Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive239

This is an archive page, last updated 12 June 2011. 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>, <42>, <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>, <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>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

The Tea Party Will Never Die!

If the incredible unpopularity of tea party politicians; tea party budgets[1][2]; and the increasing rejection of tea party philosophy[3] is not enough to tell you the group is what it always has been: a marginal group of cranks. Now we have Terry "Coke Eyes" Hurlbutt spamming a link on MPR to a column on his dumpy Tripod blog, exhorting "The tea party movement will never die.^img" No, it won't, and thank Jeebus for that: they are the best thing to happen to liberals in a long time. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse is right, but not in the way he thinks. The Tea Party will never die so long as it gets free advertising from Faux and Dick Armey and the Kochs are willing to funnel loads of money into their "grassroots" organizations. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That Nate Silver post is interesting too. It seems that support from the Teabagger base and their fellow travelers hasn't waned very much, but opposition has exploded. I guess after all the nuts they ran in 2010, people are waking up to the fact that it's not about "fiscal responsibility" but that the bulk of the movement is the wingnut Jebus freaks that snoozed through eight years of Shrub -- and that in some cases, they've elected outright crooks like this guy and this guy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The teabaggers have always been the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party; the idea that they are just a bunch of grassroots from across the spectrum has long been debunked. Their candidates are some of the biggest losers to run for office! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, the Tea Party is grassroots, Allen West is a war hero! La-la-la can't hear you! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As a Republican and a thinking man I'd like to point out that the tea party is not the far right. The tea party serves to highlight the failure of linear thinking for understanding politics. The Tea Party is both shamefull, and fully Republican, the Tea Party is an expression of populism, it is the ignorant who are fed up with the "experts". It's all those people who either could not put the effort in to understand politics or who, like Andy, choose not to for ideological reasons. They started out as the relatively thoughtful libertarian component of the Republican party (which is not the far right) and the "Fix the economy stupid" mantra of the group was just enough to catch the attention of all the dullards and the movement was swamped by our stupid. --Opcn (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the ideas they espouse are far right, so I'm not sure why you don't see them that way. Granted, they originally rose up for economic issues, but they are just as conservative on social issues and ever person they support can best be described as "wingnuts". I sure do miss the thoughtful conservativism of William F. Buckley. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I always thought he was better speaking live than in his newspaper columns. Some of us can even remember the Buckley-Vidal debates during the 1968 Chicago convention. Ah, for the good old days. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As a liberal, I have a deep appreciation for WFB because his ideas were based on reality, even if I didn't think his prescriptions would work. The Vidal-Buckley feud is one of my all-time favorites. I met Gore Vidal last year, and he was just as hysterical in person as you'd expect. He really plays it up. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's consistently about 30% of the electorate that one can write off as hopeless morons. That figure has been constant for maybe a decade now. It was the fraction of the electorate that still approved of Bush Jr. by 2008; it's the fraction that now forms Tea Party constituents, and so on. It's helpful to calibrate one's assessments of polls, trends and so forth by keeping this 30% figure in mind. That's not so bad when you realize that fully half the population has intelligence below the median. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's 27%. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how "keep your hands off my medicare!" is far right? Far right is getting rid of Medicare, and medicade, and social security, Tea party is against cutting those things. The tea party has three pillars 1) no taxes 2) big spendings 3) no debt. They all think they understand the laffer curve and think that their advanced understanding of the situation is why the professionals don't agree with them. --Opcn (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree it's not intrinsically far right, but it shows the hypocrisy of conservative voters who want everything cut except for the programs they like. We continually hear how entitlements are the problem, but for some reason our bloated military is off limits for discussion. These are the sorts of hypocrisies that drive people nuts. Fine, let's talk entitlements, but let's also talk military. There's a hypocrisy in what they say they don't support in principle, and what they actually support in practice. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You think there isn't a huge chunk of the democrats on the left that want the same thing? They don't believe in the laffer curve, they believe in keynes, they think that the spending will inflate the economy and save us from the debt, rather than believing that the tax cuts will inflate the economy and save us from the debt, but there are plenty of dems who have a deep hatred of taxes. --Opcn (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have disdain for the far left, but not as much as I do for the far right. First, I'm leftwing; second, I appreciate that the far left's heart is in the right place, whereas I find the far right to be socially darwinistic. Both far-left and far-right advocate disastrous economic policies. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Keynes was by no means averse to tax cuts (and you should see some of his newer followers among the neo-chartalists and Minsky-ite circuitists). But that's way too lofty a conversation when it comes to the Teabaggers. The reason for the support of SS/Medicare is because the old fart demographic is a large part of the Tea Party (Big Government for me, but not for thee). Everything else they support can be described as "wingnut": "Secure the border," "This is a Christian nation," keep the gay out, etc. As for Buckley, I always preferred good ol' Uncle Miltie. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the Tea Baggers are not the far right component of the party, the tea baggers are the far ignorant component of the party, so pointing out that you don't like the far left doesn't really change much about my position. --Opcn (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your position is just semantics. The Tea Party is against raising the debt ceiling, which is not mainstream Republican politics. Much of what Rand Paul spouts is tea party orthodoxy and not mainstream Republican. They actively try to take out of office mainstream Republicans who don't support their extremist agenda. While I agree that they are the ignorant, I think the discernment you see is academic. Just ask Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Dick Durbin, Mike Castle... --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If my argument is just semantics then it follows directly from that that you are dishonestly using semantics to score political points. --Opcn (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Murkowski is my senator, I was at her election night celebration. Joe Miller was not an ignorant tea partier, and I'd be willing to say that he is the far right of the somewhat libertarian vein of the republican party, but he was dishonest and more importantly he was bad at it. Much of what Ron Paul says is in the tea party ethos, but Ron Paul is logically self consistant, the tea party isn't. He says no more debt, and no more spending, they say no more debt, but then they turn around and say more spending. --Opcn (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Opcn, I honestly don't know what it is you are arguing, where we disagree or what is your point, so I guess I will concede. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"Perfect Replicas" of Noah's Ark...

Not worth a WIGO, but I still had to laugh at the latest TerryH linkspam MPR story about "the race being on to create a perfect replica of Noah's Ark. One's just a landlocked theme park exhibit meant to simulate the ark, while the one that Hurlbut clearly is impressed by is the floating Danish attraction headed for an appearance at the London Olympics. Funny thing is, even the one that floats is just a mock-up instead of a true replica, per this article:

"Indeed, Mr. Huibers admits he had to make concessions. The ark is built on 25 steel barges drawn together to form a basin. A heavy steel frame keeps it rigid. Asked about this, he replied, “It’s much easier to make a wooden ark.” Yet modern safety requirements made changes necessary."

It's not like it has to be sturdy enough to survive a global cataclysm for a few months... --DinsdaleP (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I like these Noah's Ark projects because, if you don't believe it's real, you can appreciate the fantastical nature of the fairy tale. I look at these arks the same as I look at Disneyland - people celebrating a world of make-believe that, except, well, people at Disneyland don't believe Micky Mouse is real. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Feh, Mickey Mouse is real. You can meet him every day at disney land, and simultaneously at disney world and eurodisney. The disney magic is so much more real than anything you read in the Bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I bet you'll be able to meet Noah at the ark; I bet you'll even be able to meet Jebus, even though that wouldn't make much sense. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Landover Baptist, unsurprisingly, has noticed. [4] ... of liberals? (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember the fairground next to the pier in Great Yarmouth had an ark. It was atop a man made mountain and could only be accessed by a tunnel filled with Dr Who memorabilia. This was years ago mind, as a child. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing about Ken Ham's proposed Jesusland that wouldn't be vastly improved by some Dr. Who memorabilia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

AMG, that sounds like an awesome memory! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

My Head is Numb...

Stuff like this makes me lose faith in america^img. Do these people know the first thing about abortion funding? First, only 3% of what planned parenthood does is abortion (That leaves a whole 97% for other things.) Second, PP provides screanings to prevent cervical cancer and breast cancer. They also provide pap screanings, and treatment of STDs, which is required under Title X (signed by the conservative Richard Nixon), so yes Andy, what Indiana is doing IS illeagal. Finally, Tax payer funding of abortion is illegal thanks to the Hyde Ammendment, AND the recently passed H.R.3 except in extreme cases coverd under title X. For christs sake, I graduated high school with a C average and I'm schooling this shmuck who claims to be a lawyer, in law.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• only 3% of what planned parenthood does

What the hell does this statement mean? 3% of their operating costs to pay abortionists? 3% of thier time related activities? Does 3% represent 1 of 30 items on a menu list of services provided? It is nebulous, and sometimes downright deceptive, statements like that that drive consertvative critics crazy. The claim could be made Watergate was only 3% of what Richard Nixon did, and I could shape the facts to fit a riduculus claim like that later, if challenged. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Of services provided you numbskull. You take shorthand on a chat board to make a broad sweeping statement that actually rings true: it drives conservatives nuts because they can't take two seconds to Google and answer their own stupid questions. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You want to know what drives Liberals crazy Rob? Its Retards like the pre-evolved pea brains at Conservapedia who lose their minds over non-issues like Obama's father's nationality, calling it unconstitutional, but then when something like this comes along, they use it to take a shot at liberals, saying they're not tolerant of that governors unconstitutional behavior.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You must tolerate intolerance, otherwise you are intolerant, fool. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense; PP gives out a 50,000 condoms at 50 cents each = $25,000; then they provide 500 abortions at $5,000 each = $250,000. Thus $275,000 = 6% of what they do. Correct? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None of the abortions my girlfriends had that I paid for cost $5,000. Where are you getting your facts? 03:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You used "Rob" and "facts" in the same sentence. There's your mistake. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The $5,000 figure (low end) comes from an article about the "largest partial-b irth abortion mill in the free world", which is tweo blocks from whereI'm sitting right now. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're fucking nuts. Abortions cost about as much as vasectomies, probably $500 in today's money. ħuman 04:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I lolled when I read "At the time of Tiller’s death in 2009". He was murdered by a rabid religionist. ħuman 04:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob lives two blocks from the Abortionplex. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring Rob's fucking idiocy and going back to Andy's, I'm not even a USAian and I realise that a state using federal money to promote their own partisan agenda isn't kosher. The federal government says it doesn't discriminate, and any qualified provider may receive medicaid funds for services provided. Planned parenthood is a qualified provider who may be reimbursed for services provided. It isn't even about abortion, these dickheads are cutting off money for other family planning services. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It ain't Andy's fucking idiocy, it's Jpatts. Please stay on topic. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you're a fucking lunatic. PP provided services to over 11 million people. Of those 11 million people, 3% of them had abortions. Also, Jeeves is levelheaded and correct. – Nick Heer 04:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not really right either. They provided 11.4 million services for 3 million people - 75% of whom had incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level (i.e. the poor). 3% of those 11.4 million services were abortions. Many of the people they help, of course, get multiple services (i.e. STD testing, HIV testing, abortion, contraception).--^talk 04:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also: They did 300k abortions out of 3m clients. So only 10% of the people who went to PP got abortions.--^talk 04:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, giving a homeless person a cup of coffee is "providing a service" for "low income people." nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to sidestep a little - the point has been addressed below. But equally - a cup of coffee is a service. Not a high value one, and not of great impact in the great scheme of things. But have you even been homeless? A cup of coffee is pretty damn useful when you're freezing on the street. More directly useful than the promise of a bed in a shelter when it gets built in 5 years time anyway. You have to look at the big picture, but don't forget the small things as well. Worm (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobs hasn't been homeless. I doubt he's even spoken to a homeless person other than in passing or from a standpoint of total condescension. Just like it is highly likely that no-one he knows has ever had a pregnancy as a result of a rape or an ectopic pregnancy. He wouldn't have the stance on abortion he has if he had ever known someone in that situation. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember that Rob's idea of charity is giving the homeless a banner that says "Obamaville." Who needs food and clothes when you can be used to score cheap points? --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see the scene right in front of my inner eyes: Conservapedia member walks by a homeless person. Homeless Guy: "Hey, might you give a dollar to a man who had some problems lately?" CP Member: "Get a job!" Homeless Guy thinking: "That is what I was trying to do before they threw me out of my apartment because I couldn't pay the rent you bastard!" --ǓḤṂ^³ 15:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worked for years among the most extreme outcasts in prison and street ministries. Mine is a tuff love gospel, if you haven't noticed. I've even carried it here (a polite way of saying ye are of a reprobate mind). "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." [5] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point AD. My bad. WTF are you talking about Rob? I had asparagus soup this evening and it was pretty tasty. Non sequitur arguments are fun. – Nick Heer 04:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Until he drifted into some weird quote, NobS was not engaging in non sequitur, he was responding to random unfounded accusations and assumptions about his life experience. ħuman 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not random Human, possibly unfounded I accept. Rob says he works with criminals and the homeless and I accept what he says then. That however doesn't change how crass his comment about giving coffee to homeless people was though. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not crass at all. 2 one-hundred cupper coffepots produce 200 cups of coffee. It takes about 6 lbs of coffee ($12 at Wal-mart prices) plus 200 styrofoam cups at a penny and a half each ($30). No cream and sugar ($0.00). A piece of paper with 200 signatures can get reimbursement at $3 per name, or $600, from city, state, federal or United Way funding sources. Not bad for two hours work, and it can be done 3 times a day, 7 days a week, (from the tailgate of a pickup truck). The homeless indusrty is booming and may be the only growth sector in the US economy right now. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, they don't count whatever coffee services they have in their stats. Instead they did things like provided 2.3 million poor women with contraception, did 3.5 million tests for STDs, performed over a million pregnancy tests, 900k pap smears, 830k breast cancer exams, and so on. Also, of course, a little over 300k abortions.--^talk 04:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, according to Fox & Friends you can get pap smears and breast exams at Walgreens. (Colbert's hilarious take. )--Night Jaguar (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's Big Plans WIGO

File:Flying Fortress.png

It's actually this.

so that list, its pretty great--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Might not be the most incisive WIGO, but seriously, Ken's little sooper seekrit list^img makes him look like he's a 12 year old playing spy-vs-spy. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Im confused by the letters and numbers. oh and "improve IE by S"--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not impressed by the WIGO, but I still clicked the link: wow, a true look inside of the mind of a lunatic who pretends to be a genius. And what's with the random numbering/lettering? Are the letters subsets of the numbers? Then why do they seem to have no similarities? Ack, I can't make sense of anything on that list. - Jpop (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you you fucking fucks, my WIGO was great. Youth today, sheesh. DogP (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's actual todo list: 1) Call atheists fat. 2) Spam people in the hopes they'll link to me. 3) goto 1. The list is meaningless, it's like operation flying fortresses, totally non-existent. He's just a delusional little wanker. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot his new policy of inserting irrelevant historical anecdotes into arguments^img. - Jpop (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a red herring for his real new even more sooper seekrit plans. (Which probably has something to do with fat atheists.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. "Shy men like Arnold Bennett usually believe in cities." And conversely perhaps outgoing men don't believe in cities? I like his story though, it conveys two eternal truths. The waiter knows best, and don't drink the water in foreign parts. I wonder why Kendoll decided to regurgitate it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel like "Step 3: ???" and "Step 4: Profit!" belong on this list... Saladin 01:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, the first capture above isn't working for some reason. I feel so left out when I can't read Kendoll's obsessive scheming. ħuman 05:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The WIGO's link still works. Maybe things like that wouldn't happen if we improved our RS via WRD. Röstigraben (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rosti that made me laugh into my coffee! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So Ken has created and deleted this list several times, ultimately leaving it deleted. Why? Does he write these bits of stupidity thinking they are clever, or that they 'confuse the other side', and then realize that they are examples of his mental disability so he deletes them in more lucid moments? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always figured that he creates things like this, sees our reactions here, and assumes that we're actually scared and confused by his amazing tactics rather than being confused by the stupidity of the entire thing. Basically, we say "what the fuck, Ken." and he thinks "I've got them on the ropes now!" X Stickman (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The part that really struck me as hilarious is that even know the topics are carefully numbered, and the phases are numbered, and the subtopics lettered, it is still "not necessarily in chronological order". Gooners (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Note also that there are multiple instances of Plans 1-4, A, B, C, etc. - there seems no plan whatsoever to the categorization. How that list is ordered is a good indication of the way his bonkers mind works. DogP (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is mocking a guy for his OCD really better than mocking fat people?

We don't have 53 articles about "Conservatives and OCD", "Evangelicals and OCD", and the like. DogP (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed being Ed

I know, I know...but come on, he's practically asking for it!^img --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Great article, 10/10, five stars, two thumbs up, would read again. Doppelheuer (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate how anyone searching for "princess" on CP will not get information on princesses or royalty or anything useful, but rather a substub on a forgotten 2008 movie. Terrific. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dick called it - Ed famously screws up the Wiki with that kind of ham-handed article creation (Ed - read this). But also, that sounds like the worst movie - beautiful, reclusive woman in an "American castle"? -- Remind me to never let Ed be in charge of picking the movie. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Muphry's law

The stupidity was intended. Have a look at wp:Muphry's law:

Muphry's law is an adage that states that "if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written". The name is a deliberate misspelling of Murphy's law.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RW also has an article on the law, though calls it Skitt’s Law. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

At some point, the stupidity is just stupidity... ħuman 07:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always heard it as Skitt's Law, but Muphry's Law is definitely the best name. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverse Poe's Law

Regarding the latest WIGO, it may seem like Iduan is "liberalizing" articles by removing conservative POV, but he's really just removing some (pretty good) parody by AmandaBunting^img. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of it looked like verbatim directly from Andy, the master of conservativeness. Auld Nick (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

things not made in America, what you can do about it

including American flags^img apparently from the link. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you gotta do something about this cunt

This guy is such a fucking douchebag.^img Address this. 05:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's bad enough, but this constant burning of other's talk pages^img is unacceptable. I know CP's sysops are above their own laws and standards of decency, but to have a sysop crapping on the blog like that - well, it speaks volumes really. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What I do like about Nutty's example is that the guy got blocked for 'talk, talk, talk' for asking one, single question on a talk page (albeit doing it Ken style, and taking three edits to ask that single question). To be fair though, he was unblocked a short while later, albeit with a snotty comment about him 'considering editing'. 86.173.222.211 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it was his fault for questioning the staff^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I love that comment, as if CP's model is clearly superior to WP's as evidenced by what a failure the former has been. "I don't consider that I have any right to criticize people who have written compelling original content, because I've never done the same." Translation: "I am a crappy writer who can't write anything compelling, so I don't believe anyone else has the right to criticize other people's writing." It's as if writing is all one-sided, and the reader doesn't matter in the equation at all! Thinking like that is why Jcw is a crap writer. I also always enjoy seeing how newbies 'assume good faith' about the decorum on CP, but he'll learn soon enough haw haw. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok, here's an idea. Someone with an ounce of credibility go to CP, discuss with whoever, and explain the need for a Community Portal, (similiar to the Village Pump or Saloon Bar; I'd recommend not mentioning those two). Crap like what User:Conservative reverted does not belong on the Main Page talk page, and you guys know that. If you want to be effective work within the system, don't just present yourself as a pain in the ass. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would you need a saloon bar? None of you lot like each other very much, and all of you think Kendoll's insane. Plus you have rules against talking on the wiki. The only thing that keeps CP going is that most of you are too dumb to set up your own web space for your ramblings. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FFS nobs, we're the parodists here, according to some of you morons anyway. You're the fucking SYSOP on that shitty little hate blog. How about you showing some balls and doing exactly what you say, and what you damn well know to be true. Andy's blog would be infinitely improved by allowing intelligent editors to contribute. Instead you sit back and allow ken to piss on you. Way to go man. No, really way to go. You must be so proud of your contributions. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I know this is basically echoing Oldusgitus, but the people on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WEBSITE that the folk over at CP have banned even mentioning have to go and try to sort out a problem at CP? And you, nobs, are a Sysop at CP, but you're not doing it yourself? And you wonder why CP is, basically, the laughing stock of the internet? 81.151.247.22 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to understand that the CP sysops bathe in the glory that is Andy's Good Favour^TM. Therefore, they're terrified of actually doing something that he might not agree with and find themselves branded "liberals". Even worse, it could result in their banishment from CP and then where could they post their drivel and bully editors?

No, Rob's plan is clever - if he does nothing, then at least CP continues to flounder as she is currently and he gets to post his crap. If one of us does go over there and Andy accepts the plan (ok, so there's more chance of the rapture happening) then Rob can dance up and down and say, "Me! It was me! I suggested it! Look at meeeeee!" and bathe anew in Andy's reflected glory.

But you can forget a sysop actually climbing off his butt to improve CP. How many fact tags need to be removed? How many articles merged or moved? pah! Admin is for pussies. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap like what User:Conservative reverted does not belong on the Main Page talk page, and you guys know that. No, nobody anywhere knows that. The editor noted these conflicting messages. Whether he or she was further aware that the YEC viewpoint is enforced with an iron fist I don't know. I do know that LOTS of people won't work on a project that's YEC. Know why? Because it's fucking ridiculous anti-science/anti-reality bullshit. So yeah, it's material enough to be on talk:main. So asking whether the project is YEC is a fair question. Nobody wants to waste his time on a bunch of cranks. 13:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap like what User:Conservative reverted does not belong on the Main Page talk page, and you guys know that. It belongs on Conservative's talk page. But this is protected - so where else to put it? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it belongs nowhere but talk:main. While he's part of the problem in that he's determined to unilaterally excrete YEC all over the wiki (and nobody really stops him, although the editor was correct that there's also no shortage of ID and OEC shit in there too), he's not de jure the one in control of editorial policy and the question didn't address his druthers. The editor was asking the question of whoever is. Once again Rob's off in lala land (*larf*) 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF Rob? Don't you have any balls at all? The guy's a fucking menace. 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And now the dribbling piss stain on the face of the world has blocked the chap he reverted in the above link and the grounds?????

Poor contributions^img I shit you not. The fucking dick wad who has produced those shining examples of high quality such as the Flying Kitty Squadron and PZ Meyers Evoloved into a Pig is accusing someone else of POOR FUCKING CONTRIBUTIONS. And you want people from HERE to come over and sort out the shit you are wallowing in? FFS Oldusgitus (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't let Rob lie to you. He doesn't give a fuck about CP. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I realise that OUse, to me he seems to be either trolling or in truth he's not the utter moron he seems to come across as but unfortunately he's tied his apron strings to a nutter blog and right wing fundie xtian thinking and has no-one else he can hold an intelligent conversation with which challenges him, even if it doesn't change his mind. That's where 'liberals' and wingnuts fundamentally differ. I love a good discussion which challenges my thinking and either forces me to change my view or to at the least think deeply about what I REALLY believe. Wingnuts often simply want to hear things that reinforces their own stereotypical small minded thinking. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's getting out of hand

Really Rob, one of you sysops need to man up and stop this kind of crap. It seems he's systematically deleting and recreating just about every age on the blog. And doing it to archives is liberal deceit of the nth degree. We know none of you like Ken, so it shouldn't be that hard to smack him down, right? That's if you care about Conservapedia, of course. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's the liberal deceit?

I'm surprised the John Edwards story isn't plastered all over MPR. Why is CP failing in its coverage of liberal deceit?! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because even Andy knows that one example of a liberal doing wrong will get people talking about the conservatives who have done the same wrong. What was edwards accused of? Funneling money for pesonal reasons, Check, Fathering a child with another woman, Check, Cheating on his wife, You're kidding, right?.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cracked needs to read CP

Apparently, the writers for Cracked.com have not yet joined the million upon millions of Americans who regularly read Conservapedia, or else they would know that the correct title for this list is "Best of the Public". What a bunch of idiots. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter since CP will replace them any moment now. Vulpius (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

They actually have an article on 5 Terrifying Bastardizations of the Wikipedia Model. Doppelheuer (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Down

For like an hour, damn. --Opcn (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Karabird's articles.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

An hour? Try months now. ħuman 02:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy sure thinks a lot of himself

Yeah, stating the bleeding obvious I know, but the American History Final Exam^img;

36. New Jersey was the location for which of the following important events in American history?
I. The location of George Washington’s headquarters during the Revolutionary War.
II. The location of the duel brought by Aaron Burr against Alexander Hamilton.
III. The state where Woodrow Wilson was governor before becoming president.
IV. The location of the founding of Conservapedia.

Conservapedia... currently a website with a dedicated non-parodist userbase of about four, the actions of said users mostly consisting of plagiarising articles, creating one-and-a-half sentence stubs about teenage movies and random computer programmes, blocking half the internet from viewing it, and plastering the mainpage with insane ramblings about atheism and obesity. Truly an important event in American history. SJ ^Debaser 09:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it you've been away for the weekend?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, but the Names Database does list him as "Conservapedia founder" in amongst all the other Harvard Law Review alumni, so it must be important. After all, he's there with all the Presidents, judges, politicians, academics, business leaders... --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it's already here. You'll have to excuse me, I'm too lazy to read through the entire page. It has been one hell of a long weekend. SJ ^Debaser 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy: "I don't have delusions of grandeur; I'm a revolutionary^img and people are just jealous." – Nick Heer 13:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely there must be more than 4 non-parodists at CP. There's Andypants, Swabby, Ken, Ed Poor, Jprick, Rob, Douglas, and a few others. And this nonsense on the New Jersey is just too much. I should take this exam myself to see how easy it is. And what would CP be without Andy's insights, Ed's stubs on teenage movies and metric conversions, plagiarism, empty bird articles, the blocks, and the anti-atheism stances and ridiculous articles?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not every minor account is a parodist either. mine isn't >.>--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you agree with far-right agenda in every way, your account is a parodist one. Do you believe that homosexuality causes fecal disease? How about abortion causing genocide? Do you believe that Christianity is a conservative religion? How about how the fact that America's moral fabric is disintegrating due to forces like facts, fornication, and Islam?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And you have an account on RW.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

DouglasAdams only made about 250 edits in the past year and is a suspected parodist to boot. Rob has spent almost as much time at a vandal site as at CP this year. The only reason why Ken is not considered a parodist is because nobody could possibly be that dedicated, but you couldn't really tell from the content. Ed writes nothing but pathetic stubs, and Karajou has even taken it a step further by creating single-template-only "articles". That leaves Joaquin as the single confirmed non-parodist who's also productive. In other words, CP is kept going by Mexican labor and American crazy money. Röstigraben (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes. i do believe Christianity is a conservative religion, atleast those who are actually christian. im a fundamentalist so... yah. more or less, if you take out the more insane blog parts of the site, im the kind of person that would more or less agree with what is said there. and im not doing anything to get me banned--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And you're dead, liberal scum. OompaLoompa (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The hypocrisy. It's pathetic. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet Rob is allowed to post here without repercussions on CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

When have the Flabby Five ever been accountable or had to follow the rules enforced on the peons?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That, and maybe Rob promised him he could infiltrate the cabal if granted leave. Röstigraben (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Things are changing; this is the post-TK era. I've never had a problem being active here (I've had more trouble being active here here than there) and I'm making a pitch on our private discussion list t be more open and welcoming of users & RW users. Andy's ok'd undoing range blocks. So if you guys want to constructively con tribute, in good faith, not troll, and not come over just to be argumentative, etc., do so. If some of you guys spent more time making rational arguments, and contributed mainspace, you'd be more effective in persuading people rather than deliberately makling a point of being confrontational. Of course people react to that. Hell, people have reacted to me being here thinkling I came here to be confrontational. I come here to defend my own work, nobody elses. Not TK, not Conservatgive, not Ed, not Andy. Occasssionally I've defended Andy from personal attacks I thought excessive and over the top. And it's hard to make the case much that's been said about Andy and his family in these pages over the years has been in any sense rational. But some have reacted to me as if I've came here to troll or be confrontational. We can build a community of diverse views and users, here and there. I've always found an exchange of ideas much more stimulating than preaching to the choir. And think of (the example we set to) the children.... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's alleged misdeeds

Give me a fucking break. Ken is incapable of rational argument. Look at his responses to legit points on talk:main. The guy's a mongoloid. 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Screw Ken. Are you incapable of being a constructive contributor without confronting Ken DeMyer? The path to being a sysop, i.e. on equal footing with Ken, is, and has always been, open to any good faith contributor, regardless of ideology. Why haven't any or you tried that, rather than sitting here bellyaching about Ken & Andy? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"The path to being a sysop, i.e. on equal footing with Ken, is, and has always been, open to any good faith contributor, regardless of ideology." Really? how many sysops has Andy created in the last year? P-Foster (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob, the problem is that the rest of us would be compelled to give a shit. How can anyone but you take CP seriously with Ken's nonsense and Andy's obstinance being the dominant forces? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been contributing constructively to CP under a pseudonym for the last year. No elevated rights despite me displaying good judgment and an interest in the "project" such as it is. Nothing but either being ignored or treated disrespectfully, mostly by manchild Ken and Andy. Despite understanding that Ken's got something wrong with him, one nonetheless cannot avoid that he contributes to a toxic environment with all the sneering taunts, hypocrisy, childish name-calling, and lies. And what about Karajou bullying and blocking anyone who dares disagree with him on any core topic (his block messages calling people names are creepy)? Witness the discussion about Nazism, socialism, and liberals. The guy's a kook. And what about Andy only sticking his head up from the sand long enough to say something stupid all on his own or endorse ridiculous embarrassing shit like the imaginary link between atheism and obesity? The culture at CP is poisonous. Who would want to edit there in good faith using their real name? 20:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (original response lost in ec x 3) All this criticism is fair enough. Karajou still harbors a lot of bitterness about the past, who can blame him? But Jesus taught us to forgive. In my view, TK can be thanked (or blamed depending on perspective) for RW 2.0's existence. Rationalwiki wouldn't have seen the light of day had not TK gone against Andy, my, and Ed's advice about mass blocking of users. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stroll down memory lane

• "The path to being a sysop [...] is, and has always been, open to any good faith contributor, regardless of ideology."

Sorry, that's doubly wrong. In the beginning of CP, sysop rights were given out like candy... to people who charmed Andy. I invested a good deal of work into CP during that time and even schooled some of the current sysops on how to use basic wiki functionality. Yet I was not promoted, but Terry "I know famous people and blind you by copypasting a lot!" Koeckritz was. As were Ken "If you give me complete control over key articles, I can make them rise on Google by spamming and trolling tons of sites!" DeMeyer (sp?) or Ed "I wrote tons of articles and have deep technical experience with Wikipedia, yet I will never be able to help in a technical way, and my articles will be utterly useless!" Poor.

• Gimme a user name & start date and I promise I will check the veracity of this statement. -nobs

And later on, who was promoted? Again, people who charmed Andy. And it's not just about being promoted to sysop. Ever heard of Iduan? You know, the guy who likely made thousands (but definitely hundreds) of helpful edits without even being promoted to "edit" rights? You know who was instead promoted quickly and almost made sysop? Bugler - the guy who was openly abusive to everybody but a few key players and who spent the rest of his time playing right into Andy's expectations.

Or hey, my favorite tale - Andy promoted a Holocaust denier to "edit" status within just a few talk edits (and zero article edits). Why? Because that guy sort of agreed with Andy during the Lenski Affair.

• (a) I agree on Iduan; however because Rationalwiki user GodlessLiberal posted on his own user page in Rationalwiki the claim Iduan was one of his sockpuppets, that was extraordinarily unfair to Iduan, wouldn't you agree? Only in the past week did I discover this was disinformation from a RW 1.0 editor. (b) Who was the holocaust denier? -nobs

• "Are you incapable of being a constructive contributor without confronting Ken DeMyer?" + [long quote about not being confrontational and instead relying on rational arguments and mainspace edits]

This is bullshit. It's not just Ken. It's Ken, Andy, Ed, Jpatt, JM, etc. CP Admins have editorial authority, which means that they are in control of article content, and they completely control all articles where CP might disagree with WP. Your suggestion (and to be fair, you're not the first one to make this idiotic suggestion) grinds down to "Be a constructive contributor by either parroting the admins or by editing something that isn't related to evolution, atheism, religion, homosexuality, mathematics, relativity, astrophysics, biology, geology, global warming, the Unification Church, Intelligent Design, Creationism, current US politics, most past US politics, American History, economics, the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, art, etc.". So lowly people like us would be free to either become parodists or to write about... uh... um... stuff. Stuff that is already covered on Wikipedia in a way Conservapedia would have no problem with.

• Several things. (1) Few CP sysops write articles. Most do vandal patrol, the legacy of the CP/RW 1.0 war. (2) Everything everyone has ever said about TK is true, including RW editors, Andy Schlafly, and myself. We are all in agreement. But TK, next to Karajou, was the only one willing to monitor, day after day, vandals who did things like the Hit List (the most notorious example of dozens, if not hundreds, of really disgusting things). (3) CP is in need of policy development, projects, techical expertise. Surely many editors who have been active here and at WP have had experience in these things. Surely many understand what collaboration is. Conservapedia was created because some, if not many, conservatives felt WP's NPOV meant writing a parody of liberal views about conservativism, and calling it balanced. CP has never restricted or denied liberal views in article content, it only demands it not be dominant. Good faith editors could have an impact in policy development on article content, citations, behavior among users, etc.; but that means cooperation with the site owner, not naked hostility. -nobs

Oh, but Sid, you can of course make your case on the talk page, and I'm sure that there will be fair discussion if only- BZZZZZZZZT, WRONG. Andy will never admit he made a mistake, Ken will only reply with garbage, Karajou will tell you to search for Noah's Ark or ban you about a typo (yes, both things happened), Ed will ask you for a writing plan. Heck, consider this: Andy wouldn't even admit that Dawkins was a professor when OXFORD UNIVERSITY WROTE A MAIL TO EXPLICITLY CONFIRM JUST THAT, for crying out loud!

• You can't find anything other than Gay bowel syndrome that interests you to build collabrotive relationships with? -nobs

Being unbanned on Conservapedia implies a certain duty to at least correct the most glaring wrongness. Yet, all CP policies are designed to steer people AWAY from discussing anything controversial. 90/10 prevents you from discussing, editorial authority ensures that you can't fix things, and not immediately rolling over once a sysop simply dismisses your argument equals being a troublemaker/troll or, as you call it "being confrontational". I'm sorry, but confrontation is exactly what CP needs after years of letting the entire site go to Hell.

• The most glaring wrongness are things like Rahm Emanual still being Chief-of-Staff, or Brett Favre quarterbacking the Jets. But if you think Andy & Ken are gonna repent and get baptized athiest after hearing the gospel of leftism, you'd do better selling life insurance to Baghdad police recruits. -nobs

• "Karajou still harbors a lot of bitterness about the past, who can blame him?"

I can. We all can. The idiot handed out several bans just because I once notified him of a typo in the Bible article. And then he spearheaded the IC3/FBI complaint. And then he repeatedly poked the "We should totally sue Trent or at least get him into trouble with his university!" angle. This guy seriously believes that liberals want to burn down churches and that the rapture is going to happen, and he loves to carry his grudge into real life ...and his cartoons aren't funny, either.

• Let's not get into sysops being quick on the trigger or letting their emotions miscolor their judgement; I can tell a few stories, too. Karajou not funny? Even I was offended by Rinewt. -nobs

• "In my view, TK can be thanked (or blamed depending on perspective) for RW 2.0's existence."

That's actually debatable since the mass block wasn't the trigger. RW went public after the revelation that Karajou had infiltrated the site and initiated the first of his many revenge fantasies. And looking at the SDG, he didn't exactly look like he was going to stay silent about it. --Sid (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not according to RW history or Stephanie Simon.( Wait a minute, you mean the LA Times article was incorrect....) Yes, Karajou was pissed, and probably felt personally betrayed. It may take awhile for him shake off TK's influence. I've been telling him the approach CP used during the TK era hasn't born much fruit. I think he sees that, but he reasonably and justifiably can be pissed about certain editors publishing things like Conservaleaks. Did the editors of that ever consider asking him first about publishing what he thought, and they certainly must have known, was intended to be confidential information? So really, we are back the fundemental question of establishing good faith, collaboratative, relationships with editors of diverse viewpoints, not in correcting errors to suit you viewpoint. Sorry to intersperse comments, but it works good for contiguity. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Part II

Okay, I'll post another block to avoid mega-threading:

• "Gimme a user name & start date and I promise I will check the veracity of this statement."

I gave you several sysop names, and you know mine (though I'll readily admit that I never really lusted for sysop powers). However, you'd have to also look at deleted revisions since several of your buddies, er, "archived" talk pages by deleting them. I actually once sent Andy a long mail about TK's rabid copypasting, and I might still have fragments of that list here somewhere.

• "I agree on Iduan; however because Rationalwiki user GodlessLiberal posted on his own user page in Rationalwiki the claim Iduan was one of his sockpuppets, that was extraordinarily unfair to Iduan, wouldn't you agree?"

Hmmmmm, yes and no. In a vacuum, this would indeed seem unfair. However, (1) everybody claims to be the sock master of everybody else all the time, (2) we also regularly made "I'm actually Bugler and having a good time!" claims... and yet the sysops quickly dismissed those simply because they liked Bugler, so Andy's opinion still trumps our claims, (3) it would have been SO easy to call that bluff by challenging that RW editor to do something specific or by feeding Iduan careful bullshit to see if it suddenly pops up here, (4) Iduan's quest had become CP's biggest running gag - seriously, you can't claim that ONE baseless assertion caused all this stalling. When was that, anyway? I don't even remember it anymore, and I don't recall that being a decisive factor in the Iduan-discussions in the secret groups.

• everybody claims to be the sock master of everybody else

No, everybody does not do that. [6]

• "Who was the holocaust denier?"

Oh come on, I gave you several hints, surely you could puzzle this out yourself! ;) But since I'm feeling nice, go check out cp:User:LarryFarma - he links to his blog in his posts (and blogged about his CP experience or something, IIRC), and he's even called out on his talk page. Current status is rights-less (but only because of inactivity) and unbblocked. All his contribs are to only one talk page.

• Yes, ok; sounds familiar from last years Sping campaign. If I recall, it doesn't warrant further research today cause it was irrelevent to the WP discussions then as well. -nobs

• "Most do vandal patrol, the legacy of the CP/RW 1.0 war."

Yes, because only RW vandalizes CP. After all, before RW, all sysops had been so productive! And you're soooo skilled at patrolling! Keep telling yourself that. ;)

• "But TK, next to Karajou, was the only one willing to monitor, day after day, vandals who did things like the Hit List (the most notorious example of dozens, if not hundreds, of really disgusting things)."

Karajou only stayed on CP to enjoy the power of fucking up lives. And TK tried to recruit us into vandalizing CP through his socks. I never engaged him there, but I'm sure you can find people to share some of those secrets with you. But I'll just say this much: He helped to build a system where (1) he didn't need evidence to ban somebody, (2) nobody could seriously question his bans, (3) all appeals had to go through the banning sysop. And you praise him for banning so many... "vandals"? You claim to know about TK's trickery, and yet you take this at face value?

• [TK] helped to build a system where he didn't need evidence to ban somebody.

Yes indeed. And the evidence is plain as your face that anyone can see reading the histories, even here in Rationalwiki -- TK and I were at loggerheads from day one. It is no secret that I joined CP after the the grossly unfair ban I got from Wikipedia. I've always been very sensitive about unfair blocks. Even before the mass blocking, you'll recall Cracker or CPAdmin1 (or whatever his name was) produced a Sysops pledge about banning. When RW 1.0 was discovered, and TK & Karajou and others saw the duplicity of several, if not most, RW 1.0 editors with sysop rights at CP, particulalry over wasted hours of discussion about not blocking strawman socks, they were pissed. I do not blame them. If an editor is 90% productive & intelligent, and 10% sock/duplicitous/troll/vandal, how would you handle it? How would you separate the wheat from the chaff when dealing with a user who's wasted weeks & months that could have been used contributing content, not pissing in the wind with someone whose only intent is to prevent you from doing so? -nobs

• "CP is in need of policy development, projects, techical expertise."

CP had these things in 2007. But then policy development was replaced by "Sysops rule", projects were scrapped because everybody had been banned, and technical expertise had been banned along the way, too.

• Yes they did. And some appear to want to be helpful now. -nobs

• "CP has never restricted or denied liberal views in article content, it only demands it not be dominant."

...uh... are you joking? All articles where "liberal" and "conservative" views exist are firmly under control of sysops and don't allow ANY "liberal" content, except to act as a strawman to be debunked. The closest we got to an invitation to add "liberal" content was Ed's offer to add it with a disclaimer like "X is Y. However, liberals claim that X is actually Z." And even THAT never made it into articles as far as I am aware.

• Yes and no. The actually policy is not to censor views. CP was set up like WP, pretending to be NPOV, but WP's conservative views were a parady, or strawman, of what liberals imagine conservative views to be. In that regard, CP theoretically is like WP. In actual practice, because so many commie libs have been blacklisted, there is a distinct lack of authentic leftist views. -nobs

• "Good faith editors could have an impact in policy development on article content, citations, behavior among users, etc.; but that means cooperation with the site owner, not naked hostility."

Rob, we tried. WE. FUCKING. TRIED. You really, really have NO FUCKING IDEA what happened back then, do you? Back in a time when bloggers would just mock you from afar, we were RIGHT THERE in the middle of the wiki, ideologically opposed and still genuinely willing to help. You NEED to let go of your view that we joined with ill intent. Why do you think did we come together on RW? It was because your buddies treated everybody like shit and because it was becoming obvious that all policy would be dictated from the top, not developed along with the users.

• ideologically opposed and still genuinely willing to help

Not according to this, Conservape​dia attack, Tue, 15 May 2007. Actual article within their website:, "I am wondering if there is actually a way to disrupt this site on a larger scale ..." -nobs

All policy decisions and directions reeked of fear. Fear that the sysops one day wouldn't be the ultimate ruling class anymore. Fear that the... community would have any say in how any aspect of the wiki would be run. Heck, why do you think did the sysops get rid of AFD discussions? Why do you think did Ed decide that only the seniors/sysops would be allowed to call themselves "editors" anymore? Why do you think did TK come up with the term "Senior Sysop" the moment new people became sysops and suddenly tried to develop proper policies? Don't look at us for why your system failed. We tried to help.

• The records is clear enough; Andy came up with cp:liberal deciet to respond to you help; Andy trashed the ideology, the perp's in turn trashed the man -- ad hominems. The evidence over years in CP, RW 1.0, and RW 2.0, is clear enough. -nobs

• Fear that the sysops one day wouldn't be the ultimate ruling class anymore. Fear that the... community would have any say in how any aspect of the wiki would be run

And I just categorically disagree with this; RW 1.0 editors began with a stereotypical notion that conservativism, Conservapedia, Andy Schlafly, and conservaitve CP sysops all were "authoritarain". This, as it remains in RW 2.0's Mission Statement, is simply leftwing stereotypical bigotry. It was then, and it is now. And 200+ Archived discussions of this page attest to this. These editors began with a conclusion, mistook it for a premise, and have labored intensely to make every nuance fit their worldview, and call it a scientific investigation. -nobs

• "You can't find anything other than Gay bowel syndrome that interests you to build collabrotive relationships with?"

I would reply, but this doesn't make any sense. Explain how this relates to what I said? Or are you using your Idiot Grin again?

• Perhaps.

• "But if you think Andy & Ken are gonna repent and get baptized athiest after hearing the gospel of leftism, you'd do better selling life insurance to Baghdad police recruits."

...oh God, you are Idiot Grinning me. D=

• "he reasonably and justifiably can be pissed about certain editors publishing things like Conservaleaks."

Sorry, but that's purest projection. TK published the SDG. That is a fact that even Andy is aware of. After that moment, TK should have been dealt with. With a single click, TK had done more damage to CP than any wiki vandal. Because wiki vandalism can be reverted - THIS was going to last. And yet, he was invited into pretty much every group after that. And miraculously, every group was leaked. And TK continued to be sysop with oversight and checkuser pretty much all the time (except for forced breaks, but those were usually unrelated to the group activity, IIRC, and he ALWAYS came back as if nothing had ever happened). And nobody really had a problem with any of that (except for a few people like Tim or Philip... but then TK started harassing the shit out of them until they quit, and you all just stood by and watched...) beyond token objections. BUT UH, YEAH, KARAJOU SHOULD TOTALLY BE MAD AT US BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY ALL OUR FAULT, YEAH...

• All this evidence shows is Andy Schalfy is not the authoritarian ruler you think he is; his firing, re-hiring, firing, and re-hiring of TK shows flexibility, moderation, tolerance, and a shit of other thing you conveniently ignore. Andy calls it meritocracy. Any of you could have had wielded the power TK did, and probably some of RW 1.0 editors could have helped CP become a better site if they had TK's position. All they had to do was show the tenacity on vandal patrol. -nobs

• "So really, we are back the fundemental question of establishing good faith, collaboratative, relationships with editors of diverse viewpoints, not in correcting errors to suit you viewpoint."

And again you try to deflect all the blame and responsibility on us.

Your entire post can be condensed into three simple points: (1) "TK was the sole bad guy on CP, we're all his victims." (2) "RW is to blame for everything else." (3) "I'm the one who is trying to unite the communities again."

Sorry, but no. Wrong on all three counts.

• TK left a lingering legacy that needs to be expunged. Good faith contributors can do this. -nobs

You guys had your chance, and you wasted it. Rob, you're not the first one who wanted to build this particular bridge. Talk to Ed, he tried the same thing. And it didn't work. You know why? It's because your ideas of collaboration are "Don't disagree with the sysops beyond token objections!" and "Sysops control all the articles of interest, lower classes get whatever is left!". It never went past that, it will never go past that. This is why CP failed: A small group of people have complete control over every relevant article, the few rules they do have don't apply to them, and normal people are little more than servants who can be dicked around. Who would want to be a part of such a "community"?

• Here you are with your failed authoritarian theory again. You ghuys sure as hell ain't lower classes; there are no equals in technical expertise at CP. Don't play the victim. Even Stephanie Simon didn't buy that bullshit. -nobs

But you know what the worst part is? The worst part is that I just wasted several hours of my life on these posts. And I know that you will only reply with vague bullshit, more assertions of RW's guilt, and more claims of how you're a great bridge builder. And even if you're serious with your good intentions, it never would work out. I effectively just got trolled on several levels by several people. This is 2007 all over again. I honestly try to improve things by pointing out the bad stuff, and in return, I end up realizing that I care too much, and that it won't change a thing. God damn it. God damn you all. I need a vacation. --Sid (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sid, you're just too negative. Have you tried Prosac or Seroquil? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RonLar

Dear Rob - perhaps you can do something about poor old RonLar (blocked by TK). As he observed: RonLar is Larron backwards [no, it is not - it's just a permutation] ...and he is taking our POV apart with Larron's typical boatload of charts! Everyone wave goodbye to him.

RonLar would love to continue his discussion with Ed Poor on censorship^img, which was cunningly cut short by TK by repeating some foul gossip about Ed...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rob for the nice, but futile gesture:

• though the range block of my IP (94.79.xxx.xxx) has expired, I'm blocked from even viewing CP - I assume that my data gathering via the API was confused with click-bots.
• User:RonLar is still blocked.
• Please observe the 90/10 rule: was there any hint in my list of contributions that I ever disobeyed this rule? Personally, I think that it is not a bad rule per se (it's just a tax on chatter), but that it the selective execution of this rule is unjust.
• do not engage in sockpuppetry: that's a tricky one - when is a sockpuppet no longer a sockpuppet, but the real thing? I started as cp:User:DiEb. TK let me return, but went livid when I didn't conceal the identity DiEb ≡ LArron. Obviously RonLar ≡ LArron, and Andy knew this from the beginning: I exchanged emails with him under my real name.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I just unblocked you, 4 hours after recreating your user pages. Sorry, but I don't have a lot of time to fuck around. Neither does Andy. If you wanna contribute, then contribute. If you wanna waste people's time with endless bullshit (it should be obvious to you, by now, I do not have a fucking clue what, "data gathering via the API was confused with click-bots" means -- nor do I give a fuck), please don't even start with meaningless crap, like "when is a sockpuppet no longer a sockpuppet"; this is your third chance, don't disappoint me, please. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• So, thanks for the unblock - it may come as an surprise, but I'm not constantly monitoring Conservapedia's RC, so I had missed it.
• As cp:User:Human, I'm blocked from even viewing CP. So, even if we wanna contribute, we won't
• perhaps you have seen some of the little diagrams like these. They were made by gathering data from various websites. CP doesn't like it: though for instance the number of views of CP's pages isn't altered by my data-gathering-bot, CP always tries to block it.
• I do not have a fucking clue what, "data gathering via the API was confused with click-bots" means -- nor do I give a fuck: it's always amusing to meet a proud computer-illiterate on the internet! API: The goal of this API (Application Programming Interface) is to provide direct, high-level access to the data contained in the MediaWiki databases. Compare this with cp:Special:RecentChanges.
• sockpuppet: I just don't like the Damocles's sword dangling over my account - that someday someone in mocked surprise exclaims: but RonLar, that's LArron! Ban him!
• No, I won't disappoint you. As Human, I just can't.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevorkian not a doctor

You know how CP uses the honorific "Dr" for every weirdo with a doctorate in philosophy (or whatever)? Well, now you need a license^img to be called doctor if CP doesn't like what you do. As they all know and celebrate endlessly with "Doctors" who dispute evolution, the honorific 'doctor' comes from your education, not from a medical board, which licenses doctors. Why don't those nitwits change their own "Doctor" article^img. Sheesh - no consistency in what they think at all! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this doctor was disbarred apparently so...--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask them they said it--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He means Kevorkian's license was suspended in several states. from 1991 to 1994. Why a person with a doctoral degree is only a "doctor" when CP likes him is another question. 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"With his death it should be noted that his actions on assisted-suicide have their origins with eugenics, social-Darwinism and Nazi Germany" When I read that I was sure it was a Kendoll effort, but apparently Karajou disengaged what passes for his brain for a second or two. What the hell has assisted suicide for the terminally ill got to do with social darwinism or Nazis? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What the hell has assisted suicide for the terminally ill got to do with social darwinism or Nazis? Absolutely fuck all, Jeeves. Absolutely fuck all. SJ ^Debaser 09:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a parodist wrote that article. Homeschool friendly CP doesn't give a damn about accreditations, it's all about how much you agree with the expert. If you agree with them, then it's Doctor Kent Hovind, it you don't then it's "doctor" Jack Kevorkian. If you agree with them it's Professor Ed Poor, if you disagree with them then it's "Professor" B. Hussein Obama. --Opcn (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the tradition (or is it "running gag"?) of calling him "Professor Ed Poor" come from? Phiwum (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It comes from TK blowing smoke up the asses of what underwheming and ironically arrogant manchildren he could keep under his thumb at CP. TK collected Ed Poor for his little bestiary of distinctly unpleasant people specifically for Ed's self-entitlement heaped atop a bedrock of spinelessness and thorough mediocrity and topped with a dollop of hair trigger violence. Geoffrey Plourde was another creature in the collection, his lack of charm or talent, like Ed's, leading one to wonder just what anyone ever saw in him. 02:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevorkian's no doctor; he is a piece of shit murderer. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice argument by assertion. "Kervorkian is X, therefore he is not Y. Because I say so." Junggai (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@CPEditor, so if anyone does something I don't like and disagre with I can now discard any and all qualifications he may have obtained, because I say so. Excellent way to go there. If you REALLY don't see the kind of idiotic rod you are fashioning for your own back there then I pity you. Dr Kevorkian helped desperately ill people to fullfill their own wishes to have a dignified death. You, however, would force those same people to carry on living no matter how much they wanted not to and no matter how much pain or discomfort they were in. I have to say I think that I suspect that I know which out of the two of you, Kevorkian and yourself, is the true piece of shit. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather impressed at the way Karajerk managed to shoehorn Darwinism and the Nazis into his MPR dribble. --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Kevorkian is a murderer is not a mere assertion; it's been proven in a court of law. We're not talking about a legal abortion, or really even assisted suicide here. The second one crosses that boundary where he or she, in contravention of the laws of the land, actively ends the life of someone else (as opposed to merely providing opportunity - assisted suicide) that makes one a murderer. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks and you know it. Fully informed consent was obtained from the person who Kevorkian assisted. Are you now saying that the fully informed consent of a fuilly rational person is of no import in the slightest? If so then it is the law that is wrong and not the person who assists an ill person to carry out their deeply held wishes. I guess that for you the individual choice of someone to carry out an act which harms no-one but themselves, with or without assistance, is of no import at all? So you support unlimited intervention, by government or by any other body, in an individuals private life and choices then do you? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether Kevorkian is a good person or a bad person is irrelevant. Whether he broke the law or not is irrelevant. He did the academic work necessary for an MD and the additional work necessary to become a physician. To ConservapediaEditor: Do you not see something slightly odd with the insistence that Kevorkian doesn't deserve the title "Dr.", but, oh, let's say, Josef Mengele^img does? Care to distinguish how it is that Kevorkian's bad actions rise to the occasion of nullifying his title, but Mengele is different? Phiwum (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Kevorkian was a good or bad person, I never met him and have only his public utterances to go on concerning his motives. What I do know is that a lot of wingnuts think that the government, or any other body except their church, should have no say on 'their' individual liberties. Right up until it bangs into one of what they regard as one of their all too often church related dictats. At that point all their deeply held beliefs in individual liberties fly out of their metaphorical windows and noone is allowed any freedom at all and we all have to conform to their tedious moral dictats.

Should I chose to have someone nail my penis to a board with my consent and he wants to do it then it is, quite frankly, of no fucking concern to the government, nor any tedious religious moron or wingnut conservative who happens to find my preferences offensive. Kevorkian had fully informed consent. There appears to have been no form of coercion involved in any way. As such it really doesn't matter what sad little people think. He and his patient should have been entitled to do whatever they wanted.

And I don't want you or anyone else to nail my penis to any boards, I refer of course to wp:operation spanner. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidently, the "Dr." title was added^img to the Mengele article by one of the most well-respected contributors to Conservapedia, the famed debater, noted satirist and nutritionist Conservative himself! Well, a stopped watch and all. Mengele was a doctor, just as Kevorkian was. Phiwum (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Mengele apparently does not deserve the title doctor, since his degrees were revoked in 1964 (posthumously). At least, several sources say so (Google for "Josef Mengele revoked degree"), but I couldn't find any that I regarded as unquestionably reliable. Curiously, Conservapedia once said as much and that's how I came to search for information on his revoked degree. Of course, we can question whether degrees ought to be revokable because the person is bad and whether a person posthumously loses the right to an honorific title like this. Phiwum (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How long will it take to correct the spelling of his name from "Kervorkian" to "Kevorkian" on MPR?71.169.144.116 (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Right? Misspelling a proper name is pretty bad. But this all is another (good) example of how CP editors don't have principles, they decide things in the moment. They are relativists. Say anything, do anything, decide anything, based upon the exigencies of a situation. "Did he assist with suicide? Then he's not a doctor. But Dr. Laura for certain is because she says things I like. Dr. Mengele? Well, he was never brought before a medical board and de-licensed, and he was actively practicing at the time he died." The theory of relativity may be liberal, but relativism is owned by the conservatives. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The shenanigans at Conservapedia are not indicative of conservative thought generally. I don't regard either of these two artificial political divisions as any more or less prone to ad hoc thinking or casuistry. (And, generally speaking, moral subjectivism and relativism is more closely aligned with liberal philosophies than conservative philosophies, but of course you didn't mean relativism so much as hypocrisy and casuistry.) Phiwum (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Relativism is practiced by both sides, it's just that with conservatives it is more drastically practiced. What goes on at CP is an extreme example, but look at the "mainstream" political candidates. Gingrich decries moral decay while divorcing wives (one with cancer), and he still gets support from the 'family values' crowd. Look at Mitt Romney trying to talk around Romneycare, making intrinsically relativist arguments. Look at conservatives on the budget. American conservatives are relativists, it's just that on CP they are acutely reltavist. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of that is relativism, really, but this sort of semantic distinction is, I suppose, beside the point. Phiwum (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From WP: "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration." Pretty much everything I described above falls in with that. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and casuistry are not relativism. Relativism is the view that what's right for you is right for you. What's going on here is special pleading (This is wrong, but there are special circumstances in my case) or simply willful ignorance (This would be wrong if I thought about it, so I won't think about it). You should not confuse irrational or inconsistent ethical judgments with a particular (meta-)ethical position. Phiwum (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

After Kevorkian had his medical license revoked, he was as much of a doctor as your weed dealer is a pharmacist. You may not like that, but medical doctors require licensure in the United States. This of course is not a requirement for doctors of philosophy, but so long as the government licenses medical doctors, they have the ability through cause to take that honorific way, just like if you were caught having had plagiarized your thesis your school would strip you of your PhD and then you'd be lying if you said you were still a doctor. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC) He wasn't stripped of his MD, his license was suspended. He still has his MD. He was as much of a doctor as the old retired doctor who lives down the way, or the med school graduate who is just starting his internship, both of whom are still doctors. He would be lying if he said he was still a practicing physician, but not to say that he is still a doctor. --Opcn (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AugustO

Just want to record his last^img few^img posts on CP, because pointing out the blindingly obvious, especially Ken's douche-bag attempts to cover his tracks, is punishable by death. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Aschlafly will be grateful when AugustO gets blocked by one of his underlings: he once promised to answer^img to a couple of August's comments, but naturally. a blocked editor can't expect an answer larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Still alive - and kicking^img! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

More Chuckarse "wisdom"

Terry has done it this time with his latest linkspam -- he's combined his favorite topics (the debt ceiling and Israel) into one giant pile of WTF?! This is worse than even your average Michael Snyder rant. The next Yom Kippur War is imminent, which will cause a debt default! I also like the part about the Arabs dumping US treasuries to buy up Greek debt -- Jebus, this guy can't actually take his own "investment" advice otherwise he'd be out on the street. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)" is not how you refer to a former governor. The "(R-AK)"-type tag is for senators and representatives. Also, what's with that blog jumping all over my screen while I try to read it? Is it just me? ħuman 03:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fucking idiot. The lion's share of our debt was run up by Nixon (by turning Johnson's Viet Nam into a monster), Reagan, and Bush II. bet he wasn't yelling about it then. Oh, I remember what Repugs were saying during the Reagan Debtfest... comparing it to a mortgage relative to annual income. Yeah. ħuman 03:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a republican thing, but I see governors with (R-state) all the time. Though up here Sister Sarah is often (R-quitter) --Opcn (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, now he's just randomly combining right-wing memes. Here's an idea for your next article, Terry: write about the impending imposition of Sharia Law and its effect on US sovereign debt. I'm sure there's something in all those restrictions on loaning money that you can latch on to. Röstigraben (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess the appropriate phrasing would be "former Republican governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin" "doesn't know shit about anything". The (party)-(state) thing is for when we say "Senator Flugbrush (XK-CD)" as a quick identifier. ħuman 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well like senators and congressmen there are a lot of governors. They do it for Arnie and Haley and Patterson --Opcn (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As a foreign devil the (party-state) thing makes sense to me for any group of politicians who can be mostly relied upon to act in a partisan fashion. There are 100 senators, that's too many to recognise them all by name. Even 50 governors is asking too much. I presume the rule of thumb is something like "if the reader might not know which state this politician is from, we will indicate the state and party affiliation". I can see leaving the label on for a professional politician who just lost office. But as I understand it Palin is no longer a politician, she's now a TV pundit. If she needs a label it's "Fox". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin (MILF-AK) --Opcn (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL

Anyone else seen this?^img 166.248.65.236^img (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's that article some spammer kept trying to create here right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lame parody is lame. --Opcn (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fail. DMorris2 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DMorris -- if only it had flying kitties. Then it would be encyclopedic. P-Foster (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP that posted this thread was the same IP that created the article; I had Karajou look into it. DMorris2 (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't do stuff like that. It's creepy. Would you want someone following you around exposing you for all your cheerleader trolling? 12:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy On Higher Education

He quotes the following^img:

"Not surprisingly, given ... a widespread lack of academic rigor, about a third of students failed to demonstrate significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing ability."

In fact, I can think of a college graduate who is lacking in all three of those areas. Although, I don't think this person has "no good job opportunities" because of "liberal professors". Seriously though, Andy has no one to blame for his lack of success than himself. He was born extremely privileged, has two Ivy League degrees and great connections through his mother. The fact that he is "teaching" kids in a church basement is his own fault. Oh, and I like how he calls these students "clueless", yet has a degree from Harvard and Princeton and brags about the colleges his students were accepted to^img.--Night Jaguar (talk) 06:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how well graduates from overtly Christian colleges do in these categories. Students who was homeschooled and then delivered straight to Liberty University will not only have suffered neglect, but active suppression of their critical thinking skills. Röstigraben (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy isn't a terrible writer, most of the homeschoolers aren't either. They do lack complex reasoning and critical thinking skills however. --Opcn (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's writing tends to be either awkward/confusing or very simplistic. He also uses the same phrases over and over and over again ('Give it up, liberals', Godspeed, open mind, liberal claptrap, etc.). --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My point being that he string sentence coherent muffled crops of, talent, to, her. --Opcn (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As a person with only a BA, and not in English, I feel perfectly secure saying that Andy is a really, really poor writer. His spelling is weak, and he confuses homophones often. He phrases things in such awkward ways, usually obscuring what his point is. He leaves out important parts of his train of thought, giving the impression that his responses are non sequiturs. If someone with his writing skills applied for any job that I was involved in hiring for, I would toss it out. -Lardashe

It is worth mentioning that I am a terrible writer (or rather I have terrible writing mechanics) so maybe my bar is too low. The spelling is something that doesn't phase me, however when I compare what Andy writes to what Ken writes Andy looks okay. I tend to think that Andy's disjointed writing is not the result of lack of writing ability but rather the lack of thinking ability. He cannot think his way through an entire thought in a discussion, because it will rbing him to things that he knows are unthinkable. When you take him off topic, like to one of his lessons, he tends not to look so disjointed. --Opcn (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's his lack of critical reasoning skills, but it's also his disinterest in trying to persuade others because he thinks his ideas are so obviously right that only fools will lose all credibility by denying his insights. So, he expends little effort in writing persuasive thoughts, and rarely addresses or acknowledges valid, differing points of view. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

i propose a drinking game

every time you see the word athiest or liberal on a article you must take a drink, and it must be a long article ^{— Unsigned, by: Mikalos209 / talk / contribs}

You just want to kill us, don't you? ~SuperHamster Talk 02:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As soon as the downtime is over we all drink our selves blind. --Opcn (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

what downtime--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to get a page to load on CP in hours. Downforeveryone.com told me it was probably down for everyone. --Opcn (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

iu havent had any problems at all--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to view a CP in months. Whaaaaaaa. Crybabies, try heroin, it's a more respectable addiction. ħuman 03:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well if you can get it check the Paul Revere page, I'll bet that they've changed it to reflect Palin's insight. --Opcn (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Didya get this idea from the article aboout Weiner's weiner today? didn't he propose somekinda drinking game, too? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can narrow it down to "fat atheists," though that would probably still kill a number of livers. Speaking of which, there is an MPR story on atheists and no reference to obesity. CP is slipping up! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Drink when ever atheism comes up with out obesity or animal pictures? --Opcn (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DrinkingGame TVtropes mate--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How about every time Chucky link whores on the main page right and the rest of the sysops don't show enough integrity in their own beloved "encyclopedia" to stop him? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How the fuck did you people make it through college? How are you not dead from alcohol poisoning? The point of a drinking game is to drink when something common but not constant happens, not to drink when ever anything happens. That's like a drinking game where you drink when ever the cursor blinks! --Opcn (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Drink when the cursor blinks?! That's a fantasic idea! Carlaugust (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My CBM 64 emulator has been up on the top left of my screen without being touched for a good few hours now, but I’ve followed your suggestion (and why wouldn’t I? It was pretty groovy as suggestions go.). If it really has to be this way then goodbye liver and goodbye world and I just hope it doesn’t hurt. My life was richer because of the Conservative Bible Project. But only for the great lulz. JumboWhales (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

the one state solution to the Israel problem

is the best^imgnever mind the Palestinian birthrate would quickly turn Israel into a minority-Jewish country--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what they mean... --85.182.145.82 (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They want the biblical borders back for the jews, and only the jews, they want to be done with the palestinians, they just need some sort of solution, a final solution to their racial problems... They think that biblical borders will bring on the end of days. --Opcn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds like the views of a certain Gefreiter of the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment. CS Miller (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since we're going to divide land based on biblical borders, I call dibs on the old Persian Empire. Carlaugust (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, am I Roman or Germanic? --85.182.145.82 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty surprising coming from Coke Eyes, because the "one state solution" is something advocated by anti-Zionists. Who advocates a one-state? Qaddafi. Stephen Walt writing on Foreign Policy outlined the two paths:

Down one road is a viable two-state solution that will guarantee Israel's democratic and Jewish character, satisfy Palestinian national aspirations, remove the stigma of looming apartheid, turn the 2007 Arab Peace Plan into a reality and ensure Israel's acceptance in the region, facilitate efforts to contain Iran, and ultimately preserve the Zionist dream. Down another road lies the folly of a "greater Israel," in which a minority Jewish population tries to permanently subjugate an eventual Arab majority, thereby guaranteeing endless conflict, accelerating the gradual delegitimization of Israel in the eyes of the rest of the world, handing Iran a potent wedge issue, and making the United States look deeply hypocritical whenever it talks about self-determination and human rights.

Clearly the one advocated by Coke Eyes will lead to endless war, which I think is perfectly okay to the evangelicals - more of our tax money fighting other people's religious wars as a proxy for a Christian war. These people's bloodlust will never be quenched. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry may have been reading too much Niall Ferguson, or another one of these apologists for empire. I get the sense that he believes that under the wise and beneficent rule of more-developed peoples, the less-developed Arabs will be able to "catch up" on the developmental scale. P-Foster (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel: The new bearer of the White Man's Burden. Everyone knows only leftist anti-Semites like Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger oppose the Israeli empire. Come on Chuckarse, just call us self-hating Jews already. This bullshit would be insulting if it weren't so pathetically idiotic. Or, as Chuckarse's Big Boy Jammies video would put it: "Kish mir in tuchus!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

More VomitBottom link-whoring

BHO is like a character from Atlas Shrugged.^img --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I was just going to write a post about this. Coke Eyes is on an Ayn Rand kick - this Atlas Shrugged thing is so overplayed, and I love how anyone still talks about people "Going Galt" and trying to harm the economy by not making a lot of money. One of the dumbest fantasies of the wingnuts. Coke Eyes desperate dreams come through in his writing:

So people reading Atlas Shrugged ask, not who is John Galt, but where is he? One may wonder how much more time will pass before someone says, “I am he! I will stop the motor of the world!”

Just...ugh. The only thing I like about Coke Eyes is that he is wrong about everything. All the time. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Even better, he links to a fluoride conspiracy site. Oh boy, I'm a real John Bircher now, look out ya commies! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you all read his linkwhoring site? Why??--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he is a classic fundamentalist Christian goldbugging nobody wingnut with a tragic name and bulging crazy Coke Eyes, I dunno. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Better than the latest about fat atheists from CP. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but the difference is we are not indirectly giving CP any money by reading their tripe through hit counts. Its one thing to read, its another to support, even indirectly, falsehoods and misinformation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone should make a capturebot for his blog or something. Doppelheuer (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a thing. Capturebot is only allowed to look at CP and my ass. But anyway, sans the pictures they steal the CP stuff we use is licensed and in any event fair use. The advertising and other images on Terry H's blog wouldn't be fair use at all; they'd be collateral damage to an overbroad grab. 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How did Iduan get away with this?

and why didn't anyone WIGO it?^img He turned a ridiculous mound of garbage into something that's almost passable --Opcn (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, they are slowly putting back in the propaganda^img. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken Demyer = mutant

He usually tries making at least one point in these essays, as hard as it sometimes is to discern, but I can't tell what that point is in this shit stain.^img It's even more disjointed than usual because it assumes special knowledge of codes Ken invented to stand for lies he concocted to prop up his unique worldview. I follow CP, and in particular Ken's idiocy, several times a week, so I like to think I'm not a complete stranger to this kind of cretinism but this one has me stumped. PZ Myers trimmed his beard so he looks like Ken Ham but both he and Richard Dawkins don't debate creationists and therefore lack machismo. Something intellectual bunny hole debate some second rate loudmouth something. And Dawkins is a coward. Who was waiting so anxiously for PZ Myers to "look like" Ken Ham that it's "finally" hapened and doesn't this mean Ham is now morbidly obese and therefore likely an atheist? 13:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been said before -- this guy needs help, and Andy is not doing him or himself any favors by letting him use CP as a way to chronicle his descent into madness. P-Foster (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no point to this, he simply trying to goad Myers into linking to him, which he doesn't do any way. Basically he is trying yet again at a bit of SEO or getting some traffic in to prevent the stagnation on the horizon. Someone will pick this up and point to it validating this strategy in his own mind. - π 13:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Like this talk page. Seriously, why do we keep mentioning this stuff? It be one thing if Ken came up with new and original weirdness, but he just keeps repeating the same childish tripe ad nauseam. We all read it before with cats and bears and Spanish mean in tights, why give the same ol' shit attention again? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken, come out of your intellectual bunnyhole and debate... well, er, anyone. Or use your actual name rather than one of your variety of pseudonyms. Or leave your basement. Or just get help for whatever mental disorder it turns out you have. Whichever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

for those who havent gotten to see it

Andy talking about how liberal building codes killed the WTC at 9/11 just for those who havent gotten to enjoy it. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

enjoy the bit about how asbestos would have saved them. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He truly has an awful speaking voice. No cadence, no rhythm, just monotone and guttural. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok so its liberals fault that 9/11/ happened. Lets ignore advance notice from the CIA, and blame liberals concerns about asbestos and cancer, when the real issue is ABORTION and cancer...--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Man, and all this time I thought it was Clinton's fault! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't wait to listen this! Let me just bring it up, put in my headphones, and strap in. This is really going to be aweso*zzzZZZzzzZZZzzz* Carlaugust (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Update from about 28 minutes in: This is by far the most boring thing I've ever heard, seen, done, or eaten. And I'm an actuary, for goat's sake! Carlaugust (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I see why he did so badly in the primaries, he has no presence, no emotion to his speaking style, which is monotone and very boring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There are people who deny that Asbestos is dangerous? Really? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

When a product that is the center of a multi-billion dollar industry is found to be dangerous it is remarkable the way they can find someone that is will to say that the evidence is inconclusive and nothing should be done to regulate it. - π 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They should prove their faith in that statement by inhaling it for 10 minutes. They would soon change their minds. - Jpop (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

10 minutes? That's like having one hand X-ray'd to prove radiation isn't dangerous. Nobody would ever have started using (let alone mining) asbestos if breathing the dust for 10 minutes lead to obvious health problems. Asbestos dust is a carcinogen, like tobacco smoke. One breath could cause cancer, but statistically it doesn't show up without long term exposure. You don't have to be crazy or ignorant to think that the outright bans might have been an overreaction, just as they were with Thalidomide (now a successful drug with several applications -- just don't prescribe it to pregnant women). None of which changes the fact that nobody designs skyscrapers to survive being hit by an airliner 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Skyscrapers are designed to withstand an airline crash as was the WTC. Just not a 767 fully fueled. Not a architect, just slept at a Holiday Inn --193.200.150.152 (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking "plane" rather than airliner? Crashing a little GA plane like a Cessna into a tower is a perfectly reasonable thing to plan for, and has even happened once in a while, but an airliner is something else. A 767-200 isn't even an especially big airliner. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To the OP, video is (now) private. Did anyone hijack it and repost it elsewhere? I have some time planned this week to listen to Andy drone on and on and on... ħuman 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere/Sarah Palin edit war

This minor skirmish appears to have subsided, with the usual victim, historical fact, left bleeding on the field of battle:

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Paul_Revere&action=history

Someone smarter than me can make this into a WIGO. I hope I haven't pointed out parody, but it's so hard to tell any more. -Simple (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt is such an idiot^img. Why would you remove a source, even if you think it unnecessary? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did so because the changes are all about the next president, Palin. She made a gaffe and the libtards go ballistic. They love to hide from Obama's numerous gaffes, highlight Palin's gaffes. The source was the liberal NYT. The IP was Canada. Enough said.--70.239.14.220 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Classic "Let's change reality to fit our facts, rather than change our facts to fit reality" Theory. Carlaugust (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, facts are just liberal deceit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is excellent. About the last thing I want is CP to try to get their facts correct and their principles consistent; the site works much, much better when its guiding philosophy is "what will piss the liberals off?" --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the purpose of his ride? Really? He told the British that the patriot militia was assembling (not exactly "He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells,") only after they captured him. That he was captured is not commonly known (at least not before this weekend), possibly because it didn't make it into the Longfellow poem. Since Palin has him ringing bells and firing shots on his ride, it's unlikely she knew about it. I pity the poor staffer who had to come up with this lame, post hac rationale.

Palin could have claimed she misspoke and meant to say that Revere was ridin' to warn the colonists that the British were going to take away their arms, which would sort of be true (the troops had orders to confiscate the patriots' supplies at Concord). However, her ego won't permit her to admit to a minor mistake, so she doubles down on the crazy ignorance, sort of like someone else we know. Godspeed (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to DMorris, "Americans had no rights under the British".^img None! Not a single one! Doppelheuer (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In one sense, he is right - Americans didn't have any rights under the British, but that was mainly because the country commonly known as 'America' didn't exist at the time, so there were no 'Americans' to have any rights. However, the British residents of those colonies, who were attempting to rebel against British rule, did have rights. Indeed, it was certain actions that those colonists perceived as being in breach of those rights that actually led to the rebellion in the first place, such as the 'Writs of Assistance' the British Crown drew up in response to rampant smuggling, which allowed he holder of one of these writs to search any place or vessel more or less at their whim. 86.173.222.29 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If I wanted to be as fair as possible to Palin, and give her every benefit of the doubt, I could argue that out of that conglomeration of words desperately striving to be a sentence one could concoct a relatively accurate statement. The whole incident, of which Revere was but a part, did serve as a warning, or more of an object lesson, to the British that the colonists were not going to give up their guns. (Some people have criticized her for referencing the not-yet-existent 2nd amendment, but she never does use those words.) Whether bells were rung or not is hardly a pressing issue for anyone. It was just another gaffe, of the sort made by Palin often enough that one has to wonder why its even newsworthy. TrickyDickTurpis (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Jpatt: You honestly believe that Palin has a shot at winning the presidency? You don't read much, do you? Junggai (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin uses Facebook, ergo she won't become President. Deny this and lose all credibility! Random surfer (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (not a regular poster)

I like how it's now the established history that's fact-tagged, while Palin's idiocy is backed up with a statement from...Sarah Palin. Awesome work, JPatt. Röstigraben (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially I'm famous over this issue

politico quoted me yay! --Opcn (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, wat?

No comment.^img Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody check Jpatt's basement. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs to give Jpatt a post-birth abortion. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If they can make up shit like "pro-abort" Imma call this phenomenon "utero-terrorism." Yeah. 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Forced birthers? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That film is real. Kirk Johnson (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I hate about these utero-terrorists (love the word by the way), they claim to care about the life of the child, but it makes you wonder if the kiddnappers will help out with the children for the next 18 years of they're life?--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy^img: "at Conservapedia we don't "dumb down" our headlines."

True, but that's only because they can't be dumbed down any further. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha - "Right now, it sounds more like it's about people are forcing women to give birth. I have not seen the movie, and I am not pro-life, so I may be biased, but kidnapping pregnant women and forcing them to have kids is not going to convince anybody, let alone make them want to watch the film." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is fucking hilari– oh wait, he isn't kidding... Fuck me. - Jpop (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

God is forcing them to do it. The women are in Purgatory, two regret their abortions before their babies are born and get to heaven, one regrets it only after giving birth and has to stay eternally in hell as does a doctor who killed herself in dispair when she found out she couldn't have children and her husband left her for a woman who could have kids. Ofcourse the Christians also believe that God is loving. Kirk Johnson (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that the plot of the last series of Lost? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"The pregnant women are often tortured by dreams of death and despair - montages of swarming bees, swirling tornadoes and speeches by Hitler one night," just what a good, conservative movie needs - MOAR HITLER!!!!! --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt equates childbirth with gore^img. The natural beauty of bloody gory birth will make people pro-life. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

10 Internets say Jpratt threw up watching his own kid being born. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Top scores after multiple other answers were posted"

I don't understand why he created a section here^img that's basically accusing the person with the top score of cheating. It seems to me like Andy can't comprehend that a public user who didn't waste time on his stupid class might get an almost perfect score. Oh wait, I forgot: homeschoolers can't cheat and public school students can only cheat. - Jpop (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprise! The final paper to get marked gets the best score, with 104%^img. How did this ever happen? It was almost like this person could look up the answers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Fail - Jpop (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere Aschlafly said once that he sorted the papers before grading by the quality he expects them to have: he grades the papers of his weakest students first, and ends with his favourite pet pupil. One of the many little quirks which make him such a great teacher! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

atheism is dead, Christians are dissecting the corpse

from conservative no less, whoadmits he didn't kill it^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, since I've been ramming rusty nails through my skull "reviewing" this piece of work recently, the study cited within actually shows a slight, but continuing decline in Christianity in the US over the last two decades. The authors also found that non-belief was the largest growing minority rather than other religions and that non-denominational Christianity is now taking up a larger piece of the pie versus denominational Christians. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can CP make up its goddamn mind? Half the time they're claiming Atheism is dying and everyone is flooding to Christianity, and other times they claim that Christians are being oppressed and the world is becoming more atheistic. Contradictions like this are one of the reasons CP will never have any credibility. The other reason is flying kitties. - Jpop (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the US it's becoming christian, and the UK, sorta. the rest of the planet is a wasteland of atheism, even vatican and mecca--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is what else he says I find interesting. The prediction that America will suffer collapse. Every time I read those on CP talk about the prospect I cannot help but get the feeling that they say it with fervent hope and desire it will happen. They want America to fail; they hate this country and how things like the first amendment get in the way of their religious ambitions. If America is secular, then in their minds, it deserves to fall, if only so they can build their religious utopia on Earth; but we all know how dreams of utopia have always gone in the past. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

reminds me of the white supremacists who wanted obama to win so white maerica could realize they had lost control and rise up in revolt.--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Ken would compare a dissection and proper burial to making lame fat jokes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah because that did not at all exist more then 1000 years in Europe. "One Pope to rule them all, One Message to find them, One Sin to bring them all and in a church bind them!" "Burn them alive!" "Look, these atheist have lost their mind, they have to be mentally ill! "Look, there is a global conspiracy of all kinds of people against our Christian way of telling you how to live living!" --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest incarnation of the "Attention atheists"^img banner at the top of CP:talk:atheism is a riot. "Please provide proof and evidence that atheism is false?." What? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, whadaya know. Someone please tell Andru.

Expertise Provides Protection Against Bias

However, expertise also allows the ones who are wrong to be spectacularly wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm surprised Andy isn't going ecstatic right now about Democratic Congressman Weiner (hehe) using Facebook to cheat and using it to show why you shouldn't marry a liberal. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because it was Twitter, not Facebook? MDB (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Weiner did send the infamous picture of Weiner Jr. on Twitter, but he contacted one of the women through Facebook. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Past? What past?

Karajou^img citing historically low congressional approval, with the caveat that big things will happen in 2012. But what happened to Obamageddon '10? Didn't the big things already happen in congress? What about those big wins and gains? Why didn't that bump approval? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Full throttle!

Ken's internet "friend" Shlockofgoat is apparently going to reduce atheism in the US^img by 50%. In some people that might be considered idiotic hubris, but clearly this man is going to deliver. Of course he doesn't say exactly how he's going to be going full throttle with the question evolution bullshit in Texas, but I'm sure whatever he has planned will be better than a youtube video that gets 300 views.

Also, remember kids, you can purchase insanely great t-shirts to question science for no good reason. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Shock needs to have his computer taken away from him for the sake of everyone. - Jpop (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And his motorbike. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted to shock's video, "I think I can answer #1 - The Theory of Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only the diversity of life. The theory of the origins of life is abiogenesis, which is currently under development (see: Miller-Urey)". The comment is "Pending Approval". Any guesses on how long it will take to be approved and posted? Carlaugust (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I sent him two that were never approved and they were on how he could improve his videos by using Capture Fox. He never posted it, never responded and clearly never used Capture Fox. If you want to textually fellate him you will get your comment posted. - π 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

He can keep the motorbike. With any luck, he'll go offroad while recording one of his stupid rants. - Jpop (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How about exchanging his motorbike to a camera stand? Vulpius (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

TerryH's half-arsed Goddidit job

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=prev&oldid=876466^img

For most of the article he's actually quite informative about physics, but that last paragraph kills me every time. He's saying "well, these CERN scientists are doing real work into this confounding problem, and they hope to find something interesting that informs them and means they revisit every theory they have so far in the world of physics. Meanwhile, on creation-topia, we know that they don't need to bother with 'experiments' and 'investigations', they just need to read the Bible", but I've never seen it in such a half-arsed format. Most try and justify why just saying "Goddidit" is enough, but Terry Chuckarse just can't seem to be bothered any more and just slaps a paragraph on the end of what would be a good science article. --AlexR4444 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

God of the Gaps. I always find it amazing how such a weak argument is held in such high esteem. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really the basis for most woo -- i.e., the "woo of the gaps." Take any holes in human knowledge and just cement over them with your favored form of bullshit. God of the gaps is just one type of this. You can do it with just about anything: Quantum woo: Don't understand something? Quantumphysicsdiddit. UFOlogy: Aliensdiddit. Conspiracy theories: Illuminati/NWO/Jewsdiddit. Ad infinitum. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so what there's lots of we can infer that that's what god prefers eh? So god clearly prefers phytoplankton to humans, hydrogen to silicon, gaseous planets to rocky planets, empty space to matter. Clearly then creationists are favoured of god, since they're mindless, vapid and vacuous just like god's favourite things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you" - Dara O'Briain --Worm (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

I took pity when Rob created the cp:Conservapedia:Community Portal. But he seems to be sincere, even admonished Ken with regards to his constant deletion/recreation of articles. Unfortunately Rob's stand^img may be very short lived^img. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just hilarious. Ken responds to Rob's request to not delete talk page comments by deleting his talk page comment and claims to not know what he's talking about. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 23:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"By the way, Google seems to think this is an important and highly relevant article as it ranks #1 for the search "Atheist blogger PZ Myers, excess weight and study on internet usage". :) conservative 16:31, 30 May 2011 (EDT)"

what «-Bfa-» 23:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob has been outsmarted by Ken. What a place CP is. No matter how dumb you are, there's always someone dumber. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's people like this that make social-darwinism a tempting idea. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, this gets even better. Ken has now burnt the evidence of Rob ticking him off for burning the evidence. Rob, you're being humiliated by a drooling simpleton. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How long until the community portal is deleted/recreated? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's an easy one. The real brainer is guessing when it and its talk page become redirects to one of Ken's locked essays. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken said what?^img. CPfan (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And while your sock is momentarily distracted he quietly slips the knife between your ribs... 01:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This portal is doomed. Any discussion about how to make conservapedia run more smoothly will inevitably be about removing something that Ken is doing. --Opcn (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We agree with Ken!

Being mad at God is moronic^img. Let the thousand years of peace commence Carlaugust (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"More evidence that many American liberals and moderates are a bunch of spoiled crybabies" - sometimes, even despite having a penis, I wish that all the women on this planet would rise up and kill all men - simply so this machismo bullshit would stop. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. The next time your your house is destroyed in a tornado/earthquake/tsunami/volcano you should thank the sweet lord for the smiting. If you are born in to poverty you should thank the almighty for not burdening you with all that sinful wealth. Don't be gay though or he'll give you the aids. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait.... is he saying two thirds of Americans are liberal? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And what about the atheist liberals who don't even believe in God? Put those together and apparantly over 75% of America is liberal. - Jpop (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop expecting them to be internally consistent. American is overrun by a tiny minority of liberals who outnumber the majority of conservatives. It should be run in a proper democratic fashion, by the best of the people, who are not an elite. All conservative thought is being extinguished, although it is reaching more people than ever, which is why liberals need to be censored although no-one listens to them anyway. The Bible is the eternal unalterable Word of God, once it has been corrected to bring it into line with modern conservative beliefs. Doublethink is essential to crazy political stances anywhere on the spectrum, whether you're worried that Jews are trying to make everyone gay or think the Pentagon are suppressing organic farming. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

--Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

America deserves the broken congress?

I'm honestly not sure what to get out of this statement^img but apparently obamageddon is a failure--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you remember the sweeping Democratic victory in 2010? Why else would the economy be faltering in the past, oh, let's say six months, if not for an uptick in Democratic congressmen? Carlaugust (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be the first time I've semi-agreed with Chuckarse. Weiner-gate represents what Congress is all about: Bullshit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted it as the fact our nation right now has very poor leadership and lack of statesmen of any quality at the federal level, which is more or less true.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

O-BLITERATION '12 Senator Harrison (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Coke Eyes on this, too, but they only raise their ire when it's a Democrat. I would respect Coke Eyes, Andy and the rest of them if they would remain consistent, but instead they are just propagandists who get upset when it's their "enemies". From Wonkette: Party of David Vitter & Larry Craig & Newt Gingrich Tells Anthony Weiner To Resign. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Prolife "horror" movie

I'm not going to bother with a link, but one of my pirating friends told me that she watched it. Spoilers! The jailer is God, they jail is purgatory. The three young women died on the operating table (who the fuck dies in a legal abortion in the last 20 years?) and went to purgatory. The two that accept their burder go to heaven after having their babies. The third tries to end it early with an "accident" and has twins then goes to hell where her punishment will be to carry babies to term over adn over again for eternity. She only learned that she was in purgatory after it was too late. --Opcn (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

so the fundies admit pregnancy is a punishment?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Isnt purgatory all about cleaning your sins cause the cross wasnt good enough, or was my being told catholic dogma by wikipedia, various books and my catholic friends a lie?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! That'll learn 'em good. God: 1, Mothers: 0. Give it up, liberals. Doppelheuer (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To fundies, being a woman is punishment, remember those harlots are responsible for all the sin int he world to begin with when the first one tempted Adam with that apple! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As a life-long horror fan, this sounds awful (and I like Christian horror because Christians have unending bloodlust). I like Brx's comment that they admit pregnancy is a punishment - ha ha. That would square with Jpatt's feeling that childbirth is the bloody, gory horror^img" aspect of the film. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That movie is a whole new kind of insanity. What bothers me is that they didn't have the courage of their convictions to actually go with the premise, and just chock it up to a literal deus ex machina. Sidenote: That rant of Ken's in the above link atheism is a so fucking bizarre atheism. Even atheism when compared with his other decidedly "purple" prose atheism atheisms atheism atheism. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite being willing to watch some of the worst movies made, and having no problem watching cheap horror shot on video, I still have no interest in this movie. Watching the trailer, I discerned a few things. First, it's cheaply made. The production on that trailer is poor, and the lighting is junk. Second, I have a strong feeling that the pacing of the movie would be intolerable. From the summary that's floating around online, it sounds like it doesn't make much sense. It doesn't offend me, either. It mostly just sounds like they wanted to make some wild things happen, and twist the ending around to surprise people. That doesn't really work if the twist doesn't deepen the events of the story. Most horror movies are already pretty conservative, so I'm not sure why this would make my head explode. -Lardashe

Not at CP but if they ever see it it'll be up in an instant

Snowed in hawaii in june therefor, Global Warming is a liberal lie! --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nahh, if they did that then the huge heat wave in the central part of the continental US would be conclusive, direct evidence of global warming, and they do not want to go there. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats assuming they admit theres anything wrong with a heatwave in the central country--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

$100 says that no one at CP ever learns the difference between climate and weather... άλφα^Talk 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

delete/restore

Anybody else waiting for Ken to delete Template:Mainpageright in order to conceal his next error? I hope we get of screen of that should it happen.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We are doomed! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

VomitBottom solves the Starlight problem

Given that he only edits CP these days to link-whore^img himself, it nice to see his amazing solution to the Starlight problem - God not only created stars, but also all the little sunbeams too, so we could see the stars billions of light years away immediately.

And other stuff about the speed of light not being constant and even roping in that notorious liberal Einstein and his bogus theory of relativity to back his theory.

I'm starting to think our friend Terry might just be crazier than Ken. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the same goddidit excuse cretinists have been using for years. Nothing new. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Omphalos hypothesis Pippa (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that's one of the more reasonable rationalizations on CP. Remember how Andy greenlighted the purge of any and all references to celestial objects being more than 6000 light years away? Now that's batshit. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So God makes the universe look 14.3 billion years old, then tells me it is actually 6000. And sends me to Hell for not being able to tell which one to believe. What a psycho. You know, God sounds a bit like a girl I dated a while back...~

First, thanks for the summary so I don't have to click on the link and contribute the the link whore's site. Second, I remember those fun times: Andy's implicit belief that the universe is no more than 12,000 light years across, which, if you think about it, does make his belief of a 6000 year old universe a little more plausible (at least in his mind), as he can avoid the starlight problem completely. Of course the idea of a 12,000 light year across universe is possibly even more absurd of a concept than Young Earth Creationism, but not by much. I see that distances greater than 6,000 light years away are still not allowed on CP. I love to ask Rob (or any of the brave CP editors here) what they think of that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to see them explain fossil fules. You know, fossils break down after MILLIONS of years to become fuel, hence the name...--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

But don't you just love the insistence that there are stars out there that have never produced any light that have reached earth, nor will they ever do in the entire existence of the universe. All the light we receive "from" them is actually a magical creation and the star we infer may in fact not exist at all. The creationist god is a hollywood stage painter. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What strikes me with this sort of Creation science is that it is absolutely irrelevant to anything outside of "I like to believe this." Could you imagine an astronomer or scientist trying to use Andy and/or Coke Eyes' beliefs to begin studying stars or the size of the universe? This is perhaps the main reason I look down on Creationism: in the face of actual hard evidence, they choose ignorance and fairy tales. Creationists are like little children. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not even original. It has been used for a while. Last Tuesday-ism is usually used to counter it. As in You say God made the Earth 6,000 years ago, but makes it look billions of years ago. I say he did it last Tuesday. Every argument they can use to say that why the 6,000 year old earth appears older you can use for Tuesday.

Yes, creationists are like children, they don't want to look too hard when it comes to the universe, or they may discover there is no parent there to care for them, to forgive them their transgressions (without any sort of consequences) and that they are responsible for everything they do, and them only, and then they would have to grow up.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone with physics-power explain to me what basis Vomitbottom has for his relativity bit? He goes on in the article about Einstein's theory 'proving' a young Earth because the speed of light is constant but the distances between points are relative to your position, blah-dee-blah-dee-blah, 6000 years on Earth = 14.3 billion years at the edge of the universe. Or something. I'm no physicist, I cannot counter him on Einstein! --AlexR4444 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look up Carnelli and Hartnett on creation.com. And then look up the refutations here and on TO. It's bullshit. 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Vomitass's theory

• There is no center or edge of the universe, the same as there is no center or edge of the surface of a balloon.
• His misunderstanding time dilation. Add to that, he's misunderstanding it backwards. What he describes would make the universe appear older to us on earth. But it doesn't matter. If dilation affects light (which it doesn't), then there is no relativity. Rule #1 of Relativity - The speed of light in a vacuum is always c. Carlaugust (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Let a nutter rant long enough...

And the comedy gems will flow. From the comments section:

• Terry: And by the way: the dinosaurs didn’t all die. Noah must have taken some with them. They show up in too many works of ancient and “native” art. And some of them are alive today.
• User: WTF??
• Terry: We’ve got a pod of them in Lake Champlain, Vermont, and the Canadians have them in Lake Okanagan, BC. There was a pod of them in Loch Ness, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re all dead by now, because that lake is so disgustingly polluted.

And he's promised us an article on them! W00t! --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's tame for him. We're talking about Terry "antediluvian laboratory chimera^img" ChuckArse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The stuff about dinosaurs is followed by this: "We had dragons throughout Western Europe, until the medieval knights hunted them to extinction. The dragons in China lasted a little longer; Marco Polo saw one of them." Words fail me. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I read this and wondered if you were joking. These guys seriously have never grown up! They are living in a world of fairy tales, unicorns, dragons, chimeras...it's just so bizarre to see adult men who have graduated from exceptional schools who are belligerent with the beliefs in fairy tales. That's why I like reading Terry's website - these guys are such freakshows, how can one not gawk?! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget: the guy's a practising medical doctor. Probably refers patients to the old wise woman in the gingerbread house. Pippa (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't this "doctor" post on his old examiner site, something about 'In a Conservative world' - where creationism would be taught, science wouldn't be needed, and the medicine they had in the Middle Ages, combined with prayer would be enough. Ring any bells? --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be screening my doctors a little more thoroughly from now on. Last thing I need is a leech treatment. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 13:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)