Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?/September 2007

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
← Previous archive Next archive →

  • "Well, well, well, isn't that cute... BUT IT'S WRONG!"
  • No permalink for this but check out September 29, the paranoia is almost palpable.
  • The Bible is the only book that comforts people, and therefore deserves the respect of being read literally. Doesn't literalism deny a book respect, by preventing the reader from looking for anything deeper than facial meaning? Wouldn't it be respectful to actually think about the book? Ah, sorry, there's that critical thought again.
  • Was RationalWiki wandalized by a Conservapedia sysop candidate, hiding behind an IP address? And if so, does anyone care? Stay tuned as this story develops...
  • Graham has had just about enough. He has let rip. How long are we giving before a whitewash? Check his exit message here. Update: TK wishes him "Godspeed" while wagging his finger at Graham for personal attacks... then attacking him himself, in true Rob fashion. Oh, the irony.
  • The people who select the Nobel Prize winners are all BIGOTS! Oh, and if you go to that page, don't forget about how earlier scientists were Christian! Doesn't this prove that Christianity makes people smart? No, it doesn't. It's just that non-Christians around those times would generally be executed/lynched/discriminated against, depending on the time period. Wow, Andy's such an intellectual. And wow, that thing is juicy. productive atheist scientists? Einstein was agnostic, but probably atheistic to Christianity, as he had stated that he didn't believe in the existence of a personal God. Oh, and Feynman. And, though they won't admit it, Richard Dawkins. And that liberally biased Wikipedia has a nice, long list of prominent Atheist scientists, only the more famous ones, since the majority of modern scientists are atheists.
  • Andy wrote a large article on Constitutional law, for once! Oh... nevermind... it's all quotes. And what's the story on using footnotes that simply say "footnotes omitted"? Is this their idea of scholarship? Or verifiability? Oh, maybe the contest awards points for empty footnotes.
  • The contest is already taking its toll: Andy is seriously considering to deny nightly editing rights to a member of the opposing team. At least TK noticed this silly manipulation attempt and chimes in with some suggestions. Oh, and I would love to see night-time editing rights removed from all participating sysops. It would be truly poetic to see Andy being unable to edit on his own site. :D
  • Conservaphobic? For God's sake TK, get some help
  • There are currently 1223 dead-end articles on Conservapedia. After Karajou makes thirty ten-page non-linking articles about boats, and Andy makes 500 nonsensical, too-short-to-be-useful law articles, let's see what that total goes up to. Thank God for contests.
  • Wha? Nice work there, lawyer Ashley. Good effort, good effort. I guess we at least know he's not copy-pasting. You can't fault flawless logic like that.
  • "Conservapedia has a conservative perspective, but not a conservative bias."
  • Copy-pasting. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit Conservapedia.
  • This just made me crack up. Need I explain the irony? Fairy tale? Creation? Bible? HA!
  • Being supportive of constitutional rights makes you a liberal. Oh, and in CP's fantasyland, Matthew Shepard's murder wasn't a hate crime.
  • So long as we're on the subject of TerryH, evolution doesn't work that way. Seriously, how many times do people have to explain it?
  • Noted mouth-breather TerryH does a bang-up job of trying to hide the truth.
  • The contest has begun. Now why can't those dimwits get their shit out of the encyclopedia and into the goddamn "Conservapedia:" namespace?
  • CP adds a new article, Black church-burning hoax. Oh the churches were burned, to be sure, but it's a "hoax" because it was already happening all the time anyway, so it's okay. The South has a long tradition of burning black churches, but if you point this out you're a deceitful liberal fraud.
  • Conservapedians are a race, and criticizing them is racism.
  • Despite Poor Ed's invitation to edit the template for the Burma conflict, TK goes and reverts it anyway, making sure that nobody changes that lovely "they're not like us" paragraph, and even getting into an edit war over it. Looks like TK's just as much of a racist ratbag as Ed, good to know.
  • A user on CP has finally had enough of their nonsense, and puts them in their place. I wonder if TK knows what he just admitted? How long before the white wash happens...Well not exactly white wash kind of gray if you ask me, TK changes his statement. And so begins the application of white wash, first we call into question the validity of the user. Then we delete their page and protect it so that no defense can be made. Finaly we add them to our Examples of Liberal Bias.
  • SharonS is pitifully adorable in her adoration of Aschlafly, et al.
  • The new contest is here! The new contest is here!!
  • Accepting gay men and women as equals impinges upon religious liberty: the liberty to discriminate. Just ask Conservapedia.
  • Uh-oh! Somebody on CP plans to plot "some graphs of temperature over the past 400,000 years"! Quick, somebody go there and tell him that the universe, according to CP, is only 6,000 years old! Seems someone did! TK delves into science![1]
  • How would you sum up Michael Crichton (you know, the fellah who wrote Jurassic Park) in one sentence? Here is Ed's take.
  • Does Conservapedia support dictatorships? (seems Tash is defending them. Where is RobS we need his view!) Hey, look Ed supports dictatorships as well!
  • Looks like Jenkins might get banhammered again and longer for stirring the bees. I wonder if we should mention to Ed that his example is exactly what we did to Iraq? Well the banhammer did fall! Ed uses the ban then ask a question tactic.
  • What's this? Bohdan's back. [2]
  • Good old Rob, continually setting back Andy's campaign for correct spelling [3].
  • It seems Rob's MO is to make up facts and link them (grammar/meaning?) to add a link to "moderate Republicans" is red on CP's Main Page.
  • Ed Poor's little fairytale about Mob Monks gets torn apart by two newbies. Being the great man he is, Ed dishes out a 1-day block for "personal attack" and a 2-hour block for "using appeal to emotion fallacy on a talk page". (However, these are about half of Ed's arguments: "homosexuality is wrong because it's gross," etcetera, etcetera...) After this, he goes on and pretends to be interested in an honest discussion. Update: Andy buys Ed's act on the talk page and the bit about staged clashes. Oh, and the protesting users are liberals, of course.
  • Andrew Schafly displays his complete inability to distinguish between an "original manuscript" of the Magna Carta from 1215, and the 80 years younger copy which is actually about to be auctioned off at Sotheby's.
  • Self-proclaimed liberal User:Graham makes a vicious attack using anti-military hate speech!!!!1111!!!!!!11!
  • Karajou can't seem to find any evidence that people visit CP for "mockery and entertainment" despite, well, several thousand examples from this page, as well as almost every result when one googles "Conservapedia". On top of that he hypocritically accuses Wikipedia of "low quality of writing"
  • Those damn violent Buddhist monks had it coming.
  • Fun fact: PJR's mentor was Rafiki: Remember the scene in The Lion King where he whacked Simba with his staff and then went all "It doesn't matter; it's in the past!" when Simba complained about it? Well, PJR was a good student and tweaked the reply to "It's not science; it's in the past!": There is no need for scientific evidence for the existence of the Ark. In fact, it's impossible to do so because the past is "outside the realm of science" - thus, you have to believe what the Bible says.
  • With this, is Karajou saying that CP doesn't want anything bad about Hitler to be written?
  • Looking at this, it would appear as though not everyone at CP is on the same page.
  • The banhammer is coming down! Run for your lives!
  • Roger calls Andy's writing idiotic. Win. Maybe Roger's smarter than we thought...?
  • It seems Mr. Schlafly, staggering intellect that he is, feels that Freud was a fraud. Although it would be tempting to bow ones head in reverence in front of such unimiganable knowledge, another user had a different idea. Parody is always the best way to deal with idiots like him
  • The barricades have been opened! Swarm the gates! Invisible atheist vandals, attack! (On a more serious note, TK also unprotected other articles in the name of teamwork - a welcome change!) Update: Let the pissing match begin. Update 2: It just gets better and better.. Update 3: Duck Season! Rabbit Season! Update 4: BLOCK. This takes Conservative's block log within range of some RationalWiki members' long saga of blocks, but nowhere near the master. Update 5 Not one for honesty and open debate, Ken once again protects the article and lies in the edit summary while he's at it. Is the man incapable of intellectual honesty?
  • Conservapedia is free of gossip... or not? (Scroll to the right to see the edit summary)
  • Completely useless, but still, Ha Ha DanH!
  • Proper capitalization is important, as Conservative's initially confusing edit summary shows.
  • Have the Schlafly brothers had a row? For the second time Roger inserts some common sense.
  • It seems that all of this touched a nerve. So TerryH uses Stalinist revisionism to airbrush history. Isn't the deletion of discussion for a talk page deceitful? Of course, the change comment said "Scrubbed some references to things best left unmentioned". That makes it OK, I guess.
  • For a guy who runs his own wiki, Andy seems clueless as to how wikis work, stating that Wikipedia refused to have an entry on elementary proof, even though all articles are written on a voluntary basis, and the only way they can "refuse" an article is through deletion, which never occurred in this case. Also Conservapedia's definition of "elementary proof" seems to be confused and amateurish, as one would expect. Andy also claims that WP only created their elementary proof article "when I [Andy] pointed out here [CP] that MathWorld does have an entry." Really? Answer: As a matter of fact, NO. The article was created because CP pointed it out, but MathWorld was only invoked a good time later. The only credit Andy can take is the initial pointing out, but he could have just created the article himself instead of bitching on CP.
  • Aschlafly begins to parody himself. Is it possible that, just like Blogs 4 Brownback, this was all one big practical joke?
  • Rob S pimps us a little.
  • Conservative challenges us to prove that Jesus didn't exist, or to disprove the accounts given. Let's kick ass. One word: hearsay. One extra sentence: ancient primary sources are very rarely used by scholars to prove the matter asserted within, since most are fabricated, in some way modified, or written in the original as something closer to fiction than truth. That done, time for bed.
  • "Why do liberals have so much trouble with accountability???" - Andrew Schlafly, founder of a site that has zero accountability in regards to its sysops.
  • Rob hits the nail squarely on the head.
  • …And just when you thought Rob couldn't possibly lose more of his mind, he does this.
  • Never one to take a back seat, Conservative archives the entirety of cp:Talk:Main Page, regardless of whether conversations are finished or not, so that his new pet project can have the entire thing. Of course, Ken being Ken, it takes up pretty much the same space. Update: After claiming that he had "looked at the last few items and it appeared as if the issues were settled or at least reasonably settled", Conservative restores the talk page, anyway. Update 2: Ah, Conservative had an incentive...
  • This is just really really really STUPID
  • Joaquin Martinez is getting just plain nutty. How particular about usernames can you get?
  • TK sees fit to ban SSchultz, one of the most conservative editors on the site, for apparently adding deceit in his edits. Problem is that the user has only had one edit in the last week, and that all of his prior edits were in line with CP's deluded world outlook (homicide bombers etc). Of course the real reason he was banned was for owning TK in this edit Update: apparently rational wiki is to blame. Good news is that if we keep this up TK will eventually block all of their useful contributors, especially considering he hasn't made a single substantial edit to the mainspace in his last 50 edits Update: TK deletes SSchultz's user page lying that it was empty, DECEIT (any admin who restores it will find a message directed at RW saying: "One of our most 'conservative' editors, NOT! Try looking up deceit. If you keep this up more will follow"
  • A breath of fresh air from RSchlafly of all people.
  • An interesting definition of liberal gloss
  • Andy forgets about Aristotle, Pythagoras, Muhammad bin Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, Einstein, and just a few others who contributed to math and science. Also note that Andy's "source" is not exactly straightforward, and (if it does somehow back up his statement, which it likely doesn't) violates rule 6 on how they differ from Wikipedia. (Wow, I vote for best of - we need a way to do this - more than wiki, a poll of some sort?)
  • Just when you thought that it was impossible for any more sysops to fail utterly at normal debate, here comes Crocoite.
  • Crocoite defends CP from bad math.
  • Sure could've fooled me: American Atheists is actually a website that discusses "Young Earth Creationist Science Prominently and in a Positive Light"
  • Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia article? While not exactly "gossip" it's hardly intellectual.
  • Apparently noting a book was a NYT Best Seller is liberal deceit, and the correct spelling of "persuade" constitutes weasel words. Some people will even go as far as blocking a contributor for these edits under the false premise of vandalism, although if they bothered to look through their contributions they'd realise this wasn't the case. Update: TK seems to agree, but the guy is (currently) still banned...
  • Just when you thought Andy's "Liberal Intellectualism" couldn't get any less encyclopedic along comes Rob.

--HVista-epiphany.pngjimachong 01:13, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

More[edit]

September what was going on? (1 of 2)[edit]

  • A user reverts wandalism and warns the wandal that he may be reported to the FBI. Wait, what? OH NOES! HE MENTIONED THE FBI! BANHAMMER! However, the ban is quickly self-reverted. Phew. CP seriously needs a "Do not mention the FBI" commandment.
  • Oh no, TonyPrice sticks his finger through the bars (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page). They WILL bite you know! Addendum: They bit.
  • What? TK tries to link to RationalWiki but his homeskooler spelling skills fail on him, all the same, he shows us how to get around the spam filter, AND makes fun of Ken DeMyer all at the same time! [4] He removes the link seconds later[5], is it because he thinks people won't notice?
  • No lowering of the bar at CP. Anyone hoping to become the next new sysop better not hold their breath as CP ups the ante.
  • Andy has three ([6][7][8]) goes at a Breaking News item, and still fails to see the glaring error.
  • You have to admit it, Ken is great.
  • While flawed original research on Liberal Intellectualism is perfectly acceptable other essays on Conservative Intellectualism are acts of trolls, and any contributors will be blocked as such [9], even if they have an extensive history of high quality contributions [10]. Presumably, this is because there are no "Conservative Intellectuals".
  • Andy rewords the intro of Politically correct language that Ed (apparently a closet liberal) wrote to "remove the gloss of liberal bias at the beginning."
  • Gosh, you think Adam will have a problem with his perma-ban?
  • Faster than even CP's main page: "Sher Zieve, an important conservative journalist" does not have (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) a WP article! Oh noes! Liberal bias! Clearly, a horrible liberal stomped on free speech by deleting the WP entry! ...or maybe not. Of course, it is WP's fault that nobody bothered to even create a stub for her. Addition: CP only created a "Sher Zieve" article on the same day - and it's copied, but that's no reason to delete or ban because a sysop did the copying. Further: note that TK equates pointing out the truth with liberal deceit. Sort of makes you wonder about all the times they claim to point out the truth about WP and various CP editors.
  • In irony too sweet to make up, Schafly defends his claims about liberals and intellectualism not only by misquoting Shakespeare, but also by using a verb in the incorrect context. Guess homeschooling isn't much better than public schools after all
  • TK continues on his crusade to remove all /16 blocks and replace them with /24 blocks that are off target. Of course, very few (if any) of the networks that he is targeting are actually the intended ones, in effect removing all of the ip blocks on the site. Time to create some new accounts people.
  • Andy is in full form with his defense of his ridiculous Liberal Intellectualism essay. First, he sounds like a parody of himself, then goes on to say that a single speech by Reagan is greater than, say redifining elements of the fields of linguistics, biology, or economics [11]. One can only assume that Nixon uttering "I am not a crook" was a greater achievement than the Theory of Relativity. Furthermore being the father of the H-bomb is an acheivement, being the father of the A-bomb is not.
  • After making only three edits on talk pages, Boricuaeddie is immediately charged with breaking the 90/10 rule (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) by Conservative.
  • The banhammer has been dropped by PJR. Tims's pages have been deleted by Jallen as he was emailing PJR about his block, PJR found a site that used the same Ophthalmology reference that Tims used for the types of Glaucoma. Interesting enough, I was in the process of editing the Dino page about the marine fossil claims, most fossils are marine fossils (this is wrong by the way, they are just found in past wet enviroments not of marine animals) Anyway, guess CP does not like hard science since they are using mechanical engineers as sources for palentology. Further--look in the Different Perspectives section of that last link, to learn that there is apparently some doubt as to whether or not dinosaurs are actually a part of earths history! Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up--well not if you are a liberal--conservatives seem to make it up all the time.
  • Now this is some good spin! How do you make your own lack of a certain article look good? Let Andy show you how. (Oh, and on WP, Deceit redirects to Lie, an article that covers the topic from various angles and which even comes with its own section covering what the Bible says about lying...) Update: Conservative apparently came to the same conclusion and modified the entry to a front-page plug of the Deceit article. Further update: Andy changes it back. He really wants to cover up the fact that Wikipedia really does have an article on deceit, by pointing out that it has an article on a rock band.
  • Conservative has made many hilarious comments, but this one easily makes the Top 5, I think: After looooooooong discussions (more recent example, in case you somehow missed it) in which he pretty much didn't listen to any of the points Ungtss made, he accuses Ungtss that he does "not always read the material" Conservative digs out. And if you spot the added irony in this accusation, you've been following Conservative's history for way too long. Go out and get a hobby. ;)
  • A user adds information to Conservapedia's article on "Women" and gets blocked for it. Apparently, making females of our species out as anything more then bare-foot baby-markers is unacceptable in the eyes of Aschlafly.
  • At Conservapedia, they have plenty of hatred to go around - even for fellow Christians like Roman Catholics!.
  • Conservapedia reports the death of John Gilmore and cites CNN, which is reporting the death of Paul Gillmor. But while a user points out the mistake, Tash shows initiative and creates an article about the right guy... but with the wrong name. Update: Andy gives Tash's article the green light. Update: After roughly 9 hours, the entry is fixed by TK.
  • Range block revert war? Karajou perma-bans 165.91.0.0/16, DanH unbans it ("permanent block of a conservative college town"), but Karajou apparently isn't terribly impressed and re-bans it. Then TK unblocks it, knowing that it's too wide. Let's see how long it'll take for one of the more skilled sysops to just set a /24 block as a compromise...
  • Okay, we guessed that TK is slowly learning how to read diffs and histories (as seen in the unbanning of RichardT), but it seems that he actually drained off that skill from Conservative, who once again (Remember?) failed at reading the history and reverted part of PJR's edit with the summary "removed Ungtss attempt to run away from the concept of objective reality" - PJR is not amused.
  • Conservapedia's priorities? While even Fox News is reporting on the front page on how "German Police Arrest 3 in Plot to Attack Americans", CP decides to give the front page focus to... "Colorado Schools Lowering the Bar". Let's hope that this is just a case of "No sysop checked the news yet". Any bets on whether CP will add its own spin to the terror story? Update: Andy checked the news and... focuses on two dead Republicans. Oh well, guess the terror thing was too minor...
  • A guy I'm going to call the eleventy-one vandal is particularly active today [12], creating many user accounts which are popping up like the heads of a hydra. Can they keep him down?
  • "Don't confuse me with the facts" - RobS is going strong tonight.
  • Very, very hard to understand where RobS is going with this peculiar reversion. Republicans are Commies?
  • SharonS copies from another source. Why read a book when you can copy one, after all?
  • RobS mentions the unmentionable name of RationalWiki, proving that you can get past the spam filter if you put That Hated Name in the comment box! GO VANDALS, GO!
  • Andy outdoes himself with his recent bowel movement essay. Not only does he call Stephen J. Gould and Robert Oppenheimer "pseudo-intellectuals" who are "short on intellectual achievements of their own" (as opposed to Andy's achievements), he calls Kissinger a liberal. It does make you wonder who would go on Andy's list of conservative intellectuals. GWB? Ann Coulter? Update: See Conservapedia:Liberal Intellectualism for a thorough review of this masterpiece.
  • Ursus reopens a can of worms over at Deceit. Of course, it's reverted again in minutes and -HOLY CHRIST ON A FREAKIN POGO-STICK, HAS TK LOST IS GODDAMN MIND? Update: nevermind, TK is slowly learning to read diffs. (Soon maybe he'll learn to do those complicated math problems one must do before adding external links to articles.)
  • According to Rob, it is now possible to defect to the FBI.
  • Tims makes a change to his user page to make it colorful. TK, for some unknown reason, doesn't like it. After an exchange, TK calls Tims a "nasty little snot," and says Tims is snivelling. Tims calls TK "sophomoric." Ed blocks Tims for calling TK sophomoric. No mention of the "nasty little snot" comment. [13] Meanwhile, Andy, copy and paster extraordinaire himself (and chief of his own sysop army of copy pasters), implies that Tims wrongly copied material. [14]
  • TK proves once again that he is living in his own private universe. Did you know that unlike Conservatives liberals have no real sense of political humor? If those failures The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Onion, et al, really aspire to reach the level of The Half Hour News Hour or funnyman Rush Limbaugh, they should try less satire and more juvenile name-calling. (Bonus: Schlafly statictics on school prayer.)
  • TK, master of the truth deceit. Of course Jimmy Wales is a pornographer of Larry Flynt proportions!
  • A simple factual statement gets a user banned. TK's rationale is priceless in its misrepresentation and irony.
  • Rob Smith stands for a homosexual! See his second post. This raises some suspicions, naturally, he's confronted about it. But the question goes unanswered, and buried forever.
  • That notorious bastion of liberal deceit, Texas A&M, won't be sullying CP's pages for forever! Bwahahahaha.
  • Conservative is so smart, he can predict another user's statements, regardless of the fact that the user seems unlikely to make them.
  • Andy blames public schools for a recent drop in SAT scores. Never mind the political experiment in education, No Child Left Behind.
  • 3:23 PM, TK tells a user to start contributing 4:08 PM He didn't contribute in the next half hour? BAN HIM
  • Better late than never, CP finally has an article on teh Godspeed!!!! And I gotta say, Joaquín Martínez is quickly becoming my favorite editor on CP.
  • *gestures vaguely* RobS once again manages to completely lose me with his reply (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) to this (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) statement. Although it almost has a Zen-like quality by being so completely spaced-out.
  • Ken/Newton/Conservative asks what is possibly both the stupidest and strangest question ever formulated in the English language. Update: Go-Go-Gadget Escalation
  • "Conservapedians make a point at a recent conference" - too bad that we aren't being told who exactly made what point at which conference. And apparently, it's supposed to remain secret.
  • TK is point man on the censorship patrol today. User "castles" are more and more made of rice paper, it would seem.
  • Funny, with all their locked page paranoia, you'd think they'd lock their front page article of the month.
  • No slackers in the government of the District of Columbia can edit CP, thanks to TK's block.
  • World maps have a liberal bias [15]
  • Jallen opens up a security hole by loading javascript for sysops from an unsecured site that sysops have as control over as everyone else.[16] Do you know where your cookies are today? The very page on Wikipedia that the .js is loaded from reads:
    If a message on your talk page led you here, please be wary of who left it. The code below could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account; if your account appears to be compromised, it will be blocked. If you are unsure whether the code is safe, you can ask at the appropriate village pump.
  • Those liberal trolls do get creative with the names, I must admit.

EVEN MORE[edit]

  • For the Samwell blocking prank, TK compares Rationalwiki to Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot! (Apparently, being a nuisance on teh Interwebs is morally equivalent to planning and carrying out the mass-murder of millions.) Sure, this comparison may be extreme and illogical, as TK concedes, but THOSE BASTARDS ARE MORE EXTREME AND ILLOGICAL. Wow, what brilliant, errrr, rhetoric. Update pwn3d. Further information See here[[17]] for TK, back in May, here on RW, complaining about being compared to a Nazi, and pointing out how morally and intellectually wrong it is to do so.
  • IT'S CONTEST TIME AGAIN! SHOW OF HANDS! WHO CARES? ... *cricket* *cricket*
  • The "world's leading online constitutional law resource" spends only one sentence describing what constitutional law is. Perhaps Laurence Tribe needn't worry about being eclipsed just yet.
  • Do you think they're going to mention RationalWiki's hilarious block-attack on the main page? This guy sure thinks so.
  • The irony...it's over 9000!
  • Oh my God, please let this edit comment be a bad attempt at TK humor.....[18]
  • Watch Andy's politeness slowly deteriorate into fury when a former protege exercises independent thought and begins to doubt lord Andy. Is that deceit I see? SimonA only made 6 edits in the past 3 months; three of the 16 edits Andy is claiming are talk are actually reverts from vandals.
  • Andy blows a gasket over a Hate Crimes Bill. This means Andy can't... erm... condone the killing of gays anymore. Aw, shucks...
  • If this is actually a good-faith entry and not a parody, it is beyond me how any of the mouth-breathers at CP ever manage to get laid. Update: At least one person at CP has a soul - or at least hates sleeping on the couch - as this article has been proposed for deletion.
  • Andy makes up more bullshit. What a fracking idiot.
  • CP jumps the gun on their front page, celebrating the release of footage that will prove Israeli soldiers did not kill a 12 year old Palestinian. Of course, the footage hasn't been released or analyzed yet, and no one knows what it will show. But CP has never hesitated to let the facts get in the way of anything they say.
  • Apparently wanting to steal Andy's "bit" (and website?), TK uses the suffering of others to score a cheap political point. But are we still surprised that nobody at CP has a shred of decency left? Note: Main part of that news item is copyrighted by Turner Entertainment Digital Network, Inc.
  • In order to criticise the "radical liberal" website Moveon.org RobS uses a quote from the Boston Globe, only problem is the quote compares the tactics of the site to conservative poster boy Joseph McCarthy...
  • There's nothing Andy loves more than blowing his own horn and making grandiose and inaccurate claims about "accuracy". If he really wants to play the Google game, try searching "Conservapedia" and look for a result that actually takes it seriously as a source of information (it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, actually).
  • Rob once again proves he lives in his own universe, located under a tinfoil hat. Apparently New York City is intolerant of free-thinkers, unlike say, the bible belt, where they are so openminded. Additionally, New Yorkers are fascists too, though Rob, a proponent of fascism himself, still likes to use the term as an insult.
  • Once again RobS gets overwhelmed when people offer "facts".
  • There are typos, there are bad typos... and then there is "encopicdic"
  • Conservative seems a bit confused with this edit. Yeah, we'd all like to see an article on that organization.
  • Rob, batshit crazy as ever, accuses the New York Times of supporting fascism with this edit comment. Of course, implying one person is potentially a traitor is unforgivable, when the object of Rob's perpetual hard-on calls a large portion of the American public traitors, she's "outspoken" and "intellectual".
  • Andy, who allegedly is a lawyer, calls habeas corpus a "special new" right.
  • So farewell then Exxon-Mobile (sic). You were one of the most subtle parodies and they couldn't see it staring them in the face.
  • Rob, in one of his most deceitful actions to date, states on the main page that Democrats' approval ratings are at 11% even though the pdf file he uses as a source makes no such statement whatsoever. It seems Rob's MO is to make up facts and link them to very long documents, hoping no one will notice they aren't backed up anywhere.
But in fairness, last month he correctly cited an 18% approval rating for Congress [19], giving a correct citation of a Gallup poll. But that poll was for Congress as a whole, while Rob said "Democrats in the US Congress currently have an 18% approval rating". The cited poll also said that the 18% figure was the lowest since the poll began. Which happened to be in 1974. Which happened to be when Nixon was having serious problems. So Rob spun this as "It is the lowest approval rating since the Poll was intitiated [sic] when Democrats sought to impeachment [sic] popularly elected President Richard Nixon in 1974." WTF? Will Rob get impeachmented?
  • CP article on a new wiki: "Intellipedia". Only "experts" can edit it, like Citizendium, or, um, Conservapedia????
  • Must be a slow news day: Andy uses the "Breaking News" to attack Hillary Clinton with the usual "How can you oppose prayer in classrooms?" gig.
  • SimonA says his views on evolution have "...changed somewhat". What could this mean? And now "minds his own business" TK tries to get involved.
  • Subtle, yet stupid.... Pro-Choice is a Euphemism But Pro-Life is just a Name Note:the History of the Pro-Life Article is really really funny.
  • Andy "Statistics Expert" Schlafly believes, in his Great Wisdom, that larger wikis (e.g. Wikipedia) naturally ought to have a lower percentage of articles containing the word "suicide" than small wikis (e.g. Conservapedia). When it was pointed out here that the two wikis have roughly comparable fractions (WP has 21,544 of 2,009,073, or 1.07%, and CP has 143 of 16544, or 0.87%), he replied "No, your comparison is meaningless. The percentage of entries about suicide should decrease as the overall number of entries increase, if there is no bias." Fortunately, Conservapedia has an upcoming course titled Critical Thinking in Math, that Andy will be able to take.
  • Considering to blame a news anchor for the death of a million people in the Vietnam War... I guess Ed seriously doesn't like Cronkite...
  • How many CP Commandments does this edit violate? Let's see... Broken rules: True, verifiable, sourced, not gossip, no personal opinion... Amazing! And related since it's based on the same article: This edit is trolling.
  • We get a mention! And a reversion.
  • Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet. You need proof? Read this guy's blog. NOTE: He'd probably have more credibility if he didn't use the word Wussification.
  • What the hell is this?
  • A 90/10 warning after two edits - that's gotta be a record.
  • RW has Project Whitewash, which involves fixing articles to match the overall RW style. CP has their own version of Project Whitewash, but it mostly involves Poor Ed hiding evidence of his master friend TK being a dick. Again.
  • Hey, everybody! NO ONE goes to Conservapedia looking for gossip. Not a single one of their 23 million page views. Their front page says so! So go over there and find out (among thousands of other things) how Hillary Clinton "shouted in a rage at [Bill] Clinton's campaign manager" in 1974.
  • You heard it here first: Rob fiddles trolls. Please, think of the trolls. Someone call the Federal Bureau of Inves... OH NO! I shouldn't have said that! Here comes the banhammer...
  • In yet another example of Conservapedia's unique perspective on reality, an unfortunate incident involving an unfortunate student and an overzealous group of campus police is turned into "...student was Tasered and arrested after trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects...". Read the article. Draw your own conclusions.
  • Displaying his usual disconnect with reality, Conservative decides it's a good idea to follow up an article that makes them a laughingstock by proposing another article to make them a laughingstock.
  • This one's just cute. Poor Ed whines about how WP doesn't recognize Eritrea as a dictatorship, when CP doesn't either. Interestingly, the CIA Factbook seems to agree with WP's description.
  • Andy can't be bothered to "grade" his students' "homework" (that is, tabulate the points they earned writing articles for his pet project) even though there are only about 4 students doing any. He does, however, have ample time to update his own point total.
  • Sep 14 - TK whitewashes history by deleting Talk:Main Page and then goes all "La la la can't heeeaaar youuuuu..." For reference, the edit prior to the delete was by Nickwrite mentioning RW boycott on the talk page. For this edit he was blocked for 'violating the boycott.'
  • Showing that liberal bias really is everywhere, Andy's angry glare focuses on "Friends" and promptly promotes porn and homosexuality to "liberal activities".
  • Oh snap, it's The Return of the Amicus! The old guard (Amicus Curiae Brief, Amicus brief, and Amicus curiae, see also the "Best of CP" July Archive) are now joined by Amicus curiae brief.
  • Does anyone wonder why CP's 96th most visited article (Communism) is promoted on their front page, but not their 61st most visited article? (Actually, it's fallen to 62 [20], but if everyone clicks it 10 or 12 times maybe we can get it into the 50s. Update: Up to 56 now! Can it break the top 50? It'd be great to see it overtake Pork rind (#49) or even Jesus (#39). It already has over 35,000 more hits than deceit! [21])
  • Rob, in his ongoing effort to bring the most irrelevant and off-topic information possible into any discussion, outdoes himself again by inserting into a discussion of the appropriateness of mentioning Mary Cheney's sexual orientation the fact that Chelsea Clinton did not pass her drivers test on her first try, and got a high paying job after graduating from college. Not to be outdone even by himself, he then goes on to add a link to a 2005 article on unemployment after Katrina to a discussion on Ann Coulter's use of sarcasm.
  • The CP soap opera goes on, as TK reads the riot act to Conservative, presumably over this edit to the Scientology article. Will this eventually force Ken to re-evaluate his contributions to CP? Only time will tell.
  • Did you know? Allowing anonymous IPs not only encourages vandalism, but encourages liberal vandalism? Of course, if you're like CP and you have to make up a fake name before you edit, you don't get any vandalism at all!
  • Rob decides to tackle the 11 word article on the US Capitol. It's now 2 sentences long and, of course, is about Communism. (Note that the article still does not say where the Capitol is, for instance.)
  • RobS now states that Ann Coulter is not "the petite embodiment of women's aspirations for equality in the marketplace", but is actually a parody of liberals. Interesting. Now why is that not stated in her article?
  • RobS turns a poorly written Wikipedia article into a slightly more poorly written CP article. Doesn't CP have a policy against copying from WP? And isn't there another Linda Evans who's a little more well known? Ah yes, CP doesn't do "popular culture".
  • RobS waxes poetic about banning people.
  • The yoke slips off of Ken DeMyer a little more, in this tiff with Andy.
  • Another complete copy/paste job by Karajou, stolen from here. In fairness, he does cite, but at what point does Conservapedia cease to be an original work, and become an aggregation of stuff they like? Surely Sharon and Ken have already put them down that path. In a throwback to an older news item, remember that their moving news item on September 11th is stolen from this page. Samwell gets in on the C&P frenzy with a save by RutM, and the theft goes on.
  • Oh, for the love of *bleep*, Conservative! We've been over some of this "uncited material" like blueshifts! Don't you remember? Update: Conservative picks up the discussion again... five months after the last post and his admission that he had been wrong (and a long time after my most recent perma-ban).
  • An interesting new phenomenon over at CP: check the block log and see how many times the words "racist" or "bigot" appear in the summaries, despite no evidence of racism in any of the banned users' edits. They keep using these words; I do not think they mean what they think they mean.
  • The bizarre sequence of events following the posting and removal of this completely uncontroversial question (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) suggests that Conservapedia really is headed for the death-spiral, as if new users aren't welcome, entirely relevant Talk topics like this are not wanted, and the sysops fight among themselves, the wiki is functionally dead. Of course, the user's name couldn't have anything to do with this... Update: Well, apparently, it really doesn't have anything to do with this since his new incarnations (first, second, third) also got racism-bans.
  • According to Rob, a criminal background check is the same thing as domestic spying.
  • Though he isn't featured here as much as some, TerryH proves he's just as stupid as the others with this edit (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page). Not only does he make one hell of a non-sequitur/post hoc fallacy by saying that multilingualism caused the downfall of the Persians (using questionable numbers from 2300 years ago to boot), he also states that they were the last polyglot society, completely ignoring nations such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, India, etc.
  • The first rule of Conservapedia is we don't talk about the FBI.
  • Rob gets the all-time putting-words-in-peoples-mouth award. Somehow he turns "A liberal is someone who believes in liberalism" into this (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page).
  • A vague set of texts from 2,000 years ago? That has to be taken literally. A specific directive from only five months ago? Well, that's open to interpretation.
  • The Banhammer has a limited reach, apparently, judging by the edit summary (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page).
  • The similarity of the Arabic language to other Semitic languages is proof of common design, not common descent as those evilutionists would have you believe.
  • Apparently people with dwarfism have kings, and live in clans. Who knew?
  • Yes, RobS can be more of a paranoid freak. A new user [22] is blocked [23] by RobS before he has a chance to edit anything, along with a delightful missive from Captain Paranoid.
  • Can RobS possibly be more of a paranoid freak? Note how he's protected the McCarthyism article "against liberal supremacists", even though he's pretty much the sole contributor to the article. Are those liberal supremacists in your head, Robbiekins?
  • TK logic: the KKK are liberal because they both practice deceit. Oh yeah, the nazis were too. Apparently, people this stupid really do exist. Update pwn3d. Of course CP can't handle the truth
  • RobS posts on the main page about MoveOn.org's "McCarthy moment". Wait a minute...shouldn't a "McCarthy moment" be a compliment? Update: GOAT! *waves at Rob*
  • While it's hardly news that Andy is having his students write Conservapedia articles as their homework, it is interesting that, though he gives them the choice of writing essays instead, he really stresses how much better it would be for them to add links to his homemade "encyclopedia" instead of doing scholarly work. The best part is that he wants them to add articles on subjects they know the least about. This might be good practice for them, but it's hardly a good way to build a "trustworthy encyclopedia". (Is this how Citizendium uses their experts?)
  • FOX News does not have conservative bias because FOX News says so.
  • This should have interesting consequences for CP's Atheism article and the "Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" issue: "A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it."
  • Rob and TK always are an interesting tag team. Here (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page), a confused user tries to get a proper answer to Andy's alleged major difference between liberal and liberalism. In return, TK asks him the same question, and Rob then threatens with the banhammer (literally) when the answer comes down to "a liberal believes in liberalism".
  • What on earth does Ken's gibberish statement of randomly jumbled-up words mean?! It's like he randomly pulled words from a bag.
  • Cp's level of denial has just jumped from laughably hilarious to batshit-fucking-crazy. They seem genuinely surprised that the BBC is telling children that the Sept. 11 attacks were in part due to... US Foreign Policy? maybe this kind of denial is why we're doing so terribly in Iraq?
  • In a bit of old news, convincing Phil Rayment to use the word "creationary" may be one of the Cabal's funnier - and most lasting - triumphs.
  • It takes a big man to stick to his guns when he knows he's right. And that man is NOT Ken DeMyer... see his kowtow to Andy here.
  • Astoundingly, the self-appointed Conservative encyclopedia has absolutely no front-page commemoration of 9-11 (left side, right side, both in their most recent and 9/11-lacking versions). In fact, the only mentions are an announcement of a Bin Laden video from days ago, and the cancellation of an "anti-Islamization" (whatever that is) march in Brussels. Why does Conservapedia hate America!? (...because there are still liberals in it?) Update: It's there now (5:08pm NYC time), albeit it was a bit late! UPDATE: CP's moving news item was copied from this page
  • That guy is like some sort of parasite: Conservative pounces a new pet project and naturally has to protect it against any outside influence from sane people liberal vandalism.
  • BethanyS singlehandedly fights off most of the dreaded alphabet vandals. Is this anyone from RationalWiki? I don't think so... Irony note: Expect "massive growth" in the edit count update on the main page soon. "This site is growing rapidly!"
  • Less of a direct blunder, but a clear indication of the way CP is going: A serious user who has contributed since March without being blocked even once leaves CP because of the way editors like him are being treated. UPDATE: TK proves him right! Oh, and if you're wondering what made him leave, check the section called "Recent removal of large section"
  • Determined to make articles based on terms he likes to toss around, Andy creates "Mindless equality", an article which points out that it's mindless to treat old ladies and young men equally during airport screening - apparently, old ladies are completely unable to carry bombs or guns.
  • Conservative fights the arbitration, although he's thankful for the "opportunity to hear constructive criticism." Yep, that's him, alright.
  • Conservative fights TK! Until Ed Poor blanks the discussion. We have to contain Ken's idiocy, after all.
  • Gravity, like the speed of light, is fungible.
  • An astute reader notes that the Evolution "article" reads like it was thrown together haphazardly by a third-grader. Good for him. However, while the Conservapedia Panel's decision to freeze the article does not prevent Ken DeMyer from adding more lunacy to the page, it does prevent making the article readable.
  • Breaking down an explanation given by Conservative to a confused reader: "The theory of evolution, as proved by my crappy article, is itself crappy. Therefore my crappy article is justified in it's crappy-ness." ...Huh?
  • Hopefully this proves to the world just how unbalanced Ken-servative really is. TK seems serious about it. Haven't I always said that combining two unbalanced people is a recipe for success? Man, he may be crazy, but at least he's funny. Oh... wait.
  • Return fire from TK in a one two salvo... which solicits Ken to wrangle. And TK warns Ken. And warns others. And BLOCKS... maybe? Not yet.
  • Apparently, "family-friendly encyclopedia" means that you shouldn't include embarrassing facts about famous people if they don't directly relate to their work (unless it's a liberal, of course - then all's fair).
  • For all those who still think that you have any sort of freedom on your User Castle: TK tells a user that he's apparently not allowed to use his user page to redirect to the user talk page because of the "Don't install redirects rule".
  • WTF! - Bohdan tenders his resignation for not being able to contribute enough. Of course that hasn't stopped most of the other sysops (BethanyS, DeborahB., Fox etc., etc.) from continuing.
  • Hold your horses, people! Conservative is challenging Andy! Update: Conservative has been stripped of his power for challenging the Ashfly. Could something major be happening over at CP? Party's over, people. Conservative is a sysop once more. One still wonders what happened over there...
  • Although his edit was imperceptibly different than any of the paranoid, homophobic, hate-mongering nonsense often posted by Schlafly, RobS, etc., Schlafly complains that it is not "high quality." Apparently, "high quality" means, "written by Andrew Schlafly."
  • Schlafly hits an even lower new low on hypocrisy. One of his favourite claims is that if a group is a terrorist group, then we use the label "terrorist" criticizing Wikipedia for not doing so[24], nevertheless he finds no difficulty doing his bit as an apologist for terrorism himself.
  • Andy hits a new low in hypocrisy with this comment about another editors page. Comapre it with one of Andy's recently created pages, which I rather doubt Andy would describe as pathetic.
  • Andy admits that you could be clueless about the true meaning of deceit even after reading the article on the subject at CP.[25] how unexpectedly honest.
  • Its almost like a wasp stinging you in the eye to see an enlightened conservative actually tolerating the loons over at conservapedia, but this is just pushing it to the extreme. The poor guy.
  • Demanding an apology (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) when somebody accuses of bad faith or of being a liberal now is Liberal Style!
  • You might enjoy a brief demonstration of Conservapedia's - or should I say Andy's - approach to objections and criticism. I present to you: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. Examples 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 25 all link to pages that quite clearly and directly contradict their claims. Go on, see for yourself! And what was the reaction to an remark on these error? Why, take a look!. Frankly, the irony in example 2 is physically painful.
  • The debate over the term 'Suicide Bomber' reaches a new peak of logic - a true Suicide Bomber would only blow themselves up, apparently. In the meantime, CP editors aren't really sure how to handle things and tried to stuff a compromise into a blender: Kamikaze redirects to Suicide attack, which currently begins with "A suicide bomber is a person who straps explosives to his body and detonates them in a crowded place [...]", but there is also the "See also" pointer to "Homicide Bombers", and a section about the actual Kamikaze fighters.
  • So lemme get this straight...WP is biased because wp:Liberal redirects to wp:Liberalism, because, y'know, they're not the same!! Meanwhile, on the so-much-better CP, cp:Liberalism redirects to cp:Liberal because, y'know, they're the same thing an' all. My head hurts.
  • Wikipedia's article on Liberalism doesn't tell you what a liberal is. Wha? What's Aschlafly smoking? Follow-up: Andy argues with Google stats: There are "'Liberal' has nearly seven times as many sites in a Google search as 'liberalism' does." - ...so? "Evolution" has more than a hundred times as many results as "Theory of Evolution", so what's the point? Also, WP apparently tries to fool its readers with the redirect... somehow...
  • Karajou is paranoid. AmesG is everywhere! Quick, block an IP address from North Carolina! That'll show him...?
  • No-one is really sure how this is an example of liberal bias. I don't really follow. Perhaps because it was touched by an unwashed Lib'rul?
  • Gotta poke a non-sysop comment for a change: Praise CP for pointing out WP's shortcomings! "Deceit now redirects to lie"! - Oh, wait, it has done so for almost three years by now. This shows that Andy's propaganda is apparently actually convincing some people. I fear for the future of mankind. Note: As of Sept. 9, 07, there is a minor revert war going on at WP. People are changing the redirect to... Conservapedia! Of course in the eyes of some CP sysops this act of vandalism was in fact the work of an overzealous editor intent on adding Liberal bias to wikipedia
  • Rationalwikians send out their best wishes - if not their prayers - to Conservapedian BrianCo, who got into a motorcycle crash. Well-wishers - or their socks, if they've been banhammered - can leave a word of encouragement here.
  • Conservapedia mentions that Wikipedia "promotes" suicide, merely because it uses the word "suicide" in just over 1% (exactly 1.078275%) of all of it's articles. Interestingly, Conservapedia lags not far behind; %0.8764 (144 out of 16,389 total pages).
  • A new user joins CP, undeadens a few articles from the Dead-End Pages list, but is banned almost immediately by TK. Why? Because his name is Steve Carson, and he picked an unfortunate set of articles to fix.
  • Currently, a link to "moderate Republicans" is red on CP's Main Page. You need no further information. Update: They fixed it—it's no longer red. See, they do read this site. Hi, Andy!
  • TK takes a potshot at Ken, here. CAT FIGHT!!!!
  • TK has an odd definition of vandalism, but at least it seems to match what most of the "vandals" here were guilty of.
  • Never a man to believe that an accused criminal might be innocent (since belief correlates 95% with banning prayer from public schools), Roger Schlafly doubts the innocence of the protagonist of the Shawshank Redemption. Invincibility of the human spirit? Too liberal for this fellow.
  • Habitual name-dropper TK is apparently on speaking terms with Stephen King. Maybe he can find out why Maximum Overdrive ended up so bad.
  • TK throws down with, of all people, PJR over the definition of religion. That last shot is a pretty nasty one, I wonder if PJR will pick up the gauntlet?
  • Little Miss Sunshine (emphasizing diversity and acceptance of alternative family models, and the importance of the family therein) and Reefer Madness (satirizing the war on drugs): truly conservative movies. At least, Conservapedia thinks so.
  • George H. W. Bush is a war hero. What about McCain and Kerry?
  • Scholarly information in an encyclopedia? Never!
  • Sysops simply are the better human beings: When they copy, it's the responsibility of the one who finds it out to come up with something better (see below, Sher Zieve entry). And when pointing out multiple errors by sysops in articles, you better be polite about it!
  • Will "In Christ" become the new "Godspeed"? This user says, yes!. Yes, I do think it's time to say "Godspeed!" to "Godspeed," and welcome "In Christ." Here are some more.
  • Self-described democratic socialist George Orwell wrote two of the five greatest conservative novels of all time.
  • Andy makes an interesting (and completely unsupported) claim (link removed because TK is an idiot and deleted the talk page) that WP depends far more on search engines and that CP has "higher percentage of users who come to our site first for information than Wikipedia does" (whatever that's supposed to mean - apparently, users who use search engines aren't looking for information? Or maybe he still thinks that people seriously visit CP to get information?). Well, here is my unsupported claim: "WP gets more visitors in a day through search engines than CP gets in a week in total." - but search engines are of course completely overrated... sure...(Icewedge postulates that instead of a week, WP gets more search engine hits in a day than conservapedia gets in a year. The WP database gets 30,000 page requests a second while conservapedia gets about half that number every day after all.)
  • Conservative thinks that the current definition of atheism in CP's article "is entirely appropriate." Um... duh? He's the one who put it in.
  • Conservative doesn't want to spend time on arbitration and instead repeats his accusations that Ungtss is acting in bad faith and being unreasonable. Lovely way to enforce your subjective PoV, Mr. "I can lock articles, thus I am right."
  • How subtle: RichardT informs Joaquín Martínez that he disagrees "greatly with the last paragraph" of the cp:Saint Peter article. 14 minutes later, TK locks the article, which had not been touched for almost two months.