Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Revision as of 20:54, 24 May 2012 by Ace McWicked (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

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 Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Conservapedia Forum
  1. What if CP gets a lot of its data from RW...? (13:35, 5 Jun 2013)
  2. Conservapedia ruined my life (16:08, 21 Apr 2013)
  3. I think karjou likes star wars and dr who. (22:49, 12 Mar 2013)
  4. Making Karajou funny, part duh (09:45, 16 Oct 2012)
  5. "Socialist" Spanish soccer team (11:43, 30 Aug 2012)
  6. My impending ban from Conservapedia (09:54, 30 Aug 2012)
  7. Andy on Twitter (01:45, 23 Aug 2012)
  8. Andy's Psychological Well-being (22:59, 25 Jun 2012)
  9. 2010 Conservapedia Day Awards (08:26, 3 Apr 2012)
  10. Captioning Kenny-style (07:09, 6 Dec 2011)

Contents

Being an international man of mystery is bad now?

Er, Kendoll, I don't think you should be linking to an article called "Skeptics who refuse to reveal their name—do they have something to hide, or something to fear?" while simultaneously refusing to even acknowledge if you are even human. It makes you seem even more crazy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What I like with Ken's dribbling screeds is how he always addresses them to us atheists and evolutionists. Because, unlike Andy, he knows we're the only ones reading that blog. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Wine seems a good idea. It is 2 o'clock. I'm going out to buy a bottle. El TajDon't make me do stuff 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whining? he asks. I think he may not even realise it's a play on words and thinks that cheese cheers up sad people.--Spud (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
So now he is copy-pasting it onto non-caring sysop talkpages in a three-hour editing spree. A failed anonymous personality in cahoots with other failed anonymous personalities (shockofgod) is whining about other anonymous personalities, apparently calling them whiners. Well, don't know about you all, but this clearly defeats everyone here with that kind of pure logic. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if Ken realises his sneering, condescending manner does more to turn people off than actually listen to what drivel he has to say? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Kendoll doesn't understand anything he does really. He just copies his mannerisms, opinions and thoughts wholesale from his badly chosen role models. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Given how much he is currently dominating the mainpage with his QE slop, he is clearly feeling lonely and craves our attention. Unfortunately we are now giving it to him.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
That link is either gone or doesn't work...is he calling out RWians specifically, or what? Cuz I'm not hiding. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That's because Conservative deleted and restored MPR (minus his "atheists are whining" section), deleted the crying baby image, then subsequently started removing edits from other articles pertaining to his spamming of that "crybaby anonymous atheists" trial. It must have finally donned on him the irony. To add a cherry on the shitpile, Andy obliviously adds "Liberal censorship" to a newly created and censored MPR. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 23:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we are missing this little gem:

Wimpy atheists whine to cp:Creation Ministries International (CMI), but it doesn't look like CMI or its supporters are going to shut down their creation evangelism and Christian evangelism efforts.[1][2]

Atheists, are you upset that cp:global atheism was shrinking by 400 atheists a day in 2011 and now it is shrinking by 800 atheists a day while cp:global Christianity is seeing explosive growth?[3][4] Atheist crybabies, would you like some cheese to go with your atheist whines?[5][6]

The missing pic was deleted by Ken and afterwards by Andy himself - perhaps because AugustO quoted it as an example at Andy's talk-pageimg? larronsicut fur in nocte 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
August calls Ken out.img --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Conservative wants to spam CP with videos. Meanwhile, Andy seems to be really unclear about what, exactly an "Internet" is....

The crazy and the stupid.img Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow Andy, you just made Ken look like the smart one by a country mile. --Revolverman (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It's really this stuff, not his political stances or science denialism, that showcases his stupidity. Although those help too. Nihilist 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
After reading Andy's comment about how "internet is better than videos", I have an image of him attempting to embed videos onto Conservapedia by trying to shove VHS tapes into his computer screen. That put a big smile on my face.
Well, if Ken can get Andy to understand what he's going on about, that will be the beginning of the next phase of stupid on Conservapedia. Apart from all the Shockofgod videos that will be all over the site, instead of using pictures from Flickr to try to take the piss out of atheists, Ken will write captions like "Atheists are like a baby biting a boy's finger" and "Atheists are like a cat playing the keyboard" under the YouTube videos.--Spud (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm really hoping Kendoll gets his way this time. Allowing videos on CP would really let Kendoll fuck up the main page so much worse than he does now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, isn't Ken's bandwidth comment wrong? If I watch a video embedded on CP, it's still CP's server that has to burn electrons streaming it from YouTube right? --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
As puzzling it is, Ken is correct. All CP's server would sends is a small bit of HTML that tells the browser to fetch a Flash file from YouTube's server. That Flash object, in turn, streams the video file off YouTube's server. It doesn't, at any point, pass through CP. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I love the way Andy always says "I have an open mind about this" when he means "That isn't going to happen". rpeh •TCE 11:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, am gutted about this. Seeing MPL smothered with shockofgoat videos would help return much of the lulz value to the site. I fully endorse Ken's vision for a better CP. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I for one demand four or five auto-playing ShockOfGod videos on the front page and essays which are nothing but a video. Also, the parodist lols potential skyrockets when directly pulling content off other sites. Step 1) Open YouTube account. Step 2) Upload YEC/Christian Right propaganda. Step 3) Create CP article full of it. Step 4) Wait a few weeks. Step 5) Change videos to whatever you like. Step 6) See how many months/years it remains up! --Sasayaki (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It could leave to very-short-articles consisting of nothing but video. Technically, the #ev code would be fewer characters than most of the one-sentence shots, which may explain why he's keen to implement it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you can re-upload videos on YouTube. Or at least in my two minutes of searching I haven't found an option. The best you could do would be giant annotations that cover the entire video. «-Bfa-» 00:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep. You embed YouTube videos to other sites by taking the unique video ID parameter (seen in YouTube videos after the v= in the URL). You can edit the video metadata/details afterwards, but you can't change the actual video files; if you reupload a video, you get a new video ID. I suppose one of the reasons for this is exactly this external embedding risk - it'd just lead to rampant rickrollery. We can't have rampant rickrollery. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The greatest moment in CP history, in two words: Rickrolling Ken. Whoover (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Consider the damage Ken has done with just text and images. Now, imagine him having the ability to embed videos. The result should be hilariously disastrous for CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
+1 for letting Ken embed videos. Hilarity will ensue. Andy won't go for it, though. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It's really a shame that a few people actually logged on to Andy's page to worry him with concerns like security/copyright, etc. That pretty much killed any chanve this had. Also, who the hell are these people trying to protect CP from itself? Honest, good-faith editors? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Who knows? They could have been trolls. There's a chance that if you tell Andy some internetty things are not a good idea, you'll be hilariously responded to by internet security expert Andy Schlafly. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Brenden, who warns Andy about the security risks of embedding videos, doesn't seem like a typical CP editorimg but he seems to be genuinely trying to improve the site. I wish people who don't meet Andy's definition of a conservative would stop bothering and let the piss poor site die! --Spud (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Stfu, I'm brenden, and I am allowed to do what I wantRandonGeneration (talk)
I think you mean "internet security best of the public Andy Schlafly." Cantabrigian (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to see this happen, but (as far as I know) Andy's the only one who actually has the access required to implement any upgrade like this and he's too dumb/lazy/stubborn/afraid he's going to break something/combination of all four to do anything about it. As mentioned above, when he plays the "I have an open mind" card, that really means "You're wrong and for whatever reason, I disagree with you. So drop it." Cow...Hammertime! 16:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The damn liberal metawiki software removes pageviews from deleted pages from the total pageview count, masking the growing conservatism. Andy cannot abide that damage again. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
"I have an open mind about this but" is Andy's "Not racist but". Observe the similarity:
I'm not a racist, but [racist shit]
I have an open mind about this, but I reject your claim/suggestion out of hand; it'll never happen so fuck off and die and take your liberal opinions with you.
ONE / TALK 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does not compute, part umpty-billion.

How the hell is facebook, a site whose content is generated entirely by its users, a pro-Obama siteimg? What passes for logic in Andy's world makes my head hurt. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a try at this: facebook "destroys marriages" + marriage is conservative → facebook is not conservative → facebook is liberal + Obama is a liberal → Facebook is Pro-Obama.
Or let me get the Freudian version out: facebook is successfull + Andy is jealous → facebook is evil → facebook is liberal → facebook is pro-Obama (who Andy is also jealous of) --Raga Man (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In the same way, perhaps, that Wikipedia, a site whose content is generated entirely by its users, is an ethnocentric site? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable to call a site pro-Obama if its users lean towards Obama or if the sites admins/owners are pro-Obama. So I would like to amend this section's title to "Computes, part one of a one-part series" ONE / TALK 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's obvious: Facebook is liberal because they offer a reporting system that allows users to suggest pages be removed for being hateful, racist, deceitful or otherwise offensive. If Facebook was conservative, all of those types of pages would be encouraged. Also, Mark Zuckerberg is a known atheist, although clearly not obese, poor or lacking machismo. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Because conservative websites never censor the opinions of others. /sarcasm --Raga Man (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
[Bender giggle] -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Aw, look who's not doing proper research

Hi, Jpatt.img Fuck you. --Raga Man (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Go easy on JPatt. He's got severe reading comprehension issues. He's a symptom, not the problem. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
[7] It's a 5 minute google search for god's sake... --Raga Man (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
With raga man. Jpatt is a dumb fuckin bastard--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Although I have no sympathy for Jpatt's ideology, I do feel a great deal of sympathy for his struggles with the English language. When I was actually an editor on CP several years ago, I remember email conversations with him where he lamented his difficulties. It's not an excuse, but I do feel pity for someone who lives his life practically in fear of the written words around him. άλφαΤαλκ 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Schools are liberal. Universities are liberal. The media are liberal. Bookstores are liberal. Authors are liberal. People who want your kids to go to university are both liberal and elitist. Bad enough that for whatever reason--how one's brain is wired, what kind of educational opportunities one had, how aware one's parents were of the need to provide the baby with a lot of stimulation, or how able they were to do that given the challenges of just making a living--a person has a hard time reading. But when everything tied to the written word and intellectual production is framed as "the enemy" in that person's ideological worldview, well, no wonder there's so much hate there. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, but JPratt's so glad he's a gamma. After all, those alpha plus job creators who tell him what to think work so very hard. And as for those epsilon minus semi-morons like Kendoll... well it scarcely bears thinking about. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Sure. Jpatt's real problem is that he "struggles with the English language". It's not that he's about the stupidest person ever to walk god's green earth. It's all some learning disability. Sort of like saying Charles Manson had a bad back, and that's why he killed all those people, so we shouldn't judge him. Jpatt might well be a bigger idiot than Ed Poor. There. I said it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's shit like this. If someone wants to cut him some slack because he has a terrible grasp of the English language, that's one thing. But has he even looked at a real encyclopedia? They're still pretending to be one, so maybe he should read one and see how information is presented. He's such a useless turd. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That MPR entry wasn't that bad. ... He's dumb but he's not nearly as bad a writer as Ken. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I cut him no slack for his ideology and his complete lack of intellect. My only sympathy is for his self-expressed problems with English. Otherwise, he earns no sympathy from me. άλφαΤαλκ 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Karajou (The Dickhead)

Notices Ken's contributions.img Possibly for the first time. Seriously, has he just now started to pay attention to the content at CP instead of simply blocking people? Have any of the sysops ever acknowledged the QE campaign before? Hiphopopotamus (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's shockingly pathetic that Kara hangs out on CP for the express purpose of banning people. "I want to punish faceless strangers for trivial slights" is a somewhat disturbing recreational activity. --Sasayaki (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
95 Theses against evolution vs. HOW MANY scientific peer-reviewed experiments for evolution? Hundreds? Thousands?-- Seth Peck (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!

QEAust.JPG

Seriously, how are those silly atheists going to withstand the mighty steamroller that is the Question evolution campaign?

I imagine that, being the cowards that they are, they are probably cowering and simpering RIGHT NOW. Tears rolling down their pathetic, puffy faces whilst they hide amongst the skirts of their mummies. Meanwhile Ken's majestic campaign goes from strength to strength, crushing the unmanly atheists who clearly have no machismo.

Ken should have some sort of delusional syndrome named after him. --Horace (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck me. That looks like the axe/train/blueberry/incoherent metaphor that will cut atheism by 50%. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
the internet war is already won, theyve moved to printing thousands of copies of some 50 page book and putting very CG looking pictures up where drivers might see them in a traffic jam--il'Dictator Mikal 05:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Ditto the QE South Africa campaign - one post made in December. Atheism on the internet is shivering in its boots. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, the whole QE thing is funny, because OF COURSE scientists question evolution, and any other theory (scientific theory) all the time. It's just that the preponderance of evidence favors evolution being a fact. If a scientist could really disprove evolution he/she would get the Nobel Prize, and be world famous. The whole point of science is that you are incrementally increasing knowledge, and sometimes (as with Newtonion vs. Einsteinian physics) you have to throw out or partially throw out previous ideas, and look at the world a new way. What is with these people anyway? Jimaginator (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the sysops at Conservapedia are a bit daft, but that's just me. Nihilist 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I am really looking forward to their booklet with the baited hope that Kenny is the sole author, or at least one of the primary ones. The potential hilarity will be gold, pure gold.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody want to ask Andypants

just why the Lakers are "self-centered"?img --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Because they want to win; Jesus said to turn the other cheek, you know. Nihilist 16:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess he means the players themselves not the whole team. If that's it, he sucks at semantics. --Raga Man (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
He has absolutely no knowledge about any of the players on the Lakers team. But because Kevin Durant is a Christian (and I promise that is all Andy knows about him or the Thunder), suddenly the entire team is a bastion of Christian wholesomeness beating back the atheist/pagan hordes from the west in the conference semi-finals (because surely no Laker is Christian). Well don't worry folks, Andy will chuck long-suffering Durant under the bus the moment the Spurs defeat them in the Conference Championship. Sports stars are only good Christians as long as they win.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I love how andy believes that despite all the hard work and effort someone puts in, its how christian you are that determines if you succeed in sport. Clearly God is a massive sports cheat, and christians should be banned from sport like steroid users. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to ask what a "5-game route" is, or where they were on-route to. My guess was heaven but it's now a "5-game rout." I don't think normal people would call a 3-2 series a "rout," but because atheists it probably is. Whoover (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW, God seems to be losing his touch for routs. The 10 Plagues. That was a rout. Jews FTW. David and Goliath was a rout. The destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. Rout. Flood. Rout. Oklahoma City in 5 games. Not so much. Whoover (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a asteroid heading right for Scandinavia. Millions will die, but it is god's will so it's good. --Raga Man (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Because atheist liberals hate underdogs. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A "five game rout" is actually 4-1 since it is the best of seven. However more prayer is needed since the demonic Lakers were able to steal one game from the righteous. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice that Andy has also decidedimg that Oklahoma is the spiritual center of the Bible Belt. There's no doubt that the state and its capital has lots of churches, but I wonder which streets lined with church after church Andy has in mind. I grew up in Oklahoma City, and I don't remember that particular street. Phiwum (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I remember about Oklahoma City is a Denny's. DickTurpis 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Funny thing about Andy talking about how they are a team from the Bible Belt. The Thunder are a transplant team, they used to be called the Sonics and hail from Seattle where they played for 41 years until 2008. Bible Belt team indeed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Insert "Andy is a fuckwad" here

I was going to write something about Andy's latest facebook bashing, and how he can't read worth a damn, but you all know how it goes. Commentating his never ending stream of stupid is like trying to drink the sea. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's salty and you get fish stuck in your teeth? AceModerator 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You're thinking of going down on Swedish chicks. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Damn... now I'm thinking of that. rpeh •TCE 05:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Even the article he links to makes the real problem clear at the end: ""Of course, it’s not Facebook’s fault it’s being dragged through divorce court", he says, "It’s the people who use it.""--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal responsibility applies to defensive weapons of guns but not Facebook. Consistant. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

CNAV

Has Terry earned his own WIGO yet? He's now claiming that people lived for 900 years before the flood because their food wasn't "tainted" with Carbon 14. I've been picking splinters of keyboard out my forehead since reading that. He's definitely producing a much more entertaining class of crazy than CP these days. --Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything, I think we should fuse all the right-wing fundie fun into a single WIGO page. Andy yeah, I need a new keyboard now too. --Raga Man (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Could always talk about him over at WIGO:Clogs...it could use more talk page activity, and he really just uses CP for advertising. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Jeez, where did that man get his MD? Bob Jones? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
He got it from his printer. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there was no water before the flood and water is actually a poison that kills us in about 100 years of exposure. Or maybe we're aliens, and the *real* humans (the ones who wrote the bible) were the "aliens" from Signs and they all got killed by the flood. X Stickman (talk) 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's standard creationist fare that before the flood people lived to great ages and is part of Ussher's timeline. Terry's poisoning from C14 is probably a hokum-scientific by-product of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory where the Earth's crust turned into a nuclear reactor. I think the standard explanation is man's fall from grace with God. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've thought about proposing CNAV for its own WIGO before, then I thought about using WIGO:Clogs, but the trouble is that almost every single damn thing that comes from Chuckarse's keyboard is WIGO-able. Once we start, it'll be tricky to know when to stop. rpeh •TCE 05:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of the CP sysops are buffoons on the same level as village idiot. TerryH is frighteningly batshit crazy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 07:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"The creation model has no particular sine qua non." - Terry A. Hurlbut. Did he just admit that it's unfalsifiable? -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should consider changing the name of WIGO:CP? There's not too much going on at CP right now and I don't see that changing much in the future, and this generally seems like a good place to talk about Terry. Cow...Hammertime! 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Having recommended this before, I think WIGO:CP should be archived and all further crank and crap be mixed into WIGO:CLOG. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. CP isn't anything more than a semi-active clog at this point. I wonder how much opposition there would be if we actually put this to a vote... Cow...Hammertime! 16:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's taking up half the recent changes at this precise moment, but hey, nobody will miss it. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Anyone see this exchange in the comments - "(Guest quotes Terry) - 'Human beings are ruling stewards of the earth' - do the bacteria know that? I only ask because for the past 200,000 years they've been using us as a combination of hotels and picnic baskets. (Terry replies) - Make that six thousand years. Bacteria did not become pathogenic until after the fall." If Terry was any dumber, we'd have to water him twice a day to keep him alive....Stick Boy (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This guy sounds familiar

PZ Myers recently wrote a post about a fundamentalist named "Rick Warden" pestering him about whether bestiality was moral or not. This "Rick Warden" sounds like someone we know:

Based on his outspoken support for his daughter's views on the subject, it seems PZ Myers may not be opposed to bestiality. And I have a question for him related to this subject, if he would be so kind as to answer it. That is, whether or not bestiality is morally justifiable in his view - why or why not.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden legally permit bestiality, and, incidentally, these countries rank highest in atheistic and evolutionary belief. These countries sport "animal brothels" and this is catching on in Europe.
At best, PZ Myers is displaying cowardliness and uncertainty in not volunteering his specific views on bestiality. At worst, he may be an addicted zoophile. The late Christopoher Hitchens was confronted with this subject in 2009 and was not quite sure how to answer. Hitchens was asked in a Q-and-A-session after a debate to state whether he believed it was "good" or "morally repressive" that the Bible forbade zoophilia. Hitchens refused to answer the question the first time and again the second time the question was posed.[11] Bestiality is a big question today, and a question atheist apologists don't seem to want to touch.

The blog contains weird images and the post cited even uses Conservapedia as a reference. This "Rick Warden" claims to live in the Ukraine and have a wife and two kids. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Could also be someone plagiarizing ken?--Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 04:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
How pathetic would that be? --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
One thing that I have discovered while observing the pond-dwellers of American Christian fundyism is that Ken is hardly alone in his delusions. Secondly, Ken is generally unoriginal in his regurgitations, he will have got an idea from somewhere else first. All this QE bollocks was started at CMI and then latched onto by Shlock, Ken merely leapt onto the bandwagon (such as it is). Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Dendrophilia (sexual attraction to plants) is not forbidden by the Bible. Accordingly, Christians such as Rich Warden are not opposed to dendrophilia and have nothing to prevent them inserting vegetables anally, violating plants in public, or having sex with fruit. The United States has a high number of Christians and many stores (aka plant brothels) feature sexual plants like carrots on public display. This is catching on in Australia. Christian women display sexual arousal when presented with flowers. What's the Bible made from? Paper. What was the cross made from? Wood. Will Rich Warden answer this question or will he hide in his Bible believing rabbit hole (full of a rabbit's favourite food, carrots!). Dendrophilia is a big question today, and a question Christian apologists don't seem to want to touch. --Sasayaki (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif My thoughts exactly. What about "autophilia"? The bible doesn't condemn it, and who drives cars? Nearly everyone. It's an epidemic. At worst, Rick Warden may have replaced the oil in his vehicle with pure manseed. Sick freak. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 11:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Everyone knows that only monkey spunk has the proper octane rating. [8][9][10] - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it quite sadening how fundies are structuring these things. Somehow this appears to be the lowest form of snarl, making people question other peoples morality based on such rather benign questions, but at the same time supporting dictators that kill hundreds or thousands of people in a year. It almost seems like the guy banging a sheep is more sinful then the guy killing socialists or atheists or gays. I, as an atheist, very much have a problem with killing people, but not with zoophilia (although not forced, that's just cruel) or dendrophilia. It seems this makes me immoral. --Raga Man (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Reading his "about" page he comes across as far too lucid to be a Ken sock. He's just another fundie nutter, leaping on the "No morals without God" crapwagon and using the lamest example. Seriously, which is better - "I'm moral because I've looked at the situation and based on several criteria, I'm not going to do it, because it conflicts with those criteria;" or "I'm moral because my invisible friend will spank me if I'm not." --PsyGremlinHable! 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I did think it was a little too coherent for Ken and bestiality does come up surprsingly often at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. However, the blog also has a post about Google Trends, Question Evolution and, as I mentioned, weird images. Or maybe I just don't want to believe there is another Ken in the world? --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, just doesn't read like Ken. Similar belief structure but different thought structure. Ayzmo (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The clincher is that he doesn't use the words "in terms of" or "regarding" in terms of the words that he uses in what he writes regarding writing. Cantabrigian (talk)

This is the problem with having an internet

I've said it before--20 or 25 years ago these guys would be standing on street corners handing out grubby mimeographed pamphlets and nobody would even give a shit about them; now their ideas get mistaken for something that we actually have to bother engaging with. It's like the 500-channel universe, but in our brains. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a double-edged sword. Idiots with crazy ideas (eg, cretinists, conspiracy nuts) who would be rightly ostracized in their own local communities can now seek out others who share their idiocy and pester the rest of us, desperately vying for our attention, with their numbers and new-found confidence. On the other hand, minorities with niche interests (eg, transexuals, bdsm'ers) who would be wrongly ostracized in their own local communities can now seek out others who share their interests and pester the rest of us, bravely fighting for our acceptance, with their numbers and new-found confidence. ONE / TALK 14:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif CS Miller (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, and porn. --Raga Man (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who didn't see that coming?

The Arizona Secretary of State is satisfied that Obama is a citizen, and here's the reasons why Chuckarse and his fellow birthers still don't believe it. At some point surely you have to admit even to yourself that you're a diehard partisan determined to deny the truth despite all the evidence... don't you? Plus enjoy the added bonus of the appeal to irrelevant authorities. I'm sure a crazy arse British lord knows what's what. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

They long ago decided that Obama is 100% illegitimate. This conclusion was reached and deemed the truth before any research, so now any and all research is manipulated to support that pre-determined conclusion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that their hatred of Obama causes them inflate the inportance even the most minor, trivial and irrelevant fact into the most cast iron, irrefutable(is that a word) proof. Its become such a matter of faith that they are probably astounded that other people can't see what is so obvious to them. That or they are all dishonest liars. Its difficult to say. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC)Hmm Surprise (really, Sun City West) isn't too far away from me (~35 min drive). I'm almost curious enough to see what kind of crazypants stuff they have going on there.
Side note: Sun City West is the perfect place to go with this nonsense; the average age there is 73 (not joking) Cow...Hammertime! 17:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Save your gas, it's all golf courses and Dairy Queens. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
But there might be lulz to be had at the tea party meeting! Old people! Crazy brits! Tea! Cow...Hammertime! 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Its difficult to see what evidence would placate these people. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, two things about this link. Firstly, that bit about the NJ case where they argued that both parents need to be a US citizen for the child to be a citizen isn't true as I understand it. Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Nothing about parents. Secondly, that bit about the NJ case where they argued that both parents need to be a US citizen for the child to be a citizen isn't true as I understand it. Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Nothing about parents.
I am aware that this is technically one thing, but due to the sheer importance of it, I thought it counted for two. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, their idea of what a natural born citizen is is clearly bullshit, it's just their backup excuse just in case Jesus himself comes down from heaven and tells them Obama was born in Hawaii. They can still say he isn't president because his dad was from Kenya. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
An assertion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny if you look at Mitt Romney's dad, but it's okay for him, because he's rich/white/Republican/whatever. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't matter for Romney is the same reason far-right wingnuts are going to settle for him, even though they've been calling him a RINO or cultist or whatever until Santorum dropped out: he's the last viable Not-Obama™ in this election. «-Bfa-» 18:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since CP asserts that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, Vikings didn't reach America, and Fidel Castro has died and been replaced by an impersonator, believing that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery is pretty tame by comparison. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CP says Vikings didn't reach America? I have to see that. Link to lulz, plz--"Shut up, Brx." 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
See the Leif Erikson talk page for viking related Andy lulzimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much what I was going to say. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord Monckton is the latest birther??! It doesn't get better. It took me a bit to parse this sentence: ("Monckton will speak before the Surprise (Arizona) Tea Party on May 28.") Is Surprise, Arizona near Wait For It, Arizona? Whoover (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess he's found his target market. Cranks.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
When I see "Arizona Tea Party" I think of a bunch of racists from Florida shooting black kids who are carrying bags of Skittles. Disturbing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's some awesome gloating going on in the CNAV comments. I can't imagine Terry's ever going to give up on this birther thing, but at some point he may be forced to stop writing about it by sheer weight of ridicule. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to extend the lulz might respond to Terry's last comment with this link. Whoover (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Constitution 101

Right, so Coke Fiend says in his blog:

Purpura and Moran devote fifty pages of their sixty-page argument to asserting that no Amendment to the Constitution, nor any Act of Congress, has redefined, or even can redefine, the phrase natural born citizen.

Emphasis mine.

So, let me (as an Englishman who thinks the US should be brought back into the Commonwealth) get this right. Terry's chums are saying that no amendment to the constitution can change what the originally written constitution says or guarantees, right? So what did the Thirteenth Amendment do again? That did change the meaning of Article 1, Section 2, right? So why can't a constitutional amendment screw with Tezza and Nicky's preferred reading of this document? Do they have some sort of "Teacher's Edition" of the constitution that says what you can and can't change? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 03:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because they are true conservatives and know what the founding fathers (pbot) meant. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean Fourteenth Amendment. 13th Amendment just banned slavery. Fourteenth Amendment states all people born in the United States or territories are citizens. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
No, Thirteenth, as it changed the meaning of who counted for what in a census. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 04:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it's 14th, 13 is only slavery, nothing else. il'Dictator Mikal 04:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales, God's Toon

What can one say?img Whoover (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the rather high incidence of religious belief among the Spanish-speaking cultures of the western hemisphere, I doubt the numbers are changing that much. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The chances are that the "Peruvian Christian" is Ken wearing a poncho. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 19:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I start to wonder if there's a guy who's trolling ken by pretending to be from all these places. Remember the Swiss Question Evolution Blog (TM) that was supposed to launch in March or April but the grand opening was mysteriously cancelled... --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Kenny grew a creepy mustache to go along with his poncho. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be likely. Remember Psy's "I asked it in class and my teacher was stumped?"--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
That is likely the extent of Ken's knowledge of Latin American culture.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll bet he didn't even rent a mule... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If I had gotten a dollar for every CP admin uttering a stereotype of some sort, I'd have a villa and a boat and would be banging pornstars by now... --Raga Man (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
His portrayal of Peruvians is shallow, ignorant, offensive and bordering on racist. Ken just lazily bundles all Latin America with a Mexican stereotype. Pathetic Ken, have you even been to Mexico, let alone Peru? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 02:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been to Mexico, Peru and 4 other South American countries and have never heard anyone say Ándele! Ándele! Arriba! Arriba! AceModerator 20:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course he hasn't. Just because he's an international man of mystery doesn't mean he's ever left New England. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This mysterious Peruvian guy doesn't even have a consistent name. He starts out being "Rafael" and then turns into "Raul". --Profmusic (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
His full name is Raul Googletranslate. --24.212.154.38 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
And what's with the "Yeehaw" at the end of the Speedy Gonzales stuff? And how come he forgot to say anything about "muy macho" Spanish-speaking Christians stealing the Hispanic ladies away from weedy nancy-boy atheists?--Spud (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jpatt, Abortion, and Gallup

Somthing that made me feel dirty all over. I agree with Jpatt. He says The country has a pro-life majority. And he isn't wrong. According to gallup, 50% are pro-life, while 41% are pro-choice. Now I laugh, because the same place I found those statistics, I found this. 25% say it should be legal in all cases, 52% say it should be legal in certain cases, and 20% are like jpatt. Wonder how he'll spin that?--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 23:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Try not to buy into the "pro-life" weasel words. Just saying. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 02:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Pro-life: as long as you haven't lived yet. Every zygote deserves a chance to be born into sin! Q0 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
As GK says, pro-life is a term. I have called myself pro life many times, to redefine what teh term means. I am pro life, I do not think we should have a death penality in this country; I think health care should be universal, single payer so people can live; i think women have a right to choose how to live their LIFE. see? Besides, the thing about polls is they are almost worthless. If you look at some of the new studies coming out, on the ages long held beliefs about how to run a poll, and if a poll is valid, you'll find that there is increasing doubt that you can ever poll a place as big as the US with any sense of accuracy, baring calling everyone of us. Green mowse.pngGodot 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An impressive list of references...

going to the very same Conservapedia page. http://conservapedia.com/Santa_Syndrome. Conservapedia is not part of the hearsay sociaty. Yet references are impressive. Unless 3 of them link you to the very conservapedia you are reading.

Andy and Free Will

Andy's dropped a few knowledge bombs on us recently regarding free will. Firstly, if God destroyed Satan that would destroy free willimg. We apparently have free will in order to make things 'interesting' - to whom, it's not clear: God? Satan? Us? Without the ability to reject God (and, in Andy's universe, suffer an eternity of unimaginable torment), the world ceases to be of interest, like a single sports team winning every game. But isn't that what Heaven is supposed to be like? No Satan, and nobody rejecting God? Is Heaven not of interest? Let me think of a few limits that appear to be present in our current universe that don't seem to preclude free will: you can't go faster than light, you can't travel backwards in time, and objects with mass are subject to gravity. It seems that acceptance of the existence of God could easily be one of those hard limits; with the right universe design one might be as unable to disbelieve in God as one is unable to ignore the pull of gravity or interact with events outside your light cone.

Anyhow, as is typical for Andy, there appear to be multiple tons of batshit ice hidden below the surface with only these seemingly minor loco statements poking out to mark their existence. Do we owe our free will to the existence of Satan? Should we look forward to the time when Satan is defeated and we lose our free will? Is free will actually something bad (in Andyland)? Does God let Satan exist because He finds the resultant chaos interesting, like a kid watching a drowning anthill? Jeepers creepers!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

free will has never existed, it by definition can't if you have an omnipotent omniscient god. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Catholics beg to differ. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 05:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be the catholics. il'Dictator Mikal 05:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Andy's a catholic. Or rather he was, before he started his own church. Peter with added ‼Science‼ 05:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I kep forgetting that,--il'Dictator Mikal 05:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we can send Andy a copy of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman. I think he take the piss out of people trotting out the free will defence about half a dozen times through the book. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The following image links are worth pondering

Dilbert on Free Will Matrix on Free Will They're both from the same guys blog. And just for Andy S [11] --WickerGuy (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off topic [12]--WickerGuy (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

sports teams and free will

So; A sports team that always wins is boring and so would religion? but... isn't team god always winning? So it already is like that because no matter what, team heaven wins. it's just a massive Pyrrhic victory--il'Dictator Mikal 06:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the teams aren't limited to Heaven and Hell? Team Asgard and Team Mount Olympus were on a winning streak several centuries ago and won several Heavenly Series. Thor won the Most Valuable Deity several times, IIRC. Team Allah (remember Andy has stated that Allah does NOT mean 'God') is Team Heaven's major rival nowadays. Team Hell must have some sort of Curse of the Bambino going on. (I love sophisticated theology.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The main reason why Andy and his ilk believe in free will is if they didn't, how else can they justify anyone going to hell? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A just god punishes those who sin. Thats how. Who are you to question god, you are man; he is creator. That is how you justify sending people to hell. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, they wouldn't be able to justify not helping poor people, or if make themselves look like they are better than others. --Raga Man (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
People are poor because they have sinned and thus god is punishing them with poorness. Helping them doesn't encourage them to stop sinning first.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support