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] So Ken likes christian songs

Especially those by Pentatoniximg. So that would be the Pentatonix that support LGBTQ rights and contains 2 openly out members would it Ken? Count down to burning all evidence in 3, 2, ......... Oldusgitus (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, he doubled down by adding another Pentatonix "christian" song, but ... burned. It's possible he hadn't seen this thread yet, but that's questionable since he left the other "christian" song up. I guess it's a "christian" song, but it's sort of shabby treatment of the term to accept it from some degenerates. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
aaaand oversighted. Tee hee. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm moderately surprised it took so long tbh. Do try to keep up ken. If we are telling you things it is because they are true and you are a confused liar. Now, about that bookelt you were publishing in the first quarter of 2014. Any news? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
SunTzu, OG. Sun Tzu. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought his ownership of atheism and evolution pamphlet was due in early/late 2012 or maybe last week? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Larron

Is it possible to see a visualization of how frequently Ken oversights edits or deletes the entire history in a period of whatever granularity makes sense? He can't burn the patrol logs, and checking those diffs will give the familiar WM "bug" message. I would work on a script to do it, but I frequently get fail2ban jailed (or whatever) and have serious server error problems — he really needs to upgrade his hosting plan — it's completely inadequate these days. I suspect that he burns a very substantial number of his actual edits. Not sure whether WM counts such edits for purposes of its counter — if not, it's sad to think of a person as even more deeply obsessed with issues he has to lie about to present according to his cult's bias. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cursory search of his last 50 edits, so definitely not the final word — 36% oversighted. Wow. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Until 2013, I regularly looked up the user contributions - at least of the active editors. Then, it was possible to identify the missing edits, at least for the auto-patrolled contributors. But crawling Conservapedia became more and more cumbersome: nowadays, I'm just gathering the new revisions once a month. If at this time Ken has already deleted a revision, I'll spot it. OTOH, if Ken deletes the revision only after I've stored it away, I'll generally won't know about it. Keeping this in mind, here are two graphics illustrating deletions at Conservapedia:

Ken's edits
Deleted pages
  • The first one shows Ken's edits per month. You find the edits which I know to be deleted marked blue. The brown part includes not deleted edits - and edits which may be deleted (Rumsfeld's known unknowns?) In the background, the percentage of definitely deleted revisions per year is shown.
  • The data for the next graphic is taken from the - public - deletion log of Conservapedia. So it is quite accurate, but it only shows delete pages! In 2010, Ken learned how to hide/delete revisions, and I have no direct way to get this data. Again, in the background, the percentage of deletions performed by Ken per year.

Sorry for the delay, I had stuff to do :-) --larron (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] So why can't Eskimos grow fur?

Probably for the same reason that RoseAnn Salanitriimg can't grow a brain. — Unsigned, by: Ephess / talk / contribs

If you want a serious answer humans living in very cold conditions can wear clothes which no other animal can. Therefore humans don't need to evolve fur. Proxima Centauri (talk)

^ +1 for Proxy. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No. That's not how evolution works. Evolution doesn't work based on what a species "needs." It works by random mutations which provide comparative advantage. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but clothing means that a random mutation to restore our fur would not have been that advantage. The mutation might not have occurred, but had it, it would likely have resulted in her inability to find a date due to long-ingrained behavioral preference, with clothing removing any advantage. Whoover (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think humans have occurred way too recently in history to evolve to have fur. Remember, we have evidence that humans originated in Africa, so having heavy fur won't be much use. Humans have migrated to many parts of the world, so they need something more immediate (clothes) to shelter themselves. LEFTYGREENMARIO 21:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Why don't they ever cite the lack of Eskimo fur as proof that they weren't designed well? Whoover (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh because wp:Lamarckism, and I know Terry and his goons know better. She's openly misrepresenting the TOE to score some cheap religious point because most rank and file YECs are ignoramuses when it comes to the science. And I look forward to seeing Terry defend the article in comments. Like Rayment, he argues without the least bit of principle. If the "evolutionist" makes a claim or opposes whatever the YEC thinks is orthodox YECism, the "evolutionist" is wrong. QED. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Watching sites like CNAV is like watching a train wreck in process. As a scientist, reading anything Terry and friends has to say on scientific endeavours is always a soul-crushing experience. - Grant (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You're an evolutionist scientist. You don't have a soul. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's true. I'm effectively pure evil. I forgot about that. - Grant (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what they would say about hypertichosis? Ayzmo (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If I can channel my inner PJR for a moment.... LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION! Ugh. That was unpleasant. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that even PJR has an inner PJR. He's so awful. But when I see how for the last 7 years he's gotten on so poorly with creationists and fundies at CreationWiki and CP, and made a career out of cretrolling at WP, it's plausible. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
PJR is right up there with Andy in the ability to send fellow travelers running for the hills. That's the problem with always being right. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of like how he gave Dmitry THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT!!!1! For, as near as I can tell, not very much at all. But wow does that highlight how he'll take any power trip he can get no matter how small. I'm not sure falsely reporting someone for spam really will do much, but it's enough to know that Terry wants him to SUFFER!! --Kels (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Long time lurker (back to the early days), first time editor. Yeah, Terry seemed to extract a real amount of satisfaction from de-registering my wordpress account (for the second time; the first was when I rebutted each of "The Eagle"'s proofs of Obama's secret Muslim agenda). What genuinely confuses me is how he seems to tolerate Fergus tearing him a new cloaca, but berates me for "civility" when I tell him he seems to have no working knowledge of all that he rails against. Ah well, I'm perfectly content to just watch the idiocy flow like lava.
Incidentally, I have next to no wiki-etiquette, so if I break the entire site's formatting or something, apologies in advance. Dmitry (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fergus puzzles me too. Maybe Terry realizes on some level that without him, there's nothing really worth reading on the site. --Kels (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't Fergus here at one stage or am I imagining that? I tend to think coke eyes keeps Fergus there because he needs to be seen to be allowing some disent and Fergus tends to attack Walt Brown and his craziness rather than terry directly. You were kicked into touch because you blatantly told terry he was stupid and needed to educate himself. Remember, this is the man who will own THE GENERATOR when that crafty Obama finaly installs the dictatorship. You should be bowing to him, not telling him he is an uneducated moron. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish that Obama would get on with it. I bought this generator ages ago and now it's just taking up valuable nuclear bunker space. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And sometime overnight MatthewJ has handed Terry and Roseanne a comprehensive combined education and metaphorical spanking. Top work Matthew, I can't wait to see Terry's 2 line dismisal of your opus. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

A truly remarkable response from Matthew J. No doubt Terry will be offended, but the tone was perfectly civil throughout. I particularly liked 'Your odds of winning the lottery don’t go up if you really really really need the money.' Worm (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is excellent. Re-reading the original post I had a good laugh at this sentence: "Perhaps [something about transitional fossils is] why Evolutionists fight so frantically for the known errors and hoaxes to be kept in textbooks." Putting things in textbooks: that well-known way of keeping them completely secret. Terry's excommunication of Dmitry ("Let it be known...") is pretty hilarious too. Cantabrigian (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I love that he has fake porn videos popping up on his site (you don't have the required codec scams), very classy. (talk)
It's actually rather sweet really, he's taken the option of completely ignoring the educational humilitation heaped on him by Matthew. To an extent I can't say I am surprised, he is one of the most deliberately mendacious 'debaters' I've ever witnessed. And as for the porno vids, I don't get them. Perhaps it's something to do with cookies on the machine? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Now the comments are just a long string of asskickings.img --A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel terribly sad for people like this. So small, so enclosed, so dead. Their vision of the universe is as myopic as their vision of God. No wonder, no majesty. Just anaemic petty stunted unimaginative piousness. Jesus would give them a good kicking. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a mate of mine who runs a bicycle and motorcycle shop in Reading who is an xian. He drinks, smokes and swears worse than I do. I was speaking to him the other day and his attitude is that 'Do you really believe the disciples didn't swear, they were working class blokes in an incredibly hard land and they most likely swore and drank just as much as I do. And so did Jesus. I cant stand all these pious holier than thou idiots. When I die god will have a place for me because he knows me well enough.' At which point he hawked, spat and set off home to have a nice beer. He'll be in church tomorrow on his kness but tbh THAT is the kind of xian I like. He is quite willing to talk about his faith if you want to do so. But if not then he will talk about his bikes and beer. Give me those xians any day and, please goat, save me from the likes of terry. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Damn right! Can you imagine God's horror at seeing His creations just sitting in the mud and refusing to use the one defining feature that man has - his intelligence? It must really get on His tits. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm trying to reply to his post on the uniform distribution of isotopes and volcanoes but I can't see a box for the captcha :( Ayzmo (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's there, the field just has no border so it's effectively invisible. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I wonder if that's intentional to discourage people from posting? Ayzmo (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I doubt Hurlbut knows any CSS. His site is so slow from all the broken javascript from WP addons and ad network stuff that I don't think he knows anything about the web at all. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Coming a little late to this and, responding to the initial question, Eskimos do show some metabolic differences to non-Eskimos. These could be heat adaptations. For that matter other groups show adaptation to high altitude. So while we haven't grown fur, some subgroups have evolved in other ways.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's been pointed out to them in the discussion. But they just pick on one adaptation that hasn't happened - therefore creationism. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You're talking science -- they're hearing lies from the pit of hell. Does anybody understand how embryology got on the short list? Maybe they think embryology is the theoretical branch of abortionism? I do love how the deer seem to be following along with great interest. Whoover (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Embryology suggests that there is some relationship between the bits that form gills in fish and the bits that form the jaw and ear and neck parts of humans. The truth is that the sky wizard designed us forspecial, and our arches and pouches have nothing to do with their arches and pouches, etc. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As much as YECs need to know is what CMI and AiG say about Ernst Haeckel's 19th century lithographs. Not particularly surprising that they would then be prepared to dismiss all the really exciting advances made since the war. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Listen! Don't mention the war!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The level of cognitive dissonance required to hold YEC viewpoints is astounding. I will never cease to be amazed. - Grant (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Next lifetime, I'm going to be an STS anthropologist and do my fieldwork on YECs. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear flying goat. Terry is now quoting The Lord of the Rings to try to justify his increasingly insane crap. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention falling back on the old "but the Chinese characters for boat show 8 people, blah, blah." He's grasping at so many straws, one of the Three Little Piggies is homeless. PsyGremlinSermā! 10:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've literally no idea how to debate someone who claims that all the knowledge of a catastrophic event being forgotten is evidence that a catastrophic event happened. Never mind the other nonsensical responses, where does one go from there? Ayzmo (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] A tiny bit of credit for Terry?

Can I stick my neck out and suggest that Terry deserves a tiny bit of credit for engaging in debate about his version of YEC craziness? (So long as you keep the tone reasonably civil.) Instead of shutting out people who disagree with him (Schlafly), abusing them as individuals (Karajerk) or abusing the entire socioeconomic group to which they belong (Ken). The fact that Terry's ideas about geology, physics, biology - almost any science, really - make one's head spin is a different matter. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Mad as his ideas are, he's willing to debate them. Even more, when a discussion ends with a comment that demolishes his argument (which is often) he'll usually approve that comment and leave it on the site. He doesn't flamethrower the evidence like the dribbling cretins at CP do.--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 13:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Fraid I must respectfully disagree. Credit should be awarded for genuine intelligence and positive ideas, not for being slightly less contemptible and pathetic in one isolated situation than the likes of Andy and Ken. Plus his motives for continuing this discussion are unknown and could be anything from not wanting to look like a coward in front of his fundie brethren to wanting to convert the guy to an actual desire to engage in a debate, and thus probably should not be automatically assumed to have a positive root. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I can really muster more thanthis for a guy who is slightly less of a douche than his comrades in defending a false and dangerous idea. Sorry. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The comments are the only bit that's interesting of most of these blogs; If the Kens opened their comments section I guarantee page views would go up by an order of magnitude...
I think OP is missing that Terry's obvious and admitted purpose in publishing comments is to, in his mind, show "evolutionism" up to be a false doctrine. He's also not permitting free speech in any strong sense — he regularly censors posts from several posters there when they make him look like too much of a fool. Terry's no different than CMI when it publishes comments and then "responds" to them by disagreeing with every point made. YECs have to disagree with anything that goes against their bible; they also seem to reflexively disagree with anyone they think is hostile to their cults, which explains Terry rarely actually fully responding to comments on the merits, but rather addressing the commenters' beliefs and then categorically denying the whole premise of the discussion. They do this without the least bit of principle, notwithstanding their bogus claim to a source of "objective morality". Terry using people as fodder for bullshit apologetics and bad theology isn't laudable. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Terry also has a nasty habit] of selectively responding to comments that aren't so hard to "knock down." He seems to spend a lot of time sidestepping the main thrust of any arguments against him, and instead settles on whatever minutiae he can dismiss easily and without much thought. I believe the purpose of his responses is more to reinforce his credibility in front of those who already agree with him. I can't imagine he seriously thinks he's going to turn "evolutionists" astray with his comments. - Grant (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm fairly sure he doesn't. He's stated his belief that "evolutionists'" hearts are hardened to god and that they adhere to naturalism in order to exclude god. In that regard, he's taken a cue from CMI/AiG, which treat their "ministry" against "evolutionary thinking" as a negative apologetics, i.e. based almost entirely on denial and inappropriate burden shifting. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's why I can't (and won't) give him any credit. His "debating" is just an underhanded tactic to advance the same kinds of goals that Ken and Andy advance, and there's no debating involved. He wants the appearance of a debate just enough that someone who lacks an education in physics/astronomy (or geology, biology, or whatever fits the anti-scientific rant of the day) might think he's making valid counter-arguments. He is not, however, and it only takes a rudimentary knowledge of the science behind the theories he's trying to challenge to realize that he's just making feints to solidify his perceived power base. Being insidious doesn't make one deserving of credit, I think. - Grant (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I did say a tiny bit of credit... I don't want to exaggerate but I do think there's some difference between someone who evidently reads all the contributions on his blog even if he then finds some spurious reason for rejecting what he's been told and, on the other hand, someone who accuses people who don't share his viewpoint of buggering sheep. I agree with Michael Reiss when he said that, rather than simply dismissing creationism as an aberration, scientists [MR said teachers specifically] should take the time to explain why it has no scientific basis. We may make no impact on Terry himself but at least someone reading his blog can see that the total bollocks spouted by people like Rosanne and Bradleee can be rebutted. Terry provides a platform for that discussion, however much he likes to get the last word. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Is Conservapedia permanently down?

ConservapediaEditor (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're just on the giant IP shit-list. Use a proxy. Whoover (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] We are the Tea Party extremists - nice work on that

And so the second or sometimes first largest party in the US sues the government (OK, the IRS) over the extremist wing of the party trying to get tax breaks for their political activity. I doubt one in ten of the tea party idiots understand how to set up a non-profit organisation correctly. The other nine are undoubtedly breaking the law. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a spoof site? --Revolverman (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but it appears to be a true story. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 01:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The mind of the Kendoll

Truly atheism in the UK is doomed. DOOOOOOOOMED!img. The reason is because in 15 years by some dodgy projections somewhat less than one in ten Chinese people might be Christians. And 40K Chinese people immigrate to the UK every year. How ever will we cope with this massive influx of 4000 Christians a year? Gosh, churches might even see double digit attendance each week. I also enjoyed him asserting without evidence that all Chinese Christians are creationists, because why not add baseless assumptions to your complete lack of understanding of simple maths. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this post is a response to him being completely ignored by RW for a couple of weeks. Perhaps he is jealous of Terry who WIGO CP has been focusing on. Must be hard for him having a fellow sysop who challenges him for world's biggest fool.--Mercian (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We can't hear you, Ken! We're too engrossed in the record-breaking debate on CNAV, which seems to have grown from hairy eskimos to encompass just about every bit of wingnutty craziness of the YEC camp: hydroplates, fossil columns, age of the earth etc. etc. (how did that all happen anyway?). We just don't care about your hypothetical long-haired Christian Chinese sweethearts invading Blighty. Ephess (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
He had a shout out on anger bears talk page but because we ignored it he went back and memoryholed all changes there from the 28th March to 17th April. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It has a mind?--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 03:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"They". Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 03:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Khant. Olé olé olé. Nutty Rouxnever mind 04:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you’re all being cruel to Ken. At the end of the day he’s still a human being and we need to remember that. I for one hope that before the year’s out he gets his dance with his long-haired creationist sweetheart and at the end of the dance he whispers something sexy into Ken’s ear. JumboWhales (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I started trying to think of what Ken would interpret as "sexy" but then I got scared and stopped trying. X Stickman (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
never mind that the linked Telegraph article says most of the Chinese are there to attend university, so not really immigrants. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

[edit] But wait, there's more!

Aww, he's jumping up and down and capering for us.img. That's, er, cute? Let me say this in the form of bullet points, so Ken might have a chance of understanding:

  • Quoting someone else making the same baseless assumption is not the same thing as actually backing up what you say with evidence. Even when you don't hightlight in red the three previous words where they admit that they're making a baseless assumption. I'm sure you frantically googled to find some evidence that all Chinese Christians were creationists, but you'll have to frantically google some more.
  • You keep saying that atheism has a poor retention rate in the US while completely failing to notice that year on year the number of the godless keeps rising. Haven't you stopped to consider that that means that atheism isn't like religion, that it isn't passed on by childhood indoctrination? You're obsessed with this idea of religion as some sort of venereal disease that you've completely failed to notice that it doesn't fucking matter whether your tribe spits out babies like a tennis serving machine in a thunder storm, religion is still following the trajectory of a failing social network and for the same reasons.
  • Are you really still promising that your "campaign" is actually going to do things? Aren't you humiliated enough by the last two years of promises? Jesus fucking wept.

Also, I'll say it again. Since all you're doing these days is capering for our amusement, why don't you come here and do it? It might help you if you actually had an environment where you couldn't burn the evidence all the time. You might stop for five minutes before opening your mouth and shoving your foot in it yet again. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

You know you're arguing with Rainman about not watching Wapner, right? It's not good for your blood pressure. Whoover (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
When has Ken done anything that makes you believe he has awesome math skills? --A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
He's an idiot savant missing the savant part. Whoover (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
How about we not attack someone for something far beyond their control? Ayzmo (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut that stable door! Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 08:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you're reading this, Ken, here is an article debunking the atheist retention rate myth. DickTurpis (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

He sent out a FYI, about 10 edits calling Jeeves out for swearing and calling Trent obese before deleting it all. --Mercian (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What a shit-blasting fucknugget. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
All the hallmarks of a courageous man. Acei9 01:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Here it is since he deleted it. Why the hell does he bother posting it if he's going to delete it? Cow...Hammertime! 01:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
He does it all the time. Who knows what goes through his mind? He probably thinks he's being mysterious like Sun Tzu or something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I can explain it I think, as I have suffered a similar affliction to him. You get something in your head and the mania takes over and it has to come out somehow, usually followed by guilt and regret and a urge to cover your tracks. It's hard to explain precisely. He can do this at CP, and lets face it, it is a harmless release. Still, no excuse for being a turd.--Mercian (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
But God gave us "free will"! Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 08:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyway: Who is the head person at this website and does he suffer from "an abundance of unsightly flab"? I think we should be told! Ephess (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a revolting personal attack on a single person. How that has anything to do with any point he is trying to make is a great mystery of the ages. Trent's opinions are worthy of being taken seriously because they're well-conceived. Chuck Norris' opinions are worthy of ridicule because they're unprincipled, poorly considered, and rigidly dogmatic. This has nothing to do with one's BMI. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Ken

FYI gentleman Mercian, you have to manually capture and upload pages that already exist. Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you deleted several attempts at an FYI some time late last night. The Americans are pretty much asleep by then, and can't in any event look at Conservapedia without using proxies, so it's a drag that's no longer worth much time. The brits are just getting up to start their days, so they don't have a lot of time to obsessively check CP like you do RW. I'm sure some of us are interested in reading your FYI, but you need to leave it up long enough at a time anyone's likely to see it to get the attention you want. Thanks in advance. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It was the same as the last, substituting Jeeves for D Turpis. Only this time Turpis is bad for swearing. Trent is still flabby and obese, really nothing to see.--Mercian (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It's back [1]img. Encyclopedic stuff, I love this line. "Liberals fall for a lot of foolish things such as liberalism". Do you wear motley Ken?--Mercian (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools