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

Contents

[edit] Getting past User:Conservative

Does anyone know if Andy reads this page? I want him to see this because Conservative actually deletes messages about himself from Andy's talk page within minutes of posting. He doesn't seem all that interested in running his wiki sometimes so I doubt he ever looks at a summary of the server logs, but if he does then a few people following the links back from here to his user page and talk page might get him to have a look.

The only other thing I can think of is to make the edit to his talk page during one of the two hour periods that Conservative is eating or sleeping or something. I have also sent a similar message to aschlafly@aol.com which is the listed as the registrant email address for conservapedia.com, and cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com as indicated in the Conservapedia editor's guide. I suppose it is just possible he has read it.

Now I know the obvious question all this raises is "Who gives a shit?" but I am intrigued by the fact that the answer doesn't seem to include Andrew Schlafly. — Unsigned, by: 94.1.139.153 / talk / contribs

Andy does not read this page. He does check Recent Changes pretty frequently though (he does revert a lot of spam and vandalism), so there's a good chance he did see that this happened. He just doesn't care. He almost never does anything against Ken. When he does, it's either Andy "trimming" something or Ken has done something way over the line. Bullying new users is par for the course, so Andy's not going to do anything about it. Cow...Hammertime! 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey nice typesetting on your blog. It's probably a theme, but Merriweather is a nice face and the line height is pretty close to the Golden Mean. Nice choice. The grid doesn't make sense, but overall it's a nice page. Good work. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Over 3 weeks without a mention, 1000s of inane edits, tens of new articles about atheism and whatever he detests and answering and questioning posts by long banned users he finally gets the therapy he deserves, a mention on RW.--Mercian (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's just one of the built in themes. And I'm glad I could help with his therapy, I guess. 90.209.243.6 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I hope you're happy. Ken's mention here has clearly sparked off his manic "up" phase and now the whole of "recent changes" is him tweaking his "Atheism and..." articles. Apart from Karajou doing some drive-by blocking. PsyGremlinPraat! 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The poor sick one has been in full-blown obsessive around-the-clock turd-polishing mode for weeks now, so I don't think this mention had much of an effect. Whoover (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear goat, I've just looked at recent changes again. Almost all of the last 1000 edits have been his polishing. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess he chose a good username for that site, it almost looks like a half broken bot caught in a loop. --Revolverman (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
My favorite recent polishingimg is to a press release from 20 years ago, by a guy who died 19 years ago, about an atheist refusing to debate because the right to sell the replay would belong exclusively to the dead guy. Lithium would do wonders. Whoover (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

At a tangent, there's been nothing happening at the Question Evolution blog for a couple of months. Has the spearhead of the crack creationist assault force become bogged down on the beaches of something or other? London Grump (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of glad he's given up on that. As much amusement as his continued promises of jam tomorrow provided, there's only so much you can laugh at his pathetic lies before the amusement turns to pity. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
He should do a Kickstarter for it. Fonzie (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looks like kenny has finally crashed. No edits since 5.20 this morning. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. As I write this of the last 300 edits from 18.45 yesterday 294 of them are ken's polishing. Looks like his meds have failed again sadly. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
As of now, 468 of the last 487 edits made to CP, covering from 16h42 yesterday to 08:58 (US time) with barely a break. But as far as Andy is concerned, this is totally normal behaviour. PsyGremlinPraat! 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Calling SamHB

Assuming you don't get banned for not having the machismo to address Ken's question about all those scientist rapists (hint: recruitment bias in a study of subjects invited to talk about sexual harassment via social media -- and told to invite their friends who've had bad experiences), you're needed at Counterexamples to Relativityimg again. It seems that Andy's just discovered them atheist scientists and their inflation and declares it "implausible." This from the guy who rejects that eating a pound of cake gives you c^2 energy, so the plausibility bar may be a bit low. Basically, only physics that a fifth-grader can understand is beautiful enough for God to have had any part in. Whoover (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that SamHB added a rebuttal to "inflation hurts my head," but it attracted an odd objection. VargasMilan complains that SamHB is denigrating the science of -- wait for it -- Aristotle!img I don't recognize this Aristotle you are describing. Am I missing something or is this VargasMilan's coming-out party? Whoover (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ken's latest edit spree

Well, he's at over 24 hours now and isn't showing any signs of slowing down. I tried posting something on Andy's talk page with a disposable account to tell him about it and express some concerns... Guess who burned the post and banned me for two years... 74.59.250.92 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It amuses me that Real, True Christian Ken doesn't go to church. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it for marathon editing sprees on CP. It's almost like he's a lying hypocrite or something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
His latest episode was almost 30 hours. Do you seriously think he knows what day it is? He's probably at the voices-in-his-head stage of mania. Whoover (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As I recall his longest editing spree was about 38 hours. Acei9 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if it's not a record for time, surely it's a record for the greatest percentage of total edits over some long time span, since Ken is pretty much laboring alone over there.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Creeping up on 36 hours now. 94.142.245.231 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Andy was in anyway a responsible human being he would have a word with him, not to tune down the madness but to take proper breaks, If. He is a lawyer for a medical group and will know fine well this pattern is bad for his health, therefore he is an irresponsible twat without a trace of empathy.--Mercian (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Which edit are you guys counting from? It looks to me as though he may have broken his record, or at least came bloody close. I'm not sure about the time stamps ... although it looks like they're all UTC. S do the ones on this site line up with CP? Ruddager (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted 39 hours. Not all of the edits are visible in his contributions due to deleting and recreating pages. --AntiTheist (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, it looks like he went from about 4pm on the 11th to 6am on the 13th for just under a 40-hour edit spree. His biggest break was 2 hours and 15 minutes, but apart from that managed about 380 edits - almost one every 6 minutes, and that's only the visible ones. His most fervent work seemed to be towards the end too. It's exhibitions like this which occasionally humanise him in my eyes and make him seem like a vulnerable person in need of help, if not simply some friends. Ruddager (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean the 13th, surely? Otherwise it's 14 hours. But yeah, if that was my website, and I saw an editing pattern like that from a user, esecially one of my long-time inner circle, I'd be picking up a phone and saying, "Dude, is everything ok?" Then again, I doubt they have Ken's number - they don't even know his real name. PsyGremlinPraat! 13:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Surely this is the work of the collective called Conservative? He/she/it must have had a shift schedule planned out. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure there'll be an FYI, once the lithium kicks in, telling us how we can't possibly know how many people use the conservative account, and how they all got 8 hours of sleep, dreaming of long-haired Korean creationist sweethearts... PsyGremlinPraat! 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and it starts with a misunderstanding of the uses of the pronoun "you" in English:img EJamesW, why do you use the word "you"? What proof and evidence do you (or the people who edit using your account) have that merely one person edits using the User: Conservative account? Whoover (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 13th, not 12th. Corrected now, thanks Ruddager (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Ken's logged actions this week
pauses during 36h sprees
pauses during 24h sprees

It is a new, disturbing record for him, to edit for 36h without having more than 2h-breaks. Rather frightening. Any of CP's sysop (besides Ken obviously) reading this? Please intervene! --larron (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So Ken, "you" is a singular pronoun in English, is it? Dost thou desire that we call thee and thy fictional colleagues in the Conservative collective "ye"? Spud (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My Latin teacher in college was a great admirer of "y'all" as the second-person plural pronoun. Maxus (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble interpreting the pause charts. Are the Y-axis labels inverted or something? Whoover (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorta. It's a measure of the longest break in a streak, so smaller values are of more note. The Y axis is oriented from small to large, because that's conventional, but the bars go from large to small to draw attention to the smallest largest breaks. It's pretty good graphical design(even if it did confuse you) Ikanreed (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What (s)he said (including the part about "pretty good graphical design" - thanks!). But I made a new version which may be clearer. --larron (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
And now the quarrelsome/deceitful user/users of the DerrenB2 account has/have had the last word! 90.210.81.122 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No scratch that. I must have imagined it! 90.210.81.122 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
For the record the message which lasted for all of 5 minutes was posted immediately after Conservative wrote, "All of these factors make it extremely unlikely that the User: Conservative account will continue this discussion," read something along the lines of "Does this mean we are now free to engage in last wordism?" This was black-holed by Karajou while Conservative was on a break. And yes I am DerrenB2 mostly just mentioning this for attention. 90.210.81.122 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] And away we go... again

The collective sweatshop known as user:Conservative has been on another editing marathon, starting at around 11:15 pm US time last night. About 180 edits, up to 7:42 this morning. So another, all night, 8-and-a-bit-hour session. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The man has drive, determination, a sharp attention to detail and other good qualities I give him that. Also if he substituted atheism with poverty many of his articles would make some sense.--Mercian (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If you start from 16:37 EST yesterday until he crashed (maybe?) at 08:50 EST this morning, he made 201 edits (not including oversights and blocking), with only a 3 hour break from 20:00-23:00. --Nets awesome (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Projection much, Jpratt?

Alaska overturns gay marriage and all Jpatt can think about is a 60-yr-old perv marrying a 10-yr-old.img Hint: That's Catholic priests you're thinking of, not gays. Also, look up the meaning of "consent" - it's same reason gay marriage won't lead to people marrying their pets, you dumb bigot. PsyGremlinPraat! 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

F me. Andy has just reverted and oversighted jpatts shite. You are REALLY OUT THERE when andy finds your crap to right wing and extreme. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And jpatt spits in andy's face by readding the commentimg. Will andy oversight again or simply roll over and let his belly be tickled like a good lap dog does? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
For the record don't say CP has no concept of consentimg. It might be brief and/or twisted, but something is there. ThiehZOYG I edit like Ken! 05:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Shame that thread has gone so far up the page, it's got pretty wierd — Unsigned, by: 131.107.147.239 / talk / contribs 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
What is a homosexual blood transfusion? Scream!! (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
wouldn't gay marriage increase stability in homosexual relationships, reduce the number of sexual partners and thereby reduce risk of STDs? "homosexual blood transfusion" seems like an argument FOR gay marriage.

[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 ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 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)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support