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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 387: Line 387:
 
:::::::I guess it might be difficult to get why Thatcher is so despised. She was ideologically similar to Reagan, in some ways... but when she took over as Prime Minister in 1979, a -lot- of the the bodies which employed people were publicly owned, and the welfare system was probably more advanced than in America, larger anyway. So, as Conservapedia might put it - a hell of a lot of people relied on the states. Millions of jobs, unemployed people, everything. And so she was in a position to do a hell of a lot of harm. Unemployment was a tool like inflation and interest rates to her, and entire  communities were put out of work by her. Everything was about money, the post-war consensus about making living conditions better went right out of the window. Scotland, Liverpool, the north-east of England, Wales... entire areas were driven into poverty. But as long as the south of England was prosperous enough to keep her in power, things were fine. Different areas suffered MASSIVE funding differences. It's true that some schools couldn't afford textbooks at all, while other schools were damn well funded - and it stank of 'Tory areas have the money'. Hatred for Thatcher is a common position, and the poll tax really put the nail in the coffin. It might seen horrendous, evil... even inhuman to wish she's just pop her clogs and die, but people in Scotland and Liverpool, for sure, hate her with good reason. I'll have a pint when she dies. [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] ([[User talk:Dalek|talk]]) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::I guess it might be difficult to get why Thatcher is so despised. She was ideologically similar to Reagan, in some ways... but when she took over as Prime Minister in 1979, a -lot- of the the bodies which employed people were publicly owned, and the welfare system was probably more advanced than in America, larger anyway. So, as Conservapedia might put it - a hell of a lot of people relied on the states. Millions of jobs, unemployed people, everything. And so she was in a position to do a hell of a lot of harm. Unemployment was a tool like inflation and interest rates to her, and entire  communities were put out of work by her. Everything was about money, the post-war consensus about making living conditions better went right out of the window. Scotland, Liverpool, the north-east of England, Wales... entire areas were driven into poverty. But as long as the south of England was prosperous enough to keep her in power, things were fine. Different areas suffered MASSIVE funding differences. It's true that some schools couldn't afford textbooks at all, while other schools were damn well funded - and it stank of 'Tory areas have the money'. Hatred for Thatcher is a common position, and the poll tax really put the nail in the coffin. It might seen horrendous, evil... even inhuman to wish she's just pop her clogs and die, but people in Scotland and Liverpool, for sure, hate her with good reason. I'll have a pint when she dies. [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] ([[User talk:Dalek|talk]]) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::Mostly [[image:Goodpost.gif]], IMNSHO. {{User:Human/sig|}} 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::::Mostly [[image:Goodpost.gif]], IMNSHO. {{User:Human/sig|}} 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::::::::::Oh, and as well, while people still dispute if privatisation was right or wrong, I think most people accept that it was done badly. HUGE public assets were sold in the North at knocked down rates. The way it worked out, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And the North got poorer and the South got richer. And the South kept voting her in, and she kept shitting all over the North. So we hate her up here, and don't particularly like the south of England for it. [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] ([[User talk:Dalek|talk]]) 04:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
I changed the wording, feel free to change your votes bastards. :P--[[User:Opcn|Opcn]] ([[User talk:Opcn|talk]]) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
I changed the wording, feel free to change your votes bastards. :P--[[User:Opcn|Opcn]] ([[User talk:Opcn|talk]]) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:58, 20 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

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)

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)

They should just STFU with poll boasting

To underscore my points above: On October 14, CP is gloating about a poll that shows Toomey ahead in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Today, October 19, Sestak ahead of Toomey. I don't believe either of these polls; I'm taking a temperate 'wait n' see' attitude that reflects my Atheist values. --Leotardo (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Nobody - yourself included - thinks it's going to be a good night for the Democrats, and so by the same logic that had Andy calling a Tory/Lib Dem coalition a "conservative landslide", it'll be Obamageddon because he says so. Even a few net losses would be enough. He's invested so much in the whole "Give it up, liberals" / Obamageddon thing that he'll say it has happened whether or not it really has. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I get you, but anything short of a tidal wave is going to be considered a flop and the usual midterm 'vote against the party in the White House' trend that's been going on for decades. --Leotardo (talk) 23:29, 19 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 Генгисpillaging 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)
Intelligence is tricky. We don't know exactly what it is, our attempts to measure it are very crude (it's very, very tricky to come up with a test that you can't learn to improve at, but we doubt that getting better at the test means you're more intelligent...) and it's very tempting to include things which look like intelligence to us, but which an outsider might see as just arbitrary specialist knowledge. I feel comfortable saying that my ability to look out of a train window, spot "14" on the route indicator ahead and stand on the right side of the train to disembark at platform 14 is NOT intelligence even though many other commuters line up on the wrong side of the train. They just don't know where to look. But how about my ability to look at four geometric shapes and figure out that three are rotations of each other? Is that intelligence? What about my ability to perform arithmetic-like operations on arbitrary symbols? Abstract symbol processing is what computers do (it's what computation is) but is that intelligence? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:45, 19 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. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 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)
No to the velocity - sure it has to get high speed relative to the Earth's surface to "escape", but all that velocity is lost in the "escaping". There's no need for it to be travelling very fast after that, except to keep the capture by M&M in a Biblical timeframe ;) By the way, I think precisely 843 angels can dance on the head of a pin. For very small values of "angel" and very large values of "pin". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
As absurd as Nephy's idea that water from the Earth made the creators on the Moon (including the far side), it becomes even more ridiculous when you consider the other heavily cratered bodies of the Solar System, such as Mercury, Mars, Callisto, Rhea, Iapetus, Oberon, and Umbriel. There is no reason to even consider the idea, it is born out of the desperation of trying to fit the facts of our Solar System into a 6,000 year old religious cosmology.

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. --PsyGremlinTala! 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)
LOL! You're right. I won't cheat like Christian pastors, AND I won't cheat with a woman! 64.19.148.242 (talk) 20:20, 19 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)

The reason is the exact same reason that folks born after 1985 are more likely to not have a landline telephone than have one. If God isn't portable (n/m scalable), then it's not worth lugging one about. C®ackeЯ
The "conventional beliefs..." section is funny because this is the real poison. The gap between what your "believers" believe and what dogma requires has been growing for centuries, but the gap is now almost too wide for a preacher to shout across. You end up with a country where, sure, only say 1% claim to be atheists, but most of the 99% don't actually act as if God existed in any sense, and won't be moved to vote against their instincts based on the assurance that God wants them to. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:44, 19 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. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 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 Генгисpillaging 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."

--PsyGremlin講話 10:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, 'and the Serpent said, "Wait a minute..."' Bonus points for quoting the CBP. --PsyGremlinPraat! 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 Генгисpillaging 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? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we all know the answer to that last question. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging 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)
You are obviously male. Women also have to work in between foetal traumas. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 19 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? --PsyGremlinPraat! 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)
But wait! In the Greek myths, Prometheus was punished by having his liver pecked out during the day and it would regrow at night to be pecked out the next morning again. The Greeks knew of the self-healing capacity of the liver, before scientists even knew the liver existed. The Greek had scientific foreknowledge and thus Zeus is real! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a vestal virgin to visit. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:00, 19 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)
Wasn't it the result of an error the last time it happened? Or have there been more times? ~SuperHamster Talk 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It starts full, and only updates to the real value after the page loads (mainly due to laziness on behalf of the programmer.. er, me, *cough*) this may have confused people. But, AFAIK, Obamageddon has not happened before. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:22, 19 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)
I would never laugh at Ace that way. --Kels (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it is that if I can't laugh at myself urinating all over the street while abusing passers-by I can't in good conscience laugh at Ken. i9 01:39, 19 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
Then don't respect me. I don't need your fucking respect. Go ahead and poke the vulnerable guy. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As a girl, I have to point to: "7. You tell your girlfriend that she is merely a result of blind random natural forces and there is nothing particularly special about her." To which I would respond to my boyfriend: "Awww... how cute... you're sane." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
every time he says Bush think Ken--Opcn (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the recent Ken-bashing and TK-WIGOing are simply symptoms of basically nothing else happening on CP. Not justifying it, mind you. I occasionally poke fun at Ken myself, but largely hold back because there is (in my eyes) no art to it. It's like mocking a clown in a circus or explaining a painfully obvious joke. He's simply a supplier of TL;DR lulz, the "written" equivalent of Idiocracy's "Ow! My balls!" series. If people can't be arsed to read through Andy's "Counterexamples To Relativity" list, just point them at the Flying Kitty page and tell them that a CP senior sysop made it. But beyond that, I don't see the appeal of pointing at Ken now that he effectively stopped contributing to the actual mainspace beyond minor tweaks to his pet articles. --Sid (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a 50% guarantee that Ken is a parodist, based on something I read earlier. And yes-I do know about his previous record on TOW.RascalJack (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would love to find that Ken is a parodist because it would mean that the person behind all this is not that sick. Oops, hang on a minute, someone is prepared to spend massive thirty six hour straight editing sessions to produce gibberish in the name of parody. Nah, doesn't wash. Ken's a sick fuck and laughing at him is like laughing at cerebral palsy sufferers. He can't help it. It's Andy's one nice thing, he gives Ken a place where he can be what he has to be. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We all got our initial chuckle out of "Attention atheists: Please get a life!", but now he just adds to it in an attempt to garish our attention. It is better not to feed the delusion, so it is probably best to ignore Ken for the most part. I worry he will do something outrageous though to try and win our notice again. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If Ken is a parodist, he is the God King of all parodists. He had been doing it long before CP even existed. --Sid (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah. No parodist, no matter how long serving could impress me more than TeacherEd. That guy is inspired. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I just can't accept this "Leave Ken alone" stuff. We can say he's vulnerable, mentally ill, stupid, brain-washed - whatever we like. But he's pumping out his hateful stuff right out into the public domain, and that makes him damn fair game. Somebody reading Conservapedia doesn't see who makes what edits, they get that hateful, biased nonsense spoken as though it is all fact. If Ken has issues, that's for Andy to deal with - unfortunatley, people do follow Conservapedia, and as long as they give him the "credibility" associated with that, he's damn fair game. Dalek (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to throw out 2 simple facts right here, without endorsing anything. 1: Ken is at least mildly retarded. 2: Retards are funny. Make of that what you will; I'm just saying. DickTurpis (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What Dick said and Dalek said. Also, Andy obviously has some weird mental disorder and he doesn't get off easily. i9 03:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I buy all of Ace's OP comments except "You're a vicious homosexual in total denial." For that I criticize Ace. Lame fifth point, like you're calling him "gay" to insult him. Is he, is he not? As far as we know, no one knows. Change "homosexual" to "cheetah" or "creep" and I'm on board. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, can't win 'em all. i9 05:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
4/5, plus the extra credit Essay, 105%! Excellent, will use as a model trauma. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Changing "homosexual" to other terms still doesn't seem to work properly -- the 5th point is a "is" description; all the other is what one "does". Should that be fixed to "engage in acts of <insert word here>" ? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of English has decayed again

Since Ace is picking on other people on usage of periods (the punctuation), I would like to know when a bullet point should have a period and when it shouldn't (since not all of his points has one, I would therefore assume there exists some sort of rules regarding it). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Internal consistency is the rule; or, try to make all one's bullets sentences and full stop them, or make them all fragmentation bombs and leave them open. Ace's first language is not English or a variant thereof, it is an exotic fruit mated with an ovine fur-bearing mammal. And PCP. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Political donations are down (progressives are taking over WIGO)

But political spending has more than doubled hasn't it? (I was thinking it was up something like 300% according to the Slate political gabfest, but that memory is fuzzy) I think the difference is that corporations are spending money to advertise directly, including 501(c)(4)'s. It doesn't matter if you are all of the sudden making less money if on the other side of the coin you have huge massive spending elsewhere. --Opcn (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was soooo going to add a section about Rob Le Dumbass's Mainpageright. How long on Conservapedia have they been chest thumping about how the whole country is against Obama, and he's going against the will of the people, blah blah, Obamageddon, blah, the American people identify as conservative... But now, with charitable contributions down, suddenly we're in the Age of Aquarius (as opposed to age of recession). Heh - Rob sort of reminds me of the Daily Show skit where Wyatt Cenac and John Oliver debate whether Fox News is Evil or Stupid. --Leotardo (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Obama diet

Well, Karajou's comments are great and all, but just where exactly did Ken get the idea that Acadia is in North Carolina?! Kalliumtalk 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. The first sentence of the article talks about someone from NC being at Acadia. That is the ONLY place NC is mentioned. Why would someone be outside their home state? It isn't like the first headline reads "Obama family in Maine", or the picture caption is headed "Afoot in Maine", or that Maine is mentioned seven times in the article (including the escort by Maine State Police), with the author's e-mail being @mainetoday.com with "Select images available for purchase in the Maine Today photo store", all from the Maine-based newspaper that Ken used as his ref... Yes, clearly they are talking about a different park in North Carolina. Well done. Kalliumtalk 05:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I like how he mistakes eating fatty foods on occasion with being fat and eating fatty foods, so as to make their obesity campaign a matter of hypocrisy. Yet they ignore real hypocrisy, like how Joe Miller managed to put the down payment on his house while he was getting federal assistance to provide his children with health care, federal assistance for those within 1.5 X the poverty line, i.e. those who could never afford a 50K down payment, and now he rails against having to pay taxes for that program. That is Hypocrisy. --Opcn (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That NC thing is just plain weird. And not fixed yet, either. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Karajou, whatever happened to his crappy comics? I guess he ran out of Darwin + blackboard jokes. Corry (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are You An Atheist Nerd?

Take Conservapedias test And for the record, I got 0/10 so I may be an Atheist, but I'm no nerd. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken seems to have an 8 year old's grasp of adult social interaction. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I got a 0 out of 10 as well, despite being both an atheist and a little bit of a nerd. Of course, half the questions asked about my girlfriend. HA!, Ken, joke's on you! I don't have a girlfriend! DickTurpis (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, if most atheists are men as Ken says, then doesn't that make atheism ipso facto masculine? Aren't me just loaded with machismo? DickTurpis (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's a special kind of stupid right there.
  1. Let's see, my SO is of the ancient faith, so no statues of Jesus there;
  2. I own no pocket protectors (who does, besides Urkel?);
  3. have never argued with SO over atheism - had lots of "energetic debates" about religion tho;
  4. Don't encourage her to visit atheist webistes - porn websites yes, for research purposes;
  5. My SO is fortunately part of the vast majority (i.e. everybody on the planet except you) who has never heard of, nor cares about, SoG, so no problem there;
  6. My YT account is for music videos only, and she dumped me because I had sex with her sister;
  7. As a human, there is nothing special about her, as an individual she is the center of my universe;
  8. Thinking about other men's machismo has never been my thing, despite your obvious hang-up about it. Also I prefer the more liberal OED.
  9. Never been to RDFC meeting (is there even a RDFC???)
  10. Nope, unlike some people with their marathon 36-hour Homosexiality editing binges, I like to go outside now and again, hug a tree, force a passerby to have an abortion, that sort of thing.
So, sorry, Ken, but it looks like me (and every other human being) passes your test. back to the drawing board with you. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I was rather bummed that I too scored zero out of the ten and is now concerned that my "geek cred" is in danger and I may instead be full of MA-CHEESE-MO without realizing it. Also what happens if one's girlfriend is the "secular activist" of the pair?
Special note: If Carl Sagan is considered an "atheist nerd" then I would consider the title a badge of honor, this makes my zero nerd score even sadder. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, this looks like fun. Lemme try... 1 - She was an atheist too, 2 - I don't know what a pocket protector is, 3 - No I didn't, she was an atheist too, 4 - I've met over six women IRL and have avoided talking about anything on the internet to any of them, 5 - She didn't know what shockofgod is, I got through one of his videos and nearly died laughing at his blatant inferiority complex poorly covered up by the need to ride a motorcycle all over the place for no apparent reason, 6 - after my last girlfriend dumped me I spent three weeks getting drunk with RL people, 7 - I did, but instead of crying she hit me, 8 - I've only made it through the first two chapters of God Delusion and don't really have an opinion on Dawkins, 9 - Never seen Dawkins', don't care about seeing him either. I like rabbits though, 10 - I only use Skype to talk to fellow internet folk, using RL to talk to RL people.
So that's... 0 out of 10. SJ Debaser 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the first person to score even one point should win a major prize. 0/10 here too. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Would being a gayer earn bonus points?--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm an atheist, and dagnammit I'm a nerd too. But still 0/10. EddyP (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10, although I admit I was briefly tempted by the communicator. What's with all the "girlfriend" focus anyway - can only heterosexual men and lesbians be atheists in Ken's world? Röstigraben (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10 although I am seriously considering buying the communicator for my nerdy work colleague. But we're both male and both hetero so that rules either of us out as the other's girlfriend.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What happens if she buys the communicator for you because she thinks it's pretty cool, do you get a -1 then? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone one else click on the link to moustache video in the post script? WTF has that to do with anything?--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm single right now, but I'll use the girlfriend I broke up with last and still screw on occasion 1)What picture of Jesus? 2)No. 3)No. 4)I'm pretty sure no one ever does that ever, so neither do I. 5)A laughing fit maybe, but thinking shocks question is valid is a dump worthy offense (because I don't date the willfully ignorant) and if not I would destroy that, because shock only keeps going because he is a weeny who avoids debate at all costs. 6)What? 7)I never said that to a girl, we were too busy fucking, and I can't imagine that a conversation like that would come out of the blue. 8)Because the elderly are supposed to have Machismo? 9)The last time I was with a like minded group of people we had rabbit, does that make us cannibals? 10)I want that for me, but I've never had communication problems with a girlfriend.
Another 0/10 score, the number of atheist nerds is growing rapidly. --Opcn (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10 here too. KEN I AM DISAPPOINT. Hateboy (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel such a loser about not having a girlfriend (in Ken's terms of reference).  Lily Inspirate me. 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's funny - half of these questions assume that you have a girlfriend in the first place. A real nerd wouldn't. Tetronian you're clueless 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, yup, another 0/10 here. Nice try, Ken - did you ever notice that sometimes the question conveys more information than the answer...? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to pick on Carl, you've got to make a Hitler-Sagan link of SOME sort, otherwise, it just won't stick. What's amatter with yu boys? Can't Photoshop something? Godspeed. Saganlover. 2010 CE. Jimaginator (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken! Ken! Pick up the phone

I know you get all hot and heavy about people running from debates, so I thought you'd find this useful. Can't wait to read about this pantywaist on CP. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shockofgod is apparently a pussy. I haven't bothered to check out more than one of his videos, but he seems to think if he just keeps repeating the same question over and over, he'll frustrate the person trying to discuss it, and then their frustration with his not allowing them to talk becomes "frustration with trying to provide proof that Atheism..." --Leotardo (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
ShockOfGod is a perfect mirror of CP, he never allows dissenting opinion, or legitimate criticism, will insta-block anyone who disagrees with him on his Youtube channel and erase the comments, blocks any dissent in the chatroom of his radio site and talks over anyone who tries to make a point on his (or anyone else's) radio show and claim Christian oppression. Then once all avenues of communication he controls are suitably censored to allow only praise and sycophancy to be expressed, state no one can refute his beliefs, and claim victory. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
He's a lot like Kendoll. I'd put good money on both of them having socially crippling mental problems. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Like Kendoll, eh? I'd place money on the fact that shockofgod and Ken being the same exact person. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Ken doesn't have the social skills to communicate without the aid of his keyboard. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Shock is a middle aged guy who lives in LA. And rides a motorcycle. Ken is a middle aged guy who lives on the West Side of Buffalo. And doesn't leave his house for 36 hour stretches whilst fingering his masterpieces. They're not the same person. Please send cash. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you'll just spend it on la hacker más sexy del mundo. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
She real fine. And to quote Crundy, "She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!!" Oh, and the greater likelihood is that I'll spend it on booze. I'm pretty easy to figure. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is trivially easy dude. Atheists are quarrelsome and unattractive to women. Real men have lots of female slaves. And mustaches. QED. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Foreknowledge

I submit the depiction of Mrs. Garrison in South Park season 10, episode 12 ("Go God Go") predicts Ken. Hateboy (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Foreskin

Has the same first four letter letters as "foreknowledge." Link to Ken accordingly. SJ Debaser 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just realized I'm going to Hell

Woo! That's where all the loose women go! SCORE!

Oh rationalwiki, I wish I could take you out to a nice steak restaurant, get to second base, and then never call you again. Carlaugust (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What in the world makes you think you can't? Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point...you're looking mighty fine tonight, rationalwiki... Carlaugust (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
On your own old bean. I'm a vegetarian and if anyone tries to get me into a place dedicated to eating dead cows in the guise of trying to nourish me they wouldn't even get to the plate, let alone second base. Shit, they wouldn't even get into the ball park, as I think our former serfs say. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Sports Fans"? Are you part of a bowling league? You sir are going to HELL. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The church - best of the public?

Context is everything... I think?

Okay, I know that Andy considers CP to be a prime example of Best of the Public, but even I'm not completely certain if he's talking about the site or the church in this situation.

...and then there is the whole Best of Nature bit. Just... what... --Sid (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this. So many Christians just think if someone goes to church that they must be 'the best of the public' or a good person. Some of the worst people I've met--my grandmother was an evangelical who stole $1M from my 96 year old Aunt, with the help of another Aunt who also makes a big deal of her Christianity--have worn their Christianity on their sleeves, as if that should confer upon them immediate trust and goodwill. To me, this is an example of that. I don't trust anyone who wears their religion on their sleeve, and I don't give money to any homeless people who beseech my help out of Christian charity (I prefer to give to programs where I know the money will more likely be spent wisely). --Leotardo (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I see the best of nature as a bountiful harvest that will feed people, not a bunch of trees in autumn colors, beautiful as they are. As for the church building, how is that best of the public? Churches are as establishment as they come in this nation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
All i can see is the "Atention Atheists Get a life". Pot? Kettel? Black Much? --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
See any of the Ken-related sections above for that. No need to drag other sections into that mess. =/ --Sid (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But it must be said, they are choosing lovely images. --Leotardo (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher WIGO

Technically I suppose I could support the sentiment, but I do know that the general feeling around where I live is mostly just saying "Just die already, bitch". Which suggests that I'm not surrounded by the most good-willed of people, but given that I was also living amongst these people when Thatcher gutted the Labour-voting Valleys in the Eighties and destroyed three generations in just one go, well I can see where they are coming from. Hell, I can remember what it was like going to school back then. Didn't see a textbook until I was fourteen, because the schools couldn't afford them, and when textbooks became available it was one between three pupils. Hell, in '91 I was still learning computing on a BBC Micro, which says it all really. Of course, 35 miles down the road, in a Tory voting area, they did get all the text books they needed and state-of-the-art PCs. Curious that, and sums up Thatcherite policies to a T.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Had to be done: http://isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/ Webbtje (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've lost count of the number of times that I've already heard variations on "Got your dancing shoes ready yet?"--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems sort of appropriate here. --Kels (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There's going to be street parties in the North when she does finally expire, the likes of which haven't been seen since the end of WWII. I wonder if you can get "Ding dong the witch is dead!" bunting? -- Iscariot (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Along with the rest of Yorkshire, I'll be in the pub within 20 minutes of her death. The Wicked Witch of Westminster needs to die. Dalek (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
THAT is why my WIGO is at -6?!?!?!? I thought it was because people didn't think "Freedom Patriot" was Orwellian enough. Sure she was a freedom hating shrew who destroyed the once glorious British manufacturing sector, but I still think as an organization it's better to wish people well. Just think of how she will be canonized in the states the moment she is dead. Andy will be teabagging with her in n instant. --Opcn (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can certainly say that, when she does finally croak, just about every single person in Scotland who was living in Scotland at any point during her time in power will dance a fucking jig. Though it is interesting to note that CP is so enamoured of her, as, despite all the bad things she did whilst in power, she did actually increase spending in social security and public healthcare by about 30%, as well as slightly decreasing defence spending. 92.18.7.24 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess it might be difficult to get why Thatcher is so despised. She was ideologically similar to Reagan, in some ways... but when she took over as Prime Minister in 1979, a -lot- of the the bodies which employed people were publicly owned, and the welfare system was probably more advanced than in America, larger anyway. So, as Conservapedia might put it - a hell of a lot of people relied on the states. Millions of jobs, unemployed people, everything. And so she was in a position to do a hell of a lot of harm. Unemployment was a tool like inflation and interest rates to her, and entire communities were put out of work by her. Everything was about money, the post-war consensus about making living conditions better went right out of the window. Scotland, Liverpool, the north-east of England, Wales... entire areas were driven into poverty. But as long as the south of England was prosperous enough to keep her in power, things were fine. Different areas suffered MASSIVE funding differences. It's true that some schools couldn't afford textbooks at all, while other schools were damn well funded - and it stank of 'Tory areas have the money'. Hatred for Thatcher is a common position, and the poll tax really put the nail in the coffin. It might seen horrendous, evil... even inhuman to wish she's just pop her clogs and die, but people in Scotland and Liverpool, for sure, hate her with good reason. I'll have a pint when she dies. Dalek (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Mostly Goodpost.gif, IMNSHO. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and as well, while people still dispute if privatisation was right or wrong, I think most people accept that it was done badly. HUGE public assets were sold in the North at knocked down rates. The way it worked out, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And the North got poorer and the South got richer. And the South kept voting her in, and she kept shitting all over the North. So we hate her up here, and don't particularly like the south of England for it. Dalek (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording, feel free to change your votes bastards. :P--Opcn (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)