Response to WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer :)Edit

"Oh yes, the thing I have a question about is what's with all these women? Doesn't the Bible say women should be silent, pregnant and such?" But if this is true, then how do we explain the fact truth that God has created such patriotic, vocal, non-pregnant female Americans as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Condoleeza Rice? Clearly then, it's all part of God's Inscrutable Plan, that Jacqueline Passey can be vocal and non-pregnant, and still remain a patriotic American. The Ways of the Lord Are Mysterious Indeed!

Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, who is this person again? Is this webpage the only other page she is on besides her own blog and a few other cult pages? Once again, floggish.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"it seems like an ad for Ayn Rand without the satire. Or floggish." Whatever it is, I can assure everyone that this is very very definitely not a flog. Johnson (the LGF guy), Nolan, the Nolan Quiz, Raymond, Passey, the "Libertarian Girl", Rothbard, von Hayek, anti-idiotarianism — all these things and people are really real, and they're really making a lot of noise free speech on the Internet Tubes. "Really real", both in the sense of "really real", and "really real". (The Nolan Chart is real too, except it's not usually drawn like that.) There's definitely a lot more lulz to libertarianism than Rand, and that's not even including this "Freoland" thing... Bi 07:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "lulz"? That seems like some kind of cult language...also, I still see no satire. The page is seriously lacking satire and without it, it is a flog. is not the place to post obscure people just to boost their google numbers. We emulate Stephen and Stephen's world view. Everything on this site must fit with the other pages. Which means it must be satire with a Stephen bent.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"lulz"... "lolz"... Bi 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't reply to my concerns about the lack of The Baby Jesus in your article.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for ImprovementEdit

If this is to be satire, you have to include the following things:

  • satire, please see this
  • use "beliefs" instead of "reality" (or what you perceive to be "reality") for articles on otherwise they end up looking like a flogs
  • instead of linking to other sites about your topic, why not cherry pick parts from these sites and cite them?

Without these changes, I feel this page is using for links to and links for other websites for obscure people to increase their traffic. That is not what is for.

Currently a search for this obscure woman reveals's page is 21st. Wikip*dia doesn't even have a page for her.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


  1. Two wrongs may not make a right, but God definitely makes a right. It's clear that God pardons libertarians — God reserves His wrath exclusively for the Left, and libertarians aren't the Left. The Bible may prohibit vocal, non-pregnant women, but that's just a book-reading sort of way of understanding the Bible. The correct thing to do is to read the Bible with the gut. Everyone knows that God is merciful to libertarians.
  2. God reserves His wrath for the Left, and for the same reason only the Left can make The Baby Jesus cry.
  3. A better Google search is this, which uses her full name. (I can fix the article to use that instead...) The top results include a blog entry from Jon Swift the truthitician, another blog entry from a hater of capitalism, and more.
  4. Cherry-picking... sounds like a good idea.
  5. Satire... beliefs... erm... what should I say? Please read it again, I guess. Everything except the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

--Bi 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not seeing this when it was on Wikiality:Sound Advice
Mentioning The Baby Jesus doesnt mean TBJ disapproves.
the cherry picking part is so that the page itself has the information, instead of another page which must be linked to. Remember this is an internets encyclopedia, so every page must have alot of the information about a given topic with background or related stuff available through links.
the link to the obscure woman on is the one I am concerned with; is not the place for flogs.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Gah, she's not obscure. She was mentioned on Jon Swift's blog. And Something Awful. And Toronto Star. And actually, she was on Wikip*dia, under her full name Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey, until the factonistas deleted the article (there's an AfD) because they are looking for "reliable" fact, not consensus truth. Bi 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And besides, the article doesn't link to anything by or about JMPP specifically. Bi 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It gives her a link to Stephen, which isn't deserved. She is not on his radar.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Lord Hiram is any guide, she will be on his radar pretty soon. I can feel it. She's chock full of wholesome truthiness, as the links show. (And yes, she did run for office. Though you might discount that as a matter of fact.) Bi 21:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And there are lots of fan blogs and hater blogs talking about her... but, well, isn't that the whole point? Blogs are The Realitys. If many blogs talk about her, then she's very real indeed. Bi 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If I had my own blog, my fans would consider me noteworthy too. Hiram Wickermeister III is a red link, so he doesn't have a main space page. Why is she mentioned, but no other noteworthy libertarians are? It seems like a way to give attention to someone who has none, and link her to Stephen. Coattail rider indeed.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify again, it's not just "her own blog and a few other cult pages" (well, googling with her full name puts in 52th place, rather than 21st, which isn't too bad). And besides, there are 3 good reasons to include her over other more "noteworthy libertarians":
  1. She ran for office.
  2. She's super-egotistic.
  3. She's good for nailing.
  4. And, she has cleavage!
Now, can Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, et al. even lay claim to these qualities? Certainly not! They may be notable, but they're too boring, and too hard to nail. Bi 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your PointsEdit

  1. She ran for office.
  2. She's super-egotistic.
  3. She's good for nailing.
  4. And, she has cleavage!


1. who hasn't? 2. who isn't? 3. but you don't nail her or prove on the page why she is, you just claim on this (the talk page) that she is 4. so does Michael Moore is no place for flogs. Solve this.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I settled for a veiled reference. And did some nailing in the process. Bi 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. With no flog-like material I vote yes for feature.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 06:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.