Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive294

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 July 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] Do you know where I would love to visit?

New Orlean.img I could drop in on Tyranni, hear some jaz, eat some gumb...it would be really nice. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 21:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In New Orlean people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Continuing his habit of redirecting all of his various misspellings to the correct page.img There should be a list, I'm sure it would be amusing. «-Bfa-» 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that a typo for "new, or lean, Saints". Perhaps a reference to skinny Mormons? DickTurpis (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Proper spelling is New Awlins. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Asians will fuck you up!

Yep.img Seriously, read that shit out loud. I sincerely hope Conservapedia never dies. PACODOGwoof, bitches 00:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Ken pandering to Andy with this mention of worst college majors?--"Shut up, Brx." 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Anyways. Well, you know, (Tiger?) Asians are definitely known for their work ethic. Which is totally Protestant Christian. So, you suck! Take that, liberals! PACODOGwoof, bitches 00:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that is a bit of a jab at Andy, who is nominally Catholic. He didn't say Christian work ethic, but rather Protestant work ethic. Good spot, Pacoperro. Also, on a slight tangent, "Tiger" and "Asian" relate somewhat to Tiger Woods, who is the Most Overrated Sports Star. Hmm...--"Shut up, Brx." 00:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states 59% are not Christian at all. The only respectable religion left is Jewish. It's great to see our Judeo-Christian heritage continued by these Chinese. Doesn't it bother Ken that this article was written by a professor? Whoover (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"Tiger" and "Asian" relate somewhat to Tiger Woods No, they don't. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Failures

Apparently, Conservative triumphs don't include spellingimg. At least when Terry blogspams he at least tries to make them superficially coherent. Kendoll can't even get that right, yet he claims people pay him for his writing. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Vermont: 4.6, New Hampshire: 5.0
Other side: Mississippi: 8.7, Georgia: 8.9, South Carolina: 9.1
Research done by Ken: 0h 0min 0sec --K. (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ed ups the creepy.

Here.img Here.img Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that, even with the fight with August going on, Ed still finds time to act creepy. Sorry, did I say good? I meant alarming. Vulpius (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with flowing milk? Is Ed lactophobic? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And Ed continues toimg memoryholeimg everythingimg...--Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but next to Ed, Ken's anti-user tactics look downright subtle. --Sid (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed's ego is very fragile these days. One of the funniest things on CP in ages. StarFish (talk)
Has he been slapped down on wikipedia recently or something? The sheer level of spite in this entire episode is alarming, frankly. This is not how an adult should behave. X Stickman (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I really like the fact that he's deleting comments directed at User:Conservative. He looks like he's desperate to make Conservative a friend. Phiwum (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Gay stuff? Nipples and vulva? Just when you think you have squeezed the last humour out of CP and RWians start saying "You know, we should close up WiGOCP" all of a sudden - Surprise muthafuckers, Ed Poor! AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

The Ken is strongimg in this one. --Sid (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Was underlining you are a bad editor an intentional jab or just unfortunate idiocy on his part?--"Shut up, Brx." 22:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If Ed really does consider those to be "personal remarks" that are inappropriate for Conservapedia discussion, he is being even more sensitive than usual. A "delicate flower," if you will. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If he really thinks those are personal remarks, I'm curious what he thinks of Ken regularly attacking other users' religion, lack of religion, weight, sexuality, perceived level of machismo, education, etc. Oh, wait, never mind, Ken's a sysop, so it's okay. --Sid (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed's still on a bender burningimg the evidence.img The butthurt - and douchebucketry - is strong in this one. All this because somebody pointed out he's being an ass over a place name? Sounds like somebody has "issues." --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Ignore

Well, the one prediction in the whole Ed vs August showdown was that Andy didn't give a (public) shit about what happened and his only response to Ed's behaviour was to quietly remove August's blocking rights, which means August is basically beaten. When his two day is up, he either completely capitulates to every part of Ed's demands, submits a writing plan and gives a public apology for ever proving an administrator wrong, or he swiftly earns himself a lifetime (and anyone who supports August will likewise go down).

People are born, people die, the Earth turns and Andy's mismanagement further fucks up whatever's left of CP. It's just odd that Andy would pick Ed over August, since August contributed and improved the wiki and Ed arguably... contributed a whole lot less and bought with him a lot of problems (vindictive bullying, creepy articles, creepiness in general, technological ineptitude, general ineptitude, ego baggage, ties to the hated Wikipedia, etc).

The only reason I can suspect Andy went down this path was he thought that someone who was helpful, polite, considerate, logical, sane and a good contributor must have been a deep cover parodist. Honestly, if the AugustO thing proved anything to me it proved that CP is utterly future-less. Genuine contributors either get driven away, or suspected of being parodists because they're not power crazed, inept lunatics held barely in check by threat of the King chopping off their heads (or MAD from another admin).

Edit: "TL;DR = Conservapedia evolutionarily selects for crazy."

--Sasayaki (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Andy probably didn't do anything because he doesn't know Ed is a massive liability. Like Conservative and Karajou, he thinks Ed's a big conservative feather in his cap, and whatever he thinks of AugustO is immaterial. I'm also pretty sure Andy is the biggest stick in the mud in the world, and couldn't bring himself to do something about one of his oldest contributors. He just loathes "change" in general (unless it's bullshit geometric word patterns). --YossarianSpeak, Memory 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
August never fooled anyone about being a parodist. Andy routinely hands out blocking rights to parodists to help clean up the mess. This episode shows Andy really wants flame wars over controversial issues, cause a parodist cannot avoid controversy by creating non-controversial articles. (A parodist could possibly survive for a while if he mimicked Karajou's cut n' paste plagiarism). This incident shows CP doesn't even want original content from parodists on non-controversial topics. Content on CP these days in meaningless -- it's nothing more than a power game of personal grudges and vindictiveness. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Christ, does CP just attract people with reality warping levels of paranoia or does it hammer it into otherwise sane people? --Revolverman (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't think its that surprising Andy came down on Ed's side of this conflict, even if he did it by bayoneting the wounded. August is just an editor and in his mind those are a dime a dozen. Ed is User 188 at Wikipedia. In much the same way a concert promoter forms a Beatles tribute band and hires Pete Best just so they can legally put "Featuring Original Beatles Member" on the marquee, Andy keeps Ed around for the boasting rights. So what if Ed is creepy, spiteful, a Mooney and hasn't done anything of real substance on Wikipedia? He was there when it started and is now on Conservapedia. That obviously proves Conservapedia is the superior wiki, QED.
As for August turning out to be a deep cover parodist, again that wouldn't surprise me either. Take aside Conservapedia is considered a laughing stock by even the Conservative movement and the antics of its Admins are a poorly kept secret by this point, I doubt any legit editor on any open source project would put up with the crap he has for this long if there weren't some another agenda. In the end I hope he at least gets to fire off a decent parting shot.
For me though the real gold in all this might be the setting up of an Ed vs. Conservative showdown. The squash matches have been fun to watch and we've had a few good bouts with mid-carders like Rob and Jinx, but its time for the main eventers to get in the ring. --Tygrehart
Ed is User 188 at Wikipedia.. Um, yeah, but I'm user #100 and Ed was regarded as a wingnut by the WP crowd even back then. He has milked his early involvement at WP as some sort of badge of honour, but he was pretty much WP's first troll. VOXHUMANA 02:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed says he was WP's first elected bureaucrat; must've been a popular and trusted fellow back then. nobsCorporations are people, too 02:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, and it was less about "respect" and more to do with the fact that no-one else wanted to do it. The role of "admin" and "bureaucrat" held none of the significance that they seem to have acquired since those days. The first Arbcom was the same, Jimbo handselected the committee and he had to make a second request because not enough hands went up the first time around. VOXHUMANA 03:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting link; clearly he was trusted and influential early on. As in the Larry-Sanger-was-not-a-co-founder episode, and other examples, WP has tried to whitewash some of its history. Arbcom was Ed's idea, according to Ed. An idea Ed probably lived to regret. nobsCorporations are people, too 03:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom was invented by James Forrester - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Well my name (Manning) is on that page to a great extent as well, so I've feel I've got some right to comment. It's correct that Ed did take it upon himself to "vet" a lot of people. What's missing is that many people (particularly Angela and Mav) regarded this conduct as irritating. Arbcom may well have been Ed's idea, I can't remember. Regardless Ed was NOT a major influence, no matter how he attempts to paint it, he was always regarded as a crank. I'll also note that the list of "Notable wikipedians" leaves out some of the most important, such as Mav, as well as Brion Vimmer and Lee Daniel Crocker. They were all WAY more important than Ed Poor, so I can't help but feel that page was written by people wanting to push their own agenda. VOXHUMANA 03:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Here it's got you speaking in the first person, "I was here a day or two before JHK... I thought it was earlier than September, but maybe not," but it looks like Manning never edited the page. Who knows where any of this stuff come from? (I love the historical method, and feel it is important to apply it in creating a clean record fr the early internet age). nobsCorporations are people, too 03:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree on the part of AugustO being a parodist. While his goal is clearly to make a point, he is not doing so by means of parody. INstead, he's doing so by testing the waters of a system that is practically (intelligently) designed to fail. His goal isn't to undermine the quality of the articles, but allow the administrators to prove to the public that they themselves are undermining the site.75.76.196.182 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Conservaleaks only goes up to Feb 2011; he was ID'd in June of 2011.
user:AugustO

from:[redacted] 6/23/11

to Karajou, aschlafly, Conservative, Temlakos, me, DMorris, Ed

He is a time waster and likely ratwikian. He has been booted at least twice but has managed to return.

from: Rob Smith 6/23/11

to John, Karajou, aschlafly, Conservative, Temlakos, DMorris, Ed

A. Don't boot him, he is a known quantity and we can keep an eye on him and eliminate stumbliung in the dark and the guessing game.
B. If he uses socks, block his socks and give him a warning & 24 hour time out;
C. Demand citations for each and every inclusion, anywhere.

Yeah, if you're going to redact Jpatt from the sender bit, maybe you should remove him from your reply too. Jpatt seeing a RWian around every corner is nothing new. He's as bad as TK when it comes to driving off decent editors. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately Ed is too much of a coward to take Ken on. He'll just do the same thing he does whenever he's challenged on Wikipedia and sulk off. Vulpius (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy "sided" with Ed because Ed is a sysop, and any implication that a sysop might not be correct or good at their job is an implication that Andy was wrong, and we all know that's flat-out impossible (source: Conservapedia Proven Right). «-Bfa-» 20:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Most long-time CP watchers (myself included) called this correctly. Andy converses with Ed in the Cone of Silence and there was never any question that anyone outside the Goon Club could ever win against a sysop, unless they were personally known to Andy. At the end of the day, CP means a lot more to Ken than it does to Ed. For Ken, it's his raison d'être; for Ed, it's a corral of captive scapegoats. Ken will win any confrontation with Ed because he brings in the pageviews - even the clickbots were attracted by Ken. Ed will back off and like any humiliated small-time bully, he will take out his impotent rage on some defenceless editor. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Should then the clickbots be turned onto Ed's stubs?

If Ed's articles were to get whole bunches of hits then mightn't User:C's stock go down, leveling the playing field and give Ed the chance to fight the good fight and provide us with many of the lulz we so desire?!!!!! — Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs

Not really, they would probably get the delete and recreate treatment - well half of it anyway. - π 07:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup, nobody gives a shit about Ed's stubs - not even Ed himself. If their pageviews were inflated, they'd just be nuked. The fun of pushing Ken's drivel is that they're such sacred cows to him that he rarely brings himself to resetting their precious pageview counters by deleting them. --Sid (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Obama v Reagan

Even though its not launchbooty, this still a laugh riot. Couple things left out, like reagan raising taxes, while Obama has cut them (but that might hurt their belief in "TAX CUTS ONLY"). Also, apparently Obama has surrendered our national sovereignty, and reagan didn't "raid our treasury". Man, if these people ever actually LOOK at reagans legacy, they will be SOOOOOOO bummed out.--ThunderstruckA Bastard Poster, For Bastard People 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted a reply a few hours back that listed a few select hard numbers behind the Reagan years, basically showing that he tripled government spending and put it all on the national debt to get the economy going again. And the comment got erased, which is unusual for CNaV, but I think I'm about to get banned there anyway. --DinsdaleP (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
ooh, I think you've touched a nerve: "And you dare accuse me of inconsistency? GOD DAMN YOU! You will apologize to me. FORTH. WITH." What a prick. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
That baby is definitely worth keeping. I don't think "prick" goes far enough, Psy. rpeh •TCE 10:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I also posted, showing how taxes and government spending increased under Reagan. I doubt it'll appear - mostly because I told Terry that he should stop calling himself a journalist. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, these machismo heavy conservative types sure are big on throwing bitchy little tantrums whenever challenged on their idiocy, but then again I guess impotency does that to a guy. Lets keep poking this teddy bear and see if he goes on a rampage Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And the very next morning there's an essay by Terry's partner RoseAnn, where she asks the question "Where are the men and women of God who are supposed to be preaching love instead of hate? Healing instead of crucifixion?". Maybe you should read that part to Terry "GOD DAMN YOU!" Hurlbut again, RoseAnn. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If the subject is comparing government debt and borrowing by Reagan and Obama to stimulate job growth and the economy, you guys still are making an apples to oranges argument. In theory, the increased government spending to stimulate the economy is supposed to put people back to work and increase the national savings rate which produces a pool of capital to hire more people. Something like this theory had limited success under Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. But FDR & Reagan borrowed from Wall Street (domestic investors), not foreign investors. When FDR & Reagan's debt payments were made, they were made to domestic investors, keeping both the principal borrowed and interest payments within the United States to serve as a pool of capital for further job growth. Not so with the Obama (and GW Bush) stimulus. The debt was borrowed from foreigners, primarily Chinese, which must be repaid both principal and interest to foreigners. If national savings are to appear as a result of this stimulus, the gains must be exported to China, and not remain in the US as a capital pool to create new jobs with. The scheme was doomed to failure from the onset. It didn't create jackshit worth of jobs -- not even enough to keep pace with population growth. Yet a $5.5 trillion principle debt must be repaid whether it ever creates jobs or not, and this from a economy with about only $14 trillion annual output. No comparison to the wisdom of FDR's & Reagan's debt vs Obama and Bush. And Obama has proven himself GW Bush on steroids. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Foreign debt is exaggerated. In reality, only about 10% of our national debt is owed to foreign countries. Most of it is in the hands of the Treasury and Fed. Also, don't even try to make the argument that Reaganomics was stimulative in any way. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit:Alright I should have looked at your source about foreign debt, but your source only counts raw debt, not as a percentage of GDP. Unless you find a chart that does so, we can't make conclusions. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't really need a chart, it would be expressed as a fraction of 5/14.6 = x% (foreign debt/current GDP estimates = x%). The source link goes to all the current data used by the Federal Reserve Board. Now, rather than argue over FDR vs Reagan vs Bush vs Obama, I suggest we examine the current problems, use past efforts (successes and failures) to determine what's been gleaned, and analyze current efforts and proposals to see what may be likely solutions. nobsCorporations are people, too 20:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't really rocket science. If current GDP growth is 1%, economic growth, or the capital produced by stimulus spending to create jobs with, is $146 billion. Expressed as $14,600 billion x 1% = $146 billion. That means the US government borrowed $5000 to earn $146 bucks last year, while interest rate on continued borrowing (i.e., waiting for the stimulus to kick in) is rising. This means the cost of re-financing the principal on the foreign debt increases, with zero to negative gains to help repay the debt or meet interest payments. Zero to negative, because job growth is not keeping pace with population growth.
Sure, the Obama camp argues, "x amount of jobs have been created....blah blah...", but those jobs created are not keeping pace with population growth let alone reduce existing unemployment. So the debt burden with rising interest rates only becomes greater on those who are still employed. And the national saving rate, or the pool of capital necessary to create jobs, dries up to zero. nobsCorporations are people, too 22:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not about Obama vs "what should be the case", this is about Obama vs Reagan. As a percentage of the GDP (and in real dollar amounts if you don't count the 2009 Bush budget) Obama has lowered the deficit (and yes, this is counting the stimulus). It would be ideal to have the debt as a percentage of the GDP lowered significantly, but many of the President's proposals have been blocked in Congress (the House refuses to even pass his budgets). The current increase in debt is largely due to the recession, which has lowered revenue and even shrunk the GDP in 2009. Reagan, on the other hand, increased both the debt and the deficit, undoing decades of fiscal responsibility.
As for job creation, it would help if the Republican Congress actually listened to Obama's proposals. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
All those numbers are meaningless unless they point to the object of these economic discussions: employment and living standards. By any standard of measurement, (a) employment as a percent of the population has dropped under Obama; (b) living standards have dropped under Obama; (c) the ability to reverse these trends that started before Obama has diminished; (c) Obama's economic programs have not been helpful to increase employment and living standards; (d) Obama does not propose anything to help reverse these trends.
Now, someone may argue Obamacare raises living standards (although this is doubtful for anyone other than persons with per-existing conditions); but we've yet to see and feel the economic impact of lowering discretionary income for consumer spending as a consequence of the healthcare mandates. Some say it means adding another 2 million to the already 12 million unemployed. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fuck the Obama v Regan, Terry's rant at Dinsdale was 100% pure gold. I was going to wade in, but real life interrupted... The CP manchildren really are delivering the goods at the moment. Terry's fantasy politics over Israel is worth following too, though I've given up on debating it for the time being, his screeds are not even wrong. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 23:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like several of us (myself included) posted replies, but he hasn't published any of them, nor comments on any of his other rants from anyone except Unsanitary and Rasta Dickell. Looks like yet another conservative has gone back into its intellectual bunnyhole. rpeh •TCE 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The article is horribly written. He doesn't seem convinced himself that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. It's all "Some people say blah blah blah". And this, "During the Jimmy Carter years (1977-1981), the country experience (sic) another financial crisis brought on by mismanagement of government. By June of 1980, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, which was supposedly held in check by prime interest rates that topped 20%..." This makes little sense. Mismanagement of government, or mismanagement by government? Remember, he chooses his words carefully like a nuclear weaponist loads plutonium. Or "unemployment...held in check by prime interest rates..." (A) What the hell does that mean? (B) What is the significance of it? He needs to stick to pathology cause his ability to analyze economic data is like a nuclear weaponist with an unsteady hand. nobsAn armed society is a polite society 12:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
With the only commentary allowed so far being a bunch of "attaboys" from Pastor Bickel, CNaV has just become another echo chamber with all the dynamic interplay of a rock garden. Terry recently commented that he liked to post contrarian views so we'd demonstrate to the readers how ridiculous we are and how correct he is, but I guess he's decided that it's just easier to appear correct by removing any trace of disagreement. Quite the show of confidence on his part. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
He's not confident enough to say point blank, "the New Deal prolonged the Depression", which is the scholarly consensus today. He disclaims it. Then he uses the Public School/Marxist narrative that the Depression began with the Stock Market Crash. No, the Crash of '29 did not cause the Depression. Rather, the Crash was only symptomatic of underlying problems that had been at work for years. nobsAn armed society is a polite society 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't Smeg Ed a college drop-out?

We who are college-educated need not show off our vocabularies but ought to write at the high school reading level.img Or kindergarten level if your name is Ed Poor. However, I seem to recall Ed saying somewhere that he'd dropped out of some or other college course. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He had some some college education before he dropped out then. - π 12:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that's like saying "I went to Cambridge" when all I did was walk around the campus. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed would. - π 13:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed did. -larronsicut fur in nocte 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
From the Goon Show:
Eccles: I'm practicing, you know.
Greenslade: Don't tell me you're applying for the post of announcer?
Eccles: Yeah. And I'll get it too, you'll see. I'm wearing a Cambridge tie.
Greenslade: You? You were at Cambridge?
Eccles: Yeah!
Greenslade: What were you doing there?
Eccles: Buying a tie.
rpeh •TCE 19:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-intellectualism at its finest. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please use easier words. "Dumbing-down at its finest." You are welcome. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
FTFY: "Double unsmarting at its goodest." -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Any ideas why Conservapedia's spam filter doesn't allow editors to add the word "puerile" to articles? I'd love to think that they've got a filter that prevents people from adding "clever words" but somehow I doubt it.--Spud (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
If this is our Ed... Vulpius (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone should try to convince Andy to add all non-Conservative words to the spam filter. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, snap.

I wonder to whom this is directed?img I like this August character more and more. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused by the prospect that giving certain rights to rule over a rotating-door of half-interested editors on a little-known wiki/internet laughingstock is considered "power". -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The smallest amount of power can becomes the bee's knees for whoever has it. Forum moderators come to mind... so many times have I seen it go to their head and turn them into insufferable despots. ONE / TALK 11:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's surprising how such a small amount of power can go to some people's head. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Basketball

Will the outspoken Christian star Kevin Durant be able to overcome expected lackluster performances by Overrated Sports Star Lebron James? You know, the guy who beat him in the NBA finals? If they win, Durant gets the credit, if they lose, Lebron gets the blame. Give andy credit for always covering his bases.--ThunderstruckA Bastard Poster, For Bastard People 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yah. Andy's good at that--if the US wins gold medals, it's because they're beating countries that are atheistic/impose gay marriage/whatever. If the US doesn't win gold medals, it's because Title IX and the feminists have gutted American sports. For a hateful little man like Andy Schlafly, it's win-win, no matter what happens on the field. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure you aren't thinking of OSS James Lebron?img--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Snap. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
He's nothing if not consistent. Whoover (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy knows there's more than one player on a basketball team, right? It's not exactly a duel... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Best Of The Public™ should go out there and face these professional athletes at their sports. Also, surely if conservatism is so good for one's athletic abilities Andy & User:Conservative can go 2 on 2 with the overrated LeBron James James LeBron and Kobe Bryant. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Wait until Andy hears that Jeremy Lin might be traded by the Knicks. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not traded, but not re-signed. I guess there is only room for one "Conservative All Star" in New York. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I missed the Conservative Bible

and Andy's translationsimg which equate to "screw the actual meaning, I want it to say this." --PsyGremlinFale! 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait... they're still actually editing the CBP? I thought that was over and done with.
Seeing they're still editing the CBP... that's like when you hear about some aged celebrity passing away and you think, "wow, they weren't dead already?" MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought Ernest Borgnine had died a few years ago...I don't know what gave me that impression. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised Andy Griffith was still alive when I heard he died last week. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, but if you did miss the Conservative Bible... practice your aim. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wait...

We all know soccer is a socialist sport, but now Andy's down on rowing because it's "obviously a rich-man's sport"img and seeming to be up on soccer because it's the greatest team sport. Keeping up with this man is hard work. Also because it's rich atheistic UK has an advantage... which is why East Germany, the USA and then GB have the most medals. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But how are there so many rich people in the socialistic, atheistic UK? rpeh •TCE 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I love this quote from that post: "rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot". Really now, I'd say almost every sport which isn't a team sport is purely about some kind of physical feat, making the contestants "act like a robot". Oh right, it's just Andy being Andy.. --GTac (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
How the fuck is soccer a "rich man's sport?" It's what all the kids play in third-world countries with beat up soccer balls. It's every boy's dream to rise from poverty and become a football star. I'm tempted to pop in and call him out on this, but I'll get 90/10'ed by Uncle Creeper--"Shut up, Brx." 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As far as rowing being a rich man's sport goes... okay, yeah, in the United States, rowing is a sport that's only really popular at elite prep schools and Ivy League universities. Is that true in the rest of the world? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well down here, most of the high schools have rowing teams, both public and private schools. (If the Brits are confused, our public schools are government schools.) And we don't have Ivy league universities. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My high school had a rowing team as did several others in the area. Mine was a grammar school but several state schools had teams too. rpeh •TCE 15:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy says this stuff just to screw with you guys. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean he intentionally practices deceit? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy loves a food fight. It's not such a big deal to poke British RW users with a stick like he is here, it's the sadistic pleasure CP sysops get in blocking people when they fight back that's I have a problem with. nobsCorporations are people, too 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait...we must log into Conservapedia to get an answer from Andy. The ballz are in your court.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about, you strange little man? Don't have to run along and protect the Great Grand Wizard of All That is Conservative from being accidentally exposed to the truth. PS, I love how your censorship leaves Andy talking to thin air. Beautiful! --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone should ask him about equestrian events like Dressage. Considering Romney's got a horse slated to be in the Olymipcs, it'll be interesting to see Andy's spin, especially if he places. --DinsdaleP (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney's got a horse in the Olympics, Obama signs horse slaughter legislation. [1] That should help embarrass Romney.--99.108.68.168 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
What in FSM's name are you talking about? Cow...Hammertime! 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that made no sense, so I'm guessing it's JPatt? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that cricket? What is Andy's take on the Offside Rule? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Freudian Slip?

Andy: "I rowed for a bit myself. It... does not use the brain."img MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the only sport that doesn't not use the brain. THE ONLY ONE. ONE / TALK 19:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing this also applies to all track and field events. You don't need a brain to run/jump/swim/cycle/row. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So how do muscles work without the brain? Direct application of electricity? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 20:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
In fairness to Andy, I've yet to see him do anything that involves using his brain. PsyGremlinRunāt! 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] AugustO's apology

OK, I really can't tell, is he having a go at Ed with that "senior admin does not imply adult" thing or is he actually submitting here? If he is indeed having a go, I will send him a blank cheque with my signature and a single 1 on it. He can write down as many 0s as he likes and cash it. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف gross, isn't it? 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He is most certainly having a go.img AugustO complained numerous times, that Eds talk page was locked. On Eds page is the creep picture every one loves. I think even JPratt got it. Start writing that cheque ;-)--Th. Bernhard (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ed Poorimg didn't like it - and drives AugustO's point home... larronsicut fur in nocte 05:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User: Conservative seems to be taking a hatchet to a lot of his work.

1img ; 2img;3img;4img;5img; 6img. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think being called out on the Wired article unsettled him, maybe? Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Moar: Hereimg; Here.img Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So what does this explanatory power explain? (I can't believe you've spent all this time over years reading this shit). nobsCorporations are people, too 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
When I saw Rob had commenting on RC I was sure I was about to read some bullshit about how it was his intervention, through an email with Andy, that helped conservative see the light and at any second Rob will be received at CP with open arms. Ahhhh well. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And I can't believe you spent all these years writing this shit. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) It's a classic.
@Ace: No, I think it's pretty pitiful. Andy is troll baiting you guys with rowers have no brains, and Ken see's the light about over-the-top criticism of atheists. But until they both stop blocking people for the momentary sadistic glee they have in shit-canning a liberal, Ed & Karajou are still gonna follow the leaders. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy is trolling us by making himself, quite publicly and in his own family name, sound like an idiot? Keep it up Andy! AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
In other news, the Daily Mail is actually just trolling the fuck out of the Merseyside Skeptics Society. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 05:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Socially Challenged Ken

Ken, realising his claim his bullshit starts deletingimg theimg evidenceimg. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm smiling a lot right now. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, Ken's recent edits are closer to "intellectual" honesty than I expected. I thought he'd cling to the "socially challenged men" non-quote rather more than he has. Instead, he seems to have decided that since it was not sourced, he should drop references to it as well as some related claims. Phiwum (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. A systematic burning of the evidence is the closest Ken ever gets to a public acknowledgement of being wrong. Other sysops would either double-down in an ever-spiralling descent of lying or ignore all complaints and block anyone who mentions it (usually after the double-down has already been deployed). ONE / TALK 09:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was expecting lots of citations that Dawkins is a jerk. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And has Aspergers! LOLOLLOL Ken! Prosh! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Never have I ever stopped reading an article because of the very first word.

Until now. Literally one word in, and I realised it was bullshit. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got done reading that myself. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion of the article was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Like this is news? I can't ever remember a US President with Red curtains in the Oval Office. nobsCorporations are people, too 00:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm are you sure Rob? AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rob, run along and let the grown-ups talk. Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rob! HEY ROB!. You're an idiot! Theory of Practice Years of being an atheist: 30. Instances of persecution on that account: 0. 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
But what's missing? All that cover the windows now is the Rote Fahne. nobsCorporations are people, too 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Rob, "Rote Fahne" was a newspaper, Why not English? --K. (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Rob, those curtains are burgundy. Two idiots, Rob was joking--"Shut up, Brx." 01:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
For that matter, his health care reform bill copied a Soviet health care plan. - We did it, we found the stupidest thing ever written. Seriously, Hitler failed less hard. --K. (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't red the colour of the republicans? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Drive them out! Back into the sea!

So now Karajou turns his ire upon others for questioning the impunity of Conservative's mental capacity. His responses, predictably, are "I don't give a fuck about the rules", and "Get the fuck out". We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.[2] Rules are for sissies, right Karajou? Gotta keep that status quo! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools