Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of decorum, please use the [+] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Andy vs. Jon Stewart

What is with Andy's sudden hatred for The Daily Show and Comedy Central? I mean, Lewis Black's segment on CP gave him a national audience and is probably the only reason his blog survived as long as it has. On that same note, Andy does understand the Daily Show is way over the head of your typical teenager.... You really need to know your politics before you can seriously get the Daily Show. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Now! I am a Teen and I love TDS, actually, that is where I discovered CP from (and then I later discovered another kind from a /b/tard friend of mine, but that is another, more disturbing story, altogether) --Passerby25 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy has sudden bursts of hatred for Comedy Central in general. My guess is that a showing of Trading Places was on, so Andy started watching. He sees a tie-in for the daily show during the commercial break and it sends him into a rage. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of that.... I figured that he was pissed that Stewart, a self admitted Jew would dare try and usurp the true humor that Jesus brought to the land in his famous ministry consisting of nothing but parables and knock knock jokes. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Duh, can't read...) Andy holds grudges well. Sterile tank 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Daily Show often goes over heads, teen or otherwise. Sometimes I smirk when something Stewart says goes right by the studio audience but I get it. Other times, things go over my head, and I'm not so smug. I assumed that Lewis Black's reference to CP was made up, and was astounded that it wasn't. Which led me to CP and RW respectively. Andy is a Douche. Tell your friends, especially your Christian ones. Jimaginator (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you imagine Schlafly being interviewed on either the Daily Show or Colbert Report? ^postate 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy on the Colbert Report would be amazing. Someone more talented than me should do a youtube video of interspersed Andy and Colbert clips. Z3ro^talk 17:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think Colbert's tactic of embarrasing people on his show would backfire in an Andy interview:

Colbert:"So everything bad that ever happened ever was the fault of liberals?" (audience laughs)

Andy:"Absolutely."

Having been out-parodied by Andy, Colbert tries a different tactic:

Colbert:"But conservatives in the South were the primary supporters of segregation in the sixties, right?"

Andy:"No, the liberal academia teach you that conservatives were responsible. Liberals were the ones who were racists." (Both Colbert and audience are in awestruck silence)-- JArneal 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for Colbert. How do you out-crazy people like that? --Gulik (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Someone needs to tip off Colbert's staff to bump it up their "to do list"! ħuman 01:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Public schoolers watch that much TV? Really? My high school must be the odd one out. As far as I know the following doesn't count as "watching TV": reading, partying, doing drugs, playing video games (I'm actively moving my thumbs), having sex, vandalising Conservapedia, going to the movie theatre (it's a communial thing), going to certain academic/athletic extracurricular activities.

8 hours of sleep + 8 hours of school + 1 hour of food + 15 minutes of toilet + 30 minutes of shower + 1 hour of faking like we're doing homework = 18.75 hours. Extracurriculars are at least 2 hours at my school and parties are about 4?.. So 3 * 5 = 15 hours in the school week. 15 * 4 = 60 hours per month not devoted to daily activities. Sure there's the weekend, but that just means more parties, sex, dating, liberal activities.. like socializing and making jokes (as opposed to being tactful for the conservatives).

I no longer get any of those television stations due to the government's mandated DTV transition. 3 hours per month of Television watching for me.

Wow, the people at your school got 8 hours of sleep? most of the people at mine usually get somewhere in the 3-5 hour range.

How many hours do you spend on Conservapedia, Andy? Kix, they're not just for kids~ 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. For me it was just video games, video games, video games. Hope I'm less of a loser in college.-- JArneal 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you there, I'm going to be a senior next year, and all Ive been doing is Video Games, Video Games, Porn, Video Games, Watching TV, Porn, "Hand Exercises", Read the news, Video Games. I hate myself :P --Passerby25 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we now have evidence suggesting that Andy does not possess the knowledge of existence of certain technologies, namely TiVo/commerical flagging/commercial skipping/personal TV? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy rarely watches TV.. as far as I remember.

I wonder what kind of statistics are out there for how many hours housewives watch per month. My guess is: 3 * 7 * 4 = 84 (+/- 3). 72.88.129.104 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, jeez, how did I miss this thread? Andy on the Colbert Report? Where do I send a check to make this happen? Can we start up a collection? Fedhaji (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

HSmom

A perfect WIGO, I especially like where TK says

“”I have tried, on many occasions, to approach you privately

I love how she sees straight through his bullshit. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TK really loves his secrecy. Gauss (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should interpret the words in light of his need to linkage of pornography? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy will react? If Hsmom really is a Home Schooling mom then she could cause problems for Andy. Ace McWicked^Necron99 20:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Afaik, she's a homeschooling parent, but has no connection with his program (none of his little scholars are hers), so she can be unpersoned with glee. 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy will ignore the whole thing, of course. It's a conflict that he doesn't see himself as winning (even though he never actually wins conflicts, he thinks he does at least) so he'll stay out of it and let TK do what he wants. As usual. Although I do find it funny that Terry complains about out of hand rhetoric in such a bombastic fashion. --Kels (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the chewy, chewy irony of TK asking someone else to make "substantive" contributions. He hasn't made any contributions, substantive or otherwise, for weeks. He's all bluster and banhammer. But I guess it was always one rule for me, another for thee with TK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TK enjoys plagiarism, Hsmom doesn't. That's one of the main points of this conflict. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one thing you can definitely say about Hsmom is that she has integrity and standards - something sadly lacking from most of Andy's goon squad. But I love TK's "all in the name of the children" criticism - most old hands here who had offsite communication with Terry Koeckritz know that "because of the childen" was TK's alleged reason for wanting to bring down Conservapedia. Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

'TK is pissed' - does this mean pissed off, cause drunk doesn't make sense. Matt oblong (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)
She won't do it, but there's a parthian I'd like to see. (Take it you're not a Merkan, Matt? To them it just means angry) Look at the following ddifs - remove subversive comments^img. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TK hit the "burn" button faster than CaptureBot could act in this recent WIGO; is there something that could be done to fix this? Our friend Terry seems to be even more on the ball than CaptureBot in some of these WIGOs, and that's a problem. Fedhaji (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Solution is for the WIGOers to grab screen shots and replace CB's version if it got there too late. No need to upload if CB caught it. ħuman 03:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on her: she's fucking apologized^img!!! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pollyanna ignorance"? Not bloody likely. --Too tired to log in (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not much of an article, but I dunno if I'd call it an apology...oh, you didn't mean what you linked to, then? --Kels (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm an idiot, sorry! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 02:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if she's actually apologizing for real, or if she's playing TK. After all, the whole "I'm just a simple woman, I don't know any better" plays awfully well with Andy, and totally short-circuits TK's attacks against her. We'll see. --Kels (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

She's been editing "Pollyana^img since, so who knows? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Usernameblacklist

Look's like Andy has had an interesting evening. Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, somebody explain me who (?i:moist), (?i:trent) (our Trent?), (?i:dix) and (?i:bubble) are supposed to block.

Also, poor S(i)m(o)ns. Flare^Talk 22:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Andy's shrivelled cannon must be reviving its self so agressively with dirty backstreet liberal ammo that it's going to wash us all away in a florid baige tidle-wave of self loving. Cover your eyes!!! Matt oblong (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And if poor Simon's last name is Dixon, he's trebly screwed! Andy deserves to get hit with a tidal wave of "imaginative" user names for this stupidity. ħuman 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a friend whose name is Sam Dixon. He's a mentally retarded homeschooler too. 72.88.129.0.24 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still laughing, sad to say... ħuman 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Michael Weiner is screwed. --Barikada, too lazy to sign in.

Yup! ħuman 03:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What I love about that log/page, whatever it is, is it is Andy's "dirty words stash" - and anyone can find it on his blog. Like looking up "penis" or "fuck" in the dictionary. PS, did anyone ever write "it is, is it is" before? ħuman 03:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to create a username that's slightly close to TK... won't post it here because TK watches this site like Andy's wife watches Tru(TV). 72.88.129.0.24 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that has been taken care of already. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look over there, I see Ken just burned his own user page again. Does anyone even pay attention to that thing any more? --Kels (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken thinks doing that "cleans his screen", sadly. Eh, did he ever prove the SBI ever existed yet? No, but evolution might be on the run in Kenya! ħuman 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken seems to think Lyin' for Jesus is an effective long-range strategy. I doubt there's much that could convince him otherwise, even though he's been doing it online for a lot of years and yet...people haven't turned away from reality quite yet. Keep at it, Ken, you'll win someday. Somehow. --Kels (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken couldn't answer the question on the SBI yet, as he is going to be quite busy for a while. As usual, I repeated my question. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked 'em on Swedish Wikipedia - only 10 minutes ago so we'll see. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 07:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Toast. Although, the book, at least, is real (I think). ħuman 07:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A kind person has copied my request to the Reference desk ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

:As far as I can see from a quick Google search Nils Heribert-Nilsson was a professor at Lund University. The Swedish Botanical Institute should probably translate to Botaniska institutionen (I'm not sure of the proper English translation, but it's probably something like the Academic Department of Botany). The book does exist according to Google Scholar, but it's old and can hardly be used to disprove any current evolutionary thought http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=Heribert+Nilsson+Synthetische+Artbildung&btnG=Search. What specific information do you need? Sjö 21 juli 2009 kl. 10.10 (CEST) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I love a language that looks like this: "Har nasa givit ut någon officiell siffra vad alla månlandningar har kostat?" Just gotta say, and not meaning to mock, at all. Ourls looks stupid, too. PS right now I am involved in making some product for a Swedish producer. His English is 99% better than my Swedish! ħuman 08:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

100% surely. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 08:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, the book is genuine - it was written in 1953, has ~1300 pages, was published in German, but includes an English summary. There are at least to contemporary critiques of the book (one in Science, the other in The Quarterly Review of Biology), and these two are absolutely unfavorable. Our article on Nils Heribert Nilsson refers to them. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See the new Wikipedia article, our interest has made him more notable than he was before! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Very illuminating. So very likely, someone probably mentioned that he worked at "a Swedish biological institute", and the endless Creatard game of telephone turned that into "director of the Swedish Biological Institute". And of course the intellectionally (and just generally) writers and editors at CMI never bothered to find out one way or another, and lying stenographer and junior propagandist Ken dutifully added that to his Big Pile O' Lies over at CP. Quite the trip for some relatively obscure researcher who went sniffing down the wrong path regarding origins. --Kels (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed his main page spam about positive youtube videos^img. The "inroads" are all the same person. 216.221.87.112 06:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And it only took him 5 edits. Congrats, Ken, you're getting better all the time (can't get no worse). L/McC 1967. ħuman 06:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is considering expanding its YouTube subscriber base at Conservapediavideos" - I wonder when they will make a decision on that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ken is considering masturbating over several central European countries" but it does not bother them much as his aim is poor. ħuman 08:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I learned a few new terms

Wow^img. I love the edit comments they do here too. tmtoulouse 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I see JPratt took the opportunity to include his own name in there as well. Генгис^{Gum disease} 19:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I had been spared knowing what "lemon party" and "tub girl" referred to until Schalfly was experimenting with the edit black list tool ("lemon party... tub girl... RationalWiki!"). Of course that's also where we got "Hot... Science... RationalWiki!". ħuman 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In Ken's own words, he's admitting that religion is exploiting children's incredulity, which is further confirmed in the bible. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, just as I have demonstrated, you can create accounts that already technically exist. I will make another account on CP with a recurring name, just to confuse the poopers out of them 72.88.129.0.24 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is clever, although the very first regex will (probably) stop you. - π 05:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it blocks it. That sucks. And in other news, I was blocked again. -.- 72.88.129.0.24 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Childish

Doesn't this study that Ken is promoting confirm that intelligent design is a childish idea based on your own preconceptions and incredulity and that creationist are just having trouble letting go of ideas that formed when young? Children also have trouble dealing with the idea that the world is a sphere because they are use to the idea of things falling "down". - π 07:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken: So children are stupid? "children infer from their own observations that there must be a Creator" Fucking retards, maybe. I was raised in a fossil-collecting (South Wales), Book-reading family. I never "observed" that there must be a ceiling kitteh! Only babies get their Daddies confused with Goddies. Now go answer the SBI question, you sad excuse for a human being. ħuman 07:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The CMI article itself reads like it was written by Kendoll's more literate cousin. The quotes, the random youtube video thrown in... Do you suppose he's unable to read anything that doesn't break off half way through for a diverting video? It would explain a lot. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the WIGO after reading the article, because it made me laugh on two levels. First, the kids were shown pictures of things and given only three responses to choose from for each: "God made it", "People made it", and "Nobody knows". When you restrict kids to those three options, is their response surprising? Second, I love how a bunch of ID proponents are using a test that forced "God" to be the only answer for "design" to keep acting as if ID is science that has nothing to do with promoting Judeo-Christian beliefs. All the survey proves is that young kids have great imaginations - if you added "Magic people" or "Fairies" as options along with "God", I wonder how many kids would have chosen the former over the latter. Ask the survey of older, educated kids, and you'll mostly get two answers: "God" from the kids raised to believe in God over fairies and other magic people, or "This survey is B.S.", because "Nobody knows" is not the same as "Natural forces as explained by science". --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the results would be if "Nature Made It" were added to the list. Also, what would happen if "God Made It" was removed, and "Nature Made It" was added instead? Figures don't lie, but liars do figure... Jimaginator (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is "non-theistic" right in any case? I know there's not that much Christianity there, but I'm not sure if there's no theism at all. --Kels (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Shinto is pantheistic, but I also think it's more of tradition than actual religion. Christianity does have some presence though, so non-theistic is not the word to use for Japan. ENorman (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's tradition rather than religion per se, wouldn't it be theistic since it does involve spirits and gods to some degree. I gathered being theistic didn't just mean Christian, it meant worldviews involving any deities. --Kels (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, in Ken's own words, he's admitting that religion is exploiting children's incredulity, which is further confirmed in the bible. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure most of you have heard this argument, but it's till one favorites: essentially the arguments goes if you take someone with no exposure to modern technology (they usually give the example of an African Tribesman or someone from the Rainforests of South America) and show them a car, they may explain it many ways: Maybe magic is running the car, maybe the driver is a god, maybe the car is a god and favors the driver. However, once you explain the principles behind it and show how each piece comes together, they will realize that there is no supernatural force behind it. The difference between this tribesman and the religious? The tribesman accepted an explanation whereas the religious hold fast to their beliefs. Still one of my favorites cause it makes religious people squirm. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 06:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did I just heard cargo cult? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So farewell then...

Law Terms E (393810 views) and Law Terms Z(390,231 views). After arch-sociopath (allegedly) Terry Koeckritz deleted the Law Glossary template they only had borken links. Will Andy now delete the rest of his homeskollar's term templates? I see Andy also updated his site page count to 99,300,000. The excitement is unbearable.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look closer you can see Andy admitting the counter reads 102 million page views. Ace McWicked^Necron99 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to leave the page bumpers on then, provided they are legal in your country of course. At least that way AndyPandy can never claim with any certainty that he broke the 1million mark, as the results will always then be tainted by us rationals.--So close to a million, but how many of those are previous page bumps? More than you care to believe. (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My bumper's on for a handful of hours once every two or three days; I decided to keep it in service following this discussion. I'm adding between half a million and a million page views per week. I'm still pulling articles at random instead of concentrating on any specific page so Andy has no way of disowning my donations. You may thank me now. Mountain Blue (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I wanted to leave my clickbots off, but couldn't resist, so I set off a small farm of machines I have access to, all running through Tor and hitting random pages throughout the system. It's running at a very healthy tick and is most satisfying. I reckon without all the clickbots for the last few years, CP would have only about 5-10m legitimate hits. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The amusing bit is "how is Andy coming up with his totals"? Clearly, he's trying to account for the fake-pageview-storm, but he only compensates for a tiny fraction of them, growing smaller all the time. 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Publius is right. How is Andy deciding when to break the awesome 100,000,000 mark? Or when to give up the silly mainpage views/edits bragging and get over himself? ħuman 03:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When it hits 103 million, I would expect. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

John Holdren WIGO

Maybe I really suck at linguistics, but... why is there a need for a comma between the words "radical" and "techie" on the picture? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the question is being posed "is he a radical?" to a techie, then yes. If they are calling him a "radical techie (technocrat?)", then no. ħuman 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. Now the better question: which techie (They're using singular form, so is it directed to one single techie?) are they asking his/her opinions for? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no, they are just illiterate and the comma does not belong. And TK, king of the misplaced comma, wouldn't notice. ħuman 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Up

File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png

Blocked IPs at CP

From Dec 2008 - Jun 2009, TK and friends have done a marvelous job by blocking 3,500,000 IPs each month. But in Jul 2009, they can't keep up the speed - though numerous vandals use the ongoing absence of Guard Dog to provide him with block reasons.

Number of Active Range Blocks at Conservapedia on Jun 22, 2009

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	382	33	53	93	126	19	197	25	236	4	7	5	3	10	1	0	903
# ∞ Blocks	94	0	2	0	1	0	22	2	88	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	523

What is the problem? Leniency! While Karajou always goes for infinite - and DeanS at least gives five years - TK handed out some shorter punishments: range blocks for six or even three months. Though this should give the impression that he actually knows what he is doing, now, it kicks him in the butt: The blocks are expiring as fast as he is creating new ones: July 2009 will see the end of the blocks

• 81.152.0.0/16
• 217.44.0.0/16
• 92.40.0.0/16
• 80.40.0.0/16
• 79.72.0.0/16
• 139.78.0.0/16
• 83.67.0.0/16

and twenty more will end in August - or will they not? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurry TK! They're disappearing as fast as you're making them! Just go for broke and make them all infinite! I see quite a number of my own blocks are expiring soon. Rest assured they will move swiftly back into action on the frontlines of resisting teh stupidz. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should email him the script to do automatic range blocks. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I could write him one if you like. - π 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey that is nice I'll be able to edit from home again. - π 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

God's beautiful autumn foliage

Apparently some pesky liberal scientists have come up with a deceitful atheistic explanation of those autumn colours... Cantabrigian (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Move it to RationalWiki:Saloon bar, maybe? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking, Batman. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CP account creation borken

Accounts created at CP Jul 8, 2009 - Jul 21, 2009

I predict that account prediction will be completely disabled on CP and all prospective users will need to contact TK privately for permission to start an account, granted only after an intrusive IM session. For the time being, account creation appears to merely be broked. 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

One can always go right after Andy for an account, in order for him to avoid any embrassments he may ask less questions. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are still new editors which aren't banned instantly - though their number is small larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else amused by the fact that Ken Bottoms created an account on Friday and still hasn't been blocked? Of course, now he'll be dead within minutes, but still... Stile4aly (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the chart, nobody is interesting in blocking Ken's hole with their peen either.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well at least Ken has cleared his shit off the left page again^img. (Not worth its own heading, but there is so little happening). - π 04:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I'll miss you Darlin. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lord no. Ken has turned his unique idiot attention to politics. - π 05:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At least he didn't try to photoshop it himself... Obamoleon? Napama? ħuman 05:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Naporack since it's both first names. Also, this is an odd image considering how favorable (the early part is all I read) the Napoleon article is.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Metric System come about because of Napoleon? Metric=Foreign=Communist! Jimaginator (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Naporack HUSSEIN Obamaparte. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By looking at a longer span of time, and dividing the number of accounts that stick by the number of total accounts created, it would be possible to see a percentage of accounts that stick. From there, we could get a trend line for when the chance of an account surviving starts to approach 10%, 5%, zeroooooo.....Jimaginator (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh memories

Due to CP being dead in the water and my fanatical need to keep myself occupied, I have being going over old CP archives and found some hilarious things I had forgotten. For example I refound the page where Andy states he'll debate any atheist or liberal anytime before getting throughly nailed by AmesG who calls him out on it. Great laughs. Ace McWicked^Necron99 22:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Was that when Andy demanded that Ames place a deposit? That was wonderful. Corry (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ray Comfort obviously remembered that when he asked Thunderf00t for a deposit as well. Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was originally posted somewhere on RW but this talk page comment^img from Andy always makes me laugh.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the capture Toast but I already have a screencap.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

it's just a habit. And it might stop TK vanishing things if he knows they've been captured anyway. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He has vanished it already, Hi TK!!! You dishonest prick! I have also discovered a wealth of missing talk page archives, masses of them suddenly...vanished! Ace McWicked^Necron99 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What a slanderous toe-rag I hope he gets sued for that. He forged (not very well as it had already been established that it was a comment from Andy) the page contents which were "Sir, please stop uploading junk. An encyclopedia does not need multiple pictures of processed pork. I'm deleting those images.--Aschlafly 14:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

TK's on a mission to get every mention of his real name removed from RW, and he doesn't care whose innocent lives he fucks up along the way. And Andy, of course, is oblivious - dang, Andy's building an encyclopedia! He's too busy to worry about trivia. Although, TK, you should leave some blocking for Andy, since he finds it very satisfying. ħuman 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

He ought to go for someone else then: we don't come in till number 9 on google. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 06:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Only because Proxima keeps copying our articles. Could we not have a repeat of these privacy policy violations again? - π 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is she still doing that? I saw no evidence of such on the g search oogle for Terry Koeckritz. Granted, it is a habit she has, of putting things on every wiki she has access to, but in this case? ħuman 06:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I got the Liberapedia mirror of the article before ours. Granted their's is in mainspace whilst ours is buried in some subpage off the main wiki contents, but still. We need to use the Terry Koeckritz template more, despite the disadvantage that it takes longer to type. - π 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the view that TK (Terry Koeckritz) wants to get his name removed from here. I think he doesn't give rat's arse about it. What he does want is to make people think he wants it removed, that way he can pull the strings for his childish amusement. He knew that GAmes Caius didn't have any power to get it removed here and that the mob would never allow it - he just wanted to torment our former young friend. Of course, because Terry Koeckritz is a lying (proven), plagiarising (proven), treacherous (proven), deceitful (proven) sociopath (apparently), our erstwhile colleague was forced to leave and concentrate on his blog. TK doesn't care about his name as it doesn't make any difference to his real world life. All these wikis and forums are just a massive RPG for a sad old Walter Mitty character stuck at home looking after his aged mother. No one with a proper job would be able to follow TK's editing pattern. The fact that the Erasmus page was taken down just shows that he's so bored that he needs to monitor us all the time. Being demonised is much more rewarding to a sociopath than being ignored. Генгис^{Gum disease} 07:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you're probably correct on that. Ugly www links mean nothing to tired old men like us; to up and coming young lawyers, they're a pisser. Oh, and you forgot to link to MMORPG. ħuman 07:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a vote?

While things seem a bit quiet over at CP is it time for a vote on biggest idiot, abuse of sysop power, etc? I can't remember when we had the last one but it feels like yonks. StarFish (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for a vote, Ed Poor is still the biggest idiot, and TK is the ultimate abuser of any sort of power. Now go give them their medals. ħuman 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking but then maybe Ed is resting on his laurels just a bit. I mean he used to post regularly with often creepy, always bonkers updates on 17 year old episode of Star Trek or whatever. Great stuff. But since winning the biggest idiot award I think it's gone to his head and he just isn't putting the effort in like he used to. StarFish (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice point and you maked me laff, twice or even thrice. Oh, and I think the ST eps were more like 37 42 years old. What is this world coming to? ħuman 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The last votes were November last year, so it is getting on a bit and Nx has given as a new vote system. The last lot were the Conservapedia Day awards, we just need a hook to get started. Besides I think Jpatt is now the clear biggest idiot. - π 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Ken automatically disqualified to give everyone else a chance? EddyP (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Ken looked a shoe in last time but he came third. I think we should disqualify Ed, instead he should be given a life time achievement award and enshrined in the Professional Idiots Hall of Fame. - π 11:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you can be so assertive about biggest... Ed Poor, JPatt and Rob are very close in the race. Also, we should acknowledge Rob for having the biggest balls at CP, being the only one who will directly face criticism and defend himself. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't around for much of Ed Poor, so I have to go with Jpatt or RobSmith. Probably Rob though, Jpatt is just completely insane. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed "attention span of a cockroach" Poor is now just a shadow of his former self. He used to throw his weight around, laying waste the maths and science articles in particular, while boasting of his great expertise. See Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics for more info on his rampage in 2008. Now he just harasses teenagers, liveblogs old Star Trek episodes, and is generally weird. I doubt that he would merit any prizes now. BTW, I wonder how his writing course went? Gauss (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy himself is easily the biggest idiot this time around. He's totally oblivious. Ace McWicked^Necron99 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals

I used to use "Hitler liked puppies, therefore anyone who likes puppies must be a Nazi!" as an example of a ridiculous argument, thinking no one could be that asinine.

RobS has proved me so very very wrong by implying that Obama wants to protect animals, Hitler and Himmler wanted to protect animals, therefore.... MDB (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Um.....so cruelty to animals is a good thing? --PitchBlackMind (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I nearly wore out my left mouse button upvoting this. Good catch. Fedhaji (talk)

So, lets see.... if you believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, God wanted to protect animals, too, therefore God is a Nazi! QED. I mean, sweet merciful crap, theft was (presumably) against the law in Nazi Germany, too -- if Obama comes out in favor of prosecuting thieves, will that be more "evidence" that he's a Nazi? MDB (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the Religious Right against the whole stomping on animals thing in the 70's and how that was related to the Satanic Panic? Just saying. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They used to say that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Ergo, good timetables=Fascist. Honestly, what the fuck is with these people anyway? Jimaginator (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus breathed oxygen, and so did Hitler, ergo Hitler was Jesus! Man, this stuff works for EVERYTHING! Thank you and your logic, Schlafly Doo and the Conservapedia Gang! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that RobS goes for the Ivan the Terrible theory of life, which is that it is fun to throw puppies out of high windows in the Kremlin. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't "prove" that Jesus breathed oxygen (Since Jesus can be classified as a mythological character, You have to first prove that Jesus has organs that functions as human organs, but there is no autopsy/CT Scan/Xrays/Other things available for validation). You can, however, proved that Andy Schlafly/TK/Jpatt/RobSmith/Karajou/Ken/other CP Sysops breathed in oxygen. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

TK breathes in pure hate. Vulpius (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler wore pants, therefore... --Gulik (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bush family fortune was derived from "doing business with the Nazis." You will recall this story was floated for two decades (of course, the ADL gave the Bush family a clean bill of health on these rumors about 6 months before Jr. left office). Let's follow the logic on this one...David Duke shops at K-Mart, therefore K-Mart does business with Nazis. RobS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense of your Obama/Hitler comparison how?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RobS, what are you on about? Firstly, given what you just said it's hard to believe that you actually think that "Hitler liked puppies, so did Obama, therefore Obama is a Nazi" is a good argument. So I'm guessing your using it in a "dirty liberals said it about Bush, so therefore we can say it about Obama" kind of way. Secondly, whether the Bush family made millions by cooperating with a regime bent on and capable of conquest with a genocidal agenda is different from whether KMart will made a buck out of some idiot with all the influence of a smoked haddock (and that's an influence on the contents of my stomach). Thirdly, saying that making money from such a regime is morally heinous is different from saying that making money from that regime means you subscribe to their political ideology. But I digress. Both your arguments are stupid and wrong. Bil08 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, you didn't honestly expect RobS to construct a sound argument, did you? That he almost managed to string together two consecutive sentences that had something to do with one another is quite an achievement. Baby steps. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this began with a search of PETA's site for Michelle Obama's pledge to be "furr free," and I accidentally came across what appears t o be a personal pledge Obama delivered to the head of PETA. Seems curious enough, with two wars, the global economic meltdown, etc. etc., that both Michelle * Barack would have time to indulge the head of PETA. Then, in reading Obama's comment, "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," that simply did not quite stand up to scrutiny because it is well known that Himmler spoke of being kind to animals. So particularly how Obama would have time with two wars, global economic meltdown, etc. etc., for a personal pledge to the head of PETA seemed curious. And it also appears from Obama's statement that doesn't have clue what he is talking about.

It appears in WP's quest to salvage its credibility & expertise they began with the Animal Rights article. RobS (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, because he certainly wouldn't have time to give a quote about animal rights with all this chaos. It must have taken all of an hour or so to "indulge the head of PETA", I'm surprised the unemployment rate didn't rise to 15% and our troops didn't lose the war in that time. As for his quote not standing up to scrutiny, how a person treats animals isn't a bad way to judge how they treat others.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler found time to both give his views on Animal Rights, and to disastrously (for him) micro-manage a world war.Adolf Sockfucker (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hell, George Bush managed to find the time to take a rather European amount of vacation time, even though he had all the same stuff going on (well, to be fair he was causing the economic meltdown rather than fixing it, so I could see how he'd have more free time). --Kels (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And from the speed and height of the WIGO's vote, I'd say that you can tell what RW thinks. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Obama's are on to something. If Obama were to adopt Hitler's anti-vivisection policy and require the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to eat only vegetables, that could reduce Defense spending and possibly lower the deficit. This probably wouldn't work unless Agricultural subsidies likewise were eliminated. Foodstamps could be restricted to only agricultural products, and that would be in keeping with Michelle's "fur free" pledge to reduce senseless animal slaughter. But the whole idea probably still needs more wathcing and research. RobS (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. Proof positive that no matter what Obama does, no matter how innocuous it is, there's no way he'll catch a break from the paranoid ideologues in the "Conservative" movement. Seriously, the man effectively said "be nice to puppies and other critters", and this is cause for "more wathcing (sic) and research"? Truly incredible. --Kels (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kels my friend, you still miss the point. He said "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other." Obama evidentally never heard of Heinrich Himmler. That's freightning. RobS (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, seriously. He wasn't stating an immutable law of nature. Humans can, indeed, defy such expectations at times. Himmler was one of those cases. It takes a special sort of paranoid ideologue, prepared to criticize Obama for what he eats for lunch (oh wait, even some ridiculous shit like that happened, didn't it?) to automatically call Himmler to mind in response to a "be nice to animals" comment. --Kels (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Not to sound preachie, but this is exactly where Judeo-Christian beleivers have it over godless rational athiests. Psalm 8:4-6 says, "What is man, that thou art mindful... Thou hast put everything in subjection under his feet... [1] So the natural order of things is thus:

God
man
animal

Once you remove God out of the picture the order becomes:

man = animal

Hence if you can kill an animal, you can kill a man. There is no final judgement. This is precisely Nazi propaganda aimed at young people to indoctrinate them into a killing system and ease their consciences and moral qualms they may have harbored from a religious upbringing. You guys should be a little less confrontational sometimes and see CP may be on the same page with some of your objectives. RobS (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, that's a lie and you know it. Removing the Big Sky Daddy does not say killing men is just fine. You should know better than that, although if you're willing to call Obama a Nazi for saying not to kick puppies, you're obviously not smart enough to. --Kels (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? So there is no final judgement, one can kill at will, and God won't send them to hell cause he doesn't exist and there is no one to answer to. So what are we left with, Marx who thought people would willingly become slaves and eat garbage in the gulag out of a sense of civic duty? Good luck with that one. As to Obama, time was I thought he was a Christian, but now I have my doubts. He most assuradly is a Marxist. RobS (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, would an X-ray show if you have an honest bone in your body? Because your words suggest you don't. I've said it before, the inside of your head is a strange and frightening place. Fortunately, reality doesn't mirror it. --Kels (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You can do better. Can't address the points under discussion, so trash the man. Don't make embarass you with that. Thanks. RobS (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt that I'm the one who has much embarrassment to worry about. Just a hunch. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a little more ad hominem: Rob, when you reach your heaven, be sure to Look up Mr McCarthy. You and he seem to be on the same wavelength. Oh, yes Get a spellchecker. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it sure is fun having you around, Rob. Back up a few, you said god > man > animals, then you erred. If we remove gods from the picture, we no longer care what the bible says, so the rest of your "argument" falls apart at the seams. Obama a Marxist? You are so funny when you try. Like I said, it's great having you around. ħuman 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, you're not even consistent. You start with God > Man > Animals and "remove God out of the picture" and go to Man=Animal. That's just wrong, it doesn't make sense. What you should end up with is Man > Animals - which is a whole other debate Worm ^{(t | c)} 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals" That's a slashfic waiting to happen, innit? --Kels (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's the killer?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're using a somewhat different definition of slashfic than I am. Although I guess you could have a "killer" in the metaphorical sense... --Kels (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eeek! I read it as slashflic, which I wrongly assumed was a misspelling of slash-flick. I didn't know you were referring to a RobS/Obama/Hitler/farm animal orgy.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Psst... Rob.... Stop gettting your talking points from whatever radio signals are being beams from your ass to your head. Marx wrote nothing about Gulags. I don't know if you know this, but Karl Marx died in 1883 (no really, look it up). The Russian Revolution and the first Communist State didn't even begin until 1917.... Nice try though my friend. While I'm here, you seem to think that all morality comes soley from God and the bible.... Maybe you should look into the writings of Kant and the categorical imperative.... It's very good and has nothing to do with faith or religion in any way..... Have a nice night. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable... But as for RobS's so called point, he goes from claiming that Obama wanting to defend animals makes him a Nazi, than argues that there's some grand design to indoctrinate young people into thinking killing is okay. That's not even internally consistent. This just depicts how intellectually bankrupt the American conservative movement has become. They have reached the point where "lets treat animals nicely" is considered Nazi indoctrination. Wow. Is there any-fucking-thing B. Hussein!!!!!11one!!ZOMG Hes a Socialist Atheist Muslim!!!!! Obama could do that you would not attack him for? Anything at all? I swear to God in his high heaven, if Barack Obama today walked into the White House press room, held an impromptu news conference, and declared that he had a personal awakening and was going to devote the rest of his Presidency to seeking a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion, the American right would instantly become pro-choice. MDB (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion... RobS, I think it's possible to feel that a certain level of animal cruelty is unacceptable without going all the way down the vegan, animals-are-people-too line of thought. For example, we have laws for those who breed dogs that talk about the minimum cage size, that the dogs must have access to food and water, that their cages must be kept clean, and so on. Many women won't wear fur because they don't see the sense in killing an animal for fashion purposes, yet they'll still eat chicken or beef. Also, it always astounds me to hear the argument that, without religion threatening them with consequences, people will do bad things. The atheists I know are morally good people because it's the right thing to do, and their heart leads them in that direction, *even* when no one's looking. Do religious people not have that inner moral compass? --Too tired to log in (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also coming late to the discussion, I second Too Tired. Robby boy, it is possible to be an atheist and a good human being. Like 2tired said, there is such a thing as an inner sense of morality even if a God is absent from ones life. As for your Obama-Hitler comparison... excuse my English, but it's pretty fucking pathetic. The same logic as saying you can use the same server for a PS3 and an Xbox 360 - the wishful dreams of a madman. SJ ^Debaser 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the christian god provides that inner moral compass you feel. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a flashback to when Philip was pulling the same dishonest stunt of claiming that fear of God's punishment is the only thing standing in the way of a global orgy of rape, torture and murder, which atheism will inevitably lead to (I'm lookin' at you, PZ Myers!). Basically I mentioned the idea that religion didn't come first, but that morality is a natural part of the formation of social structures and goes right back to the very first co-operation between humans. Societies and cultures develop morals based on these basic building blocks, and society thrives. Then religion comes along, adopts the morals that everyone is following already and takes credit for making it up in the first place. Inherently dishonest, I know, but that's how it goes. However, complex societies have a way of getting away from its roots, especially when those roots are actively denied (i.e., we're better than animals!). So you get cases where leaders with power see themselves as so separate that they're above even basic requirements of humanity, something that seems to come from a religious template (god-emperor, Pope is infallible, etc.) and you get dictators, holocausts and the like. But that doesn't invalidate anything but their own mistakes. So to recap, morality is there naturally, religion lies and claims it made up morality when all it did is co-opt it, and the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, etc. are no more an inevitable by-product of disbelief than growing wings is. --Kels (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kels: "goes back to the very first co-operation between humans" - I think you understate here. While AFAIK humans do have a particularly good ability to co-operate which has proven to be very important, there are plenty of other animals that have been able to live and work together without slaughtering each other at the first opportunity. Anyway, this debate always frustrates me as a philosophy fan because it denies the existence of secular ethics (Immanuel who? Ariswhatle?) while ignoring the Euphythro, a minor Platonic dialogue that decisively refuted "God as a source of morality" a good 2500 years ago (and there's not that much in philosophy that anyone's kept decisively refuted for more than a hundred years or so.) Bil08 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, loads of animals do it and there's recent evidence that there is some form of actual moral code among animals. But we are actually talking human morality here so it seemed simpler just to focus on the human version. No sense cluttering it up too much when all we're dealing with is Rob, who probably won't understand much of it anyway. --Kels (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusing Development

I tried to look into the consequences of conservapedia's treatment of new editors:

Active editors at CP sorted by time of membership

Active editors at RW sorted by time of membership

The most amusing part: last month, when I took the numbers of active editors (editors who commented at least once over the last seven days) RationalWiki had ~140 active editors, while there were ~170 at conservapedia. Today, the conservapedia's statistic's page states a number of 92 active editors, while there are 130 at rationalwiki (see here).

At the moment, the chance to survive for a new editor at conservapedia are slim to none...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean we grow larger than CP now? This is profound. Nice Job again, LArron. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

how many such active editors on CP survived whatever arbitrary period or number of unreverted edits? IIRC the last few weeks on CP have seen an unusual number of caca dodo usernames that didn't last very long. We don't have that problem. Umm hehe, yeah. I didn't see the graphs because I was editing on a handheld. 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Too Whipped To Work Up A Proper WIGO

Has anyone happened to notice that Andy is a half-wit? Here he goes on about how The President is some kinda traitorous foreigner because he said "this country" in reference to the USofA instead of saying "our country". He's mentioned this before, that a real American would always say "our" and not "this". Never mind that it's a perfectly normal phrase, and that a search for "this country" on CP brings up endless examples of said formulation used by every politician and conservative hero that's ever been, from Washington and Lincoln to Reagan and Limbaugh, and Andy himself uses the phrase regularly in his lectures and other rants.--WJThomas (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the same as republicans having bigger flag lapels. Nationalism bullshit like that really pisses me off. BTW, Andy never has a flag lapel in any of the pictures he puts up of himself. Think he loves American as much as he says he does?--Tabris (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a trap. Saying "our" is problematic because it may be misinterpreted as "inclusive we" that people will bash him about including illegal immigrants into the "our" notation. Saying "my" simply will be misinterpreted as "This country is all mine, so f*** off!". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to Andy either way, he just needed to relieve his priapism for bashing Obama. If Obama had said "our country", Andy probably would've been all "What does he mean by our country?!! Is this perhaps a vague reference to the Muslim shadow government that has truly installed him into power???????"--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Gettysburg Address Lincoln referred to the US as "that nation", by Andy's logic he must be even more foreign. - π 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All can be understood by assuming Andy = Aspberger's + conservative RC upbringing. (No offense to any RW aspies out there!)--Too tired to log in (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obscene usernames

I would like to think that the lastest barrage of obscenity at CP isn't anyone from this dark side of town. Its getting a little over the top. Ace McWicked^Necron99 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, now if it stops if definitely was "us"? I thought it was mostly a response to our pointing out Andy's (and others') foray into blacklisting strings, probably instigated at anonymous, not here. Could have been "us", of course. Who knows? ħuman 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression Ebaum's World does most of the childish vandalism to CP. I have never dived into their forums to find out. - π 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jersey politicians

I couldn't remember if those guys who got busted in Jersey were dems or GOP, so I checked conservapedia. Since there's nothing about it on the main page, I'm guessing they were republicans. Czolgolz (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're actually almost all Democrats (one Republican); you can't be corrupt unless you're in power, and the Dems have controlled Jersey for quite a while now. [2]. But mostly I just want to quote lyrics to you: "Czolgosz, Angry man, Said, "I will do what A poor man can. Yes, and there's nowhere More fitting than In the Temple Of Music By the Tower Of Light Between the Fountain Of Abundance And the Court of Lilies At the great Pan-American Exposition In Buffalo, In Buffalo." - Poor Excuse (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I chose to live in NJ because that is where our Lord and Saviour resides too. The scandal is all over the news. In my opinion, CP is in a bind about this because, yes, it's mostly Dems, but there is also 1 GOP, and a bunch of rabbis. How can CP cover this? Unless they can find that the only innocents are the people they want to be innocent, it's going to be a big problem. My prediction is that it will never make their news. Jimaginator (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken and composites

Say, for the sake of argument, that Ken was actually honest over there at aSK (I know, but just for the sake of argument) and he's actually too incompetent to create those idiotic Hitwin and Obapolean composites. So I was thinking, where are you most likely to find 'shoops that retarded? Why, Little Green Racists, of course! They're all retarded children...I mean, staunch Conservatives over there, and they love that kind of shit. Dunno if that's actually where they came from, I'm not masochistic enough to wade into that sewer to find out, but they do come off as soulmates to the luntics over at CP, don't they? Ken would feel right at home. --Kels (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't get past the shitty tone on LGF to discern much more than that the blogger is angry and put-upon, or something. The one worthwhile thing I found there is a link to a Daily Show segment dealing with persistent birthers that briefly features Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., JD, DDM, LRB, the crackpot attorney/dentist/real estate agent pursing several birther lawsuits in federal court. Stewart's lambasting of her is precious. She is a wild and crazy guy. If you don't recall, she or someone impersonating her briefly popped up on Conservapedia and was welcome with a vanity page by Jpratt and a Terry Koeckritz lovemistrust-fest. I surmise from the lack of traffic on her talkpage that DrOrlyTaitzEsq didn't respond to TK's overture, and yet wasn't blocked, for surely TK himself recognizes that any reasonable person not worth pissing off would be offended by his open mistrust. Plus he's a giant coward whose tactics only work when he's harassing the anonymous and (he hopes) powerless. Taitz gets quoted in WorldNutDaily alot more than TK does, as far as I can tell. 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ken certainly did not create the Hitwin image. In fact, I'm quite sure it appeared on RW before CP. No he got it from somewhere else. Let's face it, Ken is far too stupid to create anything like that. I think the only reason he isn't the overall winner of CP's biggest idiot is because he's too obvious and it's just too easy. That and the fact that's it's pretty clear he has at least some sort of mental disability. DickTurpis (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worth WIGO-tweaking, but...

You'll notice that while Obama's exit from the honeymoon phase of approval ratings is front-page newsworthy, no one over at CP is going to acknowledge that Sarah Palin now has unfavorable ratings over 50%, and that her approval is dropping even among 'true believer' Republican Evangelicals. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

in passing

While looking at something completely different I noticed that CP's longest page at 297kb was [cp:http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pan-Arabism&limit=500&action=history chiefly written] by cp:User:MasteRing who was blocked as a sock of Human. Just sayin'. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)