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] Ken, when are you going to stop lying?

I mean, reallyimg. When you stopped bragging about Project 200+ I think it had something like 6 members, and lets face it those were all figments of your imagination. Since then, you've deleted every reference to Project 200+ from Conservapedia and from your blog, which you haven't updated in over a month. You've also deleted every reference to your 50/75/100 page booklet which you said would be published for sure almost two years ago, and you posted daily updates about how awesome each imaginary chapter was. Then you fantasised about a textbook you were going to publish, and how readers thought it was just peachy. Now we're six months past the absolute latest date you said that was going to be published, and every mention of it has been nuked.

Ken, you're not just a liar, you're an obvious liar. When are you going to stop embarrassing yourself? I'm sure we'll get an FYI about how you're being mysterious, and how we're all going to be eating humble pie when your awesome group of phantom friends publishes their great new material that will just crush evolution and atheism on the internet, but that'll just be another lie, won't it? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: never. I'm sure by this point, the moist and cramped space Ken refers to his mind, has turned this whole thing around into some sort of game. Every time he gets called out on his lies, he flips it into "Ha Ha! Look how atheists get so worked up by mere mention of my plans!" For me, the only curiosity left is how much of CP can Ken burn down before Andy just walks away and quits paying the bill. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Immediately burnt by ken and the GregG immediately restores it and repliesimg. GregG will be unpersoned very soon I reckon. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
And ken then burnt GregG's restoration of his comment. But ken, just to let you know that if you crawl out of your intellectual bunny hole and check AGAIN on Greg's page you may find something more of interest. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The Chinese text is (quelle suprise), from the Art of War, it's translation is "Subtle! Subtle! To the point of formlessness. Spirit-like! Spirit-like! To the point of soundlessness. Thus one can be the enemy's fate star." CS Miller (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I honestly think that HE thinks the level of annoyance he creates for atheists (or whatever) is him "fighting the fight" so he doesn't give a damn about actually doing stuff. He sees threads like this, and behaviour like GregG's, and assumes that he's winning because "the atheists are all in a flap" or whatever. Basically, he acts like an annoying coward because he thinks us being annoyed is a victory for him. X Stickman (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Annoyed? Seriously, does ken annoy anyone? He was annoying during that time he was trying to ruin someones business (I can't recall who sorry) but other than that he certainly doesn't annoy me. I point and laugh. I generally don't point and laugh at the less able but for ken I make an exception as he is such an arsehole it's too hard not to. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been of the opinion for a long time now that he sees our commentary on him as some kind of... damage control. He thinks he's doing something awesome and we're scrambling to discredit him with insults/mockery, which means whatever he's doing MUST be damaging the atheist cause. He doesn't see us laughing at him, he sees us as scared (in an intellectual sense) of him and we can't come up with arguments against him, so we just laugh at him to try and calm ourselves down. I can't make sense of his actions otherwise, although I am willing to admit he's nonsensical. X Stickman (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ken is an irrelevant but amusing sideshow. He's the dog in this. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the FYI.[1]img--Mercian (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Evidently, interest in Christianity takes a nosedive in July. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating Moderator 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
yeesh, he's been fiddling with that FYI for something like 7 hours now and he still hasn't addressed the point at all that he's a total liar who talks big and achieves nothing. I wonder what possible relevance he thinks google search volume has to religiosity? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So far only 39 edits.--Mercian (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
And burnt. I think he spent 9 hours in total on the thing. A day well spent, eh Kendoll? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ken gets ever weirder

He spend about 9 hours yesterday fiddling with his silly FYI shoutout, now he's spent almost as many hoursimg trying to deny he ever said any of that. He really seems to think as soon as he burns the evidence that no one remembers it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Even by Ken's usual standards this is bizarre behavior. "You can only prove that the myriad entity known as user:Conservative deleted the article user:Conservative/FYI, not that he created it." Serious headdesking metial there. Not to mention, this is Conservapedia - Do you really think a mere editor would have been allowed to live having created a dummy user:Conservative post?
Still, given that Ken is clearly not the author of the FYI's (PS that's sarcasm, Ken), I'm sure we're all relieved to see that no further FYIs will be forthcoming, because apparently Ken doesn't write FYIs. Until the next one he spends 9 hours tweaking, then deleting. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Ken, if you had nothing to do with the FYI, and it wasn't written by you why are your fingerprints all over the Patrol log?img Why patrol edits, by somebody posing as you for 9 hours, before deleting it. PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that the article is create-protected to sysop-only, therefore only one of these people could have created it http://www.conservapedia.com/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop . Entity that calls himself/herself/itself/themselves "User:Conservative", which one of those 29 was it? I dare you to undelete the article so that we can all see. CS Miller (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Er...

Why do we give a shit? Just askin'. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Talking about Ken is the equivalent of a slow news day, that's why.--Miekal 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
True dat. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Padmelon

The cute little kangaroo, the padmelon, has been featured on MPL for a while now. Could someone who, unlike me, is not blocked at the IP level ask about why all those marsupials chose to work their way to Australia from Noah's ark? It's not just the kangaroos, wallabies and padmelons. The potoroos, wombats, bettongs, possums (many, many kinds of possums), cuscuses, marsupial moles, Tasmanian tigers, bilbies, numbats, Tasmanian devils, bandicoots, dunnarts, planigales, antechinuses, dibblers, phascogales, quolls, ningauis and more all decided to hop and raft from Ararat to Australia.

The only out is that, as members of the kangaroo baramin, they all evolved from one ancestor post-flood. That's either an awful lot of microevolution or an admission that postdiluvian macroevolution is a thing, which would seem to be game over. If not, it's God directing traffic with a sense of humor. In any case, they don't seem to understand the difficulty their little padmelon causes them. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, any fule kno they floated there on mats of vegetation. Cloud Yeller (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought they were blasted there by volcanoes. Casionaut (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No no no, there was a proper article there once explaining how lovely Kangaroos carried all the little ones in their pouches, do keep up Sphincter (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile

Typewriter. DogP (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And worth a promotion. Whoover (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
One of Ed's finest. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 07:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Why are you bringing up an article that was last edited on February 18, 2012? Is this your idea of being mysterious? Spud (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking the same and then I checked Best New Conservative Wordsimg and worked it out. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Carriage return. Discuss. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Andyimg, please associate conservatism with an out-of-date item that's been nearly completely phased out in the industrialized world. And do it while you're using a computer. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't I read somewhere that German security are going back to the typewriter 'cause of the US spying thing? Scream!! (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Germany AND Russia. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 20:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The beat part is typewriter was almost undoubtedly added by a parodist and Andy ran with it in because it fit his "perfect doubling" Snrub (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To me the best part is that a conservative thing like a typewriter was replaced by something that owed its existence to another conservative thing, the transistor. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfect Doubling. PERFECT. What an awesome scientific discovery Andy has made. I am not disappoint. DogP (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You'd think Andy would realize his "hypothesis" is ridiculous when even Ken criticizes it. Even a rudimentary understanding of basic statistics would be sufficient to understand the multiple flaws in what he's doing. Snrub (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone came in and messed up his "perfect doubling". I wonder how long until Andy reverts the changes? Snrub (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That was RoryFimg. Andy took it pretty well.img Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 16:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out here before, if someone really wants to have fun they should add many 16th century terms. That's when Andy's "geometric growth" bites him in the ass and he has to add many more terms to complete his "layers". My guess, however, is that Andy will take the lazy way out and declare by fiat that the words added weren't conservative enough. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case he's just gone "nuh-uh" and reverted RoryF's changes. Typical, and boring. Ruddager (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if Any even believes his "conservative word hypothesis" or if he just keeps up his idiocy because he is completely incapable of ever admitting he was wrong. Snrub (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You gotta admit, those are pretty indistinguishable within his demonstrated behaviour. ThiehTK = Terry Koeckritz 13:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously though, the year is wrong. Back in 1829 it isn't call a "Typewriter", but "Typographer" instead. "Type-Writer" isn't used until 1874, and the hyphen isn't removed until 1880. But then again, who trus Wikipedia for facts? ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Who cares, so long as it's in the 1800s that's all that matters for Andy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ken's won't be too happy with thisimg. Can the vandal please stop. Ghost (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding? A closet case like Ken will be thrilled. He'll be reminded of Chuck Norris' "svelte" physique.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's actually some pretty good artwork. I'm impressed. AyzmoCheers 13:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oversighted, and the first line is off :/ ThiehCP≠Child Porn? 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Mass murder is fine, as long as you have machismo.

[2]img--Mercian (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Troll harder, Kendoll. You're getting boring.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I always kinda hoped that no one was REALLY dumb enough to fall for all of Putin's "I'm a MAN!" PR. X Stickman (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how you distinguish between liberal Blame America Firstism and conservative Blame Obama Firstism. I suspect for Ron Paul it's a matter of black and white. I don't know about Andy and Ken. Whoover (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Barking Up the Wrong Tree Department

Our German Don Quixote, AugustO, is back and appeals to Andyimg to consult with Roger and Phyllis on the subject of Einstein. I wonder how that would go? Whoover (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that website even from this century? London Grump (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying it again: AugustO is trying to perform suicide by sysop. Along with challenging Schlafly on physics he's also trying to challenge himimg on Bible translationimg while fighting in a second front against Kenimg. It's not going to end well for him. - Bill Rawls (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
we have been saying this forever and he is still there. Just what does he have to do to get booted? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
New theory: AugustO is Andy's id, brought to life by ancient alien technology, and like in the movie Forbidden Planet, it/he cannot be destroyed.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia proven right!

An excess of something is bad for you.img Bravo, Ken, for correctly demonstrating the definition of "excess."--"Shut up, Brx." 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You know, spending 10 hours a day in online game is bad for you. But 10 hours a day editing a crackpot wiki, followed by 10 hours the next day trying to deny you ever made those edits. That's perfectly healthy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Brx, the definition of "excess" does not require bad effects. Phiwum (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
An odd bed couple Andy and Ken, they clearly do not give a shit about each other. Ken does the almost impossible by making CP even more of a croc of hate and deceit filled shit than it already is thus crapping over what is left of Andy's reputation and he in return allows it to go on as it generates page views. If either were to die today the thought of the other would be Conservapedia, Ken knowing that nobody anywhere would give him the limitless freedom to spurt his bullshit and Andy would be lamenting the fall in the ratings, neither would even shed a sad thought for the other.--Mercian (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Too much" is too much, for one reason or another--"Shut up, Brx." 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
"Excess" can mean more than is normal. It doesn't require negative effects. You don't have to torture common definitions in order to point out that Ken is stoopid, you know. Phiwum (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not worth a section: Heartless Obama administration tells dying vet to get a job.img Well, it's truthier than Communication by large bureaucracy correcting error and awarding retroactive benefits is somehow lost in mail! Funny how a professional news organization like CP still goes with the BS story 24 hours after the original source updated theirs. Whoover (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support