Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive290

This is an archive page, last updated 8 June 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

'Real men aren't into shopping anyways'

Ken, that looked different last time I went to a hardware store.^img And it does make you wonder how real men make capitalism work. --Raga Man (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that Ken probably isn't allowed to leave his institution, I'm guessing he doesn't really know how shopping works. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed men hate shopping for sportswear, tools, automobiles, motorcycles, guns, electronics, music, games...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget booze. The closest I get to the feeling I had as a kid when I walked into the toy aisle of a store is walking into an expansive scotch section of a liquor store. I have to admit, though, beng banned from going to a mall because of your views is pretty damn lame. Do they have some sort of policy in which you have to sign a statement saying you are not opposed to gay marriage before they let you in? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fishing tackle, BBQ grills and smokers, bulk meat, specialty foods, wine, truck balls, western hats. 13:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Obligatory Ken comment of the month: Ken, it's difficult to tell whether your a dishonest, hate filled, moronic bigot because of your schizoid personality disorder, schizophrenia, or whatever it is. Help us out. Were you a bad person, nearly completely undeserving of compassion and goodwill, when you were, say, in your early 20s before your mental illness irrevocably changed your life trajectory? 13:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Real men hate shopping? But how do they buy assault rifles? --Sasayaki (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hate shopping. Shopping is a terrible activity, motivated only by a lack in one's life. If one were content, he should surely never shop, for shopping is motivated by unfulfilled wants.

At the moment, I'm shopping for a boat. I hate it. I'm looking forward, of course, to what comes after the shopping, namely the purchase and more importantly the ownership. But the shopping itself? Bah. Terribly unpleasant. Phiwum (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apropos the ZIP code discussion in the SB, when some stores examined men's purchases they discovered a lot of men buying diapers/nappies in the early evening- presumably they had been called by their wives to buy them on the way home from work. The stores capitalised on this by placing the beer and diapers close together so that the men would impulse buy some six-packs at the same time. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally take my 70-year-old mum shopping and if there is a hell, then that is it. That said, stick me in a book, music or PC store and I'm as happy as pig in shit. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If I was a pig, I think I would prefer mud, but each pig is different. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant quote (from someone who said it): "Women shop. Men buy." But yes, I can spend hours in one of the large liquor stores in the Denver area. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For years I've been going clothes shopping with a few female friends of mine, and I have to say if you can actually tell them "You look fat in that" without being beaten or them running of into a corner crying "You don't love me anymore!" it's kinda nice. It is even nicer if you don't need anything, but are just there to judge them. Although going shopping for underwear becomes unbelievably weird. --Raga Man (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sexist much, you all? My husband loves shopping, especially on the internet; i could do with just having what i need and never havign to shop again. Godot 20:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As though a woman would know anything about whether men are sexist. Go back to your Californian malls! I'll be here buying things on Amazon, the manly store for men. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bed Bath & Beyond! 184.61.193.172 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I spend a small fortune on photography and astronomy, do I care if the wife buys some new shoes or spectacles? No, it's her money. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm far too manly to actually go shopping, so what I do is hire prostitutes to go shopping for me. 4 times out of 10 they actually come back with my groceries, too. X Stickman (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Construction laws are liberal stupidity

Thank you liberals, for making our buildings safe to live and work in.^img --Raga Man (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, the comments. None of them understand the concept behind building permits. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But raga, it was liberal laws against asbestos that caused the twin towers to fall. Deny this and lose all credibility.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Construction laws and permits are liberal attempt's to further rule our lives. We all know putting the power plant and heavy industrial zones right next to the housing zones is the most space effective method. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

With Cain's 9-9-9 plan, do you think Conservatives figure Sim city is a 1-1 reflection of real life city planning? --Revolverman (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope they don't find the disasters menu. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Building codes go way way way beyond the point of safety and really restrict a lot of safe things. There are lots of things in the codes that are just there because the folks who own the patents on them lobbied to get them in the codes. There are also a lot of things in the codes that are only there for visual reasons, requirements like windows on the ground floor (not egress windows, just windows) or sky plane restrictions that prevent folks from building towers.--Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 04:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples? And yeah, some codes are for aesthetic reasons. Good. There should be standards. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I for one prefer the brick monoliths that once dominated the downtown part of my town. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any specifics right now, and I haven't got any code books at hand, since they are all with my father, but yeah there are some things, especially in electrical, plumbing, and tie downs, that you cannot do with out using one particular brand of product. If you want to build a house in Florida you have to use simpsons strong ties, even thought there are other, better ways to hold down the roof. I too prefer the monolith structures, NIMBY is bullshit.

Oh, and this conversation totally misdescribes the position of CP. They were saying that only liberals would think it was such an emergency that they had to send armed officers to shut it down, rather than just sending them fines in the mail until they relented.--Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that method is they stay open til they relent. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Often times building permit requirements are ridiculous. My mother has a place in her kitchen which is framed for an exterior door, but has a window in it. If she wants to build 4 steps to get up to it, and put a door in, she can get out into her backyard with the utmost of ease, rather than walking around the side of her house. I priced out the materials for her a few years ago, it will cost ~$600 to do it and it would probably take about 4 hours of work. It would also require $4500 in permitting, surveying, and inspection fees, and take several weeks worth of work. I keep asking her to let me just do it illegally. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 06:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I took their comment as being pissed about loosing 12 jobs on permits, but the thing is to build something you need a permit and for you to get that permit what you do has to be in safety norms, if you don't get that permit you might be in a lot of danger all day or in non at all. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that experts can tell you whether you are or not. And for your own sake, your opinion whether it's safe or not, just doesn't matter. (all "you"s in this were general) --Raga Man (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ken... replies to Augusts objections^img, though what the hell he said is beyond me--il'Dictator Mikal 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is another example of a germ of an idea in the hands of a Karajou works to the detriment of the conservative cause. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 00:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but who would win out of Jesus and a ninja?

Just when you thought Kendoll couldn't get any more pathetic....^img --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Jesus is superluminal—of course he would win against a ninja. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 00:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuh uh. The Ninja would be all like "WAAAAAA!" and hit Jesus with a wicked roundhouse kick to the face, and Jesus would have to go home crying to his daddy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No! Jesus knows quantum magic. He'd go ZAP and be in like a zillion places at once, and then only be in the places where he doesn't get it, and then hit the ninja with a staff. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I just had to google 'jesus vs ninja'. My day is better as a result. Vulpius (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 02:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The rule of ninja is that the strength of a ninja is inversely proportional to how many ninja are around/in the group. So one ninja is nigh-invincible, three ninja are perhaps a very dangerous group of infamous foes, five ninja are an elite but fallible squad, and more than five begins getting into 'disposable fodder' territory. The difficulty of individual ninja in a group of one hundred or more is negligible. The question is, is the near-invincible strength of one ninja alone enough to defeat Jesus? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 02:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well Jesus is three-in-one, which puts him at a bit of a disadvantage there. But even so, how are you supposed to kill a zombie? Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 03:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing the head or destroying the brain, duh. --_transResident Transfan^form! 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In a situation when cutting the fingers off leads to ten little finger-zombies, I don't think that'll work. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 03:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying Jesus works on Evil Dead rules, not Night of the Living Dead rules then? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that little ponies were beating atheists not so long ago, this Jesus chap doesn't sound that tough to me. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

JPatt failed Civics class in eighth grade, I guess.

"Obama banking on electoral votes doesn't look promising..."^img Ummm, last I checked, electoral votes are the only way to win the election, pinhead. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You had to take civics in 8th grade? Wasnt required here til 12th; which is probably not a good thing --il'Dictator Mikal 04:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you only get civics in 12th grade, I guess that explains why Johnny Sedition doesn't understand the basics of the subject, since he wouldn't ever have had the chance to take the class. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

5th grade, 8th grade, and junior year of High School for me.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Never... what the hell? Senator Harrison (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we called it Social Studies in elementary and middle school. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's what civics is? Nihilist 18:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We had this one part of Social studies class in 7th grade where we got explained about government types and the teacher got pissed off at me for giving Fascism anything but the lowest grade. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Civics and Social Studies are roughly equivalent. And I had it every year until 5th grade, then once in 9th grade. 12th grade we had economics. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Take that you filthy troll!

We at Conservapedia certainly sleep sounder in our beds knowing that Karajou is dealing with the filthy trolls who seek to insert subversive and dangerous information into the wiki.

That single entry was that user's sole contribution. Apparently the user was a sock (although some of us have noticed that Karajou seems to struggle a bit with checkuser). Accordingly anything the user says must be removed immediately lest it infect the supple minds of Ken or Jpatt. --Horace (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He could have stolen the edits and make it look like he did them--il'Dictator Mikal 05:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Being an international man of mystery is bad now?

Er, Kendoll, I don't think you should be linking to an article called "Skeptics who refuse to reveal their name—do they have something to hide, or something to fear?" while simultaneously refusing to even acknowledge if you are even human. It makes you seem even more crazy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What I like with Ken's dribbling screeds is how he always addresses them to us atheists and evolutionists. Because, unlike Andy, he knows we're the only ones reading that blog. --PsyGremlin講話 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wine seems a good idea. It is 2 o'clock. I'm going out to buy a bottle. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whining? he asks. I think he may not even realise it's a play on words and thinks that cheese cheers up sad people.--Spud (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So now he is copy-pasting it onto non-caring sysop talkpages in a three-hour editing spree. A failed anonymous personality in cahoots with other failed anonymous personalities (shockofgod) is whining about other anonymous personalities, apparently calling them whiners. Well, don't know about you all, but this clearly defeats everyone here with that kind of pure logic. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken realises his sneering, condescending manner does more to turn people off than actually listen to what drivel he has to say? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Kendoll doesn't understand anything he does really. He just copies his mannerisms, opinions and thoughts wholesale from his badly chosen role models. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Given how much he is currently dominating the mainpage with his QE slop, he is clearly feeling lonely and craves our attention. Unfortunately we are now giving it to him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That link is either gone or doesn't work...is he calling out RWians specifically, or what? Cuz I'm not hiding. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because Conservative deleted and restored MPR (minus his "atheists are whining" section), deleted the crying baby image, then subsequently started removing edits from other articles pertaining to his spamming of that "crybaby anonymous atheists" trial. It must have finally donned on him the irony. To add a cherry on the shitpile, Andy obliviously adds "Liberal censorship" to a newly created and censored MPR. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are missing this little gem:

150px Wimpy atheists whine to cp:Creation Ministries International (CMI), but it doesn't look like CMI or its supporters are going to shut down their creation evangelism and Christian evangelism efforts.[2][3] Atheists, are you upset that cp:global atheism was shrinking by 400 atheists a day in 2011 and now it is shrinking by 800 atheists a day while cp:global Christianity is seeing explosive growth?[4][5] Atheist crybabies, would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whines?[6][7]

The missing pic was deleted by Ken and afterwards by Andy himself - perhaps because AugustO quoted it as an example at Andy's talk-page^img? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

August calls Ken out.^img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Conservative wants to spam CP with videos. Meanwhile, Andy seems to be really unclear about what, exactly an "Internet" is....

The crazy and the stupid.^img Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow Andy, you just made Ken look like the smart one by a country mile. --Revolverman (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really this stuff, not his political stances or science denialism, that showcases his stupidity. Although those help too. Nihilist 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

After reading Andy's comment about how "internet is better than videos", I have an image of him attempting to embed videos onto Conservapedia by trying to shove VHS tapes into his computer screen. That put a big smile on my face.

Well, if Ken can get Andy to understand what he's going on about, that will be the beginning of the next phase of stupid on Conservapedia. Apart from all the Shockofgod videos that will be all over the site, instead of using pictures from Flickr to try to take the piss out of atheists, Ken will write captions like "Atheists are like a baby biting a boy's finger" and "Atheists are like a cat playing the keyboard" under the YouTube videos.--Spud (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really hoping Kendoll gets his way this time. Allowing videos on CP would really let Kendoll fuck up the main page so much worse than he does now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't Ken's bandwidth comment wrong? If I watch a video embedded on CP, it's still CP's server that has to burn electrons streaming it from YouTube right? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As puzzling it is, Ken is correct. All CP's server would sends is a small bit of HTML that tells the browser to fetch a Flash file from YouTube's server. That Flash object, in turn, streams the video file off YouTube's server. It doesn't, at any point, pass through CP. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I love the way Andy always says "I have an open mind about this" when he means "That isn't going to happen". rpeh •T•C•E• 11:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am gutted about this. Seeing MPL smothered with shockofgoat videos would help return much of the lulz value to the site. I fully endorse Ken's vision for a better CP. -- 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I for one demand four or five auto-playing ShockOfGod videos on the front page and essays which are nothing but a video. Also, the parodist lols potential skyrockets when directly pulling content off other sites. Step 1) Open YouTube account. Step 2) Upload YEC/Christian Right propaganda. Step 3) Create CP article full of it. Step 4) Wait a few weeks. Step 5) Change videos to whatever you like. Step 6) See how many months/years it remains up! --Sasayaki (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It could leave to very-short-articles consisting of nothing but video. Technically, the #ev code would be fewer characters than most of the one-sentence shots, which may explain why he's keen to implement it. ^sshole 00:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can re-upload videos on YouTube. Or at least in my two minutes of searching I haven't found an option. The best you could do would be giant annotations that cover the entire video. «-Bfa-» 00:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. You embed YouTube videos to other sites by taking the unique video ID parameter (seen in YouTube videos after the v= in the URL). You can edit the video metadata/details afterwards, but you can't change the actual video files; if you reupload a video, you get a new video ID. I suppose one of the reasons for this is exactly this external embedding risk - it'd just lead to rampant rickrollery. We can't have rampant rickrollery. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The greatest moment in CP history, in two words: Rickrolling Ken. Whoover (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider the damage Ken has done with just text and images. Now, imagine him having the ability to embed videos. The result should be hilariously disastrous for CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 for letting Ken embed videos. Hilarity will ensue. Andy won't go for it, though. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really a shame that a few people actually logged on to Andy's page to worry him with concerns like security/copyright, etc. That pretty much killed any chanve this had. Also, who the hell are these people trying to protect CP from itself? Honest, good-faith editors? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Who knows? They could have been trolls. There's a chance that if you tell Andy some internetty things are not a good idea, you'll be hilariously responded to by internet security expert Andy Schlafly. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Brenden, who warns Andy about the security risks of embedding videos, doesn't seem like a typical CP editor^img but he seems to be genuinely trying to improve the site. I wish people who don't meet Andy's definition of a conservative would stop bothering and let the piss poor site die! --Spud (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Stfu, I'm brenden, and I am allowed to do what I wantRandonGeneration (talk)

I think you mean "internet security best of the public Andy Schlafly." Cantabrigian (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see this happen, but (as far as I know) Andy's the only one who actually has the access required to implement any upgrade like this and he's too dumb/lazy/stubborn/afraid he's going to break something/combination of all four to do anything about it. As mentioned above, when he plays the "I have an open mind" card, that really means "You're wrong and for whatever reason, I disagree with you. So drop it." Cow...Hammer^time! 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The damn liberal metawiki software removes pageviews from deleted pages from the total pageview count, masking the growing conservatism. Andy cannot abide that damage again. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"I have an open mind about this but" is Andy's "Not racist but". Observe the similarity:

I'm not a racist, but [racist shit]

I have an open mind about this, but I reject your claim/suggestion out of hand; it'll never happen so fuck off and die and take your liberal opinions with you.

^{ONE / TALK} 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does not compute, part umpty-billion.

How the hell is facebook, a site whose content is generated entirely by its users, a pro-Obama site^img? What passes for logic in Andy's world makes my head hurt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a try at this: facebook "destroys marriages" + marriage is conservative → facebook is not conservative → facebook is liberal + Obama is a liberal → Facebook is Pro-Obama.

Or let me get the Freudian version out: facebook is successfull + Andy is jealous → facebook is evil → facebook is liberal → facebook is pro-Obama (who Andy is also jealous of) --Raga Man (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In the same way, perhaps, that Wikipedia, a site whose content is generated entirely by its users, is an ethnocentric site? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to call a site pro-Obama if its users lean towards Obama or if the sites admins/owners are pro-Obama. So I would like to amend this section's title to "Computes, part one of a one-part series" ^{ONE / TALK} 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's obvious: Facebook is liberal because they offer a reporting system that allows users to suggest pages be removed for being hateful, racist, deceitful or otherwise offensive. If Facebook was conservative, all of those types of pages would be encouraged. Also, Mark Zuckerberg is a known atheist, although clearly not obese, poor or lacking machismo. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Because conservative websites never censor the opinions of others. /sarcasm --Raga Man (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[Bender giggle] -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Aw, look who's not doing proper research

Hi, Jpatt.^img Fuck you. --Raga Man (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Go easy on JPatt. He's got severe reading comprehension issues. He's a symptom, not the problem. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[8] It's a 5 minute google search for god's sake... --Raga Man (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

With raga man. Jpatt is a dumb fuckin bastard--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I have no sympathy for Jpatt's ideology, I do feel a great deal of sympathy for his struggles with the English language. When I was actually an editor on CP several years ago, I remember email conversations with him where he lamented his difficulties. It's not an excuse, but I do feel pity for someone who lives his life practically in fear of the written words around him. άλφα^Ταλκ 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Schools are liberal. Universities are liberal. The media are liberal. Bookstores are liberal. Authors are liberal. People who want your kids to go to university are both liberal and elitist. Bad enough that for whatever reason--how one's brain is wired, what kind of educational opportunities one had, how aware one's parents were of the need to provide the baby with a lot of stimulation, or how able they were to do that given the challenges of just making a living--a person has a hard time reading. But when everything tied to the written word and intellectual production is framed as "the enemy" in that person's ideological worldview, well, no wonder there's so much hate there. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but JPratt's so glad he's a gamma. After all, those alpha plus job creators who tell him what to think work so very hard. And as for those epsilon minus semi-morons like Kendoll... well it scarcely bears thinking about. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. Jpatt's real problem is that he "struggles with the English language". It's not that he's about the stupidest person ever to walk god's green earth. It's all some learning disability. Sort of like saying Charles Manson had a bad back, and that's why he killed all those people, so we shouldn't judge him. Jpatt might well be a bigger idiot than Ed Poor. There. I said it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's shit like this. If someone wants to cut him some slack because he has a terrible grasp of the English language, that's one thing. But has he even looked at a real encyclopedia? They're still pretending to be one, so maybe he should read one and see how information is presented. He's such a useless turd. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That MPR entry wasn't that bad. ... He's dumb but he's not nearly as bad a writer as Ken. 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I cut him no slack for his ideology and his complete lack of intellect. My only sympathy is for his self-expressed problems with English. Otherwise, he earns no sympathy from me. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Karajou (The Dickhead)

Notices Ken's contributions.^img Possibly for the first time. Seriously, has he just now started to pay attention to the content at CP instead of simply blocking people? Have any of the sysops ever acknowledged the QE campaign before? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's shockingly pathetic that Kara hangs out on CP for the express purpose of banning people. "I want to punish faceless strangers for trivial slights" is a somewhat disturbing recreational activity. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

95 Theses against evolution vs. HOW MANY scientific peer-reviewed experiments for evolution? Hundreds? Thousands?-- Seth Peck (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!

Seriously, how are those silly atheists going to withstand the mighty steamroller that is the Question evolution campaign?

I imagine that, being the cowards that they are, they are probably cowering and simpering RIGHT NOW. Tears rolling down their pathetic, puffy faces whilst they hide amongst the skirts of their mummies. Meanwhile Ken's majestic campaign goes from strength to strength, crushing the unmanly atheists who clearly have no machismo.

Ken should have some sort of delusional syndrome named after him. --Horace (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck me. That looks like the axe/train/blueberry/incoherent metaphor that will cut atheism by 50%. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

the internet war is already won, theyve moved to printing thousands of copies of some 50 page book and putting very CG looking pictures up where drivers might see them in a traffic jam--il'Dictator Mikal 05:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto the QE South Africa campaign - one post made in December. Atheism on the internet is shivering in its boots. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, the whole QE thing is funny, because OF COURSE scientists question evolution, and any other theory (scientific theory) all the time. It's just that the preponderance of evidence favors evolution being a fact. If a scientist could really disprove evolution he/she would get the Nobel Prize, and be world famous. The whole point of science is that you are incrementally increasing knowledge, and sometimes (as with Newtonion vs. Einsteinian physics) you have to throw out or partially throw out previous ideas, and look at the world a new way. What is with these people anyway? Jimaginator (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the sysops at Conservapedia are a bit daft, but that's just me. Nihilist 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am really looking forward to their booklet with the baited hope that Kenny is the sole author, or at least one of the primary ones. The potential hilarity will be gold, pure gold.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody want to ask Andypants

just why the Lakers are "self-centered"?^img --PsyGremlinTal! 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Because they want to win; Jesus said to turn the other cheek, you know. Nihilist 16:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess he means the players themselves not the whole team. If that's it, he sucks at semantics. --Raga Man (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He has absolutely no knowledge about any of the players on the Lakers team. But because Kevin Durant is a Christian (and I promise that is all Andy knows about him or the Thunder), suddenly the entire team is a bastion of Christian wholesomeness beating back the atheist/pagan hordes from the west in the conference semi-finals (because surely no Laker is Christian). Well don't worry folks, Andy will chuck long-suffering Durant under the bus the moment the Spurs defeat them in the Conference Championship. Sports stars are only good Christians as long as they win.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I love how andy believes that despite all the hard work and effort someone puts in, its how christian you are that determines if you succeed in sport. Clearly God is a massive sports cheat, and christians should be banned from sport like steroid users. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask what a "5-game route" is, or where they were on-route to. My guess was heaven but it's now a "5-game rout." I don't think normal people would call a 3-2 series a "rout," but because atheists it probably is. Whoover (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, God seems to be losing his touch for routs. The 10 Plagues. That was a rout. Jews FTW. David and Goliath was a rout. The destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. Rout. Flood. Rout. Oklahoma City in 5 games. Not so much. Whoover (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a asteroid heading right for Scandinavia. Millions will die, but it is god's will so it's good. --Raga Man (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Because atheist liberals hate underdogs. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A "five game rout" is actually 4-1 since it is the best of seven. However more prayer is needed since the demonic Lakers were able to steal one game from the righteous. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice that Andy has also decided^img that Oklahoma is the spiritual center of the Bible Belt. There's no doubt that the state and its capital has lots of churches, but I wonder which streets lined with church after church Andy has in mind. I grew up in Oklahoma City, and I don't remember that particular street. Phiwum (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I remember about Oklahoma City is a Denny's. DickTurpis 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing about Andy talking about how they are a team from the Bible Belt. The Thunder are a transplant team, they used to be called the Sonics and hail from Seattle where they played for 41 years until 2008. Bible Belt team indeed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert "Andy is a fuckwad" here

I was going to write something about Andy's latest facebook bashing, and how he can't read worth a damn, but you all know how it goes. Commentating his never ending stream of stupid is like trying to drink the sea. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's salty and you get fish stuck in your teeth? Ace^Moderator 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking of going down on Swedish chicks. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn... now I'm thinking of that. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Even the article he links to makes the real problem clear at the end: ""Of course, it’s not Facebook’s fault it’s being dragged through divorce court", he says, "It’s the people who use it.""--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal responsibility applies to defensive weapons of guns but not Facebook. Consistant. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CNAV

Has Terry earned his own WIGO yet? He's now claiming that people lived for 900 years before the flood because their food wasn't "tainted" with Carbon 14. I've been picking splinters of keyboard out my forehead since reading that. He's definitely producing a much more entertaining class of crazy than CP these days. --Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything, I think we should fuse all the right-wing fundie fun into a single WIGO page. Andy yeah, I need a new keyboard now too. --Raga Man (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could always talk about him over at WIGO:Clogs...it could use more talk page activity, and he really just uses CP for advertising. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, where did that man get his MD? Bob Jones? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He got it from his printer. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there was no water before the flood and water is actually a poison that kills us in about 100 years of exposure. Or maybe we're aliens, and the *real* humans (the ones who wrote the bible) were the "aliens" from Signs and they all got killed by the flood. X Stickman (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's standard creationist fare that before the flood people lived to great ages and is part of Ussher's timeline. Terry's poisoning from C14 is probably a hokum-scientific by-product of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory where the Earth's crust turned into a nuclear reactor. I think the standard explanation is man's fall from grace with God. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about proposing CNAV for its own WIGO before, then I thought about using WIGO:Clogs, but the trouble is that almost every single damn thing that comes from Chuckarse's keyboard is WIGO-able. Once we start, it'll be tricky to know when to stop. rpeh •T•C•E• 05:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of the CP sysops are buffoons on the same level as village idiot. TerryH is frighteningly batshit crazy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"The creation model has no particular sine qua non." - Terry A. Hurlbut. Did he just admit that it's unfalsifiable? -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider changing the name of WIGO:CP? There's not too much going on at CP right now and I don't see that changing much in the future, and this generally seems like a good place to talk about Terry. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Having recommended this before, I think WIGO:CP should be archived and all further crank and crap be mixed into WIGO:CLOG. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. CP isn't anything more than a semi-active clog at this point. I wonder how much opposition there would be if we actually put this to a vote... Cow...Hammer^time! 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's taking up half the recent changes at this precise moment, but hey, nobody will miss it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone see this exchange in the comments - "(Guest quotes Terry) - 'Human beings are ruling stewards of the earth' - do the bacteria know that? I only ask because for the past 200,000 years they've been using us as a combination of hotels and picnic baskets. (Terry replies) - Make that six thousand years. Bacteria did not become pathogenic until after the fall." If Terry was any dumber, we'd have to water him twice a day to keep him alive....Stick Boy (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This guy sounds familiar

PZ Myers recently wrote a post about a fundamentalist named "Rick Warden" pestering him about whether bestiality was moral or not. This "Rick Warden" sounds like someone we know:

“”Based on his outspoken support for his daughter's views on the subject, it seems PZ Myers may not be opposed to bestiality. And I have a question for him related to this subject, if he would be so kind as to answer it. That is, whether or not bestiality is morally justifiable in his view - why or why not.

“”Denmark, Norway and Sweden legally permit bestiality, and, incidentally, these countries rank highest in atheistic and evolutionary belief. These countries sport "animal brothels" and this is catching on in Europe.

“”At best, PZ Myers is displaying cowardliness and uncertainty in not volunteering his specific views on bestiality. At worst, he may be an addicted zoophile. The late Christopoher Hitchens was confronted with this subject in 2009 and was not quite sure how to answer. Hitchens was asked in a Q-and-A-session after a debate to state whether he believed it was "good" or "morally repressive" that the Bible forbade zoophilia. Hitchens refused to answer the question the first time and again the second time the question was posed.[11] Bestiality is a big question today, and a question atheist apologists don't seem to want to touch.

The blog contains weird images and the post cited even uses Conservapedia as a reference. This "Rick Warden" claims to live in the Ukraine and have a wife and two kids. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Could also be someone plagiarizing ken?--Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 04:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How pathetic would that be? --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing that I have discovered while observing the pond-dwellers of American Christian fundyism is that Ken is hardly alone in his delusions. Secondly, Ken is generally unoriginal in his regurgitations, he will have got an idea from somewhere else first. All this QE bollocks was started at CMI and then latched onto by Shlock, Ken merely leapt onto the bandwagon (such as it is). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dendrophilia (sexual attraction to plants) is not forbidden by the Bible. Accordingly, Christians such as Rich Warden are not opposed to dendrophilia and have nothing to prevent them inserting vegetables anally, violating plants in public, or having sex with fruit. The United States has a high number of Christians and many stores (aka plant brothels) feature sexual plants like carrots on public display. This is catching on in Australia. Christian women display sexual arousal when presented with flowers. What's the Bible made from? Paper. What was the cross made from? Wood. Will Rich Warden answer this question or will he hide in his Bible believing rabbit hole (full of a rabbit's favourite food, carrots!). Dendrophilia is a big question today, and a question Christian apologists don't seem to want to touch. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. What about "autophilia"? The bible doesn't condemn it, and who drives cars? Nearly everyone. It's an epidemic. At worst, Rick Warden may have replaced the oil in his vehicle with pure manseed. Sick freak. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows that only monkey spunk has the proper octane rating. [9][10][11] - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it quite sadening how fundies are structuring these things. Somehow this appears to be the lowest form of snarl, making people question other peoples morality based on such rather benign questions, but at the same time supporting dictators that kill hundreds or thousands of people in a year. It almost seems like the guy banging a sheep is more sinful then the guy killing socialists or atheists or gays. I, as an atheist, very much have a problem with killing people, but not with zoophilia (although not forced, that's just cruel) or dendrophilia. It seems this makes me immoral. --Raga Man (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading his "about" page he comes across as far too lucid to be a Ken sock. He's just another fundie nutter, leaping on the "No morals without God" crapwagon and using the lamest example. Seriously, which is better - "I'm moral because I've looked at the situation and based on several criteria, I'm not going to do it, because it conflicts with those criteria;" or "I'm moral because my invisible friend will spank me if I'm not." --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I did think it was a little too coherent for Ken and bestiality does come up surprsingly often at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. However, the blog also has a post about Google Trends, Question Evolution and, as I mentioned, weird images. Or maybe I just don't want to believe there is another Ken in the world? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just doesn't read like Ken. Similar belief structure but different thought structure. Ayzmo (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The clincher is that he doesn't use the words "in terms of" or "regarding" in terms of the words that he uses in what he writes regarding writing. Cantabrigian (talk)

This is the problem with having an internet

I've said it before--20 or 25 years ago these guys would be standing on street corners handing out grubby mimeographed pamphlets and nobody would even give a shit about them; now their ideas get mistaken for something that we actually have to bother engaging with. It's like the 500-channel universe, but in our brains. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword. Idiots with crazy ideas (eg, cretinists, conspiracy nuts) who would be rightly ostracized in their own local communities can now seek out others who share their idiocy and pester the rest of us, desperately vying for our attention, with their numbers and new-found confidence. On the other hand, minorities with niche interests (eg, transexuals, bdsm'ers) who would be wrongly ostracized in their own local communities can now seek out others who share their interests and pester the rest of us, bravely fighting for our acceptance, with their numbers and new-found confidence. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CS Miller (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, and porn. --Raga Man (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who didn't see that coming?

The Arizona Secretary of State is satisfied that Obama is a citizen, and here's the reasons why Chuckarse and his fellow birthers still don't believe it. At some point surely you have to admit even to yourself that you're a diehard partisan determined to deny the truth despite all the evidence... don't you? Plus enjoy the added bonus of the appeal to irrelevant authorities. I'm sure a crazy arse British lord knows what's what. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

They long ago decided that Obama is 100% illegitimate. This conclusion was reached and deemed the truth before any research, so now any and all research is manipulated to support that pre-determined conclusion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that their hatred of Obama causes them inflate the inportance even the most minor, trivial and irrelevant fact into the most cast iron, irrefutable(is that a word) proof. Its become such a matter of faith that they are probably astounded that other people can't see what is so obvious to them. That or they are all dishonest liars. Its difficult to say. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Hmm Surprise (really, Sun City West) isn't too far away from me (~35 min drive). I'm almost curious enough to see what kind of crazypants stuff they have going on there.

Side note: Sun City West is the perfect place to go with this nonsense; the average age there is 73 (not joking) Cow...Hammer^time! 17:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Save your gas, it's all golf courses and Dairy Queens. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But there might be lulz to be had at the tea party meeting! Old people! Crazy brits! Tea! Cow...Hammer^time! 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Its difficult to see what evidence would placate these people. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, two things about this link. Firstly, that bit about the NJ case where they argued that both parents need to be a US citizen for the child to be a citizen isn't true as I understand it. Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Nothing about parents. Secondly, that bit about the NJ case where they argued that both parents need to be a US citizen for the child to be a citizen isn't true as I understand it. Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Nothing about parents.

I am aware that this is technically one thing, but due to the sheer importance of it, I thought it counted for two. -- 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, their idea of what a natural born citizen is is clearly bullshit, it's just their backup excuse just in case Jesus himself comes down from heaven and tells them Obama was born in Hawaii. They can still say he isn't president because his dad was from Kenya. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

An assertion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny if you look at Mitt Romney's dad, but it's okay for him, because he's rich/white/Republican/whatever. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't matter for Romney is the same reason far-right wingnuts are going to settle for him, even though they've been calling him a RINO or cultist or whatever until Santorum dropped out: he's the last viable Not-Obama™ in this election. «-Bfa-» 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since CP asserts that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, Vikings didn't reach America, and Fidel Castro has died and been replaced by an impersonator, believing that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery is pretty tame by comparison. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CP says Vikings didn't reach America? I have to see that. Link to lulz, plz--"Shut up, Brx." 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

See the Leif Erikson talk page for viking related Andy lulz^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much what I was going to say. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord Monckton is the latest birther??! It doesn't get better. It took me a bit to parse this sentence: ("Monckton will speak before the Surprise (Arizona) Tea Party on May 28.") Is Surprise, Arizona near Wait For It, Arizona? Whoover (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess he's found his target market. Cranks.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

When I see "Arizona Tea Party" I think of a bunch of racists from Florida shooting black kids who are carrying bags of Skittles. Disturbing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's some awesome gloating going on in the CNAV comments. I can't imagine Terry's ever going to give up on this birther thing, but at some point he may be forced to stop writing about it by sheer weight of ridicule. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to extend the lulz might respond to Terry's last comment with this link. Whoover (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Constitution 101

Right, so Coke Fiend says in his blog:

Purpura and Moran devote fifty pages of their sixty-page argument to asserting that no Amendment to the Constitution, nor any Act of Congress, has redefined, or even can redefine, the phrase natural born citizen.

Emphasis mine.

So, let me (as an Englishman who thinks the US should be brought back into the Commonwealth) get this right. Terry's chums are saying that no amendment to the constitution can change what the originally written constitution says or guarantees, right? So what did the Thirteenth Amendment do again? That did change the meaning of Article 1, Section 2, right? So why can't a constitutional amendment screw with Tezza and Nicky's preferred reading of this document? Do they have some sort of "Teacher's Edition" of the constitution that says what you can and can't change? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because they are true conservatives and know what the founding fathers (pbot) meant. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean Fourteenth Amendment. 13th Amendment just banned slavery. Fourteenth Amendment states all people born in the United States or territories are citizens. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Thirteenth, as it changed the meaning of who counted for what in a census. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's 14th, 13 is only slavery, nothing else. il'Dictator Mikal 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeez - arguing at cross-purposes here guys. I think Iscariot's original point was that despite the argument that no amendment to the constitution can change what the original (unamended) constitution says, that already failed because (for example) the thirteenth amendment changed the impact of Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 by getting rid of the three-fifths rule. It was simply an example of a constitutional amendment that altered the original meaning of the document, not directly related to citizenship. Worm (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What Worm said, and that I thought was obvious. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Dubcek's elder brother was born in the US: the squawkings if a similar situation arose now would make the Obama-blather seem like a storm in the proverbial tea(party)cup. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales, God's Toon

What can one say?^img Whoover (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the rather high incidence of religious belief among the Spanish-speaking cultures of the western hemisphere, I doubt the numbers are changing that much. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The chances are that the "Peruvian Christian" is Ken wearing a poncho. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I start to wonder if there's a guy who's trolling ken by pretending to be from all these places. Remember the Swiss Question Evolution Blog (TM) that was supposed to launch in March or April but the grand opening was mysteriously cancelled... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Kenny grew a creepy mustache to go along with his poncho. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be likely. Remember Psy's "I asked it in class and my teacher was stumped?"--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That is likely the extent of Ken's knowledge of Latin American culture.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll bet he didn't even rent a mule... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If I had gotten a dollar for every CP admin uttering a stereotype of some sort, I'd have a villa and a boat and would be banging pornstars by now... --Raga Man (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

His portrayal of Peruvians is shallow, ignorant, offensive and bordering on racist. Ken just lazily bundles all Latin America with a Mexican stereotype. Pathetic Ken, have you even been to Mexico, let alone Peru? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been to Mexico, Peru and 4 other South American countries and have never heard anyone say Ándele! Ándele! Arriba! Arriba! Ace^Moderator 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course he hasn't. Just because he's an international man of mystery doesn't mean he's ever left New England. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This mysterious Peruvian guy doesn't even have a consistent name. He starts out being "Rafael" and then turns into "Raul". --Profmusic (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

His full name is Raul Googletranslate. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And what's with the "Yeehaw" at the end of the Speedy Gonzales stuff? And how come he forgot to say anything about "muy macho" Spanish-speaking Christians stealing the Hispanic ladies away from weedy nancy-boy atheists?--Spud (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Speedy did sometimes throw in that "yeehaw". The first thing that came up for the phrase as he typed it was the Wikipedia entry for "Speedy Gonzalez", so I'm guessing he just copied and pasted. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt, Abortion, and Gallup

Somthing that made me feel dirty all over. I agree with Jpatt. He says The country has a pro-life majority. And he isn't wrong. According to gallup, 50% are pro-life, while 41% are pro-choice. Now I laugh, because the same place I found those statistics, I found this. 25% say it should be legal in all cases, 52% say it should be legal in certain cases, and 20% are like jpatt. Wonder how he'll spin that?--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Try not to buy into the "pro-life" weasel words. Just saying. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pro-life: as long as you haven't lived yet. Every zygote deserves a chance to be born into sin! Q0 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As GK says, pro-life is a term. I have called myself pro life many times, to redefine what teh term means. I am pro life, I do not think we should have a death penality in this country; I think health care should be universal, single payer so people can live; i think women have a right to choose how to live their LIFE. see? Besides, the thing about polls is they are almost worthless. If you look at some of the new studies coming out, on the ages long held beliefs about how to run a poll, and if a poll is valid, you'll find that there is increasing doubt that you can ever poll a place as big as the US with any sense of accuracy, baring calling everyone of us. Godot 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is? That doesn't make any sense. If sampling were horribly flawed, we would expect to see one group of 2000 people regularly giving wildly different responses than another group of 2000 people. As to what the public thinks about abortion, about 40% of people think abortion should be legal "on demand", and between 80% and 90% think it should be legal in the "special circumstances"(rape, birth defects, or health of the mother). So it is probably accurate to say that a majority of Americans would favor more restrictive abortion laws. It also means that the Republicans who are strong on abortion and talk about making it illegal in all circumstances are addressing a very small group of the public, but that's nothing new.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also a difference between "on demand" and what we have now, e.g. trimester restrictions and such...this stuff depends heavily on phrasing. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Free Will

Andy's dropped a few knowledge bombs on us recently regarding free will. Firstly, if God destroyed Satan that would destroy free will^img. We apparently have free will in order to make things 'interesting' - to whom, it's not clear: God? Satan? Us? Without the ability to reject God (and, in Andy's universe, suffer an eternity of unimaginable torment), the world ceases to be of interest, like a single sports team winning every game. But isn't that what Heaven is supposed to be like? No Satan, and nobody rejecting God? Is Heaven not of interest? Let me think of a few limits that appear to be present in our current universe that don't seem to preclude free will: you can't go faster than light, you can't travel backwards in time, and objects with mass are subject to gravity. It seems that acceptance of the existence of God could easily be one of those hard limits; with the right universe design one might be as unable to disbelieve in God as one is unable to ignore the pull of gravity or interact with events outside your light cone.

Anyhow, as is typical for Andy, there appear to be multiple tons of batshit ice hidden below the surface with only these seemingly minor loco statements poking out to mark their existence. Do we owe our free will to the existence of Satan? Should we look forward to the time when Satan is defeated and we lose our free will? Is free will actually something bad (in Andyland)? Does God let Satan exist because He finds the resultant chaos interesting, like a kid watching a drowning anthill? Jeepers creepers!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

free will has never existed, it by definition can't if you have an omnipotent omniscient god. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Catholics beg to differ. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 05:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be the catholics. il'Dictator Mikal 05:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's a catholic. Or rather he was, before he started his own church. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 05:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I kep forgetting that,--il'Dictator Mikal 05:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can send Andy a copy of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman. I think he take the piss out of people trotting out the free will defence about half a dozen times through the book. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The following image links are worth pondering

Dilbert on Free Will Matrix on Free Will They're both from the same guys blog. And just for Andy S [12] --WickerGuy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off topic [13]--WickerGuy (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

sports teams and free will

So; A sports team that always wins is boring and so would religion? but... isn't team god always winning? So it already is like that because no matter what, team heaven wins. it's just a massive Pyrrhic victory--il'Dictator Mikal 06:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the teams aren't limited to Heaven and Hell? Team Asgard and Team Mount Olympus were on a winning streak several centuries ago and won several Heavenly Series. Thor won the Most Valuable Deity several times, IIRC. Team Allah (remember Andy has stated that Allah does NOT mean 'God') is Team Heaven's major rival nowadays. Team Hell must have some sort of Curse of the Bambino going on. (I love sophisticated theology.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The main reason why Andy and his ilk believe in free will is if they didn't, how else can they justify anyone going to hell? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A just god punishes those who sin. Thats how. Who are you to question god, you are man; he is creator. That is how you justify sending people to hell. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, they wouldn't be able to justify not helping poor people, or if make themselves look like they are better than others. --Raga Man (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

People are poor because they have sinned and thus god is punishing them with poorness. Helping them doesn't encourage them to stop sinning first.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing occurs to me - does that not make us humans as nothing more than a celestial football, rather than the ultra-important beings that God created the universe for in order to give us somewhere to stand? Also, is God a sports fanatic? If he's not, and just the godly equivalent of a regular guy who quite likes sports, but isn't that fanatic about it, this also means we aren't all that important to him. 86.161.44.132 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Harlem Globetrotters always win and everyone finds them really boring to watch. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not the best example. People watch the Globetrotters for the showmanship, not the competition. There's a reason why they aren't in the NBA. DickTurpis (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the normal Christian narrative that God is more interested in the showmanship than the competition. That is, creation is supposedly here for the sake of being something of value and not in order to beat Satan in a contest to control it. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't creation done cause god likes to glorify himself? also there isnt much of a competition when your religion says "we win"--il'Dictator Mikal 18:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An impressive list of references...

going to the very same Conservapedia page. http://conservapedia.com/Santa_Syndrome. Conservapedia is not part of the hearsay sociaty. Yet references are impressive. Unless 3 of them link you to the very conservapedia you are reading.^{— Unsigned, by: 109.132.117.155 / talk / contribs} 03:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And so does the Easter Bunny!

Kendoll, even someone as bright as you must realise that there's something wrong with using one story from your big book o' myth to provide evidence for another^img. Hint: Satan isn't real. God isn't real. Matthew wasn't written by Matthew. Who may not have been a tax collector. Or have even existed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

im afraid youir arguement will go nowhere--il'Dictator Mikal 02:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

To Mikalos: Personally, I have never seen this kind of circular argument offered by an actual person. I've seen it discussed in critical thinking texts and I've seen people claim that this is the kind of bad reasoning Christians offer, but I've actually never seen a Christian present anything so silly. (Mind you, this sort of reasoning is pretty plainly consistent with Ken's addled thought processes, but I mean a mentally competent Christian -- which is not an oxymoron.)

Can anyone find an actual (non-Poe) example of the circular "God exists because Bible says so and it is the Word of God" argument in the wild? I'd be interested in seeing it. Phiwum (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Presuppositional apologetics is exactly that argument dressed up in pseudo-philosophical language. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you give me an explicit passage that shows someone using this argument? Thanks. Phiwum (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Have fun being forced to give dumb answers to this online quiz. That's Sye Ten Bruggencate's fun little attempt to ignore logical priors. (Or the stupid in prose form) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I once read an article in The Watchtower that basically said that. Its argument was "is the Bible true? Yes; it says so in the Bible!" I think it was arguing more about Biblical literalism than the general existence of God or such, but it was a pretty hilarious argument nevertheless. DickTurpis (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that reminds me of Ray Comfort's evaluation of other religions in You can lead an atheist... as well as other places. "The Bible says that x, y and z are needed for salvation. All these other religions don't provide x, y and z, therefore Christianity is the correct religion!" It dumbfounded me when I read it that anyone could be that stupid, but evidently they can. Even if Ray's a charlatan, his mindless followers aren't complaining. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dick, that would be the sort of argument I'd like to see. I have to admit that I'm tempted into a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here, and say The Watchtower doesn't really count, but I think that would be unfair. I'd love to see the article (though it's not quite the argument I'm after, it's darned close).

Jeeves, that is a good example of bad reasoning, but I'm interested in this particular argument because I've taught logic and critical thinking on many occasions, and this argument is a standard example of begging the question. I'd like to see actual examples of it. Phiwum (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC, to Jeeves) I went to the prose form of the site you mention. I don't see the circular argument we're discussing here. I see an explanation of what Christians believe, but I don't see "God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God." I even went through the quiz once, just to see. The author obviously takes the Bible's statements as true, in order to make claims about the existence of God, but he doesn't claim that the Bible is true because it is the Word of God. That is, he presupposes it is true, but doesn't complete the circle to justify that presupposition. So, it really isn't the circular argument I'm looking for, as near as I can tell.

Can anyone find an argument that more explicitly says, "God exists b/c the Bible says so, and the Bible is true b/c it's the Word of God"? It's that exact form that I see often repeated in critical thinking texts and elsewhere, but I've never seen that form in the wild. Thanks again. Phiwum (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be kind of hard to turn up what you're looking for. It's usually more the fact that those assertions appear individually as a discussion or some kind of work goes on. It'd be pretty uncommon to see that trifecta in one compact argument, but it does on occasion build up over the course of a debate, or in a single chapter of a book. Offhand, I don't remember any books it pops up in. I know if you follow links on FSTDT, you'll eventually see the "the Bible, as the word of God is necessarily infallible" in some of the threads, followed several posts later by using Bible quotes to defend that statement. But even the incoherent fundies rarely put all three in the same paragraph. I seem to remember Vox Day committing it somehow, and having his usual arrogant dismissals at the ready when he was called on it. Usually his blog entries are just bluster, bragging, and belittling non-Christians and women, so it was probably in the comments. Not very helpful, I know. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I think this is why this example of circular reasoning was never very satisfying to me. It's so transparently circular that no one really commits this fallacy in a clearly recognizable way. (Even if it did appear in FSTDT, I wouldn't take it too seriously unless I could determine that the author isn't a parodist or actual nutcase, but at least that would be a start.) I would be interested in seeing the Vox Day example if anyone has a reference. Phiwum (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I took that quiz, and when I got to the question, "Are mathematical, scientific and moral laws material?" I answered yes, because they only exist in the minds of men, which are sequences of chemical bonds and reactions and ultimately material. It told me to go find the number 3 in nature, and "prayed" that I would find the futility of trying to find an abstract entity in nature and find the road back to God with their site. And there's ANOTHER quiz to prove God's existence, but you don't get to see it unless you already believe in god. RachelW (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've since forgotten almost all the maths, but what I always from Paul Dirac's text on quantum mechanics is in the introduction where he says that one of the main lessons the discovery of quantum mechanics ought to teach us is never to assume any of the things we take as laws of nature apply further than we can verify. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Isn't this article/refutation full of circular reasoning? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if I missed it when I quickly skimmed the article, but could you please point me to the argument in question? It seemed to me that Sarfatti was simply saying that we take the Bible as authority, without independent justification. That's not quite the circle I'm looking for, but again, perhaps I overlooked the bit where he said the Bible is true because it's the word of God. Phiwum (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Phiwum, you can find the circular argument you're looking for in several different places on Sye ten Bruggencate's website, with the two parts of the argument (god wrote bible, bible says god exists) on different pages. Here, however, there's a statement that, "Christians therefore claim the Bible as our ultimate authority by its own authority as the word of God" then a little further down the same page, "The Bible claims to be our ultimate authority ... and says that rejecting the truth about God leads to foolishness". I haven't seen this obviously circular argument stated so clearly by anyone less obscure than StB. The Real James Brown (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, James, for the reference. I haven't seen much of that site and none before today. I was tickled by this passage:

We can know that the Bible is true because it claims to be true and proves it by the impossibility of the contrary! It is only because the Bible is true that we have justification for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. It is only by God's revealing Himself to us through His word that we have grounds for rational thought. We use rational thought, therefore we can know that the Bible is true. Attempting to use logic to try to disprove the only possible source for logic would be self-refuting.

But that's not quite the traditional argument (and it's illucid enough that I can't tell whether it's purely circular, as the first sentence suggests, or just an indecipherable argument, as the rest suggests). In any case, this site also includes the following explanation:

What you must realize though, is that any claim to ultimate authority uses circularity, but not all can be (read only one is) valid....The Bible claims to be our ultimate authority, is the only book which makes sense of rationality and human experience, and says that rejecting the truth about God leads to foolishness. By this, the Bible claims to be the word of God (our ultimate authority), and proves it.

So, it's not the naively circular argument. Sye (?) admits the circularity and excuses it as a necessary feature of all ultimate authorities. I was hoping for the traditional circular argument in all its nekkid glory and this isn't quite that. It seems he wants to argue that reliance on an ultimate authority requires a circular justification, but the Bible is special because it (somehow) justifies that question-begging in a way that other ultimate authorities do not.

Who is this fella anyway? (never mind -- we have an article) It seems like lots of people here are familiar with him, but I've never heard of him. Seems like a guy who minored in philosophy and has learned how to abuse it. Phiwum (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you enjoy poking fun at fundies you get to learn of all these small time niches that are filled with bottom feeding preachers. The one trick ponies who have a handful of people who give them money for the party piece they've learned. It's the modern American version of being an organ grinder. Anyway, it's about the nearest you're going to get to what you want from a professional wingnut. You're not going to get the naked, unvarnished version from someone who makes their living at it. That doesn't meant that when you boil away the bombast and five dollar words that their argument isn't the same as the average yokel in the pews. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

See, that's the thing. I grew up surrounded by yokels in the pews, and none of them have made such a transparently silly argument either! Phiwum (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Phiwun, here it is in two consecutive sentences from the Bruggencate website: "The Bible claims to be our ultimate authority, is the only book which makes sense of rationality and human experience, and says that rejecting the truth about God leads to foolishness. By this, the Bible claims to be the word of God (our ultimate authority), and proves it." StB's opinion that you're allowed to get away with a circular argument if you're appealing to some supposed ultimate authority is just ridiculous. The Real James Brown (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's a ridiculous argument, but it's subtler than the usual argument. He seems to be saying that the fact that three things are true (the book claims to be authoritative, it "makes sense" of rationality and says that rejecting itself is foolish) entails that the circularity (or, really, presupposed authority) is justified. I can't see why he thinks that this would follow (nor in what way the Bible "makes sense" of rationality), and it is a bad argument, but it isn't the simple circular argument.

I'm probably the only one who really cares here whether there are clear example of the traditional circular argument, and that's only because it is such a common example of begging the question, but an example I've never seen in the wild. When I say that StB's argument isn't quite what I'm looking for, that's not to say it's a good argument. It is, in a sense, less transparently wrong than the traditional circular argument, but only because he tosses in additional premises and never makes clear how the conclusion is supposed to follow from his so-called argument. It's less transparently wrong because you just can't figure out what the hell his argument is. The circular argument is simple, clear and undeniably, transparently invalid, in contrast.

Thanks again for the pointer to an obviously related site. Phiwum (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, Ray Comfort has probably committed this, or something close to it. Or maybe Kirk Cameron. Since Comfort considers himself an authority and an author, and Cameron is just a smug, struggling actor with an opinion, I imagine Comfort is the better target. The only problem is the man's output is so voluminous that you might never find it. He hits on simple circles pretty often, but locating a specific example of the three-point circle in an obvious form would mean watching a lot of video and reading a lot of bunk. I thought I remembered one of his street-evangilism videos hitting it, but it was just the usual circles through hell and Nazis. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The way I look at the ten Bruggencate argument is that he's thinking, "I guess any child of 8 would realise this looks like a stupid argument but hey, I can pull 'Goddidit' out of the hat - problem solved!" I think this would perhaps be a interesting question if one could catch someone more prominent and certainly more intelligent doing it, e.g. Archbishop Rowan Williams or His Popiness. No doubt both those gentleman would make the circular argument in several more steps than StB and certainly more elegantly. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just point out that Creation.com don't know the difference between creation and transmutation. Changing rocks into bread is not creation - it's transmutation. Creation would be if Jesus made the bread out of thin air. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's the case then...

How Christian of you Jpatt,^img to not want to pay more for electricity to save a bit of the environment. I mean these regulations are idiotic aren't they? These socialist actually tell companies job creators that they aren't allowed to turn the earth into a toxic wasteland. Hey vote conservative! For a toxic wasteland were we will create jobs 'cause all your kids will have to use gas masks to go to school! It's the economy, stupid! --Raga Man (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You forget, Christians don't have to worry about the environment, because God is going to Rapture them all away any day now. Yup, any day now. Leaving us filthy atheists to live on the toxic dump they leave behind. God gave them dominion over everything, remember. he said nothing about being accountable or acting responsibly. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed!

because when i wanna know about air superiority^img information on a ww2 era japanese plane is exactly the right stuff!--il'Dictator Mikal 20:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There's been shenanigans with the history there, when I viewed it earlier there was a red link to "Japanese Zero" on there. You know, even though CP has and article on the Mitsubishi Zero... User 118 shows his wiki skills again... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Logs show nothing unusual. I think you mean the edit summary, which does have the red link, so I find it probable that Ed just whipped up an equally random edit summary for his random article. --Sid (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I could have clicked the link from the edit summary, I wasn't paying that much attention TBH... but I'm as fairly sure as I can be that there was a red link on the main page at some point. Or I could have had too much beer today. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Too much beer". You'd be more convincing if your excuse was something that exists. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor's New Guide to Writing a Conservapedia Article: 1) Select a website completely at random. 2) Select a sentence from the web page completely at random. 3) Choose one word or phrase from that sentence as the title of your article. 4) Copy the sentence. Provide a link back to the original, so that you can't be accused of plagiarism. And you're done!

Ed's little article on Loneliness^img is another shining example.

The strange thing is that Ed reveals himself to be a member of the Hearsay Society^img because of his preference for writing sentences that somebody else on the Internet has already written.--Spud (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Even by Smeg Ed standards, the "air superiority" entry stands out. For a start, what he's posted doesn't explain what air superiority is and unless you were a WW2 buff, you probably wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about. Then again, neither does Ed. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You know it's a true Ed gem when Karajou feels the need to step in and replace it^img with a proper stub. --Sid (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha. It's nice that Kendoll has found someone^img to feel intellectually superior to^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on karas 3k more bird articles he promised a year ago. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Andy...

That's not a bad thing. People wanting to come into your country is not generally considered a bad thing, especially not if they are coming for the economy in that country. Actually, you're not just shooting yourself in the foot here, you're shooting your whole foot. Also — isn't keeping immigrants out of the respective country kinda what "your people" would call "conservative"?

At this point Andy has actually stopped looking for things that are bad in the UK and is just pointing stuff out that sounds bad. Next we now he'll post historic trivia. --Raga Man (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with the keep the immigrants out or not? i cant tell. Also; he's already done trivia. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, but I'm not a subject to Queen Elizabeth, so my vote ain't countin'. Personally if I were in that situation I'd go for Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Poland. Because Greece is part of the Schengen Agreement none of these countries could throw me out, not even if I'm living on welfare. --Raga Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point. It's atheistic Britain (religiosity index 26.5) being overrun by godly Greeks (index 71.5). They are doing what they can to prevent Jesus defilement. Sort of like us (65) and Mexico (72). The most religious nation, Somalia (98.5), is so misunderstood. At that height of godliness, your missionaries are called "pirates." Oh wait. Wrong religion. Whoover (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They should consider Estonia then. --Raga Man (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So, Andy's cruel deity is punishing the Brits again for not believing in him. At least he's moving in a more mysterious way this time, unlike when sports stars pray to him and he automatically makes their team win.--Spud (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizabethan England WIGO

Technically, they just needed to wait around awhile—no need for a time machine. But I see what you mean. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603) was the last Tudor monarch. When she died, the English throne passed to James VI & I (House of Stuart, 1565-1625); This is called The Union of the Crowns. James's mother was Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587, executed by Elizabeth I), and her father was James V (1512-1542). James V and Elizabeth I were cousins.

The KJV (translated 1604-1611) used old-fashioned language, even for it's time; The translators thought it would make it seem weightier and hence more authoritative. Thus, its not surprising that Elizabeth I would have been able to read it. CS Miller (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but Elizabeth still could have read it had it been in Italian. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 10:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's also the point that, even if the people of Elizabethan England waited around for a bit, by the time the King James bible was available, they would be the people of Jacobean England. So, yes, actually, a time machine would be required. 81.151.248.171 (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, look who said "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian." Cantabrigian (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing the point here? English didn't change much between Tudor and Stuart times. Hell, Shakespeare's time overlapped both rules. Why shouldn't an Elizabethan understand the KJV? --PsyGremlinTal! 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't written yet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A literate Elizabethan would have understood the KJV, had it been available; translation started the year after Elizabeth I died, and was completed 8 years after her death. However, by then it was the Jacobean era (from Jacobus, Latin for James, and pronounced Jack-o-bee-an). Coming back to the original point, Andy said he thought that an Elizabethan would be able to read the KJV; it is obvious that he didn't check when the Elizabethan era was wrt the KJV's release. CS Miller (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ken, not Andy. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And yes, of course, an Elizabethan would have understood an advance copy of the KJV. But the point is that Ken's comment is in the middle of pontificating on the history of the English bible. An expert such as Ken shouldn't have to check with wikipedia to know that James follows Elizabeth. Whoover (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone Notice....

Any WIGO relating to Ken seems to get a lot of negative votes. Wonder if someone is voting early and often? [JC 29 May 2012 08:58 EST--JC (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's mainly because people don't want the repetitive dribblings of a mentally challenged manchild cluttering up the WIGO. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Ken is boring now. In fact I think we should pass a resolution that his antics go ignored until there are at least five hitler pictures on the front page, including hitwin and the flying kitler. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ken falls into the same niche as obvious parodists and trolls. Everything he does, he does not because he's somehow misguided, confused or convinced, but rather to aggravate, troll and cross-promote for his little backstage deals. While TerryH and Andy genuinely want to promote their political agendas, Ken is just a troll with a very small bag of tricks. --Sid (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the most highly-rated Ken WIGO is just wrong? It suggests that Ken offered to debate August, but if one reads the discussion carefully, it is clear that Ken was "inviting" August to debate Shock from the start.

I think that Ken is far too chickenshit to even pretend to invite debates for himself these days. He cherishes his status as an international cartel of mystery. Phiwum (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Joaquín thinks that the Assad regime is a reliable source...

And so does Andy^img I had always thought that the whole "mercenaries of HIllary Obama" thing was something that JoMar and JoMar alone espoused...but it seems as if that is not the case. What on Earth could be going on in Andy's head?

If it can possibly put Obama in a bad light, Andy will support it, even if it goes against everything else he usually stands for.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The right positions change depending on which side the democrats support; all proper conservatives know that. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with these people? The Syrian government is as clear of an enemy of freedom as you can get — they are even supported by the right countries for cold warriors: Russia, China and Iran. --Raga Man (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama doesn't like them, that's all that counts. It reminds me of that stuff about the Burmese monks way back when. Sophie^{because liberals} 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn you Assad ... eh, Mugabe.^img These people are fucking sick. --Raga Man (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think you understand CP if you are shocked.il'Dictator Mikal 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not shocked, but appalled. --Raga Man (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's at it again...

All you need is Conservapedia and the Bible...^img in that order. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! That should be the WIGO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bible, I'll grant you on the grounds that as a whole America is pretty religious. CP, though, is utterly moronic. -- 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading Conservapedia for years, and it's never provided answers to the fundamental questions it poses. To wit, how does Ed manage to remember to breathe, or what the fuck is wrong with Kendoll? Maybe those questions are answered in the Bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I can describe what's wrong with Ken, but only in a therapist's office...with dolls -- 22:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This once again makes me wonder if Andy ever does anything for fun or does his entire life literally revolve around sitting in church and bitching about liberals. Vulpius (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if Andy attended church excessively. He's not in charge of anyone there and they don't use his own rewritten Bible, so I'm guessing he just goes on Sunday. --Sasayaki (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if Andy ever actually approached a church or anyone else and asked if they use his Bible? Or if he has printed it out himself? Ace^Moderator 23:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not finished :-) 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

books are for liberals. and people with real money--il'Dictator Mikal 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I love the idea that people are watching American Idol to look for "real answers" to life's questions.--Spud (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy needs to be busy obsessing away at things on Conservapedia, or he'd find the huge empty blocks of time between engagements as an inept lawyer and an inept teacher too depressing to confront. I suspect that most of his income is from his family or through Eagle Forum-related nepotism, so he focused on Conservapedia as something he "accomplished on his own", as contradictory as that sounds by definition. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just discovered the other CP monitor- Most of you found this already, I guess

http://cpmonitor.wordpress.com

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of it. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

theres the SA thread, though i dont see how they got on the debate they did--il'Dictator Mikal 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's probably a complete list of the truly dedicated CP-watchers. Unless there's a thread hanging around on 4chan, or something. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Organized CP watchers anyways. i laughed at them for two/three years before coming here afterall, just sharing it with my friends every so often--il'Dictator Mikal 18:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

stopping ken WIGO's?

As has been mentioned before;ken is getting boring/sad/other words, so should we officially make ken wigos something to avoid?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcing could be tough. A random newbie will see one of his essays and WIGO away.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 04:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about we just apply this to the whole of Conservapedia? I don't think Ken is any more boring/sad/other words than Andy, or any of the other sysops. Nihilist 04:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

weren't you the one calling CP our arch-nemesis?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes? Nihilist 05:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No need for a rule, just vote them down if you don't like them. People will learn soon enough. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 05:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A Kenservapedia blackout sounds pretty cool. Three days is usually enough to remind them who their sole audience is (RationalWiki, ShockOfGod, Google's bots). --Sasayaki (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The paradox is that by ignoring Ken he will ramp up the idiocy to get our attention until someone is bound to WIGO it. As much as I'd like to see him relegated to his deservedly anonymous and unnoticed status I'd give it five days at the most. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say 4 at best. --il'Dictator Mikal 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been saying for years that we should stop prodding the inmate through the bars. Ken clearly has problems and I don't think it's funny to taunt him. Then again I guess ignoring him would only make him ramp up the weirdness, which is down to the individual to decide whether or not it would be good to let him screw up the main page even more and scare off potential editors. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

From the views expressed above, people are generally aware. Personally I think Ken should be ignored because he doesn't bring anything worthwhile to the table. There was a time when his ridiculous "essays" were funny, but like some artist who draws basically the same picture over and over because the first one got some notice, he became very repetitive and boring very quickly, and that was some time ago. Of course as people point out, he ramps up his cries for attention whenever we begin to ignore him (recently CP's mainpage attests to this). Its best to keep doing what we have been doing; don't bother with him and when someone WIGO's him, vote down (unless by some FSM miracle, it really is funny). Right now Andy is the only real gold on that site, his immense ego and so-called "insights" are what made things interesting over the last year, but even with that, CNAV is starting to become more interesting overall with its menagerie of the mad.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh, sometimes, he still says something kinda funny. Like, "Greg, do you often write long screeds on things that are never going to happen?"^img. From the guy who does nothing but write long screeds about how evolutions will be defeated. Yes, I believe that he is literally mentally ill, but I'm afraid that I still find humor in such arrogant obliviousness. I prob'ly shouldn't. Phiwum (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

if some noob breaks the ken boycott, just comment out the offending WIGO. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a swell idea, if there were clear consensus that there should be a boycott. Phiwum (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call for an organized boycott, he isn't worth the effort. Instead I would say ignore unless he does something actually amusing or interesting that is worthy of note. Given his recent record of screeds, anything he has done that is worth poking fun at or even mentioning has become both increasingly and exceedingly rare.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Loyola Comm back!

Can someone drag up what happened here (as found CP:User talk:LoyolaCOMM206Ted)? The revision was burned for some reason and I'm curious what was so bad as to warrant it, but not bad enough to warrant a lifetime ban. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Screencap of the edit in question

I managed to grab this from my browser cache when I saw that Andy had reverted and oversighted it. --Sid (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's pretty amusing. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You can imagine Karajou frothing and threatening law suits in the email group right now. Ah, if only our mole were still alive. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

Moved to Forum:Trayvon Martin, as this has nothing to do with CP as far as I can make out. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It was about them saying tray day was sick--il'Dictator Mikal 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Freedom is Slavery

Or slavery is freedom, I'm not sure what Terry is saying^img here. But that we can only be free if we believe in God (and of course have God in society) sounds pretty Orwellian. Also minus 100 points for still not understanding what secularism is. --Raga Man (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Chuckarse supplied the usual linkspam, but the original insanity comes from RoseAnn Salanitri. She's so completely batshit crazy that even other right-wingers think she's completely batshit crazy: "People like RoseAnn Salanitri believe in absolutes, but they also believe that all absolutes begin and end with them. Whatever she says… is. It is as simple as that. She is The Alpha and The Omega. She is God.". rpeh •T•C•E• 07:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, should have looked at that. I think I'll need a few more months to adjust that crazy people don't just write all of their blogs alone. --Raga Man (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As hard as it may seem, Terry has managed to surround himself with an even more distasteful bunch at CNAV than was ever at CP. PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone more comfortable with Terry's creepy IP stalking might go ask over at the blog what freedoms exactly they think they're losing at an alarming rate? As far as I can see those comfortable suburbanite tea partiers only seem to care about their freedom not to be governed by a black guy. I notice they didn't actually give an example of a freedom they've lost. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The sane conservative's remarks about Salanitri reminds me of the line in the play/movie "The Ruling Class" in which Peter O'Toole is a crazy man who thinks he's Jesus. When asked "How do you know you're God?" he replies "It's very simple. I find that when I pray, I'm really talking to myself".--WickerGuy (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Jeeves, religious freedom is nothing more than a code word for fundies coopting permission to oppress and discriminate against anyone who doesn't agree with unwavering religious absolutes in which truth is obviously supportive of whatever they wish to do and believe and unavailable to any contrary purpose. As it forms the basis of all legal rights (all this natural law bullshit) it is a simple matter of noting disagreement before these dangerous people quickly become comfortable calling ideological enemies pathological, possessed, etc., and even cheering monsters like this pastor who recently advocated rounding homosexuals up and putting them behind an electrified fence until they die out. It's all so much lip service to "freedom," yet nothing more than asserting the religious right to behave as unethically, hatefully, and capriciously as the god of their death cult. Feh. 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of people that argue that way actually know what religious freedom really means and they just abuse the term to further their own hateful goals and make innocent idiots feel like their rights are taken away. Here's hoping they are all stupid and not malicious. --Raga Man (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but there's an ongoing argument in the comments section of this article, and I'm not going through the registration and review process just to point out that most states allow gay people to adopt, just not necessarily as couples. So being against gay marriage because they want the right to adopt is fucking idiotic. Even in the bigotry swamp of Terry's head, those should be separate issues for the most part. If anybody who's involved with the argument is reading this, you might want to let him in on the secret. The "loving couples, devoted parents" argument is fine and all, but pointing out his prejudices doesn't send him into the same level of conniptions as accusing him of ignorance. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the right to adopt as a couple is pretty damn important when it comes to things like being able to pick up your kid from school or making important medical decisions. I'd agree that it's two different issues, but it's not exactly idiotic. ^{— Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk / contribs Do You Believe That?} 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I get why it's important that they be recognized as a couple, so they can have equal say and custody rights through force of law and such. However, Terry listed off reasons why he's opposed to gay marriage, and gaining the right to adopt was one of his reasons, along with "joint tax filings". That's what idiotic. He seems to be saying we have to not let homosexuals marry because marriage will also make it legal for them to adopt. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck those people for wanting to visit each other in the hospital without powers of attorney. Screw letting them pass their estates to each other without wills, rather than the whole thing going to the state if they have no living family. Greedy self entitled bastards. I can't believe how overreaching they are!!! Of course they subject each other to reponsibility for all household debts and a number of other nontrivial obligations, but natural law and diluting the definition of marriage and sin and homosexuals recruiting good xtian childrens. Etc. 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The stupid. It burns.

Terry lets us know what rights have been taken away from him aaaaand.... Oh jebus h christ it hurts me to even say it... it's that churches aren't allowed to endorse political candidates. Terry. Cokeeyes. Chuckarse darling. YES THEY CAN. Nobody has taken away that right. All they have to do is pay fucking income taxes. While they're sucking on the government teat, they don't get to endorse political candidates. It has been this way since the modern tax code existed. Nobody thinks this is a bad thing except crazies like you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It burns even hotter than that. I'm not going to try to summarise, just prepare to headdesk. Well done to Ace for drawing him out even more than usual. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He censored young Nathaniel's post expressing pity for him for having to carry around so much hatred. He's not ready to be drawn out. 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

June 1, 2012 at 9:36 am Terry A. Hurlbut says: "Life has never been better? You jest, of course. Worse yet, humanity is not evolving at all. It is devolving. In a few more generations, humanity would become extinct. Or it would, except that God is getting ready to come back. He has His own plans, and they don’t include the total extinction of humanity." This dangerous lunatic shouldn't be allowed near anything precious. 

I especially like how he sets out to prove his point about sexuality being a choice through his mastery of musical theater. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

G&S especially! C®ackeЯ

Another Legal Smackdown for Launchbooty

He never learns, and it never stops being funny.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 00:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

With obligatory whining about how judges don't understand the constitution. You have to have pity for the poor bastards who have to sit through these hearings. I guess it's beneath the dignity of the judiciary to tell the crazy fucks to get out of their courtroom and never to darken their doors again on pain of civil contempt. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole birthirism thing has become almost religious in nature. There's no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling, that will convince them that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States. Not that I seriously give a shit where he was born or think it affects his ability to do his job in any way, shape, or form. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well what can you expect? Tossy and his cohorts are still obviously traumatized over the fact that an uppity negro has unfairly gained office via affirmative action (which we all know is the only way for a black guy to get anywhere in life) and is now forcing atheistic, socialistic, and homosexual liberalism into the orifices of conservative children while stealing Tossy's money and giving it to worthless mudpeople. It is only natural for their mentality to desperately latch upon any conspiracy theory that may explain the strange disparity between reality and their views of non whites as subhuman, brainless, monkey people who only know how to steal from masculine, christian, conservative white men like Tossy clearly seems to be. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 05:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That little segment he linked in from the Constitution, Article 1 Paragraph 2 I think it was, why is he claiming that it means the states choose who can be on the ballot? I mean, I don't really know the Constitution that well so such a paragraph might be in there, but that segment seemed to clearly say nothing but the states choose the electors who will then vote for whoever is on the ballot and that said electors can't be a congressman. Nothing about who gets on the ballot. -- 07:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked him about that before and got a typically irrelevant answer. Like Andy, Terry's brain seems to have a filter on it: anything that fits his worldview gets in and any evidence against it is discarded. Somehow, the idea that the section about electors is relevant to candidates being on the ballot has entered his head and now he'll relentlessly spew that notion even though it's total bull. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bizarre. What part of “Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors…” did you miss? I guess I don't understand how in the world he thinks this argument makes any sense. It's such a wild stretch and he just keeps effortlessly leaping over it. States choose electors! Occasionaluse (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just amused that, when I looked at the page (shudder...can we start doing captures?), there was an ad for http://divideconquerwalker.com on it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

When I go there there always seems to be t-shirt ads with half dressed women - its borderline NSFW

Andru Looking to American Idol for Answers?

Hi Andru: You head am fucked up. Nobody looks to American Idol for "Answers". I'm not even sure anybody looks to TV at all for "Answers". What is wrong with you? Are you a parodist? Are you serious? Or am you fucked in da head? Jimaginator (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He's watching Fox. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia kinda reminds me of American Idol. Specifically, the part of the show with the absolutely horrible, horrible singers who honestly believe they are going to be stars. Congratulations, Andy. You're the William Hung of rational thought. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This. Andy has tuned on Fox for so long that he has forgotten the other uses television has apart from spreading propaganda. Vulpius (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Choose your favourite part

I can't decide what's best in the latest CNAV excretion.

Is it that arch tea partier Purpura is calling for more government spending on entitlements? Is it that he seems to have confused A.G. Bell's assistant Thomas Watson with Sherlock Holmes' assistant Dr. Watson? Is it the phrase "Obama’s Marxist regime’s kitchen maid, Janet Napolitano"? Is it perhaps that he signs himself "The Eagle" (Doesn't that third eagle of the apocalypse guy already claim that title?) So much crazy, so little time.

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My favorite part is that he's so mad that a court didn't listen to his frivolous birther garbage with rapt attention, he has to lash out at Obama for daring to not be a Republican, former Marine on Memorial Day. I wonder if Purpura's a chicken-hawk. That would ratchet the hilarity up a notch. "Obama can never understand what it means to be a soldier because there's only one type of person who can: Conservatives." -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the whole "The Eagle" thing on another article and assumed it was CokeEyes' fuck up in copying and pasting, now it makes him look (more) loony. Let's remember that Jack Thompson ("How disbarred is he?") used to send photocopies of his driving licence with a picture of Batman over his own photo, perhaps this is Nicky Boy's first step along that path. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So, if hating the military and therefor veterans is a progressive trait, European veterans should being dying in a ditch by the hundreds. Mh, let's check on that: UHC, LTCI, unemployment insurrance, social housing, education in military facilities, public theatres, public television, state-funded public events, state-funded education... Yes, I see your point you sharp-eyed "Eagle", that American veterans don't get enough benefits is completely those damn leftists' fault. Because you know, there's a constitutional limit of yearly income the federal government can make! --Raga Man (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought Jeeves was joking about the "thinks Thomas Watson is Holmes' assistant Dr. Watson" thing but reading the paragraph it's in, he does seem to be making that exact mistake. Or is otherwise assuming Thomas Watson is a doctor of some sort (which he wasn't). Either that or he's just absolutely awful at making a point. X Stickman (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

QE's master plan

So this is pretty standard but I found it rather amusing that the master plan of QE is this: BE MORE ACTIVE, point out "we are rising" and "have more kids". The more kids one comes up a lot in the page. though i;m somewhat more curious^img as to what the hells going on in this picture^img--il'Dictator Mikal 06:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The worst part of that? His leading quote "Seems like we just can't get ahead no matter what we try" is him quoting himself pretending to be an atheist on Yahoo answers. It's depressing how stupid he is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That really is sad. Then again, given that most of the testimonials on the QE campaign are fake, I guess it's only fair that Ken make up some of his own. Kudus to everybody for seeing straight through his lame bullshit. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

While that Yahoo! answers poster does seem to act just like Ken, where's the proof and evidence that Atheism is True and Correct that it's Ken? --Sasayaki (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you anybody else who watches schloks videos and bemoans the decline in numbers of atheism? Also, I rather like Ken dropping the mask in his reply to the "epic fail" post. --PsyGremlin講話 15:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Stunning to learn that theatheist's yahoo profile is private, isn't it? Phiwum (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What? We always were at war with East Asia!^img --Raga Man (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this "kid" was a 13 year old Cecile B. DeMille? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Lying for Jesus, because when God said "Thou shalt not bare false witness" I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking to me. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh Great

Launchbooty is going to teach us the constitution.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 22:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how he trips over the starting line in the first sentence, I anticipate much hilarity. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pffft. Constitution. I want him to continue his series on the end times. That promised to much craziness but he seems to have abandoned it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Did he at least finish his series on What Really Happened During Creation Week And How It Explains Everything? --Sid (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that he is/was heavily involved with the Conservative Bible Project, this should come as no surprise. --Sid (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I got an email for that. I was kinda peeved, since I only ever subscribed to receive the comments on a single post.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, this is going to be awesome.... *gets popcorn*

On a related note, is it just my browser config, or does CNAV seem to have really awful coding that sucks up resources? On my netbook it makes the CPU run flat out and still takes a while to render. My Atari throws a flid and bombs. Aparently, stupid really does burn... -- 00:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems the closer we get to the election, the nuttier the chuckass gets. The week before the election is going to be priceless.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 01:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully somebody who knows the USC can rip Terry a new one. However, I'm expecting each chapter to end with: And this is why Barack Hussain Obama isn't our President. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

4 orl hiz foltz (ya, evry singul won) I eggspekt Chukkarse 2 spel Hussein korrektlee. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It Begins

Lesson One: Electors. Somthing tells me he's making a case, just in case, a certain muslim kenyan commie wins a second term.--Thunderstruck^MONKEYS 16:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting he makes no mention of the fact that in relativley recent history people have run as electors unaffiliated with a party and won, so his proposed plan works with no legislative change. Pi 3:14 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"This has happened 156 times in our history." - Wiki says 158, who's right? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy: Now with more irony!

Andy Pants: Our criticisms of Obama are more substantive than directing folks to that silly article.

Like this? This? Or this? All of a sudden he has standards? Maybe he quit drinking.

No question, though. Andy takes the pound of energy crazy-cake. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Paycheck Fairness Act

Wouldn't the Paycheck Fairness Act apply to Democrat offices, JPatt?[1]^img Also, do we still need capture tags for every link? How about just the ones that are likely to be oversighted?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oversighting is not the only thing that breaks diff-links; there are also the technical blunders. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the very template you captured there was deleted and recreated without history only a fortnight ago. Peter ^{Blessed are the cheesemakers} 04:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, JPatt has a point, it would be a good move if the Democrats voluntary got their own house into order before passing legislation binding all large corporations. CS Miller (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that those statistics would be right at home with the lies and the damned lies. The numbers can be spun twenty ways from Sunday, either to make things look as bad as possible or as rosy as possible. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing to check is what the pay difference is for men and women with similar jobs and experience, but whatever. It's not like it's unclear who has been pushing for legalizing / illegalizing pay discrimination. 184.61.193.172 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Once you factor in job, seniority, and number of hours worked per year the pay differences pretty much vanish. Most of that 77 cents on a dollar is in men with nasty hot dangerous jobs with long hours that pay well --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 09:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Karajerk - don't ever change

You're going to petition God to see if He can agree to loosen the rules pertaining to the Seventh Commandment; if that happens, then we'll all support your demands for same-sex marriage.^img

Who needs parodists with you around? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Seventh Commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is usually defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

In order for people of gayness to commit adultery they need to be married first.

Karajerk, are you suggesting people don't get married in order to avoid breaking Seventh Commandment?

Auld Nick (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He might mean "Thou shalt not steal". The numbering of the commandments varies according to which sect you follow (Catholicism has "theft" as number seven, for example). It's hard to bloody tell, since he's talking about theft and sex right next to each other. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I just love his "You will...", "You're going to...", etc. Such impotent authority! Ajkgordon (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, gays are adulterers^img. Unlike the constitution, the bible is meant to be interpreted broadly. "Adultery" means "doing any nasty sexual thing" because otherwise God would be liberal. Whoover (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised PaPatriot is still in the game. I thought Kowardjou would have thrown him overboard by now. -- 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Even Karajou gets lonely. He needs someone to bully. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy and Tossbottom: Who is the most bugfuck insane?

At this point, it seems that CP is in a terminal decline hitherto unknown in all it's illustrious history, with even Ken's contributions becoming little more than boringly transparent screams for people to pay attention to him, and less than a dozen old timers consisting the sole "serious" contributors to the site. However as this has happened, Andy's insanity has only increased with his delusional ego, and the utter decay of his life's crowning achievement has only served to harden his utter disconnection from reality.

On the other hand is Tossbottom, whose sole purpose on the site is to advertise his own timecube esque blog of violently racist and paranoid bitching, and he also seems to be feeding off the decomposition of CP to bolster his own furious inanity given how his articles are increasingly becoming identical to Andy's brand of jealous paranoia.

My question is, who is the most crazy at this point? both seem to have invested their very existences to violently angry and spiteful "crusades" against the heathens, non whites, and accursed liberals that pollute america by their existence, both genuinely believe in their propaganda no matter how patently and painfully retarded it may be, and both have a near messianic view of themselves and the faction they believe themselves to be "leaders" in. Yet who at this point is closest to utterly eschewing any lingering thread of sanity?

Also is it just me, or are Tossbottom's eyes terrifying? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 16:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I agree they really are... disturbing. Not sure who is the biggest crazy though. While Hurling Booty is pretty out there (particularly on CNAV), Andy does come from a long and illustrious line of 100% pure crazy. That's got to count for something. -- 16:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy all the way for me. Terry is pretty generic, if dumb for his brand of crazy person. Andy says things that make even nutters like WND take pause. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And to give him some credit, Terry's pretty good about allowing dissenting opinions on his blog. Andy, on the other hand, is not.--Fergus Mason ^{Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant.} 17:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine there being a cliff of insanity. Terry swan dives off it, barely thinking twice, while Andy skirts along the edge, attempting to look serious. Seeing as how Andy tries to teach/impregnate kids's minds with insanity, so he's more batshit in my opinion. Terry at least tries to respond to comments (the conservative way), Andy will just ignore people, troll, or reply with non sequitors because apparently being wrong is a sin. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

no contest; Andy. He did that entire speech about the WTC, hes gone up infront of judges to push his stuff, he teaches people, and he runs the madhouse that CP is; nothing can top him. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Chuckarse's madness is so run-of-the-mill. He's a racist, fundie tea partier. There are many like him, but Chuckarse is ours. Andy, on the other hand, has glorious flights of crazy that outshine the sun. Who else but Andy could decide that Jesus disproves relativity? Who else could decide the Bible is full of liberal bias to be expunged? Who else could think he knew better than a trained scientist based on skimming one paper? Andy wins. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely Il Duce Andy; the guy attempts to rewrite astronomy and physics to his one beliefs solely because he fears discoveries in these sciences will kill any desire to read the Bible in people. Launchbooty can't even claim the title of being the craziest one on his own site.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy is definitely much more entertaining. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Terry's appeal is how frequently he works at it (apparently for that sweet, sweet pay-per-view revenue). He's been churning out drivel on his blog for a long time now, at a relatively steady pace; Andy seems to have more withdrawal periods wherein he mostly refuses to confront anything. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy is overclocked on the crazy, sure he produces more intense crazy, but if he were to leave himself as exposed as Terry he would burn out. Terry is regular crazy, so he can tolerate dissent on his comments section and continue to produce the crazy at a steady pace. The candle that burns the dimmest burns the longest.--Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 10:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Andy's crazier, but in terms of crazy throughput, Terry is winning right now. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The thing is, Terry's ponderings aren't really crazy (ok, apart from his obsession with Ayn Rand). He's just a creationist birther teabagger, and when it comes to those, there are plenty of people who believe dinosaurs are still alive, the flood turned the earth into a giant reactor and Obama's a Kenyan Muslim. It's crazy by our sane standards, but it's not way out there when compared to his ilk. Now Andy on the other hand, with his Conservapedia's Law, and the too-liberal Bible and quantum miracles... that is some serious Grade A crazy. --PsyGremlin講話 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, but where is it? Has Andy done anything batshit insane in the last few weeks? Or have I just completely lost interest? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It only takes three words to destroy this "Terry is relatively sane" conjecture: Antediluvian cloning laboratories. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me we have a link to that somewhere. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain I captured a pic of it at some point, but just in case I didn't: Cloning Labs!^img. My favourite ever CP moment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If TH held these as unchallenged beliefs it wouldn't be crazy, but thinking that he is just following the evidence while he is grasping at straws is crazy. It's normal human crazy, something that we al do, but it's still crazy. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 22:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but between his Nuclear Space Flood crap and that chimaera theory, he kinda reminds me of a mad scientist now (except for the lack of personally-testing-any-theories). One day he'll show those fools at the academy RationalWiki... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)