User talk:Ed Poor

Plea for tolerance
Can we please have a little more tolerance here, and less name-calling? Thank you. --Uncle Ed bug me 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm... No. --Gulik (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Let me rephrase that: "No, you bigoted, dishonest, hypocritical creep." --Gulik --Gulik (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (And I'll stop now, before the list of abuse gets even longer.)
 * Get us some 'tolerance' on CP, and I'll consider it. --Gulik (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You asking for "tolerance" makes me think of this: ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters. --Still Gulik (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed, i know you're not very bright and would rather be watching films with young actresses...
...so I'll keep this short and clear. We don't need an article on the founder of Scientific American which contains exactly one fact: that he founded Scientific American--that one fact can go into the article we already have. We aren't really an encyclopedia, much less a dictionary, so we don't need articles on random words that you think up. A one-sentence Edstub which contains no words that can link to other articles is useless--as is a one-sentence Edstub that can't reasonably be linked to from somewhere else. P-Foster (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

person who blocked him is no longer in the project
Here is a list of those who were blocked by persons who themselves are no longer in the project:

Of course, by unblocking Bugler, the list became much shorter. So, the easiest way would be to unblock all those on the left side...

19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Easiest way to do what? --Uncle Ed bug me 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To stay consistent! You unblocked Bugler, stating that person who blocked him is no longer in the project. Above, you see a table of the editors at CP for whom the same reasoning applies. So, either you unblock everyone who was blockdr by a person who is no longer in the project - or you make sure that these blocking person are in the project again. Problem served. No justice done.
 * 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. (Emerson) Please don't tempt me to do something irrational. --Uncle Ed bug me 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we see an entry for TK? I know he's still in the project, but I just want to see the box dwarf the other entries and eclipse the sun. ONE / TALK 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

''A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think today in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. '' Emerson spoke against the yoke of consistency over time: you should be allowed to come to new convictions. But you have to be steadfast in your convictions! So, I doubt that Emerson would have enjoyed CP's inconsistency at a point in time. 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote mining from a Conservapedian? Who would have thought it? 15:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't tempt me to do something irrational. HAHAHAHAHAhaha... dude, you totally already did this by unblocking Bugler in the first place. -- 01:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I got called on the carpet for that one. Poor Mr. Ugler might become unglued over all this fuss. --Uncle Ed bug me 02:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on Ed, tell us truthfully. Who were you trolling? Us or TK? ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 17:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind who we're talking to here as well. DickTurpis (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed
Hi *runs away laughing* Aimless Blaster (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really Ed Poor, or just a joke user here? If you really are the famous user #188, can you do the obvious proof, and say here first something you will then type shortly after on CP?  Thank you for your time.  05:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, in lieu of that,, something on Wikipedia that we can confirm? 05:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are so cynical ...
 * "The cynic is his own worst enemy. It requires far less skill to run a wrecking company than it does to be an architect." Okay? --Uncle Ed bug me 13:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Ed? I think I'd rather trust a wrecking crew with a controlled demolition than an architect.
 * Still, maybe you can silence the cynic within me by answering the following:
 * How come you find references to prostitutes "too lurid for your kids", a picture of a cartoon maid "too sexy fir a family site" and claim you deleted a picture of Lara Croft, because she has "voluptuous breasts and a bulging vulva"; when at the same time you are adding references to bestiality (on more than one occasion, including a 'sex with animals" redirect), rimming, "adult child sex" and "hard core pornography? Or are you implying that your kids and families that use Conservapedia are comfortable with those things, whilst finding a cartoon French maid, abhorrent? Prove the cynic within me wrong, by actually giving a reasoned and sensible answer, and not hiding behind some inane quotemine. -- PsyGremlin  13:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair Ed, the reason for the doubt was that as CP has a strict thou must not be a member of thine "vandal site" of which thoust mustn't speaketh, and you are a senior administrator at CP, it's not possible for you to be editing here, without breaking the CP rules. 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You forget one thing DS. It's precisely because he is a "senior admin" that the rules don't apply to him. You should know by now, the CP sysop's motto is "Do what my writing plan for you says, not as I do." -- PsyGremlin  13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See wp:Exception that proves the rule. --Uncle Ed bug me 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No Ed, I will not follow your inane links (and what rule are you the exception to anyway?). Or is that your answer to why you can post here and everybody else gets blocked? How about responding to my initial claims above? Can't be that hard can it? Come on Ed, put the cynic inside me to rest. You can do it. -- PsyGremlin  15:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein
 * Ok, so based on your quote above, just so we're clear here: You can't explain to me why you have a predilection for writing about bestiality, rimming and bulging vulvae (not to mention young girls), because you don't understand why you do it. Now that sounds to me like somebody who needs help. Although, I would do it on the quiet if I was you - wouldn't want to mess up Andy's '0 mental prolems'... oh wait, Ken's already done that. -- PsyGremlin  19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor?
The Ed Poor? Edmund Poor III? 09:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed none other than the famous "Uncle Ed" Poor. I was collaborating with him on CP on some movie articles, until Terry Koeckritz blocked me for something or other.  13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TK's like a sheriff who prefers to shoot first, ask questions later. But if you want to come back and help the project, let me know. --Uncle Ed bug me 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get many answers to your questions if your target is dead. So go ahead let him metaphorically shoot everybody and block the whole world from editing at CP. After all, it's what he's been working towards ever since he was forgiven for his lies, plagiarism and treachery. 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "TK's like a sheriff who prefers to shoot first, ask questions later" Yes Ed, and thanks to TK pushing through the "no other admin shall question an admin's block, and you lot all being too shit scared to stand up to him, he's allowed to run rampant over CP. Ed, cast your mind back to July 2008, before TK made his odious presence felt again. Now look at CP today? Still the same place? Or, do you actually think it's better? You have 2 non-sysop editors - FOIA and TZoran and one of those is probably a parodist. You have parodist sysops and one who is clearly going insane. Yes, just as long as you can keep posting your one-liners about bestiality or 11-year-old girls, you're happy. -- PsyGremlin  08:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, if you need to be reinstated, I can always call up TK and make your case for you. What contribution were you trying to make there? --Uncle Ed bug me 21:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Poor, as an experienced wiki editor and a longstanding and respected admin at CP
along with your being a conservative christian, what is your opinion of the recent contributions of CP:User:conservative to Mr. Schlafly's encyclopaedia project? Thank you. 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He's a better writer than I am, and he brings in a lot of traffic. --Uncle Ed bug me 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the quality and substance of his recent romps and do you have any comment on the nature of the web traffic CP is receiving as a result? [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 18:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help noticing it, but I haven't given it much thought. If he wants to make fun of his "opponents", who am I to object? Very few people actually want to think about the issues that our rational minds can and should address. A YouTube video where someone gets pwned will always attract more views then a calm, reasoned analysis. Kids just want to have fun.


 * When you're ready to grow up, we have some good article for you. :-) --Uncle Ed bug me 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When I'm ready to grow up? That's a strange thing to say. I know there are a few good articles at CP because I wrote them. They're not the piles of vomit Ken returns to hourly. A middle school writing instructor would send him packing. Really, Ed. He's embarrassing. I'm going to ask you to look at whatever it is he's doing on Recent Changes today and give it the thought you mention above you haven't. Oh, and here's another example of blatant censorship on Conservapedia, along with some gratuitous abuse, this time by chest pounding moron Karajou. Good luck with your "encyclopedia." [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... no, you had some good article (sic) but then we told DouglasA to delete them. -- PsyGremlin  19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's almost kind of cool how Ed can't discriminate between sanity and insanity. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not much here to discriminate between. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "and he brings in a lot of traffic" - Quick question: Do the ends justify the means? I'm talking about making deals with bloggers to write favorable articles about their no-name blogs in return for links to his pet articles or "subtly" spamming links in forums under fake names to boost search rankings without mentioning that he's in fact the author of those articles (or even that he's a CP sysop)? I'm genuinely curious: Do you encourage or even tolerate this kind of spam? --Sid (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship at Conservapedia
You asked for an example of censorship at Conservapedia. You are provided with one. You react by creating a new example. Thanks.

And of course, the messenger is killed - for the only purpose that you can ignore his message.

The next time when you brag about the absence of censorship at Conservapedia, you should just remember this little episode.

20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't blame him LArron. TK cunningly forced the move by writing a post which had to be reverted; and to avoid pissing off TK, Ed had to wipe the whole thing, not just TK's mess. EddyP (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * indeed, When they call you a pedophile on their vandal site, Ed, was a slight against Ed, not me... BTW, my invective for you, dear Ed, is sanctimonious prick: sure as hell, you'll preach about the absence of censorship at CP, again...
 * 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed is too thick/proud to make concessions. We're your audience anyway, LArron. And you're getting a standing ovation, because it has been such a shining example of censorship, willful ignorance and pride. Bravo. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The scary thing is that Ed probably sees nothing wrong with what happened. (TK, as we all know is another kettle of fish entirely) What he did wasn't censorship, it was simply removing somebody who was being negative about CP, and thus by default His Messiahship Andy Schlafly. Yes, it is weird thinking, but this is a "man", remember, who thinks "bestiality" and "adult child sex" belong on a family friendly encyclopaedia. -- PsyGremlin  08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. The entire thing grinds down to Ed having to acknowledge that something is an example of censorship. He won't, so in his eyes, there are none. It's just like the "Nobody managed to refute even one point of my pet articles!" claim Andy and Ken love to make - just dismiss every refutation for some reason, and keep making the claim. --Sid (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Ed, you said:
 * Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this [i.e., there is censorship at Conservapedia]

You now have at least one diff - in fact, you have a whole archived page and the original - but you prefer to ignore this evidence because you weren't pleased by the messenger (though, when you wrote I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you. - whom did you expect to answer but fellow travelers?)

I feel pity for a blind man, but someone who choses not to see, well, that's just an idiot.

09:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that is what we've been saying all along. 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Outstanding stuff there Ed, there ain't no examples of censorship because you've censored 'em! 12:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I raised the question at wikipedia, too. 13:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Waste of time, he'll just say "Don't bring up CP stuff here". If the maggot says anything at all. -- PsyGremlin  13:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He might make the generous offer to "discuss this in private" (meaning that you'll mail him, he'll forward your mail TK and/or the secret discussion group, they will assure him that you're wrong and a terrorist, and then he'll give you some bullshit answer). Also a waste of time, but then again, this entire thing had been doomed from the start, just like you trying to convince Andy that he's wrong on the relativity/GPS thing. --Sid (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I really wanted to achieve was to convince Andy of the arbitrariness of his concept of best conservative new words. But all I managed to do was to show that Andy has no idea of statistics at all to a very small public :-)
 * The GPS and the censorship thing - well that were just to challenges I decided to answer to, waiting how they would try to wiggle out. Nothing new there.
 * 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you know what they say: "When all you have is a (ban-)hammer..." --Sid (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a well-known fact that without oversight and the ban-hammer, CPers are completely unable to defend their positions. That's why Andy demanded a huge deposit from Ames before debating him - not because he was worried Ames wouldn't pitch, but because he knew Ames would tear him a new one. Just the same as when SpinyN made Andy look silly at that speech he gave. Or when Andy quite happily made a fool of himself in front of the NJSC (what's happening there anyway? Have the people who appointed Andy asked for their money back?). Andy & Conservapedia need public debate like a fish needs a bicycle. -- PsyGremlin  14:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No NJSC decision yet. I'm checking every few days and have a Google alert on it. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following all that. Please state the idea, event or person which CP is refusing to describe, or for which it won't even mention an opposing viewpoint about.

What I'm looking for is the alleged conservative counterpoint to what Wikipedia does routinely: omit viewpoints which challenge the liberal, materialistic orthodoxy. For example, the evolution and global warming articles at Wikipedia insist on taking materialism as a given (and nixing mention of anything that smacks of the supernatural) or on assuming the existence of a "scientific consensus" which justifies things like the Kyoto Protocol (and won't give enough space to anti-AGW-theory evidence and arguments.

WP's newfangled "equal validity" notion says that if they are neutral about two ideas, that would give them equal validity, but that defies rationality! The ratio between 50 and 50 is 1:1. The ratio between 75 and 25 is 3:1. But the ratio between 0 and 0 is "division by zero" (undefined). So be definition there is no such thing as equal validity when we are neutral. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that Turing was a homosexual? --  Nx  / talk 21:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooh the irony!
Creepy Uncle Ed on Lenski's letter:

Wow, Ed, so which are you? A liberal, or just an insincere, unhelpful, false scholar? Or do you just like looking bad? Which is it? People want to know! -- PsyGremlin  11:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not a scholar, so what are my other choices again? --Uncle Ed bug me 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey!
Do you also think that every man should have the right to marry his favorite chicken, or the least favorite chicken or the chicken he has never really cared about or... well, you get the point, right? So, are you one of us, the progressive-ethical ones? --Idiot number 58 (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that about as much as I believe that Jesus Christ is a fried egg sandwich. --Uncle Ed bug me 21:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean as opposed to a rather unsuccessful cult leader in Roman Judea? (Oh, I know his followers started something but that was rather a mistake, wasn't it?) Right now I'd rather have a fried egg sarny. 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * The difference, of course, is that the sandwich is useful. --Kels (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator of a vandal site
Better hope TK doesn't find out. AceX-102 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that the bibble isn't completely true and accurate?
I can't respect, let alone worship, anyone (or Anyone) who cares so much more about himself (or Himself) than about others, that he (or He) would strike them dead with thunderbolts, or send 52 bears to rend them into bits, or damn then to an eternity of unremitting torture. ...because that's exactly what the bibble says your god does. Don't let El Presidente Schlafly hear you saying that, better get the oversightion machine fired up Ed! (PS. Isn't Rev Moon revered and worshipped?) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mention the Rev: He's having family trouble: His son wants a couple of million for the Wash Times that daddy gave him for nothing. 22:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

"Do you want to help CP?"
I used to a be moderate-volume contributor to CP, now watching RW occasionally. I'd be happy to go back and start helping again if CP ever showed signs of trying to become an educational resource, even if there were just a few editors working on actual articles. As it stands, like PsyGremlin says, CP currently consists of sysops editing Mainpageright, TK blocking, Conservative... doing his thing, parodists writing parodist stuff, and FOIA writing about Alger Hiss. If you don't believe me, read Recent Changes sometime. The chances of seeing a substantial edit to an encyclopedic article are basically nil.

I think these are a few things that would need to happen if CP is ever to attract good-faith contributors again: --66.90.73.223 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) TK banned, and most of his IP blocks reversed.
 * 2) Ken desysoped.
 * 3) Andy's pet stuff (Relativity, best conservative words,...) deleted or buried.  Whatever you think of the content, it's become an embarrassment that is killing what's left of CP's credibility. Relativity denial is not a conservative position -- it's a Schlafly position.
 * 4) Obvious parodists given the boot.  I'm thinking mostly of DouglasA, JacobB, and Tzoran, but I'm sure there are more.
 * 5) Get some publicity that will actually bring in more useful editors than vandals (tea partiers, not Colbert fans).  There are people who agree with you.

A question not about CP
So ... what was it actually like to work with Larry Sanger on Wikipedia? He was well before my time - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What has Conservapedia contributed to the world?
Besides mirth and mild ridicule? How many Conservapedia articles are into top 10 on Google? Even with a dedicated SEO operator on board? How many conservative pundits are using Andy's insights as a basis for their commentary? How many influential conservatives are contributing to Conservapedia? Where are your world-class featured articles? Here's a hint: "the transitional animal the flying kitty" is neither a suitable top 10 Google search result, nor a "world-class featured article."

Maybe RW isn't shooting the lights out on the internet, but that was never our intention. Plus the fact that we aren't vying to be the next Wikipedia. Of course, it's a liberal plot that keeps CP out of the Google rankings. But is it the same liberal plot that results in Andy translating the Bible, or demanding that Lenski transfer the contents of his lab to Andy's garden shed?

Typically, however, you can't see the wood for the trees. So you come over here and make inane comments - for which you weren't blocked, by the way - whilst ignoring all that is wrong with CP. There is a good reason why Conservapedia is basically dead - and that is the actions of its administrators. You relentlessly drive away editors, using a multitude of excuses, you dumb down articles (and you should never be allowed near the maths category again), you have administrators who claim expertise in things they know nothing about (TerryH translating the Bible with a pocket Greek-English dictionary and Google translate, for example), and you see anybody criticising the way CP is run, or offering suggestions, as part of some insidious liberal plot to bring CP down. You all defer to Andy, regardless of whether or not his suggestion is good for CP (re:Lenski letter again), and are too scared of possibly offending him, to make a suggestion.

Honestly, it's about time you take the log out of your own eye, and realise that the people running CP are doing far more damage to CP, than any amount of vandals could.

Which is another point. Next time you want to accuse us of "vandalising' CP, please provide evidence, rather that just jumping on your good friend TK's wagon and spewing out the same old tired trite about "vandal sites". Laughing and pointing at you from afar, does not for vandalism make. EBaumsworld, Anonymous and ED are far more likely sources. However, it is fun to see Terry making as many obscure references to a "vandal site" as he can, especially when speaking to new CP editors who probably know nothing about RW, but end up here thanks to him. Oh, and on the subject of editors, CP seems to be lacking in them these days. Even Andy's students don't appear to be contributing. For a project aiming to overtake WP, you're a bit short on staff. And even those you do have don't do much besides update the news stories and write drivel about flying kitties.

I'm not expecting you to reply, after all, you haven't followed up your main page post. Maybe the truth hurts a bit. Of course, even if you do reply it will be with little more than an unrelated obscure quote, but hopefully some of it will sink in. You should also ask yourself what has happened to all the sysops in the last year: Jallen, LearnTogether, Joaquin, Addison, RJJensen, DuncanB, DeanS? Not to mention editors such as Foxtrot, Helpjazz, HSMom, Jinx. Believe me, these long-time contributors to CP aren't leaving because of occasional vandal sprees. It's about time you have a good, long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself where the problem with CP lies. Not that you will, of course. -- PsyGremlin  09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing methods
Hi Ed, is this still the favoured method of expanding the fine encyclopaedia project that is CP? (and how does that method compare to the 'stub' method?) 18:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No Censorship?
Really, Ed? REALLY? Tosser. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You forget. Removing "liberal clap-trap" or "entries not corresponding to this project's mission" does not constitute censorship. At least in what passes for Ed Poor's mind. -- PsyGremlin  10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's not censorship if I can somehow justify it or if I can conveniently look away! " --Sid (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Still no comeback, Mr Censor? I see you're even blocking people now to make sure your censorship remains. You're a lying piece of shit. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even wrong
Dear Ed, this whining taught me that you're no more honest a grievance collector than Andy. Calling an English language encyclopedia "Anti-US" because it doesn't always cover American issues first in topics of international interest reflects to me that even after being run out of a leadership position at WP-EN, you still don't understand that it's not US-centric. WP is not an American encyclopedia, Ed. It's not. And the last bit about Marx and Engels is not only an incomplete sentence, it's not even wrong. Marx and Engels were not responsible for the "materialist" approach to science. I sincerely hope you're not teaching this tripe to children in whatever "teaching" role you find yourself in. If you've ever repeated this statement once more than writing at on CP, let me just suggest that you're improperly conflating a pair of late rationalists with the entire enlightenment and ignoring pre-Christian and Arab science. Each time I read your junk I am reminded of you gloating about dropping out of college. Being poorly educated is not a badge of honor. 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't even know the meaning of the word
Re this rubbish: the burden of proof is on you to prove the existence of your imaginary buddy, not on me.

You are the one making the claim, not me. The refusal of you and your fellow gOD-botherers to understand this is just one of the reasons why we atheists - correctly - call you irrational. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, this from the man who says (with a straight face, I assume) 'I have this pesky habit of demanding proof and evidence for everything! They also like the fact that I am willing to be held to the same standards of scholarship that I expect of everyone else." -- Ψ Gremlin  17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SOOOOOOOOIIIIIEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
That is all. DickTurpis (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

URGENT MESSAGE FROM ONE ED TO ANOTHER
Dude, change your RW password. You posted it to one the CP discussion groups and I found it. Just trying to help. Love your secret admirer. Uncle Ed bug me 08:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should temporarily de-sysop this account if the password's been compromised. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found it, too. I don't know what's worse, the fact that he'd just give his account details away or that he's pick something quite so easy. Anyway, shouldn't we request a new one on his behalf from the registration screen? He'll have to be unblocked for that, though. Röstigraben (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Contact him via wikipedia maybe? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that password, and posted the message here. I also emailed him to let him know. Now that password has been changed but it wasn't me. Ace of Spades 21:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I'll unblock him for now. Röstigraben (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * uhh... how can we tell if the REAL Ed Poor changed the password, or one of the impersonators? I'd rather have the real deal than an impersonater. LordSlug All Heil Me! 08:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility, but in any case, an impersonator couldn't use it for long. Ed's been notified, and if he didn't change the password himself, he'll let someone know. I'm sure he wouldn't let anyone else take over his membership at a vandal site. Röstigraben (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a sysop? That doesn't seem likely. Anyway, I've decided to to get involved again (for a while). I'll post a similar comment at CP so you know it's really me. --Uncle Ed bug me 19:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

re:boycott
Just to clarify a little, RationalWiki isn't boycotting CP. RationalWikiWiki denies it too, so I think it's just Goonie. Nobody seems to care enough to flip that little switch again, though. 23:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boycotts against CP are stupid. Then again, Ed is also stupid.  Therefore this is the perfect place to discuss it. --Kels (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, only a stupid guy would respond to an anonymous insulting message. --Uncle Ed bug me 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well responded, Ed. You made your own point. Pippa (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah.... the smell of spring something is in the air. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm always happy to advance the cause of rationality. --Uncle Ed bug me 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, you have a full plate: advancing the cause of rationality - and being concerned about censorship at Conservapedia. Oh wait, you aren't concerned that much about the censorship issue! As I stated elsewhere
 * ''Have a look at Sid 3050 edit history: http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sid+3050&namespace=&year=&month=-1
 * As you can see, he was blocked by Jcw on Aug 18, 2011 for "trolling''"
 * ''He made six entries in the week before:
 * ''three times he reverted obvious vandalism
 * ''he made a stub of you a little bit more precise: here
 * ''And he answered questions of you twice: at first on his talk page, then at your talk page.
 * And this is called "trolling''"!
 *  If you're blocked there - merely for asking me about something I care about - like the sort of ideological censorship I dislike here - then I guess that would prove your point. Indeed it does! And it shows how false your statement "(And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do)" is!
 * 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well WP doesn't like me to discuss CP business there, so I ignored what DiEb wrote on his talk page there. Do me a favor and post on my CP talk page, if you want me to examine claims of improper censorship or claims of ideological blocking.

One of the projects I've always wanted to do with you guys is an A to Z list of political issues where left and right disagree. Andy gave me the green light to do this project, but I don't want to do it by myself. Who wants to help me? --Uncle Ed bug me 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll do it, with no snark and in total good faith, when CP editors can actually type the name of this website on a CP page. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't count. I mean being able to write RW's full title/URL as is, no tricks, no work-arounds. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. When I wrote chord condition ... not so easy in the edit comment, I meant to acknowledge that. Perhaps we can find another way to end the boycott. --Uncle Ed bug me 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when Andy isn't so much of a coward as to allow references to another website on his blog, drop me a line and we'll talk. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RonLar
Needless to say that I'm extremely disappointed by your block of RonLar. Trolling? That's absurd. And you still haven't addressed the points made at cp:User:RonLar...

13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you use this but...
You are getting touchy at CP now, aren't you?RandonGeneration (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Ed, what's your problem? Why are you such a bully?
Is it stupidity or mean-spiritedness? Ed Poor, the guy who never met an out-of-context quote masquerading as an article that he didn't love, deleting articles for being too short? How petty do you need to be to get that put off because August was right and you were wrong? Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can be an asshole myself but jesus Ed, you talk the cake for out and out douche-baggery. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocking him? One of the few users who actually brings a degree of value added to the site? You're a real piece of work, "Uncle" Ed. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 23:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!
Seriously. Your display of childishness and base stupidity over the past 24 hours have brought us all a lot of laughs. Such an episode of hateful buffoonery can only make the rest of us feel better about who we are, and for that we are in your debt. Theory of Practice Peer-reviewed articles for everybody! 22:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)