Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive327

If you don't have anything nice to say
Say something bad about liberals. I'm not sure what Andy is thinking. First, there's no link. What's bridgegate? (Apparently, Christie shut down some lanes to cause traffic problems to push a bridge deal (or something)) What does it have to do with conversion therapy? Is Andy in favor of "bridgegate"? Does Andy not want Christie's political career to end? Who knows? I just thought it was one of the more enigmatic and impotent MPR posts Andy has made in a while. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "bridgegate"—Word is that some of Christie's top aides had multiple lanes of the George Washington Bridge shut down to punish the Democratic mayor of the town just off the Jersey side of the bridge for not endorsing Christie's re-election. --transResident Transfan form! 21:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bridgegate's a big deal. The GOP's only competitive presidential candidate for 2016 has been unmasked as a lying, vindictive bully.  Or, as he seems to be taking the "throw the aide under the bus" lane, an ineffective leader whose aides put state residents at peril without his knowledge, which is not much better.  Andy is torn because Christie is a RINO (he thanked Obama for help after hurricane Sandy), which is why his opinion is more confused than usual. Whoover (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Throwing an aid under the bus is something politicians on both sides of the aisle do with sadistic glee; it is so common it is barely worth mentioning.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that because of the lane closures, emergency vehicles had a hard time getting through, and one woman died due to the ambulance being unable to get to the hospital. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest one would merely make a general thread for this on the Good Old Brawl Bar but hey, this is merely a post to test if my new signature works.EDIT:Crud.--The Madman (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * This is why we need transparency. If you could look back at the period where Bridgegate happened and see either, Christie saying "Fuck those guys, hurt 'em anyway you know how" or Bridget Anne Kelly taking her own initiative without a word from him, you could rationally decide "OK, yeah, Christie is a bullying fuck" or "Wow, Bridget really thought she was God Emperor of The World, bye bye asshole". But we don't get to see any of that, we never do. They're not lovers, they're politicians, so why can't their every meeting be recorded for the consideration of citizens? When we record people doing safety critical work (e.g. we record airliner cockpit conversations) we see two things, either of which, I would argue, would be beneficial enough to justify doing this to politicians. Firstly they stop fucking lying about everything. Knowing that there's a record the people being recorded just tell it how they remember when asked. And secondly, they fly straighter. Not 100% straight, people aren't robots, but they cut out the worst of the bullshit, which can be enough to make a big difference in outcomes, and because we can see what's left we can adjust policy according to how they actually behave, not how we'd like to imagine a robot would behave if given their job. Without seeing that we're blind as to what we should fix. Tialaramex (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Trouble is it's always been notoriously difficult to record these sorts of things. An aircraft cockpit is an enclosed controlled space, easy to monitor. Politics isn't. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it can't be done: think about the "water cooler" chat and bathroom/toilet conversations, not to mention just bumping in to each other in the corridors? Scream!! (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall a Terry Pratchett book where all the politicians were thrown in jail as soon as they were elected, because it saved having to do it later. Not only does it make perfect sense, it would be easy to monitor them in there. Just a thought.--Fergus Mason If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - Anton Chekov 18:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason we only learned about it now is that they thought they could get away with it by using personal email addresses. Here's some background about US transparency laws for the curious. I strongly agree with Rachel Maddow that US people should support their local papers, which are where things like this usually get their legs. Justbrowsing (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Hand of God" photo
Can someone point out the hand in that photo? I think it looks like a tree-stump with a face and unruly red hair, exhaling luminous vapor. The vengeful spirit of Thor's Oak, perhaps. 06:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Err ... what photo? Scream!! (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a lemur hand puppet to me. Whoover (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This photo from this MPR item. Personally, I see a hand but I'm betting that at any other angle, it'll look like something completely different. Say, a larch for example.-- "Shut up, Brx." 07:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, it's not worth a section but their latest infestation of parodist has begun making his moves. I love how the powers-that-be are ALWAYS the last to know. Whoover (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tax protesters go medical
Oh look, an exciting new opportunity for wingnuts to get themselves fines. Thanks, Karajou. Does he really think that a provision in the affordable healthcare act would actually negate the whole act and that nobody would notice? Hell, can't he read what it actually says? -- 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And... memoryholed. -- PsyGremlin 講話 19:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The linked blog post in question. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Best part of this: it was Andy who vaped the edit. How does that taste, Karajou? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, trimmed pending further research. Another Schlafly review. Come back in 3 years, folks. Why can he never just come out and say "this is bollocks, Popeye"? -- 19:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 was a great year for Conservapedia...
... as visitors were "flock[ing] to Conservapedia for content." Oh shoot, wrong prediction. In fact, 2013, wasn't a good year at all. The first indicator was that Andy bragged the last time about a record for "unique visitor traffic" in Dec 2012 - and then kept silence about these statistics for last year (See PsyGremlin's CP-Monitor for an interesting summary of this point). I cannot say anything about the actual numbers of unique visitors, but we are able to draw some conclusions:

Total number of views
Using the wayback machine, I gathered the total number of views for Conservapedia from its own cp:Special:Statistics. As Andy said in 2011, "Television is losing its relevancy, as people flock to Conservapedia for content". Seemingly not any longer. Roughly 30 million, that's the number of page-views wikipedia gets. In a month. For its Danish version alone. Really, it takes en.wikipedia.org three hours to get as many views as Conservapedia got in the whole year of 2013. And if you really want to compare Conservapedia with a television station, you have to look for one with ca. 80,000 viewers a day....

The traffic of 2011 and 2012 was driven by click-bots, which probably used the TOR network, creating an illusion of numerous unique viewers. When Andy disallowed TOR users from viewing his group-blog (in late 2012, I think), the numbers dwindled.

It didn't help neither that Andy made Conservapedia virtually invisible for many of his more dedicated followers...

Active editors
Using the late TK's handbook on suffocating a wiki, Andy was able to replicate TK's success from 2010 in 2013. --larron (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What happened in the last quarter of 2010? Ruddager (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Timeline#November_2010 ? Ruddager (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Active editorship tanked in the months up to November, but has rapidly recovered. Can anybody explain why the figures appear to oscillate like that? --Tony Sidaway (talk) 05:43, File:Ae.001.1000.png10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ae.001.1000.png The number of active editors is very sensitive to an influx of spammers and trolls, which to a certain extend depends on CP's current policy of account creation and instant blocking. E.g., Markman blocked editors before they could make even one edit and enter the list of active editors.


 * The graph shows active editors (over 90 days), stratified by the number of days they have been editing (e.g., 2561 for Aschlafy, 1161 for Ed Poor, 127 for Markman): While you find quite a fluctuation in the number of active users who commented for one or two days, the number of active heavy users is going down for the last two and a half years.


 * --larron (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Account-creation-at-cp.svg There is an interesting difference between the end of 2010 and the end of 2013: TK in 2010 made it impossible to become an editor at Conservapedia, while Andy in 2013 prevents unwanted individuals from even seeing his side. --larron (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits and Editors
Not much is happening at Conservapedia. Indeed, the number of edits is just 30% of RW's: And editing is done by the usual suspects, each of whom has his little kingdom which isn't invaded by any other senior editor. This stresses CP's character as a group blog. The only exception is the Main Page, which is used by any senior editor to advertise his pet projects.

Conservapedia is dominated by the old hands:

This becomes even more obvious in the following graph, where for each point in time T the number of edits in 2013 is given made by those editors who created an account before T:

Example: half (ca. 19,500) edits out of a total 39,000 were made by editors who created their account before Feb 2009, while at RW half of 2013's edits (64,000) were done by those who came before Aug 2011.

Favorite pages and articles
You find more edits made to the Main Page (2975+728+373 = 4076) than its talk page (3790)! And while some hotly debated topics are in the TOP 10 articles, its lead by Conservative's soliloquy on atheism...

To give an more accurate view of what the editors of Conservapedia were interested in, the following tables show the number of editors (not edits) who contributed to a page or an article:

What's surprising: cp:Pope Francis was edited only 40 times by seven different users - and the last time in June 2013, while at RW, Pope Francis was the most edited article of 2013.
 * User talk:Markman had more edits than any article and more editors than Jesus Christ. That's fucking awesome. Whoover (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * His whole thing explains why Andy loves feudalism, it is the system that best explains how Conservapedia is run. Andy is their king, but each senior editor has his own nearly independent "duchy" where he rules with an iron fist.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not so far from the mark. There's at least one - possibly two - discussions in the soopah seekrit mails where Karajou and TerryH in particular debate divvying CP up into various faculties, each with one of the Chosen Few heading it up.  PsyGremlin Tala! 08:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Larron, would you be able to do the IP block chart ? It seems Andy has been blocking quite a few lately. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 58.106.27.198 / talk / contribs 03:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This one? I think that they prefer server-side blocks over IP blocks at the moment. --larron (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Word -- Andy Edition
This one will be hard to beat. I mean, no word (or phrase, in this case) is inherently bad (much less conservative, I guess), but for "not even wrong" you can't beat Uncertainty principle: an underlying chaos (uncertainty) at the atomic level in the physical world after the Fall of man, which renders a perpetual motion machine and life beyond 120 years impossible. I really thought calling Jesus, aka God, "the best of the public" was as good as it could get, but I was wrong. Whoover (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JESUS.FUCKING.CHRIST. Andy should lose his B.S.E. for that sentence. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Did Andy graduate from the Deepak Chopra school of quantum mechanics? -- 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My mind is officially blown. --Sid (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh... that's the stuff! Pure uncut crazy. I've often wondered whether Andy goes around spouting this stuff in real life, or is this just his dirty little internet secret. If he does talk like this, it must make for some interesting conversations. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well damn, it appears I've been misunderstanding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ever since I learned it in my first year of undergraduate studies. Thanks for the correction, Andy! - GrantC (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already been a woman who lived past 120 years and according to the Bible some old Jewish duffers were multi-centenarians long after the Fall of Man (Noah, Methuselah, etc.), so is Andy getting his Flood and Fall myths mixed up? Генгис  silverbrain.png 15:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Kendoll With A Crack Habit
I was looking through talk pages when I stumbled on this.

Apparently he's got a friend that's just like him except somehow worse.

Take a look at this.

Actual quote: "Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use false analogy".

He's writing mainly about Psychiatry but... well this is  Psychiatry according to him.

Does anybody else think those screenshots provide photographic proof of Cthulhu or is it just me? A Real Libertarian (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Maxwell's Demon is also really "Maxwell’s intelligent agent" and proves evolution is a lie. A Real Libertarian (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ... IA IA CTHULHU FHTAGN. -- Certified   Sick Bastard  19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two of those almost seemed like an attack on Andy. I can't be the only person who saw that. The third, the ABC model of emotions, is actually a valid thing(I didn't read the article to see if it was accurate) and underpins a lot of different psychological treatments. Use it with clients on a regular basis, myself. Ayzmo (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's about how the homos are recruiting our children.
 * Considering it also cites Chuckass as a source... I'm going with inaccurate. A Real Libertarian (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy's new mancrush??
Now that greatest conservative sport star and conservative of the year nominee 2011 & 2012 (IIRC) Tim Tebow has been thrown under te bus, for not being so great, Andy's found another target of his affection:

Colin Kaepernick, who's winning games for the 49ers, instead of being aborted. I'm sure we'll soon hear how he's an outspoken Christian and a greatest conservative sport star.  PsyGremlin 講話 00:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Er, it seems that he has Christian-themed tattoos, so the whole Christian thing isn't a big stretch. Phiwum (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but even Tebow would probably be horrified by Conservapedia if he knew of it's existence. We are talking the site who dedicates a significant portion of it's space to the topic of dog dinking.
 * Also what Andy failed to mention is both so-called over rated sports star Tom Brady and Peyton Manning also won today, therefore these two quarterbacks are leading half of the remaining teams in the playoffs (New England and Denver respectively); and every team that is still in the playoffs (Denver, Seattle, New England, and San Francisco) represent a liberal bastion of the country.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No wonder the NFL can't sell tickets to the playoff games. Burndall (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another Schlafly day in court
Thanks to whoever GregG is.

Given it's Andy, I think you can guess the outcome:

"Plaintiffs have established that the Court has jurisdiction to consider their Origination Clause and Takings Clause claims. Having considered the issues presented, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to state a legally cognizable claim as to each of their causes of action. Leave to amend the complaint would not rectify the deficiencies in the constitutional challenges to the ACA asserted. It is therefore ... DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."

I must say it's nice that Andy actually had to do some work to justify his salary. Wingnut Welfare To Work is A-OK with me. -- 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that GregG actually got on the US Party Index and found Andy's cases. I suspect he's a lawyer (honestly he's not me) and that his fascination with arbitration cases was an attempt to ingratiate himself with anti-consumer and anti-labor thugs that totally went over their heads. In any event, countdown to no response and this being trimmed relatively soon. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprise, Nutty. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 00:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And in Andy's defense, lawyers aren't necessarily judged for losses. People understand that there are reasons a lawyer would pursue a long shot, though not frivolous case, especially for a longstanding client (they're in the business of making $$$). People also understand that you don't always win and that it's not always obvious why (queue critical legal studies discussion). Andy's case was stupid, but not such a stretch that it was sanctionsble. Leave that to the birther lawyers who defame judges when they inevitably lose and somehow find themselves reported to the bar for violating the rules of professional conduct. No, Andy will be judged, if anyone pays attention to him, for representing cranks. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh. Notices of Appeal are usually chest thumping. You have something like 10 days to file one, it's jurisdictional, and there are no ill effects if you don't later pursue the appeal. People do it routinely. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading the above, it occurs to me that the evidence of Andrew Schlafly's competence or otherwise as an attorney probably isn't fully explored anywhere on RationalWiki. He seems to weather a lot of dismissals, but does he also win cases? Is the recent dismissal with prejudice (effectively saying "this application is so flawed we don't think refiling could fix it") typical of Schlafly's record? Given the bizarre nature of his personal beliefs and the amount of reality denial he must have to deploy just to retain them, I wouldn't be surprised if he was highly incompetent in the kind of marshaling an attorney must do to win a case, but is that a fair appraisal of his overall work in the field? --Tony Sidaway (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, your assessment is probably fair. But it's more difficult than that because of the nature of his work and having such a small record to evaluate. He's largely insulated himself from being subject to criticism for a poor win/lose record by working for cranks who generally only file unwinnable cases anyway, or who intervene in litigation by filing amicus briefs where they have an ideological or political stake in the outcome. The NJ "George Washington letter" case is a slightly special case: someone else lost in the trial court and filed the losing appellate brief. Several years ago, I looked at what you can find online, which was just a few federal district court filings and some appellate briefs. His prose is fine, although there's something disjointed about his writing that indicates to me that he "doesn't get it" - his publicly viewable appellate and amicus briefs are essentially long-form Conservapedia articles. I would say that, on the main, the quality of his work is not very good. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does he even seem like a working lawyer, in your opinion? The impression I get of him is that he enjoys a retainer from the AAPS out of all proportion to the work he's required to do to justify it, and that's pretty much his whole income. As far as I can tell he's independent, but doesn't seem to advertise for clients. He's essentially on Wingnut Welfare. Other than the odd speaking gig and amicus brief, does he do anything at all? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an electrical engineer who doesn't believe in i we're talking about. From all we've seen of Andy at CP, I think that with the amount of hubris he has, he doesn't think he's working for cranks and he thinks these are sound, winnable cases. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm certain he thinks that way and that it is all the fault of activist judges and the vast liberal conspiracy, which holds sway - despite the undisputable fact that conservatism is growing, that causes him to constantly lose each and every case I hear about him taking. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he doesn't seem like a regular working lawyer. Being outside counsel for a crank group is pretty unusual :-) Being outside counsel at all is unusual, and it's usually not a good way to get rich since you're beholden to a particular client, perhaps at the expense of new business, at capped rates. I have no idea what his retainer is, but you don't get to count a retainer as your own money. It's just a guarantee that's held in trust for the client.He may not even charge for the limited work he does. I get the impression someone else supports him. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know he's still getting paid for "teaching" at Eagle Forum. I'm pretty sure EF also pays the bills for CP (and probably something extra for Andy to admin it). Occasionaluse (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He could also be doing a bunch of legal work that doesn't show up in court records. Nutty will correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that one can be busy enough as an attorney without going to court? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on their speciality, but lawyers can spend their entire career not going anywhere near a courtroom. Things like drawing up contracts, especially in employment matters, checking other people's contacts, being asked for Official Legal Opinion, all of it generates income and is very unlikely to result in you needing to go to court.  In Andy's case it does look suspiciously like Wingnut Welfare, with the bulk of his work taken up with offering legal opinion and writing letters, but actual court representation being undertaken by other attorneys by his more serious clients.  Not for a second can I imagine Andy giving up a chance to show off in court if given the chance.  And, given Andy's actual performance in front of the NJ Supreme Court, I can't help but wonder if he's just tick-boxed his way through self-learning CLEs that he needs to take every couple of years.-- 20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Chuckarse explains it all
Republican bully-boy caught abusing his office to carry out a political vendetta? Flingbooty knows who to blame. The UN, of course. The tenuous strands of his rationalisation are hilarious. The excuse was a traffic study -> another, probably unrelated grant for studying traffic patterns -> organisation dedicated to sustainability -> AGENDA 21! Therefore Christie is in league with High Overlord Ban in the evil plan to install a marxist government in the US. -- 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The best part of the theory comes in the conclusion: One element of mystery: Springfield Township lies in Union County, not Bergen. Morris Avenue separates it from Millburn Township in Essex County. That would seem far removed from Fort Lee. THAT'S the mystery to Terry?  Everything else makes sense? UN thugs order a traffic study two counties away and can't even do that right, I guess.Whoover (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Someone just oversighted TerryH's post. What's that about? I thought he was eternally in Schlafly's good graces. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nahh, ken wrote some shit, realised he looked like a fucking moron again and oversighted everything to burn the evidence of his idiocy. Terry's post is still there. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's some true free thinking alright.
Due to Ken's obsessive editing of all articles containing references to his once and future mancrush, the artist formerly known as Mariano, I checked to see what free thinker was thinking about. The answer seems to be a billionty part series on how to distinguish the good aliens from the bad aliens. I shit you not. Must be a little inconvenient for Ken, seeing as how he's always on about how real, true Christians don't believe in such things. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like how his blog is just little more than links to the Examiner in hopes it will general pennies of revenue for his articles.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We can haz linky please? -- PsyGremlin Siarad! 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is what is being refered to Psy but don't blame me if you look at it. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh well played EddyJ
With an entirely straight bat EddyJ pincers Andy into somehow having to pretend that the record heat in Australia doesn't exist. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's summer in the southern hemisphere EddyJ, I'm surprised that you do not know that summer means it will be warm. In addition, it's just another sign of the spoiled liberal elite, who cannot cope without their air-conditioners and teleprompters. Watch for a conservative sportsman, bathed in the Holy Spirit, to win this one by keeping his cool. Godspeed!"  PsyGremlin 말하십시오 08:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * At first I honestly thought that was Andy's reply; good job sir!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He got me for a minute as well. I don't know who EddyJ is but he is doing a good job of poking andy imo.  Oldusgitus (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I refreshed the page, half expecting the response to change to another, equally good, one. Whoover (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Kara's pissed again.
At us I mean. I wouldn't dare imply that Anger Bear is using a keyboard with a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 next to him.

I do, however, note that all the spambots are being blocked as "RW trolls."

Did one of you subscribe him to the Russian brides mailing list again? -- PsyGremlin Zungumza! 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Angry and stupid. A dangerous combination. There was this weird little outburst earlier this week too. Karajou is exactly the reason people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Karaturd, I know you're not very smart and that it makes you giggle to blame the spam accounts you guys get on RW. I'll let you in on a secret. We get them too. They don't get very far because we have this super special open source WikiMedia extension called AbuseFilter that prevents them from posting spam and automatically blocks them. Andy could install it for you too were he a competent site admin. It's very powerful. BTW, the spammers are not "trolls," "socks" or "vandals." They're actually the working poor trying to make a living. Hope I helped. Dipshit. 14:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can never work out if Popeye actually believes what he's saying when he calls spammers RW trolls, or when he blocks everyone from Oceania as a sock of Ace McWicked or whatever idiocy he's committing today. I mean, you'd have to be almost insanely stupid to believe that we're running all the spam bots that advertise SEO and viagra or whatever, but you'd also have to be almost insanely spiteful to think that blaming random people is a good idea. In a way I suppose assuming he's just a fucking moron is the better of the two choices. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's such a dope that he repeatedly said he wanted to litigate whatever dispute he thought there was between CP and RW and honestly (this I know he wasn't kidding about) thought that a judge would have anything to say about it aside from "case dismissed with prejudice with Conservapedia to bear all costs." He apparently really thought that so-called ideologically motivated wiki-vandalism could support some kind of claim for damages. That's idiotic beyond words, but then again, he's not a very sophisticated person. The kind of motivated thinking that could support that kind of self-deception is beyond me. I can only imagine he at least thinks he's being clever in a kind of "Ha ha! Take this brutal riposte you Otisburg scum!" way. It's incomprehensible, but we already have evidence that he's not only dumb as a rock, angry as a beaten dog, but grossly overestimates his significance and power. So yeah, all this added up I'd say he has somehow managed to have an IQ perhaps slightly north of 100, yet say such staggeringly moronic things that, hearing them in person, a person might back away slowly. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CP blocked
Has Andy Pandy revived his trick of blocking people who irritate him from viewing CP? I can't read CP from my usual IP address but I can read it from other addresses. (I can't remember what my sock did to annoy him - could have been whining about shooting people dead just because they crunch popcorn in a cinema.) Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy's feelings about his "job"?
How does Andy feel about the so-called liberal fields of engineering and computer science? Would you say? After, all.... So, in all...How does he feel about it? Is Andy in denial? Is Andy's bite not as bad as his bark? Or is he nuts? Or is he just forgetful about some things? Or am I using "Or" too much? You decide,Mobocracy! Power to the people! Most hated user away! --The Madman (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * The evils of REDSREDSREDS playing Violent Video Games!
 * The use of the internet to voice "liberal deceit"!
 * A Storehouse of Knowledge. That is all. No mentioning former dissenting admins.
 * TK. After all, Conservapedia is the viewpoint of ALL Americans!
 * "Liberal parodists" having found Conservapedia!
 * The "Vandal Site"...Wonder whatever happened to it?
 * Wikipedia. After all, Neutral Point Of View is merely a liberal's denial of FACT borne out from his totally impartial point of view.
 * ANYONE who disagreed with Andy and has a website.
 * What? Change the dosage of whatever it is you are taking. --Marlow (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Must be on meds, dear lad. I like to cause debate for the purpose of well-thought out debate! Half of what I say isn't mean't to be taken seriously!
 * I'm sorry, but you are posting gibberish. Take a deep breath and think about what you are trying to say.  DamoHi 04:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only part of this that makes any sense is the subject line. But Andy isn't employed in any traditional sense. He's not an engineer. He's not a computer scientist or developer. He's not really more than a dilettante lawyer. His "job" is being the extremist son of Phyllis Schlafly and I don't think it pays well. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have we ever figured out whether Andy survives on a trust fund from his parents or wingnut welfare from teaching glorified versions of his homskollar classes at Eagle Forum University? Does his wife's income from her medical practice support him and the kids? Lil Phyllis's Princeton tuition isn't cheap. (Yeah, I know, this really isn't any of my business, but I already pay attention to his crappy blog, so in for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.) Godspeed (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we need to know any of that? Besides, what is wrong with a woman supporting the hobbies of her husband? If it was the other way round, would this even be a topic of conjecture? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait. What?
Andy added another Counterexample to an Old Earth, namely that heavy rain causes erosion. No big deal. But I was struck by his main argument, ''If each of these 44 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99%.''.

Am I missing something here? How does throwing more and more incorrect evidence (90% chance of being bullshit) at an argument ultimately prove a fact? This has been there for years, so I apologize if it's been discussed in the past. Whoover (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Andy has some very fucked up ideas of how probability works. He's not far from arguing that since only 4% of the world's population is born in the US, it is 96% likely that Barack Obama was born abroad. DickTurpis (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy has some very fucked up ideas of how anything works. Генгис  silverbrain.png 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't work. It's like calculating the probability of the sperm that fertilised the egg and finding the chances so remote that I can't, with a 99.999% certainty, actually exist. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I haven't studied maths since school) but it looks like it's the premises here (that there's some kind of binary dichotomy between "new" & "old", and that each of these counterexamples has at least a 10% chance of disproving an old earth) that are fallacious rather than the calculations. If, for the sake of argument, we accept these shaky premises, then we can proceed as follows: Obviously this is junk, but that's because of the contention that any of these things have any probability of conclusively disproving an old earth, not because of how that hypothetical probability has been applied. 14:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apply one counterexample which has a 10% chance of disproving an old earth: an old earth is now 90% probable
 * Apply another counterexample: the probability of an old earth is now 90% of the previous calculation of 90% (i.e. 90%2) = 81%
 * Third counterexample: an old earth is 90% of 81% probable (90%3) = 72.9% probable
 * And so on through 44 counterexamples, with the probability of an old earth diminishing by 10% of the previous calculation each time.
 * The end probability for an old earth will be 90%44 = 0.97% (to the nearest two decimal places), making the probability of a young earth 99.03%
 * Perhaps I'm slightly misunderstanding you here (please correct me if I am), but I think the problem is more elementary than that. For example, one can calculate the probability that Earth is able to support life, and we would find a very small number. Of course, the real probability of this happening is 100% because here we are. In a similar vein, I think the entire premise that one can use probabilities in this fashion to disprove something at all is completely off base. For those of us living in the real world, the probability of the Earth being old is 100% because we have experimental proof of that. - GrantC (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess Weaseloid's "logic" is that used by Andy. At least it means that, with additional probably wrong evidence, we're asymptotically approaching certainty.  The other possibility, of course, is that Andy's math was awaiting the critical evidence that would put us over the top (of p=1), with additional poor evidence improving the odds past 1.  Once you accept that lots of poor evidence trumps good evidence to the contrary, any analysis is possible.  The other unique thing about such a Schlafly proof, of course, is that evidence against Jesus having dined on Opabinia risotto has no bearing on the outcome. Whoover (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's ridiculously difficult to follow. My area of research requires me to know a decent amount about statistics, and wrapping my brain around Andy's thought process borderline hurts. At that point, it's more than possible to just make up some evidence, claim it has some tiny (but non-zero) probability of being right, and then stack enough pieces on top of each other to eventually disprove anything. As long as I had enough arguments that each had a 0.1% chance of being correct, I would eventually win by sheer numbers! - GrantC (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That settles that, I suppose
We've often wondered if Andy ever reads the articles he links to, but I think that debate can be settled by his complete fabrication of a quote in this Torygraph link. I suppose to be fair the article is a smashing example of Betteridge's law of headlines, but really that's no excuse. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He must also have failed to read this reliable source, which says that the "clean" animals were to be taken in by sevens (even though at that point God had not revealed which animals were to be counted as clean). Cantabrigian (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. What goes on in that man's head. Literally nothing but the similarity between the two stories supports any point he could hope to make. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Andy deny the authenticity of all things cuneiform? Or at least that it's not real writing. Sphincter (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Victory by banning
Conservative is at it again, as a peon complains about Atheism and... pages on assfly's talk page. Conservative replies with one of his usual answers and brings down the banhammer on CScotson. Another peon destroyed. The Invisible Man I spoke to Him   04:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stay tuned. Whoover (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Show's over. Whoover (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For anyone who was wondering, it wasn't me. I haven't been there for a while now.  Nice to see that one is still remembered though.  --Horace (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This Headline Telling For What It Doesn't Say
According to Andy, the Patriots losing the AFC Championship means that Tom Brady is an overrated sports star and thus Conservapedia is "proven right". Of course this headline is typical for Conservapedia, which is propaganda through omission of "inconvenient" facts. The team Brady lost to? The Broncos, lead by Peyton Manning, the quarterback Andy loves to hate on and rants as "overrated" as well. Of course Andy won't mention that part as it doesn't fit his narrative. Remember Andy's golden boy of the moment? Colin Kaepernick ? Also played poorly this last Sunday and bears some of the responsibility for his team losing the NFC Championship to Seattle, that little fact once get mentioned. Expect his name to be quietly swept under the rug.

Andy's loathing of Peyton Manning though is what is truly mind-boggling. Here is a guy who is not only a Republican donor, but also a born-again protestant Christian who has been quoted as saying "I committed my life to Christ, and that faith has been most important to me ever since" and " I hope (and pray) I don’t do too many things that displease Him before I get to Heaven myself. I believe, too, that life is much better and freer when you’re committed to God in that way". He is a small business owner, he is married with children, he runs charities and donates to hospitals. This guy should be right up Andy's alley; a shining beacon to the fundies of a successful, charitable, proud Christian. Yet all Il Duce does is rip on the guy. Why? Because the Broncos had the audacity to choose him over Tebow, who is just a bit more in your face about his religion.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Come on, this is the "Pot Bowl" this year. Both are from cities that legalized marijuana.  And I'll be blunt about it, but bowl puns are quite amusing.  Just remember, let the best team win and a winning team is a joint effort between offense and defense.  Well, at Colorado is a still a good Christian state and doesn't allow gay marriage and thus is likely Andy's favorite to win. Unless he's still bitter or something. --Shagie (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, of course he's still bitter. It's amazing how he's still holding a grudge against the two people who he sees as putting good, Christian Tebow out of a job. It's astonishing he's not able to see his own bias, that the two "overrated" quaterbacks only became overrated as soon as they were picked ahead of Tebow on their respective teams. I don't think for a moment he's considered that Tebow just isn't that good, there must be a huge anti-Christian conspiracy to keep him down. Maybe some projection there? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As if any proof were needed that Andy is a bitter old freak whose interest in American Handegg starts and ends with kissing Tebow's god-bothering arse, here's a timeline of events:


 * March 2012 - Peyton Manning signed to the Denver Broncos, Tebow traded to the New York Jets.
 * June 2012 - Peyton Manning officially becomes an OSS
 * April 2013 - Tebow dropped from the Jets in favour of Mark Sanchez
 * June 2013 - Andy endorses Sanchez as OSS
 * June 2013 - Tebow signs with the New England Patriots.
 * June 2013 - Brady becomes an officially endorsed OSS.

QED. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken spams Yahoo! Answers
Then brags about it on CP. Amazing how these long-haired creationist sweethearts all have the same writing style.-- "Shut up, Brx." 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Ken, any bets on how long it will be before User:CHScotson gets banned for being a sock of Horace ? I wager 1 internetz on 1 hour. Naca (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, two minutes. See below.-- "Shut up, Brx." 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * CScotson: banned as sock of Horace (old news). CHScotson: saga continues. Whoover (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do they think anyone from... (Australia?) Is Horace? The Invisible Man  I spoke to Him
 * Yep, Australia. I've been Horace'd a number of times. Where in Aus is the actual Horace from? Ruddager (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's:
 * New Zealand - Ace McWicked
 * Germany - Sid
 * Scotland - Auld Nick
 * Alaska - Icewedge (probably true)
 * Australia - Horace
 * Генгис silverbrain.png 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Getting back on-topic... Since no one's mentioned it here I'll repeat what GregG said on cp mainpage talk; Most of the top results in that google search link are by trolls critical of Ken's cp atheism and obesity articles. But I guess any publicity is good publicity? Sadly, pointing this out here will result in Ken's usual memory hole-ing. Sad because it is predictable and pathetic. Shakedangle (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dhouser piles it on and ken obfuscates . Obviously the issue isn't that MPR links to sarcastic yahoo answers that describe Andy as an uneducated crazy troll, it's that 2013 was a horrible year for atheism!!! Shakedangle (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now he's made a blog post about how someone retweeted him. He's really scraping the barrel of patheticness now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many retweets evilutionists get...-- "Shut up, Brx." 19:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken in the press
Not sure where to put these things any more, but Ken made it into the UK national press (I use that term loosely for the Metro, but it does have a readership numbering in the millions of atheistic Brits)...

Also on the web here: Metro.co.uk Bondurant (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They could have at least given us some credit for DeMyer's Laws... bastards. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin Prata! 09:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor Ken. Even this amount of mainstream coverage describes a law in his name as "lacklustre". Harsh. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Let that be a lesson, kids. If you too spend long enough being an imbecile on the internet, you can get your name name in the paper. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably a rehash of a Telegraph article which featured a whole bunch of our laws. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 11:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the look of that Telegraph link, it never made it to print. The Metro's digital edition is identical to its print edition. Which means millions of Brits read his name and tendencies on the bus, train, underground and supertram today. Hell, I nearly choked on my beer when I read it during my pub quiz this evening. --  I scariot   Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurray and hurrah, I love it! Now if only the Torygraph and the Grauniad will follow suit.  And credit us. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess the Torygraph was there indeed, already. I liked Pommer's Law! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, somebody actually read a copy of Metro? Let me guess, no phone signal on the train... Sophie  Wilder silverbrain.png 19:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A classic
Liberal Bias in the Periodic Table, before it gets deleted. Ghost (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather blatant trollery. Scream!! (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But hilarious nonetheless. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And on that subject, in case you haven't seen it, here's the Discovery Institute's version of the periodic table. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Love it! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy and the Database.
I was doing a bit of searching on CP and found that if you say wanted to search for say user AlanE, this result was shown. I did the same with recently banned "troublemakers" such as Markman, DVergne and Fnarrow. I also found that if I say searched for those usernames but misspell them the result is as you  would  expect. So from this I gather that Andy has been playing around in the database to try and remove any evidence of certain users have ever existed (although he did fail as you can still search for those terms if you select everything). So could Andy in theory completely remove any evidence of say Bugler or TK or Ken through the database ? Ghost (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing Andy can't do is update the mediawiki install. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 02:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really in the database directly. Usually, these people just make one or two edits that get oversighted or deleted and then there's no trace of them. For someone like TK, it'd be more difficult. It's too late for oversight in most cases, you'd have to go to the mysql command line and physically delete all his edits from the DB. Images would be the hardest, you'd either have to delete and reupload them, or outright forge the userid on every image entry, plus you'd have to audit the upload text. In case you were wondering, all of this is beyond Andy's skill. As noted, he can't even patch mediawiki to fix the many, many security holes he's cruising with. Andy ought to take it as courtesy that none of us evil liberals has hacked his glorious haven of conservatism, it's not like it would be difficult. You'd only have to review the last 4 years of mediawiki security notices and take your pick. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "all of this is beyond Andy's skill" that's what I said. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 06:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that they recently celebrated Christmas and Epiphany by posting on the Main Page images that TK had added, with a link back to his user page, there's really no need to bother with him. The official version is now that the saintly TK of beloved memory was a thoroughly good guy who never abused anyone except for filthy liberals who were asking for it. Of course, he's never going to come back to prove them wrong. Obviously making someone who's still alive a non-person could be a bit more difficult. Spud (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I search for TK or Aschlalfly I get the same error. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this weird?
Isn't it usually ASchlafly who posts about this ? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess he crawled out of his cave-- "Shut up, Brx." 05:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Urgh. Followed the link and saw Ken's "Evolution & little consensus" link. On what planet - besides Kenworld - is that even English? <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin Tal! 06:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Little consensus" in Ken-speak means that evolution is an area of active scientific research, e.g. on the date of divergence of placental and marsupial mammals. In Ken-world, the fact that the evidence isn't yet clear on this point, specifically on whether or not placentals appeared before flightless dinosaurs died out (*), means that science is wrong and therefore Genesis (taken literally, not as a 6th century BC poem possibly influenced by Hesiod) is right.
 * (*) Something to do with the days on which Genesis says "all flying things", which Ken assumes includes bats, were created and was that before things that might be dinosaurs. You have to read the complete drivel on the CMI website that Ken links to to appreciate the full lunacy of this point.
 * Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed how Andy prophetically crowed that liberal denial was kicking in while claiming that 500,000 people would participate. March for life didn't bother with a crowd count this year because of the low turnout, estimated by libruls at around 25,000. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * God does have a sense of humour after all. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Has Ken really just burned 4 days
Of mpr edits. SamHB is 'blaming' a database 'glitch' but considering the daily beast section consisted of ken getting a kicking over his idiocy I wonder what caused the glitch. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He did post something about an article in a peer reviewed journal saying that Darwinism was at the end of its rope. It's still on his blog. Of course, what Ken doesn't understand is that the study of evolution has moved on from pure Darwinism a long, long time ago. <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin Prata! 16:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that what each of us doesn't know fills entire libraries.
 * What ken doesn't understand will fill the Library of Congress AND the British Library were it ever to be fully documented.  Incidentally, I see andy seems to have been on the sauce again, we have a new insight on what the bible says . Oldusgitus (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a weird bit of scripture. It probably does as much to self-justify contemporary US-American anti-intellectualism as anything else. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So "eloquent wisdom" now equals "liberal claptrap." Anti-intellectual for sure. Then again, Andy's Bible does blame intellectuals for killing Jesus. <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin Prata! 16:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Psy, what Ken doesn't understand (one of the many things) is that two people proposing a challenging/ provocative opinion doesn't mean a 154-year-old theory has been disproved. EvoDevo implies that some ways of reaching an outcome that maximises inclusive fitness are more probable than others but no way does it contradict natural selection as the main driving force of evolution. Cardinal Fang (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tried to fix the pic.
I tried to fix the screenshot.

If you click to go to the full screen it works. A Real Libertarian (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yayyy, tedious troll is boringly tedious. We've missed you.  There again I also miss crab lice when I don't have them but I certainly don't want them to come back. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

An ultimatum
Me and a couple of people from this fine establishment and 4Chan have decided to act against your site Mr Andrew Schlafly. This vandalism will continue until you, Andrew Schlafly ban both users Karajou and Conservative permanently. If you do not do so in a timely manner, the consequences will be more sever. WE ARE ANONYMOUS WE ARE LEGION WE DO NOT FORGET!
 * you ever think about trying to get laid instead?AMassiveGay (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * who needs women (or men) when you have the internet! Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Boring troll is boring. Try to be more creative in your wandalism if you want people here to pay attention to you. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to deliver an ultimatum to Andy, why not do it on Conservapedia where he might actually read it? Or at very least fuck off and not involve us in your infantile little vendetta. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sad wankers are sad. On that subject, I'm sure Karajou is indulging in another of his courtroom fantasies as he reads this. <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin 話しなさい 16:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Separated at birth? Vulpius (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Less courtroom fantasies more mass execution of dissidents fantasies Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * they love the vandalism. It reinforces all their paranoid fantasies. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the /b/tards are bored again, that is, if it is actually someone from 4chan.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly amazed that there are still people left who can build up any sort of passion about Conservapedia. --Sid (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This. It be different if they actually had some influence on American conservatism, religious conservatism, the American church, or the home-schooling scene.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn it. I see some tiresome twerp has used the valiant Horace name to commit predictable and juvenile damage at CP. How am I ever going to get Karajou to love me again when people do stuff like that? They are driving us apart. GET YOUR OWN NAME YOU BASTARD. --Horace (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia proven right again
Aschlafly has at last added black holes to the conservapedia proven right list --Buscombe (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Andy really is a dishonest cunt who only reads what he wants to see. Nowhere does Hawking say black holes don't exist. All he's saying is that they might need a bit of rethinking at a quantum level, and that light might escape them, resulting in grey holes. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 06:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially lost on him: Hawking trying to reconcile black holes and Einstein. Whoover (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A week or so ago he used the fact that black holes do exist as a counter-example to relativity. Make up your mind Andy.--Mercian (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This just simplifies Andy's statistical argument. Since black holes either exist or not, the odds that relativity is wrong are 100%.  Phiwum (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that article a day or two again and as soon as I saw the headlines, I knew Andy was going to pounce on it the moment he spotted it. Now he'll be even more insufferable that ever when it comes to astrophysics and relativity. Why?  Because he just reads the headlines and headlines are usually sensational to grab the reader's attention.  I doubt Andy has any concept what Hawkins really meant when he said "black holes aren't really black".  Thank goodness Andy has no influence, especially educational influence, anywhere.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I love his commentary that Hawking should just have listened to Andy about the existence of black holes. And while he was at CP he could read about how a pound of cake disproves the relationship between mass and energy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And be told by Karajou to get off his wheelchair if he's so smart. Vulpius (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If conservapedia's ignorance gets any greater I'm afraid it will collapse in a black hole. The basic concept of a black hole has nothing to do with {special,general} relativity. It was first defined by Henry Cavendish in 1783, but he may have looked at an early draft of Einstein's paper (you never know, 'ey). Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprised I haven't seen this linked at CP.
 * Just checking.. that is satire, isn't it? Since Ken is hitting a similar note over at CP, it's so hard to tell these days. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the New Yorker. It's Michelle fucking Bachmann! What the hell do you think it is, Jeeves?--The Madman (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * In my defence, Bachmann thinks Jesus talks to her and isn't afraid to say so in polite company. She could say almost anything. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is satire, yep. Acei9 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The return of Celente.
After a long absence, Kendoll has taken up with his previous mancrush Gerald Celente again. Of course he's predicting doom again. When the fuck will Ken catch on that the man's a con artist out to sell survivalist shit? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think being routinely wrong is a character trait that Ken can identify with. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ken Having a Mid-life Crisis?
Ken seems to be doing a runner from CP. Will it last? Whoover (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to cap that but gave up, it's too early in the morning. Can anyone cap the latest changes where it says that he has 'retired' from cp?  Oldusgitus (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this have something to do with Ken saying Andy is wrong? A Real Libertarian (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Already burned. Whoover (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy will forgive Ken for saying he's wrong about cakes and atom bombs. They've had bigger disagreements than that in the past. I'm pretty sure that Ken has already changed his mind about his LANCB and now thinks that having an all green user page just makes him look more mysterious. Spud (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that Ken's "current priorities" involve spamming his blog on Andy's blog, I'll give his LANCB about an hour. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole thing was a giant, poorly constructed "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" sign. --  I scariot   Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 07:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It started because someone called him out on his qe post saying 2014 was going to be a bad year for atheism. Jerry CA posted to Andys talk saying goodbye and this was Andy's reply, a slap to ken imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the man child burnt the evidence before capture bot could do it's stuff. Basically it was yet another link to a QE blog shite spout where he said 2014 was going to be a terrible year for atheism. Someone pointed out that he'd said the same for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and he had consistently failed to deliver anything so he burnt all the evidence like a good bunny does when he hides down his intellectual bunny hole. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some words must have gone down between Ken and Andy since Ken's deleted some of his precious PZ Meyers and ***** articles as well as unprotected a whoooole lot of his other ones. And then added some weird pseudo-cryptic bullshit to PeterKa's talkpage.Shakedangle (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shoot... anyone more competent than me (basically anyone) able to to capture the 100 or so last edits on the CP recent changes page? Shakedangle (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comme ça? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression Ken can't tell the difference between editors with Ka and Ca at the ends of their usernames. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So I guess the answer to the question of whether certain evolutionists are going to be eating humble pie this year over his many, many promises is "no." Nice to see we're starting the year on a bright note. Hey Ken! 2 more months to get that textbook finished. Wouldn't like to think you were a liar or anything. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, I should be laughing my socks off, but it's so embarrassingly humiliating for Ken that I'm finding it hard to derive any pleasure from the discomfort of a mentally ill person. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 19:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for fun...
Inspired by this chart by the d3.js project, I came up with these two graphs illustrating activity at Conservapedia in 2013.

The information content of the first graph may be smaller than the content of this picture, but I think it is just pleasing...

--larron (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. The four remaining semi-active admins, then a parodist. Surprises me not at all. I'd say Ken was kind of quiet last year, but then I remember he oversights 8/10ths of his edits. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Home skooling
Seeing that a student has posted answers to Andy's world history 3 homework I thought I'd check what the homework actually was to see how the answers rated. So I took a look and what especially caught my attention was question 2. Pick an intellectual breakthrough or discovery mentioned in this week's letter. Has he now given up even the pretence of actually 'schooling' his dupes in the basement and now merely send them letters that they have to read and then reply to? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could be a simple spelling mistake + autocorrect: "letter" -> "lecture" --larron (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, point. Could be but tbh I am not sure. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "An essay of 150 words..." yeah Andy, that's not an essay, that's a paragraph. Good to see your educational standards are still pathetic. And world history should totally cover the fact that one apostle was being homeschooled and the age of another. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 05:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But they have to write two essays of 150 words. And another essay of 500 words. So that's 800 words in total. Unless the 500 word essay is actually 501 words in which case it counts as the second 150 word essay bringing the homework total to 651 words worth of essay. I think. Question 8 is oddly worded. X Stickman (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh Iduan
Kick a man when he's stupid why don't you? I especially like the offer to tutor Andy. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got too distracted and confused by Kendoll's "Sweating Finnish atheists who stand in a long line of supernaturally terrified humans" to pay attention to anything below it. Vulpius (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to worry that Iduan is pressing his luck. It doesn't take much to become an unperson at CP, no matter how long you've been there. Rob was disappeared in short order, and he was a higher level muckity-muck. All that has to happen is for Andy to remove Iduan's rights and chickenshit Ken will swoop in to permaban him and delete his userpage. God he's a creep. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Iduan clearly has put on his coat and hat and has been cozying up to the door for months now. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Ken really.
Why do you feel the need to boast that you, or rather one of your collective, may actually be dancing with someone? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was more amused that one of him is exercising before they eat a healthy lunch. Ayzmo (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What impresses me the most about Ken's collective is how they all manage to write like an 8-year-old with head trauma. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 13:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That screen cap is broken. Can someone who isn't blocked re-take it, please Heresiarch (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Next we'll hear how he won 4th place in a dancing competition. Ken pics or it didn't happen! --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Translation: a nice lady orderly dances with patients down at the group home. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am gob-smacked by the extraordinary low-level of Ken's life-time achievements. It's really depressing that someone has led such an insignificant life and had so little to do with members of the opposite sex that having a dance with a real "lady" is something to brag about. His excitement is more becoming of a fifteen-year old on his first date than a sad-sack, middle-aged man in his fifties.  <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been watching CP for a few years now and that exchange may be the saddest and most pathetic thing I've ever seen Ken post. I had to check to make sure it wasn't someone else putting words in his mouth. Seriously? He's making vague predictions for this year that he's going to dance with a woman? Come on... Cow...Hammertime! 14:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's even sadder if you pretend Conservative really is more than one person for a moment. Only one of them has any plans for a dance with a female woman of the opposite gender at this point. Makes you feel sorry for the others. Heresiarch (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The sad part is that, however modest the boast, you know it's still a lie. Any actual woman would be utterly repulsed to hear herself described as Ken's long-haired, conservative, creationist sex object. Or that the entire Kendoll Kollective was privy to her life. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sad part is the thought that announcing one got to dance with a member of the opposite sex would impress anyone outside your junior-high school peers back when one was thirteen.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to pile on, but writing it made me feel like I was bullying a highschool social outcast. You know the one, probably would've been diagnosed autistic if they were in school now, the weirdo couldn't get a clue but still desperately wants to be liked. The difference with Ken is, of course, that most said social outcasts eventually wise up to become productive members of society through sometimes painful intervention and coaching by loved ones. All Ken has are enablers of his behavior, hateful people who "support" him despite his problems because he's on the same "side" as them.


 * I say go get her, Ken, and maybe you'll have a chance at creating a support network outside of CP - someone who'll convince you to get the help you need.


 * If she exists. Shakedangle (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I posted this was because the only thing Ken cares about is attention from people here. Noone else cares about him, especially his 'friends' over at cp.  Any one of the people here would probably do far more to try to help him than any of his xian 'friends' do. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I've said his before: in my experience, mental illness does not change a person's nature. It may influence or cause strange behavior, but particularly when someone is not in crisis, you get a fair idea of who and what they are. Ken clearly has something very wrong with him, but in his core he is not a good person. He's a dishonest bigot. A cult extremist. A misogynist who views women merely as chidlbearing accoutrement with luxurious long creationist hair, or, as he's said, whores, witches, cold fish, etc. Being a vociferous YEC who adopted the worldview in adulthood, vs. someone who was merely raised in the culture, he willfully misrepresents whatever it lakes to zing his religious enemies. His articles make clear that, like a child telling obvious lies, he will build these elaborate stories that are patently ridiculous on their face on the basis of a few facts he's misrepresented. This atheism and obesity nonsense is but one example. Make no mistake: he hates you if you don't agree with him. It's very clear that he's not above repeatedly hijacking entire discussions to make irrelevant attacks on users solely because they've expressed ideas that deviate in the slightest detail from his wooden and flawed biblical literalism and hateful YEC worldview. Remember AugustO? SamHB and Iduan are getting it now. There will always be some "liberal" (ie non-YEC) for him to attack. There will always be science to lie about, shoddy biblical hermeneutics to be done, other extremist hatemongers to parrot and idolize. He's not even what he purports to be: Christians don't workshop the bible or YEC. They're not idolaters of the likes of Shockoffod or Carl Weiland. I don't wish him ill, but, beyond feeling awfully sorry for a man who's wasted his life, I might push him out of the way of oncoming traffic, but I wouldn't lift a finger to offer any less exigent aid. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to argue that his behavior is a result of Andy and co's enabling, but then I realized it could be the other way around. He stays on CP because his behavior isn't tolerated elsewhere. The conundrum is that the moment he tries socializing normally with some actual people who, you know, can't be reduced to stereotypes and be blocked, it's straight back to CP with a 8 hour editing spree. It's all one feedback loop of assholery, I'm sure. And here I was trying not to pile on. Shakedangle (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sad sad sad. Ken will be dancing with a woman in 2014. That's the bench-mark of something good in Ken's life. Well, Ken, I'll be banging my long haired, sweet atheist wife many, many times this year. Enjoy your dance. Acei9 22:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

UGH. Okay last one I promise. Ken, we don't doubt you love the ladies. We're sure you do! It's just that, same as virtually every encounter we see you have online, you tend to reduce them to caricatures and stereotypes; you don't engage with them as individuals. If you do go on this date, try not to shoe-horn her into an idealized vision of womanhood, and get upset if she doesn't perfectly fit the mold. And on that note I'll take your advice. Shakedangle (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I largely want to resign from this conversation... 24 edits over the course of 3 hours later with no longer than a 24 minute break. Ken, you're fucking nuts. Are you capable of doing anything you say you will? You can't even speak truth about the most trivial of things. No wonder you call it a "blessing" from your god that any woman would dance with you this year. I agree. It would take a miracle. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The ultimate sad is that it may not even be Ken dancing with a female, it may be one of his female alter-egos dancing with a man . <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 00:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've suddenly come to the conclusion that Ken's confused Second Life with, well, life. That could explain a lot.-- 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So does anybody know the reason why Andy keeps Ken around? Now that his once prodigious output has pretty much plateaued, he only serves as a repellant to attracting future editors. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy's inability to admit mistakes, his propensity for avoiding decisions that might lead to conflict, his complete denial over the quality of the stuff Ken produces. Take your pick. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Countdown...
...to Andy/Kenneth dancing on Hoffman's grave... -- 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Andy will be too busy gloating over Broncos' Super Bowl performance. Vulpius (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. "Peyton Manning overrated, liberal media, Conservapedia prove right, blah blah blah." Then the grave dancing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. Vulpius (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Conservapedia proven right, again: Overrated Sports Star Peyton Manning throws twice as many interceptions as TD passes, resulting in a massively lopsided Super Bowl loss, despite the inane pre-game hype by the media." lmao. Andy's become too predictable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does Andy actually watch any sportsball games? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Andy fancies himself to be a sportsball fan. His wife pays the cable bill to keep him out of her hair? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 02:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And he finally gets around to the grave dancing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm
Andy reports that A heterosexual male is typically attracted to women in addition to his wife, while a converted former homosexual is typically physically attracted to only his girlfriend or wife.</I> Andy, she's called a "beard," and you can probably find him at a favorite hiking trail after dark.
 * Andy has now told his wife why he wants to fuck his homskollar girls... Thank the FSM and the IPU that she does not read his blog. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 02:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I also note, "Homosexuality is highly correlated to someone's activities and culture. For example, training in baseball and figure skating begin when a boy is only about six years ago [sic]. After years of engaging in those activities, often for hours each day, upon reaching adulthood fewer than 1 in 1000 baseball players are homosexual, while estimates are that 33% of male figure skaters are -- a 300-fold difference after doing different activities."

I guess it could</I> be that ballet lessons are 333 times more likely to make you gay than baseball, but isn't just possible that that six-year old boys who choose ballet over baseball might have a reason? Whoover (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or being a pro-baseball player leads to you being closeted. Or, given that it's Andy... he's just lying, again. A Real Libertarian (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget about the second half of that sentence, the affirmation of the first half could certainly be read as an interesting thing to bring up all of a sudden. -- 09:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy has no statistics for the number of baseball players who are homosexual because in most "manly" sports anyone who is openly gay tends to get bullied and victimised. Hopefully, that will become less of an issue in the future as society in general becomes less bigoted. The problem is that those involved in very physical sports are often not the sharpest knives in the block and act as a repository of ignorance and bigotry. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course Andy pulled those numbers entirely out of his arse. Guarantee he didn't get them from any cited study, nor did he make the effort himself to look at every baseball player and male ballet performer to verify his hypothesis.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of pulling stuff out of his ass, the Superbowl's record-breaking ratings (which contradict Andy's prediction that liberals have made football boring for real Amuricans) are the result of More Liberal Denial. Has this guy ever made a compelling case to a judge or jury? Whoover (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reality is whatever Andy claims it to be; I'm sure there is a term for that somewhere...--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Andy's breathtaking idiocy
Wow...what the.... No words... Acei9 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That indeed is pretty fucking stupid. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to downplay the obvious bit of humor, but there is no global flood myth in Japanese mythology. For many years the Japanese took this to mean that they were the best and all that. Ayzmo (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His idiocy level is over 9000 tonight; check out this gem: Bill Nye's jokes and stories were surprisingly unsuccessful. For example, he seemed unaware that the vast majority of people do not watch the Super Bowl, and his reference to Seattle winning the Super Bowl fell flat. -Nets awesome (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been years since I watched more than a few minutes of the Super Bowl. I didn't watch a single second of it this year. Despite that, I can tell you the Seattle Seahawks won this year's, in a blowout. That's true most years -- I'll remember the game winner and a fact or two ("blowout", "close, exciting game", "wardrobe malfunction") for a few weeks after. It's covered enough in the media I'd have to either completely isolate myself from all media for a week or so starting at kickoff, or make an incredibly intense to avoid hearing any mention of the game. Knowing something about the Super Bowl is just part of being part of the American culture -- you can't miss it. MDB (the MD used to be for Maryland, but now means Magically Deliciousthe B is still for Bear) 15:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, he clearly missed Ham's attempt at a joke along the lines of "I could respond to everything you said, but it'd feel like we've been here for millions of years." I don't think I've ever heard a delivery so flat. The only thing worse than a rehearsed joke is a rehearsed joke delivered that badly. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * l like this one: "Bill Nye said that the Bible has been translated many times, implying that it is flawed as a result". Isn't that exactly the point of the CBP?
 * Apparently Andy's never heard of whales.--Umichcynic (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Years ago Andy explained that fossils occured at height because rocks were easy to fold after the flood because they were wet... He seems to forget what he's said on a regular basis. Sorry, I've no link. Sphincter (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CP gets mentioned in the real press, but there's something weird....
"At one point, Sherman said, Sherman’s entry on Conservapedia, a sort of right-wing Wikipedia, contained the news that his wife, Jennifer Stahl, had left her job at The New Yorker—months-old news that had not been reported in any public venue, but which Sherman had disclosed to a Fox News source just a day before.."...but the article in question doesn't seem to say anything about that. any dedicated CP-watchers have a better idea of what's going on? PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia in Jan 2014
I up-dated Conservapedia:Active users.

The numbers are up, again, from Dec 2013: due to a more lenient policy when it comes to account creation, CP could attract more editors (or spammers) than in the last four months. Nevertheless, Jan 2014 was one of the worst month in CP's history: only the previous four month (and Nov 2006) generated less edits, and only during the last few months, in the very beginning (Nov 2006, Dec 2006, Jan 2006) and at the height of TK's suffocation of CP (Sep - Nov 2010) there were fewer unique editors.

Andy achieves this not by blocking editors openly, but by denying them access to the server. E.g., I was informed that (at least some of) those who returned to CP after extensive blocks got their IPs blocked after a few uncontroversial edits. CP becomes more and more Andy's secret blog which can only be read in his tree-house where his club plots to defend TRVE CONSERVATIVISM.

Nevertheless, here a very nice pic of Jan 2014 at CP:

--larron (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, essay edition
He's [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_An_atheist_nutter_enslaved_by_Satan! spreading his shit far and wide now]. I think this must be one of his manic periods. Hey, Nutty! Apparently your dad is Satan or something. Seems a bit personal to me, he's probably quite nice once you get to know him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS, Ken. My "screed" was pretty tame by your hateful standards. You're the one wishing painful and violent ends on people you hate. Let's look at what we've got here. So you're misrepresenting what I said. Nothing new for an inveterate liar like you. We've got some bizarre deceitful nonsense hand-waving away that everyone knows exactly who you are. I know quite a bit more since you went on your insane campaign of harassment against Human at aSK that you cowardly had Rayment delete. No surprise that you consistently refuse to accept the consequences of being such a buffoon. We've got you making fun of my username. You could have looked this up: it's a cooking term. We've got some irrelevant nonsense about satanic deception. Yawn. And then finally we've got another ad hominem attack on my machismo. I laughed out loud, both at the irony of a man who has such a pathetic love life that he has to boast about a woman he's completely objectified dancing with him at some point in the next 10 months, and you indulging your pseudoscientific fantasy that you can read minds and know anything at all about my "machismo". Go back to the group home, buddy. You're an embarrassment. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And of course you hate women. You have never once referred to one on CP or your blog except as a non-person, in terms of what she can do for you, or, where you viciously hate them for believing differently than you, as whores and witches. That's revolting, but it's entirely in line with what we expect from you. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He's cast aspersions on your taste in peanut butter! Are you going to just sit there and take it? Honestly, that insult would elicit "WTF?" from a bunch of 7-year olds at recess.  Poor Ken must have had a very traumatic childhood. Whoover (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I must offer a correction.
 * Ken clearly states "in 2014", that is, at the current date, 10 months, 3 weeks and 1 day.
 * Checkmate, Atheists! A Real Libertarian (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is fucked up. Acei9 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And surprise surprise, he's locked the essay and its talk page. What a coward.  Nets awesome (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do they say about insanity? Something like doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? I can't I necessarily agree, if only because practice makes perfect, but I'm not seeing any improvement in Ken's familiar essays. He's used some of this material 19 times now (!!!) and quality doesn't seem to be improving. Back to the group home, Ken. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An old friend of mine used to say that "practice doesn't make perfect; practice makes permanent". Practice garbage, and you'll keep getting garbage. - Grant (Talk) 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And now Ken is imaging that he has "won" something . Fuck knows what it is. Acei9 23:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oi, Karajou. Rather than just ignoring Ken's insane rampages as usual, why not take this opportunity to encourage him to seek medical help? He might actually listen to you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Could he have Aspergers?--Mercian (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He's a truth averse, attention-seeking, hate-filled asshole is what he is. Regardless of what other maladies he may or may not have, he's simply an asshole. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Love this quote: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Which would make Ken the greatest mass murderer of all time as he hates anyone who does not follow his dogma, that would be 7 billion plus. I actually think he is calling Nutty, and by extension everyone here, murderers. A step too far--Mercian (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn straight. I just murdered a bottle of Cava and half a pecan pie. I declare victory. ¡Olé olé olé! [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he got what he wanted. Enough attention to make his dick grow big so he could massage it until the white stuff appears. I guess he finally climaxed, probably inside a poor dog (female dog of course) at 05.37. Fucking perv. As for appealing to Karajou, I predict a rant on Republican Comment about how that particular dodgy area of Hell called Otisburg hates some amendment or other.--Mercian (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I could unread that. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was gratuitous. Phiwum (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So Ken oversighted his boast on Karajou's talk page? I think I'm now well and truly inured to his deceitfulness and cowardice, but I still feel a bit of dismay at what a sad loser he is and the fact that he does not realise it. The only consolation is the knowledge that he won't be passing his genes down to future generations. <font color=Blue>Генгис
 * I'm sure that ken is aware that he is a lying hypocrite. He just can't help continuing being one and thinks that speaking to his imaginary friend makes it all better for him.  Oldusgitus (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

15:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd totally forgotten the phrase "atheism is a clown and it did not know it" until now. Does that one get aired regularly or is it a bit of a throwback?  00:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The peanut butter slam on Nutty Roux's masculinity has an interesting tangent. As NR says, "nutty roux" describes the aromas of Cajun (not French) roux, which is flour cooked in fat much longer than in French cuisine. Cajun roux can cook for a half-hour or longer and gets much more aromatic and dark-colored than French roux, which is only cooked for a few minutes and stays white. French roux is the basis of white sauces, and is primarily a thickener and not a flavoring. Cajun roux makes gumbos and other dishes dark and, well, nutty. Cajun roux may be stopped at various stages, depending on desired character. They are usually described by their appearance as "white blonde, peanut butter, milk chocolate and dark chocolate." "Nutty roux" is most often used as a synonym for the milk chocolate stage because that's when the aroma really develops. So Ken's association of peanut butter and Nutty Roux might have been divinely inspired. Way to go Ken! You've worked another miracle. Whoover (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your learned analysis but despite his issues Ken’s still a wretch; In his own terms and by his own standards he’s an evil, satanic turd of a wretch. JumboWhales (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait...are the girls in the picture supposed to be Christian? How does he assert that?  The "peace" symbol they're giving actually means "I consent to having my picture taken".  --Seth Peck (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why "supposed to be"? Is it difficult to believe that Chinese people might be Christian?  If you have doubts about this, why not click on the very clearly cited link to the Flickr source, which makes it pretty clear they are Christians, rather than making weird conjectures about the hand gesture, which is ubiquitous in East Asian social photographs.  00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the peace symbol means what? (My Cantonese in-laws -- at least the younger ones -- cannot resist making that gesture when a camera comes around, but I promise you they do not mean to convey they consent!  It means the same thing as when Yanks do it in a photo -- which is, roughly, nothing at all but a way of distinguishing oneself with a gesture which is ever so vaguely cool.)  Where did you get the idea it means consent? Phiwum (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I very, very rarely look at anything on CP, even when referenced here, so I don't know much about the conventions of that place. My question is, what the hell is "a member of the User: Conservative account" supposed to mean? I thought it was only Ken's account but is it really a group account or something? Doctor Dark (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one of his attempts to be mysterious and part of his "You don't know who I am" bullshit. He's also trying to make it look like he's not just one bloke who spends the most part of 24 hours sat in front of his computer by trying to get people to think that User:Conservative's contributions are the works of several different people. It's nothing new. He's been saying it for years. Spud (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aw! It's cute that Ken still has a hard-on for the Asian ladies. I wonder if we'll hear about his sweet-voiced Korean creationist sweetheart again any time soon? --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, Ken? How long until the Hambeast is all there is of you?--The Madman (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Nye v Ham
Terry Chuckbum has got his mate Walt "Hydroplate" Brown to say how he would have ground Bill Nye into the dust. This is the stuff that really makes Darwinists quake in their atheist boots: apart from the Hydroplate Theory, it's got radioactivity changing rate to suit Biblical chronology, formation of radioactive heavy nuclei by cold fusion ('cold' in this case being a few hundred degrees), the bristlecone pine syllogism (the Earth is 6000 years old, the oldest bristlecone pine is slightly younger than 6000 years, therefore the Earth is 6000 years old), the bukkake asteroid theory, the limestone non-sequitur (observed depths of limestone cannot have been laid down by coral reefs in 6000 years, therefore limestone was not laid down by coral), and finally a challenge by an idiot to scientists to waste their lives arguing with him. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He comes dangerously close to saying Ham lost...-- "Shut up, Brx." 00:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Following some other links links I found Why I Believe Ken Ham Won By Losing the Debate... Which explains "There were multiple times I believed he could have hammered Nye on some of his inconsistencies but in my opinion chose not to. Was this a sign of weakness? On the contrary, I believe this showed incredible strength."--Coffee (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just another way to play to their massive persecution complex - look, Ken was being nice and that nasty Bill still went and stomped on him. Where's the chivalry in that? <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 11:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the Olympics!
Is it bad that I'm waiting for Andy to post about joke sports, gay marriage leading to fewer medals and women ruining it for men? --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 10:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Schrödinger's Joke Sport". The sport in question is only defined as joke if someone undesirable wins gold. If a homophobe or fundy wins gold it is then a "Great Conservative Sport"--Mercian (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As always, Andy will make some vague predictions about the games, and afterwards move the goalposts to the exact spot to make his predictions true. "Because they legalized gay marriage, County X only won 99 gold medals when they should have won 150!" DickTurpis (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Russia will perform well given it's the Winter Olympics and they're the host country. Andy will use this as proof that homophobia leads to more medals. He'll ignore or rationalize away all alternative explanations. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the host country have an advantage? I know in some games, like American football there is a definite homefield advantage, but I don't see how it can help someone run faster, jump higher, etc. DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine that training in the same facilities that you will compete on is part of that, especially in sports like skiing. Not having to travel and deal with jet lag, etc. is probably a factor, too. Having the crowd behind you can't hurt either. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll buy training the same same facilities. But do they do that? Have the Russian skiers been practicing on the actual courses they'll use in the competitions? Jet lag makes sense, I guess, but I imagine most of the athletes have time to recover before they start competing, though I could be wrong. Having the crowd behind you can help in teams sports and in some situations, but I can't see it adding height to a high jump, or helping someone run faster in the 200 meters, especially when the entire crowd is cheering anyway, and one can't differentiate who they're cheering for. I could see it being some sort of advantage, but marginal enough to be almost negligible. Do the host countries send a disproportionate number of athletes? That would certainly account for a real home field advantage. DickTurpis (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For some sports knowing the local track can be an advantage as some special facilities are created and the home athletes can get to practice on them beforehand. But I would also think that for a major event on home soil the government often makes extra funds available for training to ensure that the home-nation has something to cheer about; after all, it normally requires significant investment to host a major tournament and there needs to be a feel-good pay-off. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to try to pretend I know the real reason as to why it happened but I do think that the UK definately got a boost from being the home nation in 2012. My guess would be that the national spirit was such that the athletes tried just that 'little' bit harder.  The mood walking down the street, in the workplace and in the pubs was amazing.  I am not jingoistic or nationalistic in the right wing sense, although I do think the UK is a great place to live, but even I felt national pride.  Watching the Brownlees, watching Wiggo nail the sprint in the cycling, watching Mo and hearing the noise as a naturalised British refugee from Somalia dominated the 100000, seeing rowers who didn't really expect to win gold push just that 'tiny' bit harder to take it.  There really was an almost tangible feeling.  So perhaps that, perhaps not.  Oldusgitus (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The same ting happens in football doesn't it?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It does in American football, but in team sports there are a lot of factors in who wins, much more than in something like a 200 meter dash or luge. I don't care how loudly people are cheering for you, it ain't going to make your sled go any faster. I really don't see how a crowd could've made Mo Farrah run faster. I think he won because he was the fastest runner. Yes, he tried very hard, but I think you can say that of all the competitors. DickTurpis (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with 'making the sled go faster'. It's to do with the competitor trying just that little bit harder.  If you are really saying that you always try your hardest in everything you do then you are a strange person.  Having a hugely vocal home crowd behind you surely can encourage you to overstep what you thought were your own limits, if only by a very small amount.  It is that effect I am talking about.  There is a reason home teams predominantly win home fixtures in association football and it's nothing to do with them training on the pitches.  Tehy don't.  They have specialist training facilities and only run around on the actual pitch during games. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, certainly everyone doesn't try their hardest in everything they do, but I'm pretty sure when they're going for the gold in the Olympics they are trying their damned hardest. There can be a psychological advantage in some cases, sure, but "run down this track as fast as I can!" isn't the sort of activity wherein psychology plays an important role. Team sports in particular can be more susceptible to this, and you can find many examples of measurable advantages home teams have in sports, particularly when the fans are actively trying to sabotage one team's chances. I guess there's enough of these sorts in the Olympics that they might make an eventual difference in medal counts, but there are plenty in which I don't see how the home field can help. DickTurpis (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're kidding! Psychology is massive in athletics. From sprinting to the marathon. Team GB put a huge amount of effort into this in the years leading up to 2012. Many of the top competitors have their own retained sports psychologists. When you're dealing with the tiny percentages that separate Gold from also-ran, even the smallest advantage becomes significant. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know what you mean, but I don't necessarily see how there's a consistent direct correlation between psychology and representing the host country, especially since for minor psychological benefits to make the difference you have to be one of the best competitors already, which isn't any more likely for the host country. I don't buy they "they try harder" hypothesis, anyway. Really what I'm wondering is if there's anything more concrete than "national spirit" that can account for a noticeable advantage host countries seem to have. Is there something quantifiable? I know there is for some sports, but I've always been a bit skeptical of the innate home field advantage being a universal. I think the study Night Jaguar posted below explains part of it much better, in pointing out that subjectively assessed sports showed the greatest home field advantage, indicating that the host doesn't necessarily do better, but is seen (consciously or subconsciously) to do better. I also imagine host countries do well out of selection bias, as only countries that historically have prospered at the Olympics are chosen to host (still waiting for Burundi to get their chance). I think my original question was basically do the host countries have a disproportionate number of competitors compared to the other countries, and if so, is it because they put more effort and money into their teams when they host (as I have no doubt they do) or is there some actual rule that gives the host better representation? I'm guessing the answer to the latter is no. DickTurpis (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This paper looked at the advantages of host countries in the Winter Olympics:
 * "We obtained indices of home advantage, based on the medals won by competing nations, for each event held at the Winter Olympics from 1908 to 1998.... When all events were combined, a significant home advantage was observed ( P = 0.029), although no significant differences in the extent of home advantage were found between events ( P > 0.05). When events were grouped according to whether they were subjectively assessed by judges, significantly greater home advantage was observed in the subjectively assessed events ( P = 0.037). This was a reflection of better home performances, suggesting that judges were scoring home competitors disproportionately higher than away competitors. Familiarity with local conditions was shown to have some effect, particularly in alpine skiing, although the bobsled and luge showed little or no advantage over other events. Regression analysis showed that the number of time zones and direction of travel produced no discernible trends or differences in performance."
 * --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. That makes sense to me. Thanks for finding that. DickTurpis (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It is however "A crushing blow to the homosexual agenda:" because a straight man won a gold medal.--Mercian (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The host nation also tends to pour a lot more money into training their athletes, which certainly helps Ruddager (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * His name is Sage, and Ken thinks he is a conservative? (I know nothing about the man, but from his name, I'd guess he eats a lot of granola and shops at a co-op.) Phiwum (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He's from Utah, so probably a Mormon, i.e. not a real Christian in Ken's book. Oops. <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 19:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ken just loves the long hair. Whoover (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That guy is Ken's poster boy for defeating the homosexual agenda? Ken better rethink his strategy. DickTurpis (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of interest did andy ever come up with an explanation as to how the despicably homofaggotrous and liberal UK (which even by andy's ever changing conserva-canon is still his most loathed nation of all time) managed to not only come third in 2012 but managed to outperform his current favourite nation Russia? or did he just doublethink it away as he usually did? Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 01:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He may have played the "joke sports" card, as he did with Canada in 2010. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for his particular loathing of the UK?--Mercian (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Try to keep up man. It's a wretched hive of socialism and atheism. They make people like Darwin, Dawkins and Hitchens over there. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the NHS and the lack of guns. He quite probably has an ancestor unjustly hanged by the Brits too. Sphincter (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I have come to suspect its a mix of having so many scientists/scientific theories he despises and fears originate here (evolution, black holes, etc), the fact so many "liberal icons" in his mind come from here, and most importantly the fact we have (I suspect) a relatively high amount of online sceptics and general fundie mockers who would have gleefully been mocking, vandalizing, and generally pissing on conservapedia since its inception. The fact we have a relatively progressive society is just the icing on the hate cake. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Andy on British performance in 2012 Olympics: "Britain has done remarkably well in the past week, and some of its gold medals (e.g., Andy Murray in tennis) were nothing short of spectacular. Conservatives accept the real facts, even when (in this case) it is contrary to American bravado." When he wrote that I was honestly wondering whether his account had been hacked. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weird to think that was written by the same guy who said Canada embarrassed themselves by having their best Olympics ever, and not winning the gold in hockey in a blowout. Then again, Andy has a little hard on for Murray. DickTurpis (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You also have to remember that Murray was the underdog, and according to Andy, liberals hate supporting underdogs. <font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 14:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy: "In Britain, where atheism dominates, people dislike underdogs and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win." Following Andy is like reading the Bible; you get a bunch of weird ideas that contradict themselves. At least the Bible has the excuse of being written by many different authors several centuries ago. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Yes, I'd say British audiences are well known in Europe for rooting for the underdogs when no own guys are in the running. Octo8 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. As long as they're not French.  Or German.  Sometimes we're not too fond of the Americans but it's not as bad as other nationalities.  I reckon that generally we've nothing against the Spanish and I quite like the Italians, especially Valentino Rossi.  And we generally don't mind the Dutch.  But not the French or the Germans :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * True, actually. If it weren't for that I'd call the British audiences truly sportsman-like, but some fans seem to be a bit vicious when it comes to Germany. But then, when are we ever the underdogs? [/smug] :p Also they aren't as bad as the Dutch fans, heh. Octo8 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Keeeen
Looks the homosexual agenda is laughing in your sun-deprived face-- "Shut up, Brx." 18:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently she's bisexual, so she likes men just enough to avoid being overweight and having a host of health problems like all lesbians of course do. And it's a joke sport anyway. --Kels (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, t.A.T.u. performed at the opening ceremony and the dark haired one is also allegedly openly bi. But then again, she's also hawt enough for Ken to spill seed over, so I guess she doesn't count. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin undefined 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking similar Psy. This is like a huge wet dream for Ken really isn't it.  He can hate them and fantasise about converting them at the same time. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * guys...for the sake of all that is decent please stop speculating as to ken's ejaculatory habits. I would honestly rather imagine being sewn onto the back of a human cenipede comprised entirely of lepers than think of that. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides Ken getting off on lesbians (which I agree is a topic to be avoided), I'd imagine both he and Andy would celebrate lesbians taking medals, like candy from babies, from the demure ladies who really don't have any business in sports to begin with. One manly woman in the bunch is bound to clean up.  That's the opposite of a raft of girly men competing with Christian men, which is a fool's errand. Whoover (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of masturbation, isn't this page for talking about what's going at Conservapedia? The Olympic stuff seems devoid of that (except one ole ole ole) and full of random thoughts about what Ken or Andy or whoever might say. Just sayin', is all. Wait for the amusement, don't try to write it in advance? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forget to add - don't let me stop the fun! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman [[Image:human sig talk.gif|link=User talk:Human|User talk:Human]] 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pulling Ken up on his support of gay murder results in a ban for the machismo-lacking editor
That bus you would push him away from Nutty, I don't think I would bother. It would be kinder to Ken and the human race in general. I would not piss on him if he were on fire.--Mercian (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unblocked by andy, apparently Jerry successfully appealed. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Crossed the line. I don't wish Ken ill, but I also don't wish him well. He's not a good person, but FFS don't adopt his ghastly worldview of wishing violence and pain on those he hates. Tell me you'd help anyone in a bad spot like that, no matter how odious. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would piss on some of them if they were on fire. If I were pissing petrol that is.  Oldusgitus (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, I have finally realized the Conservapedia is a force for good. The mentally ill person who wants death for homosexuality is spending thousands of hours editing a nutty website everyone else takes as a joke instead of loitering outside a gay bar heavily armed, and struggling with confusing urges.  And banning people for doubting his "authority" instead of, you know trying to establish that kind of dominance with a gun.  Ikanreed (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha, loiter outside a gay-bar? It takes a virtual miracle to get Ken out of his apartment (now he no longer lives with his mom), and heavily-armed for Ken is carrying a bag of marshmallows. <font color=Blue>Генгис  silverbrain.png 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "loitering outside a gay bar heavily armed, and struggling with confusing urges" I chuckled. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ken's Abaddon the Despoiler imitation is becoming quite unfunny at this rate. Oh, wait. It isn't a imitation. He is that crazy.--The Madman (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman
 * Ken is in a block war with Andy and Brenden over JerryCa. I think Ken is hearing posts in his mind that don't exist.  Two blocks for behavior "since his return" even though JerryCa hasn't posted since Andy unblocked him. Whoover (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He burned something that (presumably) JerryCa posted on Talk:Main Page before blocking him. Cow...Hammertime! 16:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good old Kendoll. He may not uphold the letter of CP's laws, but he's sure got the dickish spirit right down to a tee. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's got Conservapedia's Law down pretty well: 10 be a hateful dick to anyone the moment they express anything you might construe as disagreement 20 goto 10. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you just love endless goto loops of hatred? - Grant (Talk) 17:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ken has a point though, how dare this upstart criticise him for all but advocating the genocide of homosexuals, it is indeed poor behaviour to object to such reason, although in many nations he would find himself on the wrong end of a criminal charge. Seriously now, anything that a closeted homosexual and probable obese animal fancying sociopathic arsehole like him considers poor behaviour is fine by me and probably 99 % of the human race, of which he is barely a member.--Mercian (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus dude. He's probably gay, but gay is OK. He might be obese since being overweight is endemic in the christian community, but obesity is something you can work on and change. Who knows if he's into bestiality. It's definitely ooky and there are plenty of things to put your dick in that have the capacity to consent. But these aren't things that outwardly have anything to do with his loathsome character as far as I can tell. If you're talking about him being a hypocrite, say so. His real problem seems to be untreated mental illness. His "Dumbo's Feather" article is heartbreaking in light of his regular crisis episodes. He's also a creep even when he's not having a breakdown. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not saying these things are bad, he is. And the mental illness thing does not stand up, plenty of people, including myself have suffered from mental illness before but I would not have been able to use that as an excuse if I started acting in a way that would make even Fred Phelps cringe. Is Christianity not supposed to be about love? About spreading the word of god? His version of Christianity is all about hate. Mental illness or not, no fucking excuse--Mercian (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No the point is that he's not a good person notwithstanding his obvious illness. He doesn't have to be gay, fat, or a sheepfucker to be a creep. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Creep? Describing him as a creep is like describing Stalin as unpleasent.--Mercian (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Calms down a little. Sorry for my rant. I am not as familiar with him as the majority of you, but in the few months since I have been aware of him I can safely say he is the most odious little turd I have come across on an internet full of odious little turds. Have you seen his latest post describing atheists/agnostics/RW posters as "sissy boys", does that not make us targets of his fantasy gay cull?--Mercian (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, guys! It could all be that and more! Since we're talking about the horrible embodiment of gibbering depraved human evil and slothful impotence which reality has chosen to call Ken, it could get even worse. At the very least, he's not in a place of power over any other human being or able to influence anyone.--The Madman (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman