Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

Template:AOTW Navigation As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] 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

Make Karajou Funny (sticky)

moved to Forum:Making Karajou funny

Haha, that's funny, the forums were created to take the load off the SB, but it's perfectly applicable here too. Should there be a "conservapedia" category added to the fora now? ħuman 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just did exactly that. Fairly easy, nice work tech guys! ħuman 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

More TK/Jensen dust-up

TK oversights one of Jensen's edits and calls him liberal^img after DanielPulido edited some talk page comments of Jensen's.^img Coarb (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TK smells blood - he knows RJ is vulnerable. I thought some estimates of a week were quite optimistic, but then, I don't expect to see RJ still there in a month - particularly with the continued baiting over dimwitted professors. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You never know - all it takes is one flame war with TK or Andy to end it all. It could happen at any time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all it takes, but that's not really what's happening. There are a number of editors in the cross-hairs this time, and I don't think they know how to get shut without causing extreme embarrassment. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pile on begins

RobSmith questions Jensen's conservative bone fides, with real evidence^img

-- Coarb (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little Red Guard ish don't you think? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No more so than what happens here, nearly every week. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's simply because there's no secret discussion group to hide all the edits/comments, which in thanks to you, we know exists. :3 And besides, the arguing is usually about following policy (from what I can tell), something Conservapedia can't seem to grasp. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Rob was absent the day MYOB became a blockable offence Entering into disputes not involving editor (MYOB) . Oh wait... he's an admin - rules and commandments don't apply to them. Silly me. --PsygremlinParlez! 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have a dog in this fight. The discussion began here. I needed time to study the Ben Bernanke & Larry Summers cites Dr. Jensen uses. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Rob, that "dog" is six months old. Nothing like digging up old bones is there. --PsygremlinSpeak! 08:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle much? --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aw! are we all butthurt agwain? C'mere I kiss it all better for you. --PsygremlinTal! 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, Ed!

Man, the guy has gone over the rim now. What's this overwriting JacobB's talkpage with a writing plan demand? Where the fuck did this come from? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He put things in a mathematics article that confused Ed. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's own, accurate writing plan would actually be a pretty funny thing to read. --Retwa (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing that I was kind of cheering JacobB after his smackdown/bluff-calling of Ed? Well, somewhat less so after he chickened out.

Ed is such a complete asshole, he left a TEMPLATE and edit comment on a page telling other people to do a copy paste job. Like he couldn't have done it himself in seconds.

Maybe someone should ask Ed for a writing plan. He hasn't made a legitimate article-length contribution to Conservapedia in weeks. All he does is tinker with existing articles, start stubs, and ban people. JacobB has made better and more insightful contributions to CP and he's a parodist. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Java

What's the betting he means Javascript? Judging by what he's turned to (PHP, HTML and CSS) I'd be willing to wager on it. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are HTML, PHP and CSS programming languages? They are computer languages sure, but I would call them scripting languages. - π 08:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking, html is a markup language, php is a scripting language, css is a style sheet language. - π 08:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet he means Javascript. But it's a slightly odd talk page comment anyway - who cares what his favourite language is? Doofus. --Worm^{(t | c)} 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. I started with C/C++ about 12 years ago, and I'm only just starting to have a good tinker with javascript myself; there's not quite as many ampersands involved as with C, but that's beside the point. My point is that he might actually know a proper (proper being 3GL or lower) language, and is merely starting to branch into web-dev. I actually call bullshit on Ed being proficient in any language whatsoever, that moron can't even handle wiki markup, so pig's arse he can handle java/script - or even HTML for that matter. -Redback^G'day 09:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pig's arse thing was what I meant; I can't see that Ed would have any proficiency in a true language, judging by his (lack of) competence in even wiki markup. He's claimed to have organised a database for someone (forget who) but ... ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably means he's linked a few tables in Access. I've been programming as a tinkerer for over 20 years, and I wouldn't really call myself 'proficient' in any language to be honest. I can usually knock something together in Perl or VB for pretty much any task, but it's not a pretty sight :) --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I still have never messed with javascript outside of tutorials. And anyone who says java is their favorite language is an idiot. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I seem to recall you saying more-or-less the same thing to me, but with Visual Basic. Just because a language is limited and crappy doesn't mean it can't be your favorite, it comes down to what you like to fuck around with in your spare time. In this case, assuming creepy Uncle Ed meant to say javascript, I can easily see how that would be a favorite of many, because it's fun to screw around with without really needing much concentration (hence the enjoyment I get from VB... and I enjoy this VB as well). In Ed's case however, I think javascript would be a favorite because it's so easy to "borrow" script from other sources, slap them together and create some kind of Frankenscript, which seems like the kind of thing Ed would do. -Redback^G'day 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neveruse is a good man. It comes down to not being an idiot. --Swedmann (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So... being able to program in several languages and choosing to spend your free time tinkering with simpler languages that are fun to play with is being an idiot? Seems to me it'd be more idiotic to not spend your free time doing what you enjoy. If there's something I'm not seeing, if there's any logic behind this, I'd love to hear it.
I mean, it's like saying that it's idiotic to visit RW when there are much bigger sites out there with more content, eight forums, thirty four RSS feeds and over twenty thousand members. Just because sites like that exist, and we know to how use them, doesn't mean we have to use them, maybe some of us prefer RW, just as some of us prefer VB over C++. We can still use the larger site/C++ from time to time because we know it exists and we know how to use it, we'd just rather not waste our spare time idiotically when we could be doing something we enjoy even more. -Redback^G'day 16:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

VB is not fun to play with. VB is not simple. You need a taste. And C++ has nothing to do with this. --Swedmann (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Okay, clearly you didn't understand what my post immediately following Neveruse's was about, so it seems it was a bit idiotic of you to speak up over it, hmmm? If you'd bothered to actually read the post and follow the links, you'd see that I was refering to a previous occassion where Neveruse had a swipe at me for switching from C++ to VB (which I state on my user page, referenced in the discussion I linked to); so I'm afraid C++ does have something to do with it. As for your claim regarding VB not being simple, are you a bit simple yourself? Tell me, what does the B in BASIC stand for? One of the frigging original design principles of BASIC was that it would be easy to fucking use. -Redback^G'day 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the original design principles of FORTRAN or COBOL was that it would be easy to use. There's easy as in 'I can print "BOOP"' and there's easy as in usable. eg

#!/usr/bin/perl

use Gtk2 -init;
use Gtk2::WebKit;

$w = Gtk2::Window->new;
$w->resize(500, 500);
$sw = Gtk2::ScrolledWindow->new;
$view = Gtk2::WebKit::WebView->new;

$w->add($sw);
$sw->add($view);
$w->signal_connect('delete-event' => sub { Gtk2->main_quit });

$view->open('http://www.google.com');

$w->show_all;
Gtk2->main;

is a crappy browser without address bar in perl. Perl's not the coolest or freshest language, but CPAN is huge and there's a module for everything. You could mail the above thing to anyone on just about any platform and they could run it. VB is old, unexciting and ugly. --Swedmann (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, let me help you out there with a bit of VB. Want to add an address bar to your browser? Add a text box, a go button and three lines of code:

Private Sub cmdNavigate_Click()
   Browser1.navigate (txtAddress.text)
End Sub

That was so hard, I don't even know how I managed! How about some back and forward buttons?

Private Sub cmdBack_Click()
   Browser1.GoBack
End Sub
Private Sub cmdForward_Click()
   Browser1.GoForward
End Sub

Gee, you sure were right, VB isn't easy. I don't know how anyone could learn such a difficult language. As for CPAN, do you really think that a community makes a programming language? Even if it were so, VB has a large community and is supported by MSDN. However, the only two reasons for wanting a large community are for help (fair enough, but maybe read the documentation next time) or to copy other people's code samples, which I don't think is very exciting at all. If you can't program without having to get your source code from others, what's the point? Why not just download a compiled version and skip the programming altogether? -Redback^G'day 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything you just said was wrong and idiotic and misses the point, although my example wasn't too good. Here is a face recognition script in a niche language R, a quite short one. Yet no promising ghits for vb. You can do $BROWSER http://www.google.com in sh too. How can anyone like a language with 'End Sub'? --Swedmann (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I decided to check RW after I couldn't get to sleep. Now I feel strangely obligated to respond to this crap once again.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything wrong, but by all means keep telling yourself that.
While quite impressive (did you download it from CPAN?), your facial recognition script misses the target. I'm discussing which program language I enjoy to tinker with, on the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening. Where the fuck does facial recognition fit into that? Facial recognition - if I came up with the algorithm myself - is not a weekend project which I could complete in my spare time. Maybe you don't understand that I don't like using other people's code, other people's algorithms, I don't find it fun; and unless I were to do so, do you really think I'm going to need a language capable of achieving facial recognition?

In case you haven't noticed, which I don't think you have, this page is here so that folks can come and ridicule a group of people who have the extreme mindset:
"I don't like X. Therefor, X is bad and nobody should like X."
When dealing with Conservapedia, X can be defined as Atheism, homosexuality, socialism or pretty much anything that crosses their minds. Define X as VB however, and look at how well you fit into the shoes of those we're here to ridicule. All for the sole reason of "I don't like VB".

I'm going to leave this discussion here, as I feel it's going terribly off-rail, I don't think it's going to go anywhere and I don't think you are willing to see how moronic it is to ridicule someone because they don't like the same programming language as you. -Redback^G'day 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Redback, you are not an idiot. Make the best of it. Learn to play the flute. But first Redback, please forgive me. _{I'm sorry about all this, Redback} --Swedmann (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hugs and kisses, now I'm off to learn how to play the flute^{that I created in VB using mid files, bwahahaaa!} -Redback^G'day 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just comment that there is a _reason_ that UseNet put the programming-languages discussion groups in the alt.religion hierarchy, and leave it at that. --Gulik (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong...

...when I said no one uses Conservapedia as a reference. One person does: the man who writes it. I think my brain has just been broken. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that. "Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!" SJ ^Debaser 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you can really count him, although it may explain a lot Hamster (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish he'd say what he really thinks. His knowledge comes straight from God, and manifests itself through Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm not too surprised or amazed. Of course he's going to say that, it's not like he would ever admit that his blog is shite. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!"

Really, that explains everything you need to know about Conservapedia. And right-wing nutbars in general. --Gulik (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor silence(d)

He was very active on the 18th. On the 19th, he slapped Jake with his gauntlet and threw it to the floor. Since then, nothing. Does this soap opera only run every other day? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he's back now, phew. Who knew Edward Woodward was a conservative? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If he keeps up at this rate, 90% of CP will be stubs. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's great watching Ed in full flow. Dozens of little edits, each one making Conservapedia a little bit worse.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

33000 pages on CP, 18000 are less than 1000 bytes. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And he's back to his usual creepy self as well. Röstigraben (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He can't even remain consistent in his thoughts within a single sentence. 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that's creepy compared to this creepy. And anyone who disputes that Muslims are child molesting pedophiles, well, you can just look the facts up on Wikipedia! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought there are many examples of changing morality one could use (cannibalism came to my mind), but Uncle Ed just has to go down that road. --PsygremlinRunāt! 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed

You argue that democracy is an equalizer because the disadvantaged can use their vote to achieve quality, and you seemingly consider that a good thing. So, then if the "disadvantaged" voted to implement confiscatory taxation on incomes over $100K and directly transfer the money to the working poor, you'd think that's all fine and dandy? MDB (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about Ed, but the standard conservative response to that question would be that government intervention to redistribute wealth are a bad way to promote equality, possibly because they reduce opportunity and incentives to work.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Government is the boogie man. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read that sentence a few times and I can only see it as an argument for democratic socialism. This rather underlines a feeling I have had for a while that Conservapedia does not so much espouse conservative values, as hate "liberals". They have no positive or even coherent philosophy, only "it is wrong when a democrat says it". If Obama had uttered the exact same phrase he would be called a Marxist all over the front page. - π 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're spot on. Conservative values seem to mean very little to Conservapedians in general, it's all about bitching about them darn liberals. Anything a liberal does, even if most normal conservatives see no problem in what they're doing, is a disgusting act of depravity that angers god Andy. There are many instances of people being booted from CP who appeared to be good (as in, not batshit crazy) conservatives, but just happened to have one or two views that are more on the liberalism side of the spectrum. As soon as the L word appears, the user disappears ^{occasionally turning up here}. You're right, infinite number thing that does my head in, Conservapedia doesn't give two shits about respecting conservative values, only about nitpicking at anything that has ever been named, referred to, or simply thought of as liberal. For IPU's sake, the head moron over there wants the word liberal removed from the bible, enough said really. -Redback^G'day 10:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Andy's beliefs, like the tea-bagging "movement" are not founded on supporting much of anything, its just about being opposed to the liberals, Big Bad Barack especially. A prime example is the Chicago Olympics. To my knowledge, no one on the right had expressed any opposition to Chicago getting the Olympic bid (and if they did, I'd guess it was locals who didn't want the hassle that comes with being an Olympic City.) They sure as hell didn't say a word when Bush the Lesser gave a mild "yay, Chicago" endorsement during his Presidency. As soon as Obama got involved, though, the right went ape-shit. And they didn't even raise coherent objections to Chicago's bid -- it was, quite clearly, "Obama wants it, we're opposed to it." So, they openly cheered when an American city failed, because they wanted Obama to be humiliated. And then they ask "why do liberals hate America?" MDB (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Take that Bethe example. If he had not publicly endorsed Kerry they would not care a physicist had been quoted in Wikipedia's article on the SDI, instead on an engineer. - π 10:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually having read it again it was put in by CPalmer. Is he in Andy's good books or not, I don't keep track any more. - π 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Panto and Conservapedia

Conservapedia is seemingly agin cross dressing.

The article mentions cross dressing in pantomime.

Anyone care to do 'Conservapedia - the Panto' (possibly involving kilts, or tights). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't a Panto in tights lead to a Codpiece size war ? that would not be a pretty sight :( The male lead is of course played by a woman, so what woman would play Andy ? or would the lead be TK or maybe Uncle ED ? I vote for Paris Hilton or maybe Miley Cyrus. Hamster (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia, the panto, would suffer badly from the lack of stock characters (oh no it wouldn't). Who's the dame for a start? Bob Soles (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Phylis Schlafly? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

played of course by Alan Alda or perhaps Kirk Cameron, a gold lame dress, strapless of course with a small tiara blinking Conservapedia. Hamster (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the woman from Fight Club who says crazy yet insightful quotables? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Speak not her name, or she will appear! Either way, Ken would have to play Bottom. --PsygremlinParlez! 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any female contributors on CP (after Kate Sorenson facted her way right out of there!) to play the lead? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only little Phy and Taj (if she's still around). As far as I know HSMom, Bethany (& sister) and Justine have all seen the light and left CP as Andy likes it - white and male. --PsygremlinZungumza! 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From the lack of female contributors, how does one infer that the Wiki lacks editors who have darker skin? And how does it possibly infer that Mr. Schlafly likes it white? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Mr Schlalalfly likes his men like his coffee... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Black and bitter, or ground up and in the freezer? Unemployed philosopher (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Before you guys all said it I kinda realized the same thing... other than homskollars doing homework and tests, CP seems to have become an exclusively male province. ħuman 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly a surprise, given the rampant misogyny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

doesnt ED talk of Sailor Moon ? does that make him the token pre-pubescent girl ?

Again, a moonie in anime-terms is a fan of Sailor Moon. You guys can make jokes about which group he is in--Thanatos (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Human: It's called "the best of the public." Buh-dum-pshhh.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that CP is an exclusively male province but that it is a middle to old-aged, white, misogynistic, misanthropic, reactionary, male province. And while you guys fantasize about Conservapedia - The Panto all we are really left with is Conservapedia - The Pants. E.J.Thribb 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please to choose your divisive buzzwords more carefully. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have anyone watching the CBP?

Is there anything happening besides Ecclesiastes to watch? --Opcn (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly has been trying to insert conservative buzzwords into the Gospels again. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the pace has slowed a lot. Andy does the main editing on the New Testament Gospels, while TerryH is working on the Old Testament at a crawl. My take on the CBP is that Andy's real interest is in making sure he's the only one interpreting what Jesus says in the four main Gospels - outside of that he's showing about as much interest as he does for any project he starts once the first few weeks have passed, i.e. none.

I wish he would write a book, that would be great. --Opcn (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would jump at the opportunity of doing a side-by-side on that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's book already exists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFmwMxfy-Ik 82.23.209.253 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The pdf file see pages 25 to 39. Muchly good info in the first two dozen pages...outstrips CP by a mile, (1.2K). 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Anyone notice Ecclesiastes 5:3^img? --Opcn (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little too obvious, I'm afraid. The only person who could get away with such a blatant case of applied SchlaflySpeak would be... Andy. Unfortunately, it looks like ChrisY has answered the shout-out for help with this page, and he's cleaning up the crap removing the laughs again. --04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That guy is clearly a poser. I edit the CBP, but I do it from the Greek so my edits are sparse. It takes like half an hour to do a few verses well. A contrived opportunity to practice Greek is the only reason I do it. I have no idea why I'm admitting this. 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The OT will never be done by anyone who isn't a poser, if you can read ancient Hebrew then you have a real skill, why use it on the CBP? ECC is easily the best book of the bible, Solomon was probably a little manic depressive (or just depressive). Also if you look at the basically schlafly article about word analysis in the bible it seems to indicate that the bible needs moar schlafly! --Opcn (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to point out his edits to Eccles as an example of how to do the CBP right, but what's the difference really - his "translations" may be more poetic, scan better, and stay truer to the text than Andy's, but they're both still playing Bible Telephone. Going over CBP edits with the handy Parallel Bible has just given me a new appreciation for how careful and exact the KJV translators were. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I try to continue the general effort...I managed to get some pretty big stuff approved. Alas, I can't talk about it, so you'll have to see for yourself. --Ireon (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken's incoherence

How can an article in an encyclopaedia, be a good use of an encyclopaedia?^img - π 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's talking to himself...again. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

aSK is down, so he can't attract our attention that way. - π 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if he made those videos himself. The quality is certainly low, but the familiarity with the material is high. ħuman 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose these were the waves he was going on about. So much build up for so little. To be honest I have come to expect that from him now. Three YouTube videos that will probably never get more that 1,000 views. It is sad to see him try so hard for such little results. - π 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I haven't watched the YT video as I have an extremely slow connection at the moment, but I can already see the production values in the first few seconds (a camera pointed at a PC screen, with "conservapedia" written in notepad - with the YT star pointing at the screen with a pen...). Given the shiteness of the video, and the shiteness of the five comments (Ken's one actually says "good use of encyclopedia~ " (sic), why is Ken so keen to highlight it? Really, Kenny-boy, it's nowt to be proud of! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile, Ken has already won. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Not that guy again. He also did a video on the evolution article for Ken. Then when Ken posted that on the front page, the guy did a video about how his video was on the front page. Which Ken then posted on the front page and the cycle went around once more.

I sent the guy an email begging him to use Capture Fox, but he never replied. He heavily moderates all comments, so unless you are blowing smoke up his arse, your comment won't get approved. - π 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All religionist youtubers seem to be like that - ratings disabled and comments heavily moderated (if enabled). I like the thought of Ken getting in to that perpetual loop though, how did it end? Do you think it will happen again. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy didn't make a fourth video. - π 09:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible, or even probable, that Ken and this YT guy is the same person? Etc 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that question has already been asked. My guess is yes, he makes these videos himself. Etc 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually roll my eyes at these guys who can't even manage to clean their houses or put on a clean shirt when they're trying to talk about serious shit - but Shockogod takes the cake for lazy production value. And it's fucking brilliang. Why bother using your noodle when all you have to do is read someone's shitty article. This will be my big YouTube break. 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's Conservative. On another of ShockofGod's videos he's chatting up some biker in a gas station and says his name's Rich. SJ ^Debaser 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Challenge on!

Right then, who fancies making a YT video about CP, then trying to get Ken to feature it on the main page? (SuperJosh need not apply) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I really want to, but I don't have a video camera. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Woe with me! My spectacularly bad YouTube videos I posted about 5 months ago have yet to be recognised by the great Conservative! SJ ^Debaser 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it then, Josh! Your videos are certainly of the standard enjoyed by Ken, I'm sure he'd like the "British conservative praises conservapedia" angle. Can you do a David Cameron voice? (Not that Andy would consider him to be a 'conservative', despite being leader of the Conservative party. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit now) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually mind trying that, though I don't think I'd like the negative attention from the YouTube community, it has too much of a massive religious vs. atheist and conservative vs. liberal userbase. SJ ^Debaser 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Set up another account to use for your CP vid. Open it now and look at it now and favourite a few bible-bashing/right-wing vids so Ken doesn't spot that it's just been opened to make his video. (Is he that clever?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou is taking a long time...

creating his Massachusetts junior senator 'toon isn't he. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

True art takes time, and is worth the waiting. Which doesn't explain why Karajou's latest is delayed. MDB (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really follow recent elections, so I'm hoping he'll go with something absolutely random again. Atheism in public schools maybe? --Sid (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He was likely scribbling something about the Dems pushing through healthcare, and had to give up when it turned out they weren't going to do that. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's a God-bashing idiot, part II. Was it worth the wait? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

At least he confesses his problem in the first sentence. Vulpius (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's... the first Karajou cartoon that's not even worth making fun of. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

I wonder if Andy's ever seen his own Victor Jara article. It sure makes his hero, Pinochet, look bad. I know Andy doesn't read this, but maybe you could point out a whitewash is needed here, TK. Liberal claptrap in Conservapedia? Surely it cannot stand! Oh, and see if you can get Andy to use the term "liberal claptrap" in his edit summary. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting news story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34958965/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake 'the two church-goers from New Jersey had the best intentions in the world when they arrived in Port-au-Prince this week to help victims of Haiti’s killer earthquake.' ...'Trouble was, that was all they had' ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.112 / talk / contribs}

No comment! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Goddamned liberal commie Haitians don't appreciate the value of prayer. That's obviously what the New Jersey folk brought, AND THEY CENSORED IT! This wouldn't have happened if Reagen were in charge. You know what, I bet that news story was published by gay lesbian atheists. Perhaps they brought memorized verses of the most logical book in the world, the Bible. Hey, speaking of which, I just got a brand new insight! *Runs off to rewrite another portion of the most logical book ever written* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But..but.. this is impossible. Not only are they the Best of The Public^TM, but they're also good Chrisjuns. Norseman is right. This is surely a liberal conspiracy, and I'm certain that Andy will get to the bottom of it as soon as Ed and Karajou return home. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The sheer weight of all the aid workers, even if they dont actually have aid with them, will help stabilize the fault that caused the first quake. The Haitians should not grieve for the dead , after all the voodoo preists will have them back up and moving in no time at all. :( Hamster (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

About to get banned on CP, a worthy cause

Ok, I'm about to get banned on CP again, with my best account yet, for trying to discuss something with both Assfly and TK. This concerns the recent despicable Supreme Court decision to make government by Monsanto, of Pfizer, and for Walmart (corporations no longer have limits on campaign contributions). As things continue you can see them here^img. ScientificRigor (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make it on CP, you have to use facts less and agree more. Nice post, though. Make sure to use the <capture></capture> tags for links to anything particularly good on CP. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I. for one, welcome our SAME OLD corporate overlords. --Gulik (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And the banhammer has fallen. It feels strangely comforting knowing that I can get banned for pointing out Andy's grammar errors. Oh yeah, and for a fact here and there. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is just trying to prove himself. I wonder who he is here... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Irritating parodist, he should have let Andy try to answer, so we can laugh. Andy usually hands out short blocks, too. Broccoli (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you kept your actions to yourself, you'd have had a bit of a chance. Posting here was a sure fire way of getting whacked unless you're a sysop of course. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am JacobB! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC4)He's not even a good parodist. A real CP sysop would have made up a reason like last-wordism or 90/10 or Trolling/Liberal Trolling. Or the classic Schlafly "bye". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How can we ever get the old Spartacus joke going when someone asks who someone is, if no one participates? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what happened. I'm ScientificRigor. Whoever DanieleGiusto is is anybody's guess. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know we can get anybody banned, at any time, by claiming here to be them. 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I forget who did it, but someone got TK to ban his own IP...or conservapedia's IP...or something hilarious. Taking responsibility for a random CP users actions is great fun. Let's you know who's watching. Let's them know their your bitch. Jacob, step your game up. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone got TK to ban CP's actual IP, and I got TK to ban the Eagle Forum's IP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I never blocked my own IP, that I can remember, and since you don't have check user here, I doubt anyone knows it, and since I could unblock myself, doing that would do what? As for the Eagle Forum, do you honestly believe their server tries to post on CP? --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually a sysop can edit through a blocked IP, even if it is not set to anon only. - π 01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference was to Conservapedia's IP, not your own. The block of the Eagle Forum server was intended, I believe, to demonstrate that you are prone to blocking IPs that are unassociated with vandals. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, whaddayouknow? TK concedes that we don't have checkuser. 86.134.119.71 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Concedes? You cannot recognize sarcasm? --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have realized that posting here would have led to a ban. I think it was because I called dear leader Assfly (not on CP, of course; that would be liberal namecalling), honestly, although initially I thought I'd get it from the open mind and godspeed parts, which were pretty clear mockery. The ban expires tomorrow and I'll get back to correcting grammar errors and spelling mistakes like a good CP user, although I don't have it in me to feign conservative ideology. I was just very upset by the ruling, and still am. Also, I get a kick out of the fact that Daniele is Italian for Daniel (if I were a girl it would be Daniela), and that it was immediately assumed that I'm a girl. ScientificRigor (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, hard up for kicks much? Perhaps you need a good hobby! --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- π 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Like messin with Conservapedia? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am ASchlafly ... what didn't work? Oh well, back to the drawing board. I did notice someone else doing what looked like taking credit for my sock a little while ago, that made me unhappy. --Opcn (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and SCOTUS

The US Congress has been behaving like the legislature of a failed state. No matter what issue/problem we present to Congress, by the time it comes out the other end of the sausage machine it's been reduced and repacked into a series of corporate welfare measures. This happens no matter whether the agenda is right-wing or left-wing. Bush proposes Medicare Part D, it turns into a handout to PhRMA. Obama proposes a public option, it turns... into a handout to PhRMA. No matter who wins elections, the public interest loses.

When you look at it that way, why should Conservapedia be so happy about more corporate money in politics? Exxon will be able to spend moar money to defeat those dirty hippies, true. But who do you think is going to win in a fight between homeschoolers and Prentice Hall? How about anti-vaccine nutsos and Merck? How about small government teabaggers and Goldman Sachs or ADM?

Corporations militate against the political agendas of both the grassroots right AND the grassroots left. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Lipton might be on the teabaggers side. - π 06:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

buh-dum-pssh... 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New Weakly toon (intresting thing about God)

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/6/62/WToon22.JPG Notice how he subtracts God the first time (thus making evolution anti-God), but then he subtracts God a Second time, only this time, God has a "no" sign around it (or whatever they are called), meaning they subtracted the negative of God, which would make the amount of God in Evolution = zero. Which is certainly not what they are arguing, but is the truth, that the theory of evolution is pro or anti-God. Unless karajou is sending us messages that he is secretly a liberal, it was just a screw up, but I am selectively OCD, so I just needed to say that. (I am a Christian, and I do believe in God, but I don't see any reason why God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive, but then again, I am not completely batshit insane) EDIT: I would also like to point out that he did the same thing for common sense.--Passerby25 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, that cartoon does explain conservative's view of evolution: "I don't understand it so it's wrong". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Crundy, that sums up CP perfectly. (In addition to "I don't like it so it's wrong") DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems that once Karajerk gets into his groove, it's hard to get out of it. Hot on the heels of dozens of Climategate & Climate summit cartoons, we're now getting "evolution on a blackboard" cartoons. This is almost identical to last week's and even less funny. Please, snookums, punchline, baby, punchline. --PsygremlinPraat! 09:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's still an idiot

Geez, Ed, really? You're still on about that? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have no idea why this double-posted twice when I only clicked submit once. Test test? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SamF is in over his head

Looking just at this edit:

"The mammalian whale lacks plausible ancestors along points of a proposed evolutinary pathway." - Are there other whales besides mammalian ones? What happened to ambulocetus, protocetus, rodhocetus, basilosaurus and others?

"the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species between kinds in the fossil record." What's a kind? And why is a lack of an intermediate species a counterexample of evolution?

"No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms." It's been known for about a decade.

"A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species." How can anyone "demonstrate" a lack of something?

The whole page is absurd. There's no reason to dig for "facts" to back up those absurd arguments. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

EvanW brings some more DUHR to the talk page. "It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it is a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is." It's not known how something works, therefore evolution-atheistic evolution to boot!- is wrong? And creationists wonder why we all laugh at them and their arguments? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you have never heard of whittling. --Opcn (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the reason for his block. Couldn't find any specific reason to block him, so a vague excuse is the best TK could get. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Are there other whales besides mammalian ones?" He could be thinking of the Whale Shark, which is a fish, not a mammal. </devil'sadvocate> X Stickman (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he just didn't want to get blocked, but wanted the sentence to have a good meter too it. --Opcn (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy is a jaywalker

I shit you not, Andy Schlafly jaywalked in front of my car on D St. on my drive home. He runs exactly like you would think after hearing him talk. More of a prance, really.Cooter (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me that you rolled down your window and did a shout out --Opcn (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wish. I didn't realize who it was until he had pranced across the street and it was too late to do anything. I yelled out, "Holy Fuck!" to my baby daughter, but she didn't appreciate the gravity of the sighting. I should say that while traffic was completely screwed on the way home, the anti-abortionites sure do a lot better job cleaning up than the dirty hippies that are usually behind the protests around here.Cooter (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I could imagine Cooter doing that: Andy stops in the middle of the street, pauses for a moment, turns around slowly (without effort, like he spins on a swivel), and gives cheeky smile with the closed eyes from the Colbert Report. He then proceeds to laugh, really low-like, then another moment of pause. He turns around, and slowly continues jaywalking. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a cluck than a laugh --Opcn (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ha! Ha! Ha!"Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

InTKrigue

I can't find any edit of AlexWD's to DouglasA's talk page or anywhere else, so I assume the whole shebang has been oversighted. TK also oversighted this edit to Joaquin's talkpage. Busy little bee aren't we. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deceit, thy name is TK. Keegscee (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Time out's make me bored

I just noticed the most revisions special page Big surprise, Obama>Alger Hiss>Evolution>Homosexuality>Atheism ...--Opcn (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind a few months, nearly a year ago Ken deleted Evolution and restored it without its history, because he didn't know how to purge the cache. - π 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It had been undeleted again, though. --Sid (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't resurrect the page counter though. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"This page has been accessed 412,933 times"? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Those views are all bumped from zero. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative movie

Besides "Pillow Talk" getting Andy all hot when he watches the women getting slapped around, I'm surprised that a conservative movie^img has a gay leading man, who engaged in liberal deceit by staying in the closet. Obviously, the wife beating was important enough to win out.
Actually, to add to that, it won an Oscar and has been added to the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically or aesthetically” significant (thanks to WP for telling me that). Now things like that would make it a good conservative movie, but for Andy, it's all about the uppity bitch getting slapped around.
Oh - and "no distortions by feminist ideology" - it was made in 1959 ffs. Feminist ideology hardly existed back then. --PsygremlinPraat! 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you count that lady on the dollar coin, and few other thousand suffragettes. Sorry if I hear a Bowie song in my head when I type that. ħuman 09:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is a rumor that Rock Hudson was gay, clearly he was straight, don't you read anything^img?--Opcn (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

S-S-S-Suffragette City! Bowie was the best stutterer ever. What was that other song? Oh, yeah, I forget, but I dreamed about it last night. ħuman 10:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes! ħuman 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(I now have Rebel Rebel playing the background). Lol - I see it's a classic case of right hand / left hand over on CP. First we have Homosexual Historical Revisionism claiming it was false that Rock Hudson was gay, then under his (1 line) article^img we have category:Homosexuality. --PsygremlinSnakk! 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

LIES!Opcn (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your face is a mess! ħuman 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you forgetting The Who's My Generation? Several stutters including "Why don't you all f-f-f-fade away?" Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all better than BTO. Corry (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

March

Nothing yet on the massed hordes of Conservapædians on the March for Life Fundy march. We want photos! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

probably went as well as Andy's university talk, which has been conveniently forgotten. Not to mention the National Strike - hey, TK, how'd your day at home go? --Psygremlin말하십시오 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. --PsygremlinSprich! 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thta's an old one. From the EXIF - "Date and time of data generation 00:01, 1 January 1980". Or else he only gets his camera out once a year and then finds the badderies are flat.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's a recent shot, regardless of the date stamp--he must be the kind of guy whose VCR flashes 12:00 all the time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TK has a small penis

Wow, TK... Someone wants to improve CP, you rollback the edit. Andy signs off on the project, you ban the user. How small is your cock that you have to abuse that much power? Your 90/10 ratio is more like 100/0 at this point. What substantial edits do you make there? For you it's rollback, burn, ban and bitch. What an asshole you are. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The prissy one won't respond to any questions, unless you e-mail him with your real name, and even then he won't, because he's scared of the truth. Which reminds me, just why is the colossal cunt hanging around here anyway, besides the fact that he's proving that CP's rules don't apply to admins? He doesn't engage in discussion, he makes what he thinks are witty comments. can't we just block him, like in the good old days, so he can crawl back to CP and carry on trolling everybody there? --PsygremlinПоговорите! 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be worse: we could work for him. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Hookers don't count as employees even though you pay them, dude. --Kels (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they do if you own the ranch. After all, he does live in Nevada. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Ooh, labour camps are not part of the capitalist model. How convenient to forget the capitalist model of the southern plantations with their slaves.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That sending money home sounds a lot like our migrant workers here. I wonder how many of TK's employees are legal immigrants? Oh and if it was a choice between working for TK or letting Ed babysit my daughters, Ed would win 9 times out of 10. --PsygremlinTala! 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, it's my fault not TK's. Could someone get me Andy's e-mail addy?--Opcn (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all over the internet, like on his user page perhaps, and certainly on the articles about the bus trip to DC. I think it's Aschlafly@aol.com but I might be wrong. ħuman 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Insinuations that Ed Poor is a sex pest or paedophile, I mean, WTF? Come ON! On what basis are these insinuations made? What possible justification is there? If there is none, and it would have to be pretty damn convincing if there is, then it's simply outrageous and totally inappropriate. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's one thing to comment on Ed's posts when they stray into creepy territory, but it's another to imply that he's a pedophile. Let's keep the comments appropriate, folks. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - he is down right creepy sometimes but creepy =/= pedo. Aceⁱ⁹ 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is such a liberal trait. Keegscee (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Censorship? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that Ed is a pedophile. I bet you don't think smoking causes cancer either. Keegscee (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or abortion. --Kels (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut. It's much more important that the word is spelt paedophile 'cos it's of Greek extraction, you ignorant Merkins.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

<da>to be fair, he strays beyond the 'creepy' territory on a frequent basis. A list of topics he 'contributes' substantively to is pretty short.</da> Of course, it doesn't _make_ him anything, but I don't think there's much of an issue of insinuating stuff for comic effect when he writes things which cry out for mockery in that vein. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Insinuating that somebody is a paedophile based on nothing more than a subjective view that much of his editing is "creepy" has no comic effect. Get a grip. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By your use of the word 'subjective' I assume you know what it means. Would you not agree that comedy is also subjective? Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean that it's not funny to others. Keegscee (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, hyperbole and exaggeration just aren't funny. Who knew. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed creeps me out. X_X Pedobear (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob?

What's with the title of this horrific image?^img Who's Kara? Can we see her in her yellow dress? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he got his CP uploads confused with his private pretty girl pictures. The 'Kara Yellow Dress 08 Cover' refers to (Warning: Kinda NSFW, definitely creepy) this picture (which has that exact title) I'm sure it's in plenty of other places. What this tells us about Rob's mind I shudder to think. EDIT Looks like she's Kara Duhe - a porn star. Thanks for that unintentional glimpse into your life Rob. StarFish (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to clear my cache and cookies after clicking on that link. Rob, I'm looking forward to your explanation of this. someone wanna WIGO our friend's browsing habits? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any other explanation than Rob's been caught red handed (sorry!) Looks WIGOable to me but I'll leave to someone more able to check and create one if they want to. My Wigos usually get minus several million. Thanks for the NSFW thing - looks like it is a porn site. Go Rob! StarFish (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and moved. EddyP (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Busted. Utterly, totally busted Rob. You, despite being a "Christian", like and collect teh porno. Oh well. Internet 1 Rob Smith 0. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. EddyP (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha awesome. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a blog with "non-nude" in the name and the guy post pictures of attractive women with their clothes on. Is this some kind of weird Christian porn? It is okay, so long as you don't see her boobies. Reminds me of those jokes about Puritans getting excited by the sight of woman's ankle. - π 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the copy underneath the picture? "Kara is multi-orgasmic, which means she can have as many as 4 orgasms within five minutes." Although it does then prattle on about how 'glamour girls' increasingly look like porn stars. Whatever. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I lost interest after the non-nude bit. All this talk about NSFW got my hopes up. - π 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The blog is dedicated to a guy named Ron Harris. His [WP article]has links that'll bring you to the good stuff. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda went to WP and nommed that shite article for deletion. I think I did, anyway. ħuman 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been researching the issue at length. - π 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Length" indeed! _{Get it? Length?} TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just surprised his porn includes females. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The bodies of millions killed by communists did seem more his type. - π 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this pic is raw stock before he pastes on Stalin or McCarthy's head. --Kels (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Imma burn a sock to tease him about it later. Suggest we all try to keep this alive until they call the FBI. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The best bit is the fucking idiot posts it on CP of all places. He must have been copy / pasting the image title and got the wrong one. StarFish (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply Epic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I always thought that Karajou is male. Vulpius (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob's clearly enjoying a game of "Masturbation Minefield". You start with a selection of pornographic pictures, and hide a few pictures of things like death camps, bloated corpses, and nasty injuries in there. After arranging the images in to a random slideshow, Rob will begin pounding his pud and hoping that he doesn't hit an atrocity at the wrong time. The risk is that he bends his brain to the point where he's unable to get wood without switching on the History Channel.--^{Ask me about your mother} 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Boy, Man, I mean Wow. You guys take the bait everytime, GARR-AUN-TEED. Watta ya gonna do, oversite the last WIGO? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see you were doing it as joke to get our attention. Nice post hoc, Rob. - π 23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you making your little soldier cough custard while editing CP, or do you take breaks for that specific purpose? Either way, Matthew 5:28 is worth a look. JC will not be impressed. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Um, excuse me Rob? So you're saying that you

1. Got the idea to pull one over on us,
2. Found a creepy almost-porn site,
3. Uploaded a Holocaust pic and intentionally gave it the same name as a pic on said almost-porn site,
4. Sat back and twiddled your thumbs waiting for us to figure it out?

It sounds about as plausible as Obama being born in Kenya and covering it up the whole time just to be president! Junggai (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That theory pretty much fails at the "Rob got an idea" stage. --Kels (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at little Rob pretend it was all a big joke. Dude, we all do it - there is nothing to be ashamed of. Unless you think JC was watching. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

About as plausible as Obama's explanation why his approval and agenda are going down in smoke and flames. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

“”Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?[3]

Meh. Change the subject all you want. Who cares about Obama? Not when we can be looking at more pictures of the lovely Miss Duhe.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr Rob, yeah hi there. Sorry, all your Obama bluster aside, but this section was detailing your sordid teen fantasies. It was a joke, right? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob. It's nice to know that you take time out of your busy commie hunting schedule to play a quick game of flog the dolphin. No really..... Without mentioning Obama or communist or liberals, explain what the joke is in this whole debacle. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to turn to Christ, Rob

He's always watching, you know. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All things in moderation (how does one fornicate in moderation?). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know how, ask her. ħuman 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming out

I think the trick to getting someones sock banned is to come out as them over here as soon as they get into just the tiniest little bit of trouble. Thus poor Sam is vaporized. --Opcn (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am everyone. Jaxe (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was once CharlieT, but I handed that account off. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TK went Al Gore?

Go green! But why is that important for Conservapedia? That's the opposite of "Drill, baby, drill!" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The argumentum ad populum, it hurts! ListenerX^TalkerX 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is still the frequent "Majority of people don't want new taxes!" Well... duh? Majority of people don't want to pay bills, either. And most people in the US don't want Congress. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Although sometimes the majority is right; as in: "The majority of people think Conservapædia is hilariously funny". ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Something must be lost in the translation for non-US readers. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the fish still bite when we cast the bait. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people don't want to pay tax, but people with a mental age over 15 see it as an essential part of governance. - π 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the poll didn't really have to do with taxes. It has to do with preferences for alternative energy sources, versus more fossil fuels, or cutting back our use of energy. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh TK, you are indeed a chump. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So the poll shows that people would rather "someone" solve the problem their behaviour is creating rather than moderate their behaviour, big surprise. - π 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're an asshole and an idiot. How's that for a poll? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote on that. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is TK?

Asshole	51	Vote
Prick	16	Vote
Idiot	2	Vote
Troll	29	Vote
A nice chap	14	Vote
Undecided	2	Vote

All of the above. Vulpius (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of George Carlin's game show, "Asshole, Jackoff, Scumbag". --Kels (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like RobS' night in.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 04:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There, there, TK

[1]^img. TK opens up the Obama article to editing after criticism of one of the sources. This is, of course, a honey pot -- anyone removing the bizarre speculation will surely be banned. Anyway, when the original critic keeps complaining rather than editing the Obama article, TK loses his cool. Coarb (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Been hanging around here so much our language has seeped its way into his edits on CP, I guess. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 02:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[2]^img TK must be grumpy tonight. Nick Heer 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wingers really are incapable of understanding the fallacies of their own argument. When Bush won, it was "a mandate" of the people. When Obama wins, it's "Why won't he listen to the people?" When the Democrats win Congress on, among the promises, a platform of making a public option for health care, the wingers shout, "Socialism!" When one senator wins against another who ran a terrible campaign, it's "The people have spoken!" So why is it "the people" speaking when it agrees with them, but not what "the people" want when it disagrees with them? I know! It's because wingers are utter morons incapable of rational thought, and thus perceive anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy. Nixon never died, he just transferred the creepiness to future generations. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)