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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 411: Line 411:
 
:Mentioned twice already, up [[Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#Ken_being_sane.3F|yonder]] and over [[Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#This_cannot_be_allowed.21|thar]]. Come on Ken, stop pussyfooting around and show some ma-cheese-mo. Call {{TK}} a troll to his face. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:Mentioned twice already, up [[Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#Ken_being_sane.3F|yonder]] and over [[Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#This_cannot_be_allowed.21|thar]]. Come on Ken, stop pussyfooting around and show some ma-cheese-mo. Call {{TK}} a troll to his face. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::TK is the TrollKing - we suspect he doesn't believe most of what he says, he just spouts it to fit in over there and also to yank our chains. <sup>[[User:1|ONE]] / [[User_talk:1|TALK]]</sup> 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::TK is the TrollKing - we suspect he doesn't believe most of what he says, he just spouts it to fit in over there and also to yank our chains. <sup>[[User:1|ONE]] / [[User_talk:1|TALK]]</sup> 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::Oh no, I made a duplicate point! :( I'm sorry rationalwiki... [[User:Carlaugust|Carlaugust]] ([[User talk:Carlaugust|talk]]) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:46, 4 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

Rob Smith - you lying sack of shit

So, I tracked down your little 'Obamaville' clip. And guess what I found? That's right, the Obamaville sign, wasn't made by the homeless, and wasn't even donated by the person who made the sign. No, some good conservative Christian spent good money making a sign, instead of, you know, maybe using that money to help the homeless. Instead of a stupid stunt that has once again back fired on conservatives. Just another example of Christian charity I guess.

At least know I know why your Obamaville article doesn't actually talk about Obamavilles. You prick.

Oh yes, and now the banner you so proudly display has been replaced with one saying "Please provide fire wood, propane and canned food." Also, why isn't this thoughtful conservative making his name known? Could he be ducking and running now that it's all gone wrong.

Come on over Rob, I can't wait to hear you reply on this. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

mmm...canned wood.. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Careful, it might be the stick up Rob's butt. --Kels (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when has Herbert ("Rugged Individualist") Hoover been a subscriber to Keynesian economics? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've known the man personally for several years through one of the Christian ministries I'm involved with. I have no basis to doubt his word. He told me about the Obamaville incident after spending about six months in Colorado Springs. He & I do not see eye-to-eye on politics, is a rabid Bushhater, but he was extremely upset by Obama's betrayal of hope. (Back in 2008 he said in his Southern drawl, "Obama can't fuck it up anymore than all the other crackers already have.") Maybe I can make him available for an interview with you guys, but I haven/t seen him now in a few months.
Oh, and as the story goes, the Obama EPA responded to the banner by claiming the homeless camp lacked adaquate sanitation and threatened to remove them if they didn't install port-a-potties. Real compassion, huh? nobsdon't bother me 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"as the story goes" - links Rob, or it didn't happen. And when did the EPA become a charity organisation anyway, they probably did as much as they could within their jurisdiction. Also, how about in your Obamaville "article" actually listing the locations of some of them, how long they've been there, how many people live in them. You know, actually have the article - and citations - actually refer to the subject matter. You don't, because you can't. But the need to smear that uppity negro in the White House, is more pressing than the truth with the rabid right. Isn't it Rob? How long has the informal settlement referred to been in existence? All as result of Obama's stimulus package? And on who's watch did the fuck up occur that necessitated the stimulus package. Also your friend's quote seems more an indictment of politics in general, rather than Obama. However, I for one, would love an interview with the guy, just to find out why he sees it better to spend money on a stupid banner, than actually helping people. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Without getting into the fairness of the Obamaville thing, according to the link above he does donate money, food etc to the homeless. It's not clear how much money he gives and how much the sign cost but I would question whether you can fault him solely for spending money on the sign. I don't think many here are living a life of poverty having given all their money to the homeless. Many of us do spend money on luxuries for ourselves, quite a few also spend money (in a variety of ways) on political causes they hold dear etc. There's surely no requirement for him to give all his money to the homeless to be entitled to have a say. A more relevant point is whether it's fair for him to use the homeless as part of what he's doing, particularly as it seems unlikely they'll be willing to tell someone who's helping them to piss off if they don't agree. As I've said, there are also issues of whether to say Obama has some blame for the current situation etc, but that doesn't seem related to where he spends his money issue at all. Incidentally, was there ever really any doubt the sign was made by a professional? It clearly looks like a professional sign to me. P.S. I don't know the whole story here since I'm lazy to look in to the history. It's not IMHO particularly relevant since what RS has done wrong or right, it's not really relevant to the point. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you're beating up a straw man, Nil. No one's calling this man a hypocrite because he hasn't given away all his worldly possessions. He is taking criticism for using money he could have donated to make a cynical point. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
My point though is the money is largely irrelevant. I don't see any reason why spending your money on a sign is in itself somehow intrinsicly worse then spending your money on a big screen TV, or a Xbox360 or whatever. To each their own. If someone's luxury is signs, well that's up to them. I don't really see it as my place to dictate to people what their luxuries of life should be provided they aren't harming other people. In fact I'm not sure whether it's fair to call it a 'luxury' either. If someone chooses to spend their money to buy campaigns ads for Obama or Palin or whatever, well again that's their choice. Perhaps the reason they're doing it is because they think it will improve the lives of Haitans. In such a case, you can argue whether it would have been better for them to donate their money to a charity helping Haitans and I don't see anything wrong with that but it's an ultimately likely impossible to prove either way which would have been better and in any case, even if donating would have been more effective, it was still their money so I find it difficult to criticise them for choosing to spend it in a way they presumably thought more effective. And at worse, what it means is the money spend shouldn't be regarded as noble or a good thing, but I don't see any reason to say the expenditure of money in itself was worse then someone spending money on luxuries. (Now their belief that their expenditure of money was a noble thing is a different matter and I see criticism of that belief as a resonable and valid issue.) The same as this sign, even more so since if we believe the story they had already been helping out. Now as I've said you may criticise this particular sign on other merits, e.g. argue it's missing the point, taking advantage of homeless people, and in fact I think these and others do have merit. But these issues are largely distinct from the issue of the money. In other words IMHO the issue to concentrate on is whether this sign is fair, not on whether it was acceptable for someone to spend their money on what you can regard as a luxury or a political contribution/advertisment or whatever you want. Sure this person (did the story establish it's a man? I forget) could have donated the money. Or he/she could have spent it on a an PS3. Or a prostitute (except thats illegal in most of the US, ooops). Or in an expensive bottle of wine. Or a day of pampering. Or a domain name, hosting etc for a website. Or an advertisement for whatever politician he/she supports. Or a campaign contribution to said politician. Donating the money to charity would arguably be the most noble. But few people donate all their money to charity. For the other things it's IMHO somewhat difficult and pointless anyway to try and argue one is somehow worse then the other purely from the view of the baseline (similarly to analysing the sign situation, if you for example analyse each situation you may argue what they've done their is wrong, e.g. the prostitute situtation if the prostitute was likely close to a sex slave). Most of us each day spend money on things which aren't really necessary for our lives. I'm sure we'll generally be rather pissed off if someone tells us every time we do so 'why are you wasting money on chocolate bars or whatever when you should be donating it to help out other people'. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
But that's where you're wrong. If he had spent the money on himself, nobody would have cared. However, he chose to spend $x to score a cheap shot, using the homeless, who had been there since before Obama. He was quite willing to spend money to exploit them, but not to spend money to help them. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Well firstly, as I've said several times, according to the story he/she has spent money to help those people. Now I don't know that the part is definitely true, as I've said before but I don't see any reason to think it's definitely false. Anyway more importantly, as I said earlier that's entirely the point. The criticism here should be of whether he/she's taking advantage of other people and whether the his/her point is fair and other things like that. NOT on spending money on it. There's no reason why him/her spending money on his/her favourite luxury, if that luxury happens to be signs is intrisctly wrong or bad. Or for that matter as I've also said on the plenty of other political causes many people to spend (IMHO usually waste) their money on. And in a similar vein, if the costs for the sign were almost negiliable, e.g. they used discarded paint, discarded wood and other stuff like that and did it totally themselves (I actually did wonder if the sign painter was the person who donated it since he seemed to know a lot about the person who donated the sign) is it someone okay for them to take advantage of other people and to mislead because they aren't spending money? No of course not. In fact this case is IMHO barely better then the case we have. In other words, as I've said all along the issue here isn't the money but the other things involved. The person can spend their money on the luxuries they want, they can spend their money to promote their politicial views/candidates (I'm not actually a strong supporter of people spending unlimited money on promoting political candidates but I'm not completely opposed to some private money for political causes, look up the Exclusive Breathen scandal in NZ and you may see where I'm coming from) its up to them. The spending money is not a problem. When they mislead, or if they take advantage of other people or whatever thats the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From what I can gather we actually don't know if this person has also spent money on helping the homeless who were abandoned by bush and the republican/conservative right and subsequently have been let down by Obama whilst he tries to sort out the mess that bush left the US economy in. What we DO know is that Rob Smith was and is lying in his cp piece about this.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story: Three homeless guys at a homeless campsite in Colorado Springs pooled thier resources, $30 each, to have the Obamaville sign painted. Total cost was $90. The sign than was posted on a fence outside the homeless campsite along a freeway exit. The guy who told me the story (who goes by the street name Donald Duck) was one of the initial investors. Donald Duck is a diehard Southern Democrat, hate Republicans, hated Geo. Bush, and voted for Obama cause he thought Obama would do something to create jobs and infrastructure development. Last winter, while in the frezing Colorado winter, these guys started having second thoughts about Obama & cp:Obamunism. Hence the sign. nobsdon't bother me 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That particular encampment predates the Obama administration, but fuck it... you've got an agenda to push. It wouldn't be so bad if you admitted that is was extremely biased and out-of-context propaganda. Not so much on CP, but here. Even if it's by omission, you're still a lying sack of shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the story: I don't believe you, Rob. The news story clearly indicates that both signs were designed by a professional (Spencer Swann of Colorado Canyon Signs) and paid for by one anonymous individual who was not homeless. I suppose you could argue that Swann is lying, but as you have a history of being...creative with the truth, I'm disinclined to take your word for it.
Also: Both you and Swann are wrong about the stimulus, which included $1.5 billion to the HUD for programs to help the homeless. You can argue that it's not enough, you can argue that the HUD is ineffective in fighting homelessness, but you can't argue that Obama did nothing. Well, you can't honestly argue that, anyway. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
All I know is what I was told. And I have no resaon to doubt the veracity of my source. And yes, the encampment did predate Obama, however, as the story goes, the homeless camp was growing in the winter of 2009, and the new residents were many who activiely did support & vote for Obama, and were dissappointed at the abject failure of the Stimulus and neglect of the promises made and HOPE engendered by Obamunism. One person carrying in the $90 to the sign maker does not negate the veracity that the source of funds were three homeless individials within the camp. nobsdon't bother me 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean he didn't instantly solve an enormous and complex global problem despite the outright opposition of the entire GOP, to say nothing of the Teabagging nutters? Hanging's too good for him. --Kels (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, even with the filibusterproof Dems still couldn't railroad thier schemes to destroy the lives of our children. Now three weeks before the election, Dems have to explain to working families, struggling to feed thier children on $7.25 an hour, why they are raising taxes on poor working class scum from 10% to 15%, a 50% increase. Even the rich aren't getting raped like this. nobsdon't bother me 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Rob, Obama's plan would leave the lower tax rates as they are now, increasing only the higher ones. Nice try, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Duh, dudn't the Congress hav to vote onit? nobsdon't bother me 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, moron, Congress does have to vote on it. If the Republicans don't filibuster, then it will be passed. If they do, I suppose you'll blame the Democrats anyway because your brain is wired wrong and you can't grasp simple concepts. DickTurpis (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia now accepts hearsay and third-hand unverified statements as fact? Or only when they serve your need to bash Obama? I know Andy cites a dinner conversation with a dead judge, but a wino? Really Rob? And once again, I'll ask the question: Where in your Obamaville article does it say how many Obamavilles there are, where are they located and how many people live in them? You can't answer them, because they don't exist outside of your mind. Deny it, and lose all credibility. Oops, too that for that I guess. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hearsay my butt, it's straightforward reporting based on first person interview. nobsdon't bother me 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Rob - hearsay (or is it "common knowledge, just like the New Ordeal?). It's an unverified "conversation that you had" and the only proof I have is you telling me. That's hearsay. And it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, encyclopaedias don't "report" - maybe you're getting mixed up with WND, or maybe you're finally admitting that CP is just another right-wing hate blog? --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It's got to be great to be that intellectually dishonest and think you're fooling everyone. As soon as they take down the "Bushville" sign and hang up "Obamaville" it's time to get fired up and talk about this elephant which has magically appeared in the conservative periphery. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point here, I find the heading of this section redundant. It's sort of like saying "Pacific Ocean, you sizeable body of water near Asia!" DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, " based on first person interview" You interviewed congress first person? --Opcn (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow! Bushville. Who knew they existed, right?
When will we see an article on these Rob? --PsyGremlinTala! 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Hey everyone, hope all is well. Apologies if this was mentioned at the time, but was going through some older CP pages and found a great little exchange. A user posts a wordy, but good response to a question about socialism and communism and forgets to sign. TK not only deletes, but oversights the point and a nasty little note.img Apparently, it's too hard to check history pages to see who posted what.... But the user comes back, reinserts their original post and then adds an unsigned tagimg to TK's post, making him look really stupid. Not that it's hard. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dememoryhole, Justin Caise. CS Miller (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
TK has failed at reading diffs for years now. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I laughed so hard that I pooped a kidney when Tisane did that. It's a shame they drove him away, he seems to know his metawiki stuff. --Opcn (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, your kidney popped out of my computer's cupholder. "It is not my job to go to the pages history to see who is saying what, and typically I will delete such unsigned posts and block the user." How the fuck do you know who to block if you don't go to the page's history, numbnuts? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Terry "Quick, Hide My Stupidity" Koeckritz got in his memory holing before capturebot. It's always good to do your own screencap beforehand because evreyone knows what a dishonest scumbag TK is.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I viewed the pages at home; but only added the capture tags from work. I might have the pages still open on my home computer, and probably have them in browser's cache. However it will be about a day at least before I can rescue them. CS Miller (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz, this was your lucky day. I'd closed the browser windows, and the pages seem to have expired from the cache. CS Miller (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Man... That time off is screwing with my head, I didn't even think to add the captures and such.... Sadly for old TK, the internets is an amazing place. I was able to pull up a non-oversighted version via cache.... I don't think it's particuallary important, but it's fun. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 22:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This? [6] Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Good find Nil. Screen capped version here. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuckknuckle

One "k" or two? Seriously. I seek enlightenment. Firefox' spellchequer seems to think two ks is fine. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a compound word it has got to be two. --Horace (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
But what's this got to do with CP? ONE / TALK 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything. Tetronian you're clueless 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Touché! ONE / TALK 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It just plain looks better with two k's. Being that one k is silent it makes it funnier. Aphoxema (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually... I count three. --79.31.31.68 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, good point... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 at CP

What a record-breaking month!

CP
Pie-Conservapedia-2010-9.png
Table-Conservapedia-2010-9.png
DiEb-CP-ActiveEditors-90-days.png
RW
Pie-RationalWiki-2010-9.png
Table-RationalWiki-2010-9.png
DiEb-RW-ActiveEditors-90-days.png
CZ
Pie-Citizendium-2010-9.png
Table-Citizendium-2010-9.png
Api-active-editors-compl-Citizendium-20100728-short.png
  • At the last day, Conservapedia reached the milestone a wrote about above: exactly 100 editors had made comments at CP over the last four weeks!
  • In fact, in September 2010, only 109 editors left a comment, the lowest number since January 2007!
  • The number of edits (< 4,400) is the lowest since February 2007 - the time before the first press articles on Andy's project...
  • more than 80% of these edits were made by only ten editors - this seems to be a record, too!

So, congratulations all around...

--larronsicut fur in nocte 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. What percentage of edits where made by notKen? ONE / TALK 08:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at the pie chart, then perform a subtraction. larronsicut fur in nocte 08:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, stupid me. Hah, that means the regulars make 75% of all nonKen edits. ONE / TALK 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
When Ed makes up more than 5% of your edits then you really know that you've had a poor month. (No pun intended.)  Lily Inspirate me. 09:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to see how many of TK's 12.4% aren't to MPL, talk pages or blocking editors. The wiki is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Another telling statistic is that only 13 editors made 50 or more edits the entire month (the usual suspects plus 5 others), while 43 did at RW. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the data for Citizendium: Numbers of contributing editors are up because of the whole statute voting thingie... larronsicut fur in nocte 08:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenny attacks non-theist knowledge of religion by showing he doesn't know about his religion

There is little rant byimg Ken over the Pew Forum survey showing non-theists in America being the most knowledgeable about religion. After ranting about how "Atheists and agnostics" knowledge is shallow and ironically talking about supposed spelling errors, he shows that he isn't as informed about his own religion as he likes to present:

"However, the ultimate test of religious competency for atheists will be when they stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and not some religious trivial pursuit game designed by pollsters"

The "Judgment Seat of Christ" is according to Christian theology where the saved go to have determined what rewards will be given or lost depending on their faithfulness and obedience. In short Ken is ironically saying all atheists and agnostics will be in heaven, because he is mixing the "Judgment Seat of Christ" with the "Great White Throne Judgment". The latter in Christian theology being where the all the unbelievers go, get marked as guilty, and tossed into Hell. Thanks for proving the point of the Pew research findings Ken! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Freudian slip
The only spelling error that I noticed (TL:DR) was the singular atheist instead of atheists. And that criticism comes from the man who typed "homoschooling". That said, Little Miss Pedant has noticed a lot of people here who type "athiest" and it was that which I exepcted to see in Ken's ref.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I have only just really taken in BMcP's post. That's an excellent bit of info. I'll store that away for future use but you need to make a WIGO out of that.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Ken is the last person on this planet who should mock people for typos. But I do find his post enlightening since it basically says that you don't have to know shit about The Literal Word Of God to be a Good Christian. The only way I can see this working is if you make up your own rules and messages and then just project them into the Bible. Which nicely explains Andy's Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge article, the CBP, the "The Bible contains anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-capital-punishment, anti-gay messages" movement, and whatever else I might've missed. --Sid (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the case for most of the fundy bigots who profess to be Christians. Use all the OT hate and revenge quotes while ignoring Jesus's 'love your neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek'.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That's always been the case with the fundy bigots: they pick the bits out of the Bible that reinforce their own beliefs, such as quoting Leviticus to justify hating on gays, but then ignoring all the other bizarre shit the Bible says about everything else. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
My aethiest knowledge may be a mile wide and a quarter inch deep, but that's better than Ken's own 6 feet wide and 3/8ths of an inch deep. --Opcn (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I admit, I'm only four inches. Then again, most women don't like it that wide. ba-zing AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Tetronian you're clueless 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get the idea of Bible supporting Guns, when guns or even gunpowder aren't invented back then. Another piece of biblical scientific/technological foreknowledge? And how does one become athier? As in if someone is the athiest, he has to be athier than someone else, right?)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that chronological snobbery to assume they didn't have things that weren't invented until later (according to atheist history). After all, they needed to defend their pre-deluge chimera labs somehow. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You probably start by being athy and keep being so until you get really good at it. Hateboy (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken has a responseimg for you. Do you reckon he and Terry Koeckritz actually spend more time reading RW than CP nowadays? -- Iscariot (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's so cute. Now get a room. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
And oh so quickly he's been bitchslapped via email and hidden the evidence. -- Iscariot (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you blame them, Iscariot? Reading CP is an awful chore, given how terrible most of the content is (especially articles beginning with A, E and H). RW by contrast is a blast. --Kels (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You make a fair point. In related news Ken has had a panic attack and recreated the page to prove his ma-CHEESE-mo. Apparently TeaKake is incapable of bitchslapping him enough. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL, that just made my week. It's cool Ken, if you need any other theological assistance you can always AIM me, I think Terry Koeckritz still has it, feel free also to continue reading RW for factual corrections. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

for funimg: No one but Ken contributed to Atheism and debateimg - who else starts a sentence In regards to athiesm [sic] and debate...? larronsicut fur in nocte 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The opening line to the article is Klassic Ken:
In respect to atheism and debate, although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism.
ONE / TALK 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's like GCSE English student writing an essay and not quite having the actual knowledge or ability to get an A, but is going to give blagging it a damn good try... Scarlet A.pngtheist 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy making shit up again.

So now linguists suddenly agree languages don't have a common ancestor.img I must have missed that meeting. Must be so nice to have your own blog where you can say whatever you like, without providing sources. Clearly Andy has never heard of Proto-Indo-European. Or Latin being the base of the Romance languages. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he's trying to say. There are languages isolate such as Basque, which have no known ancestor. The WP article language family implies that there are 18 ancestral languages, and they are isolated from each other. Even if there was not ONE universal ancestor, that doesn't mean languages split and evolve. In biology abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and there is no reason why two abiogensis events could not occur at the same time in two different locations (apart from how unlikely abiogenesis is). CS Miller (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"there was no common ancestor of all language families, therefore all languages came about independently." Even, I suppose, languages whose origins can be traced historically, like Afrikaans, Romanian or Icelandic. Andy, you really are a numbnuts. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the problem? Andy writes, "The theory of evolution suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel." As I'm reading it that's completely correct (aside from the obvious nonsense about evolution, and Genesis). He never says that all languages came about independently, just that there are language families with no common ancestor (e.g. Indo-European and Na-Dene). And monogenesis was indeed a fairly widely held belief, though perhaps he overstates its historical prevalence. --MarkGall (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I see now that he posted this crap in the evolution article too. But it sounds more like poor wording to me than Andy actually not believing Indo-European languages are related... --MarkGall (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a YEC, Schlafly couldn't accept one single original language because that would surely have been a lot longer than 6000 years ago. Indeed, I'd say the trouble with finding a common linguistic ancestor would be that this ancestor would be so old it would be barely recognisable as a language! Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well surely Adam and Eve spoke English? And all those other languages were created in Babel.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Adam and Eve spoke the language of the serpent, in order for the serpent to communicate with them. There are no known changes in languages of the serpent recorded in the Bible. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Evolution never claims that all human languages have a common origin, neither does linguistics. There is no reason to ever assume that there would be, and the idea of several basal isolated mother-tongues developing for early humans make perfect sense. Ironically, according to the Bible and YEC history, all of humanity did have a common single language until Babel, and who is to say that language isn't common to all the languages that came out of Babel?
Also notice he has no references to cite that show scientists claimed for a century that all languages have a common ancestor, he is simply lying.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
For additional hilarity, the CP Language article has since become a target for parodistsimg. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely lying -- the idea the all languages have a common ancestor ("proto-World", "proto-Human") has been around for a long time and it still has a few supporters today (though I don't think it has ever been a majority opinion). Joseph Greenberg (who did a lot of work on linguistic typology) endorsed this view. Some people have even tried to work out its vocabulary. There's also a strange paper by Murray Gell-mann of all people claiming that proto-world must have had SOV word order. --MarkGall (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well like you said, it was a minority-view and of course the idea that not all languages have the same original proto-language certainly doesn't show Bible Scientific Foreknowledge in any way or put any doubt on Evolution, in fact I cannot see how it could. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, of course not. I don't mean to argue -- proto-world is just one of those crazy ideas that's probably wrong but still fun to think about, so I figured I might as well point it out here. --MarkGall (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, the basic point is that it's a total strawman to claim that the belief in a common origin for languages was a product of evolutionary thinking. I think it's totally hilarious, by the way, that Amanda Bunting's edit will probably be allowed to stand. Junggai (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it will, since when did they ever care about factual science? It doesn't matter if it was written by an obvious parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Now, I'm not a linguist, but surely language doesn't just spring from fricking nowhere like the creationist orchard, right? If you accept common descent for biology, then language has to follow that sort of track slightly, right? Otherwise you're proposing that the the homo genus appeared and diversified and then a magic fairy waved a wand and language appeared, with no relation at all to the grunts and calls that came before it. Anyway, I might just head off and read WP on the subject. Scarlet A.pngtheist 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
You're surely right, but on the other hand human language is fundamentally different from animal grunts and calls. Those don't have anything resembling a grammar with the capacity to generate anything like sentences, they're just repeated utterances from some finite set and with some fixed meaning. So what exactly is the difference, and where is it coming from biologically (did it require some sort of brain evolution?). Chomsky-Hauser-Fitch argued in "The Faculty of Language ..." that the basic new property of human language is a capacity for recursion. Pinker-Jackendoff say this is crap, though I don't remember what exactly they're proposing. There are a lot of other strange theories about origins of language too, but Wiki could tell you more about that than I can. I don't really know much about this either, maybe someone here actually has a clue... --MarkGall (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also not a linguist, but I've read enough about the history of linguistics to know that the first search for common ancestor languages predates Darwin by several decades at least, when certain Sanskrit scholars were compelled by that language's many similarities with Ancient Greek to search for an answer. Proto-Indo-European was the resultant theoretical language. The overweening search for "the origin of language" might have been influenced by Darwin's work, but by 1860 it was already a forbidden discussion in the linguistic societies of both London and Paris for being hopelessly speculative. So much for Andy's "widespread evolutionary/atheistic belief lasting from the 1860's to 1960's.
As for the question if accepting common descent in biology makes such a model for the development of languages plausible, it's probably not that simple. For sure, the capability of language was an evolved trait in humans, but between that point and the development of linguistic complexity we can only speculate. Did languages spring up right away after the capability was evolved, or did the capability lie dormant for tens of thousands of years? How quickly did languages become complex after that point? These are questions we can never answer. AFAIK, we can't even really be sure whether the Neandrathals had language. What's for sure though is that languages don't evolve complexity. Modern German is not necessarily more complex than Old Norse. If anything, it's the other way around. Junggai (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A little evolutionary biologmixed with memetics for you for you. Since language is a thin memetic layer built on a deeper genetic structure the memetic layer can shift profoundly while still holding on to its deeper genetic universal structure and not hold onto the vestiges of its former self. The genetic backup copy of gramatical concepts of communication in humans means that the memetic body of a language could in principle start from scratch if say for instance you had a village that was all deafened by some pathogen or fluke of genetic luck and then had hearing children. --Opcn (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy - the perpetual Aunt Sally

It's hilarious how Andy lets himself be duped by people pandering to his vanity. Although TK is the biggest perpetrator of this tactic we have seen how he has been conned into foolhardy escapades like the Lenski, PNAs and Moo letters. Now someone has persuaded him that Bible quotes should come from the Conservapedia Bible Project. The Emperor's clothes are getting increasingly transparent and substanceless.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Then again, I suppose somebody has to use it. Can't let all that work by the Best of Parodists Pubic go to waste. Btw, how's their translation of Song of Solomon coming along? Or is that project also dead now? --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this actually marks quite a milestone. It's one thing to try and rewrite the Bible, it's another to successfully implement and use this "translation", elevating it to the status of One True Version. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Who was the person who stroked Andy's ego enough for him to make the switch? It's only a matter of time until every Bibble ref on CP is a CBP ref. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting there's a commandment along those lines in the pipeline. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It was TeacherEdimg.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, another one to whom the "real name and initial' doesn't apply. Hmmm... a teacher... from New York... called Ed. Now, where have I heard those before? Lol, I first heard of Conservapedia when I learned about its amazing project to create a new translation of the Bibleimg Yeah, he's legit. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
From his contributions listimg, it would appear that "TeacherEd" is the only one still contributing to the CBP, I smell parody. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, either he's real or he's aimingimg for the "Most thorough non-asshole parodist" award of the year. Entertaining either way, though. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
For the Song of Salomon, it was me who started "translating" it, but TK blocked my IP for a completely different reason, so I'll never going to finish it. I did "translated" the whole book of Jonah though, and its have been there for more than 3 months (although it is more stupid than funny, I was not a good parodist). Its obvious that Andy dont really care about his bible project any more. --Tlaloc (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the bible project what ever happened to DeniseM? What she just trolling and gave up? Did her discussions and work in the world history pages make her realise she was wasting her time? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
She gave up after more of Andy's "I-know-more-than-you-la-la-la-la-la-can't-hear-you-go-bake-some-cookies" drivel. The man is incapable of setting aside his ego in favour of sound advice. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

CP on Rick Sanchez's Firing

JPatt and teh Assfly point out that Rick Sanchez was fired by CNN after criticizing Jon Stewartimg. They, of course, leave out the fact that Sanchez also claimed Jews control the media. MDB (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's even in the seventh paragraph of the article they link to:
"I'm telling you that everyone who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?" Sanchez said, adding a sarcastic "yeah."
Don't expect CP sysops to read beyond the intro paragraph of stuff they cite. --Sid (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Heck, half the time they don't make it past the title. --Kels (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I love the contrast with the Helen Thomas thing... They were out for blood then... Guess they really don't mind you insulting Jews, just leave Israel out of it. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Predictions

Do we have a list of all the predictions Andy has made along with the eventual result? The two that spring to mind are when he predicted the Tories would win with a landslide in the UK General Election (they didn't), and that a woman would win the Fields medal (nope). Now he's predicted that the Democrats will lose control of Congress (they won't lose the Senate and might just hold on to the House). Can anybody remember any others, and is it worth creating an article / section somewhere? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Last presidential election should be a no-brainer, I think, though I'm too lazy to dig for links. --Sid (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
We might need a Nostrandymus article.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Androdamus make predictions about the imminent demise of Wikipedia? Auld Nick (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lily, are you referring to Nostradamus or is it some other dude? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lily and Nick are both proposing mashups of Nostradamus and Andy Schlafly's name for a CP namespace article on Andy's various and sundry predictions. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't he say that WP would be dead within 5 years, or that CP would be bigger than WP within 5 years? --PsyGremlinParla! 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Was Andy one of the ones who was saying Obama (or was it Hillary?) was going to lose because he was an affirmative action president and whenever Americans have voted on affirmative action they've voted against it? Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy finally also picked up the "Atheists more knowledgeable" article...

And manages to fail even more spectacularly than Ken (IMHO):

Andy says:img

67% recognize that public school teachers cannot read to class from the Bible. The clueless L.A. Times claims this answer is wrong, but fails to recognize how liberals who run schools will punish recognition of God.

Article says:

The question that elicited the most correct responses concerned whether public school teachers are allowed to lead their classes in prayer. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents correctly said no. However, 67% also said that such teachers are not permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows.

*sigh* Andy really doesn't comprehend that the Bible can be read in any mode other than "ACCEPT THE WORD OF GOD OR DIE IN HELLFIRE!", does he? --Sid (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He cannot understand the different between reading the Bible as literature, which is 100% legal and is done, and preaching to the class from the Bible as TEH TRUTH!™, imposing your religion on a captive audience, which is illegal in public schools. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy seems to be of the belief that if you read the Bible and understand it, then you'd of course be struck by how right the whole thing is and have no choice but to convert to Christianity on the spot. Which probably ties in to his belief that any atheist who says they've read the Bible is lying, because if they'd read it they wouldn't be atheists any more now, would they? Checkmate! --Kels (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, Andy is yet again struggling with language and grammar as he attempts to convey the idea that the newspaper is "clueless" because it considers those answers wrong based solely on the action's legality, while not taking into acount the real situation (which the poll respondents knew): the existence of a de facto ban on Bible-reading enforced by liberal peer-pressure and tyrannical liberal control of public institutions. According to Andy, although they have the right to read the Bible in class, public school teachers don't dare to do so for fear of liberal retribution; according to Andy, that is the de facto situation poll respondents were aware of (regardless of their knowledge of what the law is).--Xyr (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh my, you guys are right: he appears to perceive all Bible-reading as "recognition of God". I had to re-read it several times before realizing that someone could actually think like that.--Xyr (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Your first analysis is likely right, though. He seems to aim at the "It's not the wrong answer because of liberal censorship" issue (but then his "can't read the Bible without preaching" thing comes in). But his fail starts earlier than "unable to put his ideas in proper words": The question is explicitly about the legal situation (see Q50 on page 13 of this PDF):
According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to, (READ FIRST ITEM, RANDOMIZE a-c), or not? And is a public school teacher permitted to (NEXT ITEM), or not?
a. lead a class in prayer
b. read from the Bible as an example of literature
c. offer a class comparing the world's religions
So yeah, answering "No" is indeed the wrong answer, regardless of what you think will happen if you dare read from the Bible as an example of early literature. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
lol Thank you for the details, Sid; I had only read the newspaper article.--Xyr (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's been four months since the last "clueless" sighting! Slim pickens the last couple years... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No surprises there - there's no one to say it to anymore. Tetronian you're clueless 05:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact, while the measly handful in 2009 were directed at other editors, all four so far this year are referring to off-wiki people or things. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken being sane?

Is it just me, or is he mostly making sense in his edits hereimg and prior? Seriously. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never thought he'd be one to turn traitor to Conservatism (Andy style). It won't last, of course. --Kels (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Internet-get.gif Wtf.gifOMG smileysm2.svg Who killed Kenny and replaced him with a real person? 04:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I fully support Terry Koeckritz in this matter. Especially given the last US neutron bombs were dismantled in 2003....
That man's as up-to-date as Andy's lectures. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That looks like something I would have written ... wow --Opcn (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It not only make sense, but also was coherent and thoughtful. Huh. Tetronian you're clueless 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
He must have found his meds. 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
It's beautiful that Terry says: Yes, but your logic goes haywire here. But only when Ken gets perfectly lucid.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, Ken's political right-leanings do not stretch beyond his extreme SOCIAL conservatism. I know that I've seen him before bash the Republican party (and not in a "they're not conservative enough" way) and maybe even the war in general. Ken doesn't toe the party line outside of stuff like evolution and atheism, so he simply doesn't talk about that stuff very often. -- JArneal 07:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, these posts are also remarkably well written compared to his usual crap - no "regards" and no pointless repetition of key words. Oh, and it's nice to see that TK is always willing to jump in and make up for a temporary drop in insanity by suggesting that the US should nuke the Middle East. Röstigraben (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing his idea of a "well-placed" bomb is right on Mecca. ONE / TALK 08:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember the stopped clock principle. Blue (is useful) 08:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's impossible for Ken to be a parodist. But seriously, my eyebrows went up and my mouth opened. I was seriously impressed. Dare I say the man gained a little bit of respect from me? At least until his next "Homosexuality and ________" article. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Agree with me!img Or are you a dirty liberal? Answer me now, for I am Terry Koeckritz!" -- Iscariot (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I especially like the highlighting of "feelings" to show contempt for the concept. --Kels (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Worm your honor.
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature;
This will not do.
Hang on a sec, he's actually saying that killing the majority of the population of Iraq and Afghanistan (60m) and having the remainder turn against the US is an acceptable trade-off? Trade off against what? Am I reading that right? If so, TK, stop being a prick. There are children reading this medieval bile. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

How accurate is thisimg? It seems like a fairly sane edit, and I am tempted to port it over here, copyright be damned. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be reffed to here. And damn, that capturesnot is fast! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, CP is dealing with our Rummel-quoting friend of a few months ago. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
FOIA Jr. there is one of the last good faith editors at CP. He's also added some 4,000 words to the "Bias in Wikipedia" section - see here. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I wouldn't call them "Conspiracy Theories", he does make some good points there. I wouldn't use Wikipedia for such controversial subjects as a source. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Onanation

I saw Jpatt playing with File:Onenation.jpg and assumed it was a typo. </snigger> I suppose it is rather self-pleasuring. 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The whole thingimg is full of bitterness. " ... the liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" - don't I recall a certain New Jersey homeschool teacher taking a load to a rally by bus? and Really well sourced: "... includes finding non-union or jobless people that get a minimum wage payment to attend and inflate their perceived attendance numbers." 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
While all of the current active sysops have unpleasant characteristics, JPatt is just plain nasty. I know I shouldn't judge someone by their looks but in his FB profile he looks like a typical racist thug. All his CP edits and Twitter feeds are largely raw bile.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the last line, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama as a typical "community organiser" rallied the left *spit* to attend". ONE / TALK 08:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm guessing from the usual bile by Jpratt that the march was a bigger success than Becks'? Lol, found this gem "Beck has estimated that 500,000 people came to his gathering; but according to one count commissioned by CBS News, 87,000 people attended the event." Looks like Glen took Andy's maths class.--PsyGremlinFale! 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Conservative maths explains how five loaves and two little fishes feeds 5000.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
In true Jpratt style, that entry reads like it was written by a 12-year-old. Neither paragraphs, nor commas in sight. (I'm sure if you ask Human, he'll lend you some from WP) Awful sentence construction: "Every conceivable liberal..." followed by "Every socialist organization..." followed by "Every group of the left..." - it's as bad as Ken's "in regards to."
"A typical Democrat event organizing...' what does that even mean? English, motherfucker, do you speak it? It's just another example of the high standards CP sets for its contributors, not to mention the example its administrators set for others. Also - "liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" (astroturf???) versus "people from all over America made the journey to the Lincoln Memorial" How? On foot? Or in true conservative fashion - each one in their own gas-guzzling SUV, complete with gun rack? It's a bitter little rant, written by a bitter little man and the kindest thing I can say about it, is that it belongs in essay space. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Psy, were you wondering what astroturf refers to? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
@Lily, I must confess that I was tempted to call you out on the "looks like a racist" comment, but having done the appropriate search and seen the ten possible matches, it really doesn't take much effort to pick out the CP admin from his photo alone, does it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh my god.... That article is painful, but I must admit, I loved this little gem "Every socialist organization the left supports was in attendance; Teamsters, SEIU, NAACP, Huffington Post, LaRaza, Center for American Progress, Planned Parenthood, Code Pink, Al Sharpton, Organizing for America and fittingly the Young Communist League." Who knew Al Sharpton was an organization? SirChuckBFurther bulletins as events warrant 18:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Al Sharpton may not qualify as an organization, but his hair does. MDB (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We really will have to stop doing their proofreading for them 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Government fail 2010

The third lecture is finally up. Well, parts of it. Anyway, the last two paragraphs are rather strange for Andy: he not only argues that the Iranian hostage crisis wasn't Carter's fault, but concedes that the state of the US economy may at least in part be beyond Obama's control, when CP has relentlessly bashed him for failing to turn it around. Hell, half of the main page is exclusively dedicated to unemployment statistics and "Obamunism/Obamageddon" news bites. I'm wondering if this is another cut-and-paste job using material from way back when Andy wasn't a rabid ideologue? Röstigraben (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked the endless repetition of He He He he He he He he.... ħumanUser talk:Human 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The entire lecture is moderate and reasonable, if a bit awkwardly written. Credit where credit is due. — Pietrow 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Awkward" is kind. Sexist is also applicable. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It's also a crap "lecture", at best good for ten minutes. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It reads like it was written by someone with limited attention span who hasn't set up a framework for their project. Something that I would expect from a 14 year old homescholar for instance.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Like all his "lectures" it reads like a stream of consciousness - he doesn't outline or plan - just starts somewhere and goes wherever it leads. 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
This is cringeworthy on so many levels.
And Human, if you want to pad out this two minute "lecture" in order to make it last ten minutes, you need to intersperse it with eight minutes of Andy's giggles. Think about this. Think about the psychological damage in just thinking about this. Think of the children.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is it sexist? ONE / TALK 13:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Human is referring to the extensive use of 'he' when it comes to the President. It's the reason I thought of from reading it and if you look carefully at the above discussion it was actually referred to earlier Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That is correct. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Is he ever going to mark poor student 5 and 7 homework for lecture one? Or did they miss some deadline even though I don't see any on the page and he doesn't seem to care about deadlines given that he said lecture three would be out by the end of September. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually a very deterring article to his entire argument about president Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing ends up wiped from CP in the next couple days.HKJGN (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Giggle

Karajou makes a funny: "It it any wonder that Conservapedia exists, to counter the lying that continues to come from the liberal left?" What - with lies from... er... a half-dozen poorly educated, bitter, middle-aged, ultra right-wing, fundamentalist men? --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, I am sure that is how they really view themselves, some kind of counter-force to "the liberals". It help explains why the mainpage right, current affairs, and political articles receive virtually all the focus to the detriment of everything else (outside Ken's weird pet projects). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
My english skill decays so fast I can no longer comprehend it properly — what exactly is meant by "It it any wonder that..." ? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Typo of "is it" --Opcn (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is still there. C®ackeЯ
Still there. How many hours does that make? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 07:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
MPR scrolls so fast no one fixes it unless "we" do. It's still there. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Still there. Way to run a blog, fellas. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More Schlafly humour

Joaquin, it's great to learn from your edits again. I really enjoyed your edit to the Bible verse by inserting "Conservative Bible Project." :-)
 Lily Inspirate me. 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think Andy read a management book or something that told him that giving random compliments is good to keep people productive. And like a lot of crap managers before him, his compliments come off as totally insincere because he totally doesn't give a rat's ass about his "workers". Oh, and this might be a good addition to the Andy Prophecy File, "By the way, I'm thinking that conservative Marco Rubio may be our next president." --Kels (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
What annoyed me was that he gives someone a compliment and then puts a smiley at the end. "Sorry Jo, I was just joking". Fortunately JM is too dim to understand it.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Why did Andy wikilink conservative (not ken but the article) on his talkpage? --Opcn (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
He always wikilinks everything he possibly can, he's just a spaz.Webbtje (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I kept trying to come up with the words to say what you said. Nice work! ħumanUser talk:Human 08:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Selective Foreknowledge

Yes Andyimg, you're completely right. Unless you actually read the Bible and then tell me the age of people like Noah, Adam and Methuselah. Shit, if you actually read it then you can see that according to your 'trusted source' Cain and Enoch haven't died yet. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even CP's own article on Methuselah states "Living to be 969 years old, he died within a few weeks of the Great Flood, in 1656 AM.". So either Andy's foreknowledge is wrong, or the Bible is. He'll have to fix that obviously Liberal insertion in the CBP. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
From the CP page on Enoch: "Most other people at that time were living for 900 years or more." Honestly, Andy, I realize that even you don't care anymore, but it would be nice if the parts of your blog were at least coherent. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Genesis 6:3, where it mentions no more then 120 years also in the next verse talks about giants. The rest of that chapter is God talking to Noah, who by the time of the end of the chapter is getting on some 600 years, and according to Bible lore, lives to be 950.
Others in that pre-flood world of Genesis 6 or before who specifically surpassed 120: Jarad, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Mahalalel, Lamech, Shem, Enos. Now I suppose they would argue that the "pre-flood world" was different and special and blah, blah, blah, and people naturally lived that long. However, Eber, who in Genesis 11, lived entirely after the supposed flood died at 464 (Genesis 11:14-17), Salah lived to be 433, Peleg to be 239 years old (Genesis 11:16-19). The patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, Abraham himself lived to be 175, Jacob 147, and Issac 180, therefore also shooting that "120 years maximum life" Biblical decree out of the air. Of course all of this presumes all of these people existed but those who wrote the various books of the OT certainly believed they did, and in that Iron Age Levant world of Psalms, I am sure it was considered amazing anyone did live to be 70 or 80.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I like that today's average lifespans are exactly the ones from the Bible. And I also like that the dudes in Psalm 90:10 had the common sense to specify the average global lifespan of 2010. Because boy, does the local average seem to fluctuate... For bonus points, Jeanne Calment defied God by being 122 years old. --Sid (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The lifespan aren't 120 years after god alledgedly commanded it; but then I don't suppose Andy got the time to read the article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate." WTF? More like they've become accurate for our current time because of modern medicine. Even if you adopt Andy's timeframe of human history, we've only attained that level of longevity very recently. And what's the point of ascribing scientific "foreknowledge" to one fixed prediction about a variable that's constantly changing anyway? Röstigraben (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But that is just it, lives of Biblical figures born after Genesis 6 did live past 120, some by centuries. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(As this is my first post, let me say; after being banned several times from CP trying to correct glaring, stupid errors in spelling/logic/fact, this site is a breath of fresh air.) On the positive side of Andy's prediction, we now can falsify the Bible - as soon as the average global lifespan is greater than 80, and people live to be more than 120 at least a handful of times, Andy will have to agree that the Bible is false, right? By his own admission, one counterexample disproves the WHOLE idea. As to Jeanne Calment, let me play Andy for sec: "The bible verse says "man", Jeanne Calment is a woman. Completely different. Bible Accuracy 1: Thinking 0" Carlaugust (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes this one so ridiculous is that it has already been disproved by the long timespans in human history when an average life expectancy of 70-80 years was nothing but a fanciful wish. He just focused on the 120 years ceiling as a benchmark and ignored how idiotic his statements about the average are. Röstigraben (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, and I see it's been removedimg by someone who made the effort to read the bible passages following the one Andy quoted. I fear WillS' days on CP will be a lot less than a hundred and twenty years. Röstigraben (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So the most biblically accurate countries (per Sid's link) are Iraq (life expectancy at birth=69.95) and Greenland {77.07). What can we deduce from this? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update - Andy reverts WillS, which is obviously predictable, but he then goes on to explain why he reverted WillS. He's basically saying that his statement is more important and relevant than the Word of the Bible™. Worth a WIGO update, or wait and see what responses come of the talk section? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy: The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify.

DENY THIS AND LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY. ONE / TALK 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I love how Andy isn't even keeping up the pretenses of making any sense. It really sounds like fun, I want to try: Exodus 3:15 PROVES the Poincaré conjecture. Carlaugust (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
MOAR INSITES ONE / TALK 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bible course

Looks like the teacher has become the student. --Composure1 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The circle is now complete. Hateboy (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I'm sure assfly doesn't have these reasons every good teacher should always accept that they can still learn and so should always be a student until the day they die. If you ever find a teacher that does not acknowledge that fact walk away and find a better teacher. Of course that pre-supposes that the teacher/student can accept they are wrong about some things and are willing to change their mind when shown contrary evidence. assfly patently doen't fit that in anyway at all.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if Ed got enough guts to put the adulteress story into the lectures, and subsequently get trolled by Andy. And is anyone doing a recorded lecture in person somewhere? I would love to see that on youtube. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys don't actually believe that Ed is a sincere user, do you? DickTurpis (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's almost a given that CP utterly failed in attracting actual conservatives and that only some (not even all) of the sysops are sincere users. It's of course possible (and in many many cases, it's never settled), but I really doubt it. But as I said earlier: If TeacherEd is a parodist, he's definitely pushing the envelope with the Bible Course. --Sid (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Anybody who claims the CBP to be anything other than a steaming heap of faeces has to be suspect. Unless your name is Andrew Schalfly. In which case you lie back, think of Saint Ronnie and moan with pleasure as your ego is caressed. I call a big Poe on this. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gettysburg?

Karajou is having a frothyimg over the "under God" being removed from the Gettysburg address. He cites World Nutty Delusions, but a Google search would indicate that besides WND, it's only the rabid right blogs (parkersburgwvteaparty, www.patriotupdate.com, etc) covering it.
Massive cover up by the liberal media, or more conservative lies and crap being spouted? --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Only nutters are "reporting" it because it's a total non-issue. Obama paraphrases Gettysburg address, leaves out part irrelevant to his point, film at 11. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Nobel Prize Season...

... and Terry Koeckritz starts it off with a bang by pointing out that Robert Edwards, the winner of the medicine prize, is an atheist.

Note his religious beliefs or lack thereof are not mentioned in either the article cited or his Wikipedia article.

For what it's worth, the prize was for developing in vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies"). My nephew is a result of IVF, so thank you, Doctor Edwards. MDB (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's plainly demonstrative of the CP attitude to everything that Dr Edwards' religious attitudes (or lack thereof) is worthy of mention in a news story about his medical achievements. My niece is a result of IVF too, so three cheers for Dr. E. :) Worm(t | c) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Conservative Logic 101; If the winner isn't a white christian male, they didn't deserve to win. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, for a TK news item about the Nobel Prize, it's surprisingly neutral. Guess we have to wait for Andy to deliver the "Liberal award! [Random conservative doctor] was left in the dust because of his belief in God! Conspiracy! Censorship!" rant. --Sid (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Considering the Catholic Church, at least, opposes IVF, conservative outrage is now doubt forthcoming. MDB (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but he's British! I think we can be 95% certain on his attitude towards school prayer... Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That explains why there are so many multiple births with IVF. The British can't count! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be allowed!

Ken has cited Wikipediaimg to support his position. TK, you know what you must do. EddyP (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking Ken more and more (starting from not at all that doesn't mean a lot though) 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Occasionally Ken does make sense. In the ZB, he used to stand up for PJR. Of course, being Ken, everybody ignored him. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More Ed what the fuckery.

Words fail me. Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a round number. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.img So now the Bible also rounds off to the nearest decimal. Wait... they weren't invented yet! ooh! ooh! a new foreskin foresight - Bible predicts decimal point and rounding up. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bomb hits for Jesus

I don't even know what to say about this. TK thinks detonating a neutron bombimg with the expressed intent of killing civilians is the way to deter terrorism. Ahh, nuclear mass murder of innocents, just like Jesus would have wanted. Carlaugust (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned twice already, up yonder and over thar. Come on Ken, stop pussyfooting around and show some ma-cheese-mo. Call Terry Koeckritz a troll to his face. Bondurant (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
TK is the TrollKing - we suspect he doesn't believe most of what he says, he just spouts it to fit in over there and also to yank our chains. ONE / TALK 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, I made a duplicate point! :( I'm sorry rationalwiki... Carlaugust (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)