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] Keeping animals safe in Denmark

I see that Denmark is about to make bestiality illegal. No doubt they have at last decided to give in to pressure from CP. Cardinal Fang (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Can Somebody Explain "Low Church Atheists"

Ken is very, very fond of this chartimg, which purports to show that a preponderance of atheists are in the 65-72 IQ range. With that level of mental challenge (once called retardation), these are people who can't use a phone book or (significantly) fill out a form. Does anybody understand the data being misrepresented here? Are these people who were unable to even answer questions about religion, rendering them "low church atheists"? I know he stole it from Voxday, but there's no more sense expressed there. Whoover (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing he doesn't actually understand the difference between High church and non High (or low) church. High church is essentially the old guard. Here in the UK they are frequently referred to as Anglo-Catholic and despite being Anglican they retain many of the practices and liturgies more associated with Roman Catholicism. In my experience they are frequently small c conservatives in socitial senses and even in political often being left-leaning liberals in many wqays, for example some I have known have often been quite tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals personally whilst strongly against allowing gay clergy and they usually are strongly against women clergy of any kind. But they tend to be large C conservative in theological matters. I am (in general) talking from my own experience of anglo-catholics. It's decades since I've been into a church, high or low. Edit to add - vox day is of course talking complete bollocks, and kenny is simply regurgitating the vomit of his master which he has faithfully swallowed whole. There's no such thing as high or low church atheists but it suits their mendacity to pretend that atheism is a religion. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I wasn't asking about the weird metaphor of "low church atheist," but the analysis of data showing that atheism is the religion of the feeble-minded. I wondered whether anyone had been through the General Social Survey data. Whoover (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry I misunderstood. I did go to vox's dump to see the source but guess what? No go on, see if you can guess? What vox says is "To which all the response needed is this graphic, taken from the latest 2012 General Social Survey and combined with the WORDSUM/IQ conversion table calculated by the estimable Aoli Pera" but he neither links to the original source data nor to the workings carried out by the 'estimable Aoli Pera' - he can't even fucking well spell AEoli Pera correctly so I guess we can treat vox with the disdain he has well earnt. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oldusgitus rendition of High Church is pretty good; Low Church brings to mind Pentecostals & Baptists meeting in a store front or living room. God only knows what Ken is talking about (although God is not bound to listen to sinners). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The graph is a quote-mine. It shows that people bang on average intelligence are theists and above average intelligence people are atheist. It cuts off before genius level but that graph is rising sharply. How does the graph support his cause?--Mercian (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The graph actually makes no sense. I assume the real chart should show population breakdown in IQ range buckets. Smoothing that makes it impossible to interpret. For instance, on the Theist curve, if IQ 95 is 20% of the population, and IQ 96 is 21%, IQ 97 is 22%, IQ 98 is 23%, IQ 99 is 24% and IQ 100 is 25%, you see the problem. The area under the curve is supposed to be 100% but Voxday, in all his brilliance, seems to be unclear on the concept. But the area under the atheist "mentally challenged" curve is significant, which is what he's claiming is proof of something or other. I'm challenging that part of the curve. It's implausible that respondents with an IQ below 70 can be "registered atheists." Whoover (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone here a fan of IQ tests anyway? So far as I am concerned they are flawed and frequently culturally biased, persistently marking down those of non-european descent due to the way they are crafted. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
IQ tests are a tool which can be used or abused. So trying to compare "intelligence" across diverse groups is problematical but within a group I understand that they can be useful. There are several problems with VD's chart, not least the unbalanced horizontal axis. For IQ, which is normalised to 100, then you should at least display the same number of standard deviations on either side, something which is conspicuously missing on the high side. Furthermore, IQ is not a linear measure it is a statistical distribution with 15 points representing one standard deviation, so the number of people who fall at the 65 point mark is significantly less than 1% of the general population; and in the US where atheists are already in a minority, then the study probably has a single data point. Even then, given that someone at that IQ level has by definition limited mental ability, then expecting a meaningful and reliable answer to the question is absurd. VD is either woefully ignorant or has been reading How to Lie With Statistics and Charts. Given his track record, the latter option seems the more likely explanation. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 10:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
IQ scores statistically have any validity only up to the age of about 15 or 16. The chart only shows that average intelligence (100) is determined by belief in God, making the whole scheme suspect. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
My WAIS-IV manual would disagree with you on that. They have validity over a much higher range than that. The WAIS-IV has both good validity and reliability up to around 90 years of age. I'd be curious to see what data you're basing your claim on. I can cite the WAIS-IV manual if you want. Unless you reject the idea of IQ I don't see how you could claim that there's no validity over 16. And for reference, I am a fan of IQ tests. I wouldn't use a WAIS or WISC to compare IQs across vastly different cultural groups though. I don't expect someone in the middle of Peru to know why public libraries are a benefit to democracy. However, I might use a nonverbal IQ WNV or UNIT) test which are culturally universal and pretty damn good. Here's a good picture of an IQ standard distribution to better exemplify Genghis' explanation. It is worth noting that not all IQ tests use a SD of 15. The Stanford Binet uses 16 and some others use a SD of 10. AyzmoCheers 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Kenservapedia

Has anyone checked the recent changes lately? It seems to be all Ken... Is there any way to get exact up to date statistics on % of edits by a particular user? (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Ermmm, at a rough guess you could try looking up the page very slightly. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean is there a special page or something to get fresh data? (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe in the old days when we still really, really cared about CP, there might have been. Now that it's become the demented parent, dribbling away in the corner, not so much. PsyGremlinSprich! 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Just from some querying at a glance, Ken has made 2,557 of the 4,353 edits on Conservapedia for the month of October 2014. The edit number should be much higher though due to his habit of deleting and burying everything. But I guess making an edit to Conservapedia roughly once every 12 minutes for the last three weeks is an accomplishment? -Nets awesome (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd still like to know what happened with Project 200 and the booklet. Ah well...Acei9 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
如果你触碰键盘上的按钮,互联网会告诉你它的阴茎。Olé olé olé. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong Sun. (NSFW) Whoover (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


Daily number of edits (14 days moving average) per editor at Conservapedia Nov 2013 - Oct 2014
Percentage of edits per editor at Conservapedia Nov 2013 - Oct 2014

--larron (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Damn. It's always hard to tell if Ken is getting worse or if it's just a problem of perception. It's so sad. I'd like to hear his justification of why he's not a government mooch. I wonder if he's ever been able to work. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Says who Ken isn't say, disabled or retired? Afterall, 24-hr editing streaks may requires those attributes to work. Or are you saying that Ken is a hive mind of more than 1 person who take shifts to work and other shifts to edit? ThiehAhh! my eyes!! 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Daily number of edits (14 days moving average) per sysop at Conservapedia Nov 2013 - Oct 2014
Percentage of edits per sysop at Conservapedia Nov 2013 - Oct 2014

The numbers used are from the auto-patrol-logs:deleted comments are included. --larron (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Error in creating thumbnails. ZOYG you broke RW!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!1one! Ok never mind you fixed that. ThiehLooking for potion recipes 12:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
His advice to PZ Myers. "PZ Myers may need to decrease his computer and internet usage."--Mercian (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
And Athiests: Please Get a Lifeimg Whoover (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's all the same Ken, I won't take advice on how to spend my time from somebody who spends 36 hours editing sad articles on an even sadder hate blog. And no, there is no mysterious collective hiding behind the user:Conservative nick. The voices in your head don't count as multiple users. PsyGremlinSprich! 05:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
"There is one thing you can be sure of: John Wayne was not a militant atheist!" --Mercian (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Um, Popeye...

In regards to this news item of yoursimg, I'm afraid Senator Vreenak has some bad news for you:

Sorry about that, I'm afraid your silly dogma still has no evidence behind it. If only you'd actually google these things before you posted, a little fact checking goes a long way. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

*wipes eyes* Oh, so much of funny. You'd think the banner headline "Porn Star Legend Retires At Age 81" would be a giveaway, but nooooo. Thanks for the good laugh, Kara. Now hurry up and burn the evidence. Yes, yes is it satire. PsyGremlinSprich! 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe this. Whoover (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It's like this site was created for fooling people on facebook. I love it. The other story (dirty liberal thug stuffing a ballot box) is pretty funny, too. Even WND admits it was perfectly legal. It does fall in line with their voter suppression tactics. Why aren't these lazy infirmed geriatrics wheeling themselves into the polling station? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Cokeeyes to the rescueimg! Who knew he still reads this site? HI TERRY! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Karajou included a claim about "Liberal thug caught stuffing a ballot box" in his post, something which Ken - oblivious to the actions of his fellow sysops - reposted; after all that's something too good to pass up, isn't it? Except that it's complete bollocks. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 09:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Is CP now officially a Parody site now? Or is there some sort of rule that sites referencing parody sites are not parody sites? Thieh[Talk needed] 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The rule is that if the referencing site is full of people who are too stupid to recognize parody, it's a special case called Conservapedia. Andy himself regularly demonstrates the corollary of Poe's Law that asserts its commutative property. This is sincere extremism that appears to be parody. Whoover (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing With a Possible Ken Sockpuppet

Kinda back from the dead here, but I think Ken DeMyer is trolling me right now and I'm looking for confirmation. Recently, I picked up some mocking comments from a "Mark Goodson" on some CP-related podcasts I did years ago. Kinda weird, but nothing I'd knock myself out over, except that I noticed something in one of the comments from "Mark" - he never refers to Ken as Ken, only as "User:Conservative." An odd idiosyncrasy from a random troll. I noticed a "Mark Davidson" listed among Ken's known and suspected sockpuppets, but has anyone ever seen "Mark Goodson" show up, say, on Yahoo! Answers? And if this is Ken, what's the best way to get rid of him? I'd just as soon he not hang around. --江斯顿What is it now? 05:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Challenge him to a debate. He'll demand $20,000 to partake, and then run away for good. As for the nick, it's not one I've seen before. Then again, he used two or three different e-mail addresses when posting to the secret sysop groups, so gawd knows just how many socks he has. probably one for each voice. PsyGremlinSprich! 05:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
In those few moments of each day when Ken is not feverishly posting (or deleting) his gibberish on Conservapedia he trawls the net looking for places to spam link his CP articles or make drive-by and run-away challenges. Mark Goodson is probably one of the people who make up the committee collectively known as User:Conservative. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 09:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
And I find a Mark Goodson dropping CP linkspam in this old blog post. Definitely another Ken pseudonym. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 09:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Where was Bill Todman in all of this? --Edgerunner76...and a hotplate! 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what Ken did all day before conservapedia? It's pretty much his entire life now, it's hard to imagine him without it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
And another. This may be the origin.img(Find Goodson on the page.) Whoover (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools