Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?
| (talk) | (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.
Contents |
[edit] Writing Assignment
Haven't seen one of these for a while.img And it's not from Eddy Poo, rather from parodist lite Brenden. Having a bit of fun are we ? Naca (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- How is that entry "sketchy"? Oh, wait, it's bringing facts into things. Nevermind... unless he's talking about the edit where paedophilia was linked as a "liberal trait", which is all kinds of sketchy. Sokar (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- DanAP deleted the 'Second Life' article as spam. I think Brenden is right to be concerned
- Go Brenden! We always knew you were a bully at heart. --DamoHi 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- A bully? I am giving him the chance to respond, and to redeem himself. My accusations are grounded in fact - his edits were somewhat suspicious, and asking him to explain himself, and his future edits, seems reasonable to me. 172.218.49.11 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If that helps you sleep at night buddy, then OK. I see a jumped up smarmy little prefect telling the naughty kid that he has to do what he says - because he's the prefect and the teacher said he could. --DamoHi 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the point of writing plans I can't see thisimg going well for AugustO. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If that helps you sleep at night buddy, then OK. I see a jumped up smarmy little prefect telling the naughty kid that he has to do what he says - because he's the prefect and the teacher said he could. --DamoHi 09:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- A bully? I am giving him the chance to respond, and to redeem himself. My accusations are grounded in fact - his edits were somewhat suspicious, and asking him to explain himself, and his future edits, seems reasonable to me. 172.218.49.11 (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Go Brenden! We always knew you were a bully at heart. --DamoHi 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- DanAP deleted the 'Second Life' article as spam. I think Brenden is right to be concerned
[edit] And Ken Finally admits that the QE! blog
Is his.img Maybe it is also time to admit that the question evolution booklet ain't going to happen and that your entire campaign is a failure. You can't even man up to debate the fine Mr Mason yourself. What does that show about your machismo Ken ??? Naca (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, not really he hasn't. Everything he wrote on that talk page is in inverted commas. If anyone asks Ken, he'll say that he was just quoting the anonymous man/woman/collective/Thomson's gazelle which writes the QE! blog. He'll still deny that it's his. Spud (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, who cares if he never admits it, we all know it's Ken; Conservapedia all knows it's Ken; ShockofGoat and his crew all know it is Ken; no matter how much "attempted mystery" he tries, the writing style and stream of consciousness is too distinct, and too familiar.
- Lately he has been getting really obsessed with us, hoping for attention, going so far as to inadvertently showing the site doing well in an ass-backwards attempt to insult us, not to mention his weird personal obsession with Fergus. The only person I pity in all of this is VivaYehshua, who may be a decent guy for all I know, but has become Ken's "goto" poster-child for debate; no doubt to the fella's chagrin.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Viva is indeed a decent guy. He's a creationist, but not a dogmatic one, and from all my dealings with him he seems just fine. He also says Ken sucks at verbal debates, but is anyone really surprised?--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 03:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I want to debate "Conservative" but I not been able to get on the chat site 90% of the time and when I do nobody knows who "Conservative" is or doesn't care. I am trying to get on during the day because I am working nights lately. I have not seen "Viva Yeshua" in 2 months. When is he supposed to be on the chat site to arrange these debates? What gives? Also I listened to one of "Shock of God's" "debates" and they're canned. He's a phony. He's reading a script that sounds very much like a William Lane Craig lecture. Does anyone know where he got this material? Nate Keaton (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The guy's been jumping up and down screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" at us for the last couple of days. It's just getting sad at this point. I wish one of his compadres at CP or the shockofgoat chatroom would have an intervention for him, he really seems like he needs it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can we just kind of ignore Kenny? Like, whatever he does we just ignore him? He'll either go off the rails or go away. --Certified Sick Bastard 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he'll likely do neither. He'll just start gloating about how his superior creationist intellect has defeat the combined hordes of darkness that is RW, or something like that -- Tacitus (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- True, but so what? No one believes him, not even on Conservapedia, if the talkpage is any indication; so let him claim victory all alone against his imaginary opponents. He is too cowardly to debate anyone in reality so why should he be afforded any attention? I am all for ignoring the QE blog posts and his spam references to them on CP, as they are just cries for our loving attention anyway. Granted this is a purely voluntary request, and I don't know how much people here will agree to it, but why bother feeding his ego?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- This. The most effective thing RW could do is ignore Ken. He'll just keep going on and on and get mad at all the CP editors who wish he'd just shut up. He is a massive liability to Conservapedia and ultimately his own worst enemy. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- True, but so what? No one believes him, not even on Conservapedia, if the talkpage is any indication; so let him claim victory all alone against his imaginary opponents. He is too cowardly to debate anyone in reality so why should he be afforded any attention? I am all for ignoring the QE blog posts and his spam references to them on CP, as they are just cries for our loving attention anyway. Granted this is a purely voluntary request, and I don't know how much people here will agree to it, but why bother feeding his ego?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he'll likely do neither. He'll just start gloating about how his superior creationist intellect has defeat the combined hordes of darkness that is RW, or something like that -- Tacitus (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can we just kind of ignore Kenny? Like, whatever he does we just ignore him? He'll either go off the rails or go away. --Certified Sick Bastard 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a good idea but... You have to realize Ken is like a bizarre version of Schrödinger's cat. While the cat is both alive and dead until the observation is made, we know Ken is going to be writing incoherent nonsense regardless if we're watching or not. --Inquisitor (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ken is like some kind of self-correcting system; the less attention he receives the stranger and attention demanding his behavior, thus an equilibrium is maintained. If we were to boycott discussion of Ken or QE, he'd just do something so bizarre that we'd be forced to bring it up. --Marlow (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Ken would do something so bizarre he'd get the attention of someone capable of helping him. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe then it be so bizarre he'd actually be interesting again, until then, he isn't worth the effort, even for lutz.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's more likely. However Ken acts online, he's not a danger to himself or others in the real world. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I normally do not get into the whole boycott thing with CP but the sheer fact that Conservative is a complete coward when it comes to debating makes me not want to give him any attention whatsoever (apart from this post :P) I have more respect for the crazy guy spouting nonsense on the street corner than I do for Conservative. If he just said, "You know what guys, I am just not that good at it. Try these more articulate people", I would have no problem. After all we aren't all good at debating. No, instead he puffs himself up, tries to antagonize, makes stipulations he knows nobody would agree to since he is a nobody on the internet and not say, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham etc. and when called on his stuff retreats to his bunny hole. I have zero respect for people that can dish it but cannot take it. He really is a pathetic excuse for a human being, at least on the internet. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- "I have zero respect for people that can dish it but cannot take it.". Shit. I'd be impressed if he ever got good at the "dishing out part". Every time he tries to open the proverbial can of Whoop-Ass, he just ends up spilling it all over himself. The guy's a joke from start to finish. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I normally do not get into the whole boycott thing with CP but the sheer fact that Conservative is a complete coward when it comes to debating makes me not want to give him any attention whatsoever (apart from this post :P) I have more respect for the crazy guy spouting nonsense on the street corner than I do for Conservative. If he just said, "You know what guys, I am just not that good at it. Try these more articulate people", I would have no problem. After all we aren't all good at debating. No, instead he puffs himself up, tries to antagonize, makes stipulations he knows nobody would agree to since he is a nobody on the internet and not say, Ray Comfort, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham etc. and when called on his stuff retreats to his bunny hole. I have zero respect for people that can dish it but cannot take it. He really is a pathetic excuse for a human being, at least on the internet. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's more likely. However Ken acts online, he's not a danger to himself or others in the real world. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe then it be so bizarre he'd actually be interesting again, until then, he isn't worth the effort, even for lutz.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Ken would do something so bizarre he'd get the attention of someone capable of helping him. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Elementary English exercise
Turning the Nigel Farage article into proper good English with paragraph-thingies and all that. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- What? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- He said "Turning the Nigel Farage article into proper good English with paragraph-thingies and all that." StarFish (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That part I'm clear on. The part that's fuzzy is what the fuck that means. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ey's talking about this article, and saying that it would be a simple task to turn it into good English. (talk to a) Nihilist 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it. I guess our esteemed bunchanumbers friend is taking the piss out of them rather than earnestly suggesting we fix CP. My bad. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey JohnMuk, PROTIP: when you copypaste from Wikipedia, the returns apparently don't come over, so you get a wall o' text. Just so you know. Godspeed (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it. I guess our esteemed bunchanumbers friend is taking the piss out of them rather than earnestly suggesting we fix CP. My bad. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ey's talking about this article, and saying that it would be a simple task to turn it into good English. (talk to a) Nihilist 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- That part I'm clear on. The part that's fuzzy is what the fuck that means. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- He said "Turning the Nigel Farage article into proper good English with paragraph-thingies and all that." StarFish (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(reset) I was merely describing the article - the point is not necessarily to change it.
Who agrees with the haggis-eaters? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Beware the ides of... oops I forgot.
Hey Ken, did you forget the special report that you were supposed to issue yesterday? I know it's hard to manufacture fresh-sounding lies to report on, but you should at least have given it a go.
I look forward to your excuses. Perhaps somebody came down with a bad case of flu, or your sleep schedule didn't permit you to post. Or maybe you'll just memory hole the promise like you did for all your promises about the 50/75/100 page QE booklet. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting one of Ken's predictions has failed to come true. I'm still waiting for operation grassroots, operation afterburner, The Ides of March 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 the book for grade schoolers and all the other bollocks he comes out with. It doesn't even get a snigger anymore. StarFish (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Damn Jeeves. Why you gotta be bringin' up old shit? ---Inquisitor (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because I suffer from the curse of remembering what happened last week. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Damn Jeeves. Why you gotta be bringin' up old shit? ---Inquisitor (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been rectified. His "authoress" (who's not too sure about "it's" vs. "its," but nobody said she was an editoress) has sent him a communiqué of terrifying import on the Ides of May. And it ends with kisses and a happy face. I wonder if her name is Dulcinea? Whoover (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus, that was unimaginative even by his standards. Come on, Ken. You're not even trying. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if the "authoress" is real, but is actually one of us just trolling Ken.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doubt it, looking at the evidence she's completely fabricated. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if the "authoress" is real, but is actually one of us just trolling Ken.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Beyond pathetic
This is incredible. He actually went back and revised the old blog post, even though we already knew what it said. Compare and contrast this old version with new version. Not only did he get rid of the 5PM GMT crap, he also went and changed the dates round on when his fictitious authoress would be done with her work so he could claim his "special report" would be about that. Ken, your lies are ridiculously transparent at this point. Why are you doing this? What the hell are you going to do when you haven't got a book to publish? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- He'll claim he's very busy and is pursuing some exciting business opportunities.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. That's weak. StarFish (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- He didn't post the comment, but soMe Damned Bear went to the original post and asked him where his big announcement was. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, "The Spring of 2013 is going to be an extremely irritating month for atheists and evolutionist." Not only does the title enlighten me to the new month of "Spring", apparently he will only irritate one evolutionist (Fergus, he is man-crushing again).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ken, you know that feeling you get whenever you read this page? You know the one. That chill that runs up your spine when you go "Oh crap... did I really say that?", only to have it confirmed seconds later. Then that hot flush that spreads across you cheeks onto your forehead... then the feverish urgency you experience as your shaking fingers edit/delete/burn all traces of the evidence. Sucks, doesn't it? So why do you put yourself through it so regularly? The solution is obvious: stop being a dishonest shit that makes promises that you are mentally incapable of keeping. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. That's weak. StarFish (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
His latest post includes a note from a "creationist sweetheart," illustrated with a pic from Simple English Wikipedia. This one is too just too easy and I won't strike a low blow. Maybe we should have a punchline contest. Sun Tzu must have said, "feed your opponent enough lulz, and he might bust a gut and die." Whoover (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
There are times when sticking in a Picard Double Facepalm still wouldn't illustrate the level of Facepalm Kenthingy is generating. And that's just among CPs' sysops.--
Jabba de Chops 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Oh look
The minute Patmac calls Ken out mysterious people are making demands on his time againimg and suddenly he'll no longer be "as active on the main page talk page" and his replies to Patmac will be brief.
He can't even come up with original excuses for running back to his bunny hole any more. PsyGremlinPraat! 22:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some people tasked me to do stuff in 2012 and 2013 and some letter said some stuff so I'm gonna be doing some stuff with them. Hahaohwow.jpg. Real convincing, Ken. This stems from the discussion Patmac asked Conservative first about liberal christianity crap, and Conservative throws one question at another at him and demands he answers, while not answering him anyway. Waiting for Karajou to start acting like a man...
NorsemanCyser Melomel 23:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] That's rich.
Karajou tells someone to act like a manimg. Oh, and to follow the rules. Not only that, he defends Conservative in the same section. What balls of irony he has! ROFL!
NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's right though. He does treat everyone the same, he's ALWAYS a colossal douchewad. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- True, to a point that he does nothing to others with rights. He doesn't enforce "everything must be true and verifiable" on Andy, and Kenny is making troll comments literally before and after Karajou's comment in RC. Such monumental cowardice on display, it amuses me.
NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- He did join in the posse out to lynch Rob when he saw which way the tide of popular opinion was running. He knows which way the wind is blowing, that Popeye, which is to say always from Andy's arse. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- AlanE should realise by now that what earns the respect of the establishment there is how skillful you are at throwing your weight around and being petty. Markman knew this, and so was supported. AlanE appears to think that simply being in the right is enough. Brenden appears to have learnt the lesson, and I have high hopes for his advancement to fully fledged prick (in the nicest possible way, of course). DamoHi 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just blows my mind that truly good faith guys like AlanE who have been around for 5 years and really helped out get treated badly when children like Brendan run around growing into more and more transparent parodists. Jesus, even fundie weirdos like Daniel1212 who contribute shitloads of consonant content don't get embraced.

23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're a reasonable open-minded person, then CP has no need for you. CP is revenge porn for losers who feel they've been kicked around by the liberal establishment. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually pretty liberal myself. Brenden (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, and good luck with this dickwadimg. ken has alresady reverted you and the last person to try to challenge kenny in this way had a lot more power than you and Nobs now edits here instead because kenny perma banned him. You're on your way out, say goodbye to all your 'friends' over at cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm actually pretty liberal myself. Brenden (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're a reasonable open-minded person, then CP has no need for you. CP is revenge porn for losers who feel they've been kicked around by the liberal establishment. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just blows my mind that truly good faith guys like AlanE who have been around for 5 years and really helped out get treated badly when children like Brendan run around growing into more and more transparent parodists. Jesus, even fundie weirdos like Daniel1212 who contribute shitloads of consonant content don't get embraced.
- AlanE should realise by now that what earns the respect of the establishment there is how skillful you are at throwing your weight around and being petty. Markman knew this, and so was supported. AlanE appears to think that simply being in the right is enough. Brenden appears to have learnt the lesson, and I have high hopes for his advancement to fully fledged prick (in the nicest possible way, of course). DamoHi 21:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- He did join in the posse out to lynch Rob when he saw which way the tide of popular opinion was running. He knows which way the wind is blowing, that Popeye, which is to say always from Andy's arse. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- True, to a point that he does nothing to others with rights. He doesn't enforce "everything must be true and verifiable" on Andy, and Kenny is making troll comments literally before and after Karajou's comment in RC. Such monumental cowardice on display, it amuses me.
On a side note, I just love how Karajou refers to them as "the Commandments." I picture him affecting a Charlton Heston "burning bush" voice as he reads those words aloud to himself. Junggai (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- And with total lack of irony kenny boy describes swabbyimg and conservapedia exactly. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Ken's longest break yet
After having spent the last couple of weeks getting the shit kicked out of him on various talk pages, Ken decides to pack it in: "Due to various people wanting more of my time, I will not be reading any talk pages of Conservapedia in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In addition, I will not be posting to any talk pages of Conservapedia as well during this period."
Taking bets on how long that'll last. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- if he's not back in a week, I'll be surprised.
- Unless Andy finally had enough of him, but decided to let him appear to be going of his own accord. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 04:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, that was my immediate reaction. It really was getting a little ridiculous even for that site. Andy's not going to like the drop in page views though, given that the site is going to be a lot more boring without Ken's insanity around. Tacitus (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Rafael quickly tweaksimg kenny's nose. I can't see the 'no post to talk page' lasting long in the face of this kind of provocation. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is weird, the completely anonymous -and the totally unrelated to Ken- author of the wildly successful Question Evolution! Campaign blog has also decided to stop responding to comments as well. What are the odds of that? --Inquisitor (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Rafael quickly tweaksimg kenny's nose. I can't see the 'no post to talk page' lasting long in the face of this kind of provocation. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, that was my immediate reaction. It really was getting a little ridiculous even for that site. Andy's not going to like the drop in page views though, given that the site is going to be a lot more boring without Ken's insanity around. Tacitus (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this a sign of mental disintegration? Whoover (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's really going to great lengths to justify ignoring his critics. To the same critics he's trying to ignore. It's sad, but his entire life revolves around the attention he gets from RW. We are the only thing giving meaning to his wretched existence. --"Shut up, Brx." 18:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- "I will be recruiting someone else to handle responding to blog comments." Well, talk about giving the game away Ken. You finally admit that it's just you after all.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
18:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- That "Crazy drivers in Italy" video on his QE blog is a pretty accurate description of his brain at work... or perhaps the progress of his blog. I mean, does anyone else know what the point of that video could be?
NorsemanCyser Melomel 19:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's always parroting weird movie clips he finds on youtube, if he's not just parroting vox day or shockofgoat directly. Bloke can't think for himself. I am curious to see how long this resolution to only post actual news on his blog lasts. I wonder if this is just his way of trying to get out of this obvious charade. I mean, it's not like he'll ever have any news to report. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a way to get out of having to debate anyone since he confirmed that VivaYeshua isn't on "Shock of God's" chatroom anymore so nobody is there to "arrange" for a debate between "Conservative" and whoever obviously finds it impossible to follow his demands. I spoke with Nightmare (or some similar handle) a few days ago. He says he hasn't seen VivaYeshua in months. Remieres says he doesn't care about "Conservative's" debate demand. He's the only other sysop I ever see there on the rare times I can log on. So much for honesty. He just retreats to his intellectual bunny hole after rightly getting pounded for being cowardly and pridefully refusing to humble himself to God and people offering good counsel. What a sad person. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ill Nate, ill. The sad ones are swabbie and andy. And to a lesser extent I, and others, can be called sad for pointing at him. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a way to get out of having to debate anyone since he confirmed that VivaYeshua isn't on "Shock of God's" chatroom anymore so nobody is there to "arrange" for a debate between "Conservative" and whoever obviously finds it impossible to follow his demands. I spoke with Nightmare (or some similar handle) a few days ago. He says he hasn't seen VivaYeshua in months. Remieres says he doesn't care about "Conservative's" debate demand. He's the only other sysop I ever see there on the rare times I can log on. So much for honesty. He just retreats to his intellectual bunny hole after rightly getting pounded for being cowardly and pridefully refusing to humble himself to God and people offering good counsel. What a sad person. Nate Keaton (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's always parroting weird movie clips he finds on youtube, if he's not just parroting vox day or shockofgoat directly. Bloke can't think for himself. I am curious to see how long this resolution to only post actual news on his blog lasts. I wonder if this is just his way of trying to get out of this obvious charade. I mean, it's not like he'll ever have any news to report. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- That "Crazy drivers in Italy" video on his QE blog is a pretty accurate description of his brain at work... or perhaps the progress of his blog. I mean, does anyone else know what the point of that video could be?
- "I will be recruiting someone else to handle responding to blog comments." Well, talk about giving the game away Ken. You finally admit that it's just you after all.
- "I will not be reading any talk pages of Conservapedia" - it's not like he actually read anything on talk pages, anyway... ;) --Sid (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- This behaviour seems rather unusual to me. I wonder whether some family or someone have stepped in with an intervention and told him enough's enough? Ruddager (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Na, it's standard Ken behaviour. He is a spineless child and pulls the "I'm too busy" whenever he backs himself into a wall. Acei9 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone stepped in at all (and if he stays away from the talk pages, as promised, he was definitely pushed) then it was Andy. Even someone as blind as Andy must realize that the CP talk pages have become little more than an exercise in Ken baiting. Perhaps it was Andy who was on the receiving end of a long-needed intervention, with someone pointing out that Ken is destroying what little chance there is left of CP ever being taken seriously by anyone. Tacitus (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Na, it's standard Ken behaviour. He is a spineless child and pulls the "I'm too busy" whenever he backs himself into a wall. Acei9 02:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- This behaviour seems rather unusual to me. I wonder whether some family or someone have stepped in with an intervention and told him enough's enough? Ruddager (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] C-C-C-Combo Breaker!
He already read and responds to a talk page post by Rafaelimg, but the response is in his bunny hole protected user space. He's still going on about debating, 15 questions, and that he's possibly more than one person. Dance for us, little man!
NorsemanCyser Melomel 19:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Memory holed within seconds. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Conservatives are Always Right, Whichever Side They Take
Andy says gambling is for liberals, because it's bad. But it's different when Obama says it's not a great life strategy because that proves he's a Muslim and gambling is good because Muslims think it's bad. Of course if somebody tries to outlaw it in any context, we get screams of Nanny State! Whoover (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only liberal suckers are gamblers. Good, god fearing conservatives own the casino. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Andy's making an un-conservative argument; gambling is uncoerced, voluntary taxation and the exercise of individual freedom. nobsYe shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if Andy would yell "nanny state" if politicians attempt to outlaw gambling, given opposition is usually from social conservatives.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was gonna say that it's perfectly reasonable to oppose gambling personally but be against outlawing it, but then I realized Andy likely isn't capable of a nuanced position--"Shut up, Brx." 04:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Andy is actually right about lotteries being about getting money outta the poorimg. I guess in this case Andy's fundamentalism beats out his hatred for the poor. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Key words: "...government-promoted "powerball" gambling...." Gambling isn't bad, but government-promoted (i.e., liberal) gambling is bad. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Andy is actually right about lotteries being about getting money outta the poorimg. I guess in this case Andy's fundamentalism beats out his hatred for the poor. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was gonna say that it's perfectly reasonable to oppose gambling personally but be against outlawing it, but then I realized Andy likely isn't capable of a nuanced position--"Shut up, Brx." 04:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure if Andy would yell "nanny state" if politicians attempt to outlaw gambling, given opposition is usually from social conservatives.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Andy's making an un-conservative argument; gambling is uncoerced, voluntary taxation and the exercise of individual freedom. nobsYe shall all perish in flames - Kim Jong-un 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Terry Hurlbut, recovering homosexual
Is it just me, or does Terry's last comment imply he's had some gay sex?
"I remember enough to assert that homosexuality is a developmental arrest. You and I “developed” per the usual case. Adult homosexuals arrested their development."
Used to be gay, then grew out of it? Carlaugust (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't read it that way but it is a slightly strange hypothesis. It would imply that we all go through a gay stage and those with "arrested development" stay there. However I don't remember it like that. As long as I've wanted to have sex with people I wanted to do it with girls.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)