Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive219

Gentleman Kendoll! part 2
In regards to your exemplary lifestyle, we're sure that your exemplary lifestyle, directed by the logic of Christian thinking, puts you in excellent health and physical condition, and that you are as svelte as Chuck Norris. In regards to the known health problems of evolutionists and atheists, we're sure you have none of the health problems of evolutionists and atheists that you point out: In regards to difficulty sleeping, your fine sleeping schedule is already well known to us. But in regards to being skeptical, we're not yet completely convinced of your overall excellent health and physical fitness. Though in regards to general athleticism, we're fairly sure you could jump onto and off of a triceratops with ease, unlike PZ Myers.
 * Difficulty sleeping, Snoring, Sleep apnea, Pain in your back or joints, Excessive sweating, Always feeling hot, Rashes or infection in folds of your skin, Feeling out of breath with minor exertion, Daytime sleepiness or fatigue, Depression

Also, in regards to your educational attainments, we're all very curious to know just what college you got your degree from. And in regards to your professional writing career, we'd like to read, and be inspired by, the works that you have written and been paid for.

So, in regards to the offer, here's the offer: I will donate USD500 to Christian Charities USA if you will do the following: Gauss (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell us, in a verifiable way, what college you got your degree from.
 * Tell us, in a verifiable way, what writings you received payment for.
 * Provide us, in a verifiable way, with a video of you doing the standard high-school physical fitness tests.


 * Though there's really no point, as Ken won't respond, you probably should specify some of these a bit more. For example, not just what writings he was paid for, but who paid and how much, and also demand he present copies of the writings. That way he can't say "I was paid to write the article Christian Apologetics in the USA" and claim he fulfilled his end of the bargain. Likewise the exercises should be more specific too. Perhaps 20 jumping jacks, 10 squad thrusts, 10 push ups, 20 sit ups, or something along those lines. Certainly nothing too challenging there. DickTurpis (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really didn't intend to impose any criterion for passing the test. I just want to challenge him to be seen doing as many or as few push-ups as he wants.  Of course he won't do this.  By the way, I'm going to donate to the charity anyway.  I don't need Ken to influence me to engage in Christian charity.  Gauss (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So farewell then...
cp:Llandudno, DouglasA thought you were the work of a vandal. But I will not forget you. 09:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We 'ardly knew 'er. Hateboy (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Patti
I think JPratt just did a Jesus job on the old covenant of the conservapedia commandments. Sayeth JPratt, " LOL, well it was created by an administrator . On this hangs all the guidelines and the commandments."

I think we've officially entered CP's New Covenant period, where whoever believeth in Andy shall not be blocked but shall have eternal freedom to fuck up his wiki. -- 14:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Capture orgy for when the inevitable silent deletion happens: Article history, Ed's version (his last revision),  Lance,  SamHB,  JM. --Sid (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "See also: algorithm"? WTF?  I've always thought of JM as a harmless person who likes pretty pictures.  But this?  Is she really that ignorant?  Or is she joining the "let's just have fun screwing this place up" brigade?  Gauss (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was an attempt at humor? I'm not sure. 17:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps CP needs an Al Gore Rhythm page. -- 17:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Joaquin is very stupid too, just in a different way. Remember the "Painting" fiasco? That was funny. DickTurpis (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's Bluff
Did I miss the original challenge for a debate or is this it?I have not understood the terms of debate correctly. Does he want the christian charity to be paid irrespective of who wins? What happens if he loses? Is he agreeable to pay a similar amount to a charity of our choice?Buscombe (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken will never admit he's lost a debate, and will never accept any arbiter who might possibly rule that he has, so Ken losing the debate is clearly out of the question. He just thinks he's a great enough debater that people should spend a year's salary just for the privilege of debating him. This is much like a ten year old trying to sell his story "Captain Awesomeman's Fight Against Evil Professor Snobbledragon and His Rocketship of Doom" to a publisher for $5 million. DickTurpis (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though he wanted to make a challenge in such a weirdly unreasonable way that nobody could possibly accept it. I mean why would somebody pay 10 dollars much less 1,000 to talk to him? But now, against all the odds, it seems that we have (at least one) taker.  His only solution now is to wriggle around making it even more Kafkaesque in order to avoid getting involved.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the few instances I've seen on the innertubes of creationists agreeing to debate with evolutionists, the creationist has always added some kind of ridiculous condition, or moved the goalposts in some way or another in order for the debate to go forth. Specifically I'm thinking Nephilimfree vs. whoever the other guy was on YouTube, Ray Comfort vs. Thunderf00t. While this obviously doesn't speak for all creationists, I'm simply pointing out Kendoll's commitment to the part of internet douchebag (you Americans say that, right?) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do, but "douchebag" isn't a strong enough word in this case. 19:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, to be fair, Comfort did eventually agree to debate Thunderf00t without a $100,000 demand, though I guess it turned out to be more of a discussion. DickTurpis (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true, though the £100'000 fee in the first place was stupid. 20:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ECx2) Well to give Ray his due, he did have a face-to-face debate with Thunderf00t and he did debate with the Rational Response Squad, although it must be said that there's no way that he could claim to have won either of those. What we see Ken doing - as Andy did previously when challenged by Ames - is to erect a "barrier to entry", as economists call it, so that he can unilaterally declare victory when his extraordinary demands are not met. At CP the barriers to entry are the acquisition of edit rights and the ability to respond on locked pages, here Ken is requiring a large sum up front which he is not willing to match - a sure sign of cowardice. If he was convinced of the power of his argument then would actually be welcoming all-comers. What we see is Ken being a moral panty-waist who is afraid to come out of his intellectual rabbit hole. He quit editing here because he could not win a debate and he retired from aSK because he could not lock or memory-hole his talk page as he does with gay abandon at CP. The only reason he still hangs out at CP is because it is a fortified island where any challengers cannot get within shouting distance. Let's face it, Ken is an intellectual midget when it comes to debating the issues. All of his turgid "articles" at CP are compilations of other people's quotes with poorly-written links. Ken is preparing to declare "V for victory" but what he is really doing is giving himself the old two-fingered salute. He is a grotesquely sad little man and it is to Andy Schlafly's eternal shame that he allows Ken to regularly humiliate himself in public. 20:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that he expected anyone to accept his challenge. He will be trying to wriggle his way out of this. It reminds me of the picture he put up on one of his pathetic essays. a picture of a mouse hiding in a little hole.... Ken hiding from rationalists to escape from the debate.Buscombe (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't read the challenge page because I am getting "403 Forbidden" from CP at the moment. I can see that I am mentioned in the page title though (from the web address).  I suspect that it might have been prompted by the following exchange between 🇰🇪 and myself (commencing 25 Jan):
 * Dear Ken,


 * I have been observing you for some considerable time now and I am truly perplexed.


 * You appear to have heartfelt Christian beliefs and yet you constantly act in a clearly deceitful manner contrary to what most people would understand that those beliefs mandate. You delete questions from other editors rather than answering them.  You block the editor.  You then burn the page to cover up after yourself.  You criticise Richard Dawkins for failing to debate creationists and crow that your views are superior, yet you refuse to debate anyone anywhere yourself.  You merely declare victory in an argument in which you are the only participant. Look at your record here: Blocking and reverting anyone who challenges you and then running of to protect the relevant page.  Look at your record on ASoK: Meek as a little mouse, asking Philip to stop people discussing Conservapedia issues on your talk page.


 * I guess what I am wondering is how you justify your behaviour to yourself. Don't you ever look at yourself in the mirror and feel shame?


 * I ask because I genuinely want to know.


 * Regards


 * MKerrigan
 * (Horace)


 * I signed as MKerrigan because that was the most recent sock that 🇰🇪 had blocked after deleting my edits on a talk page. He responded some days later (28 Jan):


 * Dear Horace,


 * I don't believe your email was sincere. Please do not write me again.


 * Sincerely,


 * Conservative


 * He the responded further (29 Jan):


 * Dear Horace,


 * A quick addendum:


 * 1. You and other RationalWikians cannot find a single factual error in my atheism and evolution articles which thoroughly debunk those worldviews.


 * 2. I soundly thrashed you folks on the talk pages of the Conservapedia articles you take issues with plus on other places of the internet as well (atheism, evolution, homosexuality, etc.). According, your claim that I am afraid to debate is without merit.


 * 3. I met my goals that I set out to achieve in terms of my participation with Conservapedia. Anything else I do further is icing on the cake.


 * 4. Encyclopedias usually involve multiple editors and frankly there is not a single encyclopedia which I totally agree with. Feel free to rail at Conservapedia and find faults with it, but I don't believe you can provide a single factual error in the atheism, evolution, and homosexuality articles. If you do, I will be glad to make amendments. Please use the talk pages.


 * 5. I know it aggravates to no end that I have met my goals and have declared victory and now you want to find some fault with me. While I certainly don't claim to have to have reach perfection and still press on to become more like Christ, your efforts to find fault with me via your insincere email feigning bewilderment was lame.


 * 6. I am rather content now and feel no pressing desire to communicate further with RationalWikians despite their wish to debate with me further and no doubt receive another thrashing. As far as I am concerned, atheism is a third rate worldview and RationalWikians are third rate players within that third rate worldview and mere internet vandals in many cases.  Be that as it may, should RationalWikians make a $17,000 USD donation to a Christian relief organization of my choosing and I can confirm this matter, I would be willing to debate RationalWikians once again despite that fact that I have thrashed RationalWikians in many previous debates on various wiki talk pages.   You and other RationalWikians can whine all you want, but it will be to no avail.


 * Sincerely,


 * Conservative


 * And finally, lest anyone doubt that he is entirely incapable of completing a given writing task in a single edit, he wrote (29 Jan):


 * Dear Horace,


 * One last thing, it really wasn't hard to thoroughly debunk the atheism and evolution worldviews due to the fact that those worldviews have never offered reasonable proof and evidence.  Atheists have never provided proof and evidence that atheism is true and that is one of the reasons why shockofgod's question is so upsetting to many atheists.


 * Sincerely,


 * Conservative


 * Could someone post a copy of the challenge page here so that I can see it? I am not sure that I am willing to stump up any cash to debate Ken but I am prepared to give him a sound whipping for free if he wants.  --Horace (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a capture link in the section above. -- 22:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks for that. I confess that I had missed the discussions above. I should read more thoroughly before I post.  --Horace (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you have proven to be a liar.
I accepted your terms. The fact the you never contacted me means the following: From this day on you'll be know as such. You have failed. Ace McAwesome 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had $20K
 * I was willing to debate
 * I accepted your challenge
 * I asked you to email me at the address provided to settle the details (I can't email you via CP)
 * You backed out.
 * You are a liar
 * Your offer was disingenuious
 * You have no machismo
 * confirmed what we always knew. What a deceitful coward. Brilliant that you called him on his bluff. Buscombe (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling
One of the tasks of a sysop is to patrol the entries of non-sysops, i.e., to get rid of the pesky red exclamation marks in Special:RecentChanges. RationalWiki found a very effective way in doing so - by just making virtually anyone a sysop.

Conservapedia chose a different path: They have only a few sysops - so what can they do? Well, frankly, they ignore the problem, and hope to spot unbecoming entries in out wigo...

I just took a look at the Conservapedia's cp:Special:Log/patrol. The comments of a sysop are marked automatic, as they are automatically controlled. Contributions of other editors have to be manually patrolled, at this is marked by a missing automatic (here). As the first entry in this log is from Jun 16, 2008, the number of automatically blocked entries is often quite smaller than the number of comments made by a sysop.

So, let's have a look at the efforts:

So, can't be important, can it? -- 00:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be quite honest, I'm (pleasantly) surprised that a few sysops actually did any manual patrolling in non-trivial quantities. --Sid (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c): That's quite an interesting list. Basically, only Bad Touch, JessicaT, Joaquim, PJR, TK and (arguably) JacobB care what other people say. I think contribution is expected, but I'd have expected Assfly, Popeye and Pratti would have done more. They probably can't hit the correct button with their foreheads. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What this list proves is that some sysops care more about adding content than watching for deliberately placed lulzlulz--208.54.38.76 (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. It proves that most CP sysops don't give a damn about their "encyclopedia" being accurate. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RW top 25 patrol(wo)men
00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaay, I'm good at stuffs!  Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A good project to illustrate the problem with Ken's writing
I keep it no secret that writing encyclopedia articles is not my strong suit, debates are as it turns out. I think that someone with 'the knack' should brush up on their atheist crackpots, people like the folks behind zeitgeist, and find a bunch of quotes about christianity and stitch them together to form an argument, then challenge Kendoll to find a factual error in it. See what he makes of his quoteshield when someone wields it against him. --Opcn (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly Zeitgeist-style but I still want to poke Ken a bit: "Nobody has a choice to become a Christian, you aren't "converted" to Christianity - you have to be ill enough for it." ("Es steht niemandem frei, Christ zu werden: man wird nicht zum Christentum »bekehrt«, - man muss krank genug dazu sein.") - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, Chapter 51. --Ullhateme (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of problems with Kenny's writing, has anyone comprehensively dissected his awful style yet? Could be entertaining and, as a bonus, be useful for spotting his legion of socks. I'd do it myself but I'm busy for the next 90 days. Webbtje (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should build a proper wp:Recursive transition network that vomits Ken essays, a la wp:Postmodernism Generator. It'd be such a fucking public service. Perhaps Leisure Graph Larry is up to the task. Hateboy (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People have summarised his writing style previously on this page, it is basically very simple but one thing that I have noticed is that it is less exaggerated when he is having a dialogue with someone. I wonder if his inability to use pronouns is related to his SEO activities. 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kendoll's expertise in SEO is as much a fiction as the rest of his persona. Nothing advertises this more than his habit of using "THIS" and "VIDEO" as link text. -- 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never meant to insinuate that he was any good at SEO. I just wondered if he believed that by repeating nouns (i.e. search terms) instead of pronouns, that this would give better results in regards to Mr. G. 19:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall reading something from Ken that was anti-war or something? It was on a CP talk page ages ago (and I wouldn't even know how to begin to search for it, sorry). I'm fairly sure it was brought up in this talk page for some reason. I remember being surprised at two things; that Ken was making a not totally stupid point and that he actually did it *well*. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but Ken does seem to have some kind of writing ability. X Stickman (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Ken is exactly the kind of person the "MAXIMIZE YOUR SEO" scams prey on. So he's got this entirely useless knowledge that he thinks is gold, and tries to write that way.  And, of course, it comes out as crap. --Kels (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet this is exactly how Ken sees himself
The agile stoat, running down the atheist bunny, ready to overpower it. Only problem is that the grass has more stamina than Kendoll, he can't stick to the chase for more than a few sleepless nights before he has to flip on the blinders and pretend he was doing something else.

A story. Perhaps relevant.
(caveat: I fully acknowledge I'm as guilty as any of us of fixating on Conservative's work on CP if not more so. But I was looking at some old pictures from where I used to live and remembered a guy that used to live in the basement apartment below my crib. Reminds me of what happens here). I used to live upstairs from a guy who, for reasons never really made clear to me, one day decided that I was out to get him somehow. He would call the landlord to complain about imaginary things I had done to piss him off. He found out where I worked and called my boss to rant about what a horrible person I was. He would leave long messages on my answering machine, telling me about all the Great Things he was going to do in the Future, and boy, would He Show Me what an amazingly Smart and Talented person he was, and he Would Be Rich and Grow His Hair Back (he was apparently very hung up about going bald in his twenties. I had a ponytail down to the middle of my back) and Get A Wife who was Even More Beautiful, And Had Larger Breasts Than Any Girl I Would Ever Get With. Then I would really know how amazing he was. The key to his future success? He was going to invent a new type of clothes hamper with a great name that I will not mention for fear that it turns up in a Google search and this guy finds me again. I remember how he took a hanger that one would use to store a garden hose, nailed it to the front door of his apartment, and tell me it was part of an alarm system.

Me, being the kind of jackass that I am, would, of course, do everything I could to push his buttons, thus giving him both the attention he craved and more reason to go after me and more ammunition with which to do so. until I went out of town for a couple of weeks and he forgot about me. Never heard from him again until he moved away a year or so later. ( I used to do odd jobs for the landlord, and he hired me to clean out the guy's apartment when he left. Piles and piles of the Weekly World News and Hustler.  ).

I know it will never happen, but part of me, after reading this thought that we should go out of town for a couple of weeks, figuratively speaking. P-Foster (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know that's not 🇰🇪, right? It's somebody taking the piss out of 🇰🇪. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the upper-case L threw me. Okay, but that doesn't matter. There are a thousand other edits on CP I could have used. P-Foster (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The basic idea is good, but 🇰🇪 isn't chasing us, he's chasing everybody with a slidely different worlview than his. He's like a dumb dog barking at the mirror, and when somebody laughs loud enough at him he barks at that guy (or ladies and gentlemen in our case). So I really don't want atheism, socialism, materialism, nihilism, the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, Islam, feminism or basically every other thought older than a thousand years to dissapear, because I wouldn't wanna live in such a world. If we wouldn't be there PZ Meyers and other brave people would still make fun of him he'd just bark at them. Better we take the hit while laughing than others who would take people like him seriously. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy! I'm excited! Are you excited? Excited!
LET'S GET REEEAAAADYYYYY TO AMERICAN HISTOOOOORYYYYYYY!

(Bonus points to whoever realizes where the quote from the headline is from.) --Sid (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in time to give us something to laugh at if Kendoll is taking a break for a few months (ha! fat chance!) CP always delivers the lulz. -- 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Also, "begins on Thursday" "record-breaking enrollment is expected"? Yep. He's making the whole thing up.) -- 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that comment on enrollment a forward looking statement or is it an order? Could be be that Ken's upcoming absence is explained by his having to drive around town trying to find parents mad enough to toss their kids on the funeral pyre of batshit crazy that is Andy's blog.   Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Message for Conservative
Hoping Conservative will see this I'm linking to it here. Conservative, I know you read this page, and I have an honest question for you that does not concern this recent ballyhoo about debating. Please read Conservapedia:An Urgent Message to a Certain Conservative Member of a Certain Conservative Site. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles I wish Ed wouldn't write
Number 436 in a series. PolarBear (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about all of the above? 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is one is Ed then? (Yeah yeah, super lame but I couldn't resist.) Vulpius (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A random quote from somewhere on the internet, no references, no category. Pathetic! DouglasA is deleting all the wrong articles. 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject matter is more troubling. Given his habit of live-blogging his life, what the hell was Ed doing to inspire this article? Late Christmas shopping? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew just how Ed's mind worked - he objects to the word 'prostitute' being used, because it's too "lurid" for his kids, yes seems to think people are searching CP for 'hard-core pornography' and 'child sex trade.' Of course, in both cases, being Ed stubs, you're left none the wiser as to the subject. Here's a hint, User188 - maybe mention who the "them" are. Whatever else Ed might be, I'll tell you one thing from my alter ego's interactions with him - I wouldn't want to be in a room alone with him. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IDES OF MARCH! (Mk3)


🇰🇪 has a new operation in the planning. Notice how the plan bears an uncanny resemblance to the leaked Operation Flying Fortresses documents we received. -- 20:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)Could this mean that he has retreated from his offer of a debate? It seems like he, having seen that we would accept his offer of a joust before the castle walls, has decided that it is actually much safer to just call us fat and stupid from atop the castle walls. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We shall see. -- 21:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just realized this. Ken announced this phase II whatever yesterday. Today he announced he's taking 90 days off. Maybe the secret to upping web traffic is to get rid of Ken. Mr. Swift (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stalking a RW user
To capture some pretty stalkerish behavior over at CP. P-Foster (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What a hypocritical little shit he is. He's just finished telling me that atheists are the evil people who harass people on the internet. I guess now his big man act has been exposed he's just lashing out. -- 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rogers lacks MA-CHEESE=MO, apparently. This stuff is gold. GOLD. -- 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope Karajou looks forward to having his talk page deleted a dozen times... --Sid (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For posterity: Kendoll fantasises about leaving the basement . -- 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I swear, that's the most homoerotic thing I've ever seen Ken write. And that's saying a lot. --Kels (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, apparently oversighted. Looks like someone is at least attempting some degree of damage control... --Sid (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I have not exactly put myself forward as a "private" figure. It doesn't take much to find out a lot about me. Just ask RobS. Tell ya what 🇰🇪, here is a copy of my latest submission. If you can demonstrate even a remote understanding of the topic I will bring you up and and you can live out your fantasy of working in a real neuroscience lab. We are extending our work into schizotypal personality disorder soon, which I think would be right up your ally.

Real science is hard though. Flying kitty pictures need not apply. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, no one over there appears to be familiar with the fact that Mr. Rogers was a liberal Methodist who attended a church that openly welcomed gay members, who refused condemn homosexuality, and who argued both for the funding of PUBLICALLY FUNDED PBS and for the right of consumers to record television programs (which might harm corporations, oh my goodness). -- λινυσ (☮) 09:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a TeaBagger video in which Karajou appeared? My recollection is that he could well afford to shed a few pounds. 10:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was Karajou in the clip. However, I do have a piccy of him, looking very naff in his camos, and yes, the man has a fair old tummy on him. Actually, here's a thought Karajerk - burn all evidence of Ken's creepy stalking, or I'm posting your pic for all to see. Clock's ticking, tick, tick, tick. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid HCM perhaps you should black out the eyes like tabloid newspapers do. 10:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Black out the face at least.. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Black out his stomach. Ken would appreciate that. X Stickman (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did ask him nicely, but his reply was to demand that "Just as soon as you delete and remove from every place in the web every single negative entry you and your RW buddies have made against myself." I thought I'd be fair and offered that he if gave me a list of the the untrue, or unsubstantiated by - say CaptureBot, claims, I would remove them. That offer still stands and I'm still waiting.
 * So, as promised, and with a tabloid line across the eyes, I give you Karajerk in all his camo glory. Actually thought I'd lost the pic - was kind of Terry to give me his Google password.
 * [[file:kara.jpg]] -- Ψ Gremlin  13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite the mouth breather there.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Phoar, going to have to sit on my hands.Webbtje (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Popeye's all butt-hurt now. I wouldn't care to be a lowly editor on CP tonight. There's gonna be a-hurtin' goin' on. Ah yes, here we go: We're a biased blog, and proud, librul scum. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The mature response would be to post a much bigger photo. Webbtje (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight.....
Ken challenges RW to a debate, with a $20K price tag. Both myself and Jeeves accept. He ignores me (though I made it clear I had accepted on the terms he laid down) but emails go back and forth between himself and Jeeves. He twists around and makes excuses and eventually backs down - Jeeves wins the debate by default. Ken burns down the pages, ignores all valid criticism and childishly sneers at Trent's physical apperence from the safety of CP. Man, now that is fucking machismo. Ace McAwesome 06:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did anyone expect he would do otherwise than act like a hypocritical coward? 07:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but it's still amusing to watch him spin. 江斯顿 What is it now? 07:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have the money I cant really afford to spend it but I knew full well that Ken would never go through with it. I am just happy that Ken has been called out and has been proven, beyond all reasonable and undeniable doubt, to be a lying, disingenious, morally bankrupted, machismo-less intellectual midget who is so completely unable to compete in the market place of ideas that he must rely on criticizing other peoples physical appearences from the safety of a website where no one can challenge him. No matter what happens in the future, no matter what Ken says, we can always point to this incident and remind Ken of exactly who he is - a nobody with nothing. You lost Ken, in a big way. Ace McAwesome 07:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm glad that Ace and Jeeves don't have to fork out a ridiculous sum to debate a non-entity, in another sense it's a shame he backed out as it would have been fabulous publicity.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd debate him, but I just can't translate stupid. My brain cannot compute it. 10:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Ken never presents facts he only presents quotes. 10:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to turn the challenge back on kendoll. How about I put up money, say 2500 USD, which will be paid to a charity of Ken's choice (with appropriate vetting as already described) if kenny boy undertakes a basic fitness and obesity test (results do not matter so if he is overweight and/or unable to complete a basic fitnes test the money will still be paid)? I will find a verifiable christian in the UK to hold the money, probably my local vicar or the head of my local church. Said test to be notorised and verified by an independent attorney, costs of which I will also cover. Results will be published here and at cp, should kenny boy chose to, but no identifying information will be published, in fact if someone is willing to find an independent attorney in the US they can account for then I am willing to accept no identifying information be passed to me, I will take the word of the attorney and the fitness tester that it is kenny who has undertaken the challenge. So what do you say kenny? All you need to do is put a shout out on cp, or get robs to reply here, and I will go speak to my local vicar tomorrow. I actually know him even though I am a comitted atheist. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I love about this, is that Ken puts himself forward as somebody worth debating, a leading light amongst the creationist fuckheads, instead of some demented, over-weight loser, sitting in his mum's basement. If it was Gish issuing the challenge, that would be interesting. But sadly, all we've done here, is boost Ken's ego and give him something else to masturbate over, besides his life-size Stalker, Texas Stranger poster. Oh yes, and shown him to be a disingenuous, lying prick. But we knew that already. His desperate cries for attention should be treated with the silence and contempt they deserve. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! The crazy continues . Over to you Ace. 11:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really pathetic. The goalposts are moving faster than most F1 cars. I think we've proven beyond doubt, that we've met Ken's original debate terms; he has since backed off from debating and keeps issuing more terms in order to "debate." It's time to let this slide, because Ken's endless gibbering to the site that shall not be named, is puerile, pathetic, childish and just plain sad. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He has decide to go into hiding for 90 days . What is he Jesus? -  π    11:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus did 40 days. Ken's doing 90. He's 2.25x the man Jesus was. 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, does mean Jebus lacks ma-CHEESE-mo? -- Ψ Gremlin  13:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have 6-5 that he does not last 90 days without editing CP and 3-2 that he does some sock work, 10-1 he does it as Freedom777. -  π    11:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Ken really, really sucks at this. He boasts and boasts, but the moment somebody accepts his challenge and confronts him, he suddenly has a full schedule until mid-March (Okay, Sid, it's not hard: Hours have 60 minutes, but months don't have 60 days. Try to remember this!). Which he apparently totally didn't know when he made the challenge. Yep, it just came up during the last 24 hours. Ken suddenly received a call that completely reduces his time to even check his mails to zero for 90 days. Oh yeah, that sounds plausible! Happens to me all the time!
 * And I'm almost willing to bet that he'll keep editing as usual (sans shout-outs) while simply holding up the "if anything big happens, I'll make a cameo" backdoor he left for himself. --Sid (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was his usual style on ASoK too - the minute the heat was too much for him, he was suddenly far too "busy" for x number of days to respond. I'm pretty sure if we cross-reference his ASoK "busy periods" with his time on CP, we'll see these periods are as absent as Ken's debating skills. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess those 90 days will start tomorrow - since he has made 160+ edits already today (=in the last 8-9 hours). Also, what time zone is he in? He's been editing more or less non-stop (using the old metric of "at least one edit every hour") between 9pm and 9am according to CP Server Time, and his last edit is just half an hour old, so he may not have stopped yet. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * White rabbit is always too busy for the rationalist Alice...intellectual bunny hole Ken? --Brendiggg (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What a shame Ken didn't make his 90-day prediction last week, otherwise he could have rolled back the stone on April 24. 14:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly it is the case that Ken's writing has become much in demand, and for the next 90 days he will be busy churning out articles for various notable publications. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have to ask, why in the blue blazes does ACE have to 'do the legwork' for KEN'S challenge? I rather suspect it's that, if all else fails, Ken can claim that, short of Ace getting Jesus himself to agree do his whole 'Second Coming' bit right now, simply so he can act as the go-between, Ken can claim whoever Ace finds is not Christian/trustworthy enough, so the debate is off. 81.151.246.237 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I will point that the simple fact Ken has suddenly pulled this extra condition out his ass when it actually looked like someone is insane enough to take him up on his ridiculous 'challenge' is evidence that I'm probably right. 81.151.246.237 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all part of the International Mug of Mystery's cunning plan - he can set as many conditions as he likes, and not meeting one of them, means that he can crow from the safety of Conservapedia about how were unable to debate him. Given how he's already trounced us countless times on talk-pages (the ones which are either locked, redirected to other bull-shit articles, or editedn in Ken's mind only, because account creation has been turned off) why is he so insistent on debating us. Ken! Ken! Instead of us vandals, issue your challenge to those lardarse Atheists of America. Can't wait to hear them laugh you out of town. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken knows that nobody except for us gives a shit about CP beyond poking it for five minutes every couple of months. It's indeed all part of the plan: Make his great shouts at Dawkins/PZ/etc., knowing that they usually won't react. If they do (by mocking him), he'll just shout more until they get bored and stop reacting - VICTORY! And with us, he keeps shouting and making challenges, knowing that nobody on CP can react to them (account creation disabled, talk pages locked, people who admit that they know what he's talking about will be banned and their reaction will be burnt) - VICTORY! If we ignore him - VICTORY! If we take up his challenge, he'll just excuse himself for a few months, knowing that we'll forget about his age-old bullshit - VICTORY! At the sidelines are his redundant bullshit cherry-picked quote collections which he will consider unchallenged regardless of how many people point out glaring flaws in them - VICTORY! And of course, all evidence of any challenge will quickly be erased by him, leaving Ken with truly empty claims of debate victories that he hopes nobody will ever want to know details about. Ole! --Sid (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my favourite part of our email exchange was where he claimed we were "pleading" to debate him, because he had claimed victory in every previous encounter. When I called him on it he just went straight back to making the same claim both in email and on CP, only dropping the "every" qualifier so no amount of evidence could prove him wrong. He didn't even bother to address the facts I brought up. He's all at sea when people actually challenge him, yet somehow he has come to believe he's a great debater. The only conclusion can be he's just nuts. -- 15:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "If we ignore him - VICTORY!" Maybe we should try this again. Think I will anyway. 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes Ken reminds me of someone. Ken only lacks the police power. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * rather than a debate, or as a condition prior to debate, I would throw in a few bucks to a fund to get Ken a psychiatric review. Hamster (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought that Ken reminds me of young Arthur but he had the excuse of his age. 17:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping in well late but... 20 GRAND?? ARE YOU GUYS FUCKING NUTS?!?!? Even just to prove he wouldn't go for it, were you really prepared to risk that much? Pegasus (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It is a proffered donation to a charity, with the condition that he gets to choose the charity so that he can be sure it is worthwhile.  It has nothing to do with "winning" or "losing" the "debate".  We know there couldn't possibly be a debate with Ken anyway.  I salute your generosity.  Gauss (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's email
I received an email (two in fact) from Ken. I told him my sister and her husband are conservative Christians (which is true) and would hold the money, as required by Ken. He emailed back to say he didn't know them so my email was a waste of time. He then sent a second email to correct my spelling. 3 things wrong here: Ace McAwesome 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rich of Ken to complain about not knowing the people I'll give the money to when he is adamant about not letting anyone know anything about him even though we will be debating
 * Ken's can't spell anything without making a million changes
 * Ken has already lost.
 * Ermm, he didn't say it had to be someone he knew. In fact he was quite specific, more than once, that it had to be a christian and that was all he specified.  So the fact the people you nominated were possibly related to you is immaterial to the actual conditions of his challange.  You met his conditions.  He refused to debate with you.  He loses.  Again. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be brutally honest, we all know this condition is in there so 🇰🇪 can reduce the crowd of acceptable "Bible believing Christians" to his personal friends, his rejection of your family because he doesn't know them testifies to this. Of course if given to one of his friends you know that money will be filtered in part back to the personal bank account of Ken (and the rest to whatever personal pet projects of said friends).  Why waste the time? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you went to Ken's mum's house, traipsed down to his basement room and thrust the cheque into his Cheetos-stained chubby little fingers, he'd trip the mains, eat all the pens in the house and sever his vocal chords, and then claim victory, because you couldn't blink as rapidly as he does. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Ken made an egregious typo in his rant on Karajou's talk page. Of course, as it's an homonym an ordinary spelling checker would not flag it. Maybe he should splash out on that White Smoke software after all. Silly Ken, I laugh at your superior writing skils. 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Conservapedia Fatigue setting in at last?
I skim CP snd RW daily during the week, and once in a while on the weekends when I can. When I started following both sites about three years ago it was engaging and even fun, but for me at least, it doesn't seem that way any more. I've been wondering why I just can't get up much interest to post any more, and for me, it's about any real opportunities for engagement having withered to nothing. Two items I was reading today drove the point home. The first was Andy's latest version of his American History class. He's actually rolled back some of the more egregious bits of mis-history (mistory?), but plenty of nonsense remains. I could add example after example, inserting wit or snark, but I just can't overcome the feeling that there are better uses for my time. Back when I had an account there, I used to feel that calling out BS for what it was had a purpose, especially where the BS was being used as instructional material. Andy's allowed CP to become a such an echo chamber of a blog that there's no dissent or even dialogue anymore. From where I sit it's become a museum of wingnuttery, where we can only look at exhibits from behind the glass, and express our amazement at the arrogance, hypocrisy & stupidity for the umpteenth time. Yawn. Then there's the whole bit of Ken nonsense with the "debate". I'm glad people here called him out on it, but did anyone ever really expect any different outcome? Without a shred of snark or malice in saying this, I'm convinced that Ken is socially, emotionally, and or mentally impaired in a clinically significant way. It's not so much his "article" content as it is the way he obsessively edits them for hours & days without a break, and the way he lives for interaction with his perceived opposition through childish "red telephone" exchanges and "Letter to..." essays. I have autistic children, so I don't feel it's out of line for me to say that Ken comes across as handicapped, and that when people play into his "challenges" and respond to them, they are at best validating the battles in his fantasy world, or at worst, teasing a retarded person by egging him on. There's no real sense of accomplishment in being part of that, for me at least. I won't judge anyone here, but I finally felt a need to express a state of mind that's been troubling me. For what it's worth, Jesus or any person of true inspiration didn't have to go around setting elaborate preconditions with skeptics to discuss differing opinions about important ideas. If a belief system is worth discussing, and is truly superior in you mind and heart, then just engage people openly and discuss it with them. If you make points that challenge them and leave them wondering, good for you, and good for them too, because it may send them on a path to seeking greater knowledge for themselves. If they say something that challenges you, even to the point of instilling some doubt, then embrace that as a challenge to grow yourself, and seek your own answers to those points without treating it as battle "won" or "lost". Andy strikes me as someone unwilling to interact on that basis; Ken strikes me as someone incapable of it. I may be wrong though, so I'll wrap up my ramble with a thought, and a suggestion. The thought is that I'm feeling a sense of fatigue over the whole CP/RW back and forth because, as I see it, there really is no "back and forth" anymore; just those choosing to play it safe inside an echo chamber, and those on the outside commenting on it from a distance. From where I stand, this has all the interactive engagement of watching Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin on TV, and talking about it with like-minded friends. I've just gotten tired of how passive it feels now, and it's sapped any enthusiasm for engaging in comments if I can't engage with the people driving the comments. The suggestion is for anyone from the CP/RW community in the NJ/NYC area who reads this. I live in Middlesex County, NJ, and work in the Flatiron district of NYC. I've met Andy Schlafly, and while I disagree vehemently with many of his ideas and attitudes, he was personable and polite in person, and I'd have no problem sitting at a table with the man and just talking. I'd extend this goodwill to anyone from CP in the NYC area - Ed Poor, Terry H., and anyone else I may not be aware of. Instead of sitting down to "battle", I'd be content to sit down at a bar in NY or NJ, have some beer together, and talk. I'm certain that we'd disagree on many topics, but I might just surprise you in my agreement with you on a few. More to the point, I'd give my word that what's said there stays there - this is not about digging for nuggets of material to make fun of here, it's to try and recapture the sense of direct engagement with people I disagree with that made my time on CP interesting. If there are any takers, reach out to me here and I'll send you my email address. Andy can confirm that I'm a real person - we met at Rutgers a year ago. It would be nice to have this happen at least once, and if it does, the first round's on me. I'm also happy to talk with Ken if he'd like (since I believe he lives in Buffalo). No debate, no contest, no hidden agendas or traps. If you're reading this, Ken, my comments above are observations, not insults. I'm offering to talk with you simply as a person, not an adversary, to put a human face and voice to someone called "DinsdaleP" who's been a collection of words on CP and RW up till now. There will be no "reporting back" here if we do connect. My sole interest is in trying to restart some engagement at a human level, and if you reach out to me here, I'll share my contact info with you as a gesture of goodwill, no immediate reciprocation required. Thanks for putting up with my ramble, everyone. It's been a while, so I had to get it out of my system. --50.14.34.57 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, TLDR, but to answer the question in the title - yeah, I think so. It is seriously boring to focus on Ken's one man clown parade, and they aren't able to register/keep any new blood for hijinks.  I thought the place would get better without TK's banhammer, but in a site that exists only for ridicule, nobody serious wants to sign up.    --Leotardo (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, is it time for the "I'm bored/disenchanted with CP, therefore everyone should be" thread again? Boy, time really does fly. --Kels (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Touche, Kels. That really was pretty whiny - apologies all around.  --DinsdaleP (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ordinarily I give CP scant attention, but I just surveyed its recent changes. 'Twas an eye-opener to see who the contributors are. CP watchers, I salute you. Are you beginning to get a sense of how it feels to be the last knight of the First Crusade, watching a collection of cups for the better part of a thousand years, and no sociable excuse to get out the corkscrew? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see much a point in direct engagement with anyone from CP. I've had interesting chats with people I disagree with, but they're only interesting if one of us can learn something. In their case I don't think that's possible. CP is now about the lulz, nothing more. The comedy is a bit limited right-now, and it was definitely better when there was a two-way process, but the increasing insanity at CP rendered that impossible. Ace's chats with PJR are a good example of the best that can come out of it. You'll get to drink beer and talk for an entire night, yet neither will come away with a new perspective or any additional knowledge. You'll just confirm what is already known, and they'll refuse to accept anything that contradicts their pathologically-held beliefs. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 00:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no illusions about people changing their outlooks - we're talking about people so set in their ways and closed to reason that it really does border on the pathological. On the other hand, all I know about these people is learned through the filter of CP, and that seems like a very one-dimensional viewpoint even if it's of their own making.
 * My job involves a lot of negotiation and listening to people whose views and priorities can differ greatly from mine, since we have to find ways to work together to achieve common goals. There's nothing I have as a common goal with CP, but if I can truly give any of them a fair hearing and see if we have common ground, say as parents, then I know it's not just talk on my end, and that's worth an evening to find out.  --DinsdaleP (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TL;DR on the OP. Sure, idiocy is getting dull, but as long as Andy is being an idiot (and there's no sign of that stopping any time soon) there'll be plenty of idiocy on which to comment. 's off but imminently he'll pro-brain... no that doesn't work. Damn. Basically, as long as CP and WND compete to be the most idiotic conservative source on the internet, there'll be a role for CP here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All you people tl;dring: read the bloody thing, you're missing the important bit. Webbtje (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, lots of editors did try and engage in polite debate at CP and pointed out their mistakes. However, these were dismissed, the 90:10 rule was implemented and the editors banned. Andy did not ban many for discussion but relied on his goons to politely remove them from the site.  11:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting as well that some people here have engaged in off-site chats in the past. I read the entire post and don't see any real reason to engage certain types of people in discussion. CP is an almost forgotten backwater on the Internet. It's not as if there's much to be gained from discussion. Back in the day when the population was higher (and insanity lower) there was a possibility of decent discussion, but right now anyone editing at CP must know exactly what they're getting in to! It's not as if moderate conservatives are likely to be editing at CP - at least not unless they're blind or have ulterior motives. What exactly has been overlooked, Webbtje? Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 16:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What was overlooked by some was the content of the post which involved trying to have a chat with Andy. The interesting bit. Webbtje (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If anybody wants to give CP sysops their contact information, they are free to do so, just like they are free to amputate their own leg with a rusty saw. You can do it, but it's definitely not advisable.
 * They will share any information among themselves, and people like Karajou love to drag things into real life. Would you like your employer to receive a phone call by a concerned citizen about how one of their employees is a cyberterrorist and how they will also face consequences if it comes out that their work computers were used for said cyberterrorism? Hmmmm...
 * (And no, I'm not exaggerating. If you have no idea what I'm thinking about, I really advise you to either poke Trent or Ames or to take a closer look at the SDG/TZB files.)
 * The thing is... there are quite a few people here who think that quite a few people there might be okay to chat with (as long as all political or religious issues are left untouched). However, most people here will be happy just leaving it at this hypothetical stage because most CP sysops will quite likely want to do more than just chat about the weather. The last time Ed brought up a potential real-life meeting with somebody from RW, the first thing he did was calling TK as reinforcements and saying he'd bring a camera. And Ken... seriously, you think that Ken would agree to a meeting? He just chickened out of a debate he himself suggested. Unless I missed something, not even the other CP sysops ever got him to admit who he is, not even in their own, closed discussion group. Nobody will ever see him. Ever.
 * There is of course a possibility that you'll just have a friendly chat and that you discover that Andy/Ed/whoever likes kittens and that nothing bad will happen afterwards. God knows I would like it to be that way. But don't expect many people here to join you on your quest. --Sid (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The original post makes a silly suggestion because there is nothing that we want from anyone at CP. I find their brand of conservative politics to be divisive, intolerant, hypocritical and cultist.  Do I think we could all sit down for a beer (assuming they drink) and discover that they have favorite colors, love their pets and have dreams of a better future?  No, because those things are irrelevant to why I have any interest in them at all.  I don't want to be friends with any of them, I'm just interested in examining how they think politically.  --Leotardo (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A whole different brand of stupid
"Don't expect this story to appear on any newspaper front page." grumbles JPratt. Dude. There's uprising going on in north Africa, and you want a non-story about how 25 people stood in the wrong place and were peacefully removed to a police station then let go on the front pages. Could you once please post some broken news that doesn't trigger mass braincell apoptosis from sheer stupidity? Thanks. -- 03:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DAMN those lie-bur-uls for holding a peaceful protest! THIS is how they should protest! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear christ on a cracker. he's outdone himself . I don't know if JPratt or the article he links to is dumber. How is it even possible to simultaneously hold the opinions that the "Hollywood elites" have politically correct quotas for African-American nominees, and that they're also racists who won't nominate African-American talent? Only someone as moronic as JPatt could possibly manage it. -- 03:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just Conservapedians throwing conniption fits about such matters. See, for example, this piece, in which the columnist throws a tantrum because, i.a., a story about 20-odd anti-foreclosure protesters being arrested in Los Angeles was not splashed all over the national news. 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know 'bout you boys, but I'm pure white. Any chance we can get some nigger in this here thread to make it look like we care about darkies? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm. That joke managed to offend even me. Congrats... -- 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Have you ever watched an episode of House? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a mixed message at best. My previous comment was meant to be ironic, and if it caused offense, then I apologise. It was meant to be sarcastic, but I suppose this is one of those things you can't be sarcastic about. Yet. And that's part of the point. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did someone call for a nigger? 05:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC) PS, I was obviously not offended by SR's comment
 * I was thrown for a moment, I thought tea-baggers got arrested. That would be front page material.--193.200.150.152 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In his mind the liberal media are covering up the fact that liberals were arrested for protesting against conservative bigots. Clearly, this is far more important to him, than the goings-on of a bunch of wogs in a country he can't find on a map. -- Ψ Gremlin  09:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to admit there is room enough for two stories on the the front page, N. Africa and Tea arrests. However, since millions marched without incident and libiots getting arrested is a badge of honour, the commie media would never report. --Suffering Succotash
 * The absolute best part of this "Tea Party meeting" is that in reality the meeting was "the 'Billionaire’s Caucus,' an annual meeting put on by the Koch Brothers and other corporate entities and conservative movement operators." CP admits what we all know.  --Leotardo (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the Tea Party. Just another patsy for big business. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tardo, I agree that those conservative billionaires are so sneaky. Also, I love the unbiased NYT op-ed stating that Soros, openly, contributes to causes that raise his taxes. Is he not a stand up guy? Though no mention of his elaborate offshore tax shelters. Do you think that was left out deliberately?--67.159.44.97 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A section not about Ken
Ok, I lied, it is. Hopefully, now that we've once again exposed him as a coward and a liar, we can go back to ignoring him.

That said, I see he couldn't resist crapping all over the main page again. This new Article of the month (to go with the featured article, the essay of the month, and all the other crap) reads like it was written by an 8-year-old, and as for the intro on the main page, it's a particularly hideous example of Ken being unable to hold a thread together. From an intro sentences, we're suddenly faced with the fact that TrueOrigin commented on a debate between somebody called Craig and somebody called Zindler. He really is an awful writer. makes you think, if he prefers a written debate to a spoken one, just how bad is he at speaking? -- Ψ Gremlin  11:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken? He is not editing for another 89 days, can't be him. -  π    11:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He needs to switch the order of the second and third paragraphs for it to make any sense. -  π    11:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather admire the introductory statement of the bleeding obvious: "American Atheists is an American atheist group . . ." Tylersboy (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Mr "I'm-too-busy-for-the-next-60-days" has almost blanked RC again. Lying skunk. -- Ψ Gremlin  12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh look, the Basilica of Sant'Apollinare Nuovo! What a world treasure and something worthy to show and write about in an encyclopedia. Except in CP-land it plays third billing to a stolen picture of a flying cartoon pig, someone's creepy stalker obsession with PZ Myers, and an "article of the month" with brilliant writing such as "American Atheists is an American atheist group...". Yet again, CP isn't an encyclopedia, is it?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were, whoever posted the basilica picture would probably know enough French to translate "Ravenna" and "sixth century". Tylersboy (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was resident art thief Joaquin. 'Nuff said. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservative molls
IIRC wasn't Rob getting all gooey over the Coultergeist once upon a time? Just wondering - because it seems as if Jpatt and Karajerk are equally gooey and weak-kneed over Palin and Bachmann. Must be hard when you have so few women you're allowed to fantasise over, especially when Mama S is one of them. I've left Ed out, because I don't think Bristol is running for office. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've actually seen it argued that conservatism is the superior philosophy because conservative women are hot like Coulter, Bachmann and Palin, while liberal women are like Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright.


 * There's two responses to that:
 * Ooooo, there's a basis for a political philosophy -- the physical attractiveness of it's adherents.
 * Have you seen Dennis Kucinich's wife? MDB (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically the same classification applies if you say "brainless, bigoted bimbos" and "strong, intelligent, independent women". Anyway, I think Hillary is kinda hot - I mean she's 60-odd, so allow for that. Btw, Kucinish is rich, right? -- Ψ Gremlin  15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two responses to MDB's two responses:
 * 1. Couldn't agree more.
 * 2. But redheads do tend to interfere with my rational and critical faculties. Tylersboy (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kucinich is actually one of the least wealthy members of Congress. MDB (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * She's 31 years younger than him. That's like me dating a 6 year old. Whatever happened to the half-your-age-plus-seven rule? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did someone refer to Ann Coulter as "hot"? Jesus. I guess if old Phyl' is your basis for measuring, you might have something, but otherwise, no. Just no. DickTurpis (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ms. Kucinich is British, that is why she is hot. 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have yet to understand why Ann Coulter is considered hot. There are junkies who are less emaciated than her, and calling her "horse-faced" is insulting... if your name is "Secretariat" or "Seattle Slew". MDB (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're allowed wives then Ms Obama is pretty hot. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nancy Reagan must have been hot, TK threw himself on top of her (so he says). 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey hey hey no joking about TK since (s)he cannot defend him/herself while (s)he's getting that gender reassignment surgery done. (Good thing "Terry" is androgenous, eh, though I'd go with "Terri" with a little heart over the "i".) C ® ackeЯ

Dennis Kucinich and Barrack Obama both married "up" in terms of physical attractive. Obama not far; he's a reasonable handsome fellow with a slightly dorky face (it's the ears.) Kucinich went way up. MDB (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lways had a bit of a thing for Hillary to be honest. And if we are going to compare liberal women and conservative women then I give you - Angelina Jolie, Natalie Portman, Jane Fonda - shall we continue through the entire canon of hollywood beauties who are 'liberal' and democrat? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And fit? 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on whether or not Berlusconi was right? 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our side has the only genuine hottie in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY), though Kelly Ayotte (R, NH) may be in the running too. I've only seen one picture of her. DickTurpis (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as hot men go... the Repub's have Scott Brown and Aaron Schock. MDB (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Brown looks like an 80s American TV show caricature, and Schock just looks like a pleb. 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To each his own. I wouldn't kick either of them out of my bed for voting against the health care bill.
 * Anyway, hotness is relative. We're talking politicians, not underwear models. Once you get to the point you're old enough to get national political notice, you're probably past your physical prime, anyway. MDB (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as hot politician go German Sahra Wagenknecht looks quite nice. And as far as hot British redheads go I've got my favorite - her twin sister doesn't look bad either (ok I'd be surpised if). --Ullhateme (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that Wagenknecht is an old-school communist, easily the most leftist of our current MPs. And let's not forget wp:Ségolène Royal and wp:Yulia Tymoshenko, both center-left as well. Röstigraben (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am trying to resist adding to this, but must second the nomination for Ségolène Royal and put in a word for Aung San Suu Kyi. Tylersboy (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this is but generally those communist terrorists from back in the 70s (RAF especially) were kinda hot and while knowing that most of them were or are killers, this kinda creeps me out. Oh and Ségolène Royal, yeah, easily the hottest politician in Europe. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a real shame she has shit for brains. Webbtje (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well she seems see the theory of communism as right but not the governmental form - at least as I can remember from hearing here talk. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Royal? Her policies were pure, thoughtless, naive populism. I mean, fuck, there was nothing inherently wrong with them, but they more or less amounted to chucking money everywhere willy-nilly without even beginning to think where it was going to come from - and this is in an already very highly centralised and very highly taxed country. Though I haven't had a look at any 'philosophie' she might have shat out, I'm not inclined to believe they're anything worth reading. Webbtje (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lynne Featherstone is the best-looking female MP in the UK parliament. There was a top ten done last year where she wins. Second the year before too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No wonder we are astound at what the other one is saying, we're talking about different people. I have honestly no clue what Royal's policies are, I was refering to Wagenknecht's. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have just remembered, (a) that this thread was originally about conservative ladies, and (b) Rachida Dati. Don't really see her as a Conservapedia pin-up girl though. Tylersboy (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, fair enough - I realised I hadn't actually mentioned who I thought had shit for brains quite soon after. Webbtje (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Conservative hotties have been discussed already, here.  20:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

White Hole Kensmology
Creationists seeking to explain why the world seems to have experienced billions of years of radioactive decay, or that light seems to have travelled to us from stars billions of light years away, might do well to study the phenomenon of Ken DeMeyer. By some previously unknown tenet of relativistic physics he seems to have experienced 90 days worth of time in what seems to the rest of us as mere minutes. I suggest spiriting him away to the discovery institute for further study. -- 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In an email he told me he might be busy for the next few years! This is amazing! Ace McAwesome 21:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it can we look into the strange anamoly that bullshit gravitates around him, but the light of decent thought does a 180° when in proximity - because that really is unique. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Art imitating Life
I give you... the Crazy Ken Band. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to think that the face on the banners behind the stage belongs to Ken. I more imagine Ken's head being something like this interspersed with random footage of Warner Bros. cartoons, random dog barks and ringing phones, and holocaust footage with a strange mandelbrot overlay. Oh, and probably some footage of naked guys enjoying completely innocent male bonding in steam rooms and saunas. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a Honda performance fan and Civic Si owner, I have to say, this is cool. Except the Ken part. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed "This Article is Too Vague" Poor
In the last few days on Wikipedia, Mr. Poor has been roaming around articles, complaining about vagueness. This would normally be fine, except that this is coming from Ed. You'd think that someone who has earned the nickname "Two Meters" and writes articles that contain only vague quotes wouldn't have very high expectations of others' articles, but nope. ~Super Hamster  Talk 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then he ponies up with this masterpiece at CP. Ace McAwesome 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the funny thing about this comment is the very first sentence of the article says "Sherry is fortified wine". Ace McAwesome 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Spinoff? Ace McAwesome 00:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how annoying is the fact that he still cannot put in proper references? 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What the hell are those? Articles? Just when I thought that my point couldn't have been better proven, he creates those "articles". Right after I made this thread, too. That gives me the creepy feeling that he's watching and messing with us. Okay, well, everything he does gives me a creepy feeling, but that's beside the point. ~Super Hamster  Talk 00:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, if it makes CP look worse, and makes Edmund Poor the Younger look even more incompetent, then he can take the piss all he likes. --Kels (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed is one to criticize others about vagueness, I had to read the sherry article twice and his comment 4 or 5 times before I could work out what the fuck he was going on about. I think he would like the article to specify when Sherry become a protected name only for fortified Shiraz produced in Southern Spain. -  π    07:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or does everything Ed posts seem like a comment about what is happening in his life? So when he adds "Satan is the force that loves to find the guilt and weakness in people, to humiliate them with it, to convince them that, because they are not good, God cannot love them." you just know that he's had a bad week. 09:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The scary thing is that Ed can moan about WP articles being "vague" (Ed speak for "please dumb them down to a level I can understand" in which case WP would read like "See John. John drinks wine. This is special wine. Where does special wine come from, John?") and then create "spinoff" with absolutely no sense of irony. Still, at least he's stopped running to Andy to list his latest emissions. Oh, and whoever said Ed liveblogs what's he's currently reading, watching, or thinking about, just made him a million times more creepy. Still, I can't wait to see Ed's entry for brothel, seeing as he redlinked it. Especially as prostitutes are too lurid for him. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the first article I clicked on wasn't vague, he's just an idiot. Take wp:Energy crop: he writes "I couldn't figure out, from a quick glance at the article, what sorts of "crops" are actually used to produce "energy"." You'd practically have to be retarded to write that.  They list so many crops--charts with crops!--that what he writes only makes sense if he read the first sentence of the article and nothing more.  --Leotardo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I believe that Ed is a deeply tormented soul. All those pretty young girls with bulging vulvas probably cause him to beat his penis into a pulp on a regular basis in order to exorcises his inner demons and resist their wanton charms. 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed's CP Contributions are always a good source of amusement. It's shows that his wonderful combination of stupidity, ignorance and laziness isn't just something he does at CP. One can only wonder what he's like in real life. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jan 2011 at Conserva(tive)pedia
When looking at the number of edits and editors, one could conclude that this was the best month for Conservapedia since Aug 2010. But that is only partly true:

🇰🇪 was responsible for an unprecedented share of the edits, and the number of editors was inflated by a short influx of contributors (mostly trolls, I'm afraid).

But this boost of activity was short-lived, and so the number of active editors are already dropping. Perhaps when they become pathetically low again, the doors to Andy's empire will be opened again for a moment...

Even the switch to night-mode became (more) arbitrary: in earlier days, it was at least automatically switched on at 1:30 a.m. Nowadays, it's all up to Andy. As account creation is closed, that's not much of a problem for the site.

13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the edits per month include deleted edits? 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. My guess is that if you counted all the deleted revisions, 🇰🇪 would be responsible for as much as 50% of CP activity. -- 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

post hoc ergo propter hoc
Classical fallacy. But nevertheless: a couple of hours after reporting CP's approach to account creation (see above), the create account button appears for the first time since Jan 26, 2010 at Conservapedia. :-) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Revisions
Generally, when a number of revisions is deleted, there is no way for an outsider to see who made them. However, when the revision was patrolled, it appears in the patrol-log - and as the revisions of sysops are automatically patrolled, this log shows us how many contributions a sysop has made - at least since July 2008, when the patrol feature was introduced at Conservapedia.

Though Ken is the clumsiest of this bunch, he isn't the sneakiest. This title can only go to : 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How does DouglasA fit in? He has deleted dozens of articles. 16:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about user edits that were deleted, not articles deleted by users. Since most of DouglasA's edits were maintenance, and the pages he deleted were other people's work, I doubt he'd rate very highly. 江斯顿 What is it now? 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Denyse O'Leary
Denyse O'Leary over at William Dembski's aborted blog project has apparently been pestered by 🇰🇪 to spam his obesity links. The "rave" review can be seen here. It basically amounts to:


 * I have a friend who is insisting I write about this
 * Here is his quote
 * I really hope the debate doesn't "degenerate" into this kind of thing

So will the embarrassment of Ken's "friends" make him change tactics? Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. This was a victory with a capital V. Operation Shola Grasslands is rapidly gaining traction. Ole! Ole! Ole! -- 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it's on Uncommon Descent, After the Bar Closes will have some coverage, for those that want the link here. It is always fun to watch people who aren't completely desensitized to the idiocy and insanity respond. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That should be "absolutely insists that I write about this". 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that should be "threatened to call the FBI if I don't want to write about this." 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from but my comment referred to what was written. Also Ken is not up to calling the FBI, he would have to give his name and address. 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd think at this point she'd know how to format photos on her articles so it doesn't screw with the text. --Leotardo (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Make him change tactics? HA! Observe how Ken indeed boasts about this triumph. --Sid (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's time to side by side the main Atheism and Obesity sharticle. Sigh. 18:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. The Assfly and Douglas Adams tag team to hit 🇰🇪 square in the MA-CHEESE-MO. That's got to hurt. -- 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha is right! Ken doesn't know when to quit - Assfly and Doug are like, 'Okay, sorta funny when it was pissing off RW, but really...stop it.  It's not funny and you're embarrassing us."  Ken - telling the same "joke" over and over is lame.  Use those formidable intellectual and creative powers of yours to come up with some new satire that will equally embarrass you and CP in new ways.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Full of win on so many levels. Ken's ramblings being obliterated and Andy thinking his trouncing of global warming should be kept at the top. 19:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how it begins with "Along the lines of religion and health...", a phrase which smacks of Ken. 22:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Denyse O'Leary and Those Fat, Fatter, Fattest Atheists
Just wondering when Conservative is going to learn and read and right (sic). The Denyse O'Leary "article" contains at least 3 spelling/grammatical errors. Andru often calls the kettle black for spelling, but doesn't seem to police his own minions (onions). Errors per sentence are practically 1:1. Oh My Mithra! (Mothra) Jimaginator (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Banhammer in 5, 4...
Douglas Adams has violated the prime directive by drawing attention to Ken's insanity in public. This should be funny. -- 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He had a good run, deleting half the site and all. There's no stopping Ken which is great, because the shit he churns out and sticks on the front page is the equivalent of sticking a big sign on the front of the site that reads "Hi, welcome to Conservapedia, a website run by retards, for retards." 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * CP is now, in total reality, Ken's site. Ace McAwesome 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except when Andy occasionally pops by to remove his droppings under the guise of "trimming." 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But that only happens when Ken's turds interfere with public appreciation of Andy's own rectal spewings. -- 23:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is Ken's site now. --Leotardo (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's weather reports
I get that every time there is snow somewhere in the United States during winter, Andy is going to blog about it. Leave aside this makes him look like he has no understanding of climate change, out of all the things he can blog over and over, why does he consider this to be important? I can understand reporting a couple of snowstorms, but he devotes multiple MPR items to the same storm, ignoring other 'new of interest to conservatives not covered by the lamestream media'. --Leotardo (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now is the winter of Andy's discontent... MDB (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * . . . Made glorious summer by Ken's flying pork? Tylersboy (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You win not one, not two, but three, count 'em, three internets for that. MDB (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In Andy's world, if he writes it enough, and if somebody reads it to him often enough, it becomes true. It's times like this when I wonder which is better - the old CP, where people could call Andy on his bullshit, thereby normally ratcheting the crazy up several notches as he defends is position; or the new CP, where you have Andy's pure, unadulterated and true crazy on display. I know which version is sadder. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah. I really did LOL at the Ken's flying pork line. Well done, that man. Have an internet. -- 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated; not sure where I'm going to keep all these internets. Tylersboy (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have thought he'd find a better flying pig photo than the one he chose. It would have been even better if he had photoshopped Myers face on it, but I don't expect Ken to actually be amusing.  --Leotardo (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken is not creative. Every image he posts on CP is culled from elsewhere on the internet. His "articles" are largely a collection of other people's quotes joined with his own brand of shit glue. For him CP is nothing more than an electronic scrapbook. 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Internet is nothing more than his scrapbook. Just look at his user pages on CP & Ask. 09:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

He's still at it, adding a swipe at Al Gore. Is "by claiming gloabal warming" even correct English? The best part about it, is the more Andy yells "It's cold, so there can't be global warming!" the more he puts his monumental ignorance on display. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, "claiming gloabal warming" is not correct English - but the typo is all yours, Psy. 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it's a view shared by a large number of people. I've lost track of the times someone's said something along the lines of "Brrrr. So much for global warming, eh?" These days I just punch them in the throat. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I always find it odd with the CP folks that they embrace ignorance and trumpet it loudly. I know with the wingnut crowd the "It's snowing, no global warming" is doctrine, but what about mainstream conservatives?  --Leotardo (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy the fckn idiot
Andy : "snowfall is correlated with cold weather". True, snow happens in cold weather, but correlation is not causation: "If global warming is still happening, why are some areas experiencing record snowfall events? As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988. The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century" This guy doesn't know basic fucking science. I also love "I'm angry at the world my life is shit" Karajou acting like an asshole to a polite question. Keep it up, Anger Bear - you might think you're just running off vandals, but really you just make the place unpleasant. --Leotardo (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Andy just confirms that he really is incredibly dense: "PhineasR", snowfall is correlated with cold weather, and much snowfall is a counterexample to the liberal claim of dangerous global warming. Here we observe events and data with an open mind. Sadly, in what passes for Andy's mind the "data" are not much more than "Me cold. It snow. Me not hot. Global warming false. Me cold. Mummy home. Me want bitty now."
 * Soon to be banned user makes the mistake of trying to make Andy see sense. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I surprised?
Old Terry Chuck-Arse makes an infrequent edit to MPR and it is solely to spam link his Examiner blog. Some people are just so predicatble. 12:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the stats Larron's so helpfully provided, I get the impression that that's all Hurlbut uses CP for these days. At least he has the decency to float his turds off-site, unlike Ken who smears them all over the mainpage. -- Ψ Gremlin  12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly because he makes money that way. Being paid for your drivel is better than just having a free host for it. --Sid (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't 🇰🇪 boasting about getting paid for his emissions?  09:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor Joaquin
If he's looking for a free and frank exchange of opinion, then he's really looking in the wrong place. JM apparently still hasn't realised that even his fellow sysops don't read or care about CP. It's just conservatwitter where they can ragedump. -- 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he has left it too late, he is much too old to try wetbacking. 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the question "Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?" supposed to make sense? --Leotardo (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it as "Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for us?" 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that too, but I still don't understand. Too late for what?  Citizenship?  Amnesty?  Border-crossing?  Finding love?  --Leotardo (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he capitalized US, so I am assuming he means "United States", however I still unsure of his question. Too late for immigration reform?  Too late to curb illegal immigration?  Too late to immigrate?  He "argument" for Yes consisting of the single sentence of "In my humble opinion: yes." also tell people nothing.  A debate isn't initiated by one side arguments being nothing more than a vague simple answer, gotta tell us WHY Joaquin.  --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love for someone to put in the counterpart, "In my humble opinion, no." Or to go on and on about how it's not too late for illegal immigrants to find love.  --Leotardo (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now; he clearly means, "Is it too late for another Operation Wetback?" 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I said. :) 12:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a page that hasn't been updated recently
Conservapedia terms - Andy's slacking. 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I started to compose a response to the list, but I imagine anything I could say about it has been said before. --Leotardo (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Conservative insights are no longer developing at quite so exponential a rate as heretofore. There are some gems on the list with which I was previously unacquainted, for example: Gunaphobia (sic), Holocaust cause denier, and Minister’s son, the last of which has a special interest for me, as I’m one myself. It very rightly celebrates the breed's tendency toward “extraordinarily productive . . . accomplishment”, but I was surprised to find Gordon Brown and Captain Kidd included with apparent approval amongst the high-flyers. Tylersboy (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if they will include Cesare Borgia in their list of ministers' sons. 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Nietzsche. Tylersboy (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was growing up, we called them "PK's" (for "Preacher's Kid".) They were often hellions.
 * As an aside, I used to play Dungeons and Dragons with my preacher's son (and other friends). We did all night games, and, as teenage boys do, could get a bit noisy (translate that as "capable of waking the dead".) We were playing in a camper behind the pastor's home one night, and were so loud, I got the interesting experience of being told by my own pastor to "shut the hell up!" I think there was a switch in his brain that went from "calm spiritual leader" to "pissed-off dad". MDB (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

🇰🇪 does an Ed
WTF? Jack Hughes (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally it's worth going through the history. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The following pages link to Generalized linear model --Sid (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's because it's the method Gallup use in their analysis. Of course the first line immediately tells you that it has been written by Ken but I do love the version I've uploaded (right). 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll is fantasising about his university career again. Seems like he majored in things he'd need to claim expertise at Conservapedia. -- 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 🇰🇪, why don't you impress us all by actually trying to describe some of these concepts in your own words rather than one sentence cut-and-paste jobs. I would be really impressed if you could demonstrate an understanding of multivariate statistics, very few undergrads manage such an understanding. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The TeX skills are also very impressive. -  π    22:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wery impressive, Ken. Wery impressive...mindfuck.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tmtoulouse, Ken has heard your prayers. Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Mr. Swift (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Conservapedia 90 day editing sabbatical commences barring big news events
Sure Ken, suuuuuurue I bet $20K you can't stay away for 90 days. Ace McAwesome 22:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He gave himself an escape hatch. You lose. 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it because he has nothing else in his life except CP. But it would be fascinating to see what the site looks like after a few weeks. --Leotardo (talk)
 * Considering his last important event that drove him back to CP (about 5 seconds after he declared he wasn't going to edit) was that one of his internet buddies found a picture of a member of American Atheists wearing a funny costume, that bar is pretty damn low. My only question is will he be back tomorrow, or will he managed to make it all the way to thursday? -- 23:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a trustworthy, Origin of Species believing atheist if you want an intermediary to hold the money, Ace.  23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken lasted about 1.5 hours. Ace McAwesome 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. Another stunning proof of white hole kensmology. Why doesn't he just block himself for 90 days to keep himself honest? -- 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, he's burnt his user page to get rid of the pesky 90 days thing. What goes on in his mind, I wonder? It's like watching a rodent in a wheel. -- 00:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple, really - he sincerely believes he has everyone snowed. Ken is like a four-year old playing hide and seek. Presently, he's crouching behind a coffee table, giggling over his ingenuity. 江斯顿 What is it now? 00:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But God sees! 10:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny-sad. --Leotardo (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 05:00 in the morning and he's still going. Doesn't obesity lead to "difficulty sleeping"? 10:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anti-kendoll sentiment rising at CP?
Is Karajou calling Kendoll a clown or does he somehow think he's insulting RW? It's hard to tell with someone like popeye, whose grasp of the language isn't exactly stellar. In any case, he's burnt all of Kendoll's wandalism. Are people at CP finally starting to see Kendoll for what he is, a mentally ill loner who has invented an entire fantasy life for himself? -- 00:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was wondering what the fuck that was all about also. Are we the clowns and the Ken's writing is the audience? Ace McAwesome 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always though of Ken as the clown prince of CONservapedia. In this case, however, I'm not so sure that it would be bad either way. 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While there probably is some anti-Ken sentiment over there, this sounds more like a "don't feed the trolls" effort. Well, that and an excuse for Kara to hose down his talk page. 江斯顿 What is it now? 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given this edit by Karajou to his talkpage, I'm starting to think he was referring to Ken. 01:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought pretty much everyone knew that story was a hoax. 02:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Intends to be humorous but isn't; most people regard it as slightly sad; grown man trying to stay young; designed to appeal to children but actually comes off as creepy? Surely the clown of CP is Ed "bad touch" Poor? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kendoll is a clown and he did not know it. -- 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: off-topic: Wait, so according to Karajou's story, Einstein was a Christian. Wow. Do they even read what they write? -- 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if there's one thing that all religious people have in common it's not letting facts get in the way of good story. -- 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Anger Bear seriously expect Ken to stop dancing for us? Then he'd just be out there, alone, spinning in the ether, taxing harder a spam circle that is slowly realizing that the guy has something wrong with him. --Leotardo (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one Kowardjerk! We've not had one of those dumb stories at CP for a while!  How about a 'parable' ending with "this parable actually happened" as an encore?   08:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the person raised as a non-conformist and non-practicing Jew, but who also read the bible, and who was forced to flee Germany due to his Jewish ancestory and who studied in Switzerland somehow got into a debate with a German professor at a German university over 30 years before hitler rose to power wp:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein? Way to go karajerk.  If your evidence for your faith is as strong I'm not surprised you are a very angry person.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen that tract before on various Christian blogs and was going to make those same points but you beat me to it, OGus. In addition the student also admits to being a Christian and I can find no record of Einstein ever publishing a book God vs. Science, let alone in 1921. As this seems to be attaining the status of urban myth truth perhaps we should have our own refutation. 09:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, I really should read the thread in detail before posting. 09:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Perhaps one of our Germans could comment on when Celsius ousted Fahrenheit in Germany. 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From a quick 5-minute research that seemed to happen after or during WWII, but definitly ended in 1960 as the DIN-norm confirming that the metric system of the International System of Units went "official" (quite ironic to say that because the usage of it isn't law but simple "Yeah, let's all use one thing"). As far as I can remember in some labs Kelvin is still used. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As with many things, it's what this parable doesn't say that's worth noting. Besides Karajerk's stupefying ignorance at accepting Eistein as Christian, it also seems to imply that whoever spreads this meme doesn't have a suitable, or as well known, Christian scientist to hang the tale on. Just sayin'. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god, please please please let Conservapedia start to push the "Einstein was Christian" thing. Please!  --Leotardo (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that story incredibly stupid anyway? If evil is the absence of god, then god is the good. If evil and good are opposites (as it has to be as much is light is also the absence darkness (because there's light!)), god is the absence of evil, and as we already have a word for god (good) which is the direct opposite to the duality of the concept, why should we use the word "god" again? Not only that this "argument" makes god irrelevant, it also depersonifies him making him a pure concept and as that proveable scientificly (so Karajou agrees with Dawkins?). Also, what is good? People always have asked this question. In Christianity good is defined as "What God told us to do" - so not only is god good, he also defines the good and therefore defines himself - and the absence of himself. This is so circular that I'm getting the feeling I'll have to vomit soon. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why am I getting 403 forbidden notices whenever I click on a CP article?
I am used to getting 404's occasionally when the site is down but this 403 business is new to me. DamoHi 05:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of people, especially from the UK, get 403 errors lately. As they seem oddly correlated with range-blocks at CP, it is suspected that they are refusing connections to IPs used by members of RW. I never edited CP using my new wifi at home, but after editing here once not logged in, I can no longer access CP from my wifi, plugged in no problem, go figure. -  π    05:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only do I get that regularly in Italy, but I got 403 in Poland too, from an IP address (and likely full ranges of IP addresses) never used to edit nor visit CP. Editor at CPmały książe 08:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even with the technical illiteracy over at CP, is it possible to fuck-up an Apache server so that it gives 403 errors randomly? Or must this be a concerted effort to range block the world from even seeing their 'site'?   08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is possible, but they seem very targeted. -  π    08:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I get them from home (Where I once vandalised CP) but not from my clean work IP. Also from several other IP's vandalised from are blocked. Ace McAwesome 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quite sporadic for me. Initially I assumed assfly had worked out how to use .htaccess files and has been to somewhere like Country IP Blocks but I suspect he just randomly adds IPs to the list. Is he on shared hosting? If so then he's probably going into cPanel (or similar) and plugging random ranges into the friendly "block IP" screen based on recent IP blocks. 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You've done it now Crundy! Why doesn't the Arsefly simply make a .htaccess allow file listing himself, Kowardjerk, 🇰🇪, Bad Touch, the Prattster and Knobs, and simply be done with the thing?  (although he'd have to allow clickbots too or they'd never have any pageviews)  09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually given that the error comes after the socket connection, the attempt to access the page might count as a hit. -  π    12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The technicalities rather go over my head, so please forgive what may prove to be laughable ignorance, but if CP is blocking the IPs of Rationalwikians, how is it that I do, very, very occasionally, manage to connect from home but generally find myself blocked? Tylersboy (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're probably getting an IP from a different range. My ISP seems to have three different blocks of IP addresses. One of them gets 403 errors and the other two are fine. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP address you get can be based on all sorts of things. Using the same modem I have an unblocked IP when plugged in with my desktop and a blocked one when connected on my laptop via the Wi-Fi. Now that is a little weird. -  π    12:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) It depends what type of IP you have. Most residential IPs in the UK are dynamic so you might be assigned one that is not on their block list. I use BT and notice that my IP is reported from many different places in the northwest, you can check yourself out at http://whatismyipaddress.com/. I've just done that myself and it reports that I'm in Edinburgh, yesterday my targeted ads seemed to think that I was in Warrington (which is a lot closer). 12:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, my IPs are not even close. My desktop is 202.***.***.*** and my laptop sitting right next to it is 122.***.***.*** -  <font face=times color=black>π    12:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the responses. Though I may be none the wiser, I am now much better informed. Tylersboy (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

NC Conwention
Can anybody point me to the "prediction" Assfly is alluding to in his MPR shattage? C ® ackeЯ 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't answer that, but as far as the WIGO itself goes, yeah, North Carolina is on the liberal side, especially for the South. It's no Massachusetts, but it's got a pretty strong high-tech industry, and high-tech workers tend to be social liberals and fiscal moderates. Yeah, it's the state that gave us Jesse Helms, but it also elected John Edwards. It also elected Elizabeth Dole who's a pretty moderate Republican, and her seat is now held by a Democrat. MDB (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't precisely remember when, but I do remember him making that prediction on the mainpage right not too long ago. His reasoning is what is faulty because while overall Missouri is rather conservative, St.Louis is a democratic stronghold.  The state isn't being punished, it could only be argued the city is (and you have to come up with evidence for that); besides North Carolina is no blue state bastion either. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I've had a trawl through the bloated carcass they call their news archives and I can't see any reference to it. Unless it was "trimmed" by Andypants. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Found it. I knew I'd seen it somewhere. To be fair, this is one prediction he did indeed get right. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Even a stopped clock finds a nut twice a day. MDB (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about general trends in MO and NC, but in the last three presidential elections, MO went Republican in all three, by margins of 3%, 7% and 0.1%. NC went Republican in the first two by margins of 13% (each time) and went for Obama by a margin of 0.4%.  So, the only time that Dems did better in NC than in MO, the margin was slight.
 * MO currently has one Dem and one Rep senator, same as NC. MO's representatives are 2/3 Republican, while only half of NC's reps are Republican.
 * In this admittedly cursory glance at recent national politics, North Carolina does not seem notably more liberal (read: supportive of Democrats) than Missouri. Phiwum (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling revisited
I made some remarks about patrolling earlier, but now I want to add some details:

09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually at UESP we have specific patrollers, who are autopatrolled and can patrol others' edits, but aren't sysops. Almost all sysops were patrollers at one point before becoming sysops. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got that wrong, I corrected it in the text above. Your system seems to work.... Thanks! 10:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it works well most of the time. Occasionally a bit of a backlog develops, but in general there are enough patrollers/admins around to keep that to a minimum. Thanks for the graph, BTW! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome: I think it gives an interesting insight into management of the different wikis... 15:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet another nice set of graphs, but I've got a question about the Wikipedia one - what is being considered an autopatrolled revision? I figure that you can't just be including users in the autopatrol group, as the only edits of theirs that are autopatrolled are created articles, and Koavf, who is listed on the graph as having over 100,000 autopatrolled edits, has not made over 100,000 articles. So are you also counting reviewers, whose contributions to articles with pending changes protection are automatically accepted, or what?~<font color="#07517C">Super <font color="#6FA23B">Hamster  Talk 19:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The diagram does not only include newly created articles, but every edit. When I take a look at Koavf's patrol-log, it shows thousands of entries - using wp:Wikipedia:AWB - so the number seems to be right. 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Tea Party would be proud
Ok, so if I got this story right, South Dakota Republicans will introduce a bill that would require all people to carry a gun, as a way saying "You cant force us to buy health insurance". And Karajoke seams alright with it. But this is exactly the goverment waste the Tea Party was bullshit about. And they cant blame the dems because of all the statewide and national elected efficials, theres only 1 Democrat and he's in Washington.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay just to clear something up for me here, what is this "forced to buy health insurance" stuff I keep hearing with regards to Obamacare? Is it stupid-talk for tax payer funded nationwide healthcare or is it literally everyone would be forced to get their own insurance policy? X Stickman (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a mandate in the law that everyone has to purchase health insurance, or pay a fine.
 * Interestingly, that was the proposal the Republicans endorsed in 1994 as a counter to the Clinton health care plan, and is a major part of the Massachusetts plan, signed into law by then Republican Governor and current Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. MDB (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand how compulsory healthcare insurance=socialised medicine, it's certainly nothing like our NHS. 13:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (2*e/c) It's actually a fine that gets imposed if you don't buy it. This WP article describes it pretty well. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a fine. You have to pay more tax so the government can afford you on Medicare. We have the same thing here in Australia. We have a Medicare levy that you don't have to pay/payless (I can't remember the details this late at night) if you are above a certain income and don't have private health insurance. -  <font face=times color=black>π    13:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is all academic now as the courts have essentially stopped the new health care law in its tracks and I don't see Supreme Court overturning that ruling. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Yes, Medicaid (not medicare, which is only for people aged 65+) is expanded, but the individual mandate is based around fines. From that WP article: "Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually mandated by law.[4] The fine serves to encourage most people into an insurance pool and to deter healthy individuals from buying insurance only when they become ill." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the commentary I've read (including this one from someone I believe we all know) suggest that the Supreme Court will almost certainly agree that the law is constitutional. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my impression is that it would be better if this act were repealed. It's pretty damn obvious what's going to happen. Since insurance companies are now required to insure even the worst risks, their profit centre is going to move to denying claims. This is inevitably going to end with hospitals snowed under trying to chase recalcitrant insurers for payment and many more families bankrupted by medical expenses they thought would be covered. There is no sensible way healthcare can be done in a for-profit manner. It's never going to work if your goal is universal coverage. -- 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ''"hospitals snowed under trying to chase recalcitrant insurers for payment and many more families bankrupted by medical expenses they thought would be covered." - how is this different from the current situation? --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that. I live in massachusettes and have had the state run health care for a couple years. And as much as it kills me to admit it, the Conservatives are right. Every year I get a letter in the mail warrning me they are jacking up my rate, despite the fact I havnt seen a doctor in a Decade. Thats not to say the old system wasnt broken. Its sad that there are families who cant get the help they need because they cant afford it, or get the help, but end up thousands in debt. Theres got to be some kind of middle ground.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My doctor said that he can't stand the healthcare reform bill, but because he can't stand the insurance industry situation we have in the United States. To him, it's not what the bill does or its cost that bothers him; it's that we are enshrining a system that was awful to begin with.  --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted this at World WIGO. Reality: It is Constitutional for a state to require everyone to buy guns; the question with ObamaCare is federal government powers (not state); and George Washington signed the 1792 Militia Act mandating citizens purchase weapons and ammunition.  Such a failure on the part of South Dakota to make a silly point. --Leotardo (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Second City of the British Empire
At cp:American History Homework One we find the question no. 5

I got interested by the claim that Philadelphia was the second most populated city in the entire British Empire by the mid-1700. Does anyone know any details? Here are the results of a short survey at wikipedia:

wp:Second city of the United Kingdom:The title Second City of Empire or Second City of the British Empire was claimed by a number of cities in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. These include Dublin,[11] Glasgow (which continues to use the title as a marketing slogan),[Liverpool; and (outside the UK) Kolkata (known as Calcutta during the British Empire) and Philadelphia.

So, the claim is there - though being second city doesn't automatically imply being second biggest city. But wasn't wp:Bristol bigger than wp:Philadelphia during the 18th century? Here the dates I could find at wikipedia:

And then there always was Colcata: ''In 1706 the population of Calcutta was roughly between 10,000 and 12,000. It increased to nearly 120,000 by 1752 and to 180,000 by 1821.'' 15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Being Irish, I've often been reminded that Dublin was the second city of the empire in the 19th century, but I've never been given the exact time period for it. All I can do to back it up right now though is cite my old history teacher and the museum at Kilmainham Gaol. There should be pretty good census data available for the UK on the internet after 1801 though. I'll look into it. --Danfly (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.populstat.info/; in 1750 the population of Bristol was 45,000, Edinburgh was 57,000 while Philadelphia was only 12,000. Calcutta approx 800,000 by 1820. 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Danfly: interesting - and Belfast grew tremendously during the 19th century, too. The problem is getting data before 1776..
 * @Lily: thanks! Interesting - there is some inconsistency with the data found at wikipedia. Nevertheless, Philadelphia wasn't the second biggest city of the Empire before 1776 - though I don't doubt that one can find quote by its inhabitants claiming that it was the empire's second city...
 * But as a history teacher, Andy should look a little bit closer at these things...
 * OTOH, he was never really into facts...
 * 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As his second (and possibly first) deity put it, "facts are stupid things". MDB (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the Michele Bachmann approach to history: I prefer my facts well done... -- 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Andy may be asking for trouble with Honors Question 1: “Learning from the experience of the colonies, how might our homeschooling community improve today?” Perhaps the oppressed will open their minds, recognise that “a Prince whose character is . . . marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people”, and declare independence. Tylersboy (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it - another Ken thread
I hate Ken threads, but really, what in the hell is this nonsense ? I don't know why liberal vandals would try to improve Conservapedia, but that dummy got banned. Serves him right for bring common sense to CP. --Leotardo (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though. Liverpool, UK? Troll. X Stickman (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell a lie, it must have been somebody else. I live in Edinburgh or Warrington. 16:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear Jesus no! Please tell me we're not getting cp:Comedy and satires concerning Wikipedia! Because I can see how that would keep Kenny busy for 90 days, recreating the same article over and over and over... -- Ψ Gremlin  16:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Vikings!!
Yeah, American History isn't even off the ground yet, and Andypants is back on his "Vikings didn't discover America! Didn't! Didn't! Didn't! lalalalalala" binge.
 * Sweet fuck, every time I think assfly has plumbed the depths of his ignorance and idiocy he surprises me. In the above cap that moron writes "Did the Vikings really settle in North American, at L'anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland?"  In North American?  North American isn't a country you thick twat, it's the term used to refer to an inhabitant of North America.  Unless like you they settled up someone arse. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's amusing about that Viking "mystery" is that he basically answers himself two questions later: "What happened to the Lost Colony?" In other words - colonies can disappear and there might be several reasons. Hostile natives being the most likely reason. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that vikings didn't have enough machismo to defend themselves from natives? X Stickman (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There would only have been 100 or so vikings, and quite possibly fewer. I doubt they'd have had enough machismo to fight off an attack by an entire tribe of native Americans. I know it's fiction, but Neil Gaiman's American Gods has quite a plausible description of what happened to the Viking colony. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well duh, Vikings came from the notoriously socialist Scandinavia. Of course they lacked machismo. Vulpius (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember a few years back, when this first came up, Andy went as far as to say the woman who found some remains of viking settlements planted them in order to look better against the other men in her field. I can't remember exactly where he said that though - there were a few discussions like this scattered around. Ace McAwesome 19:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is is - The evidence rests primarily on two tiny artifacts identified by the much younger wife of a prominent archaeologist from Norway. Nothing larger of significance was found, aside from speculation that arose beginning with those artifacts. Sadly, the planting of small artifacts is a fact of life and has been proven in other circumstances. There is powerful evidence against any such settlement, and no documentary support.
 * Followed by - Indeed, the more one looks at the details, the more it appears to be an archaeological wannabee trying to acquire the fame and respect of her older husband. Ace McAwesome 20:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I remember right, wasn't that immediately followed by somebody pointing out that entire buildings being found, and those are kind of hard to plant? Oh, the hilarity, if I remember right of course.-- 00:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to WP's article, there are other settlements there that are dated at 6,000 years old. Unbelievable liberal bias! Only Adam and Eve were around then! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)