Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive319

This is an archive page, last updated 2 August 2013. 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>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <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)

15th July 2013

Great news folks, we have a date[1] Oh happy times. I'm offering odds (which I have no intention of paying out on), 1000 to 1 against this not happening.--Patmac (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How would you ever know? If Sun Tzu taught him anything, it's to be unpredictable and inscrutable. 21:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He needs to work on that, because I predict that four weeks from now the fucking sock sniffer will be crowing about the Ides of August and the impending disaster for evilutionism.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What you seem to be failing to grok is that these disasters are happening around you all the time and you're just to big an evolutionist poser to see them. INSCRUTABLE 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it. In fact my view of the disasters for evolution is blocked by the hordes of evangelical bible-believing christians swarming all over Germany. Otherwise I'd see them right away.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 21:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen! The Ides of July is nearly upon us! Darwinism as gasping its last breath. Evolution is the fleeting duckling soon to be devoured by the mighty shark of Christianity! Kendoll (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Of coruse he hasn't actually said he'll publish the thing by then, just yet another draft will be done... The publishing of this masterwork will continue to be pushed back again and again until he eventually just deletes all references to it from his blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

IS "Kendoll"(above) a parodist or just very very stupid?--Patmac (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have three guesses and the first two don't count. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He's not stupid. He has certain obsessions and doesn't perceive the world the way others do. I think he's more like Rainman than, say, Sarah Palin. Whoover (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 23:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol Misunderstood again, if you look up a little you will see a post by "Kendoll". I am asking is it really Ken or a parody of him?--Patmac (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it isn't him. He's "Newton" here, and it's been ages since he popped his head out of his bunny hole. In other news, ASchlafly isn't really andy here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me as odd that Kenny boy so prominently uses the 'ides' dating system, given that it pre-dates Jesus. Surely Jesus invented the calendar? Worm (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken is a man committee of little genuine inventiveness. Once he alights on a meme he wrings it to death until something new catches his attention. Having picked up a little quote from Shakespeare he thinks he is make literary allusions every time he recycles it. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's already been more than a week...

...and Andy (Conservapedia as a whole, for that matter) still hasn't replied to this:

Sorry, but you clearly don't understand how things work around here. See, Snowden did something that made Obama look bad. That makes snowden right, and a True Conservative Hero. As long as you are against Obama, you are correct. Its the schlafly way. —ErinT^img

Meanwhile, in alternate universe #784156078804623785691238: "Conservative wiki editor admits that conservatives only hate PRISM because Obama supports it. Other conservative wiki editors don't challenge his assertion."

(Not that ErinT is a conservative or anything.) —ShadowFan-X 23:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Doxing is almost universally lame

... but honestly I agree that this guy earned it with many years of hard work cultivating a despicable record of the kind of online conduct that pissed people off, and this laughable claim that he's an anonymous collective. Human and I knew exactly who he was within weeks of his absolutely bizarre meltdown on aSK. So it goes when you antagonize the wrong people, Ken. Galatians 6:7 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He may have earned it, but that doesn't mean we have to honour that particular IOU. The bus came by/and I got on. 15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The fun will start soon when Brian starts threatening legal action. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to honor it, but he's never done anything to either of us. 16:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I warned him to either debate me himself or shut the fuck up about "cowardly evolutionists." I also told him exactly what I was going to do next time he told me to debate VivaYeshua. Obviously he mistook me for another pointless creationist blowhard who makes grandiose pronouncements then never follows through on them. Maybe next time, when people try to tell him something, he'll fucking listen.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fergus, you and I are pretty much in agreement about Ken's antics but I have to say you are out of order mate. I don't want to see any actual harm come to him, he needs to be bought down a peg or two(or a thousand) but this could actually put him in danger from cranks, please, don't do it again.--Patmac (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't - if he stops calling me a coward while at the same time refusing to debate me. If he insists on being a dick I'm going to make sure everyone knows exactly who is being a dick. It's entirely his choice: He can either debate me or shut up, and his remaining secrets are safe with me. However if he keeps on slandering my courage and integrity like he's been doing for the last six months then I am going to fuck him over as much as I can. I've had enough of being abused by that repellant moron.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What's all this then? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

\ec Seriously? That was you? That's a bitch move, Santa. I can't believe a grown-up would violate the privacy of an obviously disturbed individual and then actually own up to it like it's something to be proud of. Look, when it comes to CP, many of us here at RW are guilty of conduct unbecoming a fully-developed adult. That said, this entire trend of picking on one guy who is of debatable mental and emotional soundness needs to be evaluated, no matter how badly he's "asking for it." Your bragging about your own inability to tell appropriate from inappropriate online behaviour would be a good place to do so. The bus came by/and I got on. 18:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Gordon - An alleged adult human being published CP editor's home address on CP's talk/mainpage, and then came here to boast about it.The bus came by/and I got on. 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Looked at his blog recently? My name is scrawled all over it. All he has to do is stop being a cunt and I'm happy to drop the matter.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Screw Ken's privacy/vulnerability, where's your fucking dignity, Fergus? Were you this thin skinned when you were a squaddie? You're being needled by a cumsplat of the first order. In the wider scheme of things, it's on a par with being wound up by a bunch of seven year olds - they're bloody annoying, you can't clump them but you can't let them get to you because all they'll do is double down. Step back, geezer, step back. London Grump (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fuck 'im. I think his disturbed state/vulnerability is greatly overestimated. He's lucid enough when he disagrees with Schlafly about anything, isn't he? His behaviour about the QE "campaign" is sheer childishness, but it's also obnoxious and he had fair warning that I was sick of it. As for his privacy, he's not exactly hard to find.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on Fergus(sarcasm mode), you as a former SNCO in the British Army is only proof that you are a coward and without integrity, and the corps you were with is known for it's sneaky underhand tactics. Unlike the SPAMS I bet you did not read bible before going into battle, and I will guarantee your padre was a nice bloke to share a brew with and not a real Christian who told you that you would go to hell if you did not read said bible.And we all know(full sarcasm mode) then when it comes down to the nitty gritty of actual combat, the yanks would kick the Brit's arse every time--Patmac (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh absolutely - which is why a Ranger-qualified ex-Colonel in the USAF won't debate me either. And while we're on the subject of privacy, a couple of years ago I got a new SIM card so I had a throwaway phone number to give to Walt Brown. I only gave that number to Walt Brown, and guess what? I started getting threatening calls on it from a far-right group with links to terrorism.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He makes me seeth also, like probably you understand more than any other poster here. Our background is similar and our former training, society etc was designed to have us wound up so we were always on the edge of a precipice ready to tip over, the main reason the British squaddie was feared in every bar in every town he frequented, we were the proverbial hand grenade that only took a pull of a pin to go off. Take a chill pill mate.--Patmac (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea. Fuck 'im. I'm off to get some beer then watch The Veteran three or four times.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good:) and Ken can speak sense and come up with good articles, like how a mother (or perhaps Ken in drag) loves to question evolution. Bad news alas, the publication may have to be put back to 2014.[2]Still. good things are always worth the wait.--Patmac (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh you're fucking shitting me. He's planning to keep this charade going in to next year? This is ridiculous. He's been saying the book is finished, in editing and a recruitment drive will be commencing to market it since October of last year. Why? Why the fuck does he do these things? He's fucking insane. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fergus, at the very least...

...if you're going to act like a child, that's on you. Can you at least keep your cyber-stalking and bullying of a potentially unwell man off of this website? There is a community of editors here who would like to see this project continue to develop as a quality resource within the confines of its mission statement. Our association with CP makes it difficult for us to gain recognition of that; being a clearing-house for admissions of one man's inability to conduct himself like an adult makes it harder still. There is probably a better sandbox out there in cyberspace for you to play in. The bus came by/and I got on. 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Did he ever talk about here except in response to the thread I started? My recollection is someone else uploaded screenshots of the posts. Disagree with him all you want. I don't think he crossed the line as much as in depth analysis of Ken's insanity does - his response to that is to go on hours and hours long editing binges getting more and more incoherent. All he's going to do now is go curl up in the back of his closet with the door closed. 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken, if you have any common sense whatsoever this little episode should be a warning to you, you are not as mysterious or untouchable as you think you are.--Patmac (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Nutty:There's an ongoing thread on his user talk page about an ultimatum to release personal information, and I'm not sure I see how the fact that he copped to doing it in response to a thread posted by another user mitigates the fact that it will in all likelihood be perceived as one more instance of Rationalwiki focusing on bullying some random crazy guy on the internet. It's especially frustrating given that it comes on the same day that Alale, a much more on-mission target, writes in to say she has a bug in her bonnet about our article on her. That's what RW should be known for.@ Patmac: That's great. Keep antagonizing the guy. Because what Fergus did was a completely reasonable, grown-up response to his drivel. The bus came by/and I got on. 20:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm being a hypocrite again but I'd fucking dox the guy too if he spent the better part of a year taunting me using a name I use professionally. I've got relatively thick skin, but I wouldn't countenance what he's said about Fergus from what he thinks is his great catbirdseat. Fuck him. 20:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's because you come on here as "Nutty Roux," and not under your real name of Moishe Abromowitz. If Fergus decided to drop his real/professional name into his exchanges with Conservative, he can't really whine that Conservative ran with it... The bus came by/and I got on. 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. It's my fault that I make a couple of reasonable comments and in return a fucking obnoxious shitcunt spends the next eight months or so calling me a coward and saying I ran away from some biology student? The fact that I choose not to hide my identity - because, you know, I don't want to be called an "obscure internet evolutionist" or anything - makes me fair game for every sneering fuckwit on the planet? No. Ken was systematically abusing me; I warned him to stop; he didn't; I warned him again and spelled out the precise consequences of him continuing to be an utter fucking bellthronk, and here we are.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 20:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's your fault that you chose to engage this guy with your real name, it's your fault that you didn't walk away from a petty internet debate when you began to feel "abused," and just because you spelled out the consequences and advised him that you were going to do something incredibly infantile doesn't make that act any less infantile. But I don't really care about that: what I care about is that RW's reputation as a hang-out for CP trolls, and not its reputation as an anti-pseudoscience resource, is what gets boosted here. The bus came by/and I got on. 20:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's your fault that you chose to engage this guy with your real name" And women who wear short skirts are asking to get raped, right? Last time I checked it wasn't against the law to use your real name on the internet. Ken's the one who chose to start plastering my name all over his shitty blog. It's about time he learned that he can't just act the cunt with impunity. I gave him plenty of warnings that I was fed up with his crap, and he chose to ignore them. Well, I bet he heeds the next one.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fergus is in a unique position. I'd probably do worse. I certainly did worse to TK when he fucked with me privately. Here's an analogy. You walk past some asshole's house every day on your way to the bus stop to go to work. He's got a bulletin board outside his house that's covered in bizarre rants, but he left a notepad up with a pencil attached to a string inviting comments. You write a couple messages like "What are you talking about?" and "You're misrepresenting the theory of evolution – go learn something." Etc. He starts immediately tearing your notes down and posting signs on the side of his house calling you an intellectual coward and demanding that you go fight some guy who lives at the end of the block who you don't know and who doesn't give a shit about any of this. You leave Ken a note telling him to stop. He tears it down and posts another billboard that says "John Smith is begging me to let him off the hook for his cowardice. He also starts yelling taunts at you from his second story window, but as soon as you turn around to look, you see the top of his head duck below the window sill. Wait a few seconds and you see a scared-shitless 50 year old man peeking around the curtain. Finally, you just sort of get tired of it because your neighbors see and hear what's going on and you really don't want a whole paragraph about how "John Smith is dishonest prick and cowardly because he won't go fight Joshua down at the end of the block" written in 1 foot letters next to the main street in your town. So you tell Ken to stop it or else, yet he only steps up the taunts. What do you do? What if he's mentally ill but doesn't live in the group home anymore so there's nobody you can go to to say, "look, under normal circumstances I'd kick this clown's ass, but there's something wrong with him and I really don't want to get involved - sort it out - this shit's got to stop." 20:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Look, I think that outing his address was a shitty thing to do, and I wish that RW wasn't associated with people doing shitty things. That's really all I have to say on the topic. Peace. The bus came by/and I got on. 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, presumably Ken doesn't mind, or he wouldn't have continued calling me a coward after I warned him what would happen if he did...--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 21:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you misunderstand me? I posted that I thought Fergus was "out of order", I was trying to calm him down.--Patmac (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I read what you wrote above as a threat to User: C -- as in "look how easy it is to fuck with you." Sorry if I mis-read it... The bus came by/and I got on. 20:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not stupid enough to threaten and nor do I want to, my aim was to point out to him that if he pissed someone off enough there are those who can find, post and even act on his personal information. Sure I would like to see his grotty little blog expunged from the internet, but he has done nothing to warrant such activity.--Patmac (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The information posted is not terribly confidential. A year ago I was slightly curious and did a single google search on his name (which is plastered around the internet, including here). His address, cost of his home, relative's names, phone numbers, etc., etc. were a click or two away. If a crazy means him harm and only needed this doxing to find him, that's one lame crazy. To be clear, I think ignoring the weasel is much better for one's karma and blood pressure than "revealing" his address, but anybody who cared to have it had this information long ago. Whoover (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Why dox Ken in the first place? If you know who he is and where he lives, why not settle things creatively and privately? London Grump (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

What means most to Ken/a Question Evolution! campaign group? His/their self-image as an international man/collective of mystery. What does doxing the cunt hit?--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 21:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fergus old chap, you lost your rag and that's not cool when dealing with these creatards. We all know who Ken is, after all he published under his own name in the past before adopting obvious silly aliases, but we also know who Andy Schlafly and Brian MacDonald are; it just isn't our way to step over that very thin line of publishing personal details. I know that the information is easily found on the internet but that's up to someone else to find out not for us to publicise. Ken's taunts are childish and need to be ignored, they are not the malicious actions of someone like TK who was a veritable cunt and deserved anything he got in return. As for far-right nutters phoning you up, then that's an issue with Walt Brown and Chuckarse rather than Ken Dimeyer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Genghis is wise. I'd pay heed to his comments. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All I'm going to say here is that on the grand scale of things, a creationist like Ken nipping at you is about the same as a weedy little fucktard on a school playground trying to evoke a reaction then when he gets one he shits himself and runs to that one big guy who stuck up for him once and gets pushed away but by the time he gets back to you you've lost interest and are now turning attention to your PSP. Then when you tell him to shove off and kick him up the backside he proclaims victory and dances around the yard like a bell end. It's really petty, doing something like this. Because nobody cares. Only we look at his website and we know he's a git, your reputation is intact. Until now. You petty git. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the address Fergus. Kendoll will soon be getting some variety in his diet :) It is amazing how much free shit companies are giving out. Ghost (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

He just can't let sleeping dogs lie.

[3] [4] Bollocks to it Fergus, go for the bastard.--Patmac (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right Demeyer, I know you are reading and updating as we speak, you are a Grade A bastard.--Patmac (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't care how mentally ill he may be, I find it entertaining. Can almost see the puppet strings guiding his fingers across the keyboard. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And I will add you are a total imbecile, how stupid can you possible get? You have half of this heathen wiki supporting you, including myself and believe me, my contempt for you is absolute, and admonishing one of our own editors for invading your privacy and you turn around and fucking insult us. I notice your blog QE BlogSpot is hosted on a UK server, in this increasingly atheist hellhole I, and Fergus live in, we are not very keen on free speech and the hatred you spew is not allowed in this leftie hellhole so I am guessing you will wake up pretty soon and find a "NOT FOUND" notice. And if it is posted in Germany their censorship is even tighter, pity really, as it is, I mean was a good source of batshit comedy. Ah I see you have deleted it, too late mate, I am watching your every move DeMeyer Goodnight--Patmac (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS, their is a moral here, Do not mess with current/former British squaddies, because we are some of the nastiest, most machismo filled son's of bitches you are ever likely to encounter--Patmac (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to understand how Blogspot and Wordpress work. They are not really hosted on UK servers but like Google are localised depending from which country you access them. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem like an alright guy to me. 02:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Takes a few deep breaths. Thanks mate:), and thanks to GregG who has recorded it all for us.[5]--Patmac (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this conversation makes everyone involved look like great guys. Only stopping by to say that your behaviour, Fergus, is reprehensible. Patmac you're fucking crazy and I only understand 20 percent of what you say. Nutty you a'ight. After you guys are done kicking Ken's ass you can move onto down syndrome affected 10 year olds for a challenge. Tielec01 (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"I notice your blog QE BlogSpot is hosted on a UK server" Blogspot have domain names in many countries, and when you access any Blogspot blog you'll get to sent to the appropriate TLD for your country. e.g. I get sent to questionevolution.blogspot.com.au, and takes advantage of Google's content delivery network. --03:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do like calling Ken "Bleep." Let's see if that catches on. Whoover (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Kendoll's name is apparently so terrible that it shall not be mentioned. I see he's also decided to delete GregG's talk page so that reading what he said 5 minutes ago is slightly more difficult. What the hell is his obsession with nobody ever reading his shoutouts? If you don't want people to read them, don't fucking write them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some perspective, please, gentlemen. If you are going to fuck Ken up, do it for the sport, not for the revenge. It's far more fun.

First, let Ken know you're gunning for him. Then, may I suggest the traditional pizzas, minicabs etc? For an added frisson, order them for Fergus. Then ask Ken politely to back down. If he doesn't, turn up the heat. Offer things for sale. Again, from Fergus. Then ask Ken assertively to back down. If he doesn't, crank it up to contact ads etc. At this point, his real name is more fun. Make sure you reply to some of them yourself and feel free to share here.

If he breaks, great. If he doesn't, at least you've had some lulz. Trust me, it's tried and tested. London Grump (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Ken spent two solid hours on idiotic Fergus Mason lacks ma-cheese-mo crap. I would score that as one for Fergus Mason. Whoover (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets run down the evolutionists and kill ourselves in the process

[6]--Patmac (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken, that's a fucking bear, you dipshit. It would total that car and then pull the fundies out, rip their arms off, and put teeth marks on their skulls. 20:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh Kendoll. When are you going to realise that things like the 15 Questions for Evolutionists and Ray Comfort's cookie cutter "movies" aren't for converting people, they're for separating the sheep from their money. Go watch Ray's movie, see if you can catch the actual argument he's making. Missed it? Nope, because there isn't one. It isn't about "shattering the faith of evolutionists" or whatever bilge he comes out with, it's about making your kind feel good about their choices. Keeping you a happy customer of Living Waters, or CMI, or whatever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if that's Comfort's latest bilge (I can't even be arsed checking if it is), it's your typical Comfort shenanigans - like making the video by asking one question, then voicing over a different question to make the answers look bad. 86.161.44.152 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My favorite from Ken is still Christianity as a roaring fire, consuming homes and lives, the only ones standing up to combat the wanton theological destruction of civilization are the firefighters of atheism; such epic fail of a message.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

SFO Plane Crash

"Leave it to liberals to play racist. And suffer from extreme stupidity, too, as a TV station broadcasts the "names" of the San Francisco plane crash crew"

I have some bad news for you, Popeye. Channel 2 is the local Fox affiliate. Is this still liberal racism?--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 07:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought Fox was considered marginally liberal by CP's standards. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And that, really, says all you need to know about CP.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 12:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the local Fox affiliate to the Fox News Network isn't necessarily fair, especially if it's locally owned. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Fox of "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" has nothing to do with Fox News. Because they're an Oakland/San Francisco station, KTVU is reliably progressive in outlook. Other than the odd cranky letter to the editor and Mallard Fillmore in the San Jose Mercury-News, you won't find any right-leaning media in the Bay Area. The station was pwned by a kid. It's ludicrous to think that anyone at the station thought this was funny. There's also the issue of their significant Asian audience. KTVU has had a number of Chinese and Japanese on-air reporters for years. Whoover (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You can always bank on Karajou to play the racist card. In his case it's invariably "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to kara jerky, the NTSB was the source of the names, as an intern gets thrown under the bus (justified or not). The entire channel got Ron Burgundy'd. So, what we have is racist liberal interns being allowed to run amok at the NTSB, and "stupid" Fox affiliates just blindly reading whatever has been handed to them with no critical thinking skills whatsoever. I don't think this is the situation you were going for, Karajou, but you can have it. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A complete lack of basic decency.

If this was you^img, congratulations. You've found a way to make Karajou look like the good guy. I hope you step on a Lego. The bus came by/and I got on. 18:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That was user Patmac. --StephenCocktail (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I also admit I am a petty small person who is out for vengeance, and now we have established my immaturity, he started it. I have been called or it has been heavily implied by that man, and this is only what I can come up with off the top of my head: A heathen, heretic, faux christian, someone who engages in bestiality, a communist and someone who is going to burn in hell. And Stephen, I was willing to let it go, but he keeps dragging it back up again, I have offered my proverbial handshake to him and he has sliced it off.--Patmac (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I was just saying it was you, wasn't implying you were wrong or anything. If you really think that Kenny and Kara should lay off you, though, the best thing to do is ignore them. All you're doing is giving them more ammo. --StephenCocktail (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. How did you know?--Patmac (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"I have offered my proverbial handshake to him and he has sliced it off." So you dropped a giant antisemitic slur on him ("Gas-a-Jew."). Christ, you're an asshole. The bus came by/and I got on. 21:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait. What? Patmac said that? Welcome to the doghouse, asshole. 21:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

powder is right, I appologise to Karajou and any that are offended. Someone block me, I'm not going to post anymore--Patmac (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Come off it guys, you decide to wade into the wing-nuts' septic tank and throw some turds around and then get all upset when they throw them back at you. If you are going to do stuff at CP I would prefer it if you didn't come here and talk about it, particularly if you use the same screen name; it just taints the rest of us. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Call Conservative mentally challenged - fine; call EdPoor a pedophile - fine; call Andy's entire life a failure and suggest he is delusional and that stems from jealousy of Barack Obama - fine ... suggest that Karajou is anti-Semitic by calling him "Gas-a-Jew"? WHAT KIND OF PLACE DO YOU THINK THIS IS?!--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's fine to call Conservative mentally challenged, I don't think it's fine to call EdPoor a jew. I think it's silly to call Andy's entire life a failure, though I think it's fine to call many of his proclamations (Jesus invented humor!) delusional. And I don't think it's fine to use holocaust namecalling cause you don't agree with someone and their name kinda sounds like the insult. And don't use that "he started it!" excuse, stop acting like a child. --GTac (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And I tend to disagree with you. Ken comes across (and there seems to be evidence to support this) as 'mentally challenged'. From what I can see Andy's life has been a monumental failure when you consider teh start he had in life and the chances he got, such as going to Harvard. I don't recall anyone calling Ed a Jew, is he? It is not something I would do however. I certainly think calling anger bear what he was called was wrong, as I have never seen evidence of anti-semitism from him. but Ken and Andy, nah go for it imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an idea

Here is an idea: Next time Ken marks a date, make a public pledge to donate some money to RationalWiki or any chosen organization with similar goals, in case nothing happens. Announce it loudly. That could provide some fun during the impatient wait for the so exciting Question Evolution book. Open minded (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Do what Nate did and publicly shame him by offering to help his nonexistent campaign. Ken - here's what: I'll donate $100 to your little farce if you show us evidence that you've actually got so much as a shitty rough draft of your pamphlet. I guarantee you others will chime in to do the same. We can do the donations by Western Union so all you need is the passcode to collect your loot. I know you could use it, living in squalor as you do. 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we call his bluff and start collecting preorders among RWians that wish to purchase his book so they can read what amazing wisdom he has clearly been hiding from us in order to save it for the manuscript. The down-payment will be one goat until such time that Ken sets a price or we decide that we're serious enough to start putting down real money. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's Ken's Kickstarter campaign? Shouldn't he have one? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 11:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A Kickstarter campaign would imply that something's actually going to start.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 18:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop the presses: A thing happened!

Holy shit, a thing happened!^img For details beyond the most existential confirmation, please boost Ken's clickstats. --Sid (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't click the link, but I suspect it's way more important than Snowden's leaks. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a rehash of something from yesterday or the day before.

1. Some "French speaking Swiss creationist" emailed him saying her French speaking friend proposed to help translate the 15 Questions a few months ago. She's going to ask her friend if she's still willing to help and will let Ken know. The price of poker just went up. I hope she has long hair and is a sweetheart too.
2. Ken reminds us that CMI already translated the tract into French and apparently still knows nothing about marketing or even talking to other people. Pst... if the blockquote is irrelevant, don't use the blockquote. All you're doing is saying "HEY I GOT AN EMAIL!1!!"
3. Ken tells us, though doesn't quote the "French speaking Swiss creationist," that she " is "endeavoring" to translate the pages on CMI's own site linked to from the 15 Questions tract into French. It's just sad that you can spot Ken's lies without even having to assess them - they fall neatly into various patterns. In this case, we know he'd crow about this being like a nuclear strike to atheism if he actually had the email, as things as mundane as an email from a long haired creationist sweetheart are first-page news: a la "Hi sweetheart, I told my cousin about the 15 Questions and my cousin may tell his sister about the 15 Questions."

• Ken is making a relationship with someone who owns a satellite TV company that broadcasts to Africa and Europe. Ken tells us that this gentleman could do some stuff to promote the 15 Questions. So could Rupert Murdock.
• Then there's some great news that Ken won't tell us about because he's inscrutable.

Tremble atheists! This was indeed a truly terrible Ides of July. 13:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken's supposed Swiss Miss has been working on various blogs and translations for a year and a half now. Having achieved absolutely nothing in that time (and having been beaten to the punch by CMI) she's apparently still "determined" to do some vague unspecified thing, possibly translating other articles. It's a good thing she doesn't exist, because if she did she would have to be bloody embarrassed with her job performance. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My office internet magic thingy has QE down as malware - not that I'd browse from work, honest, boss. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What's with "the authoress of the upcoming Question Evolution! book for middle school students"? I thought this was his opus. Whoover (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you're thinking of the 50/75/100 page booklet thing. That was last year, and now most of the evidence has been burned. This is the book for middle school students, which technically was a also last year (finished last October or something...) which is authored by a made up Canadian. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The book was originally for junior school students but it's taken so long that they are now middle-school. If I was you Ken I'd skip the high-school one and get them when they arrive at university. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn that cockmuncher.

Test cricket is basically the only sport I give a shit about, and that's mainly because you don't even really have to watch it to figure out how it's going, but Andy's ruined even that for me.

They've set up a fairly exciting last day, but all I can think is that I hope Agar doesn't get a century to help the Aussies win, because then I'll never hear the end of it from CP. Why, Andy? Why couldn't you leave all the non-yank sports out of your madness. You don't follow cricket, you don't understand it, you don't care about it. LEAVE IT ALONE. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't it be left as a magnificent performance from a debutant and not have some political significance. FFS. Ps its a bit of a change to hear that in the Ashes the English are the experts and the Aussies are the plucky best of the public. Twasn't always so. --Damo^Hi 01:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure if England had some plucky debutante batting at 11 and he made 90 odd, the BotP situations would be instantly reversed. Still, it's almost a perfect Andy storm. Teenager, against the atheistic British who are too gay for sports, The Man said he couldn't bat and almost didn't pick him for the tour, but AGAINST ALL ODDS he showed those experts who was boss. You could make a movie, cool runnings for wingnuts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

" Why, Andy? Why couldn't you leave all the non-yank sports out of your madness..." Because someone, quite possibly an editor here, goaded him into it. The bus came by/and I got on. 01:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Cockmuncher? Charming.AMassiveGay (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thought the same tbh. Passive homophobia is so much acceptable than active I guess. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

that's homophobic? Really? Accusing someone if munching cock does not a homophobe make. Go eat a bag of dicks. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not from the UK are you Ace? Over here it is definately a homophobic slur. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to defend a try-hard fuckwit like McWiki, it's obviously possible to use various slurs without necessarily buying into the bullshit prejudice from which they might have originated. Cf. any time anyone's ever called someone a cunt without actually hating all womankind. So, aye, choke on a bag of cocks and die. Robledo (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

its good to hear that all the times I've been called a cock sucker on entering or leaving gay establishments, I wasn't be abused in a homophobic way. And likewise, the time in my youth when I called a gay chap a cock sucker before hitting him like I was an angry cliche, I wasn't being homophobic. That makes me feel better about the incident. And I guess the constant use of the word 'gay' as an insult doesn't make gay folk feel bad about themselves. Its such a good thing to be able insult folk we don't like we no thought to how other folk might be be affected. I wonder if I can use more racially charged insults in a non racist way? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"I wonder if I can use more racially charged insults in a non racist way?" - Somebody once had to kindly and patiently explain to me why when they use "Jew" as a pejorative they're not really being anti-Semitic. I had put it down to complacent small-mindedness but reading the responses above I see I was wrong. Ace et al really should publish a pamphlet. Grumblejaws (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Being called a "Cock Muncher" or "Dick Eater" has just as frequently been used as an insult towards women as a generic slut shaming insult. If someone had called Andy a filthy "Gay" or "Jew" then you could argue that he/she is being discriminatory, but with terms like cockmuncher any inference of homophobia is incidental to the insult, especially today on the internet where the very words "dick and cock" are increasingly divorced from their origin as terms for a penis to merely negative terms for negative things (i.e. calling someone you dont like a big flabby bag of dick). If it were used in the context of being hurled at a gay man and used in conjunction with actual homophobia then you could call it homophobic, but in this context it is just another mashup of negative sounding words aimed at a guy who incidentally is a big flabby bag of dick.

As for whether "Racial" equivilients of "Cock Muncher" are ok, there really are not any actions or activities that are solely practiced by any particular ethnic group and even less that can be turned into insults. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah. No Andy gloating today. I wonder if Andy will admit this is a triumph of experts over the Best of the Public. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why God Doesn't Like Killing Pregnant Women

Because it's an abortion. Actually Markman's getting boring. Banning editors for "insolence" and obvious digs at the pro-aborts are tiresome. He's even been supplanted at Greatest Conservative Songs. This Marxist anthem has not been noticed for a week. Acually, I hate to admit it but it's CP that's become tiresome. Whoover (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

He also got slapped down again by andy this time for blocking EddyJ. I think even andy is getting sick of him and his obvious parody. I would post a link but cp is so borked right now I can't get it to load. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You want to help my project? Don't care, go debate Viva

As we've all seen many times in the past, Kenny boy's favorite way of deflecting his critics is directing them to debate Viva. So what does he do when, for the FIRST time in the history of Conservapedia, someone (NateK) offers him a helping hand? Fuck off, go debate Viva.^img

What a paranoid freak this guy is. He obviously thinks that Nate isn't genuine and will sabotage him in some way. Or, he's just so antisocial that he can't handle the thought of emailing someone from Conservapedia that isn't Andy or Kara. I think this whole thing just goes to show that even if he is telling the truth about his bullshit project 200, and he actually has 8 groups or whatever, he will never see it to its goal of 200 or more organizations. Because that would require, you know, actually meeting with people and interacting with them. --StephenCocktail (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's just the other way around. The problem is not with parodists, who are easily caught out by taking them up on their offers. The problem is with genuine offers of help. If real people want to help with the campaign, then it exposes the complete lack of campaign to help with. He's set himself up as controlling some powerful shadow organisation that is secretly working to bring down evolutionism, but in reality it's all in his head. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

^ This. Although I would also add that the sysops at Conservapedia are so paranoid, they can't believe anyone would want to sincerely help them despite all the propaganda about "the site is growing rapidly" and being a Wikipedia alternative. Because deep down, they know the truth, they know they are nothing more than an Internet joke.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say that NKeaton told Ken that he could ask some Catholic organizations to help and (ignoring for the moment the fact that Andy is a Catholic) Ken doesn't believe that Catholics are real Christians and doesn't want anything to do with them. I would further advise Ken that, if he's serious about declaring war on Darwinism, he's going to have hold his nose and make alliances with some groups that he doesn't fully approve of for the sake of the greater good. After the evolutionists have been defeated, the Protestants and the Catholics can start burning each other at the stake again. However, Jeeves and BMcP are right too. Spud (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Want to contact Shock? Go debate Viva^img. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, Ken can't possibly be ignorant of the fact that Viva does not want to play along anymore. This is his way of saying "Go get fucked" without putting such profanity all over Andypanty's homeschool resource. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 11:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something you can learn, eh, Ken?

In a rich bit of Irony, Kendoll teaches us how to handle aggressive atheists. Funnily enough, the list doesn't include such advice as "pretend to be multiple people". "block them", "take a 90 day sabbatical (where 90 days is actually 12 hours)" or "tell them to talk to someone else entirely."

Maybe you could learn a thing or two from that list, or just talk to people like a normal human being? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah, if he did that he wouldn't get the attention he craves, and appears to constantly get, from us.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh, just another example of a drooling, semi sentient manchild acting like a drooling, semi sentient manchild. At this point, noting ken's boneheaded deceit and hypocricy is pretty much redundant. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jeeves, Ken created his very own blog just to reply to you. Screencapped in case it mysteriously vanishes. Also, I see the Inscrutable One claims he's never pretended to be multiple people. The descent ionto madness continues unabated. I know see any discussion - even on CP's Commandments is now fair game^img for Ken's "Debate Viva!" crap. He is aware Viva's been banned from Schlock's group, right? Lol, oh and protected the talk page, so he can run into his intellectual bunny hole again. Pavlov's dogs were less predictable than Ken. --PsyGremlin^講話 22:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I emailed with VivaYeshua a few times this week. He seems like a nice guy. I don't understand "Conservative"'s fascination with telling people to debate the "creationist university biology student" when VivaYeshua says that he is not a creationist, does not view himself as conservative, and does not even view himself as Christian — I believe he says he is a messianic Jew. I don't know much about them but I would assume they're Christians because Jews don't believe the messiah has yet come. VivaYeshua says he is open to the theory of evolution, but he doesn't think there is enough evidence to confirm it. He says he is also sympathetic to creationism but is not a creationist. I mistakenly claimed that "Conservative" claimed VivaYeshua is a YEC. He said he certainly is not and asked me to show him links of "Conservative" saying that. I was wrong. "Conservative" seems to only claim VivaYeshua is a creationist. Anyway VivaYeshua is not the great champion of this batty one man "campaign" that "Conservative" wants him to be. I would feel badly for everyone involved in this stupid discussion if VivaYeshua were really banned. So many people are saying so many different things and it would suck for VivaYeshua for that to be true. My first impulse at this point is to question whether "Conservative" is telling the truth, but I am pretty sure he is since VivaYeshua invited me to come chat with him in the chatroom at a time I'm unfortunately at work. Hope this helps someone. Nate Keaton (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm what Nate says about Viva, as I've talked to him quite a bit myself. Viva is indeed a messianic jew and is quite clear about not being a christian, and he's not opposed to the idea of evolution. He's actually a pretty good bloke.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 03:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt he's a nice guy, but not seeing the evidence for evolution is on a par with being a Jew who believes Jesus was the messiah. The fossil record, geological record, genomic record, comparisons of developmental signaling and morphology are all remarkably consistent evidence for evolution. I don't know what this biology student studies, but if he is unsure about evolution he's not going to class. Whoover (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The point is that he's not some sort of über-creationist like Ken makes out.--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 11:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I can has screencap, or at least the gist of what it said? Ken, if you're going to send me a red telephone message, at least leave it up for a couple of days so I can read it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Last night

,

This morning

The cowardice is strong with this one. 15:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, Ken? Unless you're claiming to be royalty, you just claimed to be multiple people in a post that said you've never claimed to be multiple people. I think that might be a new level of insane for you. You're just one person, that's so bleeding obvious I don't know why you even try to pretend otherwise. Also, you block people who have only ever made one edit for 90/10. That's not enforcing the rules, that's blocking people who say things you don't like. Of course you usually oversight the comment that offends you to, so you have the interesting spectacle of people who have apparently made no edits being blocked for "talk, talk, talk." You're just one person, and that person is a rank coward. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to tell if you are blocked from viewing Conservapedia?

As of about 3 days ago, every time I try to view Conservapedia, my browser says "Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to conservapedia.com." According to downforeveryoneorjustme.com, it is just me. Is there a way to tell if you have been blocked from viewing? It seems unlikely that Andy would block IP addresses in Texas, although Austin is pretty liberal. 99.153.76.212 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have blocking rights on CP. Tried unblocking the IP under which you made your previous edit; received a message saying that you aren't blocked. Probably a technical problem, it does that a lot in the recent days. Editing CP right now is quite the challenge. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Its just their shitty firewall. Get a new IP, or wait about a month. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No words for the idiocy of believing that a wiki block would prevent someone from viewing the entire site.

99, that's among the things you might see if your IP were blacklisted in Apache. He's blacked out huge swaths of the US and entire foreign countries before. Nobody knows why he did it back then, but I'm sure he didn't black you out specifically. CP and RW were both getting hit pretty hard to the point that they were both nearly unusable. I imagine Andy was just trying to deal with that. 00:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Three days now for me too. I can get in via a proxy server but it's not worth the hassle. I have no idea what it is about my IP that they're afraid of. Whoover (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Same here in Wisconsin. Think he blocked the Central Time Zone? That's how IP addresses are mapped, right? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Every time I've tried to look at it in the past three days, I've given up because it's taken too long to load. While I'm at it, I'll say that I've only ever seen the words "view source" on CP articles, never "edit". I am permanently on night mode. Spud (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

CP's reaction to the Zimmerman verdict

Their guy Zimmerman got off, and public reaction to the verdict has been relatively subdued--mostly peaceful protests and no large-scale riots--so why has MPR over the last few days^img been, basically, Andy and Terry jumping up and down shouting "NIGGERS! NIGGERS! NIGGERS!" Yeah, I know, why should it be any different than normal. But, they won. Why are they acting like they're under seige? Why exaggerate a few simple assaults and some vandalism? What's the obsession? I don't get it. Godspeed (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess basically because they are under siege. They're all old guys who have to live with the knowledge that they're the last generation of people who will be able to get away with the prejudices they hold so dear. Can't be an easy thing to know your values pretty much die with you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're bemused by CP's reaction, you want to see what's happening at World Nut Daily. London Grump (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember these are the same types of people who did not even hesitate to spew the most disgusting hatred at the parents of the children gunned down in Connecticut the moment they spoke against wingnut dogma. They dont see horrifying events (or any event in general) in terms of the lives lost, destroyed, or damaged, instead they view these things with a nigh psychopathic lack of basic empathy and decency as a chance for team fuckstain-fundie to score "points" by assigning all blame to librulz, them damn nigg...urban kids, video games, evolution or "Hollywood/Proffessor Values" and thus ensuring that they can smugly gloat about how superior RealTruConservatives are to godless liberals.

In this case I suspect they are getting terrified about this because the very notion that a RealTruConservative might be held accountable for chasing down and executing an unarmed black teenager on sight for the crime of being black and being there, even when said RealTruConservative is found not guilty, is a "threat" to them because it endangers their (almost certainly never to be realized) fantasies of RealTruConservatives being able to shoot "OBVIOUSLY dangerous and criminal (and probably liberal) degenerates" the moment they deem them intimidating. Hurlbut especially must have been distraught at the notion Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have two thoughts on this:

1. I honestly believe Trayvon would be alive today if he was not black.
2. If Zimmerman did not have a gun, both he and Trayvon would be alive and well today.

From discussions with acquaintances, even some of the most ardent gun toters will concede #2, it just comes down to whether or not they see the outcome as problematic. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"even some of the most ardent gun toters will concede #2" oh dont you ever believe it. Put that suposition to andy or hurly and you will get (aside from a permaban) an overlong rant on how evil and dangerous that disgusting nigg..urban kid truly is and how he would have wiped out the entire block, had not a fearless gun toting conservative hero stood up to him and his unashamed blackness. Either that or a dismissive "he had it coming because he was OBVIOUSLY a criminal deviant" who no one will mourn except his worthless "urban" family and friends. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's so efficient to make up what their answers would be, so that then we can mock their small-mindedness. Phiwum (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Why exaggerate a few simple assaults and some vandalism?" Because if black people are mostly protesting peacefully that would mean Zimmerman was wrong to assume a black teenager was automatically a criminal. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@Phiwum im just going by what they and other wingnuts (Just search Treyvon Martin in WND or Hurly's site) have said about the issue over the past few months, albeit obviously with a dose of obvious hyperbole. At this point in time given what they have said about this and other issues I have a tendancy to be a bit OTT with the hyperbole lest the reality be so much worse. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Persecution complex is simply part of the Christian fundamentalist mindset. It is ingrained into their theology as being stated it will happen to believers in Christ, so for Andy and company, everything that happens is part of a worldwide movement to persecute them, because if they weren't persecuted, they may not be TrueChristians after all.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I get that with Hurlbut hense his fanatical desire to see the world burn and die while he claims the ashes as his kingdom of the fundie generator (ok i dont know why im using such pointlessly flowery language so just roll with it) but with andy? andy seems the complete opposite side of the coin, citing EVERY event and situation as a crushing conservative victory, with every liberal lie and coward being utterly defeated, discredited and exposed as the untermench they truely are in the face of conservatism's physical and intellectual might, both through his innately superior "conservative heros" and through retreating to a demonstrably inane delusion that his blog is on the cusp of replacing television and is the single most powerful cultural phenomena there is. I suspect andy is even more of an intellectual coward than hurlbut and the average persecution obsessed fundie due to his utter refusal to even entertain the thought that "his team" is losing. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A little light relief London Grump (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember how groundbeaking NTNON was back in the day. Breathtakingly shocking and challenging compared to most of the gentle (even if very good) comedy that had been around before. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Goddamnit. Mel Smith died today. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It hardly seems fair, does it? Mel Smith gets mentioned on RW and a day later he's dead. Why doesn't it work on Ken?--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 18:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Harsh. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm going to miss Mel Smith. He was an extremely funny man. Meanwhile...--Fergus Mason ^{If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov} 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the evidence of Conservapedians bouncing up and down shouting "Niggers, niggers, niggers" as Godspeed said further up the page? Although I agree that Conservapedia is a joke, I can't say I've ever seen them engaging in racism. They tend to be quite disparaging of it, which is one of their few redeeming traits. Yes, they supported Zimmerman which I myself did not but I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that everyone who supports Zimmerman is a racist. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The racists have realized that they can't say things like, "Niggers, niggers, niggers", so they've moved to their new dog-whistle "thug". When they use "thug", it's teeming with racial bigotry. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that "thug" is a racist term? Some black people can be thugs just as some white people can, the same way a black person can be a wit the same as a white person. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

When was the last time you've heard the media call a white person a 'thug'? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Over at Fundie Facebookm there's been several posts along the lines of "Look at this white kid, killed by blacks! Why no outrage?" --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 22:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably because, unfortunately, black persons are over-represented in the American justice system, too often as perpetrators. The media, understandably, no longer wish to report on it. On the other hand, the case involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, is newsworthy considering that the tragedy has ignited a furious debate over the right to defend oneself, and the need for some sort of sensibility when defending oneself from an unarmed, and likely harmless youth. Brenden (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Marie Antoinette (cake). Whatever faults the senior administration Conservapedia may have, racism is not among them (with the possible exception of user:C). While other traits have been (perhaps fairly?) game for attack, they have never used race as a basis for their arguments. Indeed, these accusations by Godspeed were rather unfair. Brenden (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Book for Ken

Ken has a massive boner for Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as we all know. But I was unaware of said Rabbi's sex guides for Jews until this evening. It strikes me that this, more than anything, is the publication of the Good Rabbi's that Ken ought to read. DogP (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, don't give him ideas. We don't need a year and half of "Our question evolution campaign sex manual will increase the breeding rate of Christians everywhere! Beware evolutionists, your demographic waterloo is nigh!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Given how the rabid rabbi performs in every video I've seen him in, I find the image of him SCREAMING his sex advice at people pretty amusing. --Kels (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness to the rabbi, you'd scream too if you needed a manual for kosher sex. It's hard to hit the merkin-covered mark through a hole in a sheet. 13:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh Jeeves. "Long haired creationist sweethearts" just took on a whole new meaning. I hate you. 14:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In serious fact, if I'm not mistaken there is a quasi commandment or tradition that the rabbi and his wife go at it like demented rabbits on Friday night. So I was told by a curly-headed kibbutznikit with quite a fondness for it. Those were good times. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't compare kibbutzniks to an American fundamentalist Jew who aligns himself with creepy pro-Israel christians and has little in common with the vast majority of Jews worldwide. The young Israeli you're talking about might view Judaism as a civilization, but is unlikely to consider herself much of a Jew religiously. So after you fucked her brains out you could have easily smoked a joint and then gone out for pulled pork sandwiches and milkshakes. Talking about rabbis being encouraged to go at it like demented rabbits was just a hint she wanted you to fuck her brains out again. Ring true? 15:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could read it that way if you were to assume the kibbutznikit in question was an Israeli, or even a Jew, which she was neither. You would also be assuming that she needed to do any hinting. I left a few things unsaid, such as the part where we were in a decades-long relationship, and conversations about such cultural trinkets were a way to pass time when we weren't into other activities. Before you go making more assumptions, "other activities" covered a wide range, including cooperating in the chopping of bramble canes in the back lot, to clear paths for gathering their berries. Mmmm, bramble berries. Sorry, TMI. Also, kindly notice I did not compare her to some wackaloon rabbi, either im- or explicitly.

Fair point about cultural Judaism, and about many of those folks not necessarily hewing to every line of every law. For example, the other white meat is raised on some secular kibbutzim as "penguin" or "zebra." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I was making too many assumptions based on my own experience. I've got Israeli cousins who had as much fun in their early 20s as I was describing. I never considered the idea of a non-Jewish kibbutznik. 15:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

She was into the co-op ethic, which a kibbutz quintessentially epitomizes in these modern times. At that time, non-Israelis were welcome to work on the farm and study Hebrew for six months. There is more to her story of kibbutz times, but this is not the place. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic: I was truly staggered to see that the part of the book that you can read using "Look Inside" on Amazon looks like very good advice. Which I found genuinely extraordinary considering Boteach's reputation as a total nutcase. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is oral sex kosher?" Who lives like this? Who is such a neurotic mess that they have to ask whether blowjobs are ok? If there's any good advice in this book, I think it will be hard to find amidst whoppers like his claim that the bible offers guidelines ("erotic channels of communication" - what the fuck does this mean? the Bible treats sex as ooky, not an acceptable pastime) for sex, not prescriptive rules. What? In the bible, women are chattels not above god's explicit prescription that some of them be taken as sex slaves. Fuck this guy whitewashing his god's savagery and tainting something great with religion. 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other other hand, religion has done much worse. Catholics are taught that a blowjob to completion is a mortal sin; as foreplay it might not be a sin if it leads to the husband coming in the "right" place. Muslim women are taught that plucking an eyebrow hair is sinful but not shaving their pubic hair is an even worse sin. I can understand Catholic priests' obsession with sex acts since they're celibate, but some imam codifying his personal taste as dogma? Obsession with sex is the one thread that binds all religions. Whoover (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If Ken where an indycar fan : IRL DEFENDER Ghost (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This Isn't Even Wrong

In CBP Amos, Markman translates "I have given you cleanness of teeth" as "I have given you dental hygiene" and makes it about Obamacare. (I can't provide a link because I'm on the server ban list and can only see it with a proxy). Anybody who is checked out to read, much less translate, the bible knows "clean teeth" is a metaphor for famine. The passage means "famine hasn't convinced you to repent," not "government provided dental hygiene pisses God off no end." And we wonder where AugustO went. Whoover (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He's trolling. Nobody could be so stupid as to make some of the translations he's made. I love how Andy doesn't give a shit though. I guess the ConservaBible was sooo last year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"creepy-ass cracker"

Well to be fair, the term "cracker" does have a racial connotation to it, even if it is not regarded as offensive, or "serious" as using "nigger", "chink" or similar epithets. Brenden (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To be even fairer, Zimmerman is a creepy-ass cracker. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well nonetheless, that has little bearing on the fact that using the word cracker in a derogatory manner towards a white person is indeed intended with a racial meaning. Zimmerman's creepiness, and his actions that night, were not of relevance here. Brenden (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I inclined to say Ken's post is itself racist or at least more callous than he'd previously shown himself to be. Calling Zimmerman, but not Martin, "Mr." and gloating about someone buying Zimmerman another gun, while portraying Martin as if he deserved to be shot by harping on points that are irrelevant to the dispute creeps me out. Bravo. Or something. 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, user:C's post was quite tactless, but complaining about that here won't help. He's already considered me, and thus my e-utterings utter balderdash, and needless to say, from his "FYI" postings to your community, he is not likely to be inclined to take up your suggestions. Brenden (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Screencap for those of us unable to read CP? Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the racial component though, 'cracker' has a key difference from nigger/kike/dago/etc. in that I have heard a white person use 'cracker' to derisively describe a poor lower-class white person, but I've not yet heard the same usage of those other words in the same manner. Semipenultimate 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you've never hung out with black professionals in neighborhoods like South Shore, Pill Hill, Chatham Ridge, and Hyde Park in Chicago. I've even heard the term from the Nigerian immigrant physician parents of a friend back in college. Anecdotal, I know. 15:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sad to admit, since moving to LA I have made no black friends. When I lived in Cleveland, lots of black friends, but out here, not a one. And as for anecdotal evidence, hell, isn't that all anyone's got in a discussion about race and language? Except of course for the semioticians. Semipenultimate 16:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It just occurred to me....

This page^img back in the day was really crying out for a still from Sharknado captioned "This is what creationists actually believe." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

“”Tornadoes and other weather formations (hurricanes) have been shown to move animals (and plants) great distances in reasonable safety. [1]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA 23:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term "Rafting (ecology)" before. That article informs us that:

“”Species such as the Sloth were probably moved in this way.

PJR didn't get to the article, so no mention of kangaroos. Personally, I still prefer "floating mats of vegetation" to "rafting." Godspeed (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how long it to the sloths to float to Panama on a raft of decomposing vegetable matter. Seems more likely Noah made the poor guys a mini-Ark. Creationists would most certainly have a sanctimonious comeback to "where did Noah get years worth of Yaruma leaves?" This is idiotic. 07:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bearing false witness and lying to cover up your lies - oh what a tangled web you weave, "Conservative"

Does anyone have a picture of the blog post "Conservative" put up calling women he doesn't like whores, witches, disease-ridden, barren, cheaters, overweight, sluts, drippy faucets, cold fish, etc. We discussed it on this site last year, but "Conservative" is not capable of facing up to the rotten things he does so he deleted it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nate Keaton / talk / contribs}

I don't know where that is, but Andy just yanked your blocking rights on CP. I would expect your days to be numbered there, as Ken's been out for your blood lately. --Allosaurus (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet strangely Markman still has his rights. Andy never gets any smarter. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in blocking people on Conservapedia. It seems to me that the only lower level sysops who do anything that the senior sysops can are just harassing people. As for the message that removing my blocking rights sends, I have been very disappointed in what Mr. Schlafly allows to go on on his website. The levels of blatant anti-Catholicism, trolling, and hatefulness from "Conservative" are more than he should tolerate. Conservatives need to keep a big tent but he's endorsed "Conservative's" hateful message that you are not the right kind of Christian and are in fact an "evolutionist" and "liberal" if he disagrees with you. That's unfortunate nonsense. I hope that Mr. Schlafly gains the wisdom to control his site. "Conservative" is dominating it with garbage that makes it impossible for me to take it seriously as a very conservative Catholic. What a real shame.I don't want to be blocked because I haven't done anything wrong, but it wouldn't surprise me the least bit if trolls like "Conservative" and Markman do it. Nate Keaton (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The beauty is in how this all reinforces Andy's trust in his cabal. Everything is constantly proving him correct. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We lose sight that Andy's outlook is not that different than Ken's in most things. When someone removes obvious parody (like Obama causing the crash of Asian 214 and "half the deaths") Andy reverts it with the telling comment, "This is not wikipedia." In other words, there is no distortion of the facts that he deems not "trustworthy" so long as it maligns liberals in some way. Just try changing "Obama is a Muslim" to "Obama might be a Muslim" and see how long you survive. Whoover (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Markman banned Nate for trolling, evolutionism and liberalism. What's the chance that anybody will champion him after Andy's little signal? "Will no one rid me of this turbulent editor?" Andy, you are no Henry II, much less Becket. Whoover (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see someone like Brenden or GregG trying to resurrect Nate. It won't matter much because Ken has also targeted him. Once Nate will get a Ken approved block it's over for him. - 78.129.148.101 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, you were right! Brenden is trying to reason with a man that tries his hardest to make that impossible (not going to bother with links. It's too stupid to look up)! Keep fucking that chicken, dude.

And, Nate, per your request^img. Cow...Hammer^time! 22:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't imagine the pleasure I've gotten this week speaking in my best God voice (possibly to an unseen, quaking Charleton Heston), "I have given you dental hygeine!" My wife is not amused, but I think it's extremely funny. Whoover (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, CowHammer, but that's not it. He deleted the really outrageous one and I regret not knowing how to do screen captures. If you can find it, it will contain the words "whore", "witch", "cold fish", and "creationist sweethearts". It was truly alarming. Oh my he just lied again saying that I said I would punch him in the face. What I actually said was that he would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't beat the living shit out of him for calling his wife a whore or any of the other stuff in that awful article. There's a really big difference. He didn't call my wife names, therefore I have no beef with him. Nate Keaton (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why you feel it is such a bad thing you were banned, Nate. I mean, you have to know the site is just complete crap, doesn't represent religious people or conservatism in any significant way, and most people who read or edit the site do so for mocking reasons and laughter.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get that I think it is such a bad thing? I'd understand if Mr. Schlafly wanted to block me. He doesn't have to have people around on his site who are sometimes critical and who don't really edit that much anyway. I haven't complained about Trollman blocking me because he's, well, he's a troll and Mr. Schlafly and the admin aren't playing his game. Nate Keaton (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy doesn't care about you in the slightest and won't do anything about Ken or Markman's troll banning of you; he'll back Ken over you anytime, because Ken brings in the hits. Sure they are hits from people who mock everything Conservapedia is but Andy only cares about his number count as a means of validation. You should forget about being an editor on that place, it is a waste of your talent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The source of one of Kendoll's lies revealed...

Well, we all know Kendoll is a liar, but he's also such a bad lie he has to plagiarise his lies from the web.

Remember the Ides of March^img? (This years' ides, anyway)

Turns out that a the special email he received was mostly mocked up by copy-pasting from this guy, just the sort of self-promoted SEO expert that Ken once pretended to be. I wonder if he was the original inspiration behind Ken's so-called career?

I also found one of the Texas creationist organisations that Ken claims is part of Project 200+. Of course, they've never heard of the project. Lie more, Kendoll. Maybe you'll get to be a real boy some day. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Ken says he got an email from an marketer, probably this guy, which inspired him to go all Ides of March on evolutionists' asses. He doesn't say the email was on topic, just a trigger. It's lame, but he does so much evil crap I don't think we need to invent any. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

LOLOL he deleted the article. DANCE, KEN. 00:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That guy doesn't have a (real) company. He's a blogger. And Ken's pretty much admitted he made that shit up by deleting it. That's why I captured it, Ken. Because I know you're a dishonest prick. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Got it. That's more than lame. Why make up the email? It didn't add anything to "a blogger points out..." Whoover (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

He just started adding emails to his lies as verisimilitudes as a response to us calling him out once too often. We say the people he claims to talk to and have working for him don't exist, so he starts making up these emails as "proof" that they do. He thinks the emails add credibility, but they just make him look even more laughably hopeless at understanding the real world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To me, the strangest aspect of Ken's chronic lying is there's absolutely no reason for him to do so. He loves creationism, and by extension, purportedly loves Jesus. We get it. He could easily blog away the hours simply reporting on the latest "news" from the creationism front. Now granted, disseminating creationist information without disclosing that it's complete bullshit, is a form of lying in itself... but I'll give him a pass on that. Yet there's no reason for him to lie about atheists, the LGBT community, or liberals. There's even less reason to lie about books that will never be written, people and entire organizations that don't exist, and the always eminent collapse of Darwinism. None. So Ken (because I know you're reading this) here's how you untangle yourself from this web you've woven: quit doing it. It's that simple. Walk away from all of your various silly and painfully transparent online personae. Get off your swampy ass and go outside. Join ChristianMingle.com and get yourself one of those long-haired creationist sweethearts we've heard so much about. You could maybe... well... Fuck. Who am I kidding? Troll on. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor, Ken's main source of motivation isn't his love of creationism or Jesus. Just like Andy, it's his all-consuming inferiority complex. He has to lie and make straw athiests (cowards, obese, virgins) so that at least online, in Conservapedia or his shitty blog, he can compensate for his sad sack of a real life. As for lying about his books and his campaign, he's not only lying to us but to himself, so that he feels like he's a great contributor of "the fire tornado tsunami of Evangelism consuming sad dog atheists."Shakedangle (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Join ChristianMingle.com and get yourself one of those long-haired creationist sweethearts we've heard so much about. You could maybe... well... Fuck. Exactly right, I think a good ol' fashioned fuck session with a long-haired creationist would do Ken the world of good. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately for Ken, Georgia Purdom's tender ass has already been taken. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What reaction do you expect to that, Inquisitor? Hur, hur, look at the ugly chick? Fuck off and grow up. London Grump (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It's the first woman (who is a contributing member of creationist organization) I could think of. Settle down, and save your "fuck offs" for somebody else. --Inquisitor (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Potholer54 vs. Ken

At about 9 minutes Potholer takes a look at one of Ken's 'Essays' Aceⁱ⁹ 05:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Potholer54 only dedicates a small portion of the video to Ken's atheist nerd top ten, and I think it's humorous that Potholer stops talking about it after number four because it is just that boring to read.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess someone else was going to end up reading them eventually... --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 13:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that video hurt poor Ken's feelings. He's trying to make the article funnier now. It's not working very well. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Andy can whip up a "Quantifying Humor" essay to demonstrate that Conservative's articles are indeed objectively funny. As a bonus, he could then go on to conclusively prove that nothing was funny before Jesus. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And BANG

Andy hands cp over to the parodists^img. Well it was fun but now that wanker markman has this kind of power then all parody is dead, noone will out parody that tosser. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The way Markman has manipulated Andy has been very entertaining to watch. I hope he goes full TK. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

He will^img, he will. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly thin, just enough to fool Andy, but still obvious to everyone else. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who he is here but if you ignore the wankishness he is running the sock perfectly. He is ticking every box andy likes ticked. He is tickling andy just where he wants to be tickled and in the process is driving away the few editors over at cp who actually want andy's blog to succeed. Disregarding his wankishness he is a superb parodist and in some respects I can not wait for his mask to be pulled. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how he gets away with it. Presumably neither the Swabbie or Andy bother to look at what he writes. It's so blatant he's out to fuck them over that they almost deserve it. The poor randoms who get mown down in his quest to dickhead glory on the other hand are innocent casualties. Bloody dick. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And so it ends^img with ken rolling over and letting markman tickle his belly too. Oh ken, if you only knew what markman is doing. You would be wetting yourself with hatred for darwinist liars. tk took you in and now markman has. Nate was the closest thing cp has had to a good faith editor since augusto and now you let the cnut run free. Enjoy the shit he will spread - and every word he writes is shit and you know it. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Balls, someone with more wiki than I (and less beer at this time of night) may be able to replace the image with the log where ken has now deleted Nate's talk page and user page. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The circle-jerk is complete.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jeeves, if I were sober I may have been able to do it but .... I'm not :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Had to find a proxy that worked, goddamn it's hard trying to view CP to see this! Sorry, Nate, being level-headed is why you were booted. Brenden's next, watch. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting banged out is hilarious. Surely the idiot in charge knows I have neighbors who might be right wing assholes who are just like him? ħuman 05:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Markman likes to use it as a reason against Iduan and Brenden... I know the identity of Markman's 'secret' RW identity and I don't just think, but know that Markman is a troll. I wonder if he'll block himself in a puff of logic. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They do seem to be ramping up their efforts to firewall CP off from the entire world, don't they? Their number of edits is way down, since most of their users can't actually get to the site. It's just Kendoll, Swabbie and Markman and the spammers in their own little world now. I wonder what Andy is trying to achieve? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I love that they are walling off so much of the country and the world; it is an admission of the failure of Conservapedia.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I love winning. Therefore I'll be betting real money that Andy trumpets a record breaking month on the main page at the beginning of August. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

More like technical incompetence, has Andy decided to host the site himself or something ? Ghost (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's another round of server blocks. At one time, Andy cut off quite a few /8 blocks from viewing the site. It seems he's added some more. Also, with Karajou hamhandedly blocking /16s, it's a wonder anyone can edit, let alone view the site. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Something's gotta give; Conservapedia's Alexa ranking are through the floor, down 11K over the last 3 months. A site run by people so obsessed with pageviews and edit counts etc to validate their success can't continue this for too long.

For comparison's sake, here's Rationwiki's.Shakedangle (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of good faith editors, I haven't seen AlanE at CP for a while, or Uncle Ed either. Karajou seems to just come and go to block spammers/Fergus and that's about it for him. Ken and markman are really the only thing keeping CP alive at the moment. Even Andy has given up on writing articles. Ghost (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

AlanE can still be found on Ameriwiki. He made a few edits to CP a couple of weeks ago, but it seems that AW has become his new home. - 204.45.133.74 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Who's left?

Mitch McConnell - RINO. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 21:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well since Andy has a very narrow, ever-winding, and internally inconsistent ideology... almost everyone will be considered a RINO at some point. Eventually Andy's list of TruConservatives^TM will consist of himself and Jesus. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And Jesus only because he rewrote the Bible--"Shut up, Brx." 22:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap, Karajou

No wonder you don't accept evolution: your idea of it is completely wrong! That actually makes a lot of sense. Take this gem, for istance, talking about the Owl Butterfly

"Either the butterfly had to have the intelligence needed to realize that owls kill butterfly predators, or something with intelligence created the butterfly."

Words fail me for how stupid he is. Kara, if you read this - The Owl Butterfly doesn't scare of predators because it looks like an owl. It scares them off because of its high contrast. That fact that it "looks" like an owl is a human invention (or your god made it like that as a goof). Carlaugust (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think you can claim that as definite. The contrast thing is one idea. Mimicry is still considered the likely defence mechanism. Not intentional or intelligently guided, of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if that's his own original idiocy or he got it from some preacher or other? A lot of sheep shearers like Ray Comfort sell this kind of tripe, and Karajou's just the sort of person to buy in to what other people are selling. After all, he's the pretty much the last "man" standing at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the same old thing here - a total lack of imagination. He talks blithely about millions of years. But he lacks the capacity to understand how long that is. Actually nobody can, really. We can rationalise it but we can't really imagine it, get our head around it. But he's further stymied by the 6,000 year thing. That's his upper limit. To him, 60 million or 2 billion years is conceptually in the same ballpark as his ultimate 6,000 years. It's as long as he can imagine. How can such complexity arise from the "randomness" of evolution durin such a short period of time? Hence he has to invoke intelligence - either God or the butterfly itself. That's the only way he can imagine it. Obviously the butterfly being intelligent enough to evolve the face of an owl on its wings is preposterous. Therefore God. It must be such a dim restricted world these people live in. Like a rusty cage with the sound of a dripping tap in the distance compared to the majesty of the universe. Note how he uses he word "science" as a snarl word. These people are so afraid! Ajkgordon (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how he imagines that "evolutionists" think the intelligent butterfly thing works exactly? In his mind, do scientists think that butterflies can think really, really hard about what colour they're going to be, kind of like a turbocharged octopus? Or perhaps he thinks they have a carefully laid plan, a multi-generational eugenics programme to favour butterflies who look a bit like owls? Some form of Lamarkianism and a pot of paint, perhaps? Or a butterfly cloning lab? (Terry would like that one!) It boggles the mind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

With all the ridiculous things Andy and Ken write it's sometimes easy to forget that Karajou is also a really big dumbass. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And that Ken, Andy, Karajerk and Terry are the only people on the site besides highly skilled interlopers. The site is dead to the world, and the world does not care if it exists or not. Also also, blocking IP ranges from even seeing your website is not a strategy for success. Idiots. ħuman 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Favourite Karajou quote: "Stephan Hawking says God wasn't involved in creating the universe; it was physics. Well, Steve, if you know that much about the universe, then try getting out of your wheel chair!" Even Ed Poor thought that was in bad taste. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell where the stupidity ends and the -- what is it they call it? oh, yes -- liberal deceit, begins. Take the link on MPR to the Darwin-shaking smoking gun about hadrosaur skin. It started with a paper about a rare fossil of mummified dinosaur skin. The creatards have jumped all over it, leaving out the "fossil" part and going on about how mummified skin proves the Flood. They don't seem to notice that, in the illustration of the article, he's holding a fucking rock! This has been going on for a while, and has been humorously debunked on Youtube. But never let facts get in the way of a good story, right? How is this crap different from liberal myths, liberal deceit, liberal blah-blah-blah? Whoover (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He also thinks that the KT event only killed off the dinosaurs, whereas in actuality, about 75% of all species were made extinct, as moment's websearching would have told him. CS Miller (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it is no longer called the "K/T" event, as even a mopment's webcrawling would have told someone. PS, comments without captured page images are not readable for most of us any more. ħuman 06:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the K-T (not K/T) event is now the K-Pg event because "tertiary" has been deprecated in favor of "paleogene." But tertiary is still used in many more significant places than this talk page, so what's with the dickish comment? Whoover (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, it's trivial to server-ban IPs that go to CP by clicking on a link from RW (it's the referrer field in the HTTP request). Just wondering. Whoover (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the referrer when one hits "reload"? I'll try going there from wikipedia... ħuman 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Aww, I think we hurt Kara's feelings. If you don't want to read it, it's basically a drawn out "Nuh-uh!" And something about a local Gypsy lady? And Kara - I didn't admit that a god exists. When someone makes fun of your god, it's because your idea of god is stupid and makes no sense.

And one last thing, Kara, since I know you love reading here - here's a good read on Owl Butterfly spots. I know, it's scary SCIENCE, but it's pretty interesting. One thing they don't mention in there; whether it is mimicry or contrast, the butterflies didn't evolve that way be thinking really really really super hard about what they wanted to be. That's not how evolution works. Carlaugust (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

During my college years, we had a hypothesis that you could find someone's general place on the scale of intelligence judging only by whether they realize "voilà" is an actual word, and not some nonsense you shout out or spell phonetically. Another data point for the pile. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you Karajou, you're not getting rich off me. I have adblock. In any case, you're getting what... 3 or 4 cents a clickthrough. Good luck making it to the minimum payment amount with your personal Angrydome blog. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Apparently, Otis also knows my favorite colors, what I drive, current hair length, what brand of telescope is in my back yard. I bet he got his information from Madame Zazzu, his local fortune teller. You know Madame Zazzu: ugly fake-Gypsy lady, sits near a crystal ball with a babushka bandana around her head, big hoop earrings, and an outstretched hand looking to get [blah blah blah blah]". Geez, at least Andy is concise with his nonsense. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I get bad migraines from time to time which disrupt my mental processes, and when I read that about Madame Zazzu, I thought to myself "This must be the onset of another migraine. No one could have actually wrote this - this is just the effect of my brain trying to cope with a spasms in my basilar artery." Unfortunately, I was fine, and some human being had actually put that down in a blog for the world to read. Carlaugust (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Using my remarkable mental powers (which border on the supernatural), I deduce that Karajou had that Madame Zazzu stuff worked out in his head months ago and was looking for an excuse, any excuse, to get it down somewhere on the interwebs. Spud (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who he thinks he convinces with all that straw-man guff? Do you think he really believes that's how science works or that's what scientists think? Or that his "duh stoopid evilutionists" screeds actually persuade anyone who isn't a creationist already? I mean, what's the point? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe he used a variation of the "if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes" argument; I thought all Creationsists abandoned that one.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading this, it is quite evident that sheer ignorance about evolution is as much a factor as blind faith in creationist nonsense.--Buscombe (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)--Buscombe (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeesh, it's pathetic.

Markman and Iduan^img are having a pissing match over which of them Daddy Schlafly loves best. Of course, in traditional CP fashion this involves comparing number of blocks and seeing which of them has been best at exploiting Andy's indolence. Of course, the coward that he is, Andy won't say anything about this brewing wheel war. But if it gets out of hand, I think we all know which one of them is going going to be the one to have their rights silently removed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss.

Surely, "When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die." --Sasayaki (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Schlafly is unresponsive

Take a look at his contributions. While he's still editing the website, he hasn't talked with any other user since the 20th of July, and this is despite the fact that several ppl have contacted him on his talk page. What gives? - 67.159.36.22 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

He appears to become paralyzed when addressed about anything but politics or religion. Leadership is not his forté. 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not meaning to be dickish, but it's "forte," one syllable. Even forte (loud), with two syllables is spelled without diacritical. But two errors exceeded my threshold of pain. Why don't we spell it "threshhold," btw? What is Andy's forte? Whoover (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. I guess I could have looked it up but I was ironically writing French and got aigu on the mind. Thanks. 00:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You did your best. ħuman 10:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Forte when meaning ones strength is AFAIK two syllables over here (UK) One syllable if it's part of a swordblade. Scream!! (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not according to Chambers 2011. ħuman 10:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I only use the word forte in writing, but no longer say it out loud. I prefer to pronounce the word "for tay". Which is technically wrong when referring to a "strong point". Pronouncing it "fort" just sounds stupid to me, and often can confuse the listener. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm out of town for a couple weeks, so can't check my OED. That said, I'd be somewhat surprised if it disagreed with US usage. It is admitedly a very common mistake, so common that it is becoming accepted by non-presciptive lexicographers. The reason I'd be surprised if the OED didn't agree with me is that the sense of "strong point" entered English from French shortly after Hastings. "Loud," of course, came from the Italian and the confusion of these etyma accounts for the common mispronuciation of the former word. Misprouncing a word on purpose because of common error isn't my style, but I'll admit it would avoid some mumbling behind my back. Whoover (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't realize it was the same root as the Italian forte. Sort of embarrassing considering I almost went to conservatory. 00:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

similar to the way Americans pronounce coupe as coop, whilst in the UK it is pronounced as in French

Americans don't say "whilst." It sounds very King James to us. We use "while." Whoover (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And what do the French say? coop-AY? Fucking gay.--StephenCocktail (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Coupéé. 02:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please not use the word "gay" as any kind of insult? We're not on the playground now. Spud (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Géé. 04:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who uses "gay" as in insult has to be fucking gay themselves. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't use gay as an insult but I throw down the term "fag" with regularity. Ah well.Aceⁱ⁹ 11:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You should use an ash-tray. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. Aceⁱ⁹ 12:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Americans say "coupe" with one syllable. We call estate cars "station wagons." Brits pronouncing coupe with two syllables is frenchified, which makes "gay" unnecessary. I worked with a guy who had recently immigrated to California from London. His first mistake was asking if he could use my rubber. He asked rather loudly in an office full of colleagues. When the laughter subsided he followed it up with, "I need a fag." Whoover (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Did he try to bum a fag? 13:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

At least he wasn't wearing a fanny pack. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's official. Conservapedia has gotten so boring we'd rather discuss how to pronounce random words here. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been for a while. Never mind. When CP drops out of the Alexa top 100K, we can have an "Operation: Laugh at Kendoll" party. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

They've been under the 100K bar for much of the time since the start of this year.[7] I'll bring the beer if you pick out the chips (crisps). Doctor Dark (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Whoover: If it's a common 'error', then it's not an error. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is true. Especially in English. There's no governing body, no equivalent of the Academie Francaise. This is a good thing. Besides, Collins is quite happy with fortay. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

As a person who thinks that a billion is 10^12 and that "million" should be pluralised "millions" when referring to more than one million, I'm happy with for-tay too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

When on planet Gunsmoke, speak as the bounty hunters do. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguating pronunciations are a good thing. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My forte is pronouncing forte forte. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, English does adopt errors. "Pea" is a backformation from "pease" (after Latin pisum), which was both singular and plural. You might have found a whole pease in your pease porridge hot. Plenty of purist were howling in the wind, "there is no such thing as a pea!; it's a pease," but we see how effective they were in the end. Other very common mistakes ("it's" for "its," for instance) just get corrected over and over because the distinction is so logical. Where will forte with the French origin vs. forte with the Italian origin wind up? Time will tell. If enough of you vote with your speech that the correct, one-syllable, form "sounds wrong," it will indeed go the way of the the pease. Whoover (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. It just happens that in the UK it's accepted to pronounce it fortay, whether the origins of that are a mistake or not. If I said to someone here, "What's your fort?", nobody would understand what I meant. It's and its, there and they're and there, and so on, are a little different. That's pronunciation producing mistaken spelling rather than the other way round. But even then, spelling does change and you end up with colour and color, gray and grey, aluminum and aluminium. Even the meanings of words change - fanny, pavement, ass, gas, public school. There are myriad reasons why these discrepancies appear in English - pronunciation, accent, error, foreign language influence, generational differences, cultural differences. And long may it continue. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite so, it would be a dull world if there weren't some regional variations to add colour and interest. Генгис^marauding 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're both saying that in the UK it's further along on its pease-ment. I'm okay with that, but I do think it's clear cut. Fifty years ago, the two-syllable pronunciation for "strong point" would have struck any educated listener as wrong, on either side of the pond. Whoover (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As a bit of a pedant I appreciate your point but I can honestly say that in my 60 odd years I cannot recollect anyone in the UK pronouncing forte other than fortay - the Oxford Dictionary gives the pronunciation as 'fɔːteɪ' which to my ear is close to fortay. But there again I can count on the fingers of one hand how many people (mostly educated upper-middle-class types) who pronounce conduit as it was spoken - con-dit rather than con-dwit or con-dew-it, just like circuit. Of course you will find many dictionaries give preference to the dew-it or dwit pronunciation. If we assume that forte meaning strong point is the from the French feminine then we should look at similar words adopted from French which use the feminine spelling, such as morale or locale which have different meanings from moral and local and are therefore also pronounced differently. So if you want to cling to the French root as a guide to pronunciation then FORT is also wrong - FAWR is probably a closer approximation. Of course, despite what many dictionaries say, forte may not have have entered English directly from French but from Italian (or be a mixture of both, that's the beauty of English). In the UK there was a well-known, successful, Anglo-Italian hotelier called Charles Forte whose name may have influenced the general populace's pronunciation. It's difficult to pinpoint from where English words were imported, particularly with the Romance languages as they ultimately all derive from the same Latin root but as French has had the biggest influence it is easy to assume that forte came from there, but it is recorded that the Italians have used the phrase "Non è il mio forte" for well over 400 years, so with many upper-class Brits doing the grand tour in the 18th/19th centuries it is not inconceivable that the phrase was picked up from Italy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a bit more discussion of the etymology and pronunciation. This is probably dead-horse territory now, so I won't say anymore unless there is something interesting in the OED entry. I'll be back to my beloved 20 volumes in a couple of weeks. But even your entry shows the "original" pronunciation as the third. And the etymology (from French) is also quite clear. BTW, the French "forte" (feminine) sounds the final t. You are assuming the masculine "fort." The original English pronunciation is quite like the French. Whoover (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A difference I have noticed in punctuation is "ary" as in military or laboratory which are pronounced milatree and laboratree in BrE--2.220.230.224 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting one is "herb." Americans say "erb," which Brits think odd. But we are faithful to the seventeenth-century pronunciation. The word "herb" is another Norman import ("herbe" in French so the final "b" is pronounced). In Shakespeare's time it was spelled* "erb" in English and reflected the French pronunciation that came with the loan. But it was hyper-corrected in an era when the Cockney h-dropping terrorized* "proper" English speakers. No such concern bothered Americans so we retained the French pronunciation. *[Spelled = spelt; terrorized = terrorised.] Whoover (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As a Brit who's lived in the USA for 20 years, I tend to be all over the place. Spelling is consistently American these days, since my writing is mostly read by Americans, but I still have trouble with the -wards words (e.g. "backward" vs "backwards". I still prefer the sound of the British English "backwards" to the American "backward" (which in the UK is usually reserved for something like "a backward child" meaning lacking in mental ability.

I just finished a short story last week that I gave to an American friend of mine to review. He found one Britishism in it -- I had used the word "stabilizers" instead of "training wheels" (doh!).

The only trend I see in American English that I really object to is "verbizationalism" -- the turning of nouns into verbs by adding -ize to the end them. The first one I came across was "funeralize" as in "we funeralized our mother last week." It just makes me shudder.Tacitus (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Local dialects tend to differ in US English as well. Neighborhoods in the Pittsburgh area include Versailles (pronounced Versailles, not Versai) and Buena Vista (pronounced BUna, not Bwena). Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Funny that

Anger bear added this story to cp main page but somehow forgot to read the next story on newsmax and to add that. How strange of him. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He's now trumpeting^img that first story over the main page too. Unfortunately, Anger Bear does his usual trick of reading the headline and ignoring the actual story because although the headline says that 4 in 5 Americans face poverty under Obama, the body makes clear that 4 in 5 Americans will face poverty for at least parts of their lives. Karajou, you're a lying little shit. 194.75.171.33 (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If Karajou is concerned that 4 out of 5 Americans face poverty - albeit for only a portion of their lives - then wouldn't it be a good idea to have some sort of redistributive taxation system? Генгис^marauding 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that people are poor, it's that there are poor people. A subtle distinction that makes all the difference. The people are the problem, not the poverty. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, completely unsubstantiated and stereotyped view but generally aren't most of those poor people the religious ones? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ken seems to think so. He's practically pissing himself with anticipation of the day when we're all eating garbage and praising the lord for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most poor people probably are religious, but that is because most people in general are religious.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Still in the angrydome, still a moron.

Quoth Popeye^img: "Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science..." Yes, yes we are. And not because of smoothies or whatever other shit you're ranting incoherently about, because YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION.

How is it that you manage to give a reasonable summary of Lamarkism and Darwinism and then go on _immediately_ afterwards to propose a test for Darwinism that is in fact based on Lamarkism? I really fail to understand.

Let me make this perfectly clear for you, Popeye. Darwinism postulates that living things produce offspring that are not clones of their parents, that are modified however slightly. Sometimes these modifications give the offspring advantages that are not shared by their parents that mean they survive longer and do better at competing for mates. Under particularly harsh or rapidly changing conditions of life, this can lead to one particularly advantageous trait being dominant in a gene pool. Notice nothing about animals willing themselves to grow taller or telepathically changing their DNA. That's your idiocy, and no scientist actually thinks that's possible.

Instead of your idiotic starving a giraffe test, real scientists are doing real experiments to test evolutionary theory. Remember your good buddy Dr. Lenski? That bloke that exposed bacteria to citrate rich but otherwise energy poor growth substrate for thousands of generations until they evolved the ability to utilise citrate, and eventually improved on that ability with a subsequent mutation? Yeah, that's how evolution is vindicated. Not by random cruelty at the zoo. Moron. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

He's incredibly fucking stupid AND incredibly fucking smug--a deadly combination. His smugness prevents him from ever accepting evolution, as that means he would have to accept that he was wrong about something. His stupidity will make him believe any cockamamie creation idea. It doesn't matter how many times you explain the most basic ideas of evolution to him, he simply will always refuse to accept and comprehend them. One of the most proud, ignorant fucking dumbasses I've ever seen.--StephenCocktail (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been out today and I just got back and was going to post this story. Really, angerbear is one dumb fucking stupid hick thick moron. You can understand why he never got promoted to any decent position in his navy career. His superiors looked at him and just walked away shaking their heads trying to think of ways to transfer him somewhere where he could cause least possible damage. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And now the manchild puts a shoutout^img to us. Tell you what manchild, find me a university biology professor from a real university, not a religious degree mill, who is willing to debate and I will either debate them myself or find someone willing to do so. Note the willing, unlike your offer on behalf of viva who we know thinks you are an idiot and wants no part of your silly challenges. Better still manchild, lets debate you? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your capture failed because that same URL has been used before. Care to provide a summary? Sounds like just another Viva debate challenge though.--StephenCocktail (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The cap failed because he ran to his bunny hole within 6 minutes of posting the shoutout. But unfortuantely for you ken I expected you to do that so I screen capped it. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Ken. Need I remind you we've been through this? Your debate challenges aren't serious and you run away at the first sign that you might have to talk to someone. So perhaps you're not the right person to be accusing everyone else of cowardice? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Another incredibly stupid thing is that he groups Lamarck, a staunch creationist, with the "evolutionists" Danoso (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Man's first word was "ooongawa." Not racist at all. Whoover (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

How the fuck is that racist, dude? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ungawa/Oongawa is what African natives gibber according to Hollywood. It began with Tarzan movies but has become a cliche. You might also google "Ungawa! There’s a white man talking, dammit!" for Dave Chapelle's comedic take on this made-up word. Your ear just isn't tuned to this particular racist dog whistle. Whoover (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Typical use in situ. Whoover (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The really sad thing is that even Kj is really smart enough to figure the real "theory" out himself: that short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine so long as there was plenty of food. But when the environment changed and food was scarce, only the long-neckers could compete. Evolution is about existing modifications suddenly being important due to external change. He can look around him and see people from 4' to 7' tall and realize how it might have gone down. It's not rocket science to reason that out for oneself, but they all have this Sarah Palin ignorant mocking of stupidities, which they assert are scientific theory and absolutely refuse to let the brain consider the topic. Pretty weird way to operate a cerebrum. Whoover (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Karajou's gobsmacking fail is with his "experiment" of observing just one giraffe; because although he correctly dismisses the Lamarckian "just-so" hypothesis, the Darwinian notion is that out of a large group there will be a distribution of heights and in times of low-leaf scarcity the taller ones will win out. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My God, the stupidity. It burns! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A current theory is that increased reproductive success for long-necked giraffes comes from the mechanical advantage of such necks in the fights for females. Giraffe neck fights between males are very violent and occasionally fatal. Just as you would want a long-handled sledge if you are about to demolish a wall, a longer neck predicts victory in these fights. Females would inherit longer necks from their long-necked fathers just as tall men often have tall daughters. How this would work over time should be understandable even to Karajou. Whoover (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Attenborough's last series on the BBC shows a giraffe fight. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Saint Stephen on QI went for the male neck fighty thing so it must be true. QED. Scream!! (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Holy fucking shit, that guy is one stupid fucking moron. "Evolution is false, and I can prove it by showing that an alternative, creation-based theory is false." As someone mentioned earlier; if there was sudddenly a disease that killed people under 6' tall, our species height would increase, because only tall people would be left to breed. And this is not because we were all able to stretch and get taller. You idiot. (NB: my use of the word "Holy" is not an admission that I really truly believe in god. Kara, you've done it before, so I thought I would state it clearly for you). Carlaugust (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, he starts off by writing that people are going to say he doesn't understand science and then goes to show he doesn't understand science.

"which is something no evolutionist had ever bothered to do with a giraffe, let alone any other animal in a similar situation" Probably because they know Angry Bear's specific experiment would have been a waste of time and life of a giraffe. Jeeves already mentioned Lenski's experiment. My favorite example of experimental evolution is domestication of Silver Foxes. Funny enough, it occurred in the Soviet Union during the Lysenkoism era when evolution was dismissed for political reasons (Lysenko should have joined the Republic of Konservapediya; he would never have fallen from grace there). The researcher was able do the experiment by saying he was studying something else. If that's not enough evidence, see more here.

"all the scientists have are fossils" And DNA sequencing. And embryology. Comparative anatomy too, I guess. The observed experiments of evolution mentioned above should count. Vestigial structures. Biogeography, that goes without saying. The common biochemistry of all life on Earth shouldn't be forgotten either. Okay, besides fossils, DNA sequencing, embryology, comparative anatomy, experimental evolution, vestigiality, biogeography and common biochemistry, what have the Romans ever done for us? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You left out geology, physics and chemistry. We now trace the oxygenation of the atmosphere and the oceans by the chemistry of deposited rocks. This early oxygenation is the result of the onset of photosynthesis. Carbon isotope ratios give us direct reads on planetary chemistry and the workings of life before most of the fossil record, through the redox annals. The myth that we have no information before the Cambrian explosion is a great goddidit meme, but it's nowhere near true. Whoover (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the fact that kids get this stuff injected into their malleable minds at an early age, I'd find all this hilarious. The position is so transparently weak. The only way they can advance their creationism is to completely misrepresent, either through ignorance or dishonesty, modern evolutionary theory. That's it. It's all they have. I do hope the US would grow out of this nonsense and put creationism in the far corner of the room behind the dusty potted plant in amongst a few old boxes of things that were supposed to go into the roof ages ago. Like most other advanced countries have done.

I was having lunch with a CoE vicar the other day. As we idly and briefly chatted about creationism, (I didn't want to be a bore), a thought struck me. It's often claimed in the US that the less educated one is, the more likely one is to a creationist. Does this hold true among the clergy too? Anglican and RC priests, for example, go through years of advanced education, much of it often and perhaps surprisingly secular before they get their dog collars. Many complete other non-religious degrees in the sciences, classics, art and so on. I get the impression that clergy most likely to be creationists are from churches that demand few formal qualifications. Or if they do, those qualifications can be obtained relatively easily. Of course, there are always exceptions - there are classically trained scientists who are creationists. But is this correlating trend for more education equalling less creationism true even among religious leaders? If so, what does that mean? Especially in light of the growing popularity of fundamentalist churches against the generally falling popularity of more catholic denominations? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the (higher) education of e.g. clergy - and the exposure to scientific approaches - all come down to the school system? My impression is that creationism is largely restricted to homeschool communities. You start there and then go on to one of their special colleges where they teach you the "creationist way of scientific reasoning". In the European countries, were there are no such possibilities/facilities, creationism or its representatives are hardly known, fortunately. How you come to grips with your own very personal reading of the religious teachings when you try to correlate them with scientific findings is an altogether different subject. --194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think you can blithely link homeschooling with creationism. I think that many of those who do homeschool in the US are more religious types but the creationist mindset is much wider than the homeschool community while a not insignificant number of homeschooling parents have secular motives. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no, no, that wasn't my intention! Homeschooling certainly has many different facets and backgrounds. However, in a state run system with more or less fixed curriculae I would not expect concepts outside mainstream (scientific) approaches to blossom and I expect church run schools having to comply with those standards, too (at least in the countries I've lived in so far). Homeschooling, on the other hand, may offer you the opportunity to teach outside of those given patterns. In recent years there were a few German menonist families who sought refuge in the USA because they did not want the state to teach their children subjects that did not fit their world view as they were not allowed to teach their children at home. Had these children been sent to public schools, their position towards science/philosophy/religion might be a rather different one now. --194.246.46.15 (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)