Conservapedia talk:Messages to Conservapedians

Justify (or not) this page's placement and existence
This does not belong in the mainspace, it should either be in RationalWiki: or Conservapedia:  ħ uman  20:47, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd say Conservapedia namespace, so it doesn't clog up a namespace for things that acutally matter to this site. ThunderkatzHo! 20:47, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry Thunderkatz - I moved it to RatWiki before I saw that. As it's for Ratwikians to talk I thought here was as good as anywhere. 21:05, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * the Audience is Conservapedians though. That is the whole reason-to-be or whatever the ridiculous French term is. Exasperate me!Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 21:07, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. It should be at CP, not RW. Pleeaz too moove it.  ħ uman  02:28, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

A place for ShahB to mock us

 * Lol. This site is nothing without cp. SHahB 20:48, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I think you're right. This site wouldn't have a purpose but for CP and other sites likes it on the ol' inter-tubes. Exasperate me!Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 21:01, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, this isn't the place for this, but I say it's not other sites - it's specifically cp. SHahB 21:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I lost you in the pronouns. Say again? Exasperate me!Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 21:03, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * It is it, but not it. If it is not it, then it's clearly not it.  But it really is it, meaning it's it.  See? SHahB 21:04, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Shabby/Bohdan - I don't see why the fact that this blog exists primarily as a forum to discuss the fundamental idiocy of CP is LOL-worthy: CP has a political message that is really distressing. Consistently, CP regulars say abhorrent things about women and non-whites that, if you're at all politically engaged, need to be challenged. CP's standard line on economic questions represents the type of thinking that perpetuates economic injustice. If you're a religious person, one should be offended at how they pervert God's message to their own nasty political ends. If you're not a religious person, you should be afraid of their theocratic bent. and since the sysops there on the whole do everything they can to crack down on dissenting ideas, it's good that there's a place where like-minded individuals can challenge their hatred and idiocy. PFoster 21:13, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Lets not discuss issues, my comment was directed at the above line "so it doesn't clog up a namespace for things that acutally matter to this site". CP does matter to this site. SHahB 21:14, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Lets not discuss issues okay. How 'bout Sidney Crosby? - 2 goals already tonight. PFoster 21:20, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Darn! I gave my prediction for tonight somewhere else.  3-2 Detroit wins. SHahB 21:22, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * You know, Bohdan, you're I don't care what everyone else says. You're alright. (Wings in 5.)PFoster 21:25, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Sigh, I'm beginning to think a Canadian team will never again win the cup. I imagine this makes you sad as well. SHahB 21:30, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Not really - there's so much player turnover/mobility in pro sports these days that it's hard to root for any given team. And besides, from a nationalistic point of view, no matter which team wins any given year, there'll be a Canadian hoisting the Conn Smythe (unless it's Lidstrom) and a core of Canadians at the heart of the team. No Danes, though. Or Ukrainians. PFoster 21:37, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * bs. Once a fan, always a fan! SHahB 21:46, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * always!  ħ uman  02:31, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

TK...
Is not an active editor at CP and is essentially constitutionally banned from coming on to RW to answer any questions that anyone may pose here. Make sense to take it out? PFoster 22:16, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * He's given up at CP? What happened?  --Gulik 23:53, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Fuck TK. Even CP is smart enough to disavow him. !!!!  ħ uman  02:33, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Sheesh is TK. Is that not obvious?
 * Word. 12:38, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Delete
This idea is just a space for some RWians to vent their spleens. If no CP editors turn up soon to say, at least, "hi", I say "bye bye" to this chunk of trash.  ħ uman  02:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * eh, Whatever works. It is kind of wishful thinking to expect individual admins on other sites to rabidly monitor this page to see if they got new mail.  And I suppose if anything comes up, the secret messages could just move to user space areas instead of this page.  But....but....then I'd need a new decoder ring!--Bayesyikes 02:49, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Some, perhaps all, CP editors do in fact monitor this site, though there may at present be some sort of low energy disinformation campaign going on over there to obscure this fact. How else would they catch their typos?  Let's not be too hasty with the delete button. Dialogue in some safe spot would be a good thing. Exasperate me!Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 07:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I think dialogue is a good idea. If non of them do post then we can rightly say we tried. We genuinly approached them in respect and friendliness and they turned us away. That reflects well on us as naive but decent people. The messages can stand (permenantly for all I care) as a record of the fact that we tried to bridge the gap. I could be proud of that. Yeah I'm good with that. RedDog 15:52, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Sure, I'll buy that, RedDog...  ħ uman  02:10, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it may may never be answered, but at least it's out there as a good-faith effort.--SpinyNorman 11:08, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, the fact that the article exists at all is indiciative of an attempt at dailogue. I'm not sure what prevents CPers from responding - fear of being found out by Andy and being blocked? Possibly, but who knows. Spica the Hiver  If you tolerate this, then your children will be next... 07:02, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I would think that for the most part they do not respond because they have no wish to explain themselves and their actions. They don't have to do so on CP and that suits them just fine.  They are bullies and cowards and are behaving exactly as one would expect.  --Horace 07:22, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Wait, does that make them atheists? Don't they have an article "In Regards of Atheism and Cowardice"?  ħ uman  14:58, 3 June 2008 (EDT)