Debate:Who is the biggest idiot at CP?

This debate has been concluded, and the prize awarded Therefore, this page is protected to prevent further voting

Keep in mind that this is for the biggest idiot, not the biggest jerk, worst irony meter breaker, or ugliest.

Andy
'I move that A Schlafly Esq be removed from this debate as he is'' undoubtedly the greatest idiot in the North American Continent on Conservapedia, regardless of his own personal idiocies, for financing, supporting, condoning, promoting etc. all the other idiots (below). Should any one of the others be voted "Biggest Idiot" then Andy will de facto be a greater idiot for "employing" him.'''


 * 1) For being asleep at the wheel whilst the demons ran amok. It was Conservative's behaviour on Theory of Evolution that first really soured the mood over there. That he was allowed to get away with it, and then repeat the trick with a succession of pet articles, set the pattern for everything we see now. RobS followed suit in his own inimitable style, and TK ensured that reason and fairness were never allowed to intrude on the gathering clusterfuck. Andy could have stopped it all, at any time, but chose instead to place his trust in a bunch of random fuckwits he'd empowered simply because they weren't "liberal". Pwned by self. And shelling out his own fucking money for the privilege. Still. --Robledo 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) It has to be Andy, without him none of these other jackasses would have come together. But on his own, he's one of the worst debaters I've ever come across.  He can't for coherent arguements and can't handle new information that may contradict him.  Anyone with half a brain can be handed damning evidence and find a good way to counter it without resorting to insults and random rantings about school prayer.  To make matters worse for Andy he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to stand up to his sysops for the little man.  And I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with his (and the others) inability to separate the sysop Aschlafly and the editor Aschlafly.  They all suck, but Andy sucks the hardest.  Jr  ss  r5  21:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) *Lots of truth to the comments above, but while it may be hair-splitting, I'd classify Andy as the "most incompetent" as opposed to the "biggest idiot". He's an incompetent site owner as mentioned above, plus an incompetent historian, lawyer, statistician and debater, among the many areas he claims expertise in.--SpinyNorman 23:59, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) Biscuit. He takes it. 01:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) I don't pay close attention to who's who over at CP. But Andy tends to make a strong impression as being the source of all of the absurdity.  Regardless of how much he contributes to it, the fact that he allows - and encourages - bizarro logic in his blog makes him the obvious choice.  There are other strong nutbars out there, but Andy is their enabler.  And what could be crazier than playing that role? - Lardashe
 * 6) is God of the idiots! CЯacke ®  16:03, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 7) *I'd vote for Andy over "worst overall", but I think he's mostly deluded rather than stupid and he simply believes his ideology MUST be right everywhere, all the time, and that everybody must know this. As a consequence he ends up doing stupid shit to defend this view and claim its suppremacy whenever possible even if it means "denying logic" as he would put it, demonizing detractors in general or in particular, using tragic events as advertising, using weasel words to spin issues, politicize unrelated topics or simply ignoring the actions of his goons. I don't think he would be the clown he is now if he could escape his delusion and could stop thinking about politics for a second. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 09:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point, NF, but isn't it religion that comes first for Andy and defines his "politics"?  ħ uman  01:27, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't think so, remember the adulteress story and the "liberalsdidit" excuse he gave just like he does for everything else. I'd say its his politics that defines his religion instead. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 02:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I buy both your points, and claim that it is Andy's utter lack of understanding, and disgusting sense of always being right, that comes first, first, first. Whether it is politics, religion, logic, reason, evidence, or analogy: Andy is utterly convinced that he is right.  Regardless of any waste of time to the contrary.  What a tool.  ħ uman  02:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1) Without Andy, none of the other idiots would've converged into the cesspool that is Conservapedia. It was his creation that we may all bask in the saddening hilarity of him and his sysops. He is responsible for any idiocy that plagues his blog-wiki, simply because his disposition to ignore anything that happens, subsequently encouraging it to happen by doing nothing to stop it. All it would take is a few clicks of a mouse and many of his problems would vanish, yet he continues the struggle to believe that through his ideology and his abusive sysops, he can somehow, someday, persevere beyond the unrepairable damage done to CP's reputation. It's that belief that I nominate him for the biggest idiot.  Norseman Wassail!   23:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) *This is almost impossible. In terms of idiocy and lack of judgement, Schlafly belongs to olympic levels. I'd say it's easier to pick who's less idiot, and I'd vote for PJR, Crocoite, Ed Poor, Karajou, Joaquin, and Sharon are in the same league of mental retardation --JayJay4ever ??? 14:50, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) **Note: Until JayJayForever decides which party he intends to vote for, Ed or Andy, neither vote will be counted.
 * 4) *The Affaire Lenski give Andrew Schlafly Esq the undoubted title. I move that all those above who voted for him, recast their votes below for the Second Biggest Idiot @ Conservapedia. 16:25, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) **Sorry, but we cannot change the rules mid-way through the race. You may change your vote from Ed to Andy, if you like, is that what you wish to do? DickTurpis 16:30, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 6) **Also, will people please learn to format votes correctly? All actual votes need to start with "#". Comments that are not votes (like this one) need to start with "#:" or "#*". Thank you. DickTurpis 16:30, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 7) Andy is the meta idiot. Therefore he wins.  loses. wins. Exasperate me!Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 18:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservative

 * 1) I didn't realize people would be explaining their votes, but I like it, so I feel the Kase 4 Ken needs to be made. Ken is a special kind of idiot. Much of what he says borders on nonsense (who could ever forget this little gem) but even his stuff that manages to somehow form a series of somewhat cohesive sentences generally comes out even worse. Ed is a very good choice, but while Ed believes the little pieces of shit he writes earn him a pat on the head and deserve a place on the refrigerator, Ken honestly believes his complete and utter retarded tripe is changing the world. He actually thinks that he has the scientific and atheistic communities running scared. He thinks famous thinkers won't debate him not because no one of consequence is going to bother with a no-name two-bit half-wit who lost the debate the second he typed his first sentence, but because they're frightened, and lack the ability to even approach his remarkable intellect. He thinks the debate is over and he has won, and thus atheism and evolution are drawing their dying breath, largely do to his efforts and these contrived google rankings. This is sheer idiocy, coupled with delusions of grandeur the likes of which I have not seen elsewhere. The man (if he is a man, I'm still not convinced he isn't an adolescent) is a complete, utter, total, paragon of idiocy. Vote Ken. (I'm Dick Turpis, and I approve this message.) DickTurpis
 * 2) This went from being a vote to being a chat show!  Excellent!   "Now, turning to you DogP, why did you vote for Ken, in the face of such overwhelming responses from your party to the candidacy of Ed Poor, or your recent nemesis, TerryH?"  "Well, Jeremy, I'd like to say first off how glad I am to be back on your show again.   But moving forward to your question, I believed at the time I voted that I was voting for pure idiocy, and in that belief, I placed my ballot in the Ken envelope, because I truly believe he is the most stupid.   However, I dislike other CP'ers more than Ken, who is simply a harmless village idiot who mistakenly thinks the village is laughing with him rather than at him.   Were I to be a lesser man, I would change my vote to Ed, who is a worthless scumbag and is probably more deserving of my vote in this new era of this election, or TerryH, who has indeed recently proved himself a shithead of the highest order, but in the interest of electoral propriety, I have consulted my conscience and I believe I must stick with my original vote, Jeremy".   "Is that final, DogP?"   "Yes, that's my final say on the matter - Ken is the biggest idiot on CP".    "Thank you DogP, now, turning to PFoster...?"   DogP  12:36, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) Thanks, Dawg Dog. Great to be back. I have to say - I concur with my colleague on this. The original question was "Who is the biggest idiot on CP?" Not "Who is the biggest a-hole?" or "the biggest racist tool," or "the meanest, most petty individual," or "the person who does the most to massacre the English language," but "the biggest idiot." And Conservative is, hands down, with his constant "messages to the gentlemen," his inability to understand how Google rankings work, his inability to make a simple edit in less than four tries, his steadfast conviction that WE give a rat's ass about our own Google rankings, and his belief, in denial of all evidence to the contrary, that people are reading his little essays seriously, and not with shock, amused horror or disdain. He OWNS the title. PFoster 12:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) *On a point of fact I would agree with Doggy but Ed's a MOONY!. 11:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) In my time at Conservapedia, Conservative has gone from being dickish to outright insane, frequently lobbing challenges at "prominent Atheists" "top Atheists" etc. It's a special kind of "lobbing" of course, in that it requires the challenged to read Conservapedia's main page to see if they've ever been mentioned. He then proceeds to declare victory when they never see his challenge. As an example, this is roughly akin to standing in Times Square with a slingshot, firing it at Tokyo, and then declaring you've won when there's no retaliatory firing. On top of this, Conservative continually shows that he lacks even a gradeschooler's grasp of science, history, or even basic English. For these reasons, I'm giving my vote to Conservative. Barikada 15:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 6) Since Helpjazz seems to have been over come by sanity I am throwing my weight behind Conservative. Why? First his user page esspecially the crap down the side. Which wouldn't be really as bad until you first relise he thinks this parody instead of childish jokes and second he actually practiced it first (a close look and you will see that some of the pictures are different). Second the number of subpages he has for every minor thing. Whilst his shout-outs to Cline were stupid, the absolute stupidity peaked with his shout outs to Fidel Castro. The very moment were he peaked was when he uploaded a photo of Castro and had one of his stupid shout-out as the picture discription. 3.14159 21:32, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 7) I've given this quite a bit of thought and obviously I'd like everyone to win - but that can't be. So many, many deserving entrants. But I only have one vote so I'm going for Ken. He's a cunt. RedDog 04:09, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Ed (Moony) Poor

 * 1)  - I know Ken or Andy will win this, but that' s because you are focusing on the stupidity of their arguments. Ed Poor is too stupid to even get to the point of making dumb arguments. Add to that his insufferable self-aggrandizing over the most tiny of accomplishments. You know his little dog-bringing-dead-bird posts on Andy's talk page about the two dozen random 1-4 word stubs he has created? He is totally serious about that.........
 * 2) I'll second this. Ken's the most full of himself, and Andy's the most in denial, but for being an idiot, I've got to give it to Ed.  Between his misogyny (women in the military, women and pants), ridiculous stubs, and the ease with which he can break an irony meter in 10 words or less, it's hard to find better material. --SpinyNorman 13:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) I go with Ed as well. Ken has a consistent method to his madness but Ed is just bonkers. He writes stupid little pieces that pop into his butterfly mind which are never going to go anywhere (Two metres?) but then wants to compress other short articles which could do with expanding (such as Greek mythology) into one - and then he hands out writing assignments like a junior school prefect or demands writing plans when he clearly has no writing plan of his own. He also claims to have been a great Wikipedian but can't even format an article according to their own manual of style (references, categories, red-links).  Lily Ta, wack! 16:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) Me four. It was slow to be obvious to me, but Ed is definitely the biggest "idiot" there.  I agree with Spiny above re: Ken & Andy, but Ed's ridiculous writing plan demands, claims to greatness on WP, and lists of 20 senseless sub-stub "creations" put him over the top.  ħ uman  16:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) I gotta agree but only in terms of idiocy as Andy is much more hypocritical and many others are more delusional (although nobody breaks irony meters like Ed does). How can you read Wikipedia for more than a few months and not learn what an encyclopedic article is? And how can you really believe those dictionary ([noun] is [definition]), tautological (an [adjective] [noun] is a [same noun] that is [same adjective]) and quote-only stubs are worthy of praise? And how did "two meters" ever sound like a good idea? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 18:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 6) One can eaisly take the stance that dogmatic faith in some proposition P will close one's mind to not P and a whole range of other topics. To that extent, I'll give Ken, PJR, and Andy a failing grade on Andy's opemindeness test.  While that may make them intolerant of other views that doesn't make them idiots.  On the other hand, despite years of work with the wikipedia project Ed has shown the inability to understand how to write an article, muchless how to use wiki markup.  No degree of faith or belief can be used to justify the lack of comprehension of a style guide.  And to think, TK and Ed once thought to come to a technological solution for the title case problem.  Numskulls.  I must point out that Andy is close on Ed's heels on this one (failure to understand lists) and Ken should learn how to use the 'preview' button.  Still. --Shagie 18:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 7) He's a MOONY fafux sake! That'd win hands down against anything but a Scientologist. There's no contest. 01:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 8) Everything said above... Plus he's a dick, he looks the goofiest and he actually thinks he's an Athiest nightmare SirChuckB  20:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 9) While all of these people are clearly idiots, and all have major personality disorders, for pure idiocy you can not top the fucking moony. Fifth Horseman 13:28, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 10) Ed is just a self-aggrandising, pompous, ignorant, bi-polar half-wit and I'm sorry if he regards this a personal attack but it's true. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis   17:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT) PS I don't hold the bi-polar thing against him but he should either get some medication or therapy for it.[[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis
 * 11) The other contenders all have their serious psychological issues including obvious mental retardation (in the literal sense of having their mental age being drastically lower than their actual age) but for pure idiocy (which we are voting for not other qualities) no one can beat Ed Poor. It is a tough call and I think that the runner up deserves recognition as well, but again the biggest idiot is Poor. BTM 23:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 12) Sorry for the others, but Ed wins hands down, with the supreme irony moments he gets, the writing plan - his own one sentence articles (Two meters) dualism being just one of them. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 08:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 13) *Eddie, per his work. Not everyone is good at debating, but at editing --the very activity that helps building an online encyclopedia-- Ed truly sucks, and he supposedly has "experience". --JayJay4ever <font color="#FFA812">??? 15:10, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 14) **Note: Until JayJayForever decides which party he intends to vote for, Ed or Andy, neither vote will be counted.
 * I thought Andy was removed from the debate. How irrational.--<font color="#4169E1" face="courier">JayJay4ever <font color="#FFA812">??? 18:25, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Helpjazz

 * 1) For still hanging around after all the crap they have put him through. 3.14159 (not signed in) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) *I think that has to be past tense; he's been inactive since April. --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  21:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) **Has he? Well I withdraw my nomination he appears to be the smartest of the lot. 3.14159 (not signed in) 23:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) ***I wouldn't say he's an idiot at all, just a little masochistic. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 00:00, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Human

 * 1) For pulling crappy unsourced articles out of his butt. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) *Disqualification: does not meet the parameters of "major player". Wishful thinking much, Human? DickTurpis 12:06, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) *Also, you already voted one. What is this, Chicago? DickTurpis 12:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) **Early and often, brother. Hey, I have over 3000 edits on CP! That's more than 2000! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Karajou

 * 1) -- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD --This is a tough one. Schlafly's like a fucking Koresh, Ed's a goddamned dumbass lapdog, but Karajou is pretty fucking stupid.  "Me protect big boat wiki.  Me call fbi cuz you say sailorz sodomize.  Me lonely."
 * 2) I don't know if any of you guys still remember his "federal case number" but that was fucking stupid. - Icewedge 23:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) Though it's hard to pick just one when all are vile and stupid, this motherfucker blocked me for a week, for calling Andy's marry a conservative article a load of tripe. So I'm voting for this asshole. DLerner 09:46, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 4) While teh Assfly would be the obvious choice, Kooko has my vote. I'm still curious why he never mentions his rank regarding his Navy service. Reading his self-rightous crap and lame reasons for his actions always makes me throw up a little in my mouth.Historygeek2007 14:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 5) * After due consideration I'm throwing up in with Kookoojoo. He's probably of average (raw) intelligence but thinks himself a bit higher. Someone should really disabuse him of this delusion, as it is what gets him onto most of his "misunderstandings" with editors over to CP. While most of the senor sysops at CP have, (at best), a rough time with reading com-pre-hen-sion, Karajou excels at not knowing when he doesn't know that he doesn't know. This sort of ignorance is breathtakingly beautiful to view (at a distance). By reading his diffs and his responses one can almost smell the testosterone fueled STOOPID oozing from his fingers as he bangs away on a keyboard, (which, if it was somehow sentient would undoubtedly commit suicide before allowing him to render his judgments against lesser life forms, CP editors), knowing his "adversary", say,, is really just as intellectually misshapen and devoid of any redeeming value as he, himself, feels when he is called on his "snap judgments". He is tenacious as only the truly mentally impaired can be. When it's just down to Aschlafly and one other sysop, I truly hope it's . CЯacke ® 01:53, 21 June 2008 (EDT) Edit: The Lenski affair has put  into a class by Hisself, He is God of the idiots! 15:58, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * He should win for being the kind prick who posts his pathetic "resume" on a wiki and then expects people to respect him for his 20 apparently wasted years sitting in the bilge of some barge being fire watch and his recent experience at some forth rate community college working towards his associates degree in guarding 7-11's. He'd be more convincing of his wisdom-through-experience motiff if he ended every post with "ar." Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 18:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * He should win for being the kind prick who posts his pathetic "resume" on a wiki and then expects people to respect him for his 20 apparently wasted years sitting in the bilge of some barge being fire watch and his recent experience at some forth rate community college working towards his associates degree in guarding 7-11's. He'd be more convincing of his wisdom-through-experience motiff if he ended every post with "ar." Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 18:54, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

TerryH

 * 1) I thought Ed would be the clear winner and maybe I'm just being soft and favouring a suprise contendor - but really the Guantanamo stuff! This guy deserves some kind of runners up prize at the very least. Craziness like that should get an honourable mention. RedDog 14:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 2) Agree, TerryH definitely deserves mentioning, if only for that little bit. Etc 17:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 3) Like RedDog says, Gitmo proves it. Also, I'm pretty sure Terry was the one who said that he was having a cold summer, therefore global warming wasn't real.  ThunderkatzHo! 16:09, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Cockoshite

 * Aww, come on. Is anybody going to vote for Dean "no living eyewitnesses" S? NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 08:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Not while Ed's still got breath in his body. Moony trumps all other possible idiocies. 08:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Jokíng Martínez

 * 1) <font color="#99CCFF">Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  18:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT) -- Maybe I'm just defining "idiot" a little differently.  Others are more of a jerk (bigoted, cruel, and plain assholy), and JM isn't the craziest nut in the box, but in terms of sheer intelligence, I think the biggest "idiot" would have to be JM.  Remember Painting?  Though others may be more loathsome, I'd say JM is the thickest, by far.
 * 2) * I'd give Joaquin "most relentlessly stubborn" --SpinyNorman 23:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

PJR

 * 1) A man who is clearly intelligent, but who completely dismisses all of the evidence in front of him of evolution (etc.) because it contradicts dogma. Not stupid, but very much an idiot. And his "Christianity is the right religion" viewpoint - but don't get me started or else I won't stop. Bondurant 15:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler
Ace McWicked 17:38, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
 * 1) A right little shit
 * 1) I have a feeling that he's a parodist with lots and lots of time, based on some particularly outlandish statements, but that's a hunch.  98.206.181.143 01:14, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Learn together

 * 1) Whenever a non-sysop confronts a sysop over issues of power abuse (which is a lost cause already), Learn Together rushes in to defend the poor sysop and to point out why the evil non-sysop is wrong and should quickly go edit some other article. The result is almost always a tag-team approach against a guy who barely stood a chance to begin with. --Sid 13:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think that just makes him a self serving arse-kisser, sucking up to the powers that be. (Or a super-parodist!) 14:18, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Results
The results are as follows:

Winner:
 * Ed Poor

First runner-up:
 * Andrew Schlafly

Second Runner-up:
 * Conservative

Honorable Mention:
 * Joaquín Martínez

Analysis
With an astounding 12 votes, Ed Poor, Wikipedian extraordinaire, is the undisputed winner of the biggest idiot at Conservapedia contest. Ed boosted his own score by continually raising the bar, hyping his "expertise" at wikis, despite the fact he clearly knows little to nothing about, well, anything.

With 7 votes, the obvious choice, as the highest profile Conservapedian, Andy Schlafly placed a respectful second place, with a late term boost by the Lenski affair in the curtain turn. Alas, it was not enough to erase the substantial lead by Ed. Nevertheless, for a man who (allegedly) has two degrees in respected fields, Assfly made a fine showing.

The early favorite, Conservative, foundered out of the starting gate, despite a well-financed grassroots campaign. While his idiocy was clearly never in doubt, Conservative suffered from his inability to be taken seriously by anybody, relegating his campaign to that of a third-party hack who no one paid any heed to, garnering a mere 6 votes.

The honorable mention, as decided by contest organizer Dick Turpis, goes to Joaquin Martinez, for his consistent idiocy and utter lack of any evidence of semi-intelligent dialog whatsoever. While a certain level of this can be attributed to his ESL status, his incessant idiocy, even when repeated corrected by those in the know (remember "painting"?) earns him a special mention.

I would like to personally thank all who participated in this event, and give a special "fuck you" to those who didn't. DickTurpis 22:50, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

See:Debate:Who is the biggest idiot at CP?/Ed's Page for the Pwning.