Talk:Al Gore/Colonization

First of all, welcome to the first colonization page! Thank you all for taking part. Okay, down to business. I'm liking TKF's idea of writing this from the point of view of an angry Republican trying to claim that Al Gore does not exist (rather than saying global warming does not exist). Perhaps we could try and write this in a way that draws similarities between Al Gore and global warming. If we're all in consensus about this idea, I suggest we start getting a little more specific about how we want to do this, like what those similarities might be and such. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that global warming does not exist, but claiming Al Gore does not exist is taking it a little too far. Claiming that he's crazy/doesn't know what he's talking about/is perpetrating a hoax may be more feasible. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when have we cared about taking things too far? —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just think we can do more with the article if we presume the person exists. If we presume he doesn't exist, the article regresses to a repetition of statements like "But he doesn't exist people! No really! He's a fucking lie!" Maybe we can consider doubting his existence, but all the way rejecting it may be somewhat unpractical. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, wishy-washiness doesn't sound like the kind of character we need for this article. I'm thinking we outline the entire article just like we would outline a case against global warming, only with Al Gore instead. I think that it's funny because of course the reader knows that he exists, and it's much funnier than trying to actually just talk about Al Gore and avoid the article going back towards its current state. I mean, I know this is a group effort and all, but there was a lot of support on the voting page for TKF's idea and I think it's the most promising. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But for him not to exist, there has to be some excuse for that ghost/machine/bogeyman. One or the other - he could be a ghost (and no longer exist), or a legendary creature (like Loch Ness), a machine-generated hologram, or a bogeyman who hides under unsuspecting children's beds. Or we could just postulate that Al Gore is a made up theory. If we take this latter approach (made up theory), then we get into the problem of proof, or showing lack of proof, which is part of the problem with the existing global warming article (but thats a problem for another week's colonization). – Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsilikesims (talk • contribs)

If you really want to do that, fine. But I'd advise starting out with refuting his authority on the issue, maybe saying something about a conspiracy and coming to doubt his existence near the end of the article. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i believe this can be masterfully done in a parody of the conservapedia page on global warming, which tries its very hardest to maintain an unbiased, professional tone while only showing data and conclusions that support its own side and being painfully biased. we could objectively lay out the debate of whether al gore is real or a 'straw man' introduced by the conservative right to recieve punishment for his poorly written movie, and such. we could range from the official (gore's voting record in the senate, or wherever he served) to the absurd (his lack of presence at his own birthday parties). we could even mention his accomplishments during his tenure as vice president, since the VP essentially has no power or responsibility. just some thoughts to stir th discussion. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Even if Al Gore does exist, WHICH HE DEFINITELY DOESN'T, the successfulness of his documentary has been largely overplayed, thanks mostly to the liberal media's scare-mongering fear-news." That's how I see this going. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:09, Feb 23

Gerry is hitting it right on the head. Led, we probably won't lay it on quite so thick if you know what I mean. —Sir SysRq (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sho' thang, works for me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:14, Feb 23

If I may, I have an idea here. The way the Conservapedia article invariably cites only one source on which to base its claims, this Richard Lindzen joker - I think we could write a quick little article making outlandish unsupported claims that Al Gore does not exist - perhaps just a brief UnNews item written by a guy named Dick, for instance - and then our Al Gore article could likewise invariably cite this guy "Dick" every time it posits Gore's non-existence. Would it be kosher to write an UnNews article just to facilitate this? 'Cause it might be funny. Just a thought. SIGNED --TPLN 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Selling points

i think it would be a good idea if we made lists of things like what can be kept from the existing article and other such useful tidbits. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job, Ger. I can see you're going to be good at this IC business. =] —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks. i'm extremely glad you went all gung-ho and set this up again, because i was planning on doing just that if you hadn't and i could never have set everything up this efficiently. so good job to you, too. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I really just wanted to have people pay more attention to me and say nice things about me. So far, my plan has gone perfectly. In all seriousness, I hope to see more of you in the future. I need someone else around here serving a leadership role and I'm glad to see you stepping up. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey SysRq, you're doing great stuff, keep it up! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See, THAT'S what I'm looking for. Thanks Socky. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Things we can keep from the existing article

...basically nothing. i couldn't even get through all of it, but it's all just so utterly bad that it looks like we don't even have to salvage one or two lines. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• the idea of Al Gore recanting global warming was a funny one I thought, but it won't fit with the new "Al Gore is a lie invented by liberals" theme. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tired memes that we will, under no circumstances, employ

• manbearpig. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't we at least have a picture of manbearpig in the article? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this is a collaboration, so nobody has absolute say and these are all open points, but personally, i say: absolutely fucking not. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the majority opinion here is that any user caught inserting Manbearpig into this (or any) article will be fed to their parents. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd just add a picture of manbearpig with a caption that has practically nothing to do with manbearpig that somehow contributes to the article ("Could this creature be the origin of the Al Gore myth?"). -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i think we're going to try and go in an entirely new, fresh direction with this one, rather than use any existing material such as manbearpig and the like. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Manbearpig would only encourage vandalism. He's a meme, and memes<funny. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, to reply to Socky, I think that your thinking more of Al Gore being some kind of mystical creature or myth. What we're trying to do here is portray Al Gore as a lie conceived by liberals to distort the truth, very Conservapedia style. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll play along. I'd like to see how this'll turn out. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What if there was a section of, say, pointless, unfunny things typically associated with Al Gore that features *all* of those stupid memes, but in a self-referential way? And, if the "Al Gore doesn't exist" theme is carried out, said section could perhaps be a section of Al Gore-related things that also don't exist, like ManBearPig, Global Warming, etc. --Guildensternenstein 14:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I won't budge on Manbearpig. No Manbearpig. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• invention of the internet. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. If we're going to be playing up the falseness of global warming, adding in the falseness of the internet would be a good idea too. I mean, if he invents one thing out of thin air, what's to say that the internet is real, anyway? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If the reduction to absurdity pattern is continued here...the article could end with the premise that the article does not exist (and terminate it mid-sentence like thi-)-- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

good point froggy. something along the lines of 'he is supposed to have invented some sort of magical tube system that carries information at an absurdly high rate'? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Al Gore is just about as likely to exist as an invisible data highway that shoots messages across the world in seconds. I like this idea. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So, the internet is an illusion perpetrated by environmental conspirators? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Or the liberal media. Whatever works. —Sir SysRq (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse! That's how those liberal fuckers brainwash everybody! Why didn't I realise this before? -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of Obama/McCain here. Obama won the election by mobilizing the internet, McCain doesn't know how to use Facebook. So naturally conservatives could be sore about the subject and therefore claim the internet does not exist. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I ain't joking man! How do you think that nigger could become president? It's the internet! It's a system to brainwash us sane people into nature loving, pinko freaks! I'm fucking serious man! If Al Gore supposedly invented the internet, then the internet must be part of the whole communist/environmentalist conspiracy! AAAAAAAAA! They are everywhere! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• lockboxes. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• fake dates and phony achievements. Those are too easy for anyone (especially me) to make up. If I wanted to, that is. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Eh, I think that's a little lazy. It doesn't really fit in with the theme. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Yea or nay? Which quotes if any, or templates should be applied to this article that would actually improve it? -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 23:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

None. Quotes and templates are very bad and really have no place on mainspace articles, to be honest. But that's just my opinion. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with quotes when they are done well. A masterly employed quote not only adds a bit of meat to the article and helps the formatting, but it also elicits a quick chuckle. They should most definitely be an afterthought, though. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so let's not worry about them now. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly a very limited amount of quotes (one or two?) that are actually funny could be on the article. Probably not the one below though. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

“Who?”

– George W. Bush on Al Gore

-Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i say one quote at the most, but i'd lean towards none at all unless someone can come up with a real winner. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally think quotes are just kind of lazy, unless they aren't. First person to suggest an Oscar Wilde quote gets a boot to the face. Templates ALWAYS suck. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:45, 25 Feb

Tuesday - Outline Time

okay fellows, let's get to work on making the timeline outline on the actual page something we can work off of and produce a coherent article based on. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You rock, Ger. We've got until 7 EST. I see there's already some good things going on over there. I'll do my best to get an explicit outline created from all of these great ideas. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can't improve on that. Let's get to work. The outline is good. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What about a reference to Manbearpig??? ~Formerly Annoying Crap 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An UnNews reference article

What do you think, guys?

User:ThomasPynchonsLeftNut/UnNews:I Am Not An Al Gore Denier - Richard "Dick" Lindzen

--TPLN 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great, but you already knew that. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, ladies and gentlemen. All ready for your referencing pleasure. --TPLN 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Images of Al Gore

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Wow. That's just awful. Okay, this is a list of images that will never go in this article again. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>i don't know, i like the one with the orange...</sarcasm> maybe just the karate-chop one...SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm going to produce a few graphs that cherry-pick data and show that gore has never accomplished anything, much like the graphs produced on both sides of the global warming debate. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

actual writing of the article

okay, i've written some content on gore's early life, and i plan on adding more. keep in mind this is a collaboration, so everyone is free to contribute what they feel fits, and even edit existing sections. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Al Gore spent two years as a journalist stationed with the 20th Engineer Brigade. Curiously, he does not appear in a single one of the dozens of photographs he took during his service." That's hot. We need more stuff like that. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "he allegedly took during his service"? --TPLN 19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For minor things like that, don't ask permission. Right now, we're just doing. Let's get to it! /me still needs to get to it —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I added a bit about the internet. It's just a start so do what you will with it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:28, 27 Feb

Images: Redux

We only use graphs, pie charts, scatter plots, etc. After all, we're going for a bit of the slideshow effect, right? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this. I'll see what I can find. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:21, 26 Feb

Aye, but the other images (just of Gore, nothing too silly) stay. Think Conservapedia for the whole thing. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I threw a couple on there. Feel free to play with them however you see fit. -OptyC Sucks! CUN00:03, 27 Feb

They look great and seem to be in appropriate places. Good work. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I bet you say that to all the ladies. -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:21, 27 Feb

Cute. Also, sign in. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good image, methinks. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A little thingy to put in "Run for President"

I was thinking something in the lines of "Though voting records clearly show that Al Gore should have won the election, Bush the other guy eventually became president. This strongly indicates that there was no Al Gore to begin with." -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

excellent. it shall be implemented. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks people. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

TPLN is a MACHINE!

Dayum dude! Are we gonna get this amount of backup from ya for every Colonization? -OptyC Sucks! CUN22:51, 27 Feb

Yeah, you rock. Only problem is, I agree with TKFeck in that you can't really find a good way to link to it. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the link back to Al Gore in the UnNews piece will still help us, no? -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:07, 27 Feb

You guys don't like the way I did it? --TPLN 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we could probably find some way to use it if we referred to it as an Enquirer type tabloid piece conversely casting further doubt on Al Gore's existence. You know, along the same lines as Bigfoot? -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:13, 27 Feb

OK, that sounds good. My idea of course was to characterize Gore believers as quacks, so doing it more blatantly would work, I think. --TPLN 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia editors are cruel and subtle, but they wouldn't waste an opportunity to bash a liberal. On the other hand, they would die before ever presenting a counterpoint in one of their articles. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just snuck it in as an example of the "Liberal media trying to prove he exists", first paragraph. Yes? No? -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:29, 27 Feb

That's a thumbs up from me --TPLN 23:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I say yes. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It definitely gets my approval. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 23:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well boys

I think we have quite an article here. Opinions? I think the end could use some cleaning up but I'm stumped myself. —Sir SysRq (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add another example of "Liberal Misinformation" in the last section, but I got nothin'. Also, that last paragraph needs some cleanup, but my head's still a bit fuzzy right now. I was going to say that when we're satisified, we should appoint somebody to go over the whole article and make any grammar or wording changes as he sees fit. That way it'll sound like one voice instead of a collaboration, if you see where I'm coming from. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:36, 28 Feb

I do. And part of my plan for Colonizations is to send 'er over to Pee Review at the end of each week. I'll probably do that here soon so that we have a chance to fix up what we need to. But before I do that, I'll be sure to give this thing a last read through and clean 'er up a bit. —Sir SysRq (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)