Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive266
Ken's violent fantasies[edit]
The "atheism and belief in evolution killing machine"img Yes indeed, CMI is a WMD. Well it must be, because Ken, SchlongofGod AND Mariano like it!
I think has picked up on Kara's violent masturbatory fantasies. Luckily I still think Kara is the more likely to carry them out. PS Ken, your awful captioning of articles is enough for me to headdesk myself to death, no need to have the forces of CMI kick down my door.
Bonus points for Ken quoting a Confucian Chinese to prove a Christian point. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, and here I thought his recent talk of "an intense creation evangelism blitz" was bad... --Sid (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Its official. There are more articles about QEC then there have been people Questioning Evolution as a result. Maybe this is the "Full Throttle" Ken doll and shocker have been promising?--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- A quick search on a certain search engine beginning with G shows me not a single news story featuring the campaign. Not one. In addition, the third link after the obligatory CMI pages is an FAQ about evolution. Still, I'm sure that all those people who are pledging their time will get round to slaughtering those atheists any day now. Any day now...
- It's a bad sad really, Ken beating the drum for a project that was a failure before it started. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- From point 6) "Creation Ministries International is experiencing significant growth particular after the release of its Question evolution! campaign." Oh my, Ken, you really need to learn how to use English. This entire essay is full of third-form grammar mistakes. Read before you toss something up on the page. άλφαΤαλκ 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Its official. There are more articles about QEC then there have been people Questioning Evolution as a result. Maybe this is the "Full Throttle" Ken doll and shocker have been promising?--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Kenny shoutsimg to us. Hi kenny. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ on a pogostick, Ken, stop whining - at least we noticed you. Nobody else ever will. And yes, your repeated references to killing make you sound creepier than ever. Good job us atheists don't walk around talking about killing Christianity. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why doesn't he just post here? Is he some kind of amazing pussy? X Stickman (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- We would not be able to withstand his amazing debating skills so face it, he is doing us a favour. Were he to come here and start posting and debating us then I for one would immediately renounce the god of atheist and become a christian. And he doesn't want to actually convert people so we know he wont come here and debate us. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- wow , just *headdesk* wow, the graph clearly shows that creation.com has expanded it reach by doubling in two years. Thats a 50% growth rate a year. But its from .001 to .002 :-( Hamster (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kendoll has such a bizarre obsession with these web stats tracking sites. Gosh, who would have thought traffic to creation.com would have gone up when CMI acquired the domain name and started using it, compared to whatever domain squat shite was on there before. That has nothing to do with the question evolution damp squib, and even less to do with any involvement Kendoll might have with it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- (Also, I enjoy how the graphs he capped bare no relation at all to one another. Even the ones purporting to show the same thing. It just highlights the total pulled-direct-from-the-arse nature of those sites. Without a web bug on the site, the statistics are about as accurate as a series of random numbers.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- wow , just *headdesk* wow, the graph clearly shows that creation.com has expanded it reach by doubling in two years. Thats a 50% growth rate a year. But its from .001 to .002 :-( Hamster (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- We would not be able to withstand his amazing debating skills so face it, he is doing us a favour. Were he to come here and start posting and debating us then I for one would immediately renounce the god of atheist and become a christian. And he doesn't want to actually convert people so we know he wont come here and debate us. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why doesn't he just post here? Is he some kind of amazing pussy? X Stickman (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
As much as I dislike Alexa, it can be enlightening. Besides, Ken loves it and it is his yardstick.
Ken likes reach because most webpages look good, as even a shitty website can get 0.0002% of the global web traffic
- Error creating thumbnail: File missing
Rank sorts them out a bit better but is very volitile, a few thousand extra views can push you up 10,000 places
Page views are more important. Are people going there or they reading?
In RW's case yes, CP it is lol at the bestiality and move on.
I would say we are actually doing better than CP and have been for about 18 months now. - π 
23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Students![edit]
This index is for your free benefit.
I am the instructor, and my information can be found at User:Aschlafly.
You can ask me questions by clicking and editing User Talk:Aschlafly.
Thank you for using this site. }}
Really? - π 11:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Erm, what's an index in an exam normally? (Sorry, never had an exam in English about anything other than English itself…) --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The triumphant return of gentlemen[edit]
It's baaaaaackimg. After faithfully promising his fellow conservapedians he'd stop doing his embarrassing gentlemen shoutouts, he finally feels secure enough in his position to ruin CP yet further. And he's still talking about Operation Flying Fuckwits. Does need MOAR HITLER, though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, Kenny-boy. Glad to have you talking to us again. This video made me think of you: [1]. DickTurpis (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- this made me think of Kendoll. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- He who laughs last, laughs hardest? No no, Ken. He who laughs last, doesn't get the joke. Aceace 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my case, I did get the joke, but days after it was told--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck are you talking about brx? Aceace 20:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- He made a joke about himself being stupid. I get that the concept of laughing about yourself is foreign to you. Oh, well… --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I mean I am often the last to laugh, but not because I don't get the joke, but because it takes me a while to get the joke--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the hell is wrong with you two? Aceace 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- You being a near-constant jerk. So technically it's not that there's something wrong with either of us, but that there's something clearly wrong with you. --User:Brxbrx/sig 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- WTF? You really enjoying bringing negative attention down on yourself don't you, Brx? that's OK - I'll play. Aceace 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The attention is currently on you, but whatever, semantics--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Errr? Aceace 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Negative attention=a comment you don't get — seriously? --★uːʤɱ secularist 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. Aceace 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nutty Roux invented this "negative attention" thing and I think he's not even sure what it means--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't speak for me, kiddo. Just look at the first few months of your edit history for a portent of the kind of attention whoring we've come to expect from you. I'm quite sure of your proclivity for seeking whatever attention you can and for gods sake how you get that I "invented" it is a mystery to me when it's writ so large in your history here that one need look no further than your edit comments in your contribs list to see you literally openly begging for it. Since you can't speak of me without lying, it's best if you just don't mention my name at all. Thanks.
00:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't speak for me, kiddo. Just look at the first few months of your edit history for a portent of the kind of attention whoring we've come to expect from you. I'm quite sure of your proclivity for seeking whatever attention you can and for gods sake how you get that I "invented" it is a mystery to me when it's writ so large in your history here that one need look no further than your edit comments in your contribs list to see you literally openly begging for it. Since you can't speak of me without lying, it's best if you just don't mention my name at all. Thanks.
- Nutty Roux invented this "negative attention" thing and I think he's not even sure what it means--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. Aceace 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Negative attention=a comment you don't get — seriously? --★uːʤɱ secularist 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Errr? Aceace 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- The attention is currently on you, but whatever, semantics--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- WTF? You really enjoying bringing negative attention down on yourself don't you, Brx? that's OK - I'll play. Aceace 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- You being a near-constant jerk. So technically it's not that there's something wrong with either of us, but that there's something clearly wrong with you. --User:Brxbrx/sig 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the hell is wrong with you two? Aceace 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck are you talking about brx? Aceace 20:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my case, I did get the joke, but days after it was told--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- He who laughs last, laughs hardest? No no, Ken. He who laughs last, doesn't get the joke. Aceace 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- this made me think of Kendoll. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen Guys! This is just what Ken wants! He's franticly stickying up his keyboard right now in some kind of biblical masturbation session, while reading this very bitch fight debate. Think about it. Really think about it. I want mental images. strikeout humour isn't funny oh god why am I doing itX Stickman (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
About the graph he gave us[edit]
The hell is with that giant spike at the end of '09?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The world briefly became aware of the CBP. --Sid (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Rex lookin' to get catapulted[edit]
Rex Banner posts a long comment on Andy's incompetency as a teacherimg. I liked " your closest lieutenant has made your crass errors and self-serving arrogance over the Conservative Bible Project a subject of increasing public embarrasment for you". As usual, Andy ignores everything and gives a short responseimg: "Rex, the teacher runs a class, not a student. The midterm exam is posted". --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- If anyone needed more proof that Schlafly's just as spineless as the rest of the administrators, there it is. I'm surprised he even responded. άλφαΤαλκ 03:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as the "no penalty for wrong answers" part goes... this could just be poor phrasing on Andy's part. Some tests will do something like "four points for a correct answer, minus one for a wrong answer" to discourage guessing. (Either the SAT or the ACT does that, though I can't remember which one.) You're better off leaving a question blank if you have no idea as to the answer. MDB (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- If it's multiple choice with four options, guessing is still the most rational option with those weightings ;) On average you'll get a point a guess - even more if you can rule out one or more of the options each time. ONE / TALK 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As far as the "no penalty for wrong answers" part goes... this could just be poor phrasing on Andy's part. Some tests will do something like "four points for a correct answer, minus one for a wrong answer" to discourage guessing. (Either the SAT or the ACT does that, though I can't remember which one.) You're better off leaving a question blank if you have no idea as to the answer. MDB (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, you obviously won't get 100% if you answer a question incorrectly. Most (or all, I didn't check too closely) questions are of the "Pick one" variety and not "Mark whatever you feel like". That's apparent when questions have an "All of the above" option.
- Ahh, but now we've pointed it out kenny - like the good little puppet he is - will dance for us and do it for andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- However, to me this illustrates that Andy seriously didn't read Rex's post. Like, at all. It's such an easy and obvious mistake, and we all know that Andy would have poked it if he had noticed it. C'mon, it's his prime strategy: Find a single error, blow it out of proportion, and ignore everything else. --Sid (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Small correction: his prime strategy is: perceive the first error, blow it out of proportion, and ignore everything else. larronsicut fur in nocte 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- ^ This. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Small correction: his prime strategy is: perceive the first error, blow it out of proportion, and ignore everything else. larronsicut fur in nocte 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, you obviously won't get 100% if you answer a question incorrectly. Most (or all, I didn't check too closely) questions are of the "Pick one" variety and not "Mark whatever you feel like". That's apparent when questions have an "All of the above" option.
Atheism in global decline[edit]
So someone has probably done this before but I was curious so I did a back of the envelope calculation and with atheists making up 2.4%(the most conservative estimate I could find) of the global population. That means that if we lose ken's 300 a day the last atheist will disappear in about 1500 years, well after the rapture. If I'm super super luck I can expect to be functioning well for another 75 years (I'm 25). That means that when I die 1/20 atheists will have been converted or died with out being replaced. there will still be 95% as many atheists in 75 years as there are now. I'm totally cool with that. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- 300 is a ridiculously small number considering that we are talking a few hundred million people. I would be interested in seeing if the number can be shown to be statistically significantly different from zero. - π 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- These things are never linear so I see atheism persisting well beyond 1500 years.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- These things are never linear so I see atheism persisting well beyond 1500 years.
Claiming that atheism is declining looks like wishful thinking.
Atheists have always constituted a very small percentage of the population. However, the number of people who identify themselves as Atheists has grown rapidly, particularly over the last few decades. This increase may have been partly caused by the decline of attendance at Sunday schools, and churches. It probably also reflects the general increase in secularism within society. [2]
I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I know I live in godless liberal England but the number of people I know self-identifying as atheist now as opposed to 20 years ago is massively more. Also I visit South Africa fairly frequently (and I stand to be corrected by psy) but it is the same there as well. I simply don't believe kennys claim that 300 people are 'leaving' atheism each day. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Old One is right. There's a swing away from religion down here, especially from the more traditional, conservative religions. So the evangelical churches are popping up like mushrooms (clearly somebody saw a chance to make a quick buck, al a Nigeria) but young Afrikaners and young blacks are definitely moving away from institutions like the Dutch Reformed and Zionist Christian Church respectively. Subjects like religious instruction (which I had to suffer through) have been dropped from the curriculum. Interestingly, we've just had our latest census and about the only question they didn't ask was "religion." --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- His claim is probably rooted in some bullshit article he found in the web but I have no qualms with that figure. Given that there are a couple of hundred million atheists I think an attrition rate of 300 a day might actually be an under-estimate. Obviously this is probably offset by the amount of religious people becoming atheists. Of course for any of this to make sense we have to assume that people decide to 'leave atheism' over the course of a day - whatever that means. Tielec01 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a teenager/young adult in the 60s &70s it wasn't common for people to identify as atheist and I tended to cop out by saying that was agnostic even though inside I was pretty sure of my atheism. Despite a succession of liaisons with Catholic and lapsed-Catholic women I eventually married the atheist daughter of a Protestant missionary. Although my parents are still 'nominal Anglicans' I think that almost all of my close acquaintances identify as non-believers and my neighbour's kids are all reassuringly non-religious; the exception is a 6-year old who is currently subject to the pervasive indoctrination of state-Christainity. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know far many more people for whom the thought never crosses their mind. They don't even self-identify as atheists because they just don't think about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- State Religion, when not enforced on you, seems to breed disinterest in religion, sorta ironic.and you have to remember that his figure is tied with a 1500 a day christian growth, in east asia apparently. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As with all things Ken, the figures are a bunch of crock, for which he has no proof. If anything, the 300 who "leave" (seriously, I want to staple Ken's tongue to his chest every time he writes that) are probably wishy-washy about religion to begin with and converted when dragged to a revival meeting. Anybody with a brain, who makes a healthy informed choice that God is a figment of people's imagination isn't going to turn back anytime soon. Ken! Show us the numbers! Proof, or it didn't happen. PS SchlongofGod vids don't count. Neither does CMI. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not many people really identify themselves as atheist in the UK, Apatheism is kind of the way most people regard it. Church is fine for weddings and such, but mostly ignored after that, except to talk about which religious loonies are bombing us this decade. (Flakey101 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC))
- Anecdotes are nice, but where religion is growing is in the former second world. Here in the developed world atheism is on the rise, something about people having time to think and food to think on perhaps... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Precise statistics about how many people leave atheism per day worldwide are impossible as are precise figures about how many new atheists there are daily. Anyone who claims to know with such precision is imagining something or making it up. I'm not Jesus (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anecdotes are nice, but where religion is growing is in the former second world. Here in the developed world atheism is on the rise, something about people having time to think and food to think on perhaps... --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know far many more people for whom the thought never crosses their mind. They don't even self-identify as atheists because they just don't think about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a teenager/young adult in the 60s &70s it wasn't common for people to identify as atheist and I tended to cop out by saying that was agnostic even though inside I was pretty sure of my atheism. Despite a succession of liaisons with Catholic and lapsed-Catholic women I eventually married the atheist daughter of a Protestant missionary. Although my parents are still 'nominal Anglicans' I think that almost all of my close acquaintances identify as non-believers and my neighbour's kids are all reassuringly non-religious; the exception is a 6-year old who is currently subject to the pervasive indoctrination of state-Christainity.
Shagged by a rare parrot - evidence of homosexual atheistic bestiality![edit]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Stephen Fry and those damn Atheistic Britons are at it again, with their homosexual bestiality and whatnot! --Sasayaki (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Kenny's got that bookmarked and has watched it several hundred times.
- You know, for research. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"I Am User:Conservative", prologue posted![edit]
|
|---|
|
As the title says, the prologue of my Fanfiction, "My Name Is User:Conservative" is available HERE. |
Sadface. --Sasayaki (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
How did we miss this?[edit]
Andy's not happy that Gaddafi's dead?img Or just having a dip at the media. I'm surprised Obama wasn't blamed. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- He doesn't always spell it out in so many words but typical Andy is to spin anything to his own political viewpoint. If Bush had still been prez it would have been a completely different spin. What I'm surprised that he hasn't gone for is that the killing of Gaddafi is an ultimate 'best of the public' moment, no Navy Seals or SAS involvement in taking out a dictator. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed it before, but I think it wasn't really mentioned here because this is one of those cases where Andy is sort of right for the wrong reasons. Killing an unarmed guy, even a dictator like Gaddafi, ain't exactly kosher, and if it were our guys who did that we should demand at least some sort of investigation. Andy only makes a minor fuss about it as a way to attack Obama. I'm sort of surprised Andy hasn't made the case that Gaddafi's been dead for years. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how YOU missed it, but I sure as hell didn't--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- And for a good reason the WIGO received poor votes. If you are going to replace a government by force, your first actions should show that you are better than those you are replacing. Painfully murdering the previous leader, and celebrating around his agonizing body is not a way to prove it.--Tlaloc (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Animals like Gaddafi don't know mercy. He gave none so he should recieve none is the way I see things.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, so by killing him mercilessly you become an animal. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The man was a monster. The people who lived under him should want nothing less then his blood. If he had been brought in, he would have gone on trial and killed anyway, like saddam. So I ask, whats the difference?--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thing is, Andy could give less of a shit about that. This is all about the Libyan Transitional Council being actively supported by Obama. Andy was probably hoping for a Gaddafi victory, so to gloat over how the Obama administration wasted lives, money, and America's standing over a civil war, but he didn't get that, so now he settles for whatever smear he can get, even some backhanded, vaguely relevant one. Plus, ya know, Muslims!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The man was a monster. The people who lived under him should want nothing less then his blood. If he had been brought in, he would have gone on trial and killed anyway, like saddam. So I ask, whats the difference?--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, so by killing him mercilessly you become an animal. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Animals like Gaddafi don't know mercy. He gave none so he should recieve none is the way I see things.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- And for a good reason the WIGO received poor votes. If you are going to replace a government by force, your first actions should show that you are better than those you are replacing. Painfully murdering the previous leader, and celebrating around his agonizing body is not a way to prove it.--Tlaloc (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how YOU missed it, but I sure as hell didn't--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed it before, but I think it wasn't really mentioned here because this is one of those cases where Andy is sort of right for the wrong reasons. Killing an unarmed guy, even a dictator like Gaddafi, ain't exactly kosher, and if it were our guys who did that we should demand at least some sort of investigation. Andy only makes a minor fuss about it as a way to attack Obama. I'm sort of surprised Andy hasn't made the case that Gaddafi's been dead for years. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thunderstruck, I'm stunned you don't know the difference. There is a difference between rule of law and mob actions. The former is far preferable (given that the rule of law is legitimate and fair). I can (I think) understand why Gaddafi was killed as he was and I won't condemn the people who did this, but there's no doubt that an actual trial and execution is a far different matter in kind than a lynching. Phiwum (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The EXACT same think happened with Bin Laden (swap out Libyans with Navy Seals). They went in, killed the man and took the body. Im not against trials in cases where there is possible doubt, but in Gaddafi's case, the man was proud of his actions. He had to go, and I'm glad he went cowering and scared at the feat of the people he brutalized.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Summum jus, summa injuria. ("Extreme justice is extreme injustice"). -Cicero
- What makes many fascist and authoritarian states is ignoring their own law. A mob killing is always such ignorance to law, not only the such, it's the regional breakdown of society, the idea of equality and empathy. No matter how violent a dictator is, no matter how repressive, no matter how selfish, a revolution with the goals of a democracy and the rule of law, who's fighters end up killing their former dicatator without due process start their new state with going against their own ideals. They fall back into the realm of the animal the wanted to get rid off, becoming animals of their own. It is not that all those people who criticise it don't understand why, it's that we see why it shouldn't happen.
- Due process is the first wall against a more controlling state. You shouldn't start taking some of the stones out by saying "well, here it's okay", after a while, the wall will be gone. --★uːʤɱ secularist 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind how long Gaddafi was in power. Even through all this, he had his supporters. Its not a strech to say they would also be in the court systems. The wall of due process could be easily turn in to a door with the right conections.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is a problem. But if you take the same approach to other connections (inter-race killings, political killings — in other countries tribes), there's a lot of vigilante justice you could justify. I think that's too high of a prize to pay to nail one guy. --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- At the same time, we can not allow some one like Gaddafi to walk after everything he's done. The way I see it, he's been killing people without a trial for decades, he died from a system he created. That is justice.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that is a problem. But if you take the same approach to other connections (inter-race killings, political killings — in other countries tribes), there's a lot of vigilante justice you could justify. I think that's too high of a prize to pay to nail one guy. --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind how long Gaddafi was in power. Even through all this, he had his supporters. Its not a strech to say they would also be in the court systems. The wall of due process could be easily turn in to a door with the right conections.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thunderstruck, the same thing did not happen with bin Laden. He was either killed when he resisted capture or he was assassinated. The former case is nothing like being lynched by a mob after capture. The latter case is not much like lynching either (and, indeed, may be worse than a killing by an enraged mob). Bin Laden's death surely does not change my opinion: death at the hands of an enraged mob is a regrettable outcome. A fair trial followed by appropriate punishment is obviously far preferable. Phiwum (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Concerns about the difficulty of securing a fair trial aren't some unique problem we've never encountered before. For Gaddafi you could totally hold the trial in a neutral country, with judges and jurors who've never lived under his rule. That's what we do with war crimes after all. And if somehow a third party country isn't a possibility (I can't see why not) it's not as if we're without precedent for trying unpopular rulers and then executing them before their own people. Remember that's how England spent a generation without a monarch. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lets look at regime changes in the middle east for a moment and consider the fates of the various leaders.
Country Type of change Lead by Leader's actions Leader's fate Iraq (Sadam) Military US Military Defiant, later hiding Capture, trial, execution Tunisia Popular Demonstrators Fleeing country Alive Egypt Popular Demonstrators Resignations Alive Libya Military Insurgency Defiant, later hiding Capture, killed
- (I am not trying to use the word 'insurgency to have any connotation of the legitimacy of the government, I just don't know what to call them) However, look at Gaddafi's son's action - "I don't want to die, I am going to flee to a friendly country or surrender to the ICC." I'm not going to say that that Gaddafi should have been killed or captured. I do want to ask of anyone when considering Gaddafi's history and actions and the lack of organization and control the insurgency had over its fighters was there any other anticipated result? If he wanted to live - the thing to do would have been surrender to the courts. To claim that when a group of untrained (college students, exiles, children of exiles) armed find their former leader and that he would end the day alive is very optimistic as to the self control of people in the heat of battle and the state of life in Libya for a few decades. Again - I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but rather what happened was human and not something that is easily overcome to do the noble thing. It is interesting reading the wp: International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi article to see who says what and some of the nuance of the wording. --Shagie (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I'm just rather disappointed that so many on RW (normally a fairly sane and analytical crowd) are ready to descend to medieval standards of justice when it applies to people whom they don't like. I find that deeply disturbing. UHM's comments about due process are spot on. --
08:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- So many? Hardly. One or two people have said they think his extra-judicial killing was fine, others have posted that they understand it but disagree with it. Hardly 'so many' imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's letting emotions get the better of you. Emotional decision making rarely helps anyone. I can understand someone seeing the leader of the other side and reflexively shooting him. From what I have read, they didn't know he was there. It's not like they had time to plan out a strike and capture him alive. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- So many? Hardly. One or two people have said they think his extra-judicial killing was fine, others have posted that they understand it but disagree with it. Hardly 'so many' imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I'm just rather disappointed that so many on RW (normally a fairly sane and analytical crowd) are ready to descend to medieval standards of justice when it applies to people whom they don't like. I find that deeply disturbing. UHM's comments about due process are spot on. --
- This talk of "better" prosecution seems to miss the point: Gaddafi was a good guy.img Sung to the tune of "I Can Change, I Can Change," Andy's thesis is that Obama ignored the best advice of Mandela, Putin and Condi and murdered a Nobel candidate. He is a martyr. Whoover
Whatever...[edit]
“”Please get a cp:writing plan from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --Ed Poor Talk 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
|
(whatever... is Ed Poor's edit comment ) larronsicut fur in nocte 06:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Has anyone ever submitted a real writing plan to him? Why does he keep asking? I guess it's just some authority fantasy for him. StarFish (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is a writing plan? Is it sufficient to just say, "I'll work on X?" --Sasayaki (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Put simply it's an excuse for creepy Bad Touch Poor to ban editors he doesn't like without coming across (in what passes for his mind) as the authoritarian cunt that he is. It works 2 ways - 1. I asked for a writing plan, you haven't submitted one, DIE DIE DIE! 2. In your writing plan, you said you'd work on X. Why are you commenting on Y's talkpage? DIE DIE DIE? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think Ed even made his writing plan over at Ameriwiki. The tables turned on him and he fled like a coward.
NorsemanCyser Melomel 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- He asked me for one after he told me "how dare you edit the article i asked people to edit"--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Psy hit it on the mark, it is just some convoluted excuse to ban people without doing so outright, and it gives extra warm fuzzies to his authoritarian desires.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- If he doesn't get distracted by something shiny/young between the ask for writing plan and the Ban part--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Psy hit it on the mark, it is just some convoluted excuse to ban people without doing so outright, and it gives extra warm fuzzies to his authoritarian desires.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- He asked me for one after he told me "how dare you edit the article i asked people to edit"--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think Ed even made his writing plan over at Ameriwiki. The tables turned on him and he fled like a coward.
- Put simply it's an excuse for creepy Bad Touch Poor to ban editors he doesn't like without coming across (in what passes for his mind) as the authoritarian cunt that he is. It works 2 ways - 1. I asked for a writing plan, you haven't submitted one, DIE DIE DIE! 2. In your writing plan, you said you'd work on X. Why are you commenting on Y's talkpage? DIE DIE DIE? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is a writing plan? Is it sufficient to just say, "I'll work on X?" --Sasayaki (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Why are those gays so mean?[edit]
Ken reports an act of domestic terrorismimg by homosexuals. His source? A statement by Pastor Calvin Lindstrom on Pro-Homosexual Attack against Christian Liberty Academy. This includes such gems like:
- Second, right from the beginning the banquet on Saturday was cast in a negative light. An article in a local paper was headlined – "Gay rights opponent in Arlington Heights Saturday."
- Attention was brought to the banquet not by the Christian Liberty Academy but by the Gay Liberation Network which issued a press release condemning Scott Lively and announcing that they would be protesting his appearance.
- So from the beginning the banquet was cast as a controversial event held at Christian Liberty Academy. Dr. Scott Lively, a very honorable man, who currently ministers in Springfield, Massachusetts, is portrayed as an opponent of gay rights rather than a pro-family speaker and minister to the needy and downtrodden. Yes, Dr. Lively has spoken and written on the issue of homosexuality, but that is not the entire focus of his work as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
So, why, oh why, did the protesters focus on this issue of homosexuality? Could it be that they had read the invitation - something which Pastor Lindstrom forget to mention:
- The Naperville-based Americans for Truth about Homosexuality will honor the Rev. Scott Lively at a dinner at Christian Liberty Academy.
But I'm certain that the Americans for Truth about Homosexuality wanted to honor Dr. Lively for his work as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and not because his writings on the issue of homosexuality.[3]
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, is that the extent of the "terrorism"? Saying a man is a bad man who says bad things? ONE / TALK 11:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't that make CP an internet terrorist cell? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't that make CP an internet terrorist cell?
- Two bricks were thrown and thereby a window smashed[4]... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- But when an abortion clinic or doctor is targeted that's not terrorism, no sir, now way, not in any shape or form. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not! Because then you're doing God's work. Do try and keep up. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair though, smashing windows is crossing that line. I wouldn't call it "terrorism", but I would call it a criminal act that should be prosecuted. I do find it ironic though that AFTAH wants it classified as a "hate crime" as they regularly oppose hate crime laws.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, they consider an act of mild "cyber vandalism" worthy of calling in the FBI, so it makes sense that they see an act of real world vandalism as terrorism. X Stickman (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair though, smashing windows is crossing that line. I wouldn't call it "terrorism", but I would call it a criminal act that should be prosecuted. I do find it ironic though that AFTAH wants it classified as a "hate crime" as they regularly oppose hate crime laws.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course not! Because then you're doing God's work. Do try and keep up. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- But when an abortion clinic or doctor is targeted that's not terrorism, no sir, now way, not in any shape or form.
- Two bricks were thrown and thereby a window smashed[4]... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Aggressively awful writing[edit]
Poor Kendoll. He really tries, but he only ever seems to get worse. You could spend literally hours picking out the awkward phraseology in his latest magnificent octopusimg.
Some of the highlights:
- "amount of intensity"
- "Aggressively creation evangelism"
- "history global creation evangelism in terms of the biblical creation soldiers of Christ"
By the way, Kendoll, you should be careful. A small splinter group promoting rapid change? Sounds like Darwinian evilutionism to me. You could be expelled from the church for that sort of thing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear goddess. That opening line... A split between 2 groups was unfortunate because it caused a split between 2 groups. It's elementary school English. Also, isn't Ken always gloating about atheism being a house divided? - Psy, sent from my phone. 82.145.208.197 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, I think
- 10 major factors which could cause the shrinking of atheism and belief and Darwinism
- Currently there are 10 major obstacles that are facing atheism and Darwinism which could easily cause a significant shrinkage of these two ideologies (see: 10 major obstacles that are facing atheism and Darwinism).
- is the best bit of the lot. It's redundancy on a scale unimaginable to the feeble human consciousness. --Interpreteddestroy all editors
- It reminds me of "The Part Where He Kills You". Except Ken's doing it unintentionally and not for comedy. «-Bfa-» 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Another example of Death Ground in military history is the D-Day invasion of Normandy where valiant soldiers victoriously prevailed against murderous Nazi machine gun fire and other defenses as their was no alternative once they stepped forth on the beaches. — could also have something to do with the fact that there were 175,000 allied troops and 10,000 German troops... Ken, that's a ratio of 17.5:1. --★uːʤɱ socialist 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, he's editing some of the phrasing out right nowimg, which is kinda sweet. Hi Ken! --Interpreteddestroy all editors
- Holy crap, it's you! Been a while! Oh, and yeah, that's terrible writing, but I love the childlike fascination with violent images. --Sid (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've often come across instances of verbal diarrhoea but Ken's writing is the first instance of verbal constipation. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hah. I don't think he even understandsimg why that was wrong. You know Kendoll, you really ought to thank us for proofreading your shite. It's clear you aren't capable of it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Partially mentioned above, but "split between in" ? Oh dear... άλφαΤαλκ 22:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and he states: "The only alternative was to aggressively grow the biblical creation pie in the world public square." I can guess what he means, but holy cow does he need major help with basic English. άλφαΤαλκ 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I propose this unique style of writing, of which only Ken is capable, be given a name: Kenglish. ONE / TALK 08:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Kenglish. Oh please no. That's bad, that's very very bad. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I propose this unique style of writing, of which only Ken is capable, be given a name: Kenglish. ONE / TALK 08:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and he states: "The only alternative was to aggressively grow the biblical creation pie in the world public square." I can guess what he means, but holy cow does he need major help with basic English. άλφαΤαλκ 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Partially mentioned above, but "split between in" ? Oh dear... άλφαΤαλκ 22:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hah. I don't think he even understandsimg why that was wrong. You know Kendoll, you really ought to thank us for proofreading your shite. It's clear you aren't capable of it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've often come across instances of verbal diarrhoea but Ken's writing is the first instance of verbal constipation.
- Holy crap, it's you! Been a while! Oh, and yeah, that's terrible writing, but I love the childlike fascination with violent images. --Sid (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, he's editing some of the phrasing out right nowimg, which is kinda sweet. Hi Ken! --Interpreteddestroy all editors
- is the best bit of the lot. It's redundancy on a scale unimaginable to the feeble human consciousness. --Interpreteddestroy all editors
- I know I'm trying to apply logic to Ken, but help me out here. If atheism is a "house divided" and "only half a squeak" and being outnumbered by 10,000 to -300 daily, why do Christians need to rally on the Death Ground? Also, why does he have to keep quoting a nasty, atheist (by Ken's standard) Chinese bloke (who was probably a latent commie too) - can't Ken come up with any good Christian war quotes? Here's one for you Ken - "Kill them all; God will know his own." --PsyGremlin講話 14:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I moan about others doing it. It's the Python Anne Elk sketch. Sphincter (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, and no offense intended. The sketch is a classic, no doubt. Phiwum (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy and Celebrity Gossip[edit]
In the last few days he's blogged about Madonna's brotherimg, Amy Whinehouse's deathimg and now Kim Kardashian's marriageimg. Welcome to CP!, a fucked up right wing version of E!. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- You mean Big Hollywood?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its a good thing same sex marriage is illegal. Can you imagine how fucked up the institue of marriage would be if just any two people, who AREN'T straight, could get married?--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The site is growing decaying rapidly![edit]
Not a specific event WIGO, but I was looking at the stats from last month, and the three people who edited the most (not counting those who are crossed out, obviously) were Ken, Andy, and Jimmy. The rest didn't even compare. This is just sad, eh?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't been looking at CP more than once a week lately so it took your post to remind me I installed the Ken filter a long long time ago. 19:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
New articles at Conservapedia in Oct 2011[edit]
In Oct 2011 Conservapedia grew by 120 new articles - no essays, no homework, no redirects, only main space included. Aschlafly himself contributed three articles:
It's hard to judge which one is worst, but in my opinion it's geometric rate - here in all its splendor:
- A geometric rate of growth is one that increases by multiplicative fact each time period, as in doubling per century in the case of Best New Conservative Words.
- no, the rate of growth doesn't increase, it is constant.
- a multiplicative fact?
But the article on St. Paul's is equally bad... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow - an article on St Paul's with no mention of Wren, 1666, the Blitz... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I always find "the history of the world" a funny phrase. "Its majestic grandeur makes it one of the greatest structures in the history of the world." I do agree it's a beautiful Cathedral though. SJ Debaser 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Totally off topic here but I know one of the base jumpers who jumped from the whispering gallery. They were arrested only for the old bill to then find out they actually hadn't broken any laws except some rather obscure piece of canonical law from the 12th century or something. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That entry is just... pitiful. It might as well have said "St Paul's is a big pointy building in a rather old city. It has some pretty statues on the sides of it." No Wren at all. What a moron. Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Currently it is part of the Anglican Church, but its history is older. Its history is older than "currently"? Well blow me a-fucking-way. ONE / TALK 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- (Bangs head against desk) The current cathedral has always been a part of the Anglican fucking Church! It was built after the Fire of fucking London!!! Gaaaahhhhh! Andy is a total cretin! 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Every single one of those articles is genuinely incredible + a great read. Bookmarked. --Interpreteddestroy all editors
- (Bangs head against desk) The current cathedral has always been a part of the Anglican fucking Church! It was built after the Fire of fucking London!!! Gaaaahhhhh! Andy is a total cretin! 16:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Currently it is part of the Anglican Church, but its history is older. Its history is older than "currently"? Well blow me a-fucking-way. ONE / TALK 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- That entry is just... pitiful. It might as well have said "St Paul's is a big pointy building in a rather old city. It has some pretty statues on the sides of it." No Wren at all. What a moron. Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Totally off topic here but I know one of the base jumpers who jumped from the whispering gallery. They were arrested only for the old bill to then find out they actually hadn't broken any laws except some rather obscure piece of canonical law from the 12th century or something. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I always find "the history of the world" a funny phrase. "Its majestic grandeur makes it one of the greatest structures in the history of the world." I do agree it's a beautiful Cathedral though. SJ Debaser 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Back to the BASE jumping for a sec. Is the Whispering Gallery really high up enough for a parachute to open before smacking into the floor? DickTurpis (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Come on now, be fair. What do you think Wikipedia's article on St Paul's looked like when it was one day old?--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Much better? first version at wikipedia... larronsicut fur in nocte 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah well, one essay by some WP poindexter doesn't prove anything. No doubt the Best of the Public will get on and improve Conservapedia's version in due course. In his edit comment, Andy only claimed it was "a start", which it undeniably is.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that Wikipedia encouraged millions of editors to add to the article, Conservapedia allows only those who have been approved by Andy's goon-squad to contribute. Because of their don't revert other sysops policy it means that editors cannot cross even one sysop to stay the course. That's why general articles at WP get improved whereas at CP they rarely get past stub status. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difference is that Wikipedia encouraged millions of editors to add to the article, Conservapedia allows only those who have been approved by Andy's goon-squad to contribute. Because of their don't revert other sysops policy it means that editors cannot cross even one sysop to stay the course. That's why general articles at WP get improved whereas at CP they rarely get past stub status.
- Yeah well, one essay by some WP poindexter doesn't prove anything. No doubt the Best of the Public will get on and improve Conservapedia's version in due course. In his edit comment, Andy only claimed it was "a start", which it undeniably is.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Much better? first version at wikipedia... larronsicut fur in nocte 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Come on now, be fair. What do you think Wikipedia's article on St Paul's looked like when it was one day old?--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Dicturpis, yep but it was a near squeak. It's not Russel I know, it is one his companions that day. 102 feet and the lowest ever indoor base. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whats awesome is that there already is a Geometric Progression article on conservapedia that is just fine... Ateafish (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Can't resist[edit]
I'm probably stepping over some sort of imagined sensitive line here but:
You can now flame me. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 09:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Du überinterpretierst Kens Aussage. Meiner Erfahrung nach ist es absolut nicht hilfreich, den Israelisch-Palistinänsischen Konflikt auch noch mit Nazi-Stereotypen zu befrachten. Gruß larronsicut fur in nocte 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Das war nicht was ich meinte. Seine "sie sollten einfach kooperieren"-Argumentation erinnerte mich einfach nur an wörtliche Bedeutung. Dass Ken nicht soweit denkt ist mir auch klar. --★uːʤɱ soviet 10:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- 99 luftballons!!!!!!! fück yeah!--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Konservative nicht wollen, dass es zu einem palästinensischen Staat werden. Sie wollen Israel zu übernehmen, weil das das zweite Kommen und damit die armageddon Signal wäre. Lange Rede kurzer Sinn, die Konservativen sind wie ein Super-Bösewicht zu tun, was sie können, um über das Ende der Welt zu bringen. Und ja, ich werde das verdammte Alufolie Hut wieder auf. See, I can use google translate to 8)--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Schraube, die Sie.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Konservative nicht wollen, dass es zu einem palästinensischen Staat werden. Sie wollen Israel zu übernehmen, weil das das zweite Kommen und damit die armageddon Signal wäre. Lange Rede kurzer Sinn, die Konservativen sind wie ein Super-Bösewicht zu tun, was sie können, um über das Ende der Welt zu bringen. Und ja, ich werde das verdammte Alufolie Hut wieder auf. See, I can use google translate to 8)--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- 99 luftballons!!!!!!! fück yeah!--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Das war nicht was ich meinte. Seine "sie sollten einfach kooperieren"-Argumentation erinnerte mich einfach nur an wörtliche Bedeutung. Dass Ken nicht soweit denkt ist mir auch klar. --★uːʤɱ soviet 10:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Du überinterpretierst Kens Aussage. Meiner Erfahrung nach ist es absolut nicht hilfreich, den Israelisch-Palistinänsischen Konflikt auch noch mit Nazi-Stereotypen zu befrachten. Gruß larronsicut fur in nocte 10:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wie kommen wir von Kenbubs zitiertem Edit auf "Arbeit mach frei"? Bin ich der Einzige hier, dem sich das nicht unmittelbar erschließt? 94.26.21.2 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Er sagt dass die Palestinänser sich nicht wehren sollen (er meint noch nicht mal mit Gewalt, er meint verbal) sondern einfach kooperieren ("arbeiten") das würde sie dann schon "frei machen". Die Vorgeschlagene Mentalität wird durch "Arbeit macht frei" gut ausgedrückt. Hat aber natürlich eine ganze Ladund von Nazi-Konotationen dabei. --★uːʤɱ heretic 10:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ken's favorite Atheism and Suicide article.[edit]
Ken seems to love a study by Phil Zuckerman. He often includes the cut-n-paste passage
- Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman declared concerning suicide rates: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."
I was curious about that, since one may notice that Zuckerman says this is the one indicator in which religious nations fare better. In other words, in every other indicator Zuckerman looks at, secular nations are better off. Hardly a glowing endorsement of religion as a means of healthy living.
Turns out the relevant chapter is online. Check it out here. It includes many statistics on the number of non-believers per nation and other analyses. Here's a quote, for instance, that Ken seems to have overlooked.
- However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden or the Netherlands -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, best educated, and freest societies on earth.
To be perfectly fair, the authors suppose that poverty and suffering promotes religion and not the other way round. Similarly, wealth and comfort tends to increase apathy towards religion and also agnosticism and atheism.
Another interesting excerpt:
- According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that these are good reasons to be an atheist. Arguments regarding consequences of beliefs are fallacious. My point is not that atheism is superior or anything like that. I just thought that the actual report is actually interesting and also (as if we didn't realize it) that both Ken and his sources (Adherents.com in this case) are utterly disingenuous in their "arguments".
Also, the sky is still blue. Phiwum (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed that Adherents.com article more closely and I apologize for criticizing them. They are evidently giving simple facts about suicide rates and attitudes towards suicide as it relates to religion and atheism. They close with the eminently sensible paragraph (which Ken evidently overlooked):
- Certainly Latter-day Saint missionaries never knock on doors with a message, "Hello. If you join our Church you'll be less likely to kill yourself." Likewise, it is unlikely that any atheists and agnostics will modify their beliefs and religious practices simply because of one demographic factor relating to a statstical group they happen to belong to. If your "discussion" of the relative merits of your belief system devolves into pointing out the suicide rate within a specific population, then you have already lost the argument, because you have abandoned substantitive dialogue in favor of an appeal to tangential sensationalism.
- Phiwum (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lamely replying to myself again, but I just noticed a minor discrepancy. Adherents.com quotes Zuckerman as saying, " Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations," (emphasis mine), but the version given earlier says, "Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations." Evidently, one of these is an earlier draft or something. (The latter, of course, actually sounds better for Ken's "argument" than the former, since it doesn't draw attention to Zuckerman's primary conclusion that organic atheism is associated with cultural prosperity in every other category, including wealth, homicide rates, infant mortality and gender equality.) Phiwum (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth (and remembering i've been an atheist since at least 6), religion -- especiallly small (local), non-hyper dogmatic religious sects provide people with a host of social structure that modern society forgets; if you aren't dishing god out with a load of guilt (which would have the opposite effect) than the support system of going to a small church with the same 100 people, all talking about love, and sharing eachother's lives can help when someone is depressed. It's not about the religion, though, or the belief system, but the fact that it's human connection in a far-too-often disconnected modern world.--
GodotGet over it!. 14:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC) - The underlying problem of this whole question is that religious fundamentalists have a different understanding of what a healthy society is. For most of us it's freedom and peacefullness. For them the quality of life in a society is equal to how much that society follows their own beliefs. So, it doesn't matter if another country is the happiest place in the world, with low rates of depression, high wealth and valuing freedoms very high; if it's not like te want it to be, if it actively opposes their viewpoints, it is bad. Guess this is rooted in the God=good/not God=evil mentality. I think they call this pathological lack of interest in the relative well being of others "psychopathy" in psychology.
- But the worst thing is when they try to use our own view of what is good (which is since humanism and classic liberalism á la Mill, Kant and Locke our way of thinking) to try to pull you on the other side of it (namely collectivism á la Rousseau, Hobbes and the fascists of the 20s to 40s (strike out people/race with "God's laws" or morality and you basically get the same thing)), then it becomes like a communist trying to talk a millionaire into giving up all his money to be more efficient than he was before. The worst part about it is, because they inherently don't understand this relativistic definition of "good" and "happy" (because if they would, they wouldn't give a flying fuck), they fail hard everytime they try. It's almost so bad that I don't know if I should feel empathetic towards these hatemongers for not being able to succeed or if I should just laugh about such stupidity. --★uːʤɱ atheist 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- So fundimentalists (of any religion, one might argue) are happy being sad/lonely/angry/whatever, and think the rest of us should be the same? Oh, lovely.--GodotGet over it!. 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not that exactly, but slightly different. I think they are so deep into their beliefs that their beliefs have become the basis of their happiness. Not meaning that they are happy because they belief, but that if they do what they belief to be right they become happy (I think the concept of sin makes this almost impossible, but that's another topic). They don't understand how somebody else could be happy doing something else because "it is obviously the only true belief", they want to make the other person happy too and therefore force their beliefs upon other people. A lovely example of that is the whole "homosexuality is a mental disorder" stuff. So some of them mean well, others just want people of other beliefs to believe whatever they believe, which would make them happy but they don't really care if the other person is happy. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's been research on this issue previously (for example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037887331000002X) which seems to indicate that it isn't the religion that matters, per se, but the relationships that form in the context of that religion. In theory, and based on research, a fundamentalist who hangs out with fundamentalist friends will get about the same benefit as an atheist who hangs out with atheist friends. Drek (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not that exactly, but slightly different. I think they are so deep into their beliefs that their beliefs have become the basis of their happiness. Not meaning that they are happy because they belief, but that if they do what they belief to be right they become happy (I think the concept of sin makes this almost impossible, but that's another topic). They don't understand how somebody else could be happy doing something else because "it is obviously the only true belief", they want to make the other person happy too and therefore force their beliefs upon other people. A lovely example of that is the whole "homosexuality is a mental disorder" stuff. So some of them mean well, others just want people of other beliefs to believe whatever they believe, which would make them happy but they don't really care if the other person is happy. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- So fundimentalists (of any religion, one might argue) are happy being sad/lonely/angry/whatever, and think the rest of us should be the same? Oh, lovely.--
- For what it's worth (and remembering i've been an atheist since at least 6), religion -- especiallly small (local), non-hyper dogmatic religious sects provide people with a host of social structure that modern society forgets; if you aren't dishing god out with a load of guilt (which would have the opposite effect) than the support system of going to a small church with the same 100 people, all talking about love, and sharing eachother's lives can help when someone is depressed. It's not about the religion, though, or the belief system, but the fact that it's human connection in a far-too-often disconnected modern world.--
- Lamely replying to myself again, but I just noticed a minor discrepancy. Adherents.com quotes Zuckerman as saying, " Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations," (emphasis mine), but the version given earlier says, "Concerning suicide rates, religious nations fare better than secular nations." Evidently, one of these is an earlier draft or something. (The latter, of course, actually sounds better for Ken's "argument" than the former, since it doesn't draw attention to Zuckerman's primary conclusion that organic atheism is associated with cultural prosperity in every other category, including wealth, homicide rates, infant mortality and gender equality.) Phiwum (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ring! Ring!img The collective that is Ken wants you to watch an un-subtitled speech by the Swedish agriculture minister. Why? I dunno. Maybe Ken has fond spooning memories. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's… It's... like the guy is trying proof my hypothesis. "Look! Bestiality is obviously bad [because God told us so and if you don't agree you are mentally disturbed]! In Sweden there were 200 cases in 40 years [I can't be bothered to look up the data for more religious states because that might go against my bias]! Therfor secularism is baaad, baaad, baaad!" --★uːʤɱ atheist 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Ken's response is brilliant. Roughly, while he admits that atheist nations are evidently better in terms of, say, homicide, infant mortality, poverty and so on, religious nations score better where it matters: suicide and bestiality. (Not that he has a shred of evidence regarding the relationship between bestiality and religion, of course.) Anyway, that's how I choose my belief systems. If it discourages suicide and bestiality, then that's the system for me! Phiwum (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm into necrophilia, bestiality and paedophilia. I have sex with omelettes. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds like it comes right from a song by GWAR.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm into necrophilia, bestiality and paedophilia. I have sex with omelettes. --PsyGremlinFale! 16:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Ken's response is brilliant. Roughly, while he admits that atheist nations are evidently better in terms of, say, homicide, infant mortality, poverty and so on, religious nations score better where it matters: suicide and bestiality. (Not that he has a shred of evidence regarding the relationship between bestiality and religion, of course.) Anyway, that's how I choose my belief systems. If it discourages suicide and bestiality, then that's the system for me! Phiwum (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's… It's... like the guy is trying proof my hypothesis. "Look! Bestiality is obviously bad [because God told us so and if you don't agree you are mentally disturbed]! In Sweden there were 200 cases in 40 years [I can't be bothered to look up the data for more religious states because that might go against my bias]! Therfor secularism is baaad, baaad, baaad!" --★uːʤɱ atheist 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit]
Ken frequently likes to deride the machismo of atheists or evolutionists who won't debate with some Creatard but I see at WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog that Catholic theologian John Haught refuses to release a video where he doesn't win the debate. 
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I hear "didn't win the debate" from all sides of plenty of issues, but really, unless you're talking formal high school/college debate competitions, how does anyone determine who wins a debate? Audience response? The people who actually bother to attend a debate are probably already on one side or another and have their minds made up beforehand. Unless you've got a polling firm doing formal surveys like are done with American Presidential debates, saying "won" a debate is probably really saying "here's the side I agreed with anyway". MDB (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Debates with an audience are in the end never about talking the other debater into agreeing with you, but almost always about talking the audience, or the majority of the audience, into agreeing with you. I suppose most politicians have in their lifetime heard of all those logical fallacies, but in the end all sides use them anyway. If you ever debated with just one other person I'm willing to bet my left nut on the fact that you didn't use any ad hominems against him, because that wouldn't help you. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) To be sure, we're only hearing one side of the story so far. Also, we should note that the debate wasn't whether evolution is a good theory, but whether religion and science are "compatible". The theologian says yes, and the author of the WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog (horrible name!) says no. Frankly, I'm with the theologian here, but since the theologian is not opposed to the theory of evolution, he's not too relevant for Ken's dribblings. Phiwum (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Coyne doesn't say that religion and evo cannot co-exist happily, he says that in the formulative sense of "my religion is truth and anything that contradicts it is false" they cannot co-exist. But he's fine enough with the person who just thinks there is a god out there, or that a god made the universe, but it runs on its own. that's the danger of these types of debates, few people agree about what "religion" is or what levels of religiosity are required to have this discussion.GodotGet over it!. 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC) He does say you cannot have a god that actually "does" anything, cause that we would be able to see, and there is no evidence for (ie., miracles).
- WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog (horrible name!) Yes, it should of course be ProofAndEvidenceThatEvolutionIsTrueAndAccurate. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Coyne doesn't say that religion and evo cannot co-exist happily, he says that in the formulative sense of "my religion is truth and anything that contradicts it is false" they cannot co-exist. But he's fine enough with the person who just thinks there is a god out there, or that a god made the universe, but it runs on its own. that's the danger of these types of debates, few people agree about what "religion" is or what levels of religiosity are required to have this discussion.
- (EC) To be sure, we're only hearing one side of the story so far. Also, we should note that the debate wasn't whether evolution is a good theory, but whether religion and science are "compatible". The theologian says yes, and the author of the WhyEvolutionIsTrue blog (horrible name!) says no. Frankly, I'm with the theologian here, but since the theologian is not opposed to the theory of evolution, he's not too relevant for Ken's dribblings. Phiwum (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Debates with an audience are in the end never about talking the other debater into agreeing with you, but almost always about talking the audience, or the majority of the audience, into agreeing with you. I suppose most politicians have in their lifetime heard of all those logical fallacies, but in the end all sides use them anyway. If you ever debated with just one other person I'm willing to bet my left nut on the fact that you didn't use any ad hominems against him, because that wouldn't help you. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear Kenbags[edit]
You can post on rationalwiki, you aren't even on vandalbrake, why bother with the red phone when we are just in the next office over here on the internets? --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because here he can't lock, block and burn. Despite his boasts about his debating prowess, he can't actually hold up his end of a light conversation. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ken's running out of ideas[edit]
Well at least until somebody points him in the direction of the scourge of atheism and coprophilia. In the mean time, he's going to hijack other people's essaysimg and slip links to his crap inside them... as well as protecting them. If only it would actually dawn on Ken, that link whoring all his articles within CP has NO EFFECT AT ALL on his SEO attempts. Then again, I think it's less SEO and more OCD. Whenever Ken sees an article he hasn't crapped on, he just can't help himself. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Which came just afterimg he edited PJR user page - apparently at PJR's request. Well there's a thing, 2 years after pjr left cp he comes back to quietly ask kenny to shit all over not only his user page but also his essay. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Enumerating Ed[edit]
Do you think he'd agree with the converseimg, that if more than 95% of scientists agree with a proposition it's pretty much true? I guess not, he's a good little creationist hypocrite. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why biblical literalism/conservatism/X would have to mean no global warming at all. And obviously if 5% of a dissent group disagrees, the idea MUST be wrong or need major work! they might not be wrong in they're dissent at all!. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, you could use that logic on YEC/conservative christianity as well, since theres not total consensus in that group. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- A side note to that side note (this is how threads get derailed) Shock is obsessed with the idea that atheism is in contradiction because some of us think that we can't know on the "God question" and others think that we can. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Adventist · Anabaptist · Anglican · Baptist · Calvinism · Evangelicalism · Holiness · Independent Catholic · Lutheran · Methodist · Old Catholic · Protestant · Pentecostal · Roman Catholic... Eastern Orthodox · Eastern Catholic · Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) · Assyrian ... Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal... ontop of the ones not on that Wikipedia template... Atheism is a hell of a lot more unified then my religion has been in millenia. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That and atheists aren't calling each other heretics and such and refusing to have anything to do with those they disagree with over such issues, that and no atheist killed another over philosophical questions like that religious historically have.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- "But it's such an important question!" Says cockgobbler shock, who says that he left atheism because of the inherent contradiction. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 10:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I bet some atheists do have petty disgreements and refuse to speak to each other. That's just because the sceptic movement, like all others, is made up of humans.
- They probably don't kill each other, but then Christian groups don't tend to these days either - not since the church's political power evaporated.--
- "But it's such an important question!" Says cockgobbler shock, who says that he left atheism because of the inherent contradiction. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 10:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That and atheists aren't calling each other heretics and such and refusing to have anything to do with those they disagree with over such issues, that and no atheist killed another over philosophical questions like that religious historically have.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Adventist · Anabaptist · Anglican · Baptist · Calvinism · Evangelicalism · Holiness · Independent Catholic · Lutheran · Methodist · Old Catholic · Protestant · Pentecostal · Roman Catholic... Eastern Orthodox · Eastern Catholic · Oriental Orthodox (Miaphysite) · Assyrian ... Jehovah's Witness · Latter Day Saint · Unitarian · Christadelphian · Oneness Pentecostal... ontop of the ones not on that Wikipedia template... Atheism is a hell of a lot more unified then my religion has been in millenia. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- A side note to that side note (this is how threads get derailed) Shock is obsessed with the idea that atheism is in contradiction because some of us think that we can't know on the "God question" and others think that we can. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, you could use that logic on YEC/conservative christianity as well, since theres not total consensus in that group. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Classy Jpratt[edit]
AIDS is a self-inflicted illness.img Seems he;s vying for Ed for the The Biggest Cunt on CP Award. I also enjoy how he highlights the flaw in Andy's pet project - Kenneth Williams died from a drug overdose... but he never came to America... so he couldn't have contracted Hollywood Values... what to do... what to do...
The stupid, it is strong in this one. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Jpatt, I'm your father! I have no clue how that works but I am!
- *sigh* Back on topic: If this page were called "Entertainment values" he would stay. I suddenly don't think Jpatt thinks a lot about about the entertainment industry, sadly an "entertainment value" issomething completely different. Or was he making a funny there?
- And to round up my bitching: Ask a wife that got an STD from her cheating husband. Although, as her husband was cheting, she obviusly did something wrong (I hope the sarcasm is obvious to everybody). --★uːʤɱ sinner 11:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's only a hair's breadth away from the usual "she was asking for it" mentality. Of course, when Johnny Sedition's weight catches up with him and he develops diabetes, it's obviously self-inflicted, because the bastard dared to eat sugar. --PsyGremlin講話 11:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll cross that hair, she screwed up just like Phil Hartman. I agree with the Diabetes issue as well, self-inflicted. You know me better than myself. --208.40.4.94 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would it also be self-inflicted if your wife after she caught you cheating snaps and shots your brain out? After all, you caused her to snap didn't you? --★uːʤɱ soviet 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you know my answer already? It was self-inflicted from the standpoint "I" married the wrong girl, "I" shouldn't have cheated, "I" made her snap. I assume the courts would go soft on the killa- mental abuse.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would it also be self-inflicted if your wife after she caught you cheating snaps and shots your brain out? After all, you caused her to snap didn't you? --★uːʤɱ soviet 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll cross that hair, she screwed up just like Phil Hartman. I agree with the Diabetes issue as well, self-inflicted. You know me better than myself. --208.40.4.94 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's only a hair's breadth away from the usual "she was asking for it" mentality. Of course, when Johnny Sedition's weight catches up with him and he develops diabetes, it's obviously self-inflicted, because the bastard dared to eat sugar. --PsyGremlin講話 11:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh and here's another one, although slightly old[edit]
You don't fit into society or think you are better than others? Well, you are surely an anarchist!img --★uːʤɱ federalist 13:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't get your criticism. JPatt informs us, "It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits." Surely that settles it! It is well documented[sic]. (And everyone knows that cretins and misfits are anarchists, so you can stop blowing that smoke!) Phiwum (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, it's not a mob of cretins and misfits. It's a gathering of grandmothers and Sunday school teachers.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I'm just going to assume that the BoN is Jpatt. Your view is that everything that is written in the Bible is true and evolution, global warming, relativity are lies. How many people all over the world agree with you? Your view could is probably using the CP defintion of capitalism that all countries of the world are socialist. How many all over the world agree with you? Then again how many people in America support the basic message of the OWS protestors? Wasn't that around 70 or 80%? While at the same time you're a Tea-Partier who are supported by around 20%, right (I'm not counting the "silent majority" here, that is "continiously lied to" about ... everything)? Just looking at the numbers you are the misfit. Jpatt, are you an anarchist? --★uːʤɱ pervert 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservatives viewpoints are 100% opposite of liberals, yes- we are considered anarchists by the left. Or terrorists, which every makes you feel good.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a socialist and your wrong (that has to sound unbelievably dickish without context). We don't consider you anarchists. Stupid, full of fear, misogynist, sometimes racist, hatemongers, oppressive, crazy, some of you even fascists with a huge stick up your ass, yes, but "anarchist" only were it fits (anarcho-capitalism, which really isn't all that conservative). Terrorists only when you act like a terrorist, which would in my book be damaging property or hurting people to the goal of spreading your agenda. Sadly, terrorism is more of a left-wing thing. Although, I would still consider Al-Quaida as right-wing, just from a different culture. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservatives viewpoints are 100% opposite of liberals, yes- we are considered anarchists by the left. Or terrorists, which every makes you feel good.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, you're absolutely right. Either it's well-documented that the gathering is a mob of cretins or misfits or else they're grannies and Sunday School teachers. What could be more obvious? (Or, to use that much derided phrase from the lesser wiki, Citation Needed.) Phiwum (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I'm just going to assume that the BoN is Jpatt. Your view is that everything that is written in the Bible is true and evolution, global warming, relativity are lies. How many people all over the world agree with you? Your view could is probably using the CP defintion of capitalism that all countries of the world are socialist. How many all over the world agree with you? Then again how many people in America support the basic message of the OWS protestors? Wasn't that around 70 or 80%? While at the same time you're a Tea-Partier who are supported by around 20%, right (I'm not counting the "silent majority" here, that is "continiously lied to" about ... everything)? Just looking at the numbers you are the misfit. Jpatt, are you an anarchist? --★uːʤɱ pervert 14:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, it's not a mob of cretins and misfits. It's a gathering of grandmothers and Sunday school teachers.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If god existed and loved the world he would never have made anyone as monumentally stupid as Jpatt. DickTurpis (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- BoN is one of these ridiculous dichotomists (new word) who really can only think in black/white good/evil. "Conservatives viewpoints are 100% opposite of liberals". Obviously doesn't get out much. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- @BoN. No, I don't consider you an anarchist. I, almost certainly unlike you, have read JS Mill, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Marx AND Adam Smith - and I am DAMN CERTAIN you've not read Smith or even know who he was. You are not anarchist and noone thinksd you are, you are not even libertarian in the fucked up way that it has been hijacked by the right wing nutters in the US and elsewhere. You are just a sad, bitter, ineffectual, and no doubt poor, man who absolutely hates the fact that others of us get more pussy, more money, more drugs, more beer and a FUCK SIGHT more fun than you will ever have. So you sit on your right wing hate blog and bluster and splutter against anyone and everything because it makes you feel as if your tedious life has some meaning and significance. Here's a guide for you johnny, it doesn't. You mean nothing and 10 years after you die noone will remember your name or anything you ever did. Enjoy your day you poor little non-entity. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That was a public service announcement from the Department of Get Off My Lawn. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, so long as he tidies up his mess once he's finished on my lawn and shuts the gate on the way out I am perfectly happy to allow him to play on it. That's the main difference between 'liberals' like myself and people like johnny. I'm willing to share some of my good fortune around. johnny, should he ever have any, will hoard it and try to shoot anyone who asks if they can join in his fun. But yeah, I do tend to sort of regard myself as a syndicalist in a broad red and black sense. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Yeah, Oldus started off reasonably well by simply referring an obvious fact: there's no reason any liberal or socialist should mistake confuse conservatism with anarchy. But then his post fell victim to the position I thought he was railing against: pretending as if we know anything about the final motivations and reasons of our correspondents on the internet.
- I prefer the simpler, more obviously true observation: Jpatt is an asshole. He's often fairly hateful in his posts. Is he poor? Jealous? Scared? Who the fuck knows? Let's stick to what we do know about him: what he chooses to write. The alternative is not merely ad hominem; it's purely speculative ad hominem. Phiwum (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but sometimes I find nose tweaking fun. Sorry. :-( Oldusgitus (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, so long as he tidies up his mess once he's finished on my lawn and shuts the gate on the way out I am perfectly happy to allow him to play on it. That's the main difference between 'liberals' like myself and people like johnny. I'm willing to share some of my good fortune around. johnny, should he ever have any, will hoard it and try to shoot anyone who asks if they can join in his fun. But yeah, I do tend to sort of regard myself as a syndicalist in a broad red and black sense. :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- That was a public service announcement from the Department of Get Off My Lawn. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- @BoN. No, I don't consider you an anarchist. I, almost certainly unlike you, have read JS Mill, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, Marx AND Adam Smith - and I am DAMN CERTAIN you've not read Smith or even know who he was. You are not anarchist and noone thinksd you are, you are not even libertarian in the fucked up way that it has been hijacked by the right wing nutters in the US and elsewhere. You are just a sad, bitter, ineffectual, and no doubt poor, man who absolutely hates the fact that others of us get more pussy, more money, more drugs, more beer and a FUCK SIGHT more fun than you will ever have. So you sit on your right wing hate blog and bluster and splutter against anyone and everything because it makes you feel as if your tedious life has some meaning and significance. Here's a guide for you johnny, it doesn't. You mean nothing and 10 years after you die noone will remember your name or anything you ever did. Enjoy your day you poor little non-entity. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- "You are just a sad, bitter, ineffectual, and no doubt poor, man who absolutely hates the fact that others of us get more pussy, more money, more drugs, more beer and a FUCK SIGHT more fun than you will ever have." I got a kick out of that. At least I don't have skid marks in my underwear. You'll never experience the fun I have. I rode the Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point. It takes two balls fellas. --208.40.4.94 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. It takes a lot of courage to ride a roller coaster. The great risk makes it an even more harrowing an experience than crossing a busy street or eating sushi. I admire you. 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh fuck, you're right. When I go flying the private plane tomorrow and then after that go to see the Spitfire Mk1 restoration project at the airfield I fly from I will remember that you went on a roller coaster and hold my experience cheap compared to yours. And when I get on my Bonneville and ride home afterwards I will be sad that I have not also ridden on a roller coaster. Oh dear, you are such a wonderful person johnny.
- Incidentally "It takes two balls fellas". So who's balls were you sucking then? Have fun johnny. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, er, wow. Are we sure this is JPatt and not someone just taking the piss? I mean, "I'm a man because I rode a roller coaster?" Does anyone really think like that? Geez, Louise. Phiwum (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Back in the day, I snuck into a movie without paying. Just call me a rebel. Oldguts, don't think about our conversation before liftoff. I wouldn't want to be blamed for placing a hex on that flight. --208.40.4.94 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, er, wow. Are we sure this is JPatt and not someone just taking the piss? I mean, "I'm a man because I rode a roller coaster?" Does anyone really think like that? Geez, Louise. Phiwum (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Homework returns![edit]
Now that any dissent regarding Andy's marking has been silenced, he can go ahead a publish the homework again.
I see he has the usual high standards:
- Write an essay about any aspect of the lecture.
- Add 3 terms to the Study Guide (or 5 terms to earn credit for two questions)
Any bets on how many essays are written? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Considering there was only one submission for Lecture Six, I won't be holding my breath. But perhaps it'll pick up again, especially seeing as both the Student Revolution and Palace Coup have been crushed, and Ken has gone running back to masterimg like the good puppy he is. Note, on an entertaining tangent, the claim that the Bible is "a family friendly work". Maybe Kenny ought to read Genesis 9:18 - 9:29 to some local schoolchildren. Raucous drunkenness, intergenerational incest, and condemning a whole race to slavery. Very family-friendly.... Ironclad (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but The Holy Bible IS family friendly. This is well documented, here, and here. Jimaginator (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy even fails at making the other side look bad.[edit]
Instead of grinding all over the fact that the Occupy Oakland protesters called for a general strikeand failed to deliver such. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] He goes for the "they are violent"-factor.img Stuff like this, Andy, is why Conservapedia sucks as an encyclopedia — and why everybody with half a brain thinks you are a bitter old cunt. --★uːʤɱ atheist 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Jeb Bush[edit]
Declared non-candidate Jeb Bush is even more likely to win the position that he is not running for.img Note to JPatt: You should definitely stay involved with CP, because, in Andy, you've found perhaps the one person in America that makes you look reasonably smart by comparison. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's Kendoll too, he'd make a rock look smart by comparison. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Talking about missing the point completely[edit]
Uh, Oh! Somebody from a known paper mentioned us! We have to respond:
Huffington Post: "Science is not democratic or republican." Science simply says what the facts are.
Andy: So why don't ya stop being so biased then!img
I have no words to describe how stupid that is. --★uːʤɱ kant 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's beautiful *wipes eyes* So much butthurt in such a short sentence. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Why isn't a critic of global warming given the nobel prize?" Because they have nothing but claiming snow proves its not real.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy is still pissed off that Gore and Obama both the Nobel Peace Prize. MDB (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- True, but did either of them get 4,000 points in Contest Number 4? --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- And's still pissed that even with all of his momeys money, A black man made it to president of the HLR.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, Thunderstruck, I find this comment crosses a line. For all his faults, I see no clear and obvious evidence that Andy is a racist. Absent this, it's fairly offensive to accuse him thus. Is there any reason you think that his opposition to Obama is due to race, prejudice about conservatives and racism aside? Phiwum (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Andy has repeatedly called Obama a 'Affirmative Action President.' Not to mention that his support for the birther nonsense is something that is primarily racially motivated. - Lardashe
- Schlafly on Obamaimg: " He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action". That's pretty fuckin' racist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's not necessarily racist. It is, of course, remarkably disrespectful and wildly delusional, but one can certainly imagine a non-racist who loathes Obama and believes that his successes are undeserved and the result of affirmative action.
- Racism is the belief that a particular race is different in kind or quality than other races. It's a truly vile belief, especially in the context of a democracy. I am personally quite loathe to accuse anyone of racism unless the evidence is clear and nearly irrefutable. I don't see that with Andy; his comments about Obama are fairly consistent for anyone who strongly dislikes Obama and feels that affirmative action is fundamentally unfair. Neither of those opinions require racism. Phiwum (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- (Aside:) The link Night Jaguar included is pretty funny! "Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that 'Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article'." Right. As we all know, Andy thinks that no one is qualified to understand relativity without a strong background in physics. Also, relativity is wrong and Andy is smart enough to point out why. Phiwum (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Racism is the belief that a particular race is different in kind or quality than other races. -> I don't want to get into an argument about semantics, but I don't think that fully captures what most people mean by 'racism'.
- There are definitely those who are explicitly racist and would say race X is inferior (e.g, the KKK). However, there are also those who would not claim to believe race X to be inferior, but are prejudiced against members of that race, even if they don't recognize it themselves. They treat people of a certain race differently and make certain assumptions about them. I wouldn't say Andy is a member of the first group, but he's definitely a member of the second. In this day and age the second group is the far more prevalent one and the one does the most damage, the first haven been driven to the fringe. It's the reason why, even though in theory there is no racism, in practice minorities receive harsher punishments than whites that commit the exact same crime or why poverty rates are much higher among minorities. The United States has an extremely racist history (in both senses above) and that sort of thing leaves a mark on society.
- (As for the aside: I say that too and smiled.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your distinction, and my definition was too narrow. The problem is that I really don't think that the evidence is clear regarding Andy's attitudes. I'll agree that his comments about Obama may be evidence of racism, but they simply aren't sufficient to justify calling him racist in my mind. That charge is pretty serious, I think, and requires clearer evidence than we have.
- To be sure, reasonable folk can disagree on this point. But I'd just as soon restrict our claims to what is evidently true, rather than leaping to conclusions about Andy's attitudes towards minorities without irrefutable evidence. Phiwum (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately RW has a habit of doing this - Ed is a paedo, Ken is mentally ill, etc. Not big and not clever. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's up to mainspace to rationally describe people and back assertions up with evidence, because it's mainspace that is held up to that standard. Talk pages are for talk, and people have a right to be dick, baseless insults included. Some might not find the insults amusing but others do. ONE / TALK 13:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And the conduct on talk pages is where most people interact. So any baseless insults or assertions eventually worm their way into the society at large. It might not directly pollute the mainspace, but indirectly it can contribute to the feeling that being an asshole in more serious discussions is acceptable. And anyway, the excuse "oh it's just a joke and it's on a talk page" doesn't wash when it comes to things like slander.
bomination 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And the conduct on talk pages is where most people interact. So any baseless insults or assertions eventually worm their way into the society at large. It might not directly pollute the mainspace, but indirectly it can contribute to the feeling that being an asshole in more serious discussions is acceptable. And anyway, the excuse "oh it's just a joke and it's on a talk page" doesn't wash when it comes to things like slander.
- Personally, I think it's up to mainspace to rationally describe people and back assertions up with evidence, because it's mainspace that is held up to that standard. Talk pages are for talk, and people have a right to be dick, baseless insults included. Some might not find the insults amusing but others do. ONE / TALK 13:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately RW has a habit of doing this - Ed is a paedo, Ken is mentally ill, etc. Not big and not clever. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- (Aside:) The link Night Jaguar included is pretty funny! "Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that 'Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article'." Right. As we all know, Andy thinks that no one is qualified to understand relativity without a strong background in physics. Also, relativity is wrong and Andy is smart enough to point out why. Phiwum (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Schlafly on Obamaimg: " He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action". That's pretty fuckin' racist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that Andy has repeatedly called Obama a 'Affirmative Action President.' Not to mention that his support for the birther nonsense is something that is primarily racially motivated. - Lardashe
- To be honest, Thunderstruck, I find this comment crosses a line. For all his faults, I see no clear and obvious evidence that Andy is a racist. Absent this, it's fairly offensive to accuse him thus. Is there any reason you think that his opposition to Obama is due to race, prejudice about conservatives and racism aside? Phiwum (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- And's still pissed that even with all of his momeys money, A black man made it to president of the HLR.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- True, but did either of them get 4,000 points in Contest Number 4? --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy is still pissed off that Gore and Obama both the Nobel Peace Prize. MDB (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Why isn't a critic of global warming given the nobel prize?" Because they have nothing but claiming snow proves its not real.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Conservapedia in Oct 2011: Deleted Revisions[edit]
Only 7% of all edits made in the current month were deleted last month - down from 11% in Sep 2011 and well below the smashing 24% overall rate of deleted revision. Naturally the number of deleted revision of Oct 2011 will rise over time, but it is doubtful that it will reach record-breaking heights. The main reason: cp:User:Conservative has learned to manage revision delete and doesn't have to erase whole histories of pages any longer.
Nevertheless more than half of the deleted edits where made by him: he (ab)uses revision delete instead of the preview button. Only sometimes he has to cover up really inept comments, like this one in revision 926566 (saved for your viewing pleasure), where he subtitled a picture of a throat (cp:File:Throat.png) with:
| A number of Christians have written books to combat the recent books of militant New Atheism authors such as Richard Dawkins. While directly confronting atheism is useful, the air supply of atheism and secularism is evolutionary indoctrination. The Question evolution! campaign is a tool to cut off the air supply of atheism. |
In a normal wiki one would expect the use of revision delete to hide inept contributions by trolls, it's very amusing to see that at Conservapedia more than 55% of the revisions which were judged unfit to be read were created by sysops. Well done!
larronsicut fur in nocte 11:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nicely done. When you go home tonight, there's gonna be another story on your house. Carlaugust (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hang on a second. Atheism means "A" "Theism", that is, Not Theism, or not believing in a God or Gods. What does that have to do with Evolution? Jimaginator (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- EVERYTHING!!! The history of Atheism/agnosticism prior to Darwin? DID NOT HAPPEN. Until Darwin everybody was some form of theist and the belief that everything comes from evolution, and not Yahweh is what has spurred the disbelief in god worldwide, even those areas where christianity was never in hold for this evil vile belief to take hold and destroy!. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Constistency? Never![edit]
Ed blocks Ayzmoimg for "contradicting statements". It's like a parodist who does something stupid as a wink to everyone out there, but in his case... 
NorsemanCyser Melomel 04:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reailty is that it is nothing to do with "contradicting statements". It is all to do with Ayzmo administering a comprehensive humiliationimg to uncle ed on the subject of AGW on Talk Main Page. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, an infinite ban for that talk page post? That's epic-level dickery. And here I had a tiny spark of hope that Ed would be at least a little bit better than Karajou or Ken. --Sid (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? If anything Ed is worse than both of them combined, mostly because he hides it behind his creepy 'look I'm congenial Uncle Ed' persona, whilst having no qualms about taking his butthurt from wikipedia out on CP editors. If anything, Ed uses the banhammer to resolve debates he can't win (i.e. all of them) far more than Ken and Kara. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The perfect example of Ed's cowardice is his behaviour at Ameriwiki; he didn't even try to fit in there, just turned up and started throwing his considerable weight around until he got slapped down, then left and never went back. --Longbow (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Ed at least never asked anybody to personally look for Noah's ark. And his normal reaction to an unwinnable discussion is to simply ignore it for a few weeks. I'm not saying he's a good guy, but at least he has phases where he is nice to people. Ken and especially Karajou are fulltime trolls. --Sid (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The perfect example of Ed's cowardice is his behaviour at Ameriwiki; he didn't even try to fit in there, just turned up and started throwing his considerable weight around until he got slapped down, then left and never went back. --Longbow (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? If anything Ed is worse than both of them combined, mostly because he hides it behind his creepy 'look I'm congenial Uncle Ed' persona, whilst having no qualms about taking his butthurt from wikipedia out on CP editors. If anything, Ed uses the banhammer to resolve debates he can't win (i.e. all of them) far more than Ken and Kara. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ed is inconsistent in his consistency, it all depends on whether he's recently had a smack down elsewhere. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, an infinite ban for that talk page post? That's epic-level dickery. And here I had a tiny spark of hope that Ed would be at least a little bit better than Karajou or Ken. --Sid (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Conservapedia in Oct 2011: Edits, editors, articles[edit]
In Oct 2011 more than 9,400 edits were made at Conservapedia. As said before, 670 edits were deleted during the month, so that at the end of October there were ~8,700 new edits in the database (see left).
The number is down from last month (~13,000 undeleted edits), and though not too shabby nothing to crow about: at least Aschlafly omitted his usual announcement of another record-breaking month, and even the update of the number of edits and views at the mainpage wasn't made by him, but by Jpatt.
It may surprise that there are that many editors contributing to Conservapedia - or that an sysop like Karajou made more than 170 edits. The answer is simple:
Vandalism. This contributes to the fact that more than half of the active editors are currently blocked...
The unfortunately titled article "Gaussian integral" (instead of Gaussian integral) was targeted five times by vandals (who obviously followed meticulously the list of all pages cp:Special:AllPages), and five times these edits were reverted. More than 2,300 of last month's 9,400 edits were reversions or reverted instantly.
So, how to judge the traffic. Foremost Conservapedia is an encyclopedia (at least that's what Andy claims) with the intend to generate main space entries. As discussed earlier, only 120 new (non-essay, non-debate, non-redirect) articles (i.e., pages in the main namespace) were created. Mentioning Andy's creations here improved their quality instantly. This can't be done for Ken: He doesn't label some of his creations essay, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic (cp:Christopher Hitchens on bestiality,cp:Enthusiastic responses to the Questiion Evolution!, cp: Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant, etc.). As for Ed Poor: his stubs on movies (cp: Gung Ho (1943), cp:Gung Ho (1986) , cp:Lost in Translation, cp:Mr. Baseball, cp:Rocky, cp:Starship Troopers (film)) show his intention to make substantial edits...
as for the 1,300 articles which were touched by vandals, sysops, parodists and real editors: not much happened there, neither.
larronsicut fur in nocte 12:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Genghis: thanks, I'm grateful for any correction (and it shows that someone reads my stuff :-)) larronsicut fur in nocte 14:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yay chart pron! The last stuck out at me: basically 80% of all edits were stub-esque. This site is growing rapidly! NorsemanCyser Melomel 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this is one of my favorite Cats[edit]
The years categoryimg. Just Becauseimg Each pageimg hasimg fuck allimg to do with that year and is instead just a list of X event or name that happended in the next hundred years--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Those are relics of when homeschoolers walked the virgin plains of CP doing their ancient history homework. Andy had some crazy ideas about compiling lists of terms rather than putting things in categories - because, I was told by TK, Andy thought that hierarchical categories were too complicated for the students. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- To complicated "for students". Yeah. Totally. Exactly how it is. postate 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- To complicated "for students". Yeah. Totally. Exactly how it is.
Ken! Ken![edit]
Damn those atheistic Scandanavians!
PS Ken, seeing as how you moderate your behaviour based on what we say here, methinks it's somebody else who is obsessed. After all, it's not us editing a 3rd rate hate blog 18 hours a day. Btw, how's Operation Flying Fortress coming along? --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- He'll just ignore your statistics and retort how in the past year five Swedes tried to boink their animals so all of Sweden is a nation of colt cuddlers and dog doinkers cuz' you know, atheism! It isn't as if facts contrary tot he official Conservapedia propaganda will ever be allowed on that site.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've always had a lot of respect for you, B. Colt cuddlers. Dog Doinkers. I laughed out loud. Thanks for brightening a hectic afternon. 20:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've always had a lot of respect for you, B. Colt cuddlers. Dog Doinkers. I laughed out loud. Thanks for brightening a hectic afternon.
Not only do the Schlaflies support spousal rape...[edit]
...Andy thinks that the legal fallout from an ex-husband raping his ex-wifeimg is nothing worth commenting onimg. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Classic case of Andy's action making absolutely no sense without extensive background knowledge - kudos for spotting the connection. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- And he replaced it with his shitting on puppetry? You couldn't make this stuff up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Plagiarism isn't cool Kenneth[edit]
Can anyone spot the similarities between this articleimg and the opening three lines of Wikipedia's version? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Counterexamples against an Old Earth cited by Mt. Vernon school-board candidate[edit]
Very interesting article at panda's thumb.
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
“”At some point one reaches the conclusion that a source cannot be trusted, and our critical analysis of the Conservapedia article strongly suggests it can’t be trusted. One use I can see for that Conservapedia article is that it could be very useful for teaching students how to effectively debunk creationist claims.
|
- Beautiful!! Countdown to hissy fit from Schlafly in 3... 2...
- The comments are also full of win. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually somewhat surprised that anybody actually used Conservapedia like that. But it's nice to see Andy setting up Creationists for failure like that. Keep up the good work, Andy! --Sid (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure CP must be getting close to earning it's own internet law - 'Anybody who quotes Conservapedia to support their position in an argument, automatically loses that argument.' --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see a minor problem with that. --★uːʤɱ digital native 12:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm flabbergasted (FLABBERGASTED I SAY!) at the thought of someone who has a hand at being in charge of what to teach children, citing Conservapedia as a source for their so-called valid claims of teaching ID. FLABBERGASTED! NorsemanCyser Melomel 15:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- The only time I've ever seen that word used was in a Readers Digest article. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm flabbergasted (FLABBERGASTED I SAY!) at the thought of someone who has a hand at being in charge of what to teach children, citing Conservapedia as a source for their so-called valid claims of teaching ID. FLABBERGASTED!
- I see a minor problem with that. --★uːʤɱ digital native 12:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure CP must be getting close to earning it's own internet law - 'Anybody who quotes Conservapedia to support their position in an argument, automatically loses that argument.' --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually somewhat surprised that anybody actually used Conservapedia like that. But it's nice to see Andy setting up Creationists for failure like that. Keep up the good work, Andy! --Sid (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone actually took the time to tear up that gish gallop. Alright.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- CPs downfall is getting what they want. Person cited them (what they want) => Person made to look like an idiot (getting it). --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
How little any of the CP sysops care[edit]
For several years now, since some botched upgrade, CP's revision permalinks (e.g. this oneimg) have been outputting raw HTML. None of CP's denizens are terribly gifted in the having the slightest clue about software department so perhaps you might forgive them for it, but a month ago some kindly soul dropped by and told them exactly how to fix the problem. And they still haven't done it. Nobody gives a shit about CP, not even its supposed custodians. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- That link looks OK to me - fully mediaWiki. Scream!! (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the big pink box at the top. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Aaah, Vienna! Scream!! (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's been there so long that I had begun to regard it as normal. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- The opening lines of that article in bold and italic make me chuckle merrily as it reminds me of a David Thorne email. "I appreciate you underlining the text at the bottom of the page which I would otherwise have surely mistaken for part of the natural pattern in the paper." SJ Debaser 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's been there so long that I had begun to regard it as normal.
- Aaah, Vienna! Scream!! (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the big pink box at the top. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy "trims" Karajou's lies[edit]
I was quite taken aback by a "news" item inserted by Karajou about a rape in "liberal" California. It stated, in essence, that rather than punishing the rapist, the court had forced the victim pay for it. When one read the source it became quite clear that what Kara had written was a gross distortion of the truth. Luckily Andy was doing a bit of trimming and the whole thing just sort of disappeared without commentimg Good thing too. I was going to give them a piece of my mind (lucky escape boys!). But what I find truly extraordinary is that Kara wrote such a thing in the first place. What can be going on in his head? --Horace (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mentioned this yesterday. They love them some spousal rape in Schlaflyland. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Jpatt, loyal lapdog[edit]
--Sid (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- When will you admit that the scientific community has been compromised by money? Must hate should be hates again.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Peer review was never intended to determine whether claimed studies were actually completed. The reviewers can't possibly know that. Fraud will come out (usually) when others try to replicate studies if they do so.
- There's no doubt that the current scandal is an important embarrassment for at least some kinds of research. It doesn't prove that science has been compromised by money (have you any idea how little researchers make, given their significant education?), much less that "must hate should hates again," whatever the heck our dribbling pal meant by that. We should neither ignore the scandal, nor pretend that it proves more than it does. Phiwum (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep pretending it is not common just because the stupid stays so.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone knows the real money is in science. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Heck yes it is. My grad student buddy's a regular Scrooge McDuck with his $12,000/yr stipend!! 20:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The real money is in second-hand. X-ray machines. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 20:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. I mean, damn. That Dutch guy was pulling down professor money. PROFESSOR MONEY! Dude could supersize anything he wanted in McDonald's. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm constantly knocking back quail's eggs, caviare and foie gras with my 17p ramen noodles. And if I publicly say that the steel used in the World Trade Center would have lost its structural integrity at 700 degrees, George Soros will give me enough money to upgrade to 22p ramen noodles! We're fucking rolling in it in science!!gnostic 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- And I'm constantly knocking back quail's eggs, caviare and foie gras with my 17p ramen noodles. And if I publicly say that the steel used in the World Trade Center would have lost its structural integrity at 700 degrees, George Soros will give me enough money to upgrade to 22p ramen noodles! We're fucking rolling in it in science!!
- Yeah. I mean, damn. That Dutch guy was pulling down professor money. PROFESSOR MONEY! Dude could supersize anything he wanted in McDonald's. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- The real money is in second-hand. X-ray machines.
- Heck yes it is. My grad student buddy's a regular Scrooge McDuck with his $12,000/yr stipend!!
- Everyone knows the real money is in science. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep pretending it is not common just because the stupid stays so.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I remember my grad days, when my stipend finally gave me enough to afford to eat as much $0.65/box spaghetti I could handle! (no sauce, though, that shit was like $2 per jar. No thank you!) But then, after a couple years of grinding out hard work for pay that would make McDonald's employees feel bad for me, the financial services industry said "Come, put that over-mathed brain of yours to work for us." The real money isn't in science, the real money is in leaving science. Carlaugust (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, BoN, of course science is compromised by money. It's compromised by lots of things - laziness, incompetence, lack of investment, industry poaching, power, mistakes, bad luck, acts of God....
- You know, just like anything else, you dick.
- Doesn't mean that science is "wrong" or that somehow all science that you disagree with is somehow false. You really do need to look a little deeper than the latest sound bite or blogger. And I don't mean some book written by someone you already agree with.
- If, as it seems, this subject is so important to you, take the time and find out what it's really like in science. Go and see some actually happening. Real science, not some geo-dig that trying to prove the earth is 6,000 old. That's not science.
- You will find that real science is like every other profession with a mix of fallible human beings who generally do a good job and work very hard. The minority who don't are not representative.
- You should be grown up enough to work that out for yourself. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- In his defense, JPatt may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he's not a YEC. 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, whatever science subject he has a beef with at the moment - vaccines, AGW, moon hoax, lizard aliens in the White House, whatever. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like Marc Hauser II. Publish or perish, as they say. Also, some of the studies listed in that article aren't even fraud, they were just shoddy methodology. The parapsychology "study" design was obviously crap, they didn't need to falsify data. Pers and Soc Psych just published that to stir up shit, er, "maintain open scientific discourse" or some similar nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, whatever science subject he has a beef with at the moment - vaccines, AGW, moon hoax, lizard aliens in the White House, whatever. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- In his defense, JPatt may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but he's not a YEC.
As I said before to our easily confused guest, this incident is important and shouldn't be ignored. Anytime a scandal like this occurs, it is good to focus attention on it. But, this scandal doesn't really support his claim that science is filled with frauds making money off us suckers. After all, let's remember that this scandal was uncovered by scientists. Phiwum (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
What I don't get is why, of all sources, he used TVNZ... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 01:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably it was the first or second result for his Google news search Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
An admission of defeat?[edit]
So Conservapedia is now going to be concentrating on abortion issues (well, so says Ken.) Apparently CP's forays into the topics of atheism, evolution and homosexualityimg were just what the public was looking for - which is why Ken is abandoning them, of course - and now he wants to get more... well, vaginal. Oh yeah, and he's going to save lives, of course. All hail the mighty Ken. --Longbow (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- On the subject of abortion, I see Andy's been taking editing lessons from Creepy Uncle Ed.img The church also has a fairly clear policy on abortion: "The church combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be limited conditions under which it is morally legitimate." Then again, Andy probably thinks the Reformation was a Bad Thing TM --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine Andy cursing right now because Ken will completely fuck up another topic. --★uːʤɱ atheist 11:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ken is at it again? I can imagine "Abortion and Bestiality" coming our way.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not defeat. Victory. Atheism and homosexuality are dead on the internet. Time to move on. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- And Ken makes a typically coherent responseimg... --Longbow (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Is there some very inexpensive and automated way to invite and recruit new conservative wiki editors that someone has kept in reserve?" - Um... no. Or if there is one, why hasn't it been used during the last years? "Typically coherent" really nails it. --Sid (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ken apparently agrees; he's deleted it. --Longbow (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- You know, if Pavlov could've watched Ken reacting to us, he'd have thrown away the dogs and bells. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ken apparently agrees; he's deleted it. --Longbow (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Is there some very inexpensive and automated way to invite and recruit new conservative wiki editors that someone has kept in reserve?" - Um... no. Or if there is one, why hasn't it been used during the last years? "Typically coherent" really nails it. --Sid (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- And Ken makes a typically coherent responseimg... --Longbow (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not defeat. Victory. Atheism and homosexuality are dead on the internet. Time to move on. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 13:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ken is at it again? I can imagine "Abortion and Bestiality" coming our way.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine Andy cursing right now because Ken will completely fuck up another topic. --★uːʤɱ atheist 11:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This is, IIRC, the third time he's attempted to revive the CP pro-life project. I predict it'll last about as long as the last two attempts. It'll occupy the front page for a few weeks, and maybe he'll create and article or two, but then it'll become clear that only he's working on it and that nobody else gives a rats arse. Then it'll be quietly retired until the next time his drunken walk brings him back to this particular obsession. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, this grandiose project will fail, just like the last two times, due to lack of user participation. Not that people don't care about abortion in the conservative movement, they most certainly do; it is those people don't care about Conservapedia or see it as any sort of asset to their cause.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I never thought I'd say this...[edit]
...but I miss Rob. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's the booze talking. Where did Rob go anyway? Seems like he just feel off the wiki world a few weeks back. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't he convinced that Andy would've had him back by now thanks to his amazing headline writing abilities? I figured that when that didn't happen, he went away for a bit. X Stickman (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. and his last amerwiki edit was on the 23rd creating a stub, although prior he hadnt done mkuch either since being told to stop being a prick by george. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't he convinced that Andy would've had him back by now thanks to his amazing headline writing abilities? I figured that when that didn't happen, he went away for a bit. X Stickman (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
JimmyWanker and Ameriwiki[edit]
Apparently, after Ed ran away from the Conservapedia alternative, Jimmyboy joined the party. His contributions there are less than stellar. It seems that some Conservapedian has to be there to screw things up. Rob was there forever, Ken was there for a while, and Ed popped in for a bit.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- SharonW has also found a new home there. Hopefully TPTB at AW manage to keep the CP sysops out. Then again, their natural cowardice when deprived of a ban hammer should see to that.--PsyGremlin말하십시오 08:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy had hardly any online students?[edit]
I've been looking in to this, and it looks like Andy had hardly any online students in his World History even before the supposed revolt. I looked thru all 13 of the homework answers for homework four and it seemed to me there were 3 clear cut editors who made pages (Rexbanner, FrederickT3 & JamesWilson who didn't actually answer). Similarly for homework five there were 2/3 (AranM instead of JamesWilson but I'm pretty sure AranM is a home school student).
There are 3 other 'editors' who contributed the other answers, Historyimg Whimg Whistoryimg who answered multiple times. History has been doing it since February. I thought at first this was someone playing games and had a good laught, but I'm now pretty sure these are role accounts. If you look at some examples Homework 8, Student 1img vs Homework 8, Student 3img or American History Homework 1, Student 15img (edit historyimg) vs American History Homework 1, Student 2img (edit historyimg) vs American History Homework 1, Student 8img (edit historyimg), it seems clear different answers are being given. From there as well as the user edit histories of the 3 users, it's also clear different names are being given (including Aran M at one time). However there is some consistency in names and edit styles within names. (E.g. This student doesn't know how to do identing and next assignment still hasn't learnt, eimgtimgcimg.) I don't see why anyone would go to such lengths to maintain seperate yet distinct identities if they were going to edit from the same account. I presume this means his home school students have access to 3 computers (upgraded from 1 for the American History lecturers last time around) which are logged on to conservapedia.
The signups pageimg says he has 45 home school students, and the mid term exam resultsimg suggests he has at least 23 (those who didn't take the exam online) but from thisimg I think he still has ~45 and just isn't putting stats for those scoring under 30. (He couldn't be making it up but I don't see why he'd do it in such innocous ways that few are going to notice.) I presume he doesn't have such a low homework participation, most of his other students must hand it in offline, perhaps because they can't be bothered waiting for access to the 3 computers. I do find it funny only one seems to have bothered to create an account (and I guess edit from home). Are they just not bothered with conservapedia or are they so closeted they don't have access to a computer or at least the internet at home? (They could be poor, but somehow I doubt Andy is taking on students for free.) It's possible the log in details are given to students and they edit from home using these accounts but I don't see why there would be 3 accounts in that case. In any event, I think it's even more unlikely anyone contacted RexBanner.
BTW, for those still confused about why homework seven was never updatedimg for this year. If you look at the course outlineimg studying for the mid term exam was the homework. (The mid term exam was I presume the week after lecture 7.) Also for those still confused about homework siximg, I'm pretty sure from the stuff about honours studentsimg and the mentioned of no class next week no class next weekimg that his online homework is the same as for his home school students. The stuff about a quiz next week etc make more sense in that light. Also I noticed the header for homework eightimg was copied and pasted from five but he forgot to update it ;-)
Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- You need to get out more. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be a dick, but what is the point of all this? Senator Harrison (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well I for one enjoy the in-depth analysis and appreciated this run-down of Andy's courses (which I don't normally pay attention to)... it just needs more graphs ;) ONE / TALK 09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The numbers are surprisingly small, given how much Andy likes to bang the drum for his homskoolers and then claim that CP is leading the way to glorious, um, something! Actually does anyone else find Andy's drivel even remotely convincing? It seems... pathetic really.Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well I for one enjoy the in-depth analysis and appreciated this run-down of Andy's courses (which I don't normally pay attention to)... it just needs more graphs ;) ONE / TALK 09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be a dick, but what is the point of all this? Senator Harrison (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Separated at birth?[edit]
Someone should organise a rent-a-mob to go beat it with their shoes. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why is this on CP:WIGO? --★uːʤɱ libertarian 09:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Because of thisimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Andy's priorities[edit]
Markman has now made enough trivial edits to dead-end articles to earn promotion. And never mind improving the encyclopaedia, Andy knows that for the pondlife he attracts to his project, promotion is all about being able to block other accounts!img --Longbow (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Since every editor at CP who isn't a long time sysop is either a parodist or a vandal, Andy's cunning plan is to use the parodists to block the vandals. That way CP can crawl through one more day without collapsing under a crapton of vandalism that none of the sysops can be bothered to revert. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- That, and any mess a parodist does with block rights is easier to clean than say, with edit rights: "Oh hey, you blocked a dozen people I don't know and two people I do know. I'll unblock the two I know - the others are presumed guilty until they file an appeal
through the mailing system...through the Zoho account nobody really checks...through Andy's mail, which he never really pays attention to...through the mail address that's not listed on most user pages...okay, whatever, the others are guilty. There, problem solved." --Sid (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)- -Still has blocking rights---il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- That, and any mess a parodist does with block rights is easier to clean than say, with edit rights: "Oh hey, you blocked a dozen people I don't know and two people I do know. I'll unblock the two I know - the others are presumed guilty until they file an appeal
If only Europe wasn't so secular[edit]
and instead followed the bibleimg, they wouldn't have as much debt! Nevermind the current problems also happens in the very not-secular US!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm starting to wonder if Kendoll has ever even read the Bible. I can't imagine where he thinks it recommends not going in to debt. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Ken there is at the moment a very strong political movement. But it's to the left you dumbass. --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bible saysno to debt, Bible also says no to a shit ton of money.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- bible verses on debt, took all of 30 seconds of googling --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum: The bible also says give all your money to the poor, the sick, and the old and that's pretty much where all the debt came from in the first place. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- But... bt... that sounds LOT like the idea espoused by those DAMN DIRTY LIBERAL COMMUNISTS! And jesus was a right wing conservative republican!!! --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- They should rewrite it that way in CBP; out with "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" and in with "Jesus Christ, R". Oh, and let him give fish and bred to a Tea Party rally! --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 10:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I kinda want a "Jesus was a RINO" bumper sticker now...Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness)
- They should rewrite it that way in CBP; out with "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" and in with "Jesus Christ, R". Oh, and let him give fish and bred to a Tea Party rally! --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 10:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- But... bt... that sounds LOT like the idea espoused by those DAMN DIRTY LIBERAL COMMUNISTS! And jesus was a right wing conservative republican!!! --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum: The bible also says give all your money to the poor, the sick, and the old and that's pretty much where all the debt came from in the first place. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- bible verses on debt, took all of 30 seconds of googling --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bible saysno to debt, Bible also says no to a shit ton of money.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Ken there is at the moment a very strong political movement. But it's to the left you dumbass. --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Jesus was a RINO aside[edit]
So I posted up on my facebook my idea for a "Jesus was a RINO" bumper sticker (and I sent it off to the folks at evolvefish.com) and the next thing I know my fundamentalist sister (who doesn't seem to know that I'm an atheist) posts a nasty gram to my wall about how I had beter not be making fun of God or she and I will have words... sadface. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 04:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's actually pretty funny. There's one thing I've always wanted to know though, how does one end up an atheist while at the same time a close family member ends up a Christian fundamentalist? Also, how does she not know you're an atheist? Have you just not told her yet, or do you have specific reasons for not letting her know? 66.112.245.132 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whats the confusion over how one person can not be the clone of another person?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- My grandfather was a rather conservative member of the Church of England and made my dad and his siblings all attend Church weekly until they were 18 when he let them choose for himself. My dad didn't go for a second longer than he had to and raised me secularly (read: secular not atheist, choose for yourself son.) whereas his sister (my aunt) remains a very religious Christian who wouldn't come to our house for a 50th birthday party because it was on a Sunday. Funny how things like that work out. SJ Debaser 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- The fascinating thing is that some humans are genetically identical, and thus clones (by the biological meaning of the word). But they are still different... just not quite as different as two unrelated people. So it's not nature vs nurture but some mix of both. Twin experiments are cool. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- 66, everyone is wont to believe what they want to believe. I'd argue that this is more so for religious people. As such, it is very easy for them to have faith in your faith. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The fascinating thing is that some humans are genetically identical, and thus clones (by the biological meaning of the word). But they are still different... just not quite as different as two unrelated people. So it's not nature vs nurture but some mix of both. Twin experiments are cool. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- My grandfather was a rather conservative member of the Church of England and made my dad and his siblings all attend Church weekly until they were 18 when he let them choose for himself. My dad didn't go for a second longer than he had to and raised me secularly (read: secular not atheist, choose for yourself son.) whereas his sister (my aunt) remains a very religious Christian who wouldn't come to our house for a 50th birthday party because it was on a Sunday. Funny how things like that work out. SJ Debaser 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whats the confusion over how one person can not be the clone of another person?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Half sister, through my father, who raised neither of us. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Something about Christie or Jeb[edit]
Andy: A deadlocked convention may turn to two men who aren't even fucking running!img. From the quick bit of article i read, there was "an" in-front of the two names, and it said "certain members" would "like" if they did. Still no word on how they would get over both not wanting to run with the first barely winning his election and the latter having a political suicide name--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- it's like the man is clueless from reality. Everyone knows you cannot just run for president on a dime. It's way too late to enter at this point. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Christie", "Jeb" : "Christ", "Jebus" - coincidence? I don't think so! Cantabrigian (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course when Romney gets the nomination he'll be boasting how Conservapedia predicted it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- And Andy continues to show what a political expert he is. Oh wait, or not. He doesn't have a the faintest clue how unlikely the NewsMax scenario is, does he? Hey Andy - THEY'RE NOT RUNNING! So if they're not running any attempt at parachuting them in an the Convention will fail utterly because the delegates will be 100% batshit crazy for the idiot they're already committed to. This isn't 1890 with strings being pulled in smoke-filled rooms! Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- If I was Christie I would sign a legally-binding contract in which, should I ever run for the 2012 presidency, I must forfeit all of my worldly posessions to Obama. Maybe that would shut these fucking dolts up. ONE / TALK 11:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The thing I don't get about Christie is who the fuck is he, and more importantly, he didint even get more then fricken 50% of the vote and beat his democratic incumbent opponent by 4%. thats... not high confidence that somebody can beat a sitting president on a national scale. Atleast people KNOW vaguely who jeb bush is.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- If I was Christie I would sign a legally-binding contract in which, should I ever run for the 2012 presidency, I must forfeit all of my worldly posessions to Obama. Maybe that would shut these fucking dolts up. ONE / TALK 11:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- And Andy continues to show what a political expert he is. Oh wait, or not. He doesn't have a the faintest clue how unlikely the NewsMax scenario is, does he? Hey Andy - THEY'RE NOT RUNNING! So if they're not running any attempt at parachuting them in an the Convention will fail utterly because the delegates will be 100% batshit crazy for the idiot they're already committed to. This isn't 1890 with strings being pulled in smoke-filled rooms! Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of course when Romney gets the nomination he'll be boasting how Conservapedia predicted it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Christie", "Jeb" : "Christ", "Jebus" - coincidence? I don't think so! Cantabrigian (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
For political junkies, which Andy is (for that matter, so am I), a brokered convention would be exciting. What Andy forgets is that the current primary system is set up to make it very likely the nominee will be chosen well before the convention. It's possible no candidate would go in with a clear majority, but it's unlikely.
It is true that, if no one wins outright on the first ballot, the Republicans could choose anyone. (Well, I think. That gets into the minutiae of party rules.) They could choose Christie, or Jeb Bush, or anyone else. (Of course, the nominee could also refuse to run. They could still nominate someone who refuses to run, but that would be insane.) Hell, they could theoretically decide on a "national unity" platform and nominate Obama.
What Andy forgets is that a brokered convention is very bad for the party. It creates an impression nationwide that they're in disarray, which is hardly a good message to send. Plus, it leaves lots of the party feeling embittered that "their guy" didn't win. They'd probably still vote for the nominee, but they wouldn't support the campaign much, with either time or cash.
Basically, after the Democratic convention in 1968, both parties decided the conventions have to run as scripted events, and they've set up the primary system to make that as likely as possible. MDB (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- If someone took the 'PZ Myers is fat' essays, replaced every 'PZ Myers' with 'Chris Christie' and made other appropriate changes, how long would that stay up on CP? Answer: not long. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it's kinda sad how Andy spends so much of his waking life on politics (wouldn't surprise me if it occupied much of his dreams too), yet is so utterly clueless about it. How the fuck does he think that this Jeb Bush/Christie scenario is at all likely? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is the same guy who thought he could just turn up and run for the house and get the nomination despite having no history of working for his party, or having anything going for him other than his mother's name. That shit might work if you're a Bush, but if you're a Schlafly you might want to try putting in your time first, douche. So, yeah, clueless. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps he just thought that everyone would recognise him at once for the shining beacon of conservatism that he so obviously is and instantly elected him? Or on second thought the horrible noise as he squeezed his massively swollen head through the door might have given him away. Meh. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is the same guy who thought he could just turn up and run for the house and get the nomination despite having no history of working for his party, or having anything going for him other than his mother's name. That shit might work if you're a Bush, but if you're a Schlafly you might want to try putting in your time first, douche. So, yeah, clueless. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, it's kinda sad how Andy spends so much of his waking life on politics (wouldn't surprise me if it occupied much of his dreams too), yet is so utterly clueless about it. How the fuck does he think that this Jeb Bush/Christie scenario is at all likely? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
President Schlafly[edit]
If the Republicans nominated Andy, I'd vote for him. He'd be such an embarrassment to the party they'd be out of power for the next forty years.
Now, the obvious question is: "what post would Ken have in the Schlafly administration?" Surgeon General, to continue his crusade against obese atheists? Or the newly created post, Secretary of Ma-CHEESE-mo? MDB (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, Andy is against Big Government, so he would be President, Ken would be Vice President, and that's it. No more ministers, no more government-funded institutions. Everything will be free-market capitalism, and Andy and Ken will micro-manage every single government decision themselves. --Sid (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Damn those big government liberal founding fathers! Also, they shall outlaw all evil practices! Because the way you do small government is by OUTLAWING lots of stuff and invading the fuck out of peoples private life!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Government needs to be small. It needs to be small enough to fit in the average bedroom, if not inside of a woman's uterus. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
pathetic 16:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- A Schlafly campaign would be the best thing EVAR to happen to late night comedians. I'd probably collapse from watching Jon Stewart. However, I think Andy sees this. He has an entire Wiki laughing at him now and he's a nobody. Also, finishing dead last (5th place) that one time probably wasn't good for his massive ego and he doesn't want to repeat the experience. Still, parodists should encourage him to run. Hell, given Bush, Palin, and now Cain, Bachmann and Perry, Andy is the next logical step in the increasingly crazy Republican party. They might be ready for him by 2016.--Night Jaguar (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- One thing to remember about Andy's Congressional bid: he ran in a Republican area, but it's a moderate Republican section of Northern Virginia. It's got a lot of people who made their wealth in the high-tech companies around Dulles Airport (AOL being an early example), which means they're fiscal conservatives, but social moderates. (I think he ran in Fairfax County, but I wouldn't swear to it.) Just two or three counties west, past the airport in the rural areas, I think he could have done much better. MDB (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- A Schlafly campaign would be the best thing EVAR to happen to late night comedians. I'd probably collapse from watching Jon Stewart. However, I think Andy sees this. He has an entire Wiki laughing at him now and he's a nobody. Also, finishing dead last (5th place) that one time probably wasn't good for his massive ego and he doesn't want to repeat the experience. Still, parodists should encourage him to run. Hell, given Bush, Palin, and now Cain, Bachmann and Perry, Andy is the next logical step in the increasingly crazy Republican party. They might be ready for him by 2016.--Night Jaguar (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Government needs to be small. It needs to be small enough to fit in the average bedroom, if not inside of a woman's uterus. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Damn those big government liberal founding fathers! Also, they shall outlaw all evil practices! Because the way you do small government is by OUTLAWING lots of stuff and invading the fuck out of peoples private life!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Another one bites the dust[edit]
JLauttamus, member since March 2008 tells Andy where he can stick his blog.img --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The unsurprising reactions:
- I especially love how Andy's already oblivious reply sits RIGHT under the reply of the guy responsible for "creating ridiculous essays with one picture, a caption and some moronic dialog to it". --Sid (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"You made thousands of good edits, but if I don't mention them they don't exist. It looks like your work on the site was so you could leave. This site is growing because I say so. If I don't mention ridiculous essays, they don't exist. I am a psychopath and like strangling animals, golf, and masturbating. Atheists eat babies. I am foaming at the mouth, and catch the spittle in a cup and convert it to ASCII. I hope you will reconsider your decision. I need a friend." Jimaginator (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rule #1 on Conservapedia - Andy is never wrong. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Though the way JPratt and Karajou have been kissing Kendoll's ring lately, I wonder if there's a new rule 1. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Better to think of it as a corollary of the Prime Directive. Andy is never wrong, therefore anything Andy approves of must be defended and honoured. If Andy turned on Ken, Karajou and JPatt would wrestle each other naked for the privilege of turning the knife. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Open skull. Pour in bleach. Shake head vigorously. Add more bleach. Use scrubbing brush to try to clean mental image out. Curl up in corner quietly cursing B♭maj7 for causing such an image to enter my thoughts. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Better to think of it as a corollary of the Prime Directive. Andy is never wrong, therefore anything Andy approves of must be defended and honoured. If Andy turned on Ken, Karajou and JPatt would wrestle each other naked for the privilege of turning the knife. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Though the way JPratt and Karajou have been kissing Kendoll's ring lately, I wonder if there's a new rule 1. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- After a calmimg reply, Ken loses his shit and declaresimg that Satan is the father of atheism. Words fail me. --Sid (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Poor, poor Ken. When will he realise that people laughing and going "what the fuck" are not equal to atheists being upset about his "satires." Seriously Ken, the only thing that upsets us about your work is the fact that Andy just sits back and doesn't see if you need some kind of mental assistance. Maybe you'll be the next TK and Andy will only know of your demise when we publish the report of how your body was found in your basement, having lain there for several weeks, that way preventing your many cats from starving to death. I'll say it again Ken - nobody is upset by your "parodies", we're all laughing. The only problem is, it's AT you, not WITH you. I await your next FYI... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- From a theological standpoint that's actually... correct. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- From the "things that lead people away from God" angle (if that's what you mean), evolution is also the child of Satan. And what about all the non-Christian religions? It did occur to me that the post actually makes perfect sense to the likes of Andy and Ken, but I find it ass-backwards that Satan is the father of a concept that explicitly denies his existence. --Sid (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anything that keeps people away from god, as the usual way goes. Yah its confusing but, from the theological standpoint that "Xtianitry is true and therefor nothing else can be per the bible" it makes sense, as those rleigions had to come from somewhere, right?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The greatest trick the Devil ever did was to convince the world he never existed. There, I win, now sell me your soul. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anything that keeps people away from god, as the usual way goes. Yah its confusing but, from the theological standpoint that "Xtianitry is true and therefor nothing else can be per the bible" it makes sense, as those rleigions had to come from somewhere, right?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- From the "things that lead people away from God" angle (if that's what you mean), evolution is also the child of Satan. And what about all the non-Christian religions? It did occur to me that the post actually makes perfect sense to the likes of Andy and Ken, but I find it ass-backwards that Satan is the father of a concept that explicitly denies his existence. --Sid (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
