Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive238

flade ingration
lowest grades andy's given yet, even if they are oddly regular -- 02:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that he makes marked papers public is disturbing. Also disturbing, this question :
 * 36. New Jersey was the location for which of the following important events in American history?
 * I. The location of George Washington’s headquarters during the Revolutionary War.
 * II. The location of the duel brought by Aaron Burr against Alexander Hamilton.
 * III. The state where Woodrow Wilson was governor before becoming president.
 * IV. The location of the founding of Conservapedia.
 * (a) I and IV.
 * (b) I, II, III, and IV.
 * (c) I, III, and IV.
 * (d) II, III, and IV.
 * His delusions of grandeur are getting worse. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (For girls only)
 * When during American History would you expect chivalry to have been the weakest?
 * Arghhhhh ...(he's obviously looking for "The Roaring Twenties and the 1960s"). --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or pre-European contact, but obviously that doesn't count as part of American history. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More imporantly WHO THE HELL PHRASES MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS LIKE THAT!? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 08:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How much longer until he reorganizes American history into the pre- and post-Conservapedian eras? Maybe then he'd accept the usage of "CE" after all. Röstigraben (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question 29 takes the cake:
 * 29. The longest-running march on the nation’s capital is in protest to a decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973.  What was that decision, and what did it do?
 * (a) Roe v. Wade, which gave criminals the right to remain silent.
 * (b) Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to read suspects their rights before questioning them.
 * (c) Roe v. Wade, which created a new constitutional right to abortion.
 * (d) Roe v. Wade, which allows government to seize private property.
 * Wow... I wonder which one it could be? --OompaLoompa (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew the general answer after "29. The longest-running march". Seriously, Andy's tendency of patting his own shoulder and of constantly picking his pet subjects makes this less of an "American History" exam and more of a "How well do you know Andy Schlafly?" exam. Couldn't he just have asked something like "On January 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court made a decision that many people still vocally disagree with. What was that decision?" and then given four plausible and real Supreme Court cases so people can't simply narrow down the answer by eliminating the obviously bogus ones? --Sid (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"conservapedia becoming the new center of all things"
for a quick count and im curious, what is the current list of things they say conservapedia is either replacing or is just in general decline?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I likely forgot a few but: Book stores, TV, Wikipedia, Facebook, liberalism in the US... --Sid (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The bible...--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe he said it about cable news. 江斯顿 What is it now? 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Phhhwwt!
Once again Ken deletes Talk:Main Page.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to wonder how they can keep the website operational with that sort of expertise at the helm. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 08:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He archived a part of the page and hid one comment:
 * The truth hurts... 08:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Ken still doesn't know how, or refuses, to use over-sight speaks volumes. It's much the same as his inability to use preview and minor edit. He's either pig-headed and would rather make CP look stupid than learn a new trick, or he's genuinely too thick, or too demented, to learn a new trick. --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * neither nor: he is just to busy to fit project learning stuff on a wiki into his schedule already filled with flying fortresses... 09:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken knows how to oversight (not too well, but he knows). He's just an egoist and doesn't give a shit about anybody else, so he tends to pick the path of least work:
 * "Hey, I just spent ten edits on a (user) talk page, and all of this makes me look like a fool!" --> *delete* *restore without history*
 * "Hey, people are calling out my mistakes on talk pages!" --> *redirect to pet article* *lock*
 * "Hey, I just made five hundred edits in two days to my pet article, even though I said I'd be away! But I can't just delete it because that would bork my precious pageviews!" --> *oversight*
 * And he gets away with it all because the other sysops also don't give a shit about the community and won't speak up as long as nobody butts into their niches. --Sid (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken is legitimately skillful at not interfering with the other sysops. --Opcn (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they really just don't give a fuck unless one of them steps on another's crazy toes. Ken deleting pages right and left to cover up his ineptitude and shitty judgment would be an outrage on any other wiki. It sure as shit wouldn't have been permitted to go on for years. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Ken burning talk pages also covers up the idiocy and abuse of all other sysops. Transparency and accountability have always been the two biggest enemies of CP sysops. --Sid (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Ken burning talk pages also covers up the idiocy and abuse of all other sysops. Transparency and accountability have always been the two biggest enemies of CP sysops. --Sid (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More chuckibum stupidity
So according to chuckie this link spam proves there was a flood. Except of course that the 2 references cited in his link spamed article say the opposite and both EXPLICITY state the fossils are hundreds of millions of years old. And as is pointed out by WilliamB1 chuckie simply misunderstands this as he does with just about every other thing he opines on. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If Vomitbottom seriously believes that the only reason a shrimp fossil can be on land is due to the Flood, he's crazier than Andy. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears Andy believes that .  --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful. "The entire world was swallowed by a Flood, during which the earth became a giant nuclear reactor and 8 people on a wooden boat survived" is more plausible than "there used to be water here, but it dried up." Insane! --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wandering around recently and happened to look into a pond and bugger me if there wasn't a fresh water shrimp in it. Now I just assumed that this was because shrimps had adapted and some had adapted to live in ponds. Now, thanks to chuckies incisive insight, I understand that in fact there had been a global flood the night before and I had slept through it.  Praise be to goat. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Next up: Scientists find giant shrimp at salad bar. The only possible explanation is Jesus! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MPR headline: Boat found at bottom of ocean. Sailing is just another liberal lie to stop people reading the Bible. Boats are heavier than Jesus, so must sink. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) I don't know why creationists bother trying to come up with naturalistic explanations when they can't even keep their proposed mechanisms straight - most of this bullshit is just reactionary nonsense in that it's not even capable of being adequately descriptive (because it's so wrong), let alone making falsifiable predictions (as to the supernatural shit); (b) if the world was repopulated within a few hundred years of the "flood" and creationists believe it takes mere thousands for fossils to form, why the fuck don't they just say human beings literally carried that fucking shrimp up onto dry land and that that's better evidence of the flood. Oh right, because that shrimp, while "out of place" with what some thought its previous place in the geologic column was, was found with other salt water sea dwelling creatures from that same habitat. No rabbits. No people, pottery, or cigarette butts. No giraffes. Occam's razor indeed. But hey, whatever's convenient. Someone needs to go sit in on an Andy homeschool class to confirm he's teaching this kind of "those throw-away ad hoc bullshit is more plausible than the entirety of 120 years of scientific knowledge" to children. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anybody understand what http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=872965&oldid=872964 means?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not intended to be a factual statement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Andy is trying to say there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just so SO andy. And other cp'ers as well.  A sysop posted some random piece of bollocks on my blog.  I can either agree that what they posted is complete, self-contradictory, bollocks which is unsupported by the link provided in the citation or I can bluster, throw more bollocks in to the discussion and then banhammer anyone who shows us to be fucking morons.  And their site is still growing.  Oldusgitus (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Has Andy been drinking again? "I don't think the 1950s were as conservative as today." The 50s are known for being extremely conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is brilliant andy in so many ways. LLoydr. 'I think that to describe a movie which in some way glorifies a system in which non-whites were denied basic rights and claim that it means that every boy had a chance to be great is not really valid'.  Andy - 'You are absolutely right, those poor white christian homeschoolers were terribly oppressed at that time'.  The man is a cnut. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Never let facts get in the way of your bias
Moral, god fearing Christians always outperform baby eating hedonistic atheists. Because North Dakota has lower unemployment than Oregon, and North Dakota is faithful, church-going, and Christian! While Oregon, well they are just a bunch of debauched god deniers! While North Dakota's 3.3% unemployment is much better than Oregon's 9.6%; 🇰🇪 ignores traditional Bible belt state unemployment rates like Mississippi (10.4%), Florida (10.8%), Georgia (9.9%), and South Carolina (9.8%), have they suddenly become deep blue states of liberalism and secularism when I wasn't looking? Oh those pesky facts! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wow. I spent 5 minutes clicking around Ken's shitsmears that I'll never get back. What in the world does Andy think he's doing letting a guy like that loose on his blog. Are atheists smarter than the average bear? Pictures of ponies with captions! Fat atheists. Hooboy. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only does Andy let Ken run wild, but he actually steals Ken's material . How sad. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how that is such a failure on so many levels. "Fat farm" isn't even a word, it's a phrase, an obsolete one at that.  I also enjoy how he implies all overweight people are selfish, he may want to rethink that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Why we love Ed
He just never ceases to amaze and astound: --Simple (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point he can be replaced with a bot that takes random sentences out of some text, searches Google for the noun that pops up the most and creating an article out of it. And sometimes it makes a random creepy comment on a talk page. BotEd! --ǓḤṂ³ 23:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Caps for permalink and edit comment so our 403'd friends can weep with us. --Sid (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OH GOD, YOU MADE ME LOOK AT THE LAST FEW  ED STUBS! *SOB* --Sid (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * His article on TextPad doesn't even mention what it is... just something he had trouble finding. That's the sort of thing that would be proper for a help forum ("I had this problem, so I'll post the solution to it so everyone can see it") not an encyclopedia... His article on assertions is pure gold too, because once again, it doesn't tell the hypothetical person searching for the term on CP (of which there are almost certainly... 0?) actually what an assertion is, just that it's useful. Awful. Simply awful. άλφα Talk 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd made a million stubs when I edited at CP... between the Ed-style of creating a plethora of useless articles, and the Ken strategy of taking a massive amount of edits to make a small change, I could have made ten stubs and shot my edit count through the roof. άλφα Talk 00:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This was a hilarious stub, but nothing will ever top "Two meters".--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, though, I enjoyed Ed's in-depth biography of JFK Jr. . And look at his recent detailed article on economic downturns.
 * It's pretty funny how each CP sysop is off doing their own crazy thing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as they pledge loyal fidelity to king Andy, they can do whatever they like in their own fiefdoms; Andy doesn't care about the quality of their work, he just wants their adulation.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He also likes it when people add lots and lots of chaff so that CP can keep up the pretense of being more than just a political/religious attack site. Screw the article quality, it's all about quantity! --Sid (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MOAR STUBBY!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...that's a useless stub not made by Ed, but by a guy... who shares your last name. =| To be fair, it's better than an EdStub since it actually gives us a sort-of-working definition instead of just an utterly tangential comment, which is why I glanced at the history in the first place. --Sid (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chuckarse and Lunar Bukkake Theory?
I think that's what he's going for in his latest linkspam. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am curious to see if that is what he met, but that would require giving a hit to his link whoring site, and I am not that curious. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On a related note, has anyone noticed that Lunar bukkake theory at RW is the #1 search result for that term on Google? Junggai (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You just made me Google "bukkake". I hate you forever. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

moving
. in 3 minutes.-- 04:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted (and recreated without history) four minutes after the move. Ken's on a roll. --Sid (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And 20-edits-and-counting later Ken shits all over the Main Page again.
 * So Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are fat now?? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 14:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, when you stop believing in, the weight of the world drops from Her Almighty shoulders and falls onto your hips, waist and thighs, baby Jesus wets himself, but it's okay, it's Holy water that turns into wine (and/or cotton candy, [sugar floss for you Brits], if the viewer is under 21). 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * That's CANDY floss, you fucking heathen foreigner. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be a slow day at Conservapedia. Or you're avoiding calling attention to your sockpuppets (hi CP admin!). [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 15:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy and the horse and buggy... wait... what?
anybody else notice he seems to have taken a liking to that old school mode of transportation for his analogies? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=873577 --Mikalos209 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User: Has there ever been one single positive story on the internet about Conservapedia???
 * Andy: I don't think "Horse and Buggy News" carried positive stories about automobiles either!

So, is Andypants implying that whatever takes over from the internet will write favourably about Conservapedia? Jebus! I swear the man is taking debating lessons from Ken and Rob. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is more telling: "As to other websites on the internet, I can't think of any that combine education, politics, and religion -- the three fields that count most -- as efficiently as Conservapedia does." «-Bfa-»  15:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? THERE IS NOTHING BUT conservpaedia in the future. the fact facebook, normal news websites, TV, books, the bible, and god knows what else is flocking there proves oneday, conservapedia will be all that exists. --Mikalos209 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's it, these delusions need an article. I created: Conservapedia:Andy Schlafly's Delusions of Grandeur. Feel free to edit it or add your own examples. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This for me raises a question; what's wrong with what Andy said? First, a short answer occurred to me; everything. Secondly, a long answer occurred to me; Andy's explanation would explain why one group, or a selective group of publications might poo poo them, but if there is one thing that the internet has it is a diversity of opinions. Yet with all that diversity everyone seems to look at conservapedia and see nothing but fail. Once again Andy has committed the fallacy of hasty generalization. --Opcn (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Right Wing Wingnuttery
This is what I found recently on Conservapedia:  By Gemma Meyer (Gemma Meyer is the pseudonym of a South African journalist. She and her husband, a former conservative member of parliament, still reside in South Africa.)

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveal trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

Writing letters to the press, manning stands at county fairs, hosting fund-raising dinners, attending rallies, setting up conferences, writing your Congressman - that is what you know, and what you are comfortable with. Those are the political methods you've created for yourselves to keep your country on track and to ensure political accountability.

But woe to you if - or more likely, when - the rules change. White Americans may soon find themselves unable or unwilling to stand up to challenge the new political methods that will be the inevitable result of the ethnic metamorphosis now taking place in America. Unable to cope with the new rules of the game - violence, mob riots, intimidation through accusations of racism, demands for proportionality based on racial numbers, and all the other social and political weapons used by the have-nots to bludgeon treasure and power from the haves - Americans, like others before them, will no doubt cave in. They will compromise away their independence and ultimately their way of life.

That is exactly what happened in South Africa. I know, because I was there and I saw it happen.

South Africa used to be one of the most advanced nations on earth. Then Washington intervened.

Faced with revolution in the streets, strikes, civil unrest and the sheer terror and murder practiced by Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC), the white government simply capitulated in order to achieve "peace."

Mandela was in jail for twenty seven years not because he was an innocent black man but because he was a Communist terrorist who said in court that he was planning to kill people with bombs. He could have been released at any time simply by renouncing terrorism. He refused.

Westerners need peace. They need order and stability. They are builders and planners. But what we got was the peace of the grave for our society.

The Third World is different - different peoples with different pasts and different cultures. Yet Westerners continue to mistake the psychology of the Third World and its peoples. Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of those mistakes. Sierra Leone is in perpetual civil war, and Zimbabwe - once the thriving, stable Rhodesia - is looting the very people (the white men) who feed the country. Yet Westerners do not admit that the same kind of savagery could come to America when enough immigrants of the right type assert themselves. The fact is, Americans are sitting ducks for Third World exploitation of the Western conscience of compassion.

Advertisement

Those in the West who forced South Africa to surrender to the ANC and its leaders did not consider Africa to be the dangerous, corrupt, and savage place it is now in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Those Western politicians now have a similar problem looming on their own doorsteps: the demand for power and treasure from the non-Western peoples inside the realm.

Again, Washington forced Rhodesia into Communist hands. Rhodesia exported tons of food. Zimbabwe typically starves. Washington did this.

It is already too late for South Africa, but not for America if enough people strengthen their spine and take on the race terrorists, the armies of the "politically correct" and, most dangerous of all, the craven politicians who believe "compassionate conservatism" will buy them a few more votes, a few more days of peace.

White South Africans, you should remember, have been in that part of Africa for the same amount of time whites have inhabited North America; yet ultimately South Africans voted for their own suicide. We are not so very different from you.

South Africans voted for their own suicide. Did you?

We lost our country through skillful propaganda, pressure from abroad (not least from the U.S.A.), unrelenting charges of "oppression" and "racism," and the shrewd assessment by African tyrants that the white man has many Achilles' heels, the most significant of which are his compassion, his belief in the "equality of man," and his "love your neighbor" philosophy - none of which are part of the Third World's history.

See my recent piece – Before the Election: What You Must Do – about the deliberate cultivation of white guilt in the Communist government schools.

The mainline churches played a big role in the demise of Western influence throughout Africa, too; especially in South Africa. Today's tyrants were yesterday's mission-school protégés. Many dictators in Africa were men of the cloth. They knew their clerical collars would deflect criticism and obfuscate their real aims, which had nothing whatever to do with the "brotherhood of man."

Other tyrants, like the infamous Idi Amin, were trained and schooled by the whites themselves, at Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard. After receiving the best from the West, they unleashed a resentful bloodlust against their benefactors.

From what I have seen and read thus far, I fear Americans will capitulate just as we did. Americans are, generally, a soft lot. They don't want to quarrel or obstruct the claims of those who believe they were wronged. They like peace and quiet, and they want to compromise and be nice.

A television program that aired in South Africa showed a town meeting somewhere in Southern California where people met to complain about falling standards in the schools. Whites who politely spoke at the meeting clearly resented the influx of Mexican immigrants into their community. When a handful of Chicanos at the back of the hall shouted and waved their hands at them, the whites simply shrunk back into their seats rather than tell the noisemakers to shut up. They didn't want to quarrel.

In America, the courts are still the final arbiters of society's laws. But what will happen when your future majority refuses to abide by court rulings - as in Zimbabwe. What will happen when the new majority says the judges are racists, and that they refuse to acknowledge "white man's justice"? What will happen when the courts are filled with their people, or their sympathizers? In California, Proposition 187 has already been overturned.

Advertisement

What will you do when the future non-white majority decides to change the names of streets and cities? What will you do when they no longer want to use money that carries the portraits of old, dead white "racists" and slave owners? Will you cave in, like you did on flying the Confederate flag? What about the national anthem? Your official language?

Don't laugh. When the "majority" took over in South Africa, the first targets were our national symbols.

In another generation, America may well face what Africa is now experiencing - invasions of private land by the "have-nots;" the decline in health care quality; roads and buildings in disrepair; the banishment of your history from the education of the young; the revolutionization of your justice system.

In South Africa today, only 9 percent of murderers end up in jail. Court dockets are regularly purchased and simply disappear. Magistrates can be bribed as can the prison authorities, making escapes commonplace. Vehicle and airplane licenses are regularly purchased, and forged school and university certificates are routine.

What would you think of the ritual slaughter of animals in your neighbor's backyard? How do you clean up the blood and entrails that litter your suburban streets? How do you feel about the practice of witchcraft, in which the parts of young girls and boys are needed for "medicinal" purposes? How do you react to the burning of witches?

Don't laugh. All that is quite common in South Africa today.

Don't imagine that government officials caught with their fingers in the till will be punished. Excuses - like the need to overcome generations of white racism - will be found to exonerate the guilty.

In fact, known criminals will be voted into office because of a racial solidarity among the majority that doesn't exist among the whites. When Ian Smith of the old Rhodesia tried to stand up to the world, white South African politicians were among the Westerners pressuring him to surrender.

When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe murders his political opponents, ignores unfavorable court decisions, terrorizes the population and siphons off millions from the state treasury for himself and his friends, South Africa's new President Thabo Mbeki holds his hand and declares his support. That just happened a few weeks ago.

Your tax dollars will go to those who don't earn and don't pay. In South Africa, organizations that used to have access to state funds such as old age homes, the arts, and veterans' services, are simply abandoned.

What will happen is that Western structures in America will be either destroyed from without, or transformed from within, used to suit the goals of the new rulers. And they will reign either through terror, as in Zimbabwe today, or exert other corrupt pressures to obtain, or buy votes. Once power is in the hands of aliens, don't expect loyalty or devotion to principle from those whose jobs are at stake. One of the most surprising and tragic components of the disaster in South Africa is how many previously anti-ANC whites simply moved to the other side.

Once you lose social, cultural, and political dominance, there is no getting it back again.

Please note. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Whatever you do later, however hard you fight, you cannot get it back.

Unfortunately, your habits and values work against you. You cannot fight terror and street mobs with letters to your Congressmen. You cannot fight accusations of racism with prayer meetings. You cannot appeal to the goodness of your fellow man when the fellow man despises you for your weaknesses and hacks off the arms and legs of his political opponents.

To survive, Americans must never lose the power they now enjoy to people from alien cultures. Above all, don't put yourselves to the test of fighting only when your backs are against the wall. You will probably fail.

Millions around the world want your good life. But make no mistake: They care not for the high-minded ideals of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and your Constitution. What they want are your possessions, your power, and your status.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

And they already know that their allies among you, the "human rights activists," the skillful lawyers and the left-wing politicians will fight for them, and not for you. They will exploit your compassion and your Christian charity, and your good will.

They have studied you, Mr. and Mrs. America, and they know your weaknesses well.

They know what to do.

Do you?

 This is pure wingnuttery, support of the Aparthied. TSk tsk tsk, CONservapedia is losing it.209.121.127.164 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You couldnt link it why... thanks for spamming the F oiut of thisw page with it. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it (currently) doesn't seem to exist (tried Google search and also CP-searched for the supposed author's name, no results) and was just copypasted straight from this "NewsWithViews" site that's mentioned towards the bottom. Strikes me as typical Snopes-worthy chain letter material: "Here, I found this stunning piece by an author who uses a pseudonym and didn't include information on how to contact her! It was written years ago somewhere, but I find it highly relevant right now!!!" --Sid (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey that template is useful. -  π    00:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My hero... *swoon* --Sid (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

JoMar
He couldn't have come up with a better way to express himself other than interrupting a comment with CAPSLOCK? -- 01:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha.. OMG WHY DON'T YOU KNOW HE'S DEAD, DUH IT'S ALL OVER THE NEWS RIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 03:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Before it disappears down the memory hole...
I wanted to capture this. --Horace (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is rich, coming from Mr. I-would-love-to-debate-with-you-alas-I-am-going-to-be-taking-about-90-days-off-of-Conservapedia-to-something-something-but-I-am-sure-I-would-mop-up-the-floor-with-you-should-I-ever-deign-to-accept-your- money -challenge!
 * I see he turns tail here too. 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Reading that makes me wish it was possible to e-mail a bitch-slap. I know you're not supposed to argue with stupid people because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, but reading a transcript of Kenny trying mightily to drag somebody else down is almost as frustrating as going through it myself.  --Ellipsoidal (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, the term "product placement" comes right to mind.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Devone sees the flaw in User:C's, er, uh, (let's call it) "logic"; conservative's link shows an effort to get Dawkins to the podium by raising the specter of Dawkins being regarded as a coward, by a friend and colleague...not that anyone on User:C's side ever alludes to, much less leveling the charge of cowardice. 02:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * So 🇰🇪, in a discussion about cowardice, reverts and bans the person who so callously points out his own intellectual cowardice. Way to go Kenny baby. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Too late kenny boy, burning the history now after capturebot has done it's work shows you up once again.Oldusgitus (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, he even tried his favorite: redirect the page to one of his pet-projects! 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And in the meantime, all other sysops are extremely busy looking away again. But I'm sure that in a few weeks/months, one of them (Ed, maybe) will go "Golly, I wonder why we're not attracting new editors..." --Sid (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful behaviour from Ken - oh, you're asking me a question? Wait... wait... here's a nonsensical and unrelated question for you to answer. What? You still won't go away? Let me abuse you a little. Still here? Let's see you talk when I burn it to the ground. And make sure nobody can question me again. Just another day in the life of a coward on CP. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What I enjoyed in all of this is the fact the entire article is so incredibility obvious as a personal slam piece. If that had been done on any site that actually attempted to be a legitimate learning resource, 🇰🇪 be de-syoped so fast.  This just shows that even the veil of being an encyclopedia is gone, CP is just a extremist, religious right opinion blog and nothing more. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It also shows Ken in his native habitat. What kind of person acts like that? Does he think he's "winning" in an honest way or does he know he at least appears to be a liar and that a lot of people think the likelier explanation is that he's mentally ill? I don't get how responsible people can keep him around. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I-wouldn't-join-Mensa-if-they-would-accept-me DeMeyer misspelled his hero's name. Nice one, Ken.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Slander (defamation) is a legal term that means spreading false information about someone orally; libel is the same in writing. Calling someone a coward is not slander nor libel under the First Amendment.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether asserting Dawkins is a coward (if he's even doing that - he's such an absolutely terrible writer who tends to say nothing of his own preferring to link and quote dump) is a statement of fact or an opinion. Do you have a handle on that legal question? The First Amendment defense would be along the lines of the affirmative defense for defamation against public figures from NYT v. Sullivan, only creates a defense and doesn't therefore render the statement not defamatory. In fact, for a First Amendment defense to even apply, a court would have to agree that the statement is defamatory but that it's protected under the Constitution. Otherwise it's just an instance of the plaintiff not carrying his burden. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The United States has the most liberal free speech laws anywhere in the world (so says Floyd Abrams). You can mock someone, you can call them names, you can use racial and religious slurs.  Calling someone a coward, saying that it is a fact that they are a coward, is an opinion because there is no definitive legal test for cowardice.  Ken could go further and call Dawkins a "racist coward" if he wanted, and still be protected.  Whether he gets sued or not is one story, but the lawsuit would not be successful.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I can't believe I didn't remember the difference. It's not necessarily so intuitive until you do the prudential analysis of how you'd even tell the difference without an objective standard. Thanks. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add my two cents, as I understand it with regard to our (NZ) laws calling someone a coward would almost always fall under "fair comment" (formerly known as "honest opinion"). It would, however, be actionable if one said 'A is a coward because they did xyz' and the person did not in fact do xyz. But that would require damage to the persons reputation that would accrue from reasonable people thinking that not only did the person do xyz AND that this would imply cowardice.  But then I have never handled a defamation case (who has? - they are pretty rare these days) so take it with a slight grain of salt.  --DamoHi 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I love about this place. "This is what I think" -> "No, here's where you are incorreect" -> "Oh yes, I see my mistake." It's refreshing as a cool breeze compared to "This is what I think" -> "You're fat. I WINZ!" Carlaugust (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You see that is the FUNDAMENTAL problem with rational, intelligent people. Whether they be liberals, atheists or religious conservatives.  When someone points out our errors and explains why we are incorrect we say 'thanks, you have educated me and expanded my knowledge.  The fact you have made me reconsider my preconceptions is an added bonus and I have now altered my world view based on the facts you advanced'.  cp sysops say 'youre atheist so youre fat so I win. Hur hur.'
 * And I lied about the religious conservatives, sorry. Conservatives can do it.  Religious people can do it, though they seldom do in my experience.  Religious conservatives are NEVER wrong. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Carl/Oldus. Rational people don't assume that their opinions and beliefs are the truth, but the truth as best we know it.  I also don't mind being mistaken and having it pointed out to me, since I'm human and sometimes don't read things closely or wasn't exposed to a piece of information, or perhaps got it wrong.  However, if we are in a heated argument and you get something wrong or make a typo then it's YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON! time, ha! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In relation to Leotardo's comment above, a defamatory statement is one which exposes the subject to hatred, ridicule or contempt.  An accusation of cowardice is certainly capable of being defamatory.  Further, as I understand it, the statement will be assumed to be false by the court unless the defendant can prove it to be true.  Also, clearly, this would be a libel rather than a slander.  The point here, however, seems to be more about whether it is encyclopaedic, not whether an actual libel has been committed.  At one point at least, Ken said CP was encyclopedia and not a dictionary" .  The only reason the word "coward" is defined at all on Conservapedia is so that Ken can use the definition to criticise Dawkins.  Not what I would call encyclopaedic.  --Horace (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. No discussion of defamation is complete without the following quote from Othello:
 * 'Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
 * 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands:
 * But he that filches from me my good name
 * Robs me of that which not enriches him
 * And makes me poor indeed.
 * --Horace (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) (on behalf of William Shakespeare).
 * Hi Horace, unfortunately you are confusing your interpretation of defamation/libel law, which is state law, with First Amendment protections, which are federal and supreme. If you are curious about what is protected speech, an interesting read is Phelps v. Snyder, where the court gives a rundown of how far our free speech can go in the context of a rather dramatic issue.  You can think of it another way:  if people could go around suing for being called "Coward" or "Stupid" or "Jerk" pretty much everyone would be sued, all the time. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I am confusing those issues. All I say is that an accusation of cowardice is clearly capable of being defamatory.  If the 1st Amendment provides a shield then that is another matter and it may be that a suit would not succeed for that reason.  The allegation remains potentially defamatory so far as I can see (although I confess at this point to being an Australian with a limited grasp of US law).  As for whether people sue over being called a coward: they do (certainly in other common law jurisdictions).  But my point really was that this is nothing to do with whether a successful suit could be brought.  This is to do with whether it is at all appropriate to attempt character assassination by way of a purported dictionary definition of the word cowardice.  In the end this is just another example of Ken crapping on Andy's blog to further his anti-Dawkins/anti-evolution campaign.  It runs totally contrary to any sensible concept of how an encyclopaedia should be constructed.  But, then again, isn't that exactly what we have come to expect from these people?  --Horace (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps under Australian law you are right, but not under U.S. A U.S. court is not going to get involved in judging whether someone is a coward or not - there's not test for that, and it is highly subjective.  I would be surprised if in Australia it's not the same thing, but that's more up your alley.  I agree re: Ken crapping on wiki.  The other aspect is that Dawkins would have to prove damages, highly unlikely, b/c courts award for harm, not for being mean.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you are correct under US law but Professor Dawkins is British, specifically English, and under English case law (thanks in no small part to the moron Eady) any publication available in the UK can be sued for libel in a UK court. No matter how small the ciculation in the UK.  Nor even if it paid for subscription only website as one site he ruled against recently was, it had 30 subscribers in the UK.  So Dawkins could quite easily sue in the UK should he choose to do so and if he could show damage then he would probably win.  Damages would be hard to claim, as I suspect ken doesn't have a passport and has probably never left his home town let alone the country.  Incidentally, I disagree with Eady on just about everything, he's the moron who is handing out these super-injunctions willy nilly as well, but unfortunately his descisions do form case law in the UK until one of them is overturned by the supreme court.  Oldusgitus (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To show damages is a high bar. I'm going off U.S. law here, but Ken would actually need to be someone who has spread false information in such a way that Dawkins has suffered economic harm.  So while we on this chat room who obsess over CP enjoy these sorts of discussions, Dawkins would laugh at the suggestion that Conservapedia has had any impact on his career, right after saying, "Who said that?  Who are they?"  We are elevating Ken by actually entertaining the laughable idea that he has caused any harm to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins now has a viable lawsuit.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Leo, Eady has already allowed a case to go forward in the UK courts in which a Russian businessman sued a Russian publication in the UK courts based on the fact that the Russian publication had a subscription only website and approximately 30 subscribers were in the UK. There was no evidence that any of those subscribers had accessed the story in question and there was no evidence that material harm had been caused.  However Eady in his stupidity found in the plaintiffs favour and awarded damages.  The fact that cp is an American site, hosted in America, makes no difference at all in UK libel law.  Should Dawkins want to sue then he could do so in the UK courts and likely win.
 * Dawkins won't because, if he even knows about ken the coward, he thinks the same of him as the rest of us but if he wanted to do then he would almost certainly win, expecially as I doubt ken would bother to attend to court to defend the case and so would almost certainly have judgment entered against him in default. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Eady's place and influence in British law is, but you are probably right. The U.S. has the most liberal free speech laws in the world, and I'm accustomed to our standards and have trouble relating to others' limits.  I seriously doubt Ken, former repo man, has the cash to cross the Atlantic, so I think he's safe from any judgments Eady would hand down.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd interesting as hell, that's for sure. Dawkins merely acknowledging Ken's existing would leave Ken to ejaculate violently. Ken being forced to cease and desist from slandering Dawkins would also be interesting, red telephones and all. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.
 * This is so poetic, as the whole thread is, yet speak of the Assfly and all your good intentions go out the window. nobsViva la Revolución! 16:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about nobs? Seriously, what? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexa and Conservapedia
I just wanted to compare the traffic of cwtv.com and conservapedia.com, just to check for myself how the latter is prospering... My problem: I can't get data on conservapedia at alexa.com: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com just doesn't work, and putting consevapedia.com into the formular at http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cwtv.com etc. results in a blank diagram, too...

Does anybody else has similar problems (🇰🇪 perhaps)? 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope no prob for me. I can screengrap the graphs is you'd like? Which ones do you want? --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is from the Audience tab at http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com: [[File:Alexa-CP-Gender_28-May-2011.PNG]]
 * An accompanying description says "Relative to the general internet population, females are under-represented at conservapedia.com. Confidence: high"
 * Does conservapedia lack machismo?? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not so popular with the ladies. Is it because Conservapedia editors are overweight?? Ole!! lol Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 15:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We gals prefer our ponies.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't they making fun of some atheists site a little while ago because Alexa said their viewers were mostly male? Infoseek (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not much better ... aka worse. :( --Danielfolsom (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When did we get so young? We used to be above avg on 25-30 somethings, and well above average on graduate degrees and the like, but if we are packed to the gills with 10-24 year olds it makes sense that we haven't got many graduate degrees. --Opcn (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When ED shut down? 03:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Archiving"
Archiving now officially = burning the evidence. --OompaLoompa (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User: "Why was the mainpage deleted and created?"
 * Andy: "I don't think it was. Perhaps you're referring to the archiving of this talk page?
 * Does that make 'archiving' a New Conservative Word©?  16:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Archiving is the new trim. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * conservative baleets it again!-- 01:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed on WP
Ed is the subject of an ANI thread on Wikipedia (the "Personal attack by OrangeMarlin" thread). Dunno if this should go in WIGO or on Ed's page. Either way, enjoy. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed's always in some sort of trouble over at WP. is this something more than the usual? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 10:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's moaning over on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view that the articles on evolution and global warming don't give enough concessions to creationists and global warming denialists. Usual fare, but entertaining nonetheless. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully expect Ed to rant and ramble on CP today or tomorrow. It's always like that: Ed tries the "I'm just an innocent man asking innocent questions, trying to improve this project that I care deeply about!" routine on WP, people instantly see through his agenda (it helps that he showed people his vision of how it should be done on CP), Ed gets slapped down on WP, Ed goes to CP to rant about how WP sucks and how it's not NPOV. I pity any non-parodist, non-sysop editor on CP right now, because if Ed catches any of them, they're toast. --Sid (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Isn't it nice that Ed has places on WP where he can run squealing "Wa! Somebody was mean to me." If only he wasn't a 2-faced cunt and allowed the same thing on CP, instead of going, "What? You have a complaint? Where's your writing plan? Die! Die! Die!" Also, his creepy use of "uncle" really creeps me out. And I wouldn't like to be editing CP today - Ed got smacked down, he's going to be in a mean mood. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Ed on WP, did you know that "undue weight" is a new rule that is unique to Wikipedia? Ed is still clinging to the notion that "NPOV" should mean "We shouldn't imply that any view is correct (because that wouldn't be neutral) - instead, let every article become a pro/con debate fest with all sides getting equal weight so that the reader can make up his own mind!" --Sid (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Oompa, I dunno if you had been around back then, but CP actually had an Abuse Noticeboard thingy early on. It was a hilarious failure that was put out of its misery later on. XD --Sid (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't. However, I'm willing to bet a goat that I can guess how many cases were settled in favour of the complainant. It was probably just another conservative honey-pot to remove dissenters. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what it amounted to, yes. I think it started out with less sinister purposes, but failed because no sysop dared to mess with another sysop (which, yeah, renders the point of such a page moot). So users would complain, and usually only the abusing sysops (and his buddies) would check in on the page, with predictable results. --Sid (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These stood out as perfectly capturing nearly everything Ed is about:
 * "using the Conservapedia rules on verification" and "Trying to bring Conservapedia policy to Wikipedia" invite ridicule and scorn by everyone outside Conservapedia, but to Ed being accused of those things amounts to "being maligned with personal remarks" as far as he's concerned. The same policy holds true on Conservapedia - calling any attention whatsoever to admin abuses or raising questions about arbitrary editorial decisions has Ed popping up out of nowhere to confront the editor with the standard "I don't see you contributing to our encylopedia constructively, I'm going to block your account indefinitely until you provide me (a little dick asshole who postures nonstop and creates nothing of value in his life if CP and WP are any gauge of his ability) with a Writing Plan I'll never even read."
 * "Note that I am not claiming that a disagreement over what goes into an article is a violation of rules by anyone; rather, I am asking how I can be a better contributor" means "I'm going to ignore that I've been accused of violating the rules over and over and over and over but when I'm attacking this other editor for accusing me of putting stuff into an article in violation of the rules I'm going to continue ignoring the rules, try to hoodwink people who only are skimming, and then JAQ off a little. *splurt* "
 * Add to list ( *larf!* )
 * [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 15:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "never read": "TL;DR" --Sid (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So in other words "I'm going straight to invoke the rules in a long post. Oh what's that? You want to show me some rules and tell me why what I did was wrong? TLDR motherfucker!" [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"From 2001 to 2004, I would just create a stub and watch with joy as others jumped in and did 90% of the work. I started about 1,100 articles that way (which still exist)." That's not something to brag about, you moron.--69.165.135.150 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'M USER 166, MUTHAFUCKAS! DA ROOLZ DUZZENT APPLY TO ME!" --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

251 pixels wigo
I make shitty wigos every time I've made shitty wigos before, but I'm curious, is 251 pixels some kind of standard for images? Is it banal that 🇰🇪 did that?-- 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken has a history of adjusting and readjusting and readjusting image sizes in his pet articles. I don't know if it's caused by his OCD, his inability to edit a page properly, some weird plan on his part to keep those articles at the top of Recent Changes, or some combination of the three. P-Foster (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't readjust in this wigo; he replaced one photo with another. My guess is that he chose 251px as the smallest size at which the caption (photo obtained from Flickr, see license agreement) would all fit on one line.  A little bit anal, if you like, but not really a bad thing to do, or a particularly noteworthy one.   15:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good wigos point out hypocrisy in contrast with reality.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 67.241.191.198 / talk / contribs
 * Ken has weird OC behaviours. This is also typical of the CP "it looks good on my monitor" method of doing things. The text fits perfectly under the image on Ken's web browser with Ken's setting on Ken' OS. Any deviation and it won't work any way. Thumbnail images as a rule should be left to the default width as the user can adjust this using their settings under prefences. -  π    04:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the senior sysops are all so wikilliterate at CP, even Andy has tweaked MainPage templates to get something to display on a single line.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ole
A sneak peak at next masterpiece. His style is maturing rejuvenating, apparently.-- 18:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, the clowns are back. --Sid (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Worse, this appears to be both clowns and obesity.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, he is saying that atheists were once really fat theist clowns who have to wear suspenders and hold up their pants because they are now healthy rationalists? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In Britain many men actually find suspenders a turn-on. Just another example of the trans-Atlantic gulf in the usage of English.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed Lils, I luuurv suspenders! Braces however, nope.  17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy - ahead of the curve
So, I was perusing Merriam-Webster's Top 10 Favorite British Words and clicked on their 'trending' link to find that Godspeed spiked on May 16.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential election, 2012
a person declaring themselves to be running is not actually the most important thing in deciding if they are going to win even saying they don't plan to run doesn't matter either apparently--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, that fills me with hope for our "draft Andy" campaign. Röstigraben (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. So, who has a sock to burn? I'm dying to know what the most important thing is, if declaring your intention to run isn't. OompaLoompa (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my first time attempting this, but.... http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Presidential_Election_2012#Separating_out_the_Real_Presidential_Candidates --Danfly (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dobson is cool with Harry Potter, right? Right?
Oh Lord, Ed, where to start... let's just go chronologically. I don't even mind the double standards or whatever it was that Ed was trying to do with his quotes (I think he wanted to make Dobson look good, but that first one reeks of fridge logic...), but GOOD GOD, ED, YOU FAIL AT ABSOLUTE BASIC RESEARCH (and this is the version where I'm assuming good faith: Otherwise I'd have to assume that Ed merely claimed to have made any attempts at finding a source). --Sid (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 14:37: Edit summary is "reference died" - Hm... okay, mostly proper maintenance.
 * 14:42: Now you see it, now you don't. - Also: "Although one source claims that Dobson has sharply criticized the Harry Potter books, his website says rather: [...]" This is followed by a comparison between "good spiritual power", which comes from God, and "occultic or evil spiritual power". I guess Ed thinks that Harry Potter is the 14th apostle (remember, Rufus was the 13th), doing good deeds in God's name? Um... no...? It's fricken MAGIC that can be used for good or evil just the same. So... yeah, that quote pretty much criticizes Harry Potter.
 * 14:46: SEE, DOBSON IS COOL WITH THIS MEGA-BESTSELLER, SO SHUT UP!
 * 14:50: "I couldn't find anybody of relevance condemning Harry Potter (even though I just removed a quote that basically said just that)! We need to be careful not to put words into anybody's mouths (at least not when it's a conservative)!" - But yeah, fair is fair, and the reference died, and it's not like anybody on the Internet made a backup copy or anything... Oh, wait.

Birds of Karajou
I find it fascinating that Karajou keeps on adding articles about birds that include their taxonomy. Isn't Conservapedia creationist? Present-day taxonomy is increasingly influenced by evolutionary theory (e.g. cladistics), so it is strange for creationists to pay so much attention to it. One would think they ought prefer baraminological taxonomy, although I doubt anyone has tried to work out baraminological taxonomy to the required level of detail that it could possibly compete with mainstream taxonomy. 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should know better than to expect logical consistency from CP. I do find it amusing, though, that the Swabbie has already got 10+ subcategories just for parrots. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not particularly intuitive, is he? See this --  03:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if you don't capturetag it, I can't... 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forget at times.-- 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou can't distinguish between 10 and 20, or between "amused" and "upset" and he says I have a warped way of thinking. Damn. I was actually kind of impressed by the speed at which he's spamming KaraStubsTM (the new EdStubTM). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

more anti-palestine fun!
the two-state solution is not only not wanted by arabs in east jerusalem, but also illegal under international law! along with criticism of Netanyahu.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, again, Conservapedia goes with the 1967 lines as though they are going to be codified by Israel, Obama, etc., even though it has been repeatedly stressed that the 1967 lines will NOT be the new lines, but rather a basis for the actual agreement. --AlexR4444 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

JoMar II
Wow. This guy is subversive-- 20:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How many do they have to kill to wake up the great American people? - I don't know - what was the number of civilians killed in Iraq? Maybe one could use the ⅔-mark? --ǓḤṂ³ 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They were Arabs and were killed on the order of a republican so they don't count. Arab deaths only count if they can be used to attack Obama and/or the dems, otherwise they're not real people. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor and the Moonies
This has probably been explained before, but I haven't followed CP as long as others here (I followed their antics back in 2007 when it was founded and then stopped because I assumed it was mostly parodists). But why do they have Ed Poor as an admin? I'd think they'd kick out Moonies as heretics. Also, Ed Poor and the Moonies is a good name for a rock band. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, just look back to 2007:
 * Ed: "Hi, I'm Ed! Wow, I hate Wikipedia! Oh, did I mention that I'm User 188 and have tons and tons of wiki experience?"
 * Andy: "Hi, Ed! Here's your banhammer! Enjoy!"
 * And... that's it. Ed stays mostly out of areas where Andy operates and just quietly works in his niche where Andy doesn't look. And as long as he doesn't go completely apeshit, he will stay sysop forever because otherwise, Andy would have to admit in some way that he had made a mistake in the past. --Sid (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They did have a brief period where PJR and co. were having at the moonie and mormon contingent for their heretical beliefs. Eventually Andy put a stop to it, and made it so that insinuating that members of lunatic sects weren't proper Christians was anathema. Now they've all come together in glorious interfaith harmony to hate on the real enemies: liberals, scientists, muslims and atheists. -- 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

conservapedia suicide
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Debate_Topics&curid=7055&diff=874067&oldid=779976 surprised he wasnt banned right away--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Soon, I think. He only edited debate pages. Also in the toolbox: "CP is far right" and "we should be able to speak to other people" . He's either a conservative that doesn't know CP or a bad parodist. --ǓḤṂ³ 21:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Republicans are preparing for the election...
…and Andy likes it. --ǓḤṂ³ 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy really is a man out of his time. You could see him having a whale of a time being a southern plantation owner, pre-civil war. He'd be there in the country club yucking it up about the possibility of one of them nigras he owned becoming president if them damned liberal yankees got their way. -- 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I WIGOed it, I thought it was funny that Andy was talking about closing loopholes when really there were no loopholes, this is a new set of laws that restricts registration and a reduction in the number of a type of voting, not a closure of any sort of loophole. --Opcn (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that makes a Republican not win is a loophole. --ǓḤṂ³ 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that lets the descendants of slaves vote is a loophole. Anything that lets lefties vote is a failure of the American Republic!  03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken continues shitting on the wiki
Another instance of crusade to add references to obesity everywhere. Bets on when CP will reach the "fat singularity" (i.e., the point at which all their atheism articles simply read "Atheists iz fat! Hurr durr!" in 72-point font)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I currently can't connect to CP (no 403, just continuous "Connecting..." until the time-out occurs), but my bet is "Never!" since Ken will inevitably lose interest in the obesity meme the moment he can think of something even more idiotic. --Sid (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stream of conscience going on at the "why is x locked" topic on main page. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...wow. Invoking CaptureBot because... wow: History and current version --Sid (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Best section header ever: American Atheists organization and their body weight challenges of leadership. Phiwum (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also known as 🇰🇪 and his literary challenges of grammar. -- 00:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let the liveblogging begin!
Let's see if this will go anywhere... (Why yes, "Princess" should of course be the entry of a movie, not about, uh, princesses, royalty, or any other encyclopedic crap!) --Sid (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's getting better.  00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * CP really needs a "things Ed watched on TV" category. -- 00:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And LloydR tries to make the article a proper one but 🇰🇪 reverts and bans . Oldusgitus (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou is either preparing for a nasty "burn embarrassing history" swap by manually duplicating the page, or he simply forgot that he can MOVE PAGES. --Sid (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Stay Classy Ken!
Even though I am in semi-retirement I couldn't pass this up. Some users ask a few questions about "fat Christians" (I failed to capture it but you can see the title) and then Conservative makes a swipe at Human. But then, wow, it suddenly vanishes! Stay classy Kenny Baby! Ace of Spades 01:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Captured above for your posterior. -- 01:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * so they aren't Christians because they're fat? Man, 🇰🇪 is a hater.  I'd like to see a showdown between him, Ed Poor, and Karajou's son.--  01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just reading Ken talking to himself makes my head spin.  Thanks for the capture.  02:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Ken, aside from your dislike of John Lennon is there any other response you'd like to make? Or do you lack machismo? I mean, I am breaking retirement just for you my friend so man the fuck up buddy. Ace of Spades 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to have deleted and oversighted any responses, so it's really just seven comments in a row of Ken muttering to himself. For those who are still 403 blocked, following "conversations" like that over at the mirror should be easier than reading captures. Röstigraben (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Water on the moon. Where did it come from?
The above is just more aimless farming rambling by Terry, but what's funny is that it reminds me of Coleman Francis (or rather, MST3K): "Flag on the moon. How did it get there?" 02:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant "Huw," actually.
Expect more of Ken writing articles on loudspeakers, soon P-Foster (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of time over the past couple of years, Conservative has focused the crazy on Human, who builds loudspeakers for a living; he'll write (and then delete) articles about speakers and make snarky comments in the edit summaries about trying to damage someone's business--at one point, I think he even made noises about launching his own speaker business, but that might just be another pesky flashbak on my part. P-Foster (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My lawyer is keeping an eye on Ken, luckily. And yes, indeed, he has fantasies of destroying my livelihood. But the header is really a "joke", of course. Of course, all I have to go by is the captured image, since I am banned from actually viewing CP.  02:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Already oversighted. 02:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Watching. Always watching, Ken. Be cool... [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 03:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Chuckarse Goldbug
The latest is pretty blatant shilling. So is he linkspamming for money and running a Goldline style operation behind the scenes, thus making money twice over for every spammed link? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the exchange rate between chickens and gold? -- 02:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gold and silver coins are now legal tender in Utah—and worth their weight in gold. - Silver coins are worth their weight in gold? What a stupid pillock.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does he say "...worth their weight in gold"? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't connect to CP right now (I guess it'll recover later, just like it did last night), so I can't check if it appeared on MPR at some point. But it's definitely in his blog entry. --Sid (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah right, gotcha. What a muppet. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious (and I know the US is the land of the free) but it seems to me as if somebody highly unqualified for the position is handing out financial advice. I'm guessing there would be no recourse, should Vomitbottom's predictions go belly up and people lose money based on his "predictions". Does he have to register as some sort of financial advisor, in order to give such advice? --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer (especially not an American one), but I'd be honestly surprised. Even ignoring the "I think he's not telling anybody that he's a qualified, certified financial advisor" part, he's just some random guy on the Internet posting unsolicited advice - if you follow it without some sort of contract between you two, I'd say you can only blame yourself. But again, I'm not a lawyer, so it's possible I'm missing something here! --Sid (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here in the states radio programs run a disclaimer that information given on the show does not constitute financial advice, but they tend to take calls so it is solicited... dunno . --Opcn (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No way there would be any legal responsibility. Otherwise everyone who works for CNBC would be in jail by now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken moratorium CLXVI
I do believe we're giving Ken a bit too much attention at the moment. I think we should back off a little and give him time to change his underpants and get fully dressed.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the header to reflect reality. Can I buy a "D"? 07:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I think we should encourage him. Really get him to go on 60-hour editing binges and turn CP into a steaming crock of shit, whilst showing Andy up to be a complete idiot at the same time. Ok, maybe not 60-hour binges. Just now Rob accuses us of killing Kenny too. --OompaLoompa (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this "turn" you speak of?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I left the word "bigger", possibly "humongous" or even "ginormous" out of my reply. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with encouraging him to go on a 60 hour edit bender is that he tends to edit only one essay, or even just one paragraph, in that time span. He's ends up not doing much damage to CP, only to himself, the poor lamb.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the problem that, while super easy, setting him off like that is also incredibly cruel? He's a developmentally disabled and/or mentally ill man. It's not funny. It's sad. How many weeks of months of his life has he lost to obsessively chaining together 16 byte edits or repeatedly resizing an image on a backwater wiki? The only value in that is showing Andy Schlafly and his thugs to be the exploitationists they are. Not even Joaquin is above being criticized for saying nothing while his opportunist buddies take advantage of Ken's episodes, all for pageviews, even though they've secretly admitted they think his articles are atrocious and know people come to laugh at them. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's this theory that they have that any page view, any mention, anywhere, in any context, is a sign of their robust influence. Ken brings that.  It's Westboro Baptist Church:  getting the message out is more important than persuading people or having their ideas seriously considered.  They are building a monument out of turds, and they'll do anything to have people come to smell and look at it, even if it's with disgust (real conservatives would never disagree with such a magnificent turd monument, so their criticism doesn't count).  Nutty, I think you have a point, but I don't know if any of them can tell that Ken is developmentally disabled because he says the same things that they all say, just in much more juvenile terms.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus fuck you're right. All bets were off when Andy Schlafly started repeating the "fat atheist" stuff. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and when Andy started to do that, it answered the question, "Does CP care more about being a serious [conservative] educational resource, or does it care more about 'pissing off' the liberals?" --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't even about that, it is about Andy building a house of cards purely for his own self-aggrandizement, so he can live in denial of the fact he has no influence in the conservative movement. The other sysops go along because Conservapedia gives them the feeling that their lives have some meaning, some purpose, and a taste of "power"; because without it what else would each of them have?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Visitors
Good, so more people laughed at Andy this month than during last May. At least, I think think that's what he's trying to say.

Do we have any way of verifying his claims, besides asking him to "show me the data?" --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

couldn't help myself
Obama, Imma let you finish, but America has the greatest fighting force of all time !!! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, it's this sort of petty semantics that makes them seem silly. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's funnier is that he attacked the semantics with "A typical memorial speech however America IS the finest military in the world." You can't make this shit up. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What a flub on CP's part!! The speech should have been "The current American army could kick any other army's ass - past, present, or future". Typical liberals at CP, bowing to the military might of the 29th century Republic of WesEuroCorp. Carlaugust (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He also didn't get the Rightwing Outrage Machine's memo that it's not that line in the speech that is controversial, it's that Obama wasn't at Arlington. Keep up with your marching orders, JPatt! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Didn't you know that all Christian Americans were fighting for America with every prayer and every buck they spent on good Ameircan business? But seriously now that's wrong (sort by active). Although, they have gathered some extensive experience, I'm pretty sure that India and China could beat the living shit out of America. Also a united Army of the EU would be bigger than then the American Army, about 1,5 times IIRC - let's hope that comes up in the next EU treaty.… Sorry for ever questioning the all powerfull strength of the - whatever their official name is. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (--ǓḤṂ³ 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

Conservapedia and Alexa
I though this was interesting, on Alexa's Conservapedia page:

"Conservapedia has a three-month global Alexa traffic rank of 52,872. The site has a relatively good traffic rank in the cities of Springfield-Holyoke (#650) and Rochester (#921). "

To me this says that maybe the Alexa results were extrapolated from a small group of Alexa toolbar users, two of whom happen to live in the towns above (which one is Ken?).


 * What no one there seems to realize is that the Alexa graph only looks good because they had a dip in traffic in March. The time frame had to be chosen very carefully to hid the true statistics on Conservapedia's traffic, if Karajou had gone out 6 months it would have looked very different.  I wish I could point this out but all my sock puppets are kissing Schlafly's ass. Infoseek (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Search engine traffic is significantly down. Put Ken on suicide watch. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why kiss Schlafly's ass when you should be kissing Hank's!! Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pegasus, my friend, you win all the internets you can stuff into your pockets. Carlaugust (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerald Celente predicts the past
This "article" was posted to MPR. Did this idiot sleep through the French and Greek protests earlier this year? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pst... it's Gerald Calente. ... You just got trolled.   [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you remember last year when Gerald Celente predicted obamageddon? Seems like he just predicts doom on a regular basis and relies on the likes of 🇰🇪 not to remember all the failed predictions. -- 04:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see we already have an article on him. He also seems to be oblivious to the fact that current Greek protests started before Spain's. It's pretty easy to "predict" the future by reading yesterday's headlines and repeating them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry Goldbug gets called out
Here 🇰🇪: Stop whining, atheist! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone complains about soething it is instantly taken as evidence that it's getting under the liberals' skin, so it's best to complain about the worst parts. It only makes them dig in further.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Message to Robert Smith
Seriously, dude. Four times in three days? Somebody needs to teach your sysops how a wiki works. P-Foster (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. conservative is out of control.--  02:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not deleting it, he's just, er, "archiving" it. Yeah, that's the ticket. Oh, and Andy doesn't censor content, he just "trims" it. You're probably just not used to CP conventions. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Conveniently, the "What do we do about the fat Christians" section is missing in the re-created page (and also wasn't archived). Cue every sysop looking away and going all "I'm not familiar with the situation, but let me tell you that Conservative is one of our most valued editors, so I wouldn't want to waste his productive time by bothering him with such questions..." --Sid (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Rob has pretty much accepted that CP is and always will be Andy's toilet with a few other turds floating around in it. I think at this point he only does it to troll liberals for a little fun.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to remember "Making Conservapedia better" means driving off everybody who's ever said something we the sysops disagree with. Of course, the sysops can do no wrong (unless they're filthy liberals like that Rayment character) because that would imply Andy made a mistake. And Andy never makes mistakes, even when everybody was telling him that TK was selling out the ground under his feet. --OompaLoompa (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I think Rob knows what a silly wiki is CP. They can't sign up new contributors, and the legitimate ones they sign up quickly leave or are blocked for only what can be described as 'talking back' to sysops.  I know few adults who want to be treated that way by other adults.  I don't think this critique carries much water with them anymore, though - they've decided it's their sandbox and they'll crap on it as much as they want.  Which is good!  I love my little wingnut ant farm.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone is not happy with all this "archiving." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What was deleted? Not that it matters, but this might be good for a few laffs... nobsViva la Revolución! 01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the usual -- stuff about fat atheists, a diversion about fat Christians, Conservative going off about fat atheist homosexual smokers and John Lennon after a few people poked him with a stick. Just between you and me, Robert, and I promise I won't tell anybody, but Andy must be appalled at this guy, right? I mean, I know Andy has his own brand of crazy going on, but at least he has a house and a wife and a family and something like work and a bit more going on in his life than fighting atheism on the internet by making fat jokes. He must have said something at some point? P-Foster (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yah but Ken gets results. And he hits the target market. Honestly I'm jealous. I put a lot of work in my articles and lucky to get 12,000 hits in a year; he'll get 3000 hits in a few days.  nobsViva la Revolución! 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Percent of users who find CP by search engine has plummeted, according to the almighty Alexa. Some results. You shouldn't be jealous of Ken, because there are a lot fewer people laughing at you. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The video is funny (though I think everything he mentions was added by Andy), but I seriously hope that your entire comment was satire/parody/sarcasm/whatever. Because if you meant even a single word of it, you have even less of a clue of what goes on at CP than I suspected. --Sid (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Rob has proven again and again that he doesn't actually care about CP or even what people think of him. He just wants a box to stand on. He doesn't care who is beside him. He doesn't care what the audience thinks of him. In those respects, he is very much like Ken. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, Rob...
You might want to get one of your sysops some medical intervention before he kills someone. He's clearly off his nut. -- 03:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're (hopelessly) pointing out misconduct
Check out CP's Sun-tzu entry, which was miraculously created by Ken in one go! ...wait, that looks unlikely. Let's check the logs! Ahhhh, okay, there are more edits, but Ken just oversighted or deleted them! Okay! ...still, that article doesn't look like Ken's style... maybe because somebody else wrote it in the past (check the "This page was last modified on 20 March 2010, at 19:35." and compare it to the patrol logs, which show that Ken hadn't touched the page back then) before Ken simply took credit for the entire work by erasing the history! Meritocracy! --Sid (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, The Art of War also somehow figured into his planned crusade against Human from a while back. Röstigraben (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's new low, even by Ken's standards. He really is finding new ways to shit on Andy's blog. I can also prove that Ken didn't write this - nowhere does it say "Sun Tsu was a non-believer and therefore fat! Hur hur hur! If he hadn't been such a fat atheist, he would have been on his horse, fighting battles instead of writing about them." --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaannnnddd.... burnt to the ground to hide the evidence. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually part of the log I linked to. He burnt it to hide the history up to there and then used oversight to hide all his edits since recreation. --Sid (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We all know that Ken is a sandwich (or two) short of a picnic but his constant deletions and reappearances remind me so much of a frightened bunny popping out of different rabbit holes. Which is all rather ironic considering his childish attacks on Dawkins. Despite all the evidence I find it hard to believe that Kenneth Demyer is a middle-aged man in his late forties rather than a spotty adolescent who's never been kissed and wanks into a sock.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Kenneth Demyer is a middle-aged man in his late forties who wanks into a sock." Fixed that for you. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When we consider that Ken has no actual achievements, it's not unnatural for him to try and claim the work of others. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to learn if Ken has ever kissed a girl, and if so, what kind of girl took that plunge. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a while I though he must have gone to a prostitute or two, but he hasn't written a projection article about evolutionists and whores yet so I doubt that he has. --Opcn (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everytime I think you can't get much lower, Ken disproves me. It's the only thing he does successfully. --ǓḤṂ³ 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, oh, 🇰🇪... We don't use Chinese characters within in Latin script text (we don't use any non-Latin scripts more then once), we use transliterations because (1) otherwise it looks shitty, (2) dumb people like you get confused because they can't read it adn (3) ouch, my eyes! --ǓḤṂ³ 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Red telephone!
From Karajou. Seriously, dude, come on over and we can debate the fact that you fail at Godwin's law. Or even better, post it on your blog, and then open the comments for discussion. Be a man for once in your life, instead of shouting random thoughts on your talk page. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to laugh at someone who tries to obfuscate the difference between communism and National Socialism when they can't even discern the difference between liberalism and socialism; but then Karajou has always been one of the blunter knives in the CP drawer.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou, if we're trolls then why are you feeding us? 13:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nazis loved communists and trade unions (loved them to death actually). My fictitious history books tell me so. Karajou, if National Socialists were truly socialist then the The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is truly democratic, right? Stick to copying and pasting birdie articles, idiot.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He's just not very bright, and it's kind of sad, how much energy he invests in his fantasy world. Back in reality, people have to contend with real history and real issues in order to deal with the way the world really is and has been.  Both the Germans and Russians laugh at Americans like Karajou who sit in their basement in Tennessee dreaming up ways to link several unrelated movements.  Point #2 is "the Nazis taxed to support programs, and so do the liberals" and it's like, so did Reagan, so they are all similar.  These kinds of fallacies only work on the dumb and have no practical use.   --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, actually. --ǓḤṂ³ 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you just DARE insult Saint Raygun? --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Since socialism and communism are the same thing," FAIL --ǓḤṂ³ 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I got as far as that and then stopped reading. Kowardjerk, you've had this explained to you before: socialism = economic policy, communism = type of government. Yes, communists are socialists, but socialists and not communists. Oh, and despite the name, the National Socialists weren't socialist, they were capitalist - one of the distinctions between communism and fascism - communism = authoritarian socialism, fascism = authoritarian capitalism. Fuck me, why am I wasting my time? (Maybe to find out why stupid people (on all sides of the spectrum) group everything they don't like as one and the same)
 * And it's not just that they aren't the same thing, it's that they obviously aren't the same thing. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, I read a bit further and he's swiftly (and without mention) replaced socialism with 'liberalism'. So to Kowardjerkoff we have Socialism=Communism=Nazi=Fascism=Liberalism. Brilliant! Oh, just to confuse you even more Koward, Libertarians are liberal capitalists! Can you believe that? 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberalism and fascism may have different names, but, indeed, this is central to his point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is like saying since Hitler promoted the Autobahn, and Eisenhower promoted the Interstate Highway System, and both were paid for by their respective governments, Eisenhower must be the moral equivalent of Hitler and his Republican administration is the equivalent of the National Socialist Workers Party.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the end we are all like Hitler: we breathe. --ǓḤṂ³ 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, he doesn't. – Nick Heer 04:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad jokes, he probably made those too. --ǓḤṂ³ 08:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the conservative claim that radical Islam is aligned with communism. Uuuuummm... who do you think al Qaeda's ancestors were fighting against in Afghanistan?

Really, this is one of the two central memes of the American right-wing: To be fair, liberals have a history of making Hitler comparisons to conservatives, too, many just as baseless. But at least liberals don't show blatant historical ignorance by merging wildly different political philosophies into one morass of evil. MDB (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Anything other than American Conservatism is equivalent to any and all bad political philosophies throughout history.
 * 2) "American Conservatism" is defined as "what Fox News and talk radio tells us today, even if it differs from what they said yesterday".
 * 3) If anyone who disagrees with us does anything Hitler did, that makes them the equivalent of Nazis.
 * 4) If conservatives do something Hitler did, that's okay.
 * I think this is rooted in them not understanding or never having worked through all the other philosophies. When these people read the Comunist Manifesto they don't go there without bias, they see, hear and do everything within their ideology. It reminds me of the saying "to see everything through rose-colored glasses" only that they see everything through conservative-colored glasses. They've grown up in a society were questioning what people with more authority (pastor or whatever it's called in their churches, parents, party members, bosses) is not only disliked but sanctioned, if such a behaviour is encouraged on society wide scale it leads to people that stop thinking. In a way, that only can be said properly with leaving the political institution side out of it, is totalitarian (the ideology of Christian American conservatism), because they constantly have to justify their behaviour. In addition their authority is shifted from a dictator to the ultimate big brother: the all-knowning, all-powerfull but absolutely loving Christian God™. Going to read something without a bias is a sin, because the very moment one does that the existence of God™ is doubted, the original sin is commited - and rational thought excluded from being the highest authority. This is a deadly cycle. It leads to complete and outer delusions ranging from from the denial of evolution to the denial of the truth being seen by anybody else then people that agree with them. In it's psychological effects American Conservatism is a totalitarian ideology, and that makes it extremly dangerous. My working definition of "totalitarianism": An ideology or political system that seeks to have total influence on peoples lives, in some instances even including brainwashing and other parts of indoctrination. --ǓḤṂ³ 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better than radical Islam being aligned with communism is, according to Newt Gingrich, radical Islam being aligned with atheism. All part of the secular-socialist machine...or something. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

More ken to cover this page
I want to see the actual numbers of visitors to compare with other websites to which ken answered by talking about something unrelated, the original poster saying "you must not have what i asked for" to which ken gives some story. Bets on when august will be banned?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, what? Do you think Ken is like this in real life? He reminds me a bit of Roger Irrelevant. With Asperger's. 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moar! fail see header C ® ackeЯ
 * Oops, I stole this WIGO from you. Anyway, it's funny that AugustO is one of the only real (non-sock puppet) users on Conservapedia, yet he/she will probably be banned quite soon, and a month or two ago AlaskanEconomy, probably their most sane conservative user, left and was called an atheist. CP will soon consist completely of only crazy conservatives and parodists. - Jpop (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please de-crappify MPR?
Andy's latest Duh! item is a good example of how crappy MPR has become (relative!) Their problem once was "All Obama, All The Time" but now it's just getting junked with uninteresting links that make trivial points, or spam from Coke Eyes, which also falls into the former category. MPR is one of the only consistently updated parts most beloved institutions on CP, so it's a shame that they focus on the dumbest shit. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone what percentage of CP edits are related to the mainpage or "essays"? I mean, if anyone needed evidence that CP is more 'Andy and Ken's Wacky Blog' than an encyclopedia that alone should do it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a job for Super Larron. --ǓḤṂ³ 01:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the huge letters and stunned liberals for a vote his own source describes as a bit of theatre. -  π    01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is CP talking to?
"May 31 on TPM: Steny Hoyer Slams GOP’s ‘Political Charade,’ Urges Dems To Vote Down ‘Clean’ Debt Limit Increase June 1 on CP: Liberals are stunned by the landslide margin of 318-97! " That liberals are "stunned" is a lie - Democrats were encouraging their members to vote the debt limit down until the real plan is proposed, which was reported not only in their link from yesterday, but also on liberal websites after Steny Hoyer came out and encouraged Democrats to vote no. So, who do they think is buying their fantasies and deceit? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, who do they think is buying their fantasies and deceit? Rank and file conservatives. Next! [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then what's the point? To sway them that conservatives are right so vote Republican?  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Who is CP talking to?" Themselves (and liberal RW wandals). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

MPR, and by extension Andy, isn't talking to anyone. He knows he has no conservative readers supporting him, hence why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is and run for Congress to 'fix' the country. He couldn't get GOP support, he couldn't get Tea Party support, he couldn't get religious support and he couldn't even get WND support. The only reason that CP continues to spout such headlines is for the reason that Andy's after a job. Either at Faux News or to take over the Eagle Forum when his Skeksis mother completely decomposes. Unfortunately for Andy as soon as he does either the media might actually pay attention to him as a person, dredge up some of his many quotes from CP and end his career in short order.

It really must grate at him that even idiot wingnuts like Angle and Bachmann can get elected in a popular vote, and he couldn't even get past a primary. -- 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He can't even hold an honest job. 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

2012 republican nominee
Conservative Jim DeMint has announced he might run for the president however that isn't enough to put him past #10 and the likes of the amazing Jeb bush and others!--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Andy is excited at the prospect of a DeMint run as he's a member of this pack of lunatics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The best is that Tim Pawlenty, widely regarded as the front-runner, comes in on this list after two Andy fantasies who aren't running--Marco Rubio and Rand Paul--and Ron Paul, who will never, ever pass muster with the Republican base. These picks aren't against conventional wisdom, they are against reality.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The best part is by far the fact that Andy's boy toy Rubio doesn't fit Andy's own definition of a "natural born citizen". Occasionaluse (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He clearly does. His parents chose to submit themselves to US sovereignty. P-Foster (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They totally filled out the form and everything. Do a FOIA request and lose all credibility. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Born to two citizens or bust...according to Vattel. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The one thing that can be consistently gleaned from Andy's rankings is that he is useless when it comes to insightful political predictions from a conservative perspective. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Kenny has a girl-friend...
... no one else but Denise O'Leary, who writes at Uncommon Descent (the flag-ship of intelligent design):


 * More from the “Does new atheism make you fat?” high level research project

My answer to this drivel is held in moderation - as usual:

23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the second time this has happened. O'Leary writes of Kenny as if she wants to tell him to go fuck himself and never darken her inbox again, yet she caves in to his demand for attention... It's oddly bipolar. -- 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeeves is right - it's the second time she's jumped on the fat atheist thing. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) O'Liery fancies herself a journalist but not only is Ken an "individual who shall most certain remain nameless" but I'll bet $20 she doesn't actually know his name and doesn't actually care since he handed her a gift wrapped turd that perfectly reinforces her bigotry. It may or may not be irresponsible for a "journalist" to base a story on what may ultimately be a long-con troll. But you'd think she'd at least want some reassurance she wasn't getting hung out to dry as a pawn in an elaborate hoax given that Ken's material is all obviously from Poeville. I don't know. But the message here is extremely inappropriate for a blog pushing ID when a central component of its public fight is distancing itself from religionists and creationists. Strictly speaking, ID is obviously anathema to Biblical literalism. Even though some "liberal" religionists and even non-religious and atheists accept it, I think it's only fair to say it's a non-religious theory to the extent creationists are succeeding in using it to erode acceptance of the ToE and spread their anti-science lies. Hence O'Leary getting her grubby mitts on the blog. But why has Dembsky abdicated so much editorial control that this dummy gets to fuck with years of issue framing on which outfits like the Discovery Institute have spent millions? It's just stupid. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 01:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Having corresponded with Kendoll, I have to wonder just how many emails he sends her a week. And how many times he sends each mail with minor corrections for spelling. Maybe she thinks he might fuck the hell off if she caves a little. -- 01:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She's dressed like she's about to be dunked for witchcraft. There's definitely a relationship with CP there, but since she always refers to Ken in an 'Exasperated Mother' tone it's difficult to figure out their dynamic.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that she's also a blogger on the aborted conservablog. -- 02:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One Paul Burnett commented on O'Leary's blog and said he is a CP editor, and his comments in 2009 show he was a true believer!  So anyone know why Jpatt banned him? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am suffering from comprehension fail. What does "...insists on foisting on my notice..." mean?  02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean "Kendoll spammed me unceasingly with this shit." Either that or she doesn't really know what the words "insist" and "foist" mean. -- 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'He bugged me until I relented' was what I got. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * She should stick to words she knows how to use. 04:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's rather cute 🇰🇪 has a girlfriend. He's growing up so fast. :'( Doppelheuer (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Memorial Day Observation
Did Conservapedia have anything on their main page yesterday to recognize memorial day (other than their stupid "Obama fucked up" news item, that is)? I only ask because I seem to recall a news item from a few years back where they knocked the liberal atheist google for not recognizing it with a logo (despite the rather appropriate memorial ribbon they had instead). I'm sure I could look back and find this, but I'm lazy and stupid.--The doctor is still in (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They had a big ass picture of a jet. It's too early and I'm too lazy to difflink. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing I could find was June 2010 where they were bitching about Google and Flag Day: "Microsoft's Bing search engine honors Flag Day [50] In contrast to Google, [51] they give it no honor and Google has given Sputnik more significance than Flag Day."  13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Pray for our dead soldiers', I think that was their message.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully everybody is catholic?--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On a related note to above
just incase you thought the birthers were losing the MPR as we began talking about the election... some guy has officially filed a claim that the birth certificate was made with consumer computer programs! Oh and it was with the FBI no less. --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is hilarious. "Here are a few things I don't understand...therefore it is irrefutably proven a forgery!!!" Occasionaluse (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone copy the link they use here too? Kthxbai.  03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou and the FBI... kinda surprised that he's not blaming us for the forgery. ;) --Sid (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Theres some guy in the comments talking about the evil conspiracy shadow government--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This "expert" (questionable) has already been debunked. It was easy - my favorite:
 * "Real experts on PDF’s have pronounced the Obama long form normal (Krawetz, Fox News, National Review) and I don’t need to re-plow that ground. What I’m going to do in the next section is to point out what any technically savvy person should be able to see for themselves."


 * "I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs."


 * "That’s the first sentence from Vogt, and we have already seen that it’s wrong. The PDF was created by Mac OS X 10.6.7 PDFContext. Not an auspicious way to start. He admits that he doesn’t know which of the two programs created the document. If he can’t tell which one, how does he know it was either — and in fact it was neither. No Adobe program created the long form PDF."
 * These guys (Karajou, Andy, et al.) wouldn't be so sad if their desperate hopes and fantasies didn't have them pounce on every easily-debunked theory. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of these "it's faked" theories that are springing up are based around the idea that the image has been altered in some way, or created from scratch in an image editing problem. Call me old fashioned, but if I were the president of the united states and trying to con millions of people with a fake birth certificate, I'd just have a *real* one faked and scan it, not have one put together via sloppy image editing that any internet warrior can pick to pieces. X Stickman (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. And how's he supposed to do that?  You think that Hawaii medical officials (the same ones lying about his birth certificate) would just drop everything and make him a forgery?  No way.  These folk gotta draw the line somewhere.  Lying to the world about the contents of their records, no problem.  Making an electronic forgery which is easily debunked, thus jeopardizing their futures?  Sure.  Making a paper forgery using the proper forms?  Out of the question. Phiwum (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised the article is by Jerome "I've got a book to whore!" Corsi. No doubt the liberal FBI will do nothing. --OompaLoompa (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
RationalWiki:Active users, Conservapedia:Active users and Active users at Citizendium are updated.

RW shows a steady increase, partly because of the whole rights-management-brouhaha. This is of course temporarily. Conservapedia is rising again, after being choked by TK's policy of repelling any editor in late 2010. It seems to be nearly as popular as RationalWiki. Citizendium prepares to flatline.

While there is not much difference between the statistics for all users and the unblocked editors at RationalWiki and Citizendium, Conservapedia's diagram shows that at least half of the increase in editors over the last months is due to contributors which aren't allowed to stay on.

22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In other news, RationalWiki's 3 month reach is up 98%. I am also just wondering why CP's graph has a large spike in August 2010 too. king of the rats do you wanna kick it in the backseat? 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the art of TK's choking CP, I'm excited that more editors are joining because now WIGO can get a little more diverse. Plus! We'll get newbie CP editors coming over here and complaining about us liberal vandals, so that's something to look forward to.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. All those new users are my socks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually such spikes occur when someone of the MSM (or at least the blogosphere) reports on Conservapedia:
 * Conservapedia:Timeline: 11th - New Scientist picks up on the whole "Relativity is a liberal plot" nonsense
 * 07:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How easily 'Best of the Public' falls to the wayside
'Best of the Public' can best be described 'If someone with few credentials does something we like, they are clearly "best of the public". But that's only true until someone with credentials does something they like, then it's "A scientists who received NASA funding for his geological research" declares the Genesis flood shook up all the continental plates. John Baumgardner is the 'Nasa-funded' scientist, and he is described on WP as a "geophysicist, young Earth creationist, intelligent design supporter and Christian fundamentalist." He belongs to a group called R.A.T.E., self-described as "Bible-believing Christians, committed to young-earth creation." So a guy who said, "my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple," came out and said his opinion is that Magic Man caused the plates to shift, because Baumgardner has set his whole career on trying to prove that his childhood beliefs are true (without success). He may do scientific research valuable in continental drift theory, but that's distinguished from his failure to prove his Magic Sky Man did it, which he never will. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To CP I say - Great! If this guy has made a genuine discover of importance, then the peer review process will validate it, our collective human knowledge will have increased. And then, once there has been enough testing, investigation, and attempts to falsify it, the Great Flood will become the accepted scientific theory. However, and excuse me for being presumptuous, but this guy's "research" will never get to the peer review stage, where it would be destroyed (see; cold fusion). You see, idiots, science doesn't exclude you because they're biased against the Bible; they exclude you because they're playing chess, and you want to stick the pieces up your nose. Carlaugust (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "they exclude you because they're playing chess, and you want to stick the pieces up your nose." I'm going to have to steal this line. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a most excellent example of the wordsmith's art. I'd put it up there with (Carl Sagan's? -- I think) "They laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo." Doctor Dark (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur wholeheartedly, a great line indeed. Well done. I'm still chuckling. Jimaginator (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your blog is outdated says User:JanW
" Your crap blog is notoriously outdated, and even when you link to your decayed blog entries on your front page and it's obvious you didn't bother to look at the articles, nobody can update them regardless because they are locked ." Haw haw. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt's sad little essay
This is such a sad little essay for all its earnestness. It's set up in an "Atheists say... But we say..." format, and it's as persuasive as a child's Sunday school assignment. 'Atheists say science has the answers...but we say: Magic Man!'; 'Atheists say the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales...but we say: Magic Man!'. He writes about sainthood and miracles as if unaware of the pitifully low bar for what in today's Christianity constitutes "cannot be grasped, it is unexplainable as to why it occurred". I remember back when, like Jpatt, I just adopted whatever my dad believed. Life was simpler then because I didn't have to think for myself, I just had to learn what he thought. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The unexplained can be attributed directly to God." Hey, JPratt, the dark ages called. They want their mindset back. -- 01:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think I can relate to him from when I was a teenage Republican (Newt Gingrich's youth coordinator for his 1990 re-election, actually), but in reality I was never as intellectually dead as Jpatt is. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The stupid started hurting too much by paragraph 3... had to drop the feed... 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob missed the fact that 1 condom does not a service rendered make. Abortions cost so much because they have to do a lot of things to make sure the patient is safe. Agricultural abortions cost like nothing. --Opcn (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you got pibotted into commenting on the wrong section? 07:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"They are the smarts ones" - We are when it comes to spelling and grammar. -- 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And while everybody makes fun of him, how about a real response? --ǓḤṂ³ 11:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that format of a massive, continuous block of text is difficult to look at. Can't you break that up into paragraphs or something? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can strike that of the list. --ǓḤṂ³ 14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TK's New E-mail address
PearlyGates@Heaven.God. Please, no spam. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re:MAILER-DAEMON, mail undeliverable

Message starts below:

Reason: User "TK" not found in database Junggai (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heaven has a shared e-mail, like a child's summer camp, so you can't send it to TK@heaven.god, you have to send it to pearlygates@heaven.god and they'll print it out and leave it on TK's bed for him to read after going to archery practice. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, I think that's the entirely worng TLD. Jus' saying. 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * That's just Heaven's superior spam/troll filter. - Jpop (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found that to be in incredibly poor taste compared to the not a admin users reply. --Mikalos209 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah quite classy. Especially since they're pearl gates (made from pearl) rather than pearly gates (coloured pearl). --Sigma 7 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that CP hadn't even publically acknowledged that Terry had snuffed it? It's in pretty bad taste to troll like that though...  19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not to speak ill of the dead, but...) that email address is wrong. You can actually reach TK at: HolyShitIslamWasTheOneTrueReligion@PleaseStopTortureOhGodNoNotTheHotPokersAgain.AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHLetItBeOver! Carlaugust (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the e-mail bounce-back was the most telling of all: Jpatt, there is no heaven.  We tried to e-mail heaven and apparently it's not there.  Did you get the addy wrong, or your beliefs?  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What if he's in heaven but Satanism is actually the one true religion? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I though TK was a horrible person but what's with all the dancing on his grave? [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 20:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we dancing on TK's grave, or making fun of the concept of heaven and Jpatt's tasteless response? I'm the latter.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to Carlaugus: even if Christianity were the "true" religion, I suspect TK would be sent to hell anyway. - Jpop (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken also thinks Jpatt is tasteless and let him know who's boss haha. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken's just sticking his crazy elbows out because he's having an episode and needs attention. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 22:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently TK is the new FBI, as that guy got a five year ban for no reason. Classy. Though I personally loved JPatt's response, it's just what's needed to be sent to the parents of Andy's students. Nothing says give Andy your money and children's time like an example of an editor that worked there for years being mocked for dying. Thanks John, yet more proof that we don't have to insert parody, you do a good enough job of repulsing people on your own. -- 06:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Help, help! We cranks are being oppressed!
Good piece on global warming from Newsblusterers posted to MPR, but I'm kind of disappointed they didn't shoehorn in the usual bull about solar cycles and broken hockey sticks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head: "Give our crank ideas equal time!" Basically, Brooke Gladstone is saying that the media needs to stop engaging in the 'teach the controversy' nonsense that the rightwing demands, in hopes that their whacko fantasies become the basis for public policy.  It's astounding how little evidence the right has to back up their social, economic and scientific beliefs.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, Big Boy Jammies (via MPR) reports that Mitt Romney is not a denier. Time to throw the RINO under the bus along with Chris Christie. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Counter-Example" to Atheism and Obesity
I was perusing the epic travesty known as Atheism and Obesity and saw that Ken Doll tries to hammer the point in that Chuck Norris is a fundamentalist Christian, and that this somehow confirms that being a Christian will automatically imbue you with stunning physical prowess...retarded logic and the notion that calling your opponents fat somehow constitutes an argument aside, reading this reminded me of a particularly notable (albeit more silent about the subject than most) celebrity atheist. Who's that, you ask?

Bruce fucking Lee.

For those not obsessed with kung fu movies, one of the most memorable scenes from Lee's career is the fight in Way of the Dragon in which he kicks the ever loving shit out of...wait for it...Chuck Norris. So by Ken-Logic, what we have here is a "counter-example" (Andy's version of the word, of course) of a dirty atheist displaying physical dominance (Lee was a better fighter than Norris IRL as well, having acted as his teacher at one point) over the righteous Christian, thus proving once and for all that Christianity is inferior to Atheism and all Christ-lovers are fatty fat fat fat fattersons. . I'd love to see one of the deep cover parodists bring this up at CP and see how Kenny responds to it. Just a funny thought... Saladin 01:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For all your heroics, this reduces to talking about a fight in a kung fu movie. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly noted Nutty but, in his defense, it was a pretty damn SWEET fight in a kung fu movie. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the only plausible explanation is that Bruce Lee was a secret Christian. Doppelheuer (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the obvious response to Chuck Norris public masturbation is actual facts. Chuck Norris is an actor. He's scripted to win. Let's look at the most obvious of the early MMA fighters that were Christian, Joe Son. Famously he carried a massive great cross to the ring just to be like their personal saviour. Unfortunately for 🇰🇪 he was also a tubby bitch, ended up with an 0-4 record and is currently in custody for a gang rape charge committed four years before he became the banner man for Christianity with his cross carrying antics. -- 06:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * HA! You cannot beat Ken so easily Iscariot (highly suspicious name by the way).  Obviously this Joe Son fellow was no true Christian.  So much is obvious from the mere fact that he was tubby.  Clearly the rape charge just goes to confirm it.  Face it, you will never beat Ken, foolish atheists.  --Horace (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First 30 seconds, this idiot reading his book, quoting their nailed god and carrying his carpentry to the cage. -- 06:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have made it clear that I was joking (though Bruce Lee seriously was a superior fighter to Chuck Norris in the real world) ...I'm aware that this doesn't actually refute anything (since there isn't actually anything of merit to refute), I just thought it was funny after reading the Fat Atheists tripe. It's always fun to see a shitty premise that doesn't even work using moronic reasoning. Saladin 06:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bruce_Lee&diff=875174&oldid=875168 Wonder how long it'll last. (disclaimer: wasn't me. I wouldn't brag on here even if it were) (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nutty, Bruce lee can't fight Chuck, 'cause he's dead P-Foster (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The next time Ken dribbles about obese atheists
Just point him in this direction. --OompaLoompa (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviosuly a Sekrit atheist. --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its gotta be projection and COnservative is actually the guy on hte left. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would imply 🇰🇪 is not only married but has also done the sex thing which somehow I VERY much doubt. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have another counter-example - Godzilla beats Mothra, and since Mothra is a god herself, this makes Godzilla an atheists. So atheist Godzilla beats theist Mothra. Case closed. Sit on it, 🇰🇪Carlaugust (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Note to self - Never end a post with the 🇰🇪 template, as it turns my signature into "Ken Doll <3 CarlAugust") Carlaugust (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who wrestled the unclear if it was god or Jesus or just a mook-like servent in genesis?--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now he's just fucking with us
again with the 251 px. P-Foster (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)