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

Making Karajou Funny (Redux) (sticky)

Well, if he's going to keep on drawing them, it is our duty to at least make 'em funny. --PsyGremlinTala! 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why ...

... is it worthy of mention^img that the supreme court is without a military vet? It's not just CP that grizzles about it, I've seen it several places on t'web. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems kind of odd. My understanding is that supreme court may rule on military related matters, but it's not as if they're the ones deciding whether or not the US would go to war. It's odd to see the wingnuts playing up the veteran card, given that so many of their prominent numbers have the kind of military background that anyone could pick-up by renting a copy of Rambo III. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd daresay its the latest right-wing whining point, and impervious to logic.

FoxNews/Talk Radio Conservative: "There's not going to be a veteran on the court! Obama's an evil libb-burr-ull because he's not appointing a veteran!"

Thinking liberal: "Of the nine current justices, six were appointed by Republicans. Only the retiring Stevens is a veteran, and he was appointed by Gerald Ford. This was never an issue till now."

FoxNews/Talk Radio Conservative: "There's not going to be a veteran on the court! Obama's an evil libb-burr-ull because he's not appointing a veteran! Why do libb-burr-ulls hate the military?!?!?!"

Thinking liberal: "But but but..." Gives up, goes off to have a gay marriage and an abortion MDB (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More seriously, the Supremes have historically been rather deferential to the Executive Branch and Congress in military and foreign policy affairs. For instance, I've heard it said that, when cases considering Constitutionality of a military came before them, they always found a way to avoid taking the case, the assumption was that, if they did take it, they might have no choice but to say "involuntary servitude, unConstitutional", and since those generally come up during wars, they just didn't want to go there. I don't see that there's that big a need for a Justice to be a vet -- of the three branches of government, the Judicial branch is the least likely to interact with the military. MDB (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the number of lawyers/judges who have been in the military is pretty small, as it's been about 35 years since we've had widespread military mobilization. The reason most post-war presidents have been veterans is not because we demanded it of them but because just about every male in the country had served in the military at the time. Stevens is the last vet on the bench because he is the last WWII era justice. DickTurpis (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Valid point, except the Vietnam generation is reaching the age where they've got the experience to be potential nominees for the Court. Of course, serving on the Court almost certainly means a college education (a law degree isn't legally required to be on the Court, but a President who tried to nominate a non-attorney would be out of his mind), and if you were in college during the Vietnam era, you were probably getting draft deferments.

Personally, I thought John Edwards would have made a good justice, but his name is far too tainted for that. Or Hillary Clinton, because half of the American conservative movement would immediately have massive coronaries upon hearing her name even suggested for the job, but she's busy being SecState. MDB (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Vietnam generation is quickly passing the age where they'd be nominees for anything. Someone who was 18 in 1968 is 60 now, which is a bit on the elderly side even for the Supreme Court (50 looks to be a more typical age recently). DickTurpis (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea! HRC for SCOTUS! For so many good reasons, including your population-thinning one. ħuman 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that any 'vet' who becomes a high-ranking lawyer will most likely have more right-wing views. (OK, so I'm stereotyping but it's probably true) So demanding a 'vet' is like asking for another Republican nominee which obviously makes perfect sense. Of course over at CP they don't think these things out for themselves they just latch onto some loonie blogger and it's suddenly an issue.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, I reckon we can infer from his complaints that Andy feels himself unqualified to be a judge, as he is not a military vet (so far as I am aware). One less thing to worry about: "Judge Schlafly".--WJThomas (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Now they are lamenting that not only are there no veterans, but no Protestants as well^img What would be their reaction be if a "dirty Atheist" were to be nominated? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought only 6 were Catholics, so what are the other 2, Jews? Musselmen? ħuman 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the other two are Jews, yes. As far as an atheist being nominated... they were fine when the atheist was Robert Bork. (Well, I don't think he was more a "don't care" type when he was nominated; he was certainly not a vociferous atheist. And he has since converted to Catholicism.) MDB (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hillary

Orrin Hatch said her name is one that is being considered for the vacancy. No reports of conservative apoplexy yet. MDB (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's not really being considered. She is way too valuable where she is.--^talk 02:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New Kara-Toon!

How is that donkey holding the roach clip? And if it has the hoof dexterity to hold that little clip, why does it need the clip at all, for a blunt that big?--WJThomas (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that blatant drug use depicted on the main page? And isn't this the same cartoon as last week, more or less? What will it be next week, a donkey aborting a fetus? DickTurpis (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He figured that we found his donkey adorable and gives us more. Besides, as long as a LIBERAL is doing it, it's perfectly fine to show things that are bad. Because then CP's educational mission (*snicker*) overrules its family-friendly rules. --Sid (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's jammed into the hoof? I actually find it quite amazing (and silly) that Kara actually tried to aim for realism there. The lack of hands apparently hasn't stopped the donkey from putting on its shirt, necklace, headband or glasses. --Sid (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And interesting that Kara's got apparent experience with the habit? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Call me boring, but that's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. No content, shitty cartoon. ħuman 13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like how utterly redundant the wording of the caption is. Webbtje (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also filed under "redundant": The "WASTED" on the shirt. --Sid (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's to show that the donkey is smoking something other than a cigar.--WJThomas (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, he should have drawn it with concave sides, in the traditional manner. Johann (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I like how Conservapedia has degraded to a wannabe online tabloid/shitty forum for moronic, hateful retards to post their views. There's more creativity in my toilet bowl after a night out than from KKKarrotJuice's cuntoons. SJ ^Debaser 13:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On the upside, the quality of the art is noticeably improving.--^talk 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true. In fact, this is probably the best one so far. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The speech bubble just makes me think of the Mind Cop. "Oooh man. I'm so hiiigh maaan. Why the fuck is my man bitch sniffing around some white bread pussy man?". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Part I am curious about is the syringe in the lower right-hand corner. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I only just noticed the syringe. A bit useless without a spoon and some sort of tourniquet, though, isn't it? ħuman 02:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume the implication is that not only are liberals potheads, they use IV drugs. To be fair, liberals are probably more tolerant to marijuana use, but I don't hear any liberals clamoring for legalized smack. MDB (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that in Andyland, liberals are complete anti-conservatives. Anything conservatives forbid, liberals want to make mandatory. Conservatives oppose drug use, so liberals are for legalization of all drugs. Deny it and deny logic. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy knows that Bill Buckley favored legalizing pot. MDB (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does the donkey have buck teeth? It looks more like a rabbit to me. Also why "today's modern Democrat"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"One of our friends at Rat Wiki dared me to write about sex..."

Wtf. Please try to shift one paradigm at a time, to prevent back strain. Mei (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is comedy gold. I can't wait for the community's (read: Andy's) reaction. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes Ed, and if you let your kids name the live lobster you bought for dinner it'll be harder to convince them to eat it. I'm amazed he gets through the day without seriously injuring himself. --Kels (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the million dollar question is this: did someone actually dare him, or is he just using it as an excuse? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have used his phrasing on-wiki, at least...not that he met the apparent conditions anyway. Also, I'm not sure "LIBERAL VANDALS DARED ME" is the best excuse to pull on Andy. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Ed even mentioned the unholy words "rat wiki." Andy will probably have a fit when he sees Ed's post. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed has friends at RW? Kind of weird no? Is Ed a user on this site? Does he enter entries into WIGO? Is Ed really just a parodist? Diavolos (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's probably a good chance he's actually a pedophile. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

All we have to do to get some laughs out of CP is dare them to do something? Well that was a lot of wasted effort from us. Hey Ed, I dare you to write an article portraying homosexuality in a 100% positive light, and ban Ken from going near it. X Stickman (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed, I dare you to take a chance on inviting an RW editor over to make supervised edits to the homosexuality, atheism, and evolution articles in order to inject some balance; and keep Ken out of it. If the "student panel" can't do it, someone else needs to. Let that someone be you. Ken's writing is absolutely awful, the points he attempts making puerile and often unsupportable, and the quotemining tired and predictable. I won't remove anything substantive, just improve what's capable of being improved and provide a mainstream response to the creationist, homophobic, xenophobic, irrational, etc., stuff. I've frankly never seen anything as bad on a wiki as these three articles. Aren't you a little embarrassed? 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. But I'm not going to be laughing when two thirds of the essay is devoted to the importance of sex for young girls. This man is very likely a pedophile, the essay's nothing to look forward to. Bil08 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already finished^img and the joke was it had nothing to do with sex. Mei (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Capt. Mei (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Still, I get the feeling that Ed actually knows that we laugh about him being a pervert, and the essay was playing on that. Creep. Bil08 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else as telling that "It's a girl!" is a parenthetical statement? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm especially amused that they can't even follow their own rules. TK almost doubling the word count of someone else's essay, and neither of them signing the bottom section like the notice says. Hilarious. --Kels (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

He is Ed Poor's proxy. He said so. 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the "essay" basically boils down to "once you know the sex of the child, the parents can attach to him/her more like a person". Let me tell you a funny story (which will undoubtedly be lumped in the "cool story, bro" category by random passers-by): A while ago, I was looking at a machine-translated Wikipedia article on guard dogs which turned out to be surprisingly legible, even when Finnish is notoriously resistant to automatic translation by computers. Finnish language has no articles, so the translator software had to take a few guesses. I particularly liked this phrase: "Some breeds are strong enough to drive even the wolf away". Instead of speaking of "a wolf", the article spoke of "the wolf", as if there was some specific wolf that all guard dogs are compared against; a mighty feral animal in the wilderness that only the strongest of guard dog breeds dare to challenge. A simple article change can add a lot of personality to things, even to animals! ...I don't know what point I was chasing, but I thought this was insightful. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Ed's take on cp:Lolita. After writing his usual two sentence review, Andy had to come in and make the article suitable for families. Andy removed all references to paedophilia, which given the story is a bit like removing all references to cars from an article discussing Too Fast, Too Furious. ^{Ask me about your mother} 22:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BEST DIFF EVAH!

TK bitching to no one listening at wikipedia. ħuman 03:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice to members of that CONservative vandal site: when you are in a hole, stop digging! So much for TK's whole "I'm not Terry Kockrocks" argument! Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 03:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"From your cowardly anonymous perch, 69.165.155.235, please don't bring fictitious narratives here."

"...posting my real identity at RW and all over the Internet with the intent to cause me harm."

(Disclaimer: He could technically be denying that, but I'm not sure what he'd be complaining about then...) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It gets better! That hole-digging smiley, eh, who cares? ħuman 08:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And Timmy TooLoose replies... "Uh huh...." Brilliant. ħuman 08:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's quite silly indeed. Apparently, this has become a "He Who Must Not Be Named" situation where ANY mention of a certain full name is automatically an outing attempt of TK on CP and WP. The more hilarious part is that his public cries just shine a giant spotlight on it. It's kinda like someone saying "I wonder who did this," and someone else instantly going "IT WASN'T ME, YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!" Oh well, maybe it'll get me in touch with Jimbo Wales (who has been allegedly informed of this by TK). That'd be kinda cool, I guess. --Sid (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention seeking perhaps? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I have no idea what Rob and TK are planning to achieve anymore. Their efforts seem utterly random so far. --Sid (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Worse than random, incoherent. However, I think they want Jimbo to block you, me, and Trent until we remove Terry Koeckritz's real name from the internet. ħuman 09:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it back. This one is even better! In a perverse sort of way, but that's his style, isn't it? ħuman 10:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

-- Nx / talk 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be boring. Also, why does your sig take up a whole line of text, noob? ħuman 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it conforms to wp:WP:SIG -- Nx / talk 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a retarded answer. This isn't WP and their policies don't apply here. ħuman 13:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But the reasoning behind that policy is valid here as well. -- Nx / talk 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But we don't care. And never have. ħuman 09:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself, it's your wiki. -- Nx / talk 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that whole section is just a universe of fail on TK's part. I can imagine what any uninvolved party things when they across that and all they see it TK flailing and screaming, while all the other editors are just calmly asking him WTF he's on about. Bullying, indeed. --Kels (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder which new site Terry Koeckritz is trolling now, that's he's so worried about having his name up in lights. After all, logic would dictate that if he's so worried about CP admin TK being linked to the name Terry Koeckritz, then it must be his name. I'd love to see this go to court:

"Are you Terry Koeckritz?"

"Yes."

"But you're suing these people because they said you were Terry Koeckritz."

At this point the witness became hysterical and was carried from the courtroom, screaming something about "Where's the banhammer? Why can't I oversight this?" --PsyGremlinFale! 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My goodness. Having just reread the SDG and now seen TK's antics on WP, including calling me a liar, I have to say I've never seen anything quite like TK. TK - I'm not going to tolerate you calling me a liar and I won't be a pawn in your pointless effort to distance TK from Terry Koeckritz. I won't demand that you retract the objective falsehoods you've already made on the WP:Wikiquette page, just that you knock the lying off. Got it buddy? 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(victim of malicious EC) For most people, this would be a pretty simple thing. If you don't want your name connected to unsavory acts, don't do unsavory acts. What's so tough about that? --Kels (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Somebody just posted this extract from the SDG on my blog (I have the ref - SDG/Level_1/29e7df4a2c4a2bd4.html). I think this should shut TK up for once and for all (my emphasis in bold:

“”From: Temlakos Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:46:33 -0400 Local: Tues, Jun 19 2007 2:46 pm Subject: Re: 2457 HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ONLINE ARTICLE: First of all, TK, let me congratulate you for finding mention in the Stephanie Simon article. You did better than I did–assuming that she quoted you correctly. Why she bothered to talk to me at all, I cannot fathom. I plan a review of this article later today. TerryH From: “Terry” Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:20:03 -0700 Local: Tues, Jun 19 2007 3:20 pm Subject: RE: 2464 Re: HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ONLINE ARTICLE: LOL! Anything above 75% accuracy, Ronald Reagan used to say, is impossible with reporters. She used one of my more benign quotes, but took another, and worked it into the article anyway, because I likened them to terrorists, and that stuck in her mind. I am sure others made the analogy, and according to her article, they admitted they were! What could be better for us, in responding to RW? We simply adopt the Government’s own policy: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.” When they deny that, we simply point to the confirmation of the Los Angeles Times. ;-) The important thing is, the thrust was that against good and evil. And she showcased a mere child quaking with fear of being “destroyed” by those horrid Internet Vandals and Cyber Terrorists! –TK

--PsyGremlinHable! 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

29e7df4a2c4a2bd4 19:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the link right off, but I remember him posting a bunch of our real names last July over on CP for some vindictive reason or another. I know mine was there, which is odd since I generally tried to avoid interacting with him, complete with a link to my old comic site. I also remember he and Koward used to delight in posting Ames' full name as well as others' to apparently discredit them if anyone Googled, so it's probably a bit late for him to worry about the morality of "outing" by this point. --Kels (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His openly defamatory talk page diff and the start of a temper tantrum are here^img. I'm glad he had the good sense to remove that stuff from public view. 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I always found that a bit hilarious, since I'm the one who's usually outspoken against vandalizing CP. --Kels (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Moar better

Fucking insane logic I fell off my chair. "Since I am an administrator at another wiki, as you could plainly see on my page, the idea that I would be vandalizing another wiki is pretty remote."

And yet, since we are all, oh never mind. ħuman 04:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal sites^{[citation NOT needed]} aren't wikis! Stop remembering my name, Huw Powell! ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 05:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

TK^img and DouglasA^img are at the great spring cleaning, freeing Conservapedia not only from pop-culture, but also from atheist propaganda, i.e., articles on works of atheists. Well, Andy once stated

“”Article count beyond a certain critical mass (say 20,000 entries) doesn't have any particular significance.

Perhaps one should help them to reach the goal of 20,000 entries (currently, there are ~37,000)? TK, have a look at cp:category:years! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a funny idea. I have the hiccups. ħuman 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

'[...]You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of articles. Do you know that Conservapedia is the only encyclopedia in the net whose database gets smaller every year?'

Maquissar did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Schlafly bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Conservapedia is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make a liberal world-view literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one article, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer articles, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for indulging in liberalism. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when Conservapedia is perfect. Conservapedia is Theocon and Theocon is Conservapedia,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. Has it ever occurred to you, Maquissar, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

'Except-' began Maquissar doubtfully, and he stopped.

It had been on the tip of his tongue to say 'Except liberals,' but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Schlafly, however, had divined what he was about to say.

'Liberals are not human beings,' he said carelessly. 'By 2050 or earlier, probably -- all real knowledge of Oldview will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Russell, Marx, Hemingway, Dawkins -- they'll exist only in Theocon versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the commandments will change. How could you have a commandment like the 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk, when the concept of debate has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Conservapedia means not thinking -- not needing to think. Conservapedia is unconsciousness.' --George Orwell and Maquissar (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Maquissar. Now meet me in Room 101. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My hiccups went away. ħuman 09:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Larron: between 33,000 and 33,100 articles as of yesterday. If I'm not mistaken there is actually less text in the article namespace proper now than there was two years ago. mb 09:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, that explains a lot. It's mostly cover for "disappearing" an embarrassing essay that was linked from elsewhere (and probably included some embarrassing comments by admins too). Subtle, real subtle. --Kels (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The page was written almost entirely by one BHarlan over the course of a few days in October 2008. RJJensen and Terrence Kockfritz made some minor tweaks to it last August. For the most part the page is an ideologically neutral and genuinely informative sysnopsis of the history of the Civil Rights movement. As such it is pretty damning for the Republicans. The article explicitly calls out icons such as Ronald Reagan, William F Buckley, and John McCain for their opposition to Civil Rights legislation, their support of South African Apartheid, and their general bigotry. The article also explicitly mentions that the driving force behind every step forward were liberal Democrats. It heaps scorn on Paleoconservatives to the point of actually using the word.

The page is liberally sprinkled, however, with some hilarious conspiracy crap about Black preachers using hypnosis and brainwashing to keep their parishoners dependent. Black people in general are blamed for making it easy for them. Also, Black people are being lied to about the Democrats by, wait for it, public schools.

The overall effect is that of a very weird pastiche. mb 14:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I figured TK would zap that article as soon as it was linked, so I saved the code as a text file. here's the link. Damn shame I couldn't get the talk page though.... SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 05:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone Else?

I just had to have a little chuckle when I saw TK bitching about this stupid FoxNews stimulus share calculator. Tell you what TK. We liberals will pay back all the stimulus money, you conservatives take care of the Iraq War and we'll care it even. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 08:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) PS, since you're bloxered over here, feel free to reply on my Wikipedia page.

$39, me. Less than I struggled to send to Haiti. Fine by me. ħuman 08:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

From the linked humanevents article -

“”When we balanced the budget in the 1990s, we did it with strong controls on spending, real reform of welfare and Medicare, and tax cuts to increase economic growth.

Hmmmmm no mention of that commie, philandering Clinton....Aceⁱ⁹ 10:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote Bill Maher, "he had his dick in a Jew's mouth on Easter!" ħuman 11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, only people making money in/living in America need to pay this, which I am not. Fine by me too. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

$403 was my result, they can send that to me by check or money order please. I do wish my "tax burden" on that pie chat was really that low, lol. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BMcP, I think it's your share of the extra national debt (which they allege somehow has to be repaid eventually) due to government spending the stimulus money. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, well that helps explain that nasty negative number on the totals in my 1040. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, goodbye

Now that's just rude! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I swear he's getting worse, I wish andy would fire the prick, if he had any sense he would Tweety (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If Andy had any sense, would there be a RationalWiki? --Maquissar (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but then it would look like WIGO:ASK. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ubi aSK? Wigo aSK? 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh. "U.K Troll." X Stickman (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

TK is a coward who hides behind his internet penis because that is all he has in life. While this was complete fuckery, is it really surprising to anyone? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 04:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

spam

can't link cus i'm on my cell, but there's some serious spam shit going down in the recent changes Tweety (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Example^img. Prob 4chan/Anonymous again. Doubt anything will happen. Andy will just turn off account creation. It's not like they have any new editors anyway. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Captured, plus a cap request of the non-diff version: From Geology Terms I^img

It's a silly threat, of course, but judging from what I saw from the Zeuglothingy Blues, it'll likely notch up the paranoia in the new discussion group. Ah well. --Sid (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fun: Karajou is on it.^img --Sid (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I like how his note was longer than a lot of the articles it replaced. Jaxe (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I see Karajerk used his challenge as a handy opportunity to delete^img his talkpage without archiving. --PsyGremlinTala! 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the massive attack everyone is talking about on Ames/Huw/Kel/Sid/Trent's secret discussion site? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

So secret, even I don't know where it is. --Kels (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For your own safety, no doubt. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

They've already turned off account creation. Not hard to get around though; all they need to do is coordinate account creation, as in create all 512 acccounts in the space of a few minutes. NU - sorry, but these guys are just one part of Operation Shit-smeared Windmill.EddyP (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a WIGO about it but everyone seems hellbent on removing all traces of the threats. This could be quite funny if they do it properly. I'm guessing it's /b/, yes? Webbtje (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I threw another little WIGO out there. It all hinges upon whether or not you believe the vandal, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. EddyP (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be an interesting standoff, with account creation indefinitely suspended and the CP cabal standing around with their dicks in the hands. Let's see out what happens... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I like Ken's post on the mainpage about how web traffic is up. Especially: The Asian population of web visitors to Conservapedia (Asians certainly have a reputation for studiousness), is above average according to Quantcast. Go team Conservapedia! Yaaaaaaaaaaay! You go Ken! SJ ^Debaser 18:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick, someone send Karajou/TK/Andy the global blocking script. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The tags on compete are pretty accurate:

• blog
• conservatism
• discrimination
• hate-speech
• homophobia
• lies

hah... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk /}

Block 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I like that the 'constant attacks' are only 12 hours a day. I guess their mommys don't let them have computer time after 9pm.

They've oversighted Ken's mainpageright edit. EddyP (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they need a job to pay the utilities bill and sleep time for the job too. But then again, Oversighting Ken's edit is a bit over the line. Wait, didn't they say they have bots for this? I guess it has somthing to do with night mode then. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's on

At least TerryH started it^img (and oversighted the note). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good for the stats, Ken will be pleased OléOléOlé, 12000000 edits in april... Bad because Rob will blame RW and it's suppersekkrit forum/den of evil masterminds...But Thats not RW's style, we strive for sysopship!

Damn you /b/tards!!!! We should Be CP's Forest Rangers... Someone once said something like 'We must preserve this gem of the internet for our grand-childrens... This will be our we used to walk 12 miles in the snow ... look what used to argue with... Alain (past 4:20)

Nothing's happened so far. Sounds like just an empty threat. Now that I think about it, /b/ would probably just attack without making grandiose-sounding threats beforehand. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, they are first and fore-most attention whores. Before Anonymous attacked the Australian Parliament's website earlier this year they made all these boding videos warning of the attacks, they still garnered very little press outside of the Government owned ABC. - π 01:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

They attacked the Australian Parliament? Wow, that's low. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the week before the Government announced a $22 million cyber-terrorism detection centre, complete with a giant Hollywood style computer screen that appeared to do nothing spanning one wall , it was kind off funny in its own way. - π 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is "cyber-terrorism", anyway? I mean, I know we are, but what are we? ħuman 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Something for the government to spend money on to "protect" us from. Also calling people cyber-terrorist sells newspapers. I am more annoyed about the confusion in the media about hackers and crackers. Hackers "hack" at programmes to make them work better/different, so long as it is open source this is legal. A cracker tries to get into a secured system, this is always illegal. I wish the media would learn the difference and stop liabling the noble hacker who only wants to write computer code. - π 04:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is "cyber-terrorism", anyway? I mean, I know we are, but what are we? ħuman 09:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, what we do is, we very cleverly register an account on a wiki that uses nothing more than a simple Turing test to keep you out. So basically, so long as you are not a computer, you can register. We then very stealthily click a button that says "edit" and use it to change the text that appears on the page so that is says something that Andy disagrees with. This is then reverted by the click of a button and our account is blocked so that the "edit" button is no longer available to us. That is, as far as I can tell, the definition of "cyber-terrorism" as being used by Terry Koeckritz. - π 10:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How come no one has pointed out that...

Moved from the Saloon Bar

...the Evolution article currently begins with a charming picture of cross-burning. Also, what the heck is up with all the Skype-spamming? Vulpius (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I love it, although it could use a little hitwin. I'm not sure what the Skype spamming is about, but knowing that Ken is a search engine optimization magnate, I think we'd do best to follow suit. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what on earth does "begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting" mean??? ħuman 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gah. Sorry for messing up the page. Vulpius (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

First it's Hitwin, then it's the Klan. should we give Ken a list of racists to be included in the article? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be more fun to tell Ken you have to be a Christian to be in the KKK, or more fun just to let him leave that shit there? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think KenLogic works like this: if you are a True Christian, you are not a racist. Also, some evolutionists were racists. Therefore, evolution = racism. Therefore, all evolutionists are racists. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Also, I love that his source is an article from Jerry "A billion undergrad degrees, and still a blithering nitwit" Bergman published in the Journal of Creation. Scholarly! Good to see CMI are keeping those standards up. PJR would approve.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me...don't search engines usually remove/adjust for sites that abuse the ranking systems? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 03:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you are doing it. The two main things the quality control bots look for is reciprocal links, this is why after the initial bump Ken's rankings tend to drop back to lower than they were a few days earlier, and repetitive material, e.g, the same site having multiple copies of the same page or parts of the page. Usually Ken gets good results from the spiders because of all the incoming links, but after a few days when the slower, less frequently run bots come along and look at what is actually going they get dropped back down the page ranks. - π 05:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that as far as organizations supporting evolution go, the KKK is pretty damn far down the list. They're your typical "I ain't no monkey" group. DickTurpis (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Creator of "guidelines"

"...the guideline I issued" sayeth TK.^img(my emphasis). Well at least we know who's in charge. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha!

Should be good^img ("Conservapedia is considering launching a Conservapedia Creation vs. Evolution Project in the future.") Go for it Ken. At least you won't have those pesky evilutionists to contend with like PJR has on his blog. 01:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

Haha, first Andy was "Conservapedia" (third person), and now Ken is too. All kneel before the collective entity that is CP!

Also: we never saw Operation Grassroots or whatever it was, so I doubt this will happen. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken has always been Conservapedia, or at least its intelligence wing (snork!). When "Conservapedia has learnt" something, you can be sure that Kendoll and no one else will be in the loop. And you can be sure that the thing that Conservapedia has learnt will never, ever happen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken seems to fundamentally misunderstand the internet if he thinks there is a separate Canadian and US one. - π 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you crawl deeply into another mans ass ... --Stocking (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal bot

I'm just curious... what does everyone think about the possibility of that happening? regarding the 521 dudes with open proxies worldwide. teh rational ghey (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly slim. There are basically no skilled programmers on CP. ħuman 02:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A while ago I socked up and offered to run Andy some maintenance bots, but he blocked me for not making substantial contributions. Word educated Hoover! 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but it a fairly secure site. And they use checkuser very liberally. no pun intended. teh rational ghey (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it is most likely some newbie on the /b/ forums thinking CP is a great target for a raid. There is probably only one other person serious about this and the other 519 (mostly socks, but given they are using the same handle who can tell) are playing them for "lulz". They will launch his two man assault to the laughing of all the others. - π 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we expect a sequel to the FBI incident?. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FBIII?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just another newf*g who thinks that /b/ is his personal army. Fail levels are low to moderate. -- CodyH (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you like not use that word? thanks. 208.125.226.138 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for teh gays, but I think we need to take certain uses of the word "fag" back. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid fucking fags Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 15:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not that one, you reckless queer. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

you're gay. YOUR SO GAY SO FUCKING GAY I read Conservapedia and they said yyer goin to hell! It's a real place ya know. No fer reels. I've been there. with assfly. teh rational ghey (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fags=smokes=cigarettes. Now let's see how many people can resist jokes based on smoking a fag.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The use of 'fag' as an insult conjures up images of frantically masturbating 14 year olds shouting at Counterstrike. I wish people would put a modicum of thought into insulting people, it's much more entertaining. Webbtje (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How could it be made back into a general-purpose insult? It's a good word. I want it back. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: we have an article for this. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

NU, I just rely on the standby general purpose insult of "Fucktard". It's clean, eloquent and hard to misconstrue. In situations requiring more finesse, I tell the offending party to "shut your two-cock garage", which is especially hilarious when the recipient is female. When all else fails, I just ignore the hell out of them. I've dealt with drill sergeants and I live with the most opinionated and vocal female I've ever encountered, so I'm terribly good at blocking everything out and imagining I'm at the circus, watching midget pirates shoot lollipops out of cannons into the crowd from the tightrope. Or whatever. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do have a special affinity for the word "fucktard"...and, of course, I can't think of it without being reminded of Kent Hovind. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the -tard suffix horrible and offensive and I wish people wold stop. you'll be calling people mongols next. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think people horribly offended by words have very small, delicate minds. If people would stop getting offended by words that are just words, all this retarded shit wouldn't be so gay. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I find selective, aggressive apathy offensive. No offense. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At least it has to be selective and aggressive to offend you. It's better than "word = offensive", regardless of context. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Then again, I haven't heard anyone say that sort of thing since I was ten. Maybe I don't watch the news enough? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's been at least since 20:28, 15 April 2010 UTC. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I like "fuckknuckle". ħuman 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@N: I retract my testimony, you darn mongol. @H: I find those two Ks 66% racist. Stop offending my wiki. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Aren't Fags obnoxious assholes in leather with noisy motorcycles? Alain (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A fag is a younger boy who you can beat and who toasts your bread at all decent schools. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn straight! Well, straight as far as the public is concernced.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard that interpretation. In any case, this conversation certainly took a bizarre turn... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fagging ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That explains it, then: we don't use the word that way in the US. (At least, I imagine you would get some oddly offended looks if you did.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"When I was at school, we used to line up four or five of his sort, make 'em bend over, and use 'em as a toast rack." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They don't use toast racks in America either. ħuman 00:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Truly, truly, truly outrageous

What is outrageous is that anyone at WP would take all of this standing on chairs and screaming as any sort of serious complaint rather than trolling. I tell you, this is outrageous! --Kels (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While I totally understand the reasons why several RW editors are getting involved in the ongoing saga at WP, I'd like to suggest to them all that a break might be advisable. TK and RobS (TK-CP and Nobs01) are trolling; nothing more, nothing less. None of their complaints are being taken seriously by anybody except people from here. They have managed to get to the point where an admin would be justified in making up to 4 blocks to stop the pointless edit-warring, insult-hurling and general trolling that's going on.

Don't let them do this to you.

There are plenty of other WP/RW crossover editors whom you can tag if necessary. Don't let yourselves become frustrated to the point of gaining a block.

Everybody here should know how TK operates. He will bang on and on about process while all the time lying, and perverting the truth, but calling him a liar isn't going to work.

The position of TK and RobS is untenable and that's obvious. They know that, too. Don't let them score a minor victory by letting yourselves be blocked. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

QFT. -- Nx / talk 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now claiming in his patented way that I forged the chat log in which he said he was suing TMT. He has also called me a liar and said that my clients and prospective clients might be interested in what he says is my inability to keep confidences. As an attorney I can't have someone who thinks he's anonymous on the internet threatening my business and law license. I'll do what it takes to drive that point home without getting blocked on WP, but thanks for the concern. 01:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should raise that issue on one of the WP noticeboards. Reverting him on his talk page (where he does have the right to remove comments, unfortunately), will only get you blocked. -- Nx / talk 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no WP-fu. To whose attention do I raise this issue and is there a way to do it privately? 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe wp:WP:RFC/U? -- Nx / talk 02:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That could be a good place to discuss possible trolling as well. Although TK's recent stuff goes way beyond "possibly". --Kels (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just stop acknowledging him. TK will get bored very quickly. Keegscee (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that one's impressive. His response to someone complaining that TK's freaking out in an inappropriate place is the blame the victim and ironically bitch about wiki administrators ignoring clear rule violations. It's a masterpiece of trolling, right there. Seriously, if this guy's so obviously just stirring shit up for no clear purpose, is there any official recourse that can be taken there? I don't know WP policy well enough to say. --Kels (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Suspected Replicant here. Let TK and RobS dig their graves over at Wikipedia. It already shows that none of the sysops over there give two shits about their complaining. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 02:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly - is rob suggesting that Rational Wiki material should be included or referenced? Would that make it a reliable source? --Shagie (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The same thought occurred to me but then I realised that I was getting notability confused with reliability.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice to all, per above, lay low and keep quiet, while the grave-digging is going on. If you are "active" on WP, do what I do as a mouthwash, hit "random page" twenty times and fix anything you see that is wrong. Again, let Knobs and TKnobs dig their own graves. ħuman 08:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For 200 dollar: Violent or unrestrained in temperament or behavior?

*BZZZT*

WHAT IS OUTRAGEOUS --GTac (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Human: Laying low or lying low? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Both. ħuman 00:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. TK goes away for a few hours (and nobs, coincidentally), and five or so people work on the wording and do a good job of improving it. Then nobs asks an irrelevant question, and TK pops in at the same time, coincidentally, and calls it "unacceptable" and drag the tone down about 5 levels. ħuman 01:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal site

I love how TK manages to use every opportunity^img to advertise a certain vandal site, that would otherwise be PNG on CP and the average non-parodist user (stops to laugh hysterically for a moment) would know nothing about them. If you call them, they will come. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any other vandal sites out there that think TK is talking about them? That guy who posted the silly threat, for example.194.6.79.200 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TK, you silly sod, what a stupid, pointless and totally baseless thing to put up on the front page of a so-called "encyclopedia." I can't believe Andy hasn't removed that yet. Godwin's Law, anyone? SJ ^Debaser 11:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CEASE AND DESIST

• Halt your vandal attacks, we know it is you, and legal action will be taken.--TKCP (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, not a very good imitation. He usually is TK-CP with the hyphen. - π 10:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that in itself means it's not Tez, but the capitalised title is suspicious Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 10:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought he was only talking to us through his lawyer, just like my neighbor down back. Yes, I fight and troll people in real life too. - π 11:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the odd indenting for you. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant question in English

Question on English: does "Halt your vandal attacks, we know it is you, and legal action will be taken." imply that "Halt your vandal attacks" results in "legal action will be taken", whatever those two phrases may mean? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I think it can be read as "halting will result in us knowing it's you, and thus legal action being taken," so yeah. It could use a semicolon or period where that first comma is. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The commas are indifferent separators of clause, and there's no conjunction to suggest this is anything but a list. It's poorly written and ambiguous, in other words, and can be read equally correctly as a string of unrelated events or as a causal series.--^talk 23:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Motherf**ker

TK is trolling big now^img (compare). - π 11:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedantry: this should be the one comparing to. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What I can't understand is why someone (anyone, really) would spend that much time trying to antagonise people. Over the Internet. The existence of TK on CP merely cements my opinion of Andrew Schlafly as the world's biggest putz. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 12:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

'Cos he's a sad fuck who has no other life and gets his jollies by "proving" that he's "better/smarter" by being a bigger bully. The sad thing is that the attention he gets here only feeds his fantasies. What would really hurt him is if we ignored him. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well WIGOs that focus on TK being the saddest cunt in the world started getting voted down a couple of months ago. Also, whenever we have CP boycotts their traffic tends to go down a fair old bit. SJ ^Debaser 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He is a sad fuck there is no doubt, but he is a sad fuck that has violated our copy-right. We only have given license for our work to be redistributed under CC-by-SA 3.0, so unless he acknowledges us and shares-alike he has violated our copy-right. - π 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

cp:DMCA Agent? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Saddest cunt? I got a bollocking yesterday for talking about fucking him, haha Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 12:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh so that did actually happen? I thought I saw a discussion about "flooding" TK's butthole and had to go and wash my eyes out with bleach. When I got back it had gone. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked if people would ride him bareback if the fucked him anally. And if so, would they pull out or flood him. I don't see what's wrong with a little homosexual humour. Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(Crundy goes off to wash his eyes out with bleach again) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TK knows he's violated our copyright, and he wants us to chase it up. Getting us involved in his latest little shit-flinging escapade would play to his trouble-making agenda. Best to ignore it, but bear in mind that TK will copyvio everything else on RW until he's riled us. Anyway, it doesn't matter - the only people in the entire world who will ever view that article are CP editors (all 6 of them) and us. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously trying to bait us into saying anything resembling legal action in order to capitalize on his own legal threats that got him banned, and then got brought up in the larger arena of WP. It's petty and stupid, but it's pretty clear that vindictiveness is well within character. --Kels (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we direct any legal threats to Andy because he's the owner of the site? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

And I wonder why TK still copies from the vandal site, which he is threatening legal actions against. Shouldn't he assume that the contents of the vandal site consists of material baiting to, if posted on CP, will constitute vandalism? (Someone revert him with the reason "material found on vandal site"/vandalism/parody) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So Terry Koeckritz plagiarises another article for CP. Just like the UCLA article copied from Wikipedia his mediawiki-formatting skills let him down again. What a sad little man he is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

We should send a DMCA request to take it down or acknowledge the source. I'll try to remember how to email Trent. The thing is, it violates the copyright of everyone who contributed to the article, by it being copied to a non-CC-BY-SA site, and by it not being acknowledged. What he did is actually against the law. The easy fix is to remove it upon request. ħuman 02:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple truth of the matter is if we are aware of a violation and fail to act we risk losing the right to maintain copyright on the work. An informal request to Andrew and Sitegrounds should be enough. I will take care of it. tmtoulouse 02:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. That's how trademarks work, not copyrights. But yes, there's a lot to be said for asking nicely - David Gerard (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Trent. ħuman 03:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Best... Schlaflism... EVAR!

I may be behind the times, but did anyone catch this Schlafly classic a week or so back: "There is a high correlation between belief in evolution and liberal political beliefs; that correlation alone demonstrates that evolution cannot be factual." (ref^img) There's the usual 2 + 2 = 4 stuff in evidence too. Anyone who can say this stuff with a straight face must be seriously unhinged. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely one for the quote generator, who knows how to edit that? - π 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading that a few days ago, but it never occurred to me how perfectly it fits the quote generator. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also a known correlation between those things and IQ, funny that. ^narchist 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to put it in (check the diffs to see where). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we should have a section of correlations bunched up, but I am not sure if that is accurate. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

With such unbeatable logic, I believe the evolution article could be shortened quite a bit. No need for lenghty tirades about evidence for creationism when one Schlafly insight does the job just fine, eh Ken? Vulpius (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy's insights are more entertaining if you remove liberals as the demonised party and replace them with Jews, blacks, or the Irish. Helps show Andy's true colours. I imagine him in a bedsheet or a homemade military uniform, blurting out his gibberish while his mum spits on a hankie and tries to clean the drool from his chin. ^{Ask me about your mother} 22:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If only his mum weren't just as spittle flecked as he is. All his wingnuttery he learnt at mama's knee. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Naw. he's gone far beyond his mum's nuttiness. But I suspect she taught him "logic" and he has run with it. ħuman 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I never...

They seem to have attracted a genuine conservative judging by his blog. He seems to be operating a la Ed, bigging himself up here, or is he just a parodist who's put in extra work? Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in his blog he used the word 'phenomenol'. Yep, conserva-loon Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 14:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

... Phenomenon packaged into booze form? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if he's a conservative or what, but creating a mainspace article about your own personal blog as your 3rd mainspace edit? Ugh.. --GTac (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He should fit right in Tweety^{let's have buttsecks} 14:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note he claims to be a Native American. Wonder if he's read Roger's diatribes? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He looks like Gary Busey. SJ ^Debaser 19:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how he wrote the article in the future tense. Made me think it was brand new, but it's been around a couple months at least. Quickly glancing through it I think I saw only one post with any comments. Why do is expect this is not an encyclopedia-worthy blog? Also, from what I read this guy doesn't seem far-right enough for CP. For instance he admitted that some of the opposition to healthcare reform could be attributed to Conservative Deceit. [Cue spooky music] DickTurpis (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

He also uses the word "majorly". The future tense is due to him quoting the header on his blog, I think. And also, glorious dreams of future fame? ħuman 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

He also seems not to have a mother, but he does have two daddies. ħuman 02:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

...and he also signs his article sections. He definitely has a future at CP. Finally, new blood! ħuman 02:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TK told him to "Scott, please sign all posts."^img He's taken it a bit literally. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 02:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know. Typical parodist tactic is to not sign their first talk page posts, to disguise that they have any wiki-fu. I like the way he ran with it. TK forgot to say "talk page posts". Don't they have a template yet for that? And I always love the "W with a red line through it" references. ħuman 03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy 'cause it's TK

Images " ... need to be non-copyrighted,..."^img Try telling Joaquin, Terry. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Or even try following his own advice. There was that ice-hockey player photo which he uploaded and which was later removed. But there are many other examples, particularly among his early work at CP. I know there's a picture of a light-house from Wikimedia Commons which was GFDL (later CCSA 3.0) but he just says "from WikiCommons" as if that somehow makes it all OK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The trick to getting GFDL images to be removed from Conservapedia is to notify the copyright holder. Have to see where this one goes. --Shagie (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of political ideology?

Really? Miriel will not last long, he/she fails to display a true Conservapedian spirit! :P --Maquissar (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a first for everything

JacobB made me lol!^{img — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, no starting entry would be appropriate though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is amazing... I am not even sure where to begin on that one. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm equally amazed. Making fun of Ed is like trying to accuse a thief who walks around with a mask, stripey shirt and a bag marked "swag". Our comments seem somehow unecessary. Well done JacobB! ^{Ask me about your mother} 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't think JabobB has forgotten about this. Keegscee (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please use the capture tag - someone oversighted that edit since you posted. 23:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It was from January when Ed asked Jacob for a writing plan. I'm sure it's been captured already. Keegscee (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing JacobB is still there at all. He was outed ages ago here as a parodist. But of course, blocking him for "liberal vandalism/parody" would, in the CPians minds be an acknowledgement of our existence (though TK's been testing that rule recently on CP). 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is Poe's Law: a good parodist is indistinguishable from the real thing, so why not let him continue adding "good" stuff until he goes berserk in frustration and then just revert his berserk stuff? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We know that logic goes through their heads (see the ZB discussions), but it's utterly wrong. Any good parodist will be supplementing the utterly partisan with the utterly false. 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jacob's endgame?

Well, Jacob (and Douglas) finally made it to adminship. Any speculation about his exit strategy? The parody game has to get boring sooner or later, especially with the amount of time he puts in. He hasn't really done anything new lately (at least in public), so what's left? --Benod (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

TK's still there, which proves some parodists have the patience and lack of social lives to stay around. Maybe J & D will learn from teh über parodist? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The question is, what sort of exit strategies are even possible? Pretty much anything can be undone and memory-holed. A truly spectacular exit would need some serious creativity and planning. 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The game has changed a bit. Back in the day there was no shortage of bright eyed editors to throw in to the wood-chipper, but right now it's a very limited selection. It's quite clear that Andy doesn't need to be pushed to adopt crazy and unpopular positions, so I'd like to see some serious undermining of a major sysop, such as Ken, Ed, Karajou, or the Mexican bandit. CP deserves to go out with an explosion, and the current slow slide in to mediocrity is really selling the site short. I'd be very impressed if someone managed to drag the Schlafly broodmare in to the game. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I keep looking at the Active Editors stat. I think if that drops below Ψ, where Ψ is some value in TK's warped mind, he'll out himself. Given that there's variable ψ, which is people who edited but got blocked, (Ψ-ψ) must be approaching the critical value. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Jacob and Doug have probably put a few gems in the CBP. Other than that, there's not really much they can do other than laugh in Andy's face. The only normal editor worth disposing of now is CPalmer, who has probably only survived this long because he hasn't really edited in the past half-year. The best thing they could do would be to take down TK with them; that way, CP might get some new editors, arguments would be held, and we would get to see the CP sysops in all their war finery once more. EddyP (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the ideal endgame would be deleting a crapload of articles (with Andy's approval, of course) and gradually blocking the planet. That way, they can at least be sure that they did some irreparable damage to CP before they risk their own heads going after TK or someone else. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trim to fit on one line

Andy really doesn't get how browsers, computers, displays or anything works does he?^{img yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Toast (what a ridiculous name!) but your reply scrolled over one line so I was unable to read it. gODspeed –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is one line for Andy, that is what is important. It is his wishes that count, TK said so. (Aside: If you want to see something bad go to NFL.com with the default Ubuntu fonts. The website must cost millions a year, but text gets chopped of the end of lines unless you are using the Windows defaults.) - π 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he's using a monitor that small? Even my used flaptop renders the "pre" version on one line. But then again, as used flappies go, it's pretty shiny. ħuman 02:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

More correctly it's the pixel resolution that counts rather than the dimensions of the monitor. I reckon he must be using one of those Hollywood style monitors where everything is displayed in a font that you can read from across the street.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

True indeed. A friend of mine has a 42" or so monitor, and when he goes into command line mode each character is about 2" tall. ħuman 04:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Point

"For a gov. to not express appreciation or acknowledge an unseen but manifest host conveys that such is unworthy of recognition, or that it is evil for them to do so, or that no host exists." Sayeth Dan^img Too true, Danny boy. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he's right at all. Not having a National Prayer Day does not mean that the government's official position is atheistic or agnostic - it just means that they are (correctly, in my opinion), staying away from religion so that people can decide for themselves how/when/who/if they want to worship. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Toasty Toes was just bring snarky about the "no host exists" part. ħuman 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)