Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 357: Line 357:
 
::::::::::<capture>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Attention_atheists:_Please_get_a_life!&curid=106429&diff=823554&oldid=823553 This is pretty funny though!]</capture> [[User:Ace McWicked|i]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>9</sup>]] 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::<capture>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Attention_atheists:_Please_get_a_life!&curid=106429&diff=823554&oldid=823553 This is pretty funny though!]</capture> [[User:Ace McWicked|i]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>9</sup>]] 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::Funny or not, I want it on record that I'm not onboard with the Ken bashing, because I see this going horribly wrong. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::Funny or not, I want it on record that I'm not onboard with the Ken bashing, because I see this going horribly wrong. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::::::::Ken is just a person of low intelligence and low education who is surrounded by people who conceal these facts from him. And Crundy, I don't think the opinion of someone who can write "''She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!!''" should be respected. 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Revision as of 22:19, 18 October 2010

What is going on?

(talk) (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.

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

CP's bible lecture

It's getting better and better. The next homework assignmentimg is to create Ken-style "satires" of evolution. Oneimg is already up, and I can't wait to see what Andy will come up with. Röstigraben (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, another Ken masterpiece, and relying on the whole Archaeopteryx thing again (wouldn't it be nice if they could quote more than one source (Hoyle) that it was a hoax). And flying dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. I wasn't aware other dinosaurs were mentioned, unless you mean leviathan? Ken, has also never heard of Pterosaurs before. The man's ignorance is astounding. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't Ken this time, which is why it's so hilarious - the bible course explicitly encourages other editors to imitate him. Röstigraben (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Really, teacherEd is not trying to be sutile anymore. His parody is so obvious that Andy will reach a new level of stupidity if he actually submits that homework. --Tlaloc (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ha, Ken can't spell astromer astronomer.  Lily Inspirate me. 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't astromer the type of polymer that is only possible to produce in outer space like those Gundamium alloys? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, didn't realise it wasn't Ken who wrote that. Full marks to LanceS - how can they block him for parody, when his articles mirror the stuff Ken writes. Can't wait to see how Andy answers. Can't wait to see how TeacherEd winds this one up. --PsyGremlinPrata! 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean the largely defensive alloy of Gundamium? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, you cannot now convince me that TeacherEd isn't in fact the Best. Parodist. Evar. He's even got the Assfly dancing to his tune. Congratulations to whoever is running him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Bets on how soon he will become a non-person? I say within 24 hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Andy likes him, so the other sysops can't touch him. Unless he pisses Andy off by giving him a bad grade or something, I wouldn't be surprised if his efforts even earn him elevated user rights at some point. LanceS, on the other hand, is probably walking on thin ice. Röstigraben (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Best parody ever. The real clincher was the age thing. --Opcn (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that the Thick Kardboard headed one reads this, and is not KompleTely stupid. He might clue Andy in to the obvious parody is obvious of assigning people to create parodies of Ken's kitty articles... oh, never mind, you are right! PS, I'd love to write a CP article on shop safety. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Additional lul's for thisimg on lances user page. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. Terry Koeckritz is in a position to ring the alarm and warn Andy that his strings are being pulled. There are four possibilities as I see it:
  1. Terry Koeckritz doesn't sound the alarm because he wants to see Andy getting sent on a wild goose chase homework. Terry Koeckritz knows Andy is a complete idiot, and has been known to give parodists a blind eye anyway, so it stands to reason he wants to see this play out. For all Terry Koeckritz likes to piss us off, he too is trying to have fun with (and destroy) CP. This particular piece of parody isn't likely to threaten Terry Koeckritz's grasp on CP, so he might just let it go for the lulz.
  2. Terry Koeckritz's urge to ruin our fun over-rides his urge to see Andy being messed about, so he sounds the alarm. But Andy ignores him or downplays his concerns, just like when he ignored PJR about the Lenski letter.
  3. Terry Koeckritz sounds the alarm and Andy takes his advice, letting TeacherEd get blocked. For the first time ever, Andy would have demonstrated the important human faculty of listening to someone else. ONE / TALK 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Terry Koeckritz quietly blocks TeacherEd and Andy doesn't even notice.
I'm betting on number 4 myself. ONE / TALK 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd say #1, but #2 is also plausible because of Andy's complete obliviousness to parody. I think #3 and 4 are unlikely - the first one because parodists are generally safe once they've gotten on Andy's good side, and the second because Andy has enthusiastically welcomed TeacherEd and his "course", so he would definitely notice if he weren't around anymore. Especially since not much else is happening on CP these days, it would be really hard for TK to cover up a block. Röstigraben (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy's on the hook. TK has probably warned him in p-mail but he's letting it play out before doing anything to so that he can be proven right later on.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm guys...did you ever think that TeacherEd could be TK himself? From what I heard, he has done this type of thing before.RascalJack (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
As if TK had the intellectual energy to pull off something like this. TK may be in on it, but if he is TeacherEd he has someone else feeding things in to him. --01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
TK has no creative instinct, you only need to check out his contributions; they're all either blog links, blocks, reverts or plagiarism. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Chile again

It was the power of prayer... as well as capitalism and free-market economyimg that saved them. *sigh* --Sid (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait... so suddenly liberals are against "innovation, risk, and investment" and "capitalism?" I must have missed that meeting. All I'm saying it was our drill that got the job done, so more post-WC warm and fuzzies happening here. Sorry Karajou, but I didn't see much help coming from your neck of the woods. Oh... right... you were praying... silly me.
Also I love their little reminder at the top there: "Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails"" Subtle, no? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't that well known Government agency NASA also help out by sending food packets? Bondurant (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the fact that some of the miners had "complicated" or unconventional love-lives. Apparently this is OK in god's eyes as they were saved along with the others.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Just as the "God saved them" brigade overlooks why they were trapped in the first place so the "captalism saved them" overlooks why the mine was unsafe. The Chilean president has said that the government will now instigate more safety regulations. I wonder if we can expect CP to protest at this expansion of government control and demand greater freedom for mining companies to let the free-market enforce standards? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. @ Psy: Shouldn't that be "redneck of the woods"? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifNothing to add, just felt the need to say it CS Miller (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone actually surprised at the shite being churned out of CP claiming it was conservative values that saved the miners? I think by now we'd be more surprised if they didn't claim credit for it. SJ Debaser 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I'm only surprised that they haven't made more of it, but then it is foreign news and the US right doesn't have a great track record in that respect. I guess they've got far too much on their plate blogging about obscure Tea-bagger politicos. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at with the "humorous political cartoon" WIGO, pointing out the (at the time) lack of any coverage whatsoever given to the miners. That said, I'm still impressed that the first WIGO I've added in a while has hit -39. SJ Debaser 17:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like two drums and a cymbal falling off a cliff there... but anyway, what did you expect? For them just to report facts and perhaps a story of survival and human compassion? No. Everything is political and everything can be used to smear people that don't share the political views of Conservapedia's bloggers. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"It seems strange, that if God is supposed to be unchanging, "the same yesterday, today, and forever", that his ability to perform miracles improves as human technology improves." 14:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
When I clicked on PZ's link to the paper's homepage it struck me immmediately that there was very little about Chile. El Espectador is, of course, a Colombian paper. It is important that scientists get their facts straight before publishing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
PZ gets on my tits a bit: he's too fast to go into print sometimes. 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Without PZ to Pharyngulate polls like that I would never have discovered that El Espectador has Kristina Svechinskaya as "la hacker más sexy del mundo". I'd get on her tits a bit. Heck, I'd give her my credit card numbers just for asking. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Why oh why did you have to go down the "sexy Colombian women" route? I've spent the best part of 30 years trying to get over my own piece of Latin ass from Bogota, who was also named Cristina and looked like a young Sophia Loren. That being said, Mrs. K. was born in Paraguay and is just as beautiful in her own sweet way (despite being of British stock) and is an atheist. I don't think I could taken 25 years of being married to a practising Catholic. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you've stayed married for 25 years reflects nothing more than your implicit acceptance of the moral authority of Jesus Christ. Indeed without accepting God's authority your worldview would be completely unintelligible. Nothing you claim to know or achieve comes without accepting the Christian moral framework and recognizing its divine authority. See here for inspirational witnessing and information about what you believe, Genghis. I'd like to pray with you sometime. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if Genghis eats smooth or crunchy peanut butter? On a serious note, I see no shot is too cheap for Andy.img --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
He eats super-chunky Skippy like all true Mongol warriors do. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I eat crunchy Whole Earth organic PB., and I'm only still married out of sheer inertia. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It is safe to say it was a combination of government programs, capitalist innovation, and most importantly, human compassion that made the saving of all those miners possible; what you can't say is it was divine intervention because that is the one claim among the other with zero evidence. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
all this talk of God saving the miners just reminds me of the 29 miners who died in West Virginia. Where was this God bloke then? Christians make me want to puke sometimes. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Mayhaps we need a God of the Good Times article, like the God of the Gaps? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
West Virgina is just too secular these days, it was a warning to be more faithful like Latin America you Mountaineer heretics. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was flash wot got 'em out. Hat tip 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Flash, Flash, I love you! but we only have fourteen hours to save the miners! 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)~
What is the death count in Chinese mines last year? --Opcn (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Heard an interview on radio 4 yesterday with an offical of the international mine workers union. The offifical death toll in chinese mines is in the region of 10,000 but he estimated it as closer to 20,000. Incidentally, looks like god was so busy in Chile he missed out on this one sadly.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
How long until Andy or Terry Koeckritz turns this one into a politico-religious issue? "The Chinese miners died because of atheist communism" or "God didn't help them because of atheist communism". SJ Debaser 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations. You just beat them both to it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken has a new parodist disciple

Have you heard of the The transitional animal the flying dinosaurimg? Normally not worth noting because it sounds pretty much like every other Ken insane flying whatever animal so-called "esaay", but this one was entirely written by LanceSimg, one of TeacherEd's (creeeeepy name) Bible Lectures students, and possibly Ken's singular disciple.

I almost didn't want to make note of this essay, only because now it may be erased and parodist LanceS made into an "unperson" as Ken and Terry Koeckritz both read this talk page regularly. Yet again it may stay, as it fits perfectly in line with Ken's special brand of Young Earth Creationist insanity, and thus not matter if it's parody if it tricks some sucker into believing it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken (a) gets that it is a blatant parody of his essays, and (b) would delete Lance's essay even if he does know. Tetronian you're clueless 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
See above. We're all eagerly awaiting Andy's own entry. Röstigraben (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I totally missed that and I was gone less then a day. That Bible Lecture Two page just SCREAMS parody, how are they not seeing this?? Ego? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's The Emperor's New Clothes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
We get flying dinosaurs perching on our bird table every morning. The Real James Brown (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I like The Emperor's New Groove better. --Kels (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
James Brown gets chickens on his bird table? Garden birds aren't very much like dinosaurs (strictly IIRC the Dinosaurs are a group with four legs, lots of things from "dinosaur" movies aren't dinosaurs - so birds are right out on that basis) but chickens are incredibly saurian. Watch a chicken lay on a warm rock scratching itself, in that position the feathers can't conceal the fact that this is basically a lizard with wings. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ripkin

Someone please help me understand this. I like to think I get along on a fairly high level, but this one is completely over my head. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

the baseball player one? No, i don't see the connection. andy doesn't even say it's about a young earth. crap WIGO is crap. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The page it's on? Counterexamples to an Old Earth" 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
oops! i'm so used to everything being on main page right I failed to check... my tea levels must be dropping... Totnesmartin (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The age of greyness has decreased from history to now, from about 50 to 35 in mere hundreds of years. If people were as old as the old earth idea suggests they would now be completely grey. Voila!
I think the reasoning (excuse me, "reasoning") goes like this, based on other ways Andy has argued against an old Earth or old universe. He believes that an old universe requires uniformitarianism everywhere, at all times, at all scales, linearly extrapolatable ad infinitum. For example, he argues this stuff based on the amount of fresh water in the great lakes. I don't remember exactly, and I can't be bothered to go back and look at it again, but it's something along the lines of "If the water level in Lake Michigan is 3 inches lower than it was last year, then 13 billion years ago the water depth must have been (fill in the blanks; I can't be bothered; I'm just making this up) and there isn't enough water on Earth for that." In this case the argument is that people's hair is turning gray (or they are losing their hair) at an earlier age than previously, supported by his usual careful scientific research of looking at a picture of Cal Ripkin. This means that aspects of human life or the human genome are changing at too fast a rate--humans aren't uniform over (thousands / millions / billions / whatever the hell he's talking about) years. You see, an old Earth requires that the human race shows no discernible change that we can see on a human scale. Or something like that. Gauss (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I get it. And hence the bible is true. Soon we'll be born bald and grey. Etc. etc. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Takes me back to an old boyfriend (Chris) - he was bald by the age of 21 - lovely guy - died at 40. 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Patrick Stewart was bald at 19 wasn't he? As a counterexample to early greying Phyllis Schlafly is not grey yet is she? --Opcn (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming she doesn't dye her hair. On a smug note, I will never go grey.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Then there's Saint Ronnie, dark-haired until death. And Paul McCartney, who was greying, but a regular routine of prayer seems to have reversed it! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to those 2000 Grecian gods!  Lily Inspirate me. 09:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Patrick Stewart was bald at 19? So that explains his awful syrup in I, Claudius. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
So is Gauss' ability to figure out the reasoning show that he is a genius or just plain crazy? NetharianCubicles are prisons! 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes it's hard to understand how Andy isn't embarrassed by himself. "Uh, Sports Illustrated said he was gray...thus, the Earth is 4,000 years old. Boo-yah!" It's fun to laugh at him, though. --Leotardo (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RobS, Obama and the gay gene theory

Only wanted to say: kudos to Jammy and to Nutty Roux for that wigo. --JJ4eI christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 00:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can no longer look at stuff about homosexuality on CP. It was funny at first, now it just disgusts me that those pricks can think (i use the word loosely) like that. It wouldn't be so bad if I could believe it is just those nutjobs on CP that do, but I know there plenty of folk who would agree with em--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What I'd like to know is, has Rob been tested? I would say unless we see conclusive results from the sysops at CP (and a couple in particular), they should be treated as suspect. Just to be sure. --Kels (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I just assume everyone is gay until proven otherwise.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Me too. It can make for some amusing social circumstances... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Wat--JJ4etalk 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Tested for a gay gene? I thought thats what Kels meant--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's what I meant. I'll have to check my notes. --Kels (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As a gay, I will say that I find CP's coverage of homosexuality to be awesome. To watch Ken toy with his sexuality publicly (while obsessively updating his gay music interests on his user page) and the propaganda spread by them warms my heart. Why? Because they are exactly the opposite of where the country is; with homosexuality as so much. Even Glenn Beck is for the gays these days. I dunno - I enjoy it. But only because CP's handful of editors make the site so inconsequential. --Leotardo (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


Ken and Terry are gay, and I suspect Brian. Ed has, er, different tastes. But what about Andy? Is he allergic to ladies? It's a reasonable probability, after all. --JJ4etalk 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with a AMassiveGay on this. I used to fine reading through Conservapedia a real laugh, but after a while the homosexuality topics just feel depressing. It's not just reading it - it's knowing that the human mind can be so hateful, if so conditioned. Dalek (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying people are "gay" in order to slander or compromise them is really lame. Can you people please get over your schoolchild giggles? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This is definitely not about "schoolchild giggles". The possibility of gay CP sysops is not something I would call "lame". Human, you're clueless. The implications of gay CP sysops are striking! --JJ4etalk 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to say Human I read that as saying that ken and terry ARE homosexual. Not as a insult but as a statement of a reasonable supposition based on their seeming hatred for all things homosexual. It's long been postulated by some that those who have the most vicious reaction towards homosexuals are frequently suppressed homosexuals themselves, a concept I actually heard first postualted in the programme that went a large way to changing my view of homosexuality The Naked Civil Servant with the estimable John Hurt as Quentin Crisp. Just look at the some of the preachers who are caught taking rent-boys on holiday with them and the like. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course, I over-read that. Any "insult" there is that they are hypocrites, not that they are gay. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well of course, as soon as something in your mind becomes evil and illegal, it makes it all the more tempting to commit. It's why as a christian myself I don't treat anything Good/Evil, simply a matter of decision(not to say that being gay is a 'Decision', more of a Preference).HKJGN (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is one homosexual sysop on CP-just do some research and you'll find out.RascalJack (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
More correctly there is definitely at least one homosexual senior sysop on CP. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The gloating, oh the gloating of Obamageddon

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

Obamageddon. The gloating on every aspect of this supposed implosion of Barry Soetero's Kenyan anti-colonian Muslin administration and all it touches has reached fever pitch on Conservapedia (they now mention 'Obama' 112x on Main). They rely on every poll, no matter its source, to say that they will rule. There is a theory that Republicans gloating that the election is all but won hurts their own voter turn-out (b/c they assume the election is won without their vote). There is good cause to think 'Obamageddon' will be a sad hope (because polls don't count normal people and blacks are jazzed to vote. How will CP handle the likely 'Obamageddon' crap out? --Leotardo (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter what happens, Andy will spin it his way. His world does not depend on silly things like "facts." So it really doesn't matter how excited he gets, since even a Republican loss can be construed as a win in Andyland. Tetronian you're clueless 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we know what a RELIABLE conclusion from the polls indicates? What're we likely to see? Dalek (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all, because they only poll landlines, not cell phones. Also, they are mostly robocalls. The last election showed the problems in polling methods and forecasting; this election will make them irrelevant, I believe. --Leotardo (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's pretty clearly going to be a bad set of elections for the Democrats and a good one for the GOP. At the moment, the best set of predictions I've seen says the Dems will just hold the Senate - about 51-49 including both independents - and lose the House - about 210-225.
Both bodies could see a wide range of outcomes though. The Reps could win the Senate but would need to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, West Virginia and California. The first three of those are pretty certain, but California is likely to stay Democratic and at least one of IL or WV will too. On the other side, the Democrats could hold all but the first three for a 56-44 result. Very unlikely though. This site is one of the best I've seen for a good analysis of the polls. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Another site I forgot to mention here. It has a similar Senate projection and a slightly more pessimistic House one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What SR said, it looks like election night is going to be rather depressing this year and Andy will almost certainly have a lot to gloat about. The best-case scenario seems to be at least avoiding the election of the most extreme teabaggers. I personally don't think Obama and the Dems in general have done a good job at governing (well, he couldn't have lived up to the ridiculous expectations anyway), but the only alternative is so obviously abhorrent that I really don't get why Democrats are suffering from such extreme voter motivation disadvantages. You might also want to check out FiveThirtyEight, my favourite blog on US politics, which has recently become part of the liberally biased lamestream media. Röstigraben (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, you said Obama was made of muslin. Nice fabric, but a bit off-white, as I recall. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, OBAMA IS SATIN!!! --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Muricans don't want no muslin president. --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, Obama feels so good against my skin... --Kels (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
True fact, when Obama was elected president, somewhere in the world, Sarah Palin didn't belabor or avoid a simple question, it was a Miracle! course then everyone there but her died.HKJGN (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SR, Rost - oh, I definitely don't think that this is going to be a good year for the Dems, but the idea that this will be an "Obamageddon" is premature and bombastic. Aside from the obvious point of counting chickens before they're hatched, I would think a Christian encyclopedia would prize temperance as a value. Conservapedia is a case study in Gandhi's observation, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the Tea Party, by getting some real wackos nominated, may have hurt the GOP and saved the Dems from a real humiliation. Earlier this year it looked like the Dems could lose both the House and Senate, but now that the TP has snatched potential defeat from the jaws of victory in a few districts, they might actually manage to keep slim majorities in both bodies. Palin is no Gingrich, that's for sure. Fingers crossed... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

TeacherEd

Our new favorite parodist seems pretty inactive. Considering the Bible class is the only even slightly interesting part of CP these days someone needs to get going on this. Also, how is LanceS not banned? Other than his satire article and his homework answers which have elements of thought put into them and aren't regurgitated parts of the lecture, we have this in his homework: "the CBP showed that not being able to understand Biblical Greek is no real obstruction to translating it". Come on, folks! Are your heads really so far up your collective asses that you just can't tell when someone having a go at you? DickTurpis (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, Ed can only edit in the 30 seconds editing is open each day, so it might be hard for him to update his course. Also, it's the same problem with Andy - he doesn't want to admit he's made a mistake, so will ignore everybody's yelling, until such time as the mask comes off and he's shown to be a fool, as well as stubborn. Psy (tltli).
Looks like Lance finally got banned by fellow parodist Tzoran for screwing around with some Chinese... and Tzoran reverts back to "appropriate and correct" version which was actually a bogus Wuhaoism in the first place. Can the software be configured to only accept ASCII? Unicode reeks of liberal multiculturalism anyway... --MarkGall (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What I find amusing about the Bible Lectures themselves (outside the homework assignments and inflated grading for Andy), is that everything written so far is already common knowledge for anyone who is even mildly involved in or has a cursory knowledge of the Christian religion. It's sub-basic Christianity, you learn this stuff in first grade Sunday School; any parodist could easily write this remedial crap. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the Bible is banned from public schools, most people don't know anything about it - therefore, the Bible course is very important and valuable. Deny this, and lose all credibility! --Composure1 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering the interpretative abortion known as the CBP, they likely lack even the basic understanding of Christianity or what the Bible itself says, so you go TeacherEd! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Andy is learning from the lectures, and even thanking TeacherEd in his edit comments. --Composure1 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy doesn't know enough to learn from an advanced course. the only thing Andy seems to know is Schlaflyian conservatism. I really wonder what he does with his spare time. --Opcn (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Correction, Andy doesn't know enough to learn from a remedial course. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Parodist watch

JacobB and DouglasA have dropped off the map. To their handlers: I know nothing much is going on over there right now, but back in the day we had something called making our own entertainment. EddyP (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell, even TK is bored with the situation over there. Why should our other sysops be any different? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
CP is currently as good as dead. Nothing I can do to change that. There are no new users, no conversations, "debates," or anything of the sort. PubliusTalk 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Eddy - what happened to JacobB's entertaining antics? They were the only source of humor for a while. Tetronian you're clueless 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The best entertainment lies not in what you see, but in what you don't see. --Sid (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to defend JacobB. I collaborated with him on the aborted "multivariable calculus" stuff (which neither of us expected to see finished; we just enjoyed working on it), and I have corresponded with him by email both during that time and since. He is a real person. It is inconceivable to me that he was a sock of someone here. Other than "yourenemy?" and zoetrope/zelmerwhateveritwas.

He is also a decent person. He started out as a well-meaning contributor to CP (yeah, I know, that's unfathomable), and made some mistakes. The biggest one was falling victim to the "power corrupts" phenomenon, which nearly all CP sysops fall victim to. He did not have the good judgment to see that this was happening to him. The other was, of course, coming here and raffling off his password. He has seen the error of his ways, and has seen how the senior sysops, especially TK, abused him and made CP into the cesspit that it is. He has gone off to serious mathematical pursuits elsewhere. I can't imagine him wasting any more time with CP or RW. (Would that I could say the same about myself!)

I don't know about DouglasA. He has never responded to my emails.

SamHB (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pubs, cp has been declared dead in over a month. RW believed that to be soi you wouldn't obsess over every post. Signed:Douchebag--208.54.7.132 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If JacobB was a sincere user he was also a toady who attempted to enforce the party line and play to Andy's tune long before he was given any additional rights, and did it for that very purpose. When I was contributing there, he watched every edit I made like some kind of creepy stalker outside a teen girls bedroom in an eighties slasher flick. What was it that he said... He needed to watch me because of my "evolutionist elitism" or along those lines, and gleefully censored any information that ran contrary to Andy's bizarre view of the universe for the sole purpose of sucking up to the boss. That guy was a tool. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize JacobB did a lot of damage at CP, as all the sysops did and continue to do. And I make no excuses for that. I'm also aware that you, BMcP, were the primary recipient of that damage. I have never discussed with him whether he actually believes that time has no meaning in the cosmos, that questions of the age of stars have no meaning and are worthy of deleting, or that astronomers deliberately misinterpret observational data to falsely claim that M31 is 2.3 million light years away for the purpose of driving people away from the bible. I suspect he was toadying to Andy and TK. I make no excuse for that. He shouldn't have done it. Nor should any of the other sysops do that. JacobB was the author of the "Makes me sick to kiss up to him [TK] like this" comment on my RW user page. There was a simple way to prevent that sickness, and Jacob didn't see it.

By the way, I believe I have suggested to you that you bring your astronomical expertise over to Wikiversity. Take it from me; it's quite therapeutic. SamHB (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Screw you. We were just doing our job. Evolutionary elitist. Nutty Rouxnever mind 06:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone who spends most of their day creating inane articles and essays about homosexuality and atheism and then calls atheists socially challenged nerds who should get a life is surely the master parodist. Either the parodists have taken over the asylum or the lunatics. I find it hard to believe a human being can be so incredibly stupid. Auld Nick (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif ħumanUser talk:Human 10:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Very good post. What CP had on its side was that it cropped up during the media firestorm about Wikipedia, when the media was insatiable for all stories Wiki. Now, forks and sites operating on MediaWiki are a dime a dozen. If CP was begun today, it wouldn't get any notice. So, kudos to Andy for the timing. --Leotardo (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Guys like Conservative make me wonder if it's possible to be a parodist and not even know it. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药,和那个不是医药。 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the essence of Poe. 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Honest question: do mentally retarded people know they're retarded? Is this a similar problem as non-human animals not being able to identify themselves in a mirror? Do Downs kids know their intellectual capacity is substantially lower than that of others? Do people with brain damage appreciate the difference between their present and previous mental capacities? I can tell that other people are a heck of a lot smarter than me, but honestly I don't know if the same is true when you get down into range of mentally retarded, delayed, brain damaged, etc., which for all my serious issues I am not. Advance disclosure, I intend to make fun of Ken for the irony inherent in him trying to memeify this "___ is a ___ and didn't know it," (Shlock of God came up with it) as in "Ken's got schizoaffective disorder and is moderately developmentally delayed and didn't know it." Yeah, I'm an asshole. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Actually now that I think about it more I'm not sure I'm making fun of Ken so much as just laughing at the irony of it all. But yeah. I'm an asshole. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting topic, and maybe we should port it over to a forum. But anyway, yes, I think they do know, at least to an extent - after all, what is one to think when it seems like everyone is brighter than oneself? That said, I think once one moves out of the range of "really bright", intelligence as a currency gets diluted by many other traits - people who tell great jokes, play guitar well, can draw, or are just great people to be around - sure, they know "so and so is really smart", but then move on to other things. The brain damage/injury question is an interesting one I often think about, especially since I drink rather excessively - would I notice if, say, to use a crude metric, I shaved 10-20 points off my IQ? How often to I even use the "upper edge" of my mental abilities? <lack of humility alert>A loss of ten points would still leave me smarter than a lot of people, but I suppose I would start noticing more people or things I'm reading as being "smarter than myself"? I suspect people I was still smarter than wouldn't notice the change?</alert> And if it did happen, would you guys tell me? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Leotardo, arguably a wiki project as an educational resource for home schoolers with a Christan perspective could be a serious idea. Andy could have taken the list of articles all wikipedias should have and adapted it for curricular use. Home schoolers creating the articles as part of the learning process. At the same time taking advanage of the free publicity available at the time. Of couse, Andy being a congenital failure turned it into a travesty of an educational project--from any perspective. Auld Nick (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as Andy's direct fault entirely. His big mistake was welcoming in the "senior sysops" - the Terry twins, Ed, Ken, Karajou, Rob and to a certain extent PJR. While Andy might like to blame the "Liberals" for getting sidetracked it was really these middle-aged men with their own agendas that diverted CP from being an homeskooling educational resource into a religiopolitical blog.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't think that was Andy's fault? He's the one who did it! ħumanUser talk:Human 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy did Bible Homework 2

He is promising to add a Ken-style satire article as well. Unbelievable.img --Composure1 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

'Homework' is a redirect to an image in Andyland? Shit, if I'd have gone on any of his courses I'd have a hundred degrees by now. -- Iscariot (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I love how his first answer is essentially, "I dunno, it's a puzzler." And I'm betting he expects (and gets) full marks for that. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't I remember ParodistEd marking down another 'student' for putting a picture in his homework? On the grounds that it was a serious course? I'm betting that Andy won't be held to the same standard. -- Iscariot (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
He could at least have created The Evolutionist Lies About Random Foliage and put the image on it, with some Ken-esque rambling, and at least one quote mine. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Question number three's answer wasn't unexpected given how he doesn't understand evolution at all and is proud of his strawmen. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else ever take a look at Andy's earlier attempts to kill evolution on the internet? EFU Evolution Fallacies ETA: also question one was a great Andy Trap, too bad he managed to side step it. --Opcn (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Also worthy of note (and of mocking) is that per the talk page Andy "Read your Bible!" Schafly didn't knowimg that "blind leading the blind" was a quote from Jesus. (And guess who made thisimg translation?) Random surfer (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I am struck by how incredibly lame Andy's contributions are. Even his beautiful autumn foliage is using somebody else's picture. He lives in New England, he lives in the woods, he has a camera, why can't he just take a picture from his back door? And redirecting a page title to the image page is the height of laziness. Can you imagine any of his pupils getting credit for the same thing? Even when he adds a picture from a public domain source he adds "no endorsement implied" to the attribution, is that him being a lawyer or just a general all-round asshole?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, parts of New Jersey ain't exactly a tourist destination. But still, yeah. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't need a landscape to illustrate Andy's point. I can walk round any of the local parks in Liverpool (yes, we do have some) at the moment and see autumn colour. According to the stalkers Andy's house is actually amongst the woodlands, I would think that he could at least make a modicum of effort.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup. And it would be the first time. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
People like that don't wander around their yard, they hire illegals to touch anything natural outside. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Predictably, TeacherEd just got rewarded with edit rights for giving Andy a perfect score --Composure1 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So far 54/50 and 55/50, not only perfect but beyond perfect! Although, did anyone expect any different? Can't wait to see how this ends; keep going TeacherEd, keep stroking that ego of his. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GBS

So I was taking a medical exam (a rather big one, actually) and one of the questions was about a gay gentleman presenting to the hospital with longstanding diarrhea. I looked and looked, and none of the answers mentioned gay bowel syndrome. Corry (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And I thought this was going to be about George Bernard Shaw - right up until the last three words! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough George Bernard Shaw was one of the answers. Who knew? --Opcn (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Heh - like Human I read into "GBS". I thought it was going to be a play on GPS and the whole theory-of-relativity-is-liberalism. But once you got to 'gay gent' and 'diarrhea' I got it. --Leotardo (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
When I reached those I was expecting it to be a GBS jibe about Oscar Wilde. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A new challenger for dumbest Conservapede

TerryH storms into contention with this gem: (found on FSTDT #76904, but also proudly displayed on his Examiner page.) Brace yourselves, because it's a doozie:

A team of planetary scientists has now found water ice and organic compounds on two asteroids. The team leader asserts that this shows that the asteroids seeded the earth with the elements of life. But the real answer is that the asteroids came from earth, and carried water and germs with them, on the occasion of the Global Flood.

So hang on, not only did it rain a lot during the Great Flood, but there was also some sort of cataclysmic explosion that blew big chunks of the planet into space? Strange, the writers of Genesis seem to have missed that bit. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, that stuff. He actually inserted it on CP, too, somewhere. Lemme dig... --Sid (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, there we go. It's on "Extraterrestrial life"img (and it had been there since the initial versionimg even). Also in "Essay:Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible"img, which seems to be an interesting read all by itself. --Sid (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You'd better screenshot that before Nancy's saviour oversights it. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I got local screencaps just in case, but you make a good point. Converting links + cap. --Sid (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
He wrote nearly identical, and I mean very nearly identical, drivel on the CreationWiki asteroid page. But what's cute about Temlakos puffing himself up here is that in October 2010 this hydroplate nonsense is the "most likely proposition", but in June 2008 it was only the "most coherent creationist model offered to date. ..." Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Also on a Hurlbut note, how about this? I know TerryH has been fiddling Digg results but admitting so brazenly that "Global Weather Dataset being Systematically Corrupted by Terry Hurlbut"??? The man knows no shame! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know it's the byline - this is called a "joke"
Good one. You had me going for a sec there. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that is epic, I am keeping that one. I know Answers in Magic made a similar statement that if any microbial life is found on Mars, it can be explained by Noah's Flood; they at least don't yet claim entire asteroids were lifted from the Earth because of it. Still creationists attribute some amazing astronomical features to that flood, one fella on Youtube, Geocentrist Nephilimfree, even claimed the flood was responsible for the craters on the Moon[1], on fella called it his "Lunar Bukkake Hypothesis"[2].--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait, I'm confused. Isn't there supposed to be only one Creator according to Christianity? Oh come on, it's a section of silliness already... =P --Sid (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
check Nephilim Free vidss on you tube. One of them explains that when the 'fountains of the deep' erupted the subterranean water under immense pressure blew water and mud and rocky debris into space. Some hit the moon, therefore water on the moon (and incidentallt fosils ) while some of it formed the comets. There have been ruburrals which discuss the actual physics of it . Hamster (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with Thunderf00t and DPR jones on this one. I think that it would be possible for some water to get that high through purely classical physics, just not all of it. I don't think that the falling rock would do it, but I think that if you can get all of the water up 60km then you can get 1% of the water up 6000 km, and by that point gravity can no longer be approximated as a uniform field vector so I give up, Damnit Jim I'm a biologist, not a physicist! --Opcn (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You could probably get water pretty high but to actually escape Earth's gravity it would need to be travelling at 11.2km/s, which seems a little unlikely. See WP for more info. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And surely once water enters the cold vacuum of space it would cease to be the jet of water that they are obviously imagining it to be. Furthermore, if you add in spherical dispersion (the fountains of the deep are supposed to be a global phenomenon and not a single enormous geyser which just happened to be pointing in the right direction to hit the moon, let alone Mars, are they not?) then the force that would have been required would have blown the Earth's crust to smithereens.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
After checking a few figures, orbit of moon 363-406 thousand km, radius of Earth 6.3 thousand km, ratio of about 60:1. Therefore spherical dispersion about 1/3600. Seems a pretty safe distance to me. As for Mars, the closest approach to Earth is between 54 and 103 million km. For round numbers lets say 63 million or 10,000 Earth radii under favourable conditions. Spherical dispersion 1/(10,000 x 10,000), that's 1:100,000,000. So, Earth fossils on Mars? Bollocks.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But both the Moon and Mars would "sweep up" a bunch of junk as it passed through their orbit and gravitational influence, right? Venus still has her Earth water, I say we demand it back... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm no astrophysicist (just did A-level physics) but the stuff that Mars & the moon might sweep up would surely be in similar orbits to themselves. If we are talking about something that is ejected from Earth then once it goes into space it will surely continue in motion unless the gravitational forces can overcome the momentum, we've already established that they have a significant velocity in order to escape the Earth's gravitational attraction. While the moon and Mars might attract some particles it would only be a minute fraction of what was sent in their direction. You might also consider that the some detritus will be catapulted even further into space through gravitational forces just as spacecraft have made use planetary gravity to journey through the solar system. Anything that will settle into similar orbits and be swept up is marginal. In the case of the moon much might even be pulled back to Earth rather than being attracted by lunar gravity. Yes, some will be swept up by the M&M but we are largely talking about water and certainly nothing big enough to create craters.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking Terry Hulbutt's page through Psy's link above, I notice in the side bar that October is Free Thought Month with a link to Freethought Day: A celebration of freedom from religion.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken "athiests are nerds" DeMyer

It hasn't been said in a while, but I'm going to say it anyway: Irony meter. That is all. Tetronian you're clueless 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Theists: Consider the advice that William Shatner gave in Star Trek V - What does god need with a starship? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as it's in it's original packaging……wibble.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
FTFY Jeeves --Opcn (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, "athiests". Another brownie point to Ken I fear.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Shatner

And here's what I find even funnier: now Ken is calling his opponents nerds...using Star Trek referencesimg. It doesn't get much better than this, folks. Tetronian you're clueless 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever begun a page that provides examples that these Christians don't live up to the CP Commandments? For 'No gossip' we can include Andy gossiping on Main that Gary Coleman died from drinking (not true) and that Castro is dead. For name-calling we can include 'atheists are nerds' and the Mainpage bit about 'despicable loser Crist'. What I like about CP is that they are a microcosm of typical fundamentalists: Do as I say, not as a I do. --Leotardo (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We've already proven that Andy's broken 9 of the 10 Commandments. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
He would have broken the fourteenth, but there are no sheep on board.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the atheist 'get a life' entry! I've never actually laughed out loud at CP, merely shook my head at their ignorance, or got mad at their bigotry. But this one is great, bring in Shatner (Yup, I'm a Trekkie), bring in race (Yup, I'm white), bring in nerds (Yup, I'm a nerd or technogeek anyway). Oh, but wait, I'm happily married, and not socially backward. How can this be? And wait, I never have, and never will, cheat on my wife like them good ol' Christian pastors. Damn! Thank *God* nerds invented computers and the internet so that you could write these things for us to enjoy! Every time I think you can't be funny anymore, just pathetic, you write this stuff! CP Rocks! Best humor blog on the Web! Jimaginator (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, do you Really, REALLY in your hearts think that Spocko would find atheism illogical? I was very disappointed that the follow on "article" really didn't include any more material. I wanted to read an honest to goodness essay that would explain my evil ways. You guys are simply great! (Hint for your front page: "Number of RW users who think CP is great is increasing!") Jimaginator (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You won't ever cheat like those christian pastors? So you won't ever cheat with a man? What about women? --Opcn (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rapidly, Revisited

Courtesy of the LA Times:

"While middle-aged and older Americans continue to embrace organized religion, rapidly increasing numbers of young people are rejecting it. As recently as 1990, all but 7% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17% of Americans say they have no religion, and these new "nones" are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990."
"[W]hy this sudden jump in youthful disaffection from organized religion? The surprising answer, according to a mounting body of evidence, is politics. Very few of these new "nones" actually call themselves atheists, and many have rather conventional beliefs about God and theology. But they have been alienated from organized religion by its increasingly conservative politics."

Emphases mine. Hateboy (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

TrollKing makes a funny

I enjoyed thisimg that Terry Koeckritz put on the front page. Quoth the TightKnickers: "[Y]ou should be ashamed of yourself. You should apologize. Have you no decency? Have you no shame?" "Those who stoop to the level of attacking a man's religious beliefs to gain higher office, I believe that they should remember that it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul in the process."

Presumably, the dear leader will now be offering an apology for two years of claiming Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim? No? Oh well. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear from recent demand that they need to reopen the irony-meter factory.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And let's not forget, saying "shame on you" is a liberal tactic or something (it's on one of their articles). AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeedy (obligatory Rimmer joke) - I give you cp:Liberal style #41. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
If I recollect correctly that is very reminiscent of TK's attack on PJR (don't have a linky to hand). Is our ace political consultant writing Paul's script? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That was a great find on CP #41 for "Liberal Style". haw haw haw at the hypocrites. --Leotardo (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

KenClone

Oh dear, little DirtyPudenda has rehashed the tumbleweedimg for his extra credit. They might be big on original sin, but original thought... nah.
That said, full marks to TeacherEd, as for letting his students create more Ken-crap unmolested, and as for his "Why do you think the serpent tried to tempt Eve, as opposed to Adam?" question - masterful. Just watch all the misogyny come to the fore.

  • DP:img "Eve was the easier mark-- more susceptible to deceit and more prone to sin" Based on what exactly?
  • Andy:img "Eve may not have respected the command as much as Adam did, thereby making her more vulnerable to the temptation."

--PsyGremlinTala! 10:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, 'and the Serpent said, "Wait a minute..."' Bonus points for quoting the CBP. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yawn..... but they are still in infringement of Photobucket's terms of use which state "pages on other web sites that display content hosted on Photobucket must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Photobucket." Just putting the link on the upload page is not good enough. On a Wiki where images are transcluded there should also be a link back to the Photobucket page where the image is hosted.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
TeacherEd is an excellent parodist, possibly the first to successfully convince others to do his parody for him. EddyP (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, I thought Andy's explanation that Eve didn't hear the command from God, just second-hand from Adam, therefore making it less authoritative, seems like a pretty good answer. DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Come on, Dick, she was the stereotype of all women: totally useless and untrustworthy once out of the kitchen (and bedroom). 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I agree with Dick. Andy avoided gender issues and came up with a decent (considering this is the Andyverse) excuse for Eve's fruit-eating behaviour. That being said, Adam still ate the fruit too, despite having received the direct order not to. Maybe homework three will deal with that one.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
No, the stereotype is that women don't obey their husbands' dictats so that's why they need to have it beaten into them. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dick. This is Andy ducking the trap. I don't see how he could have answered the question in a less sexist way. --Opcn (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hang on tho, that raises a whole new bunch of issues. Eve heard it 2nd hand from Adam, who was probably still a big groggy after the anaesthetic God administered, but she gets the full wrath of the Lord when it comes to punishment. Now Adam, who disobeyed a direct order from the Big Guy (ok, it was probably a choice between "obey God" and "get laid") but he gets off relatively scot-free. Is God a misogynist too? --PsyGremlinParlez! 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we all know the answer to that last question. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Scot free? They both get kicked out of paradise forever. DickTurpis (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy has raised that issue before, I don't remember where, though. Anyway, if Adam defied a direct order and Eve was just collateral damage, why didn't gODD make Adam have the babies? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I might argue that having to work for a living is as bad as childbirth82.1.197.90 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anesthesia

This is getting almost painful to watch. I find so many problems with this. On a side note:

The Ancient Greeks used plants with tropane alkaloids (mandrake, henbane, etc.) as a form of anesthesia => The Greeks had foreknowledge of anesthesia => Zeus is real!

This whole time, I've been ignoring the FACT of Zeus. I'm going to renounce my azeusism right now, and I suggest you all follow, you white, nerdy, gay, unmarried, un-machismo, un-attractive-to-Asians, azeusists. Carlaugust (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gods that has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. God used anesthesia to operate on Adam, and if people had only believed the story for the past couple thousand years, someone would have discovered the same anesthesia? Sure...and I'll bet the process for making women out of bones is right in there too, if only we could see it. Now excuse my while my head explodes. Gooners (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But... but... if God made woman from a rib, doesn't that show foreknowledge of cloning? Gene splicing? Test tube babies? Buffalo wings? --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't show up in the translation very well, but in the original Hebrew, it reads: "Yea, and God spake, 'Countest thou back from ten'" Carlaugust (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I remember getting some surgery, and I started counting back, and I was all "Ten, Nine, Eight" then I thought, "time to blink!" then I'm all trying to say "Seven", and I'm all super groggy, and wondering what the hell is going on. Anesthesia is weird. Semi-on-topic, I can't believe you actually constructed a valid KJV English sentence... most people add too much archaicisms. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Last time I was KOd the injection before hand had made me so happy that I was giggling: "ninety nine ... eighty eight ... eleven ... ninety seven ..." bye bye!. I was lying on the slab legs akimbo - which is why they'd given me the laughing jab - to remove my embarrassment, I learned afterwards. 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Someone from CP is reading your comment right now and thinking, "Of course! Why didn't I think of that?" Look for it to appear on the foreknowledge page shortly. Gooners (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

May it live forever in infamy

Obamageddond Day.png

And just like that, TK ushers in Obamageddon. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For the first time on RW, a meter that isn't an irony meter breaks. Well done TK. Tetronian you're clueless 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the meter has topped out before. --Opcn (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Telltale signs you are on your way to becoming a lonely Conservapedia nerd

Based on this...img

  • It takes you 15 edits to place a single period at the end of a sentence.
  • You spend 36 hours straight micro-editing a homosexuality article
  • You continually delude yourself that your pet articles are somehow "bringing down evolution on the information superhighway"
  • You use a hate site populated solely by white males aged 35 - 65 to broadcast that everyone else seems to have trouble with the ladies.
  • You're a vicious homosexual in total denial.

i9 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave Ken alone now? It's not funny to make fun of people with mental disorders. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
While Ken makes fun of everyone else he is fair game in my book. i9 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. If a tramp, sitting there with a can of special brew, gently wetting his pants and yelling at you screaming "YOU'VE GOT NO BOLLOCKS! YOU'VE GOT NOT NO BOLLOCKS!", do you go back to him and laugh and point? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes. i9 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that:
  1. Kenny be left alone
  2. TK is not WIGO'd
  3. Teenagers and homeskoolars are left alone
  4. Everyone else is fair game
Good rules of the CP-bashing? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just find it funny that a guy who never had a relationship with a woman could possibly poke fun at people who have. Also, fortunately for some of us, some gals like the geeks. :)
Still I get your point, for the most part I ignore Ken's ranting "essays" that reek of desperate desire to be relevant because they are so repetitive, and thus boring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is, anyone with, err, well alright, everyone knows that Ken is a paranoid schizophrenic, and he has proved this with his recent outing on aSK. Stalking his every post and making fun of him only deepens that paranoia. At some point he's going to crack and hurt himself or others. I don't want his reasoning to be that "those atheists" forced him to do whatever it is he's going to do. Just cut him some slack already. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think he is a paranoid schizophrenic. His madness is too simplistic and childish. Paranoid Schizophrenics I have known usually have far more elaborate and meaningful delusions and don't usually gurgle with pleasure and amusement over their own gibberish. i9 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm, what about delusions of grandeur? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty funny though!img i9 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny or not, I want it on record that I'm not onboard with the Ken bashing, because I see this going horribly wrong. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ken is just a person of low intelligence and low education who is surrounded by people who conceal these facts from him. And Crundy, I don't think the opinion of someone who can write "She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!!" should be respected. 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast