely, the ZIP codes of the worshipers come from areas not quite as affluent as the mosque's proposed zip code). I cannot link there directly but go to the link above and click the Members tab on site. CЯacke®

Wow...if they talked like this about Jews or blacks, they'd be a hate group. But Islam bashing is still A-okay! I wonder how the local government feels about having their numbers posted on the site so racists can call and complain about parking and construction. Czolgolz 12:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

"Muslim" is the new "Nigger". Unpack that statement as you please.  :( --Gulik 18:01, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Err.. Ed ...[edit]

Come over & see our unarmed British Bobbies sometime. SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:01, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

That's why law and order is in such a perilous state in the UK. How can the police possibly do their job if they don't carry bang-sticks around with them?
Sigh - yet another CP comment that proves they don't know a thing about how things work outside the US.
As an aside, I once left my flat one morning to head to work, only to find an armed response unit in the street in a stand off outside a house opposite. This big scary armed copper (carrying an MP5, I think) told me to go back inside because it wasn't safe. Best excuse evah for being late for work. Sadly, I didn't have any milk in the fridge, so I couldn't watch proceedings with a cuppa. (It ended peacefully, btw) Bondurant 08:29, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Same in Ireland, Iceland, NZ and a smattering of Pacific nations. Still rare though. Ajkgordon 08:39, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Confusing Conservapedia with Conservatism[edit]

Moved to Debate:Is Conservapedia a true reflection of American conservatism?

Their problem with stubs[edit]

It seems so strange to me that they have this bizarre reaction to the stub tab. I consider it a valuable resource, and it tends to make incomplete pages more acceptable. Rather than thinking that their one-sentence articles are actually complete, I think a stub tag would make people think the project is a bit more valid than it is. It almost feels like it's a side effect for a political decision.... like accepting the use of the tag would be like acknowledging that they don't know everything. Lardashe

I think it's yet another manifestation of CP fanatically sticking to detrimental protocols. Didn't Schlafly say that Conservapedia was to avoid using "ugly templates" (which translates to "all templates are ugly," apparently)? As a result, any template that is not a profile-of-subject-box or userbox is looked down upon as "ugly" and unnecessary. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
The funny part is that "fact" and "stub" tags improve articles without really taking up any space (ignoring "drive-by" fact tagging) - especially stub tags. I can understand teh assfly's objection to some WP articles where the entire first screen is an endless series of boxes full of random crap. But even those serve a purpose on WP. Bottom line: just more proof that Andy is an idiot, and has no idea what he is doing. humanUser talk:Human 14:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
The stub tab imples that the article is incomplete, lacking and unfinished. Every article on CP is perfect by definition, unless it was written by an RW sock. Rational Edevidence 14:30, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
There is no imperfection on CP, the words are divine revelation to the poster (unless one of those dirty liberals snuck in) and if the Divine one only dictates two lines... Meh, whatreyagonnado? SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 19:42, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Stub templates are like green lights for vgodless liberals to fill up an article with their endless talk, talk, talk when they should be learning to write a book at the foot of their sainted mothers. <__ Sheesh is too lazy to log in

Library[edit]

Well, it's one way of "Building a library" - copying a library. SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:32, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey, is that another obscure court case with no context or explanation at all? I'm really learning something here! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:26, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

All quiet on the Andy front[edit]

Andy's talk page is often one of the busiest for all round comment. So why has there been so little activity recently? There were some posts yesterday about copyright issues but surprisingly not one sysop has deigned to reply. Not even a "mind your own business", or "we will not be intimidated" comment. I bet the word has gone round not to respond while Andy quietly deletes copyrighted images in the back office. Maybe they're getting a proper lawyer to check on their rights (or lack of them).  Lily Ta, wack! 08:33, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Usually, replies aren't given when there's no way to explain, excuse, reason, tactic, strategy, etc. to look "correct" or "right". Like when TomMoore points out this, TK dares him to prove it, and after he uses TK as an example, TK simply disappears from the talk page. It's just like this all over the Main Page talk. Sysops (and Andy, of course) just don't reply because there just isn't any way they can dig their way out of those liebrul questions. When it comes to Andy's talk page, its usually reverted vandals and sysops probably just talk to him on their SDG or something. Bunchanumbers 11:46, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Urushnor[edit]

I like this dialogue] SusanG  ContribsTalk 10:09, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

"But that's your assumption" is the new "I know you are but what am I?"209.171.47.7 11:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Not Really WIGO-worthy...[edit]

...but what the hell is Deborah trying to do with this triple-redirect-to-the-same-page weirdness? PFoster 10:54, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

It's a self-redirect as in [[Deborah]] see [[Deborah]] Premusably there should be a capital 'G' somewhere. SusanG  ContribsTalk 11:05, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

A little more irony for the masses[edit]

I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but Andy's brother coming back reminded me of it... I love the irony in that Andy and the CPers complain about Wikipedia's admin abuse, but refuses to see that they've done anything wrong. They edit war on clear Conflict of Interest pages instead of going about things the right way, refuse to work as part of a team (maybe public schooling ain't so bad) and then run to CP to bitch when they get blocked. However, the blocks they give out are way more biased and arbitrary than most of the Wikipedia blocks. Admin abuse at Wikipedia does happen, but I've never seen anything nearly as bad as CP SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 12:10, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

They really are like little kids sometimes. Little kids with the power to influence events in the real world. Scary. Rational Edevidence 12:27, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Sometimes? Influence? ?? SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:34, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I use both of those words advisedly because I don't see the remaining CP crowd as being very effective or influential outside their little man-made pond. They are remarkably maladroit when it comes to getting along with others, using the English language, or using logic as a tool, and their ignorance is a severe handicap. Considering their mind-set, I'm grateful for all of that. Rational Edperception 12:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I also went back and read the user log on his Wiki account. It was much more enjoyable than I expected, given how sadly most of the CP conflicts turn out. I think he was blocked for a day for his conflict of interest edits, and still felt like it was worth complaining about? A day's ban is a slap on the wrist!Lardashe
Barely on-topic, but I love how Andy whined about "Expelled" being semi-protected at WP. Just for fun, I went to the article and edited some egregious typos. No big deal. Oops, I also translated some allcaps in a Dawkins quote to itals and some moderately controversial editor asked me whatup for doing it (and did a lousy job of giving me a link to my edit!). WP does this all the time with "current event" sensitive articles, to block the flood of vandals who invariably turn up. The one-day cool of after registration is enough of a filter for them. Heck, assfly could edit it, right? He still has an account there, doesn't he? humanUser talk:Human 13:26, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) A lot to respond to here, but I'll try and keep it short. First, They are like little kids. Conservapedia was set up as an "well then I'll create my own Wiki." response to the constant "attacks" from the establishment that is Wikipedia. It's just like a kid who gets his friends to play their own game of basketball when they lose to the neighbor. I would also agree that they have very little influence outside of their own, [[liberal boogeyman] infested world. As for expelled.... Hey, Wikipedia protects article to perserve their liberal bias, Conservapedia protects article to combat vandals who try to insert Liberal Bias.... Everybody knows that. Come on people, get with it. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 17:13, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice analogy Chuck. Now it's their ball and they get to say who plays with it and who wins.  Lily Ta, wack! 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Exactly... I remember when I was in middle school, the fourh and fifth graders hated to lose to the younger kids when playing anything, so they constantly changed the rules and point values, including where a fifth grader once told me that "That basket doesn't count because you didn't have both feet on the ground when you took the shot." That's exactly what I think of when I read CP. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 23:32, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I went and read the RashFly silliness on WP. What a tool. Whining, wikilawyering, and edit-warring over editing the article on his own mother is just plain dumb. humanUser talk:Human 20:31, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Farewell DinsdaleP[edit]

As the blogger formerly known as DinsdaleP, I thought I'd update the comment here regarding my 1-week ban by Ed Poor for "'showing showed' both sides of an issue" I thought Ed had gotten fed up with me because I had disagreed with him about keeping a Bible on a desk in a classroom (I keep forgetting that it's the infallible Truth, after all). Turns out that he was unhappy with my reporting the claims of alleged copyright infringement against the Expelled producers.

I think we need to coin a new term, "Poor Justice", to describe what followed. When I asked him what was non-neutral about the edit, the response was "they said they didn't copy anything, so saying that they did is misleading and shows liberal bias". Ah. I pointed out that my edit said alleged, but that bit of insolence got my block bumped from a week to lots of weeks. As in permanent.

What followed was an increasingly inane set of emails between Ed and me where he kept upping the stakes for me to get unblocked, like lesson plans, drafts of how I'd improve CP, and of course, a formal apology for disagreeing with him. If there's an appropriate place on RW to post the email exchange it might be fun reading.

So DinsdaleP is no more, a few days after someone posted to my user Talk page and wished me luck trying to inject a little fairness into the site. Time to have some fun here instead. --SpinyNorman 14:40, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Please post! I'd do it as a user subpage. You might want to post on the condition that, if he asks that they be taken down, they'll be deleted.-caius (spy) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Just stick 'em on your user page. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
I think it would count as fair use under the concept of "critique, comment & parody". :) KTDiputsho 14:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
It's actually not an issue. As long as you don't reveal the email address or any personal information contained within, there's no legal (or ethical if you ask me) problem with posting them. Nobody can reasonably expect privacy in an email conversation. Hell, with about six minutes and a few clicks, I could read every message Eddy baby has ever sent or recieved (and I'm sure that'd be an interesting read) SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 17:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
It's out there on my user page - enjoy! --SpinyNorman 17:40, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
That's a beautyiful thing. Thanks for sharing SpinyNorman.

Squadron, prepare the Mockery Bombs[edit]

From the main Talk page:
"The short answer to your question is this: there is nothing wrong or inappropriate about the careful use of mockery, particularly in responding to a falsehood or boastful claim.--Aschlafly 09:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)" Andy, Andy - putting that invitation out there is like putting on a swimsuit made out of sausage links before swimming with the sharks. --SpinyNorman 19:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Interesting! But I wonder why people regularly get banned then for the slightest mockery or sarcasm... oh yeah, I remember: Double Standards, don't bully non-sysops on CP without them! :D --Sid 19:46, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
The answer to your question lies in the interpretation of "careful use". If used by a liberal, it's careless. --SpinyNorman 20:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Not sure where to put this...[edit]

...but since I know how deeply Andy cares about the links between sexuality and cancer (if we consider abortion as a "side effect" of sexuality), I thought maybe someone could bring this article to his attention...now if you'll excuse me, I have some, ummm pressing health issues to attend to...PFoster 19:59, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, without even following the link I think I know what that one is... something about milking the goat... humanUser talk:Human 20:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Archive42
rationalwiki.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-30
192118
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QTOB5YVDQATQJVW5KMH645LYXDCQQJAZ
<urn:uuid:df17034f-8495-49a6-9008-cf70c542cdee>
2019-07-20T00:52:17Z
45.56.102.80
text/html
sha1:6RUUTARHXGIRFTPQJ4TJION2J5LBQPEY
<urn:uuid:6036487d-0a7e-4ea8-a28a-70181c75324f>
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F/Archive42
response
<urn:uuid:79ec7fcd-6aee-46cf-8111-54d04b9e9560>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-146-52-92.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/