Congratulations to the 2015-16 RationalMedia Foundation Board of Trustees (in alphabetical order): User:David_Gerard, User:Human, User:ListenerX, User:Stabby_the_Misanthrope, and User:Scream!!.

from Nutty Roux (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 21:22, 27 February 2015

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
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.

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


[edit] He's back!

TAR has returned! He's now going on a spree of technology related categories. He added a ton to Apple, Inc. AyzmoCheers 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

He's removing Wschact's liberal stuff, like that Apple make the iPhone. Whoover (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
And he's now banned Wschact for inserting gay porn into pages? I can't really check that where I am at the moment. Anyone for the update? AyzmoCheers 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
In fairness to TAR, Wschact outed Tim Cook as gay on Conservapedia a year after Tim Cook outed himself to the rest of the world. Hclodge (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In brief, there are a number of websites that allow users to post feedback about the Nutnfancy YouTube channel, including YouTube itself. Some comments are favorable, and others are critical. Two links were added to cp:Nutnfancy -- one that discussed the identity and background of the person who appears in front of the camera in the YouTube videos based on the corporate records of Utah. The second has a lot of user contributed content, including two crude cartoons that suggest that Mr. Nutnfancy could accidentally shoot own head while demonstrating a gun and the second suggesting that he is so dumb that he could shoot his own ass. The basic message is that some gun owners find the Nutnfancy videos to be long-winded and uninformed. Mr. TAR is expressing moral outrage at satiric cartoons of Saint Nutnfancy to the same extent that Islamic extremists expressed moral outrage at satiric cartoons of Mohammad. So, this is not exactly a "gay porn" website. As we speak, TAR is beefing up his defense of Nutnfancyimg by adding a reference to a video where Nutnfancy endorses political action. But the quote is not strong enough endorsement for TAR, so he slips in some pipes to trick the reader into thinking that Nutnfancy is talking about Oath Keepers and the Conservative movement. Hclodge (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohhh daaaaaaamnimg TAR got ball smacked. Oh and Ken is trying to un-person Wschact but I have a feeling it won't stick. Shakedangle (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We've managed to get 2 sections discussing this. One is this one and the other one is up here. The block to tar was only for 2 hours and he has edited since it happened but has dissappeared again. JoeyJ is now going against tar by removing the bullshitimg he reinserted into the Russia Today article. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, didn't catch that discussion above. TAR goes back and undoes JoeyJ's undoimg. img That was probably a bad move on his part, categorizing beloved Putin's mouthpiece with "Liberal News Organizations" and "Liberal Media." I wonder if Andy recognizes how much TAR is like himself, politicizing every minute thing and brooking no dissent whatsoever. Hahaha nah. Shakedangle (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Putin "supported" Occupy Wall Street since it made the US look bad. That's why RT is liberal. I'm not sure about the anti-Second Amendment bit. RT must have done a piece about Aurora or Sandy Hook. Whoover (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is quite fun. I'm fairly sure tar knows about Rational Wiki and is, to a certain extent, playing to the audience. I suspect he thought Wschact is from here and has decided that anyone who disagrees with him is also from here. This could play out quite well in the end. Driving cp even further to the fringes of stupidty, andy must be looking on and wondering what happened to his great dream. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree about TAR reading this site. Some CP editors do, and they are among those who downvote the WIGO:CP items. When TAR first accused Wschact of "gay porn", SamHB jumped in with the comment that CP's main page links to sites with porn from time-to-time. In response, Karajou accused SamHB of "admitting" that he visits RW. (To my knowledge SamHB admitted to AW, not RW, and does not come here. Nor have I seen Wschact here.) Of course all of this has been deleted by Ken. Meanwhile, TAR's efforts to purify CP by removing any reference to Tim Cook orientation still stands. img Hclodge (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Another nail in a by-now-mostly-nails-by-weight coffin. TAR is the best thing to happen to CP in a while, I agree. Just look at this garbage article! There must be more red and blue than black text. I really hope he's aware of RW, but I think he's getting enough of his jollies from antagonizing the editors at cp to not be bothered.
BTW, I missed TAR's report on his conference call with Andy, and capbot didn't catch it. What was the gist? Shakedangle (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
To quote Brad Pitt, "The first rule about Fight Club is that you don't talk about Fight Club." So, TAR wanted Wschact and the other admins to know that he had talked to Andy on the phone earlier in the day, and that his blocking Wschact came after that call. Details were not disclosed, but Andy then revdel'ed each talk page instance (of TAR's combined "I've talked to Andy" and look at this "gay porn" link). Andy's block message says that he would explain in a separate email to TAR. So we will never know if Andy blocked TAR for violating the Brad Pitt rule, for discussing "gay porn" explicitly, or both. The bottom line is: if you don't want to be an "enemy of the state" do not link to websites with extensive user-generated content (particularly content generated by gun enthusiasts). Hclodge (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Much thanks - so Wschact's permaban is kinda maybe sorta sanctioned by Andy? That doesn't sound like him, actually... here's to hoping Wschact can come back, and leave on his own terms if/when he gets tired of the abuse there.Shakedangle (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
SamHB has made no attempt to hide his registration here, although he hasn't posted in a while. It's part of his maddening reasonableness Whoover (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
TAR's talk page was archived and then the archive and the talk page were deleted by Conservative. AyzmoCheers 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR's new user page replete with user boxes reconfirms that he is Wikipedia editor Jeffersonfranklin. As reported earlier, CP user Fongman is Wikipedia editor Trasel. It is now clear that the two sets of editors are separate people who follow James Wesley Rawles. Hclodge (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TAR is going full steam, and I predict that he will keep it up for about two more weeks and then quit. First of all, Andy has not been reading his stuff, and the rest of the crew has been avoiding reading/editing his stuff. TAR is going so fast, that he will complete his promised coverage of guns and survivorism within that time leaving CP the vast link farm that he intended. But what is TAR actually doing? When TAR edits lightly, he does his best to take an article out of compliance with CP's Manual of Style and add at least one link back to his set of essays or articles. img On his more extensive edits, he spam links the "See also" section and pastes in some boilerplate that has little to do with the article subject, going out of his way to confuse the reader, break the category system, and shaft the CP Manual of Style. img When he writes a new article, he avoids composing his own paragraphs and either lifts it from another source or resorts to bullet lists, because he lacks confidence in his own writing skills. imgimgimg His essays are complete nonsense and incoherent. img If I had a nickle for every time he squeezed in a reference to "American Redoubt" or "James Wesley Rawles" into CP, I would be a rich man. (Then again, he probably is being paid on a per link basis himself.) Sometimes his rush to add content links causes him to back-track because he accidentally argues against his patrons. (img of removing an anti-democracy quote) TAR even promises on his talk page to add "photos to enhance the SEO visibility of numerous new articles I will be creating in these categories." img One day the indexing bots will realize that this number of links can't be legitimate and CP will disappear from the search engines. But until that happens, TAR will be an SEO cowboy in the wikirodeo. Hclodge (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at TAR's "American Sniper" artcle img, it is clear that TAR cannot write, perhaps because he rarely reads. Instead, he spends his time watching YouTube. As a result, TAR's idea of an online encyclopedia is a spam link farm read by search engine spiders instead of humans. Hclodge (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is just TAR's way of saying I love you.Jesus, seriously. img Shakedangle (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Researcher or Brain dead?

Conservapedia Commandments says, "Always cite[3] and give credit to your sources,[4] even if in the public domain.[5]" The guidelines limit copying. Please compare with Alan Keyes img in Conservapedia. While TAR did not write it, one would hope that he would spot a copy-paste problem while he was revising the article.

The next example comes from comparing Cumberland Gap on Wikipedia with Conservapedia img This is the gap in the mountains that Daniel Boone made famous with his Wilderness Road connecting Virginia to Kentucky. cp:Battle of Cumberland Gap in the Civil War also is named for it, and there is a National Park with that name in the area. But all TAR knows is the equation, Cumberland Gap = Kentucky + Tennessee. TAR has been earlier called out for wikilinking to cp:Cumberland, when that article correctly described just a place in Great Britain. So, he has now defaced that article as well. img TAR does not tell us how many survivalists have relocated to the "Cumberland Redoubt", but one would expect that number to be much lower than the number of people who for hundreds of years have associated "Cumberland" with that place in Great Britain.

As a part of TAR's Black History Month observation, TAR has updated Black Republican img. While there have been a number of prominent Black Republicans who could have been added to the list, TAR chose to focus on just those who are important to his American Redoubt movement. (Why skip cp:Mia Love other than because Utah is outside the American Redoubt?) Of those that TAR decided to add to the list (which is sorted by birth year), why was he too lazy to find their birth years?

Please add other examples to this section. Thanks, Hclodge (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Oh brilliant TAR

I'm still not sure he is not a supreme parodist. I don't think he is but anyone who can create template Ammunition topicsimg which links to this page on Slugsimg is either a parodist or a fucking moron. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Update, he's fucked up his own template now by using nowrapimg so often that now half his shit isn't showing on his own template. Moron, not parodist. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Most parodists try to fit in by reading the cp:Manual of Style and trying to avoid edit wars. TAR is so self-absorbed and so confident of his views that he edit wars with everyone. Just yesterday, he set a new standard for lame edit war: img. Although Conservapedia does "not encourage the insertion of distracting "stub templates" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting templates on entries." TAR has created a red-link defending gem: img which is being posted now in article space while it will not be ready until April 15, 2015. TAR has a lot of control issues indicating fundamental insecurity with his wikiskills. He has no wikiskills because he hates to read and learns via YouTube. Hence: img. Hclodge (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Common Core

Conservatives disagree on Common Core: Jeb Bush is in favor of it and Bobby Jindal is opposed. The actual core standards were developed by professional educators working with the National Governor's Association. The advantage of Common Core educational standards developed jointly by the states is that text books written to the Common Core curriculum could be sold nation-wide, and the cost of developing standardized tests could be spread over a nation-wide set of students rather than being funded by each state. However, TAR has a different understanding. img I am not clear where Andy stands on common core, because common core makes it possible for Andy (and others) to develop and market nationwide materials for homeschooled students. Both Republican and Democratic governors and state education secretaries supported Common Core.

Contrary to TAR's claims, nothing in Common Core requires math problems to be solved in "in multiple, confusing steps, rather than doing the problem simplistically." I would rather have a student understand each step of a math problem than in "simplistically" brushing aside such understanding by relying upon memorization of the answer. If TAR's math skills match his reading skills, CP is in deep trouble and should relocate to Idaho before the math police come knocking at the door carrying their .500 caliber guns. (See TAR's category "Anti Second Amendment" and "Police State".) Hclodge (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The concept of "simply" vs. "simplistically" is beyond him anyway. I can see Andy being for simplistic math too. Keeps those liberal imaginary numbers out. What I don't understand is these guys moving to their Redoubt to live among like thinkers and THEN arming themselves to the teeth. When the world ends, do they start shooting each other? Whoover (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Only if you neighbor drops by to borrow a cup of sugar. The problem is that TAR is making recommendations on Conservapedia for purchase and use today. So, by all means go ahead and purchase an M-12 machine gun for "home security." It is great to sleep with one under your pillow. If you are provoked into using the machine gun, don't worry about ricochet or bullets penetrating the walls to the neighboring apartments. And the M-12 is great when your son borrows it to settle his dispute with the kids at school. Most mall ninjas will tell you that a machine gun is better than a pistol for "home security." Hclodge (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Whatever his other shortcomings, I would not be so hasty to condemn TAR's math skills based only on that stupid caliber category. .500 S&W Magnum[wp] is perfectly orthodox nomenclature. The numbers used in caliber designations are just labels, not necessarily measurements. For example, .38 Special bullets have the same nominal diameter as .357 Magnum. The case dimensions are compatible enough that .38 ammunition is commonly fired from .357 chambers. (The simple precautions against hard extraction of subsequent .357 rounds are more detail than this RW context needs, and no big deal.)
The category is stupid for reasons other than the equivalence of some differently written decimal fractions. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but he goofed up the categories. Hclodge (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Book Promotion


In case you missed it during TAR's year-end editing frenzy, "James Wesley, Rawles" released a new book on December 30, 2014, entitled Tools for Survival: What You Need to Survive When You're on Your Own. This book has received exactly one glowing review, which was posted on December 30, 2014. img The book was reviewed by user "Vipashina" who is a "Permaculture Gardener in Kalispell, MT, US" img Like TAR, Vipashina does not like to read, so he reviewed the audio book version. To help you find this influential review, a link to it has been added to cp:Template:James Wesley Rawles glossary paraphrase img That template has been added to just cp:Prepping, but more are sure to follow. Although the new Rawles book has been out for just six weeks, there are 64 Conservapedia articles that link to cp:Tools for Survival. img That CP article, in turn, seems to have been copied from Amazon.img And the CP copy does link back to both Amazon and to Vipashina's review.

I remembered TAR's promise that Mr. Rawles would promote Conservapedia, but when I checked the subject index of the book on Amazon, I found listings for but not Conservapedia. I am sure it was just a momentary oversight. Hclodge (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia User:Jeffersonfranklin is not troubled by underhanded tactics being used to call attention to a new book. In a Wikipedia deletion debate about another Rawles book, he said:

JC7717, what exactly does "respectable" mean when one Wikipedia editor above, considers John Birch Society New American magazine to be "not reliable"? "Book bombs" are done by the major book publishers but they call it advertising and "marketing bomb" or "book launch" PR. When done by an lesser know author, you call it a "book bomb". Jefferson Franklin (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
He was responding to a comment by User:JC7717 that Rawles "has been known to stage 'book bombs' in which he encourages all his supporters to buy on launch, thus artificially placing himself on the bestseller lists." Hclodge (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ken calls TAR out on Manual of Style

Finally, after many polite request on TAR's talk page, on article talk pages, and even on WIGO:CP, Ken woke up to the fact that TAR has never read the CP Manual of Style. So, two and a half months into TAR's editing flurry, Ken politely asks TAR to read it. User:DanielJackson even chimed in with a specific request for TAR to place his article sections in the correct sequence. Defensively, TAR responded, "There are reasons for putting the "References" or "Notes" section last. If you do not, then sometimes, when you need to put a footnote on a "See Also" or on an "External Links" (as I sometime do), you will get an error message." (Of course, if TAR followed the Manual of Style, there is no reason to have a "See also" section because the idea would be in the text of the article with a footnote instead. But if one was needed, one could use a "group" to collect the second set of footnotes without the error message.) In fact, 99.9% of TAR's articles do not have footnotes in their "See also" or "External links" sections. Yet, Ken felt the need to suddenly add an exception to the rule that the section must be consistently in the sequence specified by the Manual of Style. TAR can do no wrong.

Next, Ken suggested that TAR's writing could use some work, so TAR asked Ken to recommend some books on writing well. Ken recommended Strunk and White and another text. TAR responded by ordering the audio book versions (a) because TAR hates to read, and (b) TAR does not need to go back to use these books as a quick reference, and (c) TAR will have no problems when the audio book explains the difference between "its" and "it's" and "their" and "there." Hclodge (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For those of you who worry about why survivalist/preparer advocates invest in tangible audio books and ereaders when they believe that the end is near, I read on that the survivalblog recommends the purchase of a solar panel to power your ereader device. ( Feb 16, 2015) also Another survivalblog entry not a new idea. Of course, given this technical advance, the best way to prepare for the imminent end of Western civilization is to link-spam Conservapedia and try to boost sales of your new book on Hclodge (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I realize that TAR's basic SEO strategy is to duplicate content in multiple places on Conservapedia, but doesn't it strike you as a bit of over-reach to create both cp:Essay:The Politically Corrected Firearms and Second Amendment Glossary and cp:Essay:Gun Enthusiast's Glossary of Firearms Terms and then cp:Essay:Gun Enthusiast's Glossary of Firearms and Second Amendment Terms. Either he is too shy to ask Ken to move his page, or he wants the page history to be obscured.
How does one write a "Glossary of Second Amendment Terms" when the Second Amendment is so concise: "well regulated" "Militia" "necessary to the security of a free state" "right" "bear arms" and "infringed"? Hclodge (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
TAR's style is to add a few words to a "Well" article (which is mostly about oil drilling) and a few more to a "Bear" article about ursines. And then swamp those articles with See Alsos about ammunition. Whoover (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Any bear in Idaho is not a ursine but rather an opportunity for machine gun target practice. Hclodge (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In response to TAR's duplicative Gun Glossary Essays noted above, Ken has moved one to article space without removing the personal opinions that are permitted only in essays. img Hclodge (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken recommended Strunk and White - I've seen a lot of stupid stuff from Ken over the years, but this is truly awful. Please Ken, regardless of your bizarre ideas on physics, politics or religion, stop recommending this garbage to people. Most people would be better served taking advice from The Oatmeal. If you are that rare confident user who can skip White's erroneous claims about grammar and mostly pay attention to the stuff about clarity then you'd still be better off reading a style guide that sticks to that topic and doesn't wander off to make bogus claims about how English works or pretend that long clumsy sentences that obey a zombie rule are somehow actually "shorter" or "easier to understand" than ones that don't. (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Self-defense

Today's bit of wisdom from TAR is the article cp:Self-defense which should be compared with Wikipedia's article. TAR's contributions img have been limited to the "See also" section, a firearms template and many new categories. The Ed Poor article on Conservapedia focused upon self-defense as a legal concept, while the Wikipedia article took more of a martial arts focus. That article has sections on "Avoidance", "De-escalation" and "Personal alarms". TAR has shifted the emphasis of the article without contributing a single word of prose. Without a single new source, TAR proclaims that the idea of "self-defense" is "Pro Second Amendment". Perhaps TAR's next edit will be that the Atlantic Ocean is pro Second Amendment. When you are a hammer, everything you see is a nail. When you are TAR, everything in day-to-day life is pro Second Amendment. Thanks to TAR, Conservapedia is becoming incomprehensible. Hclodge (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Economics and Agflation

TAR is now taking his hand at expanding Conservapedia's economic coverage. Because conservatives have a range of views on current economic conditions, CP's articles in this area have been group efforts. Time will tell as to whether TAR will allow other people to edit his new economic fiefdom. TAR's new effort grew out of a protracted edit war with AugustO over TAR's inserting red links into cp:Weimar Republic. Today, TAR struggled to create Printing money img which is little more than a #REDIRECT to cp:Quantitative easing. TAR also blessed us with the new cp:Template:Economic preparedness topics spam farm.

By way of example, the article cp:Agflation was a better-than-average Conservapedia stub written by User:Economist with a bit of wikifying by User:AddisonDM. It had been accessed 1,200 times. Today, TAR worked his magic. img producing a longer, more POV pushing ramble than the corresponding Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article has been viewed 1,312 times in the last 90 days. Now assuming that TAR's stream of consciousness word association game would be interesting to CP's readers the first time, one must still question why he is allowed to insert cp:Template:Economic preparedness topics into so many articles. The answer is that he believes it is a productive SEO tactic. Time will tell. Hclodge (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Reciprocal links from Survivalblog

Now that TAR is on wikibreak and CP has lost cp:User:Dataclarifier one of its last non-parodist editors, it is time to examine the "deal with the devil" made between Ken (on behalf of CP) and TAR (purportedly on behalf of the Survivalblog). These two experts on seach engine optimization decided to turn CP into a spam link farm for cp:James Wesley Rawles, his books and his blog in exchange for some links back:

Ralwes [sic] is a staunch advocate of Conservapedia and links to it where possible using his The Survival Blog, doing his best to avoid what frequently calls the "LiberalPropagandaPedia."
The problem is that if one searches The Survival Blog, one still finds links to Wikipedia, and just one link to CP. But Ken is not calling in his chits with TAR. Among TAR's last edits to CP was adding links to TAR's own user-contributed reviews of Rawles' book on img I am certain that Andy would want reviews posted on amazon by the best of the public to be read and valued, but here we are linking to reviews by TAR to the exclusion of the rest of the public. TAR probably has more control over what is posted on and on Conservapedia than over what is posted on The Survival Blog. Ken has the short end of the deal. Hclodge (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] *Grab Popcorn*

"PS, how about you ask Andy about the pornographic video COnservative once mistakenly posted on the atheism article. I have the evidence, maybe it's time to publish it."img

Ooh, this could be even better than Rob copy/pasting the name of the pic he was fapping to into a CP article. Publish and be damned I say! PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I get following the train wreck of conservapedia as it spirals ever faster down the drain, but... uh... I think you should maybe leave out people's porn preferences. That's creepy. Ikanreed (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, we can't help it if Rob decided to upload a pic titled "Kara Duhe in yellow dress" to CP, for all to see. PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Who was it that posted a screen cap of a cp page here a while ago, and forgot to crop the tabs of their browser so everyone knew they were into bdsm? Shakedangle (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was me. If it was it was a misatke, I'm not really that much into bdsm. Several of my munchie friends are but it's not really my bag :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant no judgement, I like bdsm and other weirder stuff myself. I guess my point is that here we can talk and laugh about it, but on cp they will wave it around like a ban-able offense (RIP Wschact). Shakedangle (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard, it still wasn't possible to embed videos on Conservapedia. I suppose Ken could have accidentally added an external link to some wank fodder. Spud (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Latest Hurled-Butt

Terry has a new Evil Liberalimg pulling the strings of the Lamestream Media. It's Henry Luce, who ran Time for much of the time that this article is "exposing." Yes, it's that Henry Luce. The one that FDR loved so much. I guess that staunch Republican façade was more liberal deceit. Actually, Terry is just the moron-by-association here. It's first-class reporting by Bradlee Dean. The notion that "Man of the Year" can be awarded to illuminate evil is a bit subtle for this crowd, it would seem. Whoover (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about Dean but he seems to be a real nasty piece of work. Some of his articles are downright seditious.--Mercian (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
dean comes over as a thug and a bully. There's a youtube out there somewhere where he's spouting his anti-gay bullshit and some young lad quite respectfully disagrees with him and dean shouts and intimidates the young lad, about 16 or so, quiet viciously. Usual tactic of that lot, scream about oppression and the moment someone diagrees scream even louder to try to intimidate them into silence. He really does come over as the kind of smug bigoted arsehole of the very worst kind imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Didn't all his church staff walk out on him? Or was that somebody else? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that was him. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] No Feren' Names Need Apply

The Portuguese form of "John"img doesn't conform to CP's weird and inconsistent username policy. This guy is probably a parodist but, even so, "please come back when you have an American name" is a bit much. 03:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] I see kens off his meds again

Ken, get some help bud. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Or some company, he seems like a very lonely man. He always takes negative aspects of himself and projects them onto atheism, no friends, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, perverse sexual practices(no proof but many indicators). Is it certain that he is not a parodist?--Mercian (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear goat, kens latestimg magnum opus. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still awed by the observation that, based on filling out a form, the largest group of atheists are those with an IQ of "65-72." Dozens of articles have flowed from that analysis, never once pondering the accuracy of surveys on religion and philosophy administered to the retarded. Some things can't be parodied. Whoover (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's the (latest) link to Ken's Magnum Opusimg, cited by the Old Git. (Ken keeps changing the name of the page, presumably to hide it from all those dumb, computer-illiterate atheists.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
And another thing, does anyone know who Vox Day is, who Ken regards as the world-leading authority on atheist stupidity? Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He's a shouty apologist called Theodore Beale. He's really not worth paying much attention to, his much vaunted 'debates' generally consist of him shouting down anyone who disgarees with him or tries to actually, you know, debate and then if they continue to show him up as a moron he simply bans them from his chat rooms and blog. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He is also a racist twat, I am not going to bother dig it out but I recall one online discussion where he was criticising women having the vote which quickly devolved to that he does not think black people should be allowed to vote. If anyone were allowed to reply on CP this would be pointed out to Ken, which he fully knows anyway. So Ken, your hero is a misogynistic racist wanker, what do you have to say about that? He is fully accepted as a conservative hero at CP, Schlafly is after all an anti woman, pro BNP, pro apartheid excuse for a human.--Mercian (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at the RW page on Vox Day then sullied my eyeballs by looking at his blog. Nice guy </sarcasm>. Among the totally predictable trash/ shit/ merde on his blog, there's a surprising link to a 28-minute interview of John Julius Norwich [*] about the history of East-West conflict. (1) How the hell did this little turd secure an interview with JJN? (What lies did he tell JJN to get it?) (2) Has anyone here listened to this interview and if so, does it rise above the level of a total waste of time? [*] Very eminent British historian and art historian specialising in Byzantium. Must be way past normal retirement age by now. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This article on his blog (re-direct from RW page)[1] is revolting, and If ken continues to use him as a source, that, in my mind, makes him just a revolting. Atheism and women,[2] Irreligion and_domestic violence[3], I wonder how he can compose these articles with any sense of morality at all. I have never heard of one atheist say that throwing acid in a girl's face is a good thing. There is no ambiguity here, Ken knows exactly the views of Mr Day and he and by extension Conservapedia agree with him.--Mercian (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Mercian, thank-you </sarcasm> for posting the link to that post by VD. It's possibly the most distasteful thing I've ever read. Good grief, it makes Schlafly look intelligent and Karajou look sensitive. And I see what the Old Git means by his idea of debating being to shout down people he doesn't agree with. Stay clear of him. Cardinal Fang (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Beale (I'm sorry, I'm not going to call a guy 'Voice of God') is also the only person ever to get thrown out of the SFWA in, due to his behavior and letter-writing to one of their officers. Time abrades memory, but if I recall correctly his problem with her was entirely down to gender and his Issues with women. --Maxus (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Mercian, just think of him as V.D. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Very little danger in Ken getting V.D as you generally need to have sexual intercourse to contract it. I am looking forward to "Atheism and Venereal Disease" though. I also see that to have a ban lifted you need to write a novella of at least 24,000 words on atheism[4]. Standards are getting higher for the privilege of posting on Conservapedia. I wonder if posting articles on how great Nick Griffin or Pik Botha are would count?--Mercian (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

To give Andy a tiny, tiny, tiny bit of credit, he claims not be racist and sometimes even behaves as such. It would be more convincing if he were tougher on the people who misuse his blog/encyclopedia. I'd like to think he'd revert an article which wrote favourably about Nick Griffin. </being nice to Andy>. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mercian, he's way ahead of you!!!!! I couldn't be bothered to read it carefully enough to understand the connection between atheism, STDs, bestiality, Darwin and Sweden. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Cardinal, Andy has before expressed admiration for the BNP, though I admit not Griffin specifically, his only real criticism of them was that they were pro NHS. His reaction when Mandela died was how South Africa had got worse since the fall of Apartheid and how much better it was under white rule. As for the Atheism and VD thing, OMFG, an attempt at being facetious by me, I would never have thought he would have actually written an article on it. What am I saying? It is typical ken modus operandi.--Mercian (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Cardinal, look up "affirmative-action president" on CP and then come back and tell me Andy isn't racist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Lol, I do believe Lewis Hamilton was an "affirmative-action racing driver" at one point but to be fair this has been removed.--Mercian (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That was prolly parody. Af-Ac Pres went from god's lips to Andy's keyboard. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Supporters of affirmative action presidents hold them to different standards (also see double standard) compared to no affirmative action presidents. For example, Barack Obama has presided over a doubling of the gas price and is the first President since Herbert Hoover to have net lost jobs. Another hallmark of the Trusworthy Encyclopedia is the misleading freeze-frame. Another editor got reverted and banned a few days ago (for "vandalism") when he replaced a 2007 Gallup poll on public acceptance of homosexuality with the 2014 version showing a complete inversion. Everyone knows about this trend except the keepers of the faith at CP. They honestly think that currency is the enemy of fairness. Their treatment of facts pisses me off way more than their revolting opinions.Whoover (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools