Haiti Disaster Relief Donation Links

RationalWiki would like to make it easy for people to donate directly to major relief organizations helping in the Haiti earthquake aftermath. All donation links on this page are direct to the organizations. No money goes through any hands at RationalWiki or its members. Red Cross Relief Doctors Without Borders Haiti Earthquake Response US State Department's page, including the ability to TXT a donation to the Red Cross

From RationalWiki

Article of the Weak  • Previous AotWs • Talk AotW
WIGO CP • WIGO Clogs • WIGO Blogs • WIGO World
Talk CP • Talk Clogs • Talk Blogs • Talk World

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.

Contents 1 Make Karajou Funny (sticky) 2 TK made a mistake 3 ṬK's plagiarism 4 McKellen 5 Impersonation 6 Don't comment out WIGOs unless they should be deleted... 7 Food in Afghanistan WIGO 8 REPENT!! 9 the stupid never stops 10 Where are they talking? 11 Red Telephone message to TK and/or Kenny Baby 12 Professorwatch 13 Upping the ante

[edit] 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)

[edit] TK made a mistake

TK made a mistake. (*gasp* no! - yes, it's true. lol) So, this is what he did: DannyD http://conservapedia.com/User:DannyD^img - wrote on his user page: "Was reminded by φ to help out here." So TK, mathematical genius that he is, blocks dear old Danny D: "02:55, 2 February 2010 TK blocked DannyD with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked - Member of a website supporting vandalism: Bye-bye American Pi)" apparently assuming that Danny D is RW member Pi. But φ is Phi. NOT π Pi. Phi is a mathematical term (the golden ratio: 1.61803399) and not the same as Pi (3.14159265). even I know that. But the bigger mistake is that Danny "Was reminded by φ Phi" to help out... and Phi is lil' Phyllis, Andy's daughter. even I know that. TK blocked her little friend. Just wait until Andy hears about this one. Capturebot anyone? Before it's oversighted away and thus, never happened. Refugee^{talk page} 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy'll just undo the block and they'll go on living their lives as normal. They're all dicks over there - the fact they give five year blocks for being guilty of nothing proves what terrible human beings they are. SuperJosh ^{links to his gay porn collection talkpage} 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The block log^img, since you ask. Hope I'm using the cap tags right, I never mess with these... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - just the stupidity of this struck me as funny. Refugee^{talk page} 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was KettleTicket's (see block log list above, waaay above - aka NathanG)way of referring to P Schlaf. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FTR, I was just wearing my phi t-shirt whilst giving a computer tute. (I am still wearing the shirt, I am no longer in a tute). Keep trying TK you will block me eventually. - User = 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think she referred to herself that way, too. ħuman 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hai. Thanks for raging about this too.

As far as I know, I gave her the nickname, "Phy". And she does use it to refer to herself. *talked to her a few days ago*. Kix, they're not just for kids~ 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, but I never considered that it was Pi. Just someone foolish enough to say he was sent by him/her. Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, please learn to read. The user was sent by "φ" - that's "PHI". There's a difference between that and "Π" - that's "PI". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? This may be new to your over 19,000 currently blocked editors... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since 18,800 of them are duplicate blocks and socks (past and present) of users here, not a big deal! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this should be good. *gets out the popcorn* --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Amusing example of a Schlafly statistic! But even 200 wronged editors are considerably more than the 82 active ones... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And the more than 22,000,000 IPs that are blocked would no doubt all be socks as well. Gosh we have been busy. --Worm^{(t | c)} 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL only 82 active users. If that's the 'best of the public' then those are some stringent standards (that somehow also still allow Ed Poor to qualify).-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) PS Hi Nate, I wondered if that was you!

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? yes, but only when you (likely! allegedly!) blackmail someone via email, get a 12 year old kid to "parole" you then quietly delete the terms of your probation. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Editors at CP

Shorter Blocks at CP

One of the areas in which Conservapedia excels is the hypocrisy in blocking editors: today, less than 30 editors of the currently blocked 19,000 have a chance of returning in the foreseeable future, i.e., in less than a year. Most blocks are made for eternity - or at least for five years, the internet's equivalent! So, there is nothing educational in this blocks, they are meant to repel the editors. That was (somewhat) different in the beginning of the project - and at the end of 2008. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh someone just got owned - science style!--^やあ! 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Owned? Well yes, if one accepts the postulation that block lengths equal reality. Of course they don't, but LArron knows that already, his graph is just for dramatic effect. I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. Blocking people for violating CP's rules, when they know the rules, isn't some bad thing, to most people, only here where they seem to agree with violating the rules there, but want people blocked here for disagreeing, and blame them for the reactions of others. Odd. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying you have never blocked anyone that hasn't violated any CP rule? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, the blocking rules are just broad enough that you can block everyone. You can not edit Conservapedia without conceivably committing one blocking offence. - User = 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the figures quoted are, as far as I know, blocks currently in place, not historic blocks that were made then unblocked. over 20 MILLION IP's are currently blocked at CP. --Worm^{(t | c)} 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worm, who cares? That is each site's power and decision. Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? The 20M figure isn't literal, just a possible number, if all IP addresses in a given range are actually being used. It isn't something others can logically criticize, if that is what some site wants to do....it would be the same if some other site says it is "bad" for RW to sysop most users. I mean, WTF, who cares? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's arguing whether the IPs are in use; the argument is that over 20M IPs are blocked. That's insanely large for such a podunk blog of conservative craziness that only gets recognition when its owner goes insane publicly. Just look at the history: The only times CP got any press happened when Andy was in way over his head. Lenski, Bible project... Otherwise, even conservative Christians couldn't care less about your site. RW has far more active editors because we don't allow you to have any powers here. CP had more active editors when you had no powers there. It's too bad that Andy can't see what a delusional piece of troll shit you are; but it's funny when you fuck up CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? - we'll never know will we - because they're blocked! Personally, I couldn't care less - block the whole world if you like, just don't pretend it doesn't happen. And you know as well as everyone else does that breaking the rules is a nonsense - anyone can be deemed to have broken the rules. You yourself were blocked for doing so on more than one occasion I believe? --Worm^{(t | c)} 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My only point here on RW has always been the same: The same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. The fact that most have a strong hate towards me is the point...demonstrating the same mind-set as many conservatives have towards liberals, which you constantly complain about, but demonstrate your commonality with CP daily, by the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives, which surpass (in actuality) anything CP says. If RW were truly open to contrary opinions, there wouldn't be the automatic personal insult mode for anyone posting what you disagree with. There is a difference between personal insults and insulting ideas, something RW hasn't yet taken up, or made an enforcable policy about. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more Conservative Concise by just saying "no u" every time you post. Fake anecdotes aren't any more effective. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"...the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives..." You don't have to cite things that are obviously true.

--Kels (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, I am curious about two things: 1. Is your life really so impoverished that you have to boost yourself by abusing your power on a site that is really little more than an internet joke? 2. Will you now do the honorable thing and ban yourself from Conservapedia for posting on a "vandal" site? You would do it to anyone else, so, really, do your hold yourself above your own rules?

And remember, it is always possible to step back, realize that you could be a better person, and make a change to your life. Are you really that happy with how you have treated others? With the power games you have played? A change for the better is always possible. Remember that. Kaalis (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. No, we are. No, it doesn't. Only caveat: whether the editors actually violated the rules before blocking can't be seen. I leave it to your fellows at CP to automatize the evaluation of intentions.
• the same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. Judging from these rates of return, editors seem to be less bullied by a short block! Quelle surprise!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Science ftw. TK, you idiot, LArron is querying the CP database, these graphs are simple "facts". PS, did I call TK a congenital liar on enough pages yet tonight? ħuman 07:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Human, your de jour knee-jerk insults aside, mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? That is the problem with statistics, they can be bent to show all kinds of things....like politicians do daily. And Aaron, your stats for RW do indeed reflect what they do, because of the multitude of blocks, which can be undone by most here, right? No surprise, so sorry no cigar for logic in your comment. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an "insult", it was a statement of fact. Eh, TK, TK, TK, when will you learn how to write English? It is so easy to find your puppets because they use commas as badly as you do. Oh, what was your point, you lying, power hungry loser? Ah yes, some of those zillion IPs you blocked on CP might have used dirty words. Funny how that's the way you got Andy to kick you off CP for a while - sliming a dirty word in his email. You'd be funny if you weren't so toxic. ħuman 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some might say what is toxic is you continually making comments as if you knew something, which you don't. I was blocked on CP by what were eventually found to be RW users who lied continually to get promoted there, typical deceit of the kind you embrace. Odd you talk about power-hungry losers, when you still are emailing around trying to get unblocked on CP. Why? And odd, just like Obama, you and others here continue to ignore the points about how this place acts the same as CP whenever you don't like what someone says, and only focus on other issues. You would be funny too, if you weren't so transparent with your cheap shots at the ready. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks in 2009
	CP	RW
Blocks against editors	5868	5910
Blocked editors	5641	609
Blocks against active editors	3226 (55.0%)	5398 (91.3%)
Active editors	4317	1132
Blocked active editors	3039 (70.4%)	509 (45.0%)
Returned after block	185 (6.1%)	374 (75.6%)

TK: I suppose you are talking about these values. Let's have a closer look: In 2009 there were 4317 editors who made an comment on CP, and only 1132 who contributed to RW. But the number of blocks issued on both sites was roughly the same: 5868 blocks on CP, 5901 blocks on RW. First of all: mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? Yes, to a certain extant, they do: Comments of an insulting nature - and a by someone with an unsuitable name - would be reverted: these editors have no comment left at CP. Of course, this is no exact correlation, as some edits are removed without being insulting, just for being inconvenient like this one which I took from User talk:TK /Archives7#Deceit:

• So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Would you care to answer, please?). 2602 blocks at CP are issued to users for whom no contribution can be found - this leaves 3039 editors blocked who contributed to CP in a way that not all their edits were reverted: they seem to have said at least something inoffensive. These are 70.4% of all the editors who made a comment in 2009! Only 185 editors came back after being blocked at least once, so at the end of 2009, there were just 1463 editors who contributed to CP unmolested - or cared enough to come back. And the situation at RW? Not 70.4% but only 45.0% of the active editors were blocked, 512 editors were blocked without leaving an evidence in the data base, i.e., for spamming and such. The return quote of blocked editors is much higher, so the blocks don't seem that repellent. At the end of the year, there were 997 editors unblocked or returned... So, while CP has roughly four times as many editors who made a un-reverted contribution, at the end of the year, there are only 1.5 times as many left interested in CP as in RW... And now you may interpret the data. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm in love with LArron. --Sean^talk 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

♥ larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? I can't answer this question definitely, but I can give some fodder for thought: If there are less than 100 computer-savvy conservative people in the U.S. who are interested in contributing to a conservative encyclopedia on a regular basis, than, no, all have found their way to conservapedia and non of those is blocked. Otherwise, either the marketing is lacking - or your site's treatment of your editors is repellent. I can firmly state that many people are blocked who were quite committed to the site and contributed extensively - have a look at the first picture (how to read it: until Feb 2010, 476 editors made more than 100 comments on Conservapedia which are still in the database. 48.3% of these 476 editors are blocked currently)

A similar picture arises if you look only at the contributions to the main namespace (second picture). An exemplary data-point: until Feb 2010, 337 editor made more than 100 comments to the namespace main at CP - 44.8% of those are blocked now.

Are there many conservative people under these very committed, but nowadays blocked editors? I suppose so. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ṬK's plagiarism

Hi ṬK - we know you read this - any chance you might quote your sources or are you once again going to pass other's work off as your own. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I also like how as he copied it, he incorrectly changed "who" to "whom". It's easy: it could be either "[...] who is going to take care of him." or "[...] by whom will he be taken care of." It's a small thing but I enjoy how he changes the language to try to make himself look clever and achieves the opposite. StarFish (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget: never end a sentence with a preposition. The second should be "by whom will care be taken of him." I think. Stupid cubic Phantom! 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's like saying don't split infinitives, it doesn't have any real clarifying or stylistic function. It's an 19th century affectation we really need to dump, actually... -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from TK stealing other's material, which is fairly common, I looked more at the sheep stupidity of the post. I think I feel a side by side coming on..... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I applaud such efforts! Please do. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put the list here. The ones I have yet to have a counterpoint is commented out. Also feel free to rename the article. K61824^{Ed Poor types in Chinese?} 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   * If a conservative disagrees with a liberal, he ignores them and carries on with his life.
   * If a liberal disagrees with a conservative, he will argue. 

Uh... Wasn't Conservapedia itself founded because Andy disagreed with "liberals" and couldn't just carry on with his life? Barikada (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like that one, since it illustrates the concervative's deliberate ignorance. Whenever someone objects to something you belief, just go LALALA and walk on! --GTac (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this one immediately gave me the impulse to write a side-by-side (with the title of our response being "The way things happen at Conservapedia"), and I posted the list already to my sandbox, but I'm still trying to figure out the side-by-side template. I especially love the "homosexual conservative" and "non-religious conservative" entries. Junggai (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] McKellen

Gd' evening, I'm also known as Twitcher. I know it's not particularly good form to out oneself as a parodist quite so openly (and indeed when I've done so relatively little), but the stub was so entertainingly small, and the talk page so entertainingly revealing, that I couldn't help but wander in and spread some hatred. I would carry on with my trollery, but frankly the god-fearing members of Conservapedia do a good enough job by themselves. Godspeed y'all. Oh yeah, and TK - bullshit were you ever at Slayer's recording sessions. Webbtje (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Nice one. StarFish (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Webbtje - you do know TK uses this site? You should've held off for a bit - one you post here, odds are you're gonna get banned from CP pretty sharpish now... - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware. I was, at one point, half-intending to cause some actual havoc in the far-ish future, but then I usually have way too much on to do a proper job. I'd rather be banned from CP and resist the temptation of wasting time vandalising it to fuck. Webbtje (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't ban people simply because somebody here pretends to be them. You could get anybody you like banned that way. YourEnemy? (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I could admittedly be anyone pretending to be Twitcher. The mystery deepens. Webbtje (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we got TK to block Andy's IP doing that once if I recall correctly. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was the CP site IP that we got banned. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

There's only one StupidTK ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned for redundancy. 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

That made me laugh too when I saw it today. Impersonation account. hehe. :p Refugee^{talk page} 08:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar name CP:User:KTDiputsho which has some links here and on UCLA talk. That was when TK was caught with his pants down over his WP plagiarism, unfortunately he had to rely on his kids (Geo.Plrd & HenryS) doing the dirty work for him then. Генгис^{Gum disease} 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Don't comment out WIGOs unless they should be deleted...

The delusions one makes sense... The Tea Party is focused on Sarah Palin for their leader, Andy thinks a candidate can't win without the Tea Party vote, yet their leader lost the last election. It makes sense, whether or not the Tea Party was around when she was on the ticket. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that deleting them screws up the numbering of the polls or something, that's why I commented it out.

The WIGO doesn't make sense. Sarah Palin was not the leader of the Tea Party movement when she ran against Barack Obama. How could they possibly affect an election when they didn't exist yet?

Clearly, they couldn't. So it doesn't make any sense to mock someone for thinking they could make a difference now if your point is that they were tragically impotent to affect elections before their existence. That'd be like telling Napoleon that he stood no chance of defeating Austria because he didn't win at Themopylae.--^안녕! 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The WIGO points out that the Tea Party is rallying around someone who's already lost an election. So Andy's delusion that the Tea Party's endorsement is required to win is already dumb because they picked a loser to champion them. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The WIGO doesn't make the point you seem to want to make. It doesn't say, for example, "They don't seem to be choosing winners themselves." Because that makes your point and is funnier.

It still doesn't make a good point, unless you are presuming that Palin is politically irrelevant because of her loss. Consider Obama himself. He lost a race for the House, but following a change in local demographics he hitched himself to a rising wagon and won after a lucky campaign. Saying that the Tea Partiers are dumb for picking a loser to champion them assumes - very wrongly - that a politician who has lost can never win.

The Republicans were never going to win in 2008. But when chosen, Palin was launched from governor of one of the least-central states into the national spotlight. At the Tea Party convention, she made about $2,500 per minute for her speech. Her Facebook messages have shaped the national dialog on occasion - "death panels" ring a bell?

To be frank, this WIGO is also just silly. Any Republican nominee will have to take the Tea Party into account if it's still in its current form in 2012 - and it certainly seems like it's onmly going to win major momentum in 2010 with the inevitable midterm losses. It's not smart to mock Andy for making a relevant point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.--^Hi! 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you can make the WIGO funnier or vote it down. But because you don't like a WIGO doesn't mean you should comment it out.

And Palin is politically irrelevant (how many people who lose elections then become part of FoxNews end up winning their elections afterward?). She lost the general election because her base didn't know enough about her; now that she's out in the open and being a complete disgrace to anyone who can think, she's not about to win enough support from the smarter Republicans and definitely not from Democrats. Add in her constant problems, the revelations that her husband had some control during her tenure as Governor, her quitting her post just to go on her book tour and be on FoxNews, and so forth... and really, all she has is the Tea Party. That won't get her far, and I think the focus she has on FoxNews will hurt her political career more when people understand she's just a pretty face, nothing more. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just assumed (wrongly) that whoever submitted it would want it gone if its mistaken nature was pointed out. I won't comment out your WIGO again, don't worry.--^Salut! 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Palin is politically irrelevant? That's... an interesting statement. Excuse me while I go assembly a series of news articles illustrating her power in the political realm.--^AVE 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "death panels" changes the entire health care debate. Her endorsement of a local candidate draws thousands. Even Palin's wild overreactions on colloquialisms are news. Palin PAC raises $1.4m in last half of 09, to spend on other campaigns and Palin's future campaigns. Palin's endorsement, sought after in Kentucky, is given to Rand Paul. And that's just the surface.

It's hard to fathom how you can think she's irrelevant. I think she's incredibly unlikely to win in 2012, but no one who gets crowd chanting for her to run is "irrelevant."--^안녕! 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pfff, I could raise $1.4 in minutes! --GTac (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

She may be media-relevant, but there's no way she could win any seat again. Remember how the Christian Right said they were the powerhouse (and had similar numbers in 2008) and were backing Huckabee? What happened? He kept going on the media, became a FoxNews contributor, and so forth. These R-celebs get gigs on television, and then kill their political careers when the smarter Republicans, those who don't think Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity speak for them, vote for the better of two evils. Because she can repeat talking points doesn't mean she can still win elections. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If your claim is now "she could never win any seat again," that's one thing. I still think that's a silly prediction, but it's not blatantly wrong like "politically irrelevant." Words mean things.--^안녕! 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

People thought Reagan was a doddering old fool, after two losses he won two terms. People thought GWB was a blithering idiot and he won two terms. You'll never lose a bet misunderestimating the voters. Or something like that. ħuman 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that both Reagan and GWB surrounded themselves with people who actually knew what they were doing. Palin is far too arrogant to do that, the information that came out of the McCain campaign shows that Palin has a habit of refusing to listen to viewpoints that don't match hers exactly.-- 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How many teabaggers voted for Obama? Zero right? Has there been a single example of a teabagger in the news saying something like "I was inspired by Obama but now I'm having buyer's remorse?" No, they're all "independent conservatives" (lifelong Republicans) who are "worried by the direction our country is heading" (shocked that the scary Black Mooslim actually won) and want to "take our country back" (deliver the Senate, House and White House back to the GOP) "to our Christian roots" (electing a trailer-trash fundie like Palin or Huckabee).

So why does it matter that the Tea Party didn't formally exist before Obama won? These pro-Palin Iowans probably all voted for her in 08 and guess what, it wasn't enough to deliver the state for McCain.

I guess one could argue that putting Palin at the top of the ticket will mobilize even more Teabaggers to come to the polls in 2012. But at the same time, there's the risk of having her in the national spotlight for a whole year, not for a few weeks before the election.

Long story short I agree with the WIGO. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Food in Afghanistan WIGO

Anyone used ebay before? a lot of stuff did come with free shipping. Of course we will inquire TK on how to administer the load of food enough to feed 7 million for free (yes, transport with Noah's ark Mk II built completely by only volunteers. Good luck with that). K61824^"6+18=24" 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fox article makes for interesting reading. They keep referring to experts, but not once do they explain who the experts are or why they are considered experts. Andy would not approve. --^{Ask me about our tuba} 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] REPENT!!

And ye shall be saved. So there you go. If you get blocked for adding facts and common sense into CP then you should repent your sins and ask for forgiveness rather than moan about it. Crundy^lolwut? 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At least that page is now a closer reflection of their actual policy. They just need to delete the bit about CPWebmaster - he hasn't done anything for months.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the edit is just... almost three years late (Ed once did this to me back in 2007, if I recall correctly), but now at least it gives you a more accurate preview of what to expect if when you get blocked/banned. --Sid (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] the stupid never stops

Sickening and stupid. Thanks Ed. Refugee^{talk page} 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

that is kinda creepy. Hands up if your a guy, 30-50 years old , and that book is on your reading list, oh, and you watch Sailor Moon ? Hamster (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"If you contact more than person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting." Is "person" an account there, Uncle Ed? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget watching Mean Girls and Star Trek episodes about intersteller pimps. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And Shanghai Kiss. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The man wrote the book on creepy. It has lots of teen and preteen girls in it. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have to appreciate the clarity. "If you've been wrongly blocked, think about ways it could be your fault. That'll save us time of making something up." As to the other, authoritarians like Ed always seem to be preoccupied with the sexuality of teenagers. Creepy as hell, but it's what we've come to expect. --Kels (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Ed Moon, it looks like he's active at WP again, in typical passive aggressive style. --Kels (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit is incomprehensible. ħuman 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Urge to quote his Contributor's Guide edit to his Biopsychiatry Controversy section... rising (just replace "blocked" with "topicbanned"). --Sid (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did it for you Sid. I never edit Wikipedia, too many WikiNazis. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice, Sir Chuck. Very nice. In fact bloody lovely! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to provide a source. Don't worry. I did it for you. Keegscee (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bravissimo, ChuckB. Junggai (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Where are they talking?

The SDG is history, but all of the cross-chatter that normally was on CP is gone now, I've noticed. Do we know where their new SDG is?--^やあ! 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ħuman 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are going to receive a Very Important Email.--^안녕! 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where is it? 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After SDG they started a new one but got panicked when they thought some of us were reading it, so they started another one. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we're reading that one too. --Fawlty (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Red Telephone message to TK and/or Kenny Baby

Your front page is glaringly lacking any reference to the big snow dump on the East Coast being further proof against Global Warming. That's really solid evidence. You can discard heatwaves being experienced in other parts of the world, as that data doesn't fit your theory. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"other parts of the world ?" This is AMERICA , there ARE no other parts of the world, cept maybe those foreign places , but they dont speak English so they dont count. What matters , and only a republican would deny that, is that its COLD here NOW ! Hamster (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hamster. See exhibit A. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe some places are bombed but incorrectly illustrated, and some placed not bombed but illustrated otherwise. Also you guys forgot Guam. K61824^{Ed Poor types in Chinese?} 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, forgetting Guam is the national pastime. DickTurpis (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Poland. You're thinking of Poland. 01:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

the map is correct, the USA never bombed Japan, they are friends, especially Toyota. Islands dont really count anyway, they are just too small, like guam . Hamster (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

World war II anyone? You have to date the map legends properly if you have to say "the USA never bombed Japan". K61824^{What is going on?} 13:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, what's that whooshing sound I hear? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If only k61824 was wearing a hat, it would be a thudding sound.. --GTac (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add to the red telephone message with this... You know, a token "Rep. John Murtha passed away at 77." That's all.... If you can stop complaining about a professor being asked to stop preaching religion in a class that has nothing to do with it and comparing various figures you don't like to Hitler. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't expect us to believe that, do you? We all know liberals delight in deceit. No doubt the congressman faked his death in order to avoid a humiliating defeat in November. DickTurpis (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Professorwatch

The good professor hasn't edited Conservapedia since Jan 25, 2010^img, so he is missing now for 14 days — 5 days longer than his longest previous time of silence. Is it the fault of ṬK - or of some liberal interpretation of holidays? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Upping the ante

The waterloo shtick became old. Now he's heading for armageddon! Internetmoniker (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, well it's from the Torygraph blog-post that he linked to. Bondurant (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. That's the reason I didn't make this into a wigo. Still a bit of an hyperbole. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the assumption that Obama must move to the right. Maybe the Indys disapprove because he's not far enough to the left for them? ħuman 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't they bring out the older shtick about Obama being the antichrist by now, if they have to use that word? K61824^{ZOYG I edit like Kenservative!} 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the next step up from Obama's armageddon (Obamageddon?) The "entropy death of Obama's universe", maybe? MDB (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)