Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive252

This is an archive page, last updated 14 August 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>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <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)

Night mode

Do they still do it? It's 2 AM and I posted a successful edit via V-ger. ħuman 06:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I've just tried and is on now for me. I thkn it entirely depends on which reliale sysops is awake. kenny has no influence, I said reliable. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is automatic or just the last sysop out turning off the lights but it certainly shuts off during the night. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Worth Editing?

I know recently, thanks to Rob's efforts, some of us here had their accounts reopened as part of his reform efforts (mind was after it was pointed out my banning was by a known parodist). However since it would appear that his attempts at Glasnost in the authoritarian oligarchy of Conservapedia seemed to have failed against the hard-liners; I am wondering, is it worthwhile for any of us to post new or improve articles there, or is it just an enormous waste of time to inject a little bit of rationalism and fact there? What say you? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What can I say? cp:User:RonLar is over there - but his edits aren't as elaborate as yours were, I'm just testing the water... At the moment, I wouldn't put too much effort in the edits, as the mood can swing very quickly over there. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother Macca. I don't want to have to chase you off again... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree. All that's there is Andy's ignorance and a bunch of parodists waiting to jump on you, so they can get into Andy's good books. The most you could hope for is to get into an argument about why the universe isn't 12,000LY across, before Angry Bear comes and stomps on your head, spouting something like "You can believe that atheist billions and billions stuff if you like, but don't try and force it on us right thinkin' folk here!" PsyGremlin講話 13:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what makes me the most hesitant. I'd do nothing but science (specifically astrophysics) stuff and as soon as some statement is placed in that doesn't conform to the YEC worldview, it could become a real headache with no reason given other than it isn't YEC approved. Worse, as oyu point out, all opposition could just be parodists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when I was a heavy CP editor, doing a lot of good faith edits. I was abrasive, forthright, and got into the fray whenever possible. I improved a lot of articles, even though some significant fraction of my edits would just be mass-reverted. When a lazy sysop happened by and didn't like one of them. Eventually I was banned.
But since that time, I've been wondering about the wisdom of editing at CP. Is it better to parody and push them further into extremism, isolating them from the serious conversations (a la Bugler) or is it better to try to push reasonable objections whenever possible, like I did?
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a book called Mother Night that was all about a chief Nazi propagandist who was secretly a spy for the Allies. Among his nightly spiels about how the vicious Jews controlled the world and Hitler was going to free all true Aryans, he would encode valuable tactical messages to the American spy agencies. But at the end of the world, even the other spies hated him. And it was all summed up in the words of another Nazi, who told the propagandist that he'd been suspected of being a spy for years, but eventually they decided that it didn't matter if he was. Because even if he'd been a spy, his disguise was so good that it would have been worth it.
So now I think maybe it's not healthy or good to poison any discussions. We need as many people to be as reasonable as possible.
I guess what I'm saying is that yes, you should edit there. Try to be calm and intelligent. It's better to light a candle rather than curse their darkness. It won't be a waste of your time.--^talk 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is true, although I do not hide who I am there and they should be well aware of what my views are and that I am active here (as they read this talk page daily). The question than is, even as a good faith editor, can they handle those facts about me as an editor? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one quick question concerning Ken...

...is concerning the new with regards to? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that. Surely you're the only one here to find out for sure though :) Are you able to scan Ken's edit history and do a word/phrase count? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he has always used concerning as an alternative, I don't think it is anything new. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fire up the bots, LArron! I can't wait for the regards/regarding vs concerning graphs! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DeltaStar, you're making it look like this site is filled with sad Ken nerds. Pippa (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, just WIGO:CP. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

*concern*, *regard* and somewhat more

Quidquid vis fieri, fac, facienda faciet nullus pro te - though it is very doubtful that such a diagram has to be drawn. But it is silly, hilarious and crazy, look for yourself: I looked up the revisions of the article cp:Atheism - the article never was deleted, so its history is intact (other than with cp:Evolution).

• dark blue: all edits to this article per day. In the beginning, there were actually contributions by non-Kens, but over the last years, you will find only the odd interjection by Ed Poor, or so
• light blue: Ken's edits - since Aug 2007, he is virtually the only contributor to this article
• green line: size of the article in KBytes. - Ken has inflated the article up to 220 KBytes before he started to give subsections articles on their own.

And now for the essential lines :-)

• red line: number of words containing "regard" - as regarding, with regards to, etc. In Jul 2008, Ken became somehow conscious of his abuse of these phrases and he tried keep the number down. So, this phrase is nowadays an indicator for parts which were composed before mid-2008
• orange line: number of words containing "concern" - as concerning, deep concern, etc. this became Ken's catch-phrase in Apr 2009, overtaking *regard* in Feb 2011.

I can't believe that I've prepared a quantitative Stilkritik, but I stayed at home with a stomach upset...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This struck me as a typically uneducated andy comment as well.

As global markets go into meltdown over the euorzone debt crisis andy affectively blames Obama^img. Tell me Rob, is he really that stupid or is he just willfully deceptive in what he says? Oldusgitus (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Barry is responsible for everything that goes wrong in Andy's life. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It all started with the Harvard Law Review...--Thunderstruck (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you never do anything yourself, it's easy to blame others for messing up. --★uːʤɱ heretic 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is so unfair Ullhteme. Andy managed to fuck his life up, despite all the privelege and access his mother could buy, all on his own without any help at all. So he HAS done something all by himself. He just blamed others for his fuck up though. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Semantics. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Global meltdown? I've been engrossed in the Michelle Obama/hamburger joint scandal. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

One can eat unhealthy sometimes (once a week for example) and still be healthy over all. It's what you eat on the other days and what you do (sports or partners) that keeps somebody healthy. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 18:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I love teh petty. It also shows how stupid conservative pundits/aggregators are about a healthy lifestyle. No wonder so many of them are obese. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what is up with the obsession with Obama's eating habits? This is news? I guess it be one thing if he ate fast food all the time and was obese, but neither of those are true. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

TerryH + Lenin quote = FAIL

TerryH linkspams MPR once again, but this time he quotes Lenin^img. "[T]he capitalists will sell the communists the rope." shall be the conservative quote of the day. But what the fuck is he trying to say here? That the capitalists should either not be making business with anybody that might destroy them (which is not true) or that the capitalists should not be allowed to promote a theory that goes against the majorities beliefs (I might be wrong here) or that the capitalists got to greedy? Let's step back a second here, if the capitalists would not make business with anybody they might think could destroy them, this goes against the credo that those who pay the most get the attention and therefor it wouldn't be true capitalism. If they were not allowed, that would be an infringement on the market and therfor socialism - so does TerryH promote socialism now? Let's go with the next idea and say they are too greedy - wait, wasn't greed the exact thing that should make capitalism the superior system? Which is exactly what the Lenin quote is ought to be saying: capitalists are too greedy. So Terry agrees with Lenin (communist/atheist/dictator) and with CP logic working, he should now be called a liberal troll and vandal and be banned from the site...

Ahhh, fuck those rich environmentalists communists! We should never have them let earn any money! Whaa! Whaa! --★uːʤɱ kant 16:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please! Please! Please! won't somebody think of the little children for fuck's sake?! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody just fucking think of the fucking children for the fucking love of fucking god! --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 21:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that headline and thought similarly. The simple point is that he quotes Lenin approvingly because he thinks it suits his purpose on this occasion. Don't be surprised if, in the near future, he criticises someone for quoting Lenin approvingly. These people have no idea of what a consistent world view is. It is all about the point that they want to make at that moment. Screw logic. Screw consistency. God is on my side so I am right! --Horace (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is the government outsourcing the contract to a private firm to produce commie agitprop; but the question remains, is it a bourgeois government buying from a commie front firm, or a commie dominated government buying from private sector, pro-free market marketing operation. Either way, it is ambiguous, because the government appears to be the buyer here, and the private firm the seller of commie agitprop, although the government is also selling cash, and the private company is buying dollars with its labor. Which only proves the point, Lenin had his head up his ass and didn't understand a fucking thing about how human beings interact with each other, or how people feed themselves and survive. What a putz. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what point you are trying to make, so keep it, it wasn't mine. Let me show you mine: Lenin: Capitalists are so greedy they will even sell the things to us with which we will kill them. TerryH: Lenin is right. Conservapedia: Commies are evil! Capitalism is superior because people have to work for themselves, if they wouldn't they wouldn't earn money and everybody wants to earn money! (←greed). Me: What now? Good or bad? And if you don't agree with the party line, don post it on Main Propaganda Page Right! --★uːʤɱ digital native 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just a vulgar Marxist stereotype of capitalism, that people are motivated by money. Of course in a godless society ruled by athesits that may true. However, in a true spirit of capitalism, people may simply be motivated by the need to be independent, serve others & be justly rewarded for it. Your notion smacks ofcp:Liberal censorship of conservative truths, as Andy would put it. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh Rob, oh Rob, oh Rob. Let's have an economy lesson than, shall we?

So we have a market system, everybody owns somethings and everybody only own certain things. For example a farmer only owns land and his crops, a miner only owns the metal and so on. But there are also people that only own there own work power. But all of this people need at least two things: food, to keep themselfes alive on a basic level, and power over other people, to protect themselves. Now if we would simply give it to each other the whole system would only rely on trust. Now, and this is because we need some instant compensation for the things we give away and also because people need something that doesn't rot if we transport it over long distances, we invent money and give it a common worth against which we can meassuere everything else. People now earn money and have it ready to spent it almost instantly. The will for survival motivates basic money, for which we can buy food, a home a.s.o., but greed comes form something different, from the realization that money also is power. Greed wants more than just survival, it wants power through money.

In economic and generally educated circles we call a human that thinks rationally about his moves in the economy (="wants the most benefits out of them") "homo economicus" (The awefully liberally biased Wikipedia has an article on it, btw CP doesn't). This type of individual, and most of us are this type, wants to maximize the profit of his every move, so that he or she has an advantage over other people, which leads him or she to a more secure life. You are right when you say people want to be independent of others, but they don't want this simply because, but because dependency means insecurity - except when everybody else is also dependent. They only will serve others if such a system is beneficial to themselves, that means they gain money or something else. Why do people want to be "justly rewarded"? Because if they weren't they wouldn't make profit but a loss, that wouldn't be beneficial.

And this is important now, I am not a communist, but the observations communists made in the 19. century are mostly correct - for the 19. century… For example classes (as described in communist works) in that time pretty much existed, today they don't. In Europe "the rich guys" (for lack of a better term) have found that, if one gives workers some security instead of killing those who don't like what one does, they actually will stop revolting. In the US one made it so that everything describing anything left of conservatism is a smear word. The greed talked about, is an essential part of the capitalist system, it is what motivates everything more than only earning "enough". And you know what? There is no shame in it. Egotism is how capitalism works, and until know it is the most effecient economical sytem, but it isn't perfect. Of course Christianity says that greed isn't a good thing, which, together with charity, is only another way of keeping those who get bend over and fucked silent.

Finally, when I note what Lenin says, I note what Lenin says not what I think. And when I note that your propaganda should be at least be logically consistent and not written without using any part of brain (which I know is hard work for you people), so that quotes backfire, I express an opinion. If you would open up MPR for the actual non-opinionated (so that little Andy can stick it to Barack) news, we wouldn't even have this argument.

Sorry btw for going so long, it's just not easy to do without asking to much of your intelligence. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 16:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Very very good; I agree with about 99% of what you said, and how you stated it. It's the greed stuff where we differ. Because in many if not most societies, wp:prodigality is rampant, i.e. the workers consume 100% of their productive powers on themselves, that leaves nothing behind to (a) feed a growing population; (b) create jobs for a growing population. If it weren't for the parsimony of the few, to make up for the prodigality of the many, the conduct of every prodigal beggars himself and diminishes the whole country (the wealth of the whole being the sum total of its inhabitants), which is a paraphase of sevral important pasages of Adam Smith. "The parsimony of the few" being "the rich" in modern parlance. However, it is the prodigal who is greedy, because the prodigal consumes 100% of his resources, whereas "the rich" confine their expense within their revenue, produce savings, which then (a) sets the whole economic proces in motion for the next twelve months, (b) finances the government borrowing and deficts, (c) is concerned about others, and that is how their capital is employed. The Congressional Research Service supports this argument:

Even before the increase in the deficit, national saving was insufficient to finance domestic investment spending, and the United States was borrowing from abroad at unprecedented rates, peaking at about 6% of GDP. (Borrowing from abroad has since fallen by half, but remains relatively high.) To sustain large deficits, the economy will require some combination of higher private saving, lower investment, and higher borrowing from abroad.

Here's how I paraphrased it: national savings rate was insufficient to finance job creation (or "domestic private investment").[8] To sustain large deficits, the economy would require a combination of more private saving (less consumption), lower investment (less job creation), and higher borrowing from abroad. The arguemnt that greed is somebody having more than somebosdy else, is naive. It's how their resources are employed, i.e. 100% spent on themself, which is true greed, or a billionaire who makes it posible for 10,000 people to be employed, pays taxes, and finances the goverment deficit. The fact the rich have a mansion, limo, big screen & jaccuzi is just old fashioned commie agitprop & hate speech. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 17:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, simple question for you. Have you ever read any of the following books? On the Wealth of Nations, The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital - in either German or an english translation? Oldusgitus (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this, TerryH linkspams MPR EVERY DAY! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea it was that bad... --★uːʤɱ sinner 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And he's still a sysop. This linkfarm is growing rapidly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, the only place you'll find Conservapedia mentioned at Terry's little blog is in the comments. He's got some respect for CP, that man. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The "rope" of course, is in the form of "give them enough"? ħuman 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WAIT WAIT WAIT... CNAV is run by Terry? Ateafish (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disney Feminism?

Andy^img:

“”Part of feminism is that men are inherently bad, or dumb, or incompetent, while women are inherently good, or smart, or competent. Disney has been recasting many classics with a feminist spin. Recasting the seven dwarfs as evil little men is one of many distortions by Disney in the past 20 years.

WTF? Andy is making parody obsolete. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, was there a remake of snow white that I was unaware of or is he talking about Shrek...? Ateafish (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

They're planning to make a gritty, live-action reboot (at least according to Andy's link). --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The really amusing part is the only version of Snow white, or any other fairy story, andy knows is the Disney sanitised version in the first place. I doubt very much he has even heard of the the Borthers Grimm let alone read any of their rather dark and quite unsettling old folk tales. He probably thinks Disney studios wrote Snow White. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)]

The phrase "Disney Feminism" alone made me laugh. Though I guess Mulan might count. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you imagine his horror should, in the remake, Disney show the queen eating the liver and heart returned by the huntsman thinking it to be Snow Whites? I can see it now 'Nasty liberals rewrite good whilesome story of snow white to include cannibalism. Is nothing safe from liberal distortion?' Oldusgitus (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Neb, having taken my share of feminist courses as an undergraduate, i have to agree with you. we did quite a bit on disney and it's endless line of pathetic "rescue me", whiny leading ladies. only one any of us liked was Mulan. she fell in love, but never lost her girly balls!En attendant Godot 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On a non-CP related tangent, anyone else think that a live action Snow White is the perfect opportunity to cast both John Ryhs-Davies and Brian Blessed on the same bill? It could be large ham heaven! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, a live action darker version of Snow White? It's been done by the Germans! I know they raped the corpse of Kimba the White Lion to make The Lion King, but this is a new low, even for Disney. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User188 steps into the fray

or not...^img A week late, clearly hindered by his lack of back bone. I did like his "Andy's ignoring it because he wants everybody's POV"... --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

HA!!!!! "his wisdom"!!!!! (yes, I have read Pratchett on 5 exclamation marks) Pippa (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)"It is not just his courage, but his wisdom and compassion that led me to this project." Since when does Andy have any of those three qualities and when do we get to see them? Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Delusions have to be a nice thing to have... --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 16:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the most brown-nosing thing you ever read? Ed's so far up Andy's arse you won't even be able to see the soles of his sandals. Pippa (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(aside) why do I think U188 wears sandals^{(with socks)}? Pippa (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I especially enjoy his edit comment stalling, but responding. That seems to imply that he is stalling, and not responding to the section directly above, the one titled Censorship at Conservapedia... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pippa. That mental image coupled with what we already know about Ed has me craving a stiff drink. Anyone have any bleach? >.@ --Tygrehart

Make sure you know it's bleach by wearing your Ed Poor Glasses. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, for Christ's sake, just stop it.

Writing about 14-year-old girls^img and "sex appeal" is not something middle-aged men should be doing on a family-friendly encyclopedia. Or anywhere else. I need a shower. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'm too sexy for the web, too sexy for the computer, , to sexy for my Kendoll, too sexy to spell species right...--En attendant Godot 16:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why'd he have to drag Bambi into it? Smelly old perv. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Think ex-congressman David Wu. Think Ed. Connect the dots. It probably makes no sense anyways, but perhaps just try. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Srsly Uncle Ed? --Marlow (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch, he is editing (read messing up) an article on a book about a little girl. --Marlow (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

All kidding aside, Ed Poor seems to really have an "issue" regarding this. Ed Poor, if you are reading this, get help. Jimaginator (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It might just be his issue. Plenty of people write about this kind of thing, it doesn't mean they're... "that" type of person. He might just find the idea of underage sexuality in pop culture interesting, for whatever reason. X Stickman (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He should add that sex appeal has an evolutionary significance. RatMaster ^háblame 00:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I really hate coming to Ed's defence but he's got two young (early teen) daughters and is probably immersed in pink all day at home. He's just reporting on their viewing habits which is probably all he gets freedom to watch. Wait a couple of years and see what he watches if one turns Goth. Until then leave him alone(?). Pippa (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but some of the stuff he writes crossing the line. Ed might not know he has a problem. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you believe his children live with him, Pippa? 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I now have an image of Ed dressed in pink, thanks to Pippa. It's not pretty. PsyGremlinHable! 15:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@nutty (EC) Point! but then again, if he doesn't, all the more reason for him to immerse himself in their life. I know I would if I was separated from my kids. @ Psy: Hee! Pippa (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn my nefarious NSFW imagination. "immersed in pink all day at home" - No. Just, no. :( I feel like turning myself in. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole story about Ed having kids doesn't hold water. It is incomprehensible that any human female would allow Ed Poor to fuck her. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The poor lady was chosen by Reverend Moon, remember. Vulpius (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comet Elenin

So, an article on a news site, filed under the category 'tripe & what-not', reports on some claims about Comet Elenin, amongst other things, hiding and/or being controlled by a fleet of hostile alien spaceships, explicitly makes the point that these claims are utter nonsense, and disregarded by all save a few complete loony-tune conspiracy theorists, fails to mention evolution or evolutionary theory at all, and this article is evidence of 'flaky evolutionists pushing alarmist bunk on Comet Elenin'. You know, if it was anyone else at all who added that news item, I would say that was a parodist who'd just blown his cover by being too extreme. 86.186.137.11 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well other than the fact it has nothing to do with evolution, virtually all Elenin conspiracy theories have come from either religious woo or New Age woo. While it is good that some Creationist sites are joining the same side as the mainstream secular scientific community, and rationalist groups, in saying the comet is just a comet and nothing is going to happen; CP never loses an opportunity to politicize everything and to make slights against enemies, real or imagined, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Bonus: Terry uses the opportunity to once again pitch is own site on the main page^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another person has left atheism!

Who is this Ex-atheist?^img Ken won't reveal --Mikalos209 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just another Shock video where he makes the claim that through his chat room "debates" he has beaten atheists every single time as well as convert some. Now there are no transcripts, recordings, or video logs of these chats, so you just have to take their word for it. He also claims he gets emails and letter from folks, but you never see any evidence of that either, just have to take his word once again. Surely both Ken and Shock would never lie or exaggerate in their cause, would they? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If the guy is making a video for every convert he makes, he can't be doing terribly well. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Straightforward Reporting of the News?

No comment about how it's all Obama's/the Dems' fault^img? That's not CP's style. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done^img and done^img. Because if we moan about it three times it looks so much more important! --★uːʤɱ libertarian 15:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading that the ratings downgrade is actually the GOP's fault, given that it was thanks to them refusing to allow any revenue increases. I'm sure Andy will spin it otherwise eventually, but it could just be that this is the GOP's Waterloo... (dear Christ, I sound like Ken...) PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not only that, it's probably also a big part of the GOP blackmailing the government to get what they want or government shutdown. What, as a rating agency, would you do if you got that news from a country that a quarter of the parliament would should down the country if they don't get what they want? Every country that may default get's downgraded, because if a country defaults it really can't pay back, can it? So yes, this whole deal is pretty much the fault of Tea Baggers and the like. And now they are bitching that it's all Obamas fault. The propaganda machine is in full swing. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 16:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I read, they are also concerned about the levels and growth of spending, especially over entitlements. We really do spend far too much, even with some revenue increases, it wouldn't be nearly enough without some sort of massive curtailment of the spending.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Much the biggest recent increase in US federal spending was by George Dubya Bush for the military and Homeland Security/Scaring-the-Voters, not entitlement programmes. The whole Republican Party, not just the tea-baggers, need to face the fact that foreign military adventures cost a lot of money. They'd be the first to damn Obama as a softie if he tried to tried to cut the Ministry of Peace down to a more reasonable size. C.nemoralis (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy has a flair for drama

as well as lying through his teeth. Andy: London descends into a night of violent rioting, with buildings and a double-decker bus set afire.^img Reality: Police mopping up after rioting (following a police shooting) in Tottenham. Andy's version does sound more dramatic. I'm surprised, however, that "the capital of atheistic England" wasn't mentioned. PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, looks like he must be reading WIGO after all: fixed^img. --MarkGall (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

facepalm and they wonder why nobody takes them seriously. PsyGremlinParlez! 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem though: they don't wonder that. They think they're the vanguard of conservatism. Andy literally thinks that Conservapedia is replacing TV for God's sake. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't have skip captcha?

Surely an oversight?^img Oh yeah, this was just after Ken deleted and recreated Karajou's page....for some reason. Ace^{of Spades} 08:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators at CP automatically have the skipcaptcha right as you can see here. He's probably just upset he doesn't have a longer string of rights after his name. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Arrrgh! Of course, Ken has skipcaptcha, all administrators have. So what to do after leaving such an embarrassing note betraying your total lack of wiki-knowledge on the talk-page of the owner of the site? wipe, rinse, and repeat

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Three possible theories: (1) Ken uses a sock. (2) Ken is trying to post links that are on the spam blacklist. (3) Ken is simply an idiot who has no clue what CAPTCHA is and just saw others asking for that right. --Sid (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(4): (1),(2) and (3) are true. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

He probably thinks that it's a way of hiding from our capturebot. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! That I can believe. Sphincter (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to say this about JimJast...

He's absolutely relentless with the self promotion^img. Unsung genius or insane crackpot looking for attention? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wonder how that squares with liberal relativity? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

100 of Ken's "Homosexuality" pages, all with the same number of page views.

top 500 articles at CP

CPalmer points out something interesting. If I thought Ken knew how to run a bot, that would explain it....but he doesn't. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Ace^{of Spades} 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How do we know he doesn't run bots again? Manually reloading them without the corresponding number of edits seems excruciatingly painful and slow. Although you have to give credit that they are not exactly the same, just same as in ballpark same page views. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting edit comment too. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have long suspected CPalmer of parody - I had a few weird email conversations with him and his edits at aSK were straight from Andy's play book. Ace^{of Spades} 13:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Kenny is simply using clickbots to improve his article's ranking in a search engine beginning with G (and we're not going to be the ones to tell him that internal page hits have no effect on search engine rankings). Either that or he's deliberatly trying to spam his shite into the popular articles list. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Harry potter is starting to creep into his homosexuality articles on the popular pages list. He's better do another run sharpish. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Ken is running the bots. I think someone somewhere is just trying to bump all gay-related articles to the top spots. And if it was Ken, it would be easy to ruin: someone somewhere could join him in his efforts, bump them all up to the very top spots, and then Andy would delete and recreate them, vaping the view counts. Keneffort denied. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I never understand why people like him try to link the issue of homosexuality to HIV. Although gay men are at higher risk for HIV than the heterosexual population, lesbians are at a lower risk. If HIV is an argument against homosexuality at all, it can only be one against male homosexuality, not female homosexuality, yet they often talk as if it was a risk of homosexuality in general. And, if the risk of HIV is an argument against male homosexuality, then it is an argument against heterosexuality as well, and the logical conclusion is that everyone should be a lesbian. Actually, if one thinks about it, the risk of HIV from a sexual act is correlated with the number of male participants, so the end conclusion is that men cause AIDS, and the best way of preventing HIV would be eliminating men completely. Guess I better report to the nearest extermination centre... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You forget one important fact: Two chicks makin' out = "hawt." Two dudes makin' out = "ick." P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 13:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was EC'd while making the same point! Pippa (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make a very similar point, only I was going to use nephilimfree's preferences as a shining example of why fundies think man/man - Eeeeewwwwww. Woman/woman - corrrrrrr. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"I never understand why people like him try to link the issue of homosexuality to HIV. " -- Because they hate gays and hope this will lower the public's perception of gays, nothing more. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But even a schoolkid knows that man-on-woman and man-on-horse sex doesn't spread HIV[3] so Kenny must be right. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added a pic to visualize this oddity - nicely observed, CPalmer! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more likely to be his mate on the motorbike, who seems to be a bit more tech savvy than him, who's doing the bumping. (nice one LArron) Pippa (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day people thought it was funny to dominate the top visited pages with homosexuality articles. Someone must have run a clickbot on such articles. I don't imagine Ken did this. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, run a clickbot on the homosexuality articles? Who would do such a thing? ;} Clickbot (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am now in retirement so disown any current activity on CP. Clickbot (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember when...

Andy proudly announced that they'd had over 3,000,000 hits in a day. That didn't add up for me at the time, but now it makes sense. It was all a bot. Nice one, Andy, the vast majority of your visitors aren't even sentient. Especially not JPratt.

My inner conspiracy theorist wants to point out that they started getting these record numbers of hits during the Glassknobs period, so maybe it's Kendoll trying to seem important. Though he'd have probably gone with his fat atheists stuff. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So that is Ken's super seekrit project that saps his debating time. He's busy hitting refresh over and over again. Vulpius (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The scary thing is, is I can actually picture Ken doing that. PsyGremlinTal! 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an Eliza applescript that does Ken better than Ken. I talk to it sometimes. It is my friend. 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is amazing! And that graph pretty much says it all about Ken.--^talk 16:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Especially not JPratt. - I'm going to charge you for a new laptop as I've just sprayed tea all over it. ADK^{...I'll loll your snorkel!} 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, CPalmer

I completely forgot what a rich source of comedy the popular pages list^img is. Oh my. This gem^img harkens back to the kangaroo days, no doubt. And it's more popular than poor Kenny's evolution sharticle. Nice placement, whoever's responsible for that. 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

They seem to have a fascination with homosexuality, and some of the combinations are tabloid-heading-generating wonderful. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed really deserves a Community Building Fail Barnstar or something

• Ed: "So, you've been speaking out in favor of sysop accountability, huh? And I see you didn't do the things you somewhere said you'd do. YOU'RE ON PAROLE! WRITING PLAN! NOW!"^img
• MRellek: "Er... no, thanks?"^img
• Ed: "Banhammer for violating the absurd rule I declared to be policy years ago!"^img
• Rob: "FFS, Ed..."^img
• MRellek: "Yeah, I got the drift, Ed. Seeya."^img

Congrats, Ed, this community is growing rapidly! --Sid (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proof once again that CP is not about community, but about POWAH to feed the sysops' egos. PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What irks though, is the fact that Ed thinks he is being a good leader and gently guiding editors when he is being an authoritarian prick. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed is (and I'm sure I've said this before) the worst of them. Worse than Ken, worse than Karajou. At least they present themselves as what they are, more or less. But Ed has his mask, his attempts at coming off as an avuncular elder statesman...which are completely negated by his puerile and utter nastiness. The fact that he even tries to come off as genial makes him that much creepier. Ed Poor is a vainglorious dolt, and the fact that he was ever a "big wheel" at Wikipedia is shameful. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder has anyone ever submitted a writing plan to Ed? I think someone ought to do that. DogP (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That did happen once. It was something along the lines of:

My writing plan: to casually wonder around and make ad-hoc contributions as I see fit.

It was dripping with sarcasm. Can anyone remember who wrote it? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gulik5's writing plan^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why I'm so afraid of Ed being around children. What he thinks is being a good leader and gently guiding new editors is being an authoritarian prick. Just imagine Ed being with a kid and thinking, "This isn't creepy, I'm just..." Occasionaluse (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Professor values vs. creation science: creation science prevails again!

Ken: Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question evolution! campaign. A South African university science lecturer declared he is posting the 15 questions of the campaign on his office door which is right by the break room. [1]^img

RonLar: You should have some kind of proof^img before you shit all over the main page

Ken: WHY DON'T YOU GO TO SOUTH AFRICA AND LOOK FOR YOURSELF! LOL!^img

RonLar: How about you post a link from a reliable source instead?^img

Ken: Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question evolution! campaign. A South African university science lecturer declared he is posting the 15 questions of the campaign on his office door which is right by the break room. [2]^{img — Unsigned, by: Roofus / talk / contribs}

As always with these things, just because something is posted on break-room wall/linked to, doesn't mean that the person so doing agrees with it; they are just as likely to be LoL'ing at the stupidity of the people who made the item. CS Miller (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reading the post here, the professor (unless it is somebody trolling, which could well be the case), does seem to believe it. However, he is a physics professor, but he should still know better. CS Miller (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Trolling, otherwise they'd put the Uni name in. If it were genuine (s)he'd have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, as it's (allegedly) out in public already. Pippa (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Googling: "South Africa" University Brandon gives ZERO staff, plenty of (ex) students, no staff. Pippa (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops! found one: "Brandon also teaches Sports Law at the University of Pretoria" Pippa (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

When I talk to my cats, their replies make more sense than Kendoll. I don't know why you persist trying to get any sort of sensible replies out of him, I'm not sure he's even capable of understanding what you write. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ok, let's add some Sauff Effricen perspective to this.
It would appear as if the prof in question is possibly one Dr Brandon van der Ventel at Stellenbosch University. Now SU (or Maties) was one of the Big 5 traditional Nationalist/Afrikaner bastions of learning (along with Rand Afrikaans Uni, Potchefstroom Uni for Christian Higher Education, Pretoria Uni and Uni of the Orange Free State - names have since changed.) It probably remains the most conservative campus in the country (UOFS being the most right-wing, however) - and Prof vd Ventel is most likely white, Afrikaans and a devout member of the Dutch Reformed Church. It's not really surprising that he would possibly do this - much like "everything is political" for Andy, "religion can be squeezed into everything" for most Afrikaners. Trust me - I went to the PU for CHE - there was a compulsory subject called Wetenskapsleer (lit. "the science of learning" - sort of like philosophy) which was all about how the good Christian applies his faith to his field of study. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When you refer to the Dutch Reformed Church... is that like a "mainstream Protestant" church in the States, which would have no problem with a belief in evolution? Or is it more like the Southern Baptists or evangelicals, where it contradicts their theology? MDB (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They're not evangelical per se, but very much hard-core old-school Calvinists. So evolution would easily be a no-no for them. It's a very potted history, but you have to remember that these are people who dedicated their lives to God after winning the Battle of Blood River, (apparently with His help) and thus based their "right" to rule SA on the fact that God had given the land to the whites. It's a pretty messed-up philosophy, but it certainly wouldn't be odd to find them harbouring Creationist tendencies. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The only time in my life I have nearly walked out of a church service was my mothers funeral service at her church near Cresta in Johannesburg. It is the only funeral I have EVER been to where the minister actually started evangelising during the service. If my father hadn't been there I would have walked out. Many Seth Effricans are second only to the US in the wingnutty attitude toweards religion, imo of course. And psy, was SU the one where the africaners played that lovely joke on their (black) cleaner by making her drink their piss? I really don't like most hairy backs I have met you know. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We also have our fair share of evangelicals too - foremost being Rhema Church, run by an ex-bodybuilder con-man. And the delightful gentlemen you refer to, Mt Gus, were at the Uni of the Free State. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are CP admins so dishonest?

This applies both to Ken and Rob, as well as others. Why deny what you have done as an admin if you're not ashamed of it? Be it RW posts in Rob's case or deleting edits in Ken's case, why deny it? It's not the political ideology of CP that bothers me; it's the overall shadiness of the people there. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's the whole appeal of CP isn't it? If it was just a collection of dour, well adjusted, sober minded, rational individuals, it wouldn't be the #1 internet destination for trolls, parodists, and vandals. I am constantly amazed at how perfectly ill-suited CP admins are to the task they are trying to achieve. First you got Andy with zero leadership skills (natural or acquired), in charge. You got Ken, who can't write, can't read, can't handle criticism, and can't work with others... generating the bulk of the content. Then you have Anger Bear effectively running the "complaints department". It's genius. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy comes off as a crazy, but seemingly nice guy. At the very least, he doesn't make a total buffoon of himself on national TV and comes off slightly likable. The rest of the admin corps is well, crazy people who've accomplished nothing in real life. Rob can't spell worth his life, Ken is just batshit crazy, the late TK seemed in hindsight to be a lonely 60 year old man who was in poor health. If CP was conservative but rational, I agree, you would not attract trolls and parodists. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anders = not a Christian! Oh and atheism is bad.

Thank goodness the shit you say can't be reverted^img when it goes with their ideology, right? Who needs sources for blind assumptions? NOBODY, THAT'S WHO! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I love that page, it's my new favourite. I particularly like the way it has an 'analysis' section, which appears to be parsed as 'stuff I have pulled out of my ass' Worm (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the sense of fear I get from them. Like they aren't confident enough in their own faith or Christianity in general. Like there's some chain of logic that starts with Breivik being a Christian and ends with themselves somehow tarnished. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Too lazy to write the headline for themselves

Now^img Andyboy is even too lazy too write his own headline, he just copies the damn thing. Andy, that wasn't what we meant when we said "more neutral". --★uːʤɱ federalist 18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy's always been lazy when it comes to editing his own site, though; he almost never posts something in the mainspace except to add headlines or edit his own pet essays (or mainspace articles that would be called essays anywhere else). It's one thing for a normal contributor to act like that, but for the owner o the site that steadfastly maintains that he's building an encyclopaedia... άλφα^Talk 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you recommend a good medium?

Appeal to the blocking sysop^img says the Arsefly. Is he having a laugh? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wannt the blocking sysop Karabird?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The latest was TK, the most alive would be the Arsefly himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered exactly what he meant there. TK's "block" was merely a "reblock to disable email". Andy did the actual blocking. I wondered though, did he actually go and look at the block log, see TK's name and then post that message on his page? --Horace (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reasonable sysop over there at this point?--^talk 03:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well he has clearly seen TK's name now^img. And yet he persists! --Horace (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, Anger Bear is on the case^img. Saves you a trip to the spirit world, I guess. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hey, Rob! When you read this, unblock Horace. It'll be hilarious to watch Karajou blow his dome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Atheist Capital

Where is it? Not some godless communist country or socialist france^img But LONDON! --Mikalos209 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I called it first! Seriously though - it's just another extension of Andy's weird "atheistic England" meme - and he only added it, after it was mentioned here, so maybe he is a parodist. Of course, good Xian US cities never have riots. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Christians realise that fatal shootings with the defensive weapon of gun are everyday occurrences and nothing to get upset over. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how he'd report a riot in the Bronx or Queens; London's population is 7.7m; NYC is 8.1m. There were about 400 rioters, most of then from outside the area (Tottenham), which is one of the poorest parts of London. CS Miller (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What Csmiller said. London (as in Greater London) is one of the biggest city's in the world, and Tottenham is one area of one of 32 boroughs of London. Talk about sensationalism. And no mention of a man being shot dead sparking the riot either, it's because it's the "atheist capital". What a prat. SJ ^Debaser 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The police used PACE stop-and-search powers on a local man, Mark Duggan, who was suspected of carrying an illegal firearm. During the incident he was fatally shot. According to local reports there have been tensions between the police and the local community over the way the police have being conducting stop-and-searches. CS Miller (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How does one earn the title of "The Capital of Atheism" anyway? Someone needs to answer that question of him. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is demographic data, if we were talking about an otherwise reasonable, smart theist who was making this claim I'd imagine they'd at least glanced at the census data and that London came out at or near the top on some combination of criteria like "European capital" + "Highest proportion of non-believers". But this is the guy who can't do arithmetic and then bans people who point it out, I'm sure to him any country he doesn't like has an "Atheist capital" unless he's currently claiming everyone there is Muslim. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think people still went to church until I moved to London. 22:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC) AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

They're only going because everywhere else in London, wine is 7 quid a glass. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I live in Peckham (one of the areas with looting/arson) and I can tell you there are more churches than pubs. It's probably one of the most religious areas in the capital. Jaxe (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Politicians and their careers before holding office

This rapidly-evolving clusterfuck^img has so much "wrong" in it, it's hard to figure out where to start. Here's one place to start. Ron Paul is an influential politician. Barack Obama is not. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 01:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy's Obama-hate is cranked up to 11 there. Obama moves into the "No clear influence in politics" section. Also, being an attorney and selling shitloads of books is no career... says Andy Schlafly... attorney.^img And before we forget, he was only a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago.^img --Sid (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to add Andy under the "No clear influence in politics" section. Andy Schlafly - Silver spoon fed trust fund baby, ran for congress and failed miserably. Now runs hate blog, which also fails miserably. Ace^{of Spades} 02:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone just did^img Ace. immediately reverted of course, and no it wasn't me. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is pure brilliance. Real career: Ronald Reagan, actor. Not a real career: Clint Eastwood, actor. Real career: Washington, general. Needs further discussion: Eisenhower, general. Real career: Ron Johnson, CEO of Paucus. Not a real career: Rick Snyder, president of Gateway. Also, singer and pitcher are real careers, professor, physicist, and accountant are not. Are we sure Andy isn't mentally retarded? DickTurpis (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"John Glenn - Marine Corps pilot, astronaut" - Apparently serving you country as a marine (with 90 total combat missions during the Korean War) and being an astronaut, only of the most ballsy jobs in existence doesn't cut it as a "real careers", but being an "accomplished singer" as Jimmie Davis was, well that's a career worth noting. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Had to add this reference: John Glenn has had jobs. Maybe someone should mention that to Andy. reichhol (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is falling over backwards to try and exclude Obama from that list. Which is funny coming from one of the least influential people in the US. Ace^{of Spades} 05:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually laughed out loud when I read "Ronald Reagan - [...] architect of the fall of communism". My previous job actually was being an architect of the fall of communism. It's a pretty tough job to get and the pay is okay, but I quit because of the hours. It was such a real job though! GTac (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least this new project should offer Andy an opportunity to bond with his parodists. I thought he'd been neglecting them lately. Röstigraben (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Rob currently holds the post of the architect of the fall of communism. He thinks it's a real job too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This desperately needed a WIGO so added one. Feel free to improve. I tried to capture most of the ridiculousness in a readable format, but think it could be better. GTac (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also would add a link to the ridiculous logical fallacy Andy is making with saying "A president doesn't have to be politically influential because some non-politicians were influential" but I don't know the name. GTac (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It took a little while, but I think I understand what he's trying to do with the essay. He wants to draw a correlation between the prior profession and the ability to be 'influential.' Besides that it's trying to compare apples and oranges, it's also exactly as subjective as most of his works. Ultimately, it boils down to being a list of politicians that he approves of, and those he's ambivalent about, and those he disapproves of. -Lardashe

But even in that short list, there's a ridiculous overlap between the two. Ronald Raygun? Actor, very influential! Arnold Schwarzenegger? Actor, not very influential! Also, the talk page shows that with Barack Obama he's clearly talking about his job as president, not what he was before.. GTac (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing new that he's trying to promote his AAPS buddy Ron Paul, but calling him "the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade^img"? Apart from the two guys who actually became president, three others who at least got nominated, a vice president, a secretary of state, and a very prominent issue advocate? That's way over the top even for his standards. Röstigraben (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My favourite part of the essay is how Vladimir Putin is inexplicably afforded his own category (Other) with another famous politician who had a real career before entering politics - (please add examples). This is a 'featured essay' on the frontpage of his blog; how deep into the netherlands between parody and reality can he sink? Tielec01 (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And Margaret Thatcher didn't have a career before she went into politics. She only majored in Chemistry. Which will come as an awful shock to the company she worked for and developed new emulsification methods for in ice cream production. He really is a dickhead isn't he? Oldusgitus (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Misreading of Andy's essay

I think many are misreading this essay. Nowhere do I read, aside from the further discussion section, where Andy says that the careers are not real. He says, rightly or wrongly, they were not influential in politics. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, what Andy's arguing is far more illogical than that. The second category is clearly not the opposite of the first, but somehow he hasn't realized that. He seems to assume that politicians who haven't had a meaningful career outside politics are by definition not influential inside politics. Therefore, for him, the second category is a perfect contrast to the first. We're in "not even wrong" territory. Junggai (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. As for the WIGO, I just posted what he stated in his essay. Judging from the second category, it seems like he is talking about "influence in politics", but that's not what the first category or the title of the essay says. In addition to this, I first assumed that with Obama he meant he had no influential career outside of politics, but the talk page makes it clear he does include his current job of president too. It's just another big clusterfuck where Andy just wants to force people he likes and dislikes in boxes and doesn't care about none of it making sense. GTac (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also come on, ConservapediaEditor.. Outside of the list and reference, that essay contains pretty much a title, two subtitles and one line of description. The title is "Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career" and the one line of description is "This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics)". How can you say that you don't read anywhere that Andy is saying the careers are not real? GTac (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is quickly developing into another "Young Mass Murderers" (some of which are not young and/or not mass murderers) where Andy silently defines "influence" in such a specific way to only include people he likes. --Sid (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya, standard trick. You make up your own criteria, you make up your own results, you assert that you've proved something fundamentally important about the world. You can see it in all the crank disciplines. Supporting such analysis in the face of changing facts relies on a sort of reverse Occam's razor: "My explanation is very complicated, the new information you have noticed is to be expected due to a complication I haven't had time to properly explain to laymen such as yourself". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama, or... someone else?

"At least not one befitting a well-connected double Ivy League graduate who has a J.D. from Harvard and worked on the Law Review." says JDWPianist.^img Gee, other than Obama, who does that describe? MDB (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is JDWPianist the longest running, genuine "I find some CP content objectionable and have the guts to speak out" user on CP? I'm honestly surprised he hasn't been quietly swept under the rug yet. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hee! That's a beautiful dig at the courageous, wise and compassionate^[sic] leader. 9.5/10 to JDWP. Pippa (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, sour grapes^img. That HLR episode must really be one of Andy's most painful memories. Röstigraben (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A dentist left atheism!

Yep, a Dentist left, that means atheism is screwed now!^img Oh and SoG is still yet to go "full throttle and crush Atheism by its throat", and the campaigns been going for what, 2, 3 months I think, with plans to push into the rest of the country and the UK/the world!--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but just wait when Operation Flying Fortress kicks in... any day now... any... day... now... Also WTF is it with "leaving" atheism? Is "renounce" beyond their vocabulary? They make it sound like some sort of club. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing because those who have followed SoG over on YouTube have realized more people have publicly converted to atheism because of him, than he has claimed people left atheism because of him (to which he only claims vaguely). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Did Ken ever create that Piece De Resistance essay of his?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because Ken isn't trolling on the main page with a selected quote that sounds like the beginning of a porn movie. Oh Andykins, this is the public face of your project. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Open your mouth wide and I fill it". Hahahahahaha Oh Ken, you've done it again. --Horace (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Truly we should accept Shock's word because he had recorded some anonymous user who came on the microphone remotely with a chat handle of "doctor" something or other claim he is now a Christian, because that's concrete evidence; as it isn't like anyone can create any name they want on an online chatroom and saying whatever they like. AmIRight? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"YouTubber", Ken ? Is SockofGod fat? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The worst and most stupid association fallacy ever encountered in the history of mankind

I'm pretty sure Ken wants to be a smart ass here^img, but that is so enormously dumb that the English language is missing a word for it. Other things the French government or the French people favored and invented over the years: Absolutism, Republicanism, Human Rights, photography, film, the Cartesian coordinate system, the metric system, the stethoscope, taxis (or "cabs"), airplanes, non-human powered submarines, bicycle, the bra, the bikini, champagne, Air Forces (1910 France had the first air forces), the optical telegraph, braille and the battery. Forget it all! The French were wrong before! --★uːʤɱ digital native 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the French didn't expect the sneaky Germans to invade Holland to get round the Line, just like they won't expect the sneaky GOP to derail the US economy, thus precipitating a world-wide depression with the sole aim of turning people to God and hastening the return of Baby Jebus. PsyGremlinParla! 12:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There wouldn't even be a United States of America without the French, the British would have bombarded the the revolutionary army out of existence if the French Navy didn't show up. Although there would be no France now if they didn't. Aren't alliances a nice thing? - π 13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stupid Frenchies! They trust the U.S. economy and credit! Man, aren't they gonna look silly when the U.S. goes belly-up. Boy, am I gonna laugh."

I'm totally with Ken here. He's showing the superiority of the Americans over the French. Phiwum (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I love it when we get to the point that patriotic Americans root for their own country to fail just so they can crow about being right about something. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 14:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Americans for Prosperity over the Olympics bid. "Yayyyyy we didn't get it!" ^{ONE / TALK} 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You forget - these are the same Frenchies who wouldn't support Saint Dubbya in his illegal war, but they support Obama in his bid to destroy America. Filthy liberals all of them. Ken's going to be scooping Freedom Fries into his fat face again. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

More and more Americans are seeing how unpatriotic the Tea Baggers are, and this is an excellent example. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Phil, don't bring that fucking word into this. It reeks of CP.--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, the words I use and the thoughts I have aren't shaped by the opposition, but by my own set of values and beliefs, so I have no problem with anything I wrote (I'm assuming the word you refer to is "patriotic"). --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the perfect word; the Tea Party HATES America _{as it really is} and loves this other country that only exists in their imagination. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 15:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I will never get tired of telling people they hate America in arguments. It's so fun and it really catches right wingers off guard. I love when the conversation descends into yelling "NO YOU HATE AMERICA" back and forth. Casual observers really get a kick out of it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia spends its entire time either criticising things that are currently wrong with America, or claiming that America is *becoming* better (i.e. "more conservative"), which must mean that it is currently bad (to become more conservative, it must start off less conservative, which is baaaaad). Conservapedia's entire political viewpoint is based on them hating what America currently is. X Stickman (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fast! They disagree with us, let's collect some dirt on them to show them how bad they really are how smart I really am!^img Ken, I am sorry for you. I am sorry for you that you think the argumentum ad hominem and the association fallacy are valid rethorical tools, I feel sorry for you that you search the internet to make yourself feel better after a nobody like me had a laugh at you and most of all, because you are who you are and for that illness there, is no medicine. </dickmode> But it's still nice to see the puppet dance again. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob's Castle? Belongs to Karajou now.

• Rob: "Please stop fucking around with my user talk page."^img
• Kara: "Your talk page is part of this site, and I hereby declare that you are not allowed to revert my actions on this site."^img

Lovely. --Sid (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I love the way he talks. There's so much false authority in there, it's almost darling. X Stickman (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Rob, whatever happened to Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will.? Karajou is the biggest pseudo Christian asshole in a world with a few too many pseudo Christian assholes. Junggai (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You vill respect Kendoll's personal fiefdom! I AM DER ENFORCER!^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Best username ever^img — if you know German well enough. (It's nothing dirty or not PC) Although, he might be for real and just have a very unfortunate user name. --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing that it's a real name. Take away the first "R," and it's a grammatically-correct sentence. (Psst, Sid/Larron/MB, did we just blow your cover?) Junggai (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"I love the way he talks. There's so much false authority in there, it's almost darling." Exactly. One has to be a pretty small man to act like that on a volunteer-driven Wiki; it is probably the only place in his life where he has a sense of empowerment. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's like you can almost hear Brian (while he's at work at the Murfreesboro mall [and true marriage emporium] "keeping the peace"), "You will not try to refill that soda again!!!!1!" :::sigh::: 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I imagine him sitting there waving his hand at the computer screen like he thinks he's a Jedi or something. "You will not revert my edits…" «-Bfa-» 22:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Who made this? I swear I didn't do it. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We've known about that WikiFur thing for years. I see Karajou as a sad character who has not been able to come to terms with civilian life and continues the behaviour he enjoyed as a junior officer in the Navy. Bullies cannot stand to be questioned about the ethics or rightfulness of their orders because they are not able to rationally explain their actions so they just lash out. Which is the sort of behaviour that leads to self-harm and comfort eating in kids. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Junggai, I noticed that, too, but it's not me (ignoring the fact that I don't sock, I never would've thought that a name like that would last). And I didn't point it out sooner because pfffffff, Karajou only wants to be notified of parodists when you're nice and polite about it. --Sid (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The username stuff won't be reformed anytime soon. It should be patently obvious by now, no one pays any attention whatsoever to the quality of a user's mainspace contributions or talk page edits, they only look at the username & checkuser -- that's all. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Any edit that doesn't contain a flying kitten can be considered a good edit. When you set the bar so low theres no need to check any edits. Ace^{of Spades} 23:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just sick to death of the amount of time wasted on that site.

• User:XYZ, "I'm here and would like to contribute." BANHAMMER. Unacceptable user name
• User:TommyG, "I'm here and would like to help." BANHAMMER. Sock of XYZ

I'm serioulsy thinking of going back to Wikipedia, there's a lot I could still do there. And if I do, it's stuff like would be the reason why. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey, just do it already. You're never going to make Kendollpedia in to an encyclopaedia, and you'll be banned inside of a month anyway. Just quit already, and stop vacillating. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

CP has serious "dog in a manger" issues because most of those lashing out are (and never have been) serious contributors (that includes you, Ed "look at my stubs" Poor); they may have contributed to one or two articles but are no longer ongoing contributors. Ken has by an large done as much as he can in assembling his scrapbook articles and is playing around (on a claimed educational resource) with satires and ad hominem attacks. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Rob. I got as far as "I'm serioulsy thinking" and burst out laughing (and not because of the misspelling either). If you did any "serious thinking" you wouldn't be at CP in the first place, or have gone back to them, or come back here looking for some kind of sympathy... --Tygrehart

Rob loses more rights

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARobSmith+&year=&month=-1 Goodbye Checkuser, now goodbye SiteAdmin... Rob's days are numbered. Refugee^{talk page} 03:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah, the death by a thousand cuts. What a wimp the Arsefly is. If you want him gone, just demote and ban him already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously... All that does is prevents Rob from locking or unlocking the database [4]. I wonder what Andy's reasoning is. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if he's been kicked out of the latest iteration of the special discussion group yet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Likely, especially since it's quite possible that Andy isn't the (sole) list admin. I vaguely remember (too lazy to doublecheck) that during similar times with Philip, Ed unceremoniously kicked him out to preserve the peace and then demanded an apology or something. --Sid (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Andy, Ed, Kara and TK all had "owner" rights in the group. This wasn't extended to any of the junior admins added to the groups, because being a CP sysop is all about POWAH! PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

True indeed. Well, of course I'd have no way of knowing, but I'd suspect that there are currently two groups (much like the old "general CP Sysop" group and the secret "fab-five" group) and that Rob was only allowed into the first group, and that Kara is angrily condemning him in the elite group and demanding his removal. He's probably also complaining a lot about Psy. But of course that's just speculation on my part. Refugee^{talk page} 06:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

He's throwing a bone to the Old Guard screaming for my head. If TK were around, TK I beleive would have actually supported elements of a reform movement. Karajou still thinks it's 2007 when he was awarded the banhammer from me & TK.

My beef with Karajou is this: when Andy first proposed Range blocks, Karajou & TK should have gone to MetaWiki & did their homework and reported back to Andy what it all meant before they did anything because obviously Andy doesn't have the time. That would have been the proper role of a sysop in helping the boss. Instead, they blindly felt Andy knew it all, which everyone knows he needs technical advice, and implemented this program. This was a collossal error in serving Andy & the CP project. Karajou still thinks wielding the banhammer is the answer to all problems, despite the fact everyone can see how useless it is. Nothing gets done. The Community does not grow, articles are not created, articles are not updated, but countless years a squandered because that is what these guys think a sysop is, somebody who denies troublemakers access to the webserver-- their only experience being what happened to them in Wikipedia. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you not spoken to Andy directly about any of these problems? What was the response? Silence....? Is he an impotent leader as he appears to be?--Buscombe (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Andy endorsed rescinding

Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed [5]

and that a blocking policy should be built around the following 11 words,

Conservapedia is an open wiki that does not allow cp:liberal censorship.

Liberal censorship is largely a rehash of TK's work that essentially says liberal censorship is trolling. My problem is largely with Karajou. It began with his block of the real life Chip Berlet. After 4 years, Berlet finally came to protest somethings in his bio and never edited outside the talk page. Karajou googled him, decided he was a liberal, and blocked him in total contravention of all CP policies. Now my problems with Berlet date from a time Berlet & others created a bio page on Daniel Brandt solely as a hit piece. When Brandt protested, he was blocked at Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons was created out of this dispute (see cp:Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy. It is grossly unfair to use a wiki to destroy a persons character, and then deny that same person the opportunity to defend themself in an open forum there. That's what was behind my efforts to defend Conservapedia in Wikipedia in the Spring of 2010. Even there, the minute I mentioned Dr. Peter Lipson, I was warned about WP:BLP, and trust me, few wiki editors are as intimitely familiar with the rational behind BLP than myself. But all of this is lost on Karajou. Did Chip Berlet vandalize Conservapedia? NO. Did Chip Berlet troll Conservapedia? No. All he did was ask for some fairness in his bio, and Karajou banned him as a liberal. I emailed Berlet, apologized, unblocked him, and invited him back. But Berlet has no interest now in ever getting involved in the project, and can probably do the project serious damage based on his personal experience, dealing with Karajou. But Karajou is as dense as brick, expecting him to understand any of the serious issues invovled. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob... all your proving is your wasting your time there... i hope you realize that.--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Something about the airforce?

I haven't clicked into his website and i shouldn't have to to be able to understand what that headline means^img, so, anybody understand just what he tried to say?--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It says: "PLZ CLICK I WANT TO MAKE MONEY". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll save you the time. It's an article by the son of one of Terry's Tea-buddies, but Terry's posted it on his blog under his own name instead of the authors. If you get alllll the way down to the bottom he finally mentions that it was basically a cut-n-paste of someone else's work. Conservative values in action. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In fairness to Terry, though, he corrected it within minutes of being informed of it. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, he finally seems to have cut off comments, so really no reason to visit his site anymore. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.167.224 / talk / contribs}

Link for the above BoN edit Pippa (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they've gone into head-in-sand mode. Reality was too liberal for them. --DinsdaleP (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"two plus two equals for" ... not to nitpick their spelling, but this whole article just burns me up. "Social justice is a contradiction in terms," followed by a vague statement about how we have a problem with truth, mixed in with some Ayn Rand quotes and a statement that social justice is actually a mob... words cannot express what a load of crap that whole article is. άλφα^Talk 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Linkwhoring redux

Not content with adding his own linkwhoring to CP, Terry's now tacking links^img to his drivel straight onto other MPL news articles. I like the modesty of the man, seeing himself as a reliable news source. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My God, it's easy to troll Andy!

I can't believe he fell^img for this^img! (Not posted by me — I've only had an account on CP once, quickly banned by TK.) Superb insight indeed. No one could tell that this was the conclusion Andy wanted, no sir. Phiwum (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to watch somebody play Andy like a cheap violin. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I think I would have gone with: It's always a pleasure to watch someone fellate a washed-up, has-been lawyer like a two-dollar hooker, although I grant you that yours was punchier.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the parodists will never come close to genuine idiocy: Having a real job will make you more conservative.^img --Sid (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Genuine idiocy, parody, or both? I don't know how to call that one. --Phentari (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I remain convinced that Benp is the greatest parodist of content in CP history. The guy basically started the disaster that is "secularized language", wrote the article on the best of the public, and had his grubby paws all over half the other stuff in that RW page about Andy's dumbest insights. Throw in stuff like cp:Essay:Liberal Intelligence and I don't think there's any doubt. Has a knack for flying under the radar, though. --Benod (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When you get being Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (Eisenhower) rated as a career before politics that "needs further discussion", you know the whole enterprise as doomed. I repeat what I've said before, that Schlafly's behaviour is so counter-productive that I feel he's got to be a far-left infiltrator trying to discredit the US conservative movement. At least, that's the only rational explanation for what he's doing. The Real James Brown (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Occam's razor puts the conspiracy theory behind the fact that he's just stupid. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed really deserves a Community Building Fail Barnstar or something (pt. 2)

Re-creating an older topic that will soon be archived, I guess. I rarely do this, but Ed managed to seriously piss into my Zen Pool this time.

Recap:

• Ed: "So, you've been speaking out in favor of sysop accountability, huh? And I see you didn't do the things you somewhere said you'd do. YOU'RE ON PAROLE! WRITING PLAN! NOW!"^img
• MRellek: "Er... no, thanks?"^img
• Ed: "Banhammer for violating the absurd rule I declared to be policy years ago!"^img
• Rob: "FFS, Ed..."^img
• MRellek: "Yeah, I got the drift, Ed. Seeya."^img

And now... three days later... Ed claims moral high ground.^img

I thought I had reached a sort of happy state where CP can't make me go all "SYSOP! Y U SO DUMB?" anymore, but ohhhh boy, was I ever wrong.

And for the record, here^img is my reply, but it's not why I made this section, and I feel stupid for pimping my own shit. This section is all about Ed "Community Fail" Poor.

Though hey, I think I'm properly in the "Not Caring" zone now. Karajou pushed me most of the way with his utter inability to spot parody even when diffs are supplied (while blocking the messenger for not being polite enough), and Ed now sealed the deal. Kinda funny that CP's most obvious troll played only a very little role in this. But then again, I was always looking more at policies and enforcement than at the antics of a child. --Sid (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Christ he's a shit head. I'd say more, but that would be a waste of perfectly good vitriol. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Props for a great reply though SoCal 212 ^{But said it would be legal...} 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And props to Sid for calling the creep out. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 03:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: nice job Sid. Ed's always been a bit of an enigma to me. At times he acts more mature than most of the other CP sysops, but then he goes all lateral and does something like this. Kara, Jpatt and Ken are just comic book characters at this point. Ed's more complex, but not necessarily in a good way.--Simple (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast, troll.^img Kind of a shame, really. SoCal 212 ^{But said it would be legal...} 07:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And a block^img thrown in for good measure for 'incivility'. JCW is really turning into a little clone of the karajerk isn't (s)he. Blocking for no good reason and reverting edits to user pages by the user and such. Now Rob, go do your work and unblock Sid and explain to JCW that 1/ (s)he is not a sysop and 2/ Sid was not being uncivil but clearly explaining the truth. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly explaining the truth" is against the (unwritten) rules. Truth only flows from the mouths of the almighty sysops. SoCal 212 ^{But said it would be legal...} 08:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, all. :) And huh, hadn't expected Bugler Jcw to label me as a troll and to overstep his Assistant rights again. Oh well, maybe my guardian angel Rob will do his thing (again XD) or I'll sit the week out. Seriously, I don't really give a crap at this point - CP is once again run by parodists, and the "always-alert" (HAH!) sysops are as incapable of seeing the signs as ever. Meanwhile, Ken, Kara and Ed are masturbating to their unchecked abuse, Andy is pulling Insights out of his ass (...at a geometric rate?), and Terry still spams his blog links. And they're congratulating each other for having created such a great site. *facepalms* --Sid (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Watching CP is like watching a train wreck unfold while the driver and conductor insist everything is peachy. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When I watch CP, I keep getting flashbacks to this episode from Freefall. --Sid (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservative and Human

Did anyone get a screengrab of cp:Talk:Atheism where Conservative tried to diss Human by posting a link to a review of some online company? Very weird, possiby over the line if it's a company Human's actually involved with, but deleted now.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken's done this before; it's not the first time he's stalked Huw's company. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see Ken has also been busy archiving (though apparently at least actually archiving without burning the history) very current events. Talk:Atheism^img is missing the "John Calvert" section (last post five hours before the archiving) and Conservapedia:Community Portal^img is completely empty (last post four hours before the archiving). (Okay, trying to display a 200k diff kinda makes CP hiccup, so here's the before^img and after^img permalink.) Olé! --Sid (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, essentially kenny got his arse handed to him on a plate - again - and once again didn't like but instead of burning the evidence as he would have done before Robs he simply archives now on the basis that people rarely if ever read the archives and even more rarely post there. So by default he wins again. Ole, ole, ole. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My favorite: his claim that he won't lose any sleep^img over that matter, while his logs show that he didn't find any sleep until early in the morning... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is golden. I have worked it into a wigo. Btw, what timezone does the CP edit log display in? I have a hard time translating it into GMT. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's EST. You wouldn't expect Conservapedia to use any of those atheistic British times. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wobblebottom's blog

Now has moderated comments. Guess Terry got fed up with dealing with pesky facts. Still, at least he's in line with all the other conservative wing-nuts. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Linky-poo. What I found impressive about Coke Eyes, perhaps the only thing, was that he allowed reasoned dissent on his blog. Just goes to show you that unless conservatives wall themselves off--hello, CP!--they have trouble arguing and tolerating views that don't conform to their own. Epistemic closure anyone? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted above. Pippa (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The most depressing routine ever

Rob logs on, groans quietly, cracks his knuckles, and gets to work:

• Undo Jcw's removal of my post^img
• Restore at least recent Community Portal sections^img
• Restore at least the most recent Talk:Atheism section^img
• Undo Karajou's removal of a Horace-related post^img

And he likely mutters something like "I can't leave this wiki alone for ONE NIGHT without idiots censoring everything they find uncomfortable..." as he works. --Sid (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Rob. I'd help if I could, but unfortunately the job he's burdening himself with is a job only he seemingly can undertake... go, Sisyphus, roll that rock. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, surely his task is more akin to Heracles cleaning the Augean stables? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I told you before: JacobB, HP, Jcw, AngusT = parodists. I realize you no longer have the authority to act unilaterally on this, but still, if you want to help out CP (and since you can't remove Ken, Karajou, or Andy) purging these guys is the best start. DickTurpis (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dick, maybe you should just go join CP since you seem to want to see Andy Schlafly's project soar? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Who says I haven't? DickTurpis (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Who says you have? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And how much time each week do you dedicate to reading the Bible? --Sid (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing pathetic about wanting to create a compendium of conservative thought; there is a lot that is pathetic with someone exerting effort in making Andy Schlafly's fairy tale land that compendium. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kill the lulztree, no more juicy lulzfruit drops. KnowwhatImean? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps DickT is JacobB, HP, Jcw and AngusT. These things have happened before (allegedly). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

2012 Presidential Elections: Jeb Bush

Andy's imaginary Presidential election gets more interesting. Jeb Bush is still #3^img as most likely to win the nomination, which is fascinating since his high-profile son, Jeb Bush Jr., has now endorsed Jon Huntsman. Will this knock Jeb out of Andy's race, or will Andy assume that this means that privately the Bush family is at war with itself? Jeb Sr. has praised Pawlenty; Pawlenty has taken Jeb's Florida campaign operation; Pawlenty was praised by Jeb Bush friend John McCain; and now his son has endorsed Huntsman. Andy: Perhaps Pawlenty and Huntsman are stalking horses for Jeb!!! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I could tell how heartbroken Andy was when it turned out that Marco Rubio didn't fit his definition of a natural born citizen. I kind of felt for him. This ridiculous little ideas are actually important to him. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's going to be Rick Perry or Mitt Romney. You just know that even if *I* win the fucking nomination, despite being a filthy liberal and not even being eligible to hold the office, Andy will somehow make it look like CP predicted it all along. The man is a pathological liar. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Occasionaluse, you misremember. As Andy patiently explains^img, Rubio is totally natural-born because his parents accepted being subject to US authority and Obama's daddy didn't. Phiwum (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A wiki shouldn't be this difficult...

It's a minor issue, but someone needs to remove the html tags from the main page^img. It's really bothering me... How did they manage to break Mediawiki? άλφα^Talk 21:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

By not closing their hype-inducing tags? ;) Love the large font, by the way. It adds so much authority to the site! --Sid (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll tries to help^img, breaks it in new and interesting ways. Balanced tags, bitch. Look it up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I love it when obvious problems like this stay on the homepage of Conservapedia for hours on end. It shows just how incompetent they are at keeping something as simple as the homepage looking even half-decent. Considering that the homepage is the first thing people judge the site by, you'd thing they'd take better care of it (then again, you've got Ken shitting his cats and clowns all over the page, so what's the point?). ~SuperHamster Talk 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

5 hours from cockup to fix, and only because some guy from encyclopedia dramatica told them how to fix it. What a bunch of screw ups. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official: Jcw won.

• Max: "Please stop reverting and blocking everything you don't like...^img
• Karajou: "Don't listen to that wanker, Jcw.^img You're doing great and I decree that you will keep doing it! Your last revert^img removed something vulgar, and the guy was a troll. Well done, son."

I guess this should come as no surprise to me. After all, Kara recently proved that he was absolutely incapable of detecting even the most obvious parody. But actively encouraging one? Come on... --Sid (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Bugler on the fast track to sysophood. Being CP's brand of conservative apparently means never learning from past mistakes. The only question is which RWian is running him? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Max appears to be the only good faith user there. Which means he won't be around for long. Ace^{of Spades} 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If Kyle's (Horace's) comment was vulgar, maybe Max should ask why nobody reverts Conservative's attacks and block him. Good ol' fashion double standard. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be disturbing...

Is this capturebot fumble a one-time incident? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just one of CP's little technical hiccups caught on camera. Delete it and you'll get a better result second time around. (just to prod capturebot along^img) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There you go, fixed now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's almost worth a WIGO...

After a long absence, Hitler makes a triumphal return^img to the main page. Thanks Ken, your self parody makes CP watching worthwhile. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lemme guess... Herman Goering is an obese evolutionary atheist racist. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 02:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He's atleast some of em--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it ever cross Ken's mind that maybe it's not a good idea that the first thing poeople see on the CP mainpage is Hitler? Especially under 'Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career'? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your talking about the person who decides having a picture showing Christianity as a raging, uncontrollable and destructive wildfire while athiesm is a firefighter (A hero according to 99.99% of the population of the planet) is good PR for Xtianity. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken is absurdly stupid when it comes to metaphors. When he was on his bull-fighting machismo meme some of the time the bull was atheism and other times it was the toreador. One day he'll finally get his leg over and be able to put all that childish stuff behind him. Keep looking Ken, there's a special someone just for you somewhere. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken is absurdly stupid. Fixed it for you.
And Ken, you can find your legover here. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks you can easily swab the Hitler and Bachmann pics around and get a coherent yet satirical picture of reality? --★uːʤɱ secularist 11:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen User:Conservative do this twice now: he begins with the germ of an idea from somebody else, (the Hitler beleived in Darwin he got from me, and Conservative values help fight obesity he got from Andy), and runs with it. There you go, Ken: Herman Goering was an obese liberal atheist Nazi. Lotsa photo & historic sources available for this one. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And just to be an ass about it: it's Hermann Goering. --★uːʤɱ sinner 17:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hitler believed in Darwin." ummm, not to be pedantic, but who doesn't "believe in Darwin"? Charles Darwin's existence is pretty much taken to be factual, and not a question of belief. We have many photographs of him, documents written in his hand, firsthand accounts from people who met him, spoke with him, etc... BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Goering never actually existed. He was simply a puppet carved out of solid meat, and operated by several people in various ways. I dare anyone to check Goering's wikipedia profile picture and then claim that he is not an inanimate object carved out of oily meat. X Stickman (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rob is talking about believing in Darwin's theory of evolution, not whether or not Darwin actually existed... ~SuperHamster Talk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah...I couldn't tell if you were joking, or just very stupid =P ~SuperHamster Talk 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't I be both? BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 17:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The really funny bit, is that it actually has nothing to do with Darwin. If Ken had any intellectual honesty, he'd pin Hitler's racist ideas on two men - Count Joseph Arthur de Gonineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. It was their racist doctrines that the Nazis took to heart. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the typical defense mechanism: Hitler=Darwinist, Breivik=Crazy! If you think that nobody who believes the things you believe, has ever done anything bad, you are probably delusional. --★uːʤɱ secularist 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Psy's right, and neither was German; Gobineau was French & Chamberlain was English. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 20:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob agress with Psy that the racism of the Nazis had nothing to do with Darwin. That only leaves three options:

1. Rob's account got hacked.
2. Rob's a parodist.
3. The world is going to end soon!

I so hope for option 2. --★uːʤɱ secularist 21:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) PS. Chamberlain later became a German citizen, as he got married to Eva Wagner, daughter of Richard Wagner, friend of Nietzsche who got misunderstood by the Nazis, who were in close with the later descendants of the Wagner family - damn it's a small world.

I think you're getting Neville mixed up with Houston Chamberlain (easy to do), who also wrote an obsequiously nationalist biography of Wagner. Junggai (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Duhh, I'd better learn to read... Junggai (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yahbutt Nietzsche later had a falling out with Wagner (see Nietszche Contra Wagner by Nietszche) and Wagner never met Chamberlain as he didn't live long enoough. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Only going for the small world line... --★uːʤɱ atheist 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Atheist Governments

How dumb are these atheist Chinese???^img They are economically inept. Stupid atheists. They lent money to the US. How dumb can you get? Wait... the US? Isn't that a Christian country? (Ineptly put, but I am in a hurry) --Horace (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yet another government so stupid that they invested in the United States. What dopes! Phiwum (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean Obama destroyed the atheist communist PRC? That must mean he's a hero or something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But he also loses said hero award for being a atheist communist who is destroying america... which will actually make it more conservative... wait but thats good too... I'm so confused D:--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why, that's reminiscent of the classic conservative parable of the ant and the grasshopper. The ant labored all summer to build up a food surplus, while the grasshopper just mooched off her promising to pay her back eventually. But when winter came, he still hadn't collected any food and found himself on the verge of default. So he put on a tri-corner hat, gave a rambling speech about the gold standard and insisted that he could just ignore his creditors. Then they both starved. So kids, don't be suckers who produce more than they consume. Röstigraben (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second didn't we just a few weeks back sing the song of "US is so deep in debt not even the Chinese won't give Obama money anymore"? I guess if they were inept and don't invest in the US, then the US is a good investment? Which means that Obama is a good POTUS because he made the country more "investable" - but he is also a communist/socialist/atheist/muslim/liberal so he actually has no fuckin' clue what he is doing. No wonder Ken is up at night with such a paradox. You know, other people would have given up already, but he just hangs in there! --★uːʤɱ soviet 08:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They're atheists, therefore they are "the enemy", and that is all that matters, nothing else actually has to make sense, (even if they crow about China becoming more and more Christian too).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Open Mind

Who does this remind you of: "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of you, Terry Pratchett. By the way, you should put a date after you sign your posts. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of one of the greatest Manchester punk bands of all time. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr Tim Minchin everyone. - π 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exit the Barnstar of Kindness

Easy come^img. Easy go^img. --Horace (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he mistook it for a Barnstar of Fascism. Which would've been more appropriate, anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that he still shows off the Banhammer Barnstar for his "tireless vigilence [sic] against fascist liberal trolls." Yes, CP is truly an educational resource. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Passive-Aggressive sarcasm, gotta love that. --★uːʤɱ federalist 11:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It would have looked better on the talk page next to the Warning template. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 16:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone make that a wigo! RatMaster ^háblame 21:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only asteroids...

Earlier we learned according to Terry, all asteroids and comets come from the Earth itself as part of a consequence of The Deluge!^img Did you know that all the water found on Mars (and the Moon, and Mercury too) is also from the Earth? You didn't?! Well you do now!^img He seriously has the Earth ejaculating all over the entire Solar System like in some cheap interstellar porno flick.

My favorite part though from his article on his website is this little gem:

“”The water came to Mars all at once, during the same great bombardment that pockmarked the Moon, gave it its “face,” and locked it to keep that face toward the earth.

He seriously claims that a rock bombardment from the Earth is responsible for the Moon being tidally locked; there isn't a face palm big enough to express what I think of that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No wonder he's turned off comments on his blog - in typical, insulting CP style of course. I guess even Terry can stand people reading his drivel and going WTF for so long. More intellectual dishonesty from a conservative. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear goat, I'd like to believe that when he wrote 'two plus two equals for' on that blog of his he was being ironic. Thing is, I actually think he did mean to type FOUR but is too fucking thick to notice he got it wrong. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why I read the Trustworthy Encylopedia, it is years, even lightyears (sic) ahead of science. Teach the controversy! Jimaginator (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In the future, can we copy/paste Terry's brilliant insights somewhere so we don't actually have to go to his retarditorium to read his mindless drivel? DickTurpis (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I confess, the only thing I read of his on a regular basis, it his serialised sci-fi masterpiece "Barratry", starring the conservative and therefore un-sexy Wing Commander Veroniki Pappadopoulos. It makes "Left Behind" seem like an epic. And good. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. He actually typed "two plus two equals for". What irony. /point /laugh Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus arsefucking christ. I thought you were kidding about Terry's sci-fi. BUT IT'S REAL! You'd think creationism would exhaust all his ability to make up stupid stories, but apparently not. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But I thought that the pockmarks are all over the other side of the moon, the one facing away from Earth; just as one would expect if there was a God according to Andy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question Evolution! debate page

Just a matter of time^img before more users refute one question after another and Conservative goes on a censorship/trolling spree or deletes the whole thing. Anyone else chuckle when they read question one and wonder how creationists can be so dishonest (or stupid) as to think the origin of life can be explained by evolution? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't chuckle (it was more of a groan), but it's indeed funny how this campaign starts out by showcasing that they don't even comprehend what the Theory of Evolution actually covers. And Ken won't censor, I guess. He'll either claim that these are all "faux answers", or he'll suddenly be busy for a few months again. Lalala, can't hear you! --Sid (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We could help 'em out by copy-pasting our 15 answers to the questions no evolutionist can answer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! TEH CAPS!Sphincter (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One major fault with all these questions is that they don't realise just how fucking long it's had to work. Not a hundred, not a thousand, not even a million, years but literally billions of years. Pippa (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing I learned a long ago on Ray Comfort's blog, where he used to challenge evolution with such amazing questions as "How did the first male of a species find a female?" and "which came first, blood or the heart?", is that these folk don't want answers to their questions. All they *really* want is for people to read the questions and think "Hey, yeah..." A lot of those people will read up on the subject and find out the answer. A few of them will accept it as a valid criticism of evolution and follow in their footsteps. That's all this bullshit is; evangelism. It's not an honest search for answers, or even an honest critique of evolution. It's just modernised evangelism. X Stickman (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Pippa. The creatards have a difficult job understanding any of the atheist or scientific positions, they can only view it all through their own narrow worldview. So atheism is a "religion" because it's a belief and evolution has quantised steps which must have occurred within the last 10,000 years because that's all they can comprehend.

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to answer some of these as I have an account there, but the real question is: Would it be a complete waste of time?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Might be interesting to see what happens if you answer them thoroughly enough. SoCal ^{But said it would be legal...} 01:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FINISH HIM!!!

(Block log);^img 19:20 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: You are leaving this website.)

Oh Lordy... --Sid (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: Apparently, this^img is the comment that caused this hulk-out. --Sid (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS: "I'M SO ANGRYYYYY..."^img --Sid (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

KARAJOU SMASH! Oh well, it wasn't like anybody didn't see this coming a mile off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Karajou ranting about hate is like Michael Jackson ranting about child abuse. --PsyGremlinSermā!

And the wiki equivalent^img of a post-climax cigarette. Mhhhhhh... bangasm... --Sid (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Resign or be thrown out". I think Rob if Rob persists long enough he can wear Karajou out and make him leave. I wonder if Andy is just waiting for one side to give up. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I could have sex with that block log entry. Intimidation by an infinite block and an edict to leave the site because of intimidation. You can't make this shit up. Not even parodists have such low self-awareness. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Though they may hate me, I will force them to esteem me as well."^img How have I not noticed that totally hilarious quote before? Oh, yes, we are all slowly being forced to respect Karajou for the man he is. Phiwum (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF?:

(Block log); 13:40 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked JenniferD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (sock of RobS)

(Block log); 13:40 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked HarrisP (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (sock of RobS)

(User creation log); 13:38 . . HarrisP (Talk | contribs) New user account

(Block log); 13:37 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked CrybabyBrian (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Intimidating behaviour/harassment)

(User creation log); 13:32 . . CrybabyBrian (Talk | contribs) New user account

I didn't delte anything out of that! That batshit insane walking anger management problem block people without letting them speak a single word! --★uːʤɱ secularist 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Harris probably shared an octet with Rob. You can't expect Karajou to know how the internet works. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's just Karajou lying again. He always conveniently identifies socks when he needs to get rid of people. Somebody who is inconvenient will simply be declared a sockpuppet of user X, even and especially when they're using a proxy to hide their IP. It makes absolutely no sense, but who will question his wisdom or his blocks? Heck, that's how this entire clusterfuck basically started! Kinda wondering if we'll now see a new Night of the Blunt Knives. --Sid (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was Harrison. I just wanted to ask Kajagoogoo how, if "Andy was in charge," he could take it upon himself to decide anything about another sysop. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG! You're TK RobSmith! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Karajou has mastered TK's ancient art of knowing what Andy wants and acting on his unspoken commands. Read: "Hey, Andy, Rob is working against you. I'm sure you agree that something had to be done, right?" - "Uh... sure, whatever. Should I take away his rights?" - "That would be best, yes. Excellent decision!" - "Thank you. I'm indeed a good leader." --Sid (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear goat, can you imagine how empty, powerless and ineffectual his life must be? How much of a failure karajerk must feel about everything he has done in his miserable existance? To know that the only power you will ever wield in your life is on a right wing back water of the net?
Go for it karajou, block the world. Make it all nice and shiny so you can pretend that you amount to something instead of being what you really are. What we all know you are. What Rob knows you are. And what deep DEEP down inside you also know you are. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It's unimaginable. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When did anger bear become so absolutely arm shakingly angry that he stopped doing his weakly toons? Come on Brian, don't leave the only audience you will ever get for your humour in suspense. Give us over here some toons to enjoy. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeesh.Doesn't Rob ever see the writing on the wall. They don't fucking want you there, Rob. Just leave. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The war is on again. Rob has unblocked himself, slapped jcw down and is pucnhing back. Go Rob, go. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

FFFUUUU- why aren't any socks/parodists (well I see one? if it's a poe?) making any comments as to Andy's lack of leadership? Just say it outright, fer goat's sake. Everyone keeps tip-toeing around mentioning Andy, WHY?! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I love his angry logic that was posted above. "You can't tell me what to do. Andy is in charge of the website, not you. Now do what I tell you to do, despite the fact that I haven't consulted with Andy." Also I have to imagine that at some point in his life, he's taken a management course or something (maybe in the navy?) that has taught him that telling people what to do by phrasing it as some kind of mind control command ("you are leaving this website") is either really effective or really intimidating. It really doesn't work. Just makes him look like a prat. X Stickman (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would suggests it's symptomatic of an abused child ("Stop hitting your sister or you're going to bed without dinner") but I'm not an expert. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Obamageddin 2.0!

the word obamageddon has returned to the front page!^imgperhaps this time the republicans will win the elections unlike 2010 which was a sweeping RINO/Democrat victory?--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First Obamageddon was the impending doom that electing a negro would inflict upon all America, then it was the doom that would come to Obama administration in the mid-term elections. Now it's apparently back to its original meaning^img. I think I preferred my interpretation. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are those tent cities for real? I'm shocked.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The featured tent city was founded five years ago. It's retroactive Obamageddon! Phiwum (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

5 Years? then wouldn't that bee Bushville? OH NOES......--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. They clearly founded that tent city in anticipation of Obama's victory. Always remember: Bad thing happens during Republican rule = People anticipate a Democrat victory and feel disheartened by it. Good things happen during Democrat rule = People anticipate a Republican victory and feel encouraged by it. See for example the rising stock market prices before the Midterm Elections - credit went not to Obama, but rather to people expecting Tea Party victories. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To bad most of the people elected are Economic RINO's i guess--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Jcw

It is absolutely amazing that after Bugler, TK et al that Andy/Karajou etc still cannot spot a parodist. Ace^{of Spades} 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's amazing, amusing and depressing at the same time. It's also why I have completely given up on the project (yes, yet again) - it's engineered to cater to parodists (agreeing with Andy's nonsense gives you a promotion, trying to show him how he is wrong makes you face abuse), and at the same time completely fails at detecting the people who do in fact "sneak in". It's sad to see how desperately CP clings to approval that they blindly lap it up whenever it's given. --Sid (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The alternative explanation is that that's exactly the type of user they want. Maybe they view the damage in terms of parody articles, leaked emails and eventual delete/block sprees is far outweighed by the benefits of months of angry blocking. Perhaps angry blocking is the whole reason CP exists. It would explain Karajou's persistence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The nicities of polite editing are just lost on this bunch. Seriously, TK was a moderate who would listen, and could at times be reasoned with. Without TK's moderating influence, it's unrestrained hatred and mockery of anyone and anything Karajou & Conservative percieve as their enemy. And Karajou, if you followed the Rationalwiki/Conservapedia Spring 2010 Wikipedia Offensive, how did this note I scribbled to a Wikipedia bureaucrat escape you? nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 22:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is playing Jcw, they're doing it right. Does it seem that the more terrible a parodist is (i.e. Bugler), the better off they are in CP? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Robert, did you just say "TK's moderating influence"?!?!?!? BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 22:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep'n I did. I long for TK's moderating influence right now in these backroom debates. As to Jcw, he's playing too well, he's already Karajou's adopted illigitimate step-child. And everyone's screaming for blood over there, with Karajou playing the perfect patsy, again. I would like to have shown the example to CP sysops how to be an Advocate, gently requesting Jcw be less harsh and reconsider week long blocks he issued without warning, but he's already got too much of Karajou partisan blood. He'll be in the sysop group in no time at this rate, with Karajou's help, or maybe this can be observed this as a test case of the influence Karajou's imagines he has with Andy. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert, TK was a troll who actively set out to destroy CP and pretty much succeeded. What, pray tell, is "moderate" about that? BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 23:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

TK could moderate sysop fights; he could redirect the animosity some sysops had for each other against ratvandals.

Oh, and another message for Karajou, I never called Conservapedia what you claim I said, I said YOU created a shithole. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 23:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, rather than doing the passive-aggressive thing and leaving Karajou litte red telephone messages here you could just say it on his talk page. It's long past due that someone told Kendoll he was mentally ill and should seek help, for example. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob, TK was very good at playing the voice of reason. Emphasis on PLAYING. Everything he did, he did for a purpose. If he was showing "moderating influence", look for the reason. Sometimes he was in hot water, sometimes he had needled various users (including sysops) into attacking each other so he could "moderate", and sometimes he was simply lazy and opted to work on his reputation as a voice of reason. (Or to borrow your own words: "This gains brownie points and recognition as an editor who solves problems, builds consensus, gets people to get along, not disruptive, an asset to the project, etc etc.") Don't make the mistake of thinking that he did ANYTHING for the benefit of the site. Whenever he was involved, it was for his own good.

You may cheer when he defused a sysop fight to make them focus on "vandals" (which he often enough directly aided), and we cheered when he was openly manipulating sysops into attacking each other. But that doesn't mean that he was on our side or on CP's side - he was on his own side, and he wanted to make sure that everybody but him would ultimately lose.

Karajou's only tool is a sledgehammer, and his motto is "If brute force doesn't solve your problems, you're clearly not using enough!" In that sense, he is less scheming troll and more elephant in a porcelain shop.

And you thought you could maybe get Jcw to be less harsh? Please, it would've been just a repetition of history: Senior sysops also asked Bugler to play nice when he went overboard. And he said yes... and then simply pushed harder, and everybody in the secret group (except for PJR, etc.) loved him for that. Don't feel bad - Jcw is the new Bugler, and you wouldn't have been able to stop him or slow him down, even without all the other idiocy going on right now. He's an A-class parodist who identifies the currently strongest abusing asshole and then clones his behavior. Bugler was a TK clone, Jcw is a Karajou clone. --Sid (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good recap, Sid, and I'm in agreement with much. TK'S habit of acting unilaterally, despite lengthy discussions on probable outcomes, set an extremely poor example & preceedent. Now you see Karajou, unrestrained, acting unilaterally, whereas in the old days, he generally follwed TK's lead. Conservative, on the other hand, was always a loose cannon, and as everyone knows, was pointedly not invited into the early sysop private discussion groups. He was always a problem, and all of us routinely discussed who among us could actually communicate in some way with him/her, or what was the latest vandal-horde attack he was inciting on his own. Conservative always acted unilaterally without discussion. nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Him/her"? Give it up, Rob. You're already on record calling him "Ken". The charade is getting old. DickTurpis (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a charade. Ken could be a transvestite, maybe even transgendered... --Inquisitor (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This fella contacted me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXth_xe5gYA

So I emailed User:Conservative and said,

Look [redacted] it's real simple: you need to stop deleting any page my signature is on. Period. I don't care about Youtube, ShockofGod, Rationalwiki, or any of the other stuff you involved in. But this guy is asking me if [redacted]. Are you going to ask me to lie?

I don't care about your petty fights, I do care very much about your interfering with my edits, and hoards of you enemies hounding me. Now stop deleting my work, and you and I will get along fine.

Thank you.

Rob Smith aka nobs

He's yet to repond (it's probably over a week...) nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

i think it is highly unlikely they are one in the same. I think Ken is more likely to be NephilumFree (not that I think he is). Ace^{of Spades} 03:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you will recall, I testified elsewhere I had private phone contact with the subject....nobs^{put down the toilet seat} 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We recall. That's why I find your little public tiffs on CP to be a complete farce. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So when you're finally banhammered from CP, you'll be dishing the dirt on Kendoll right? Can't be long now. Start storing up your bitter revenge material. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, according to CP logic (well Jpatt logic anyway) JCW is legit, because we talk about him here. I remember him saying that JacobB and DouglasA were suspect, because we never targeted them. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 04:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)