Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive113

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>
, (new)(back)


So I check CP's Recent Changes. A few minutes, I check them again. And a few minutes later, yet again. And nothing happens. Nobody reacts to Andy's song, nobody tries to insert facts, it's all silent.

And then I check the upper right corner ("Log in" instead of "Log in / create account") and realize that some idiot set the database to Night Mode again.

Great. Just great. The site seems to actually work again for a change, and I still won't get any new bullying Lulz. Bah. --Sid 13:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

my dog ate my homework I couldn't turn my homework in as Conservapedia was closed/down/broken l'arronsicut fur in nocte 15:35, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like they've been spending most of their time in Night Mode these days. *jealous* Neveruse513 11:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The Gay Adoption WIGO should be taken down[edit]

I disagree with CP on many points, but I actually agree with them on the opinion that many of us are in danger of becoming second-class citizens to minorities in the name of tolerance and goodwill and rainbows and etc. I feel that in today's Britain majorities are discriminated against in the name of minorites; not so much tolerance of minorities as intolerance of majorities, and any opinions they may carry. In this case, the grandparents should have got the kids; in giving the kids to the gays, the Social Services (SS!!1!1!) weren't thinking about the kids; they only wanted, as one commentator said, to meet their required quota of kids to gay homes, because implying that homosexuality is imperfect or that a gay couple isn't as capable of raising two kids as their own grandparents is now considered homophobia. We have too much of this kind of thinking, that if anyone implies a minority group is less than perfect they are a bigot. For example, I once gave a presentation on terrorism, in which I said that to westerners a terrorist was a muslim with a towel on his head and an AK-47 but to those in the Middle-East a terrorist was a trigger-happy American with a tank and guided missile. The result? The next day, the only thing anyone could remember was that I said that a terrorist was a muslim with a towel on his head and an AK-47 and I was instantly branded a racist and soon-to-be BNP activist and etc. Whoo, sorry about the wall of text, but this kind of feeling builds up and I need to let it out every now and then. EddyP 13:54, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I'm waiting for a source that isn't an opinion piece from some right-wing nutcases in order to get the actual facts before giving an opinion here, but it seems to me the real issue is the kids being given to strangers rather than family, regardless of the sexual orientation of the adopting parents. If they were given to a heterosexual couple, I doubt CP would care, but I'd question just as much why they didn't go to the grandparents. There's probably more to this than CP is letting on (that would be a first). DickTurpis 14:15, 3 February 2009 (EST)
You just know there's something about this story that isn't being mentioned. An orphaned kid with family who wants to take them in tends to stay with their family unless there's something that makes them dramatically unsuitable for adoption. The whole story reeks of the Daily Mail going for sensationalism over accurate reporting, as in their wont. --JeevesMkII 14:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)
One of the articles linked to mentions that the grandparents' health is an issue. Unsurprisingly, it waves it off, and CP makes no mention of it whatsoever, but I suspect that's the core of the issue. MDB 14:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Eddy, if you gave a presentation on terrorism with a towel on your head, I would vote you down. But I wouldn't remove you. Etc 14:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I think the issue is that the children were taken from two perfectly good relations and given to a gay couple not for the good of the children but for the good of the gay couple. Remember, there are very few right wing nutcases in Britain, and I find it unlikely that they've all gathered at a single newspaper (that one site has something like five different commentaries on this incident, all comdemning it). I don't know if you live in Britain or not, but we get this kind of thing quite a lot; our Government rather likes quotas, you see, where so many children must be adopted by gay couples per year (even if it is not in the best interests of the children), and this seems to be a case of sacrificing two children to the Gay Quota god. I remember some furore over police quotas a few years ago, where the police were deliberately filing offences or prosecuting people (I seem to remember that a seven-year old boy was prosecuted for throwing a sausage at a car) merely to meet their quota. EddyP 14:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)
And to Etc, if you voted me down for having a towel on my head, I'd have shot you with my AK-47 ;) EddyP 14:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) My first thought on reading this was likewise, Eddy. Look at the source though. There must be other circumstances to which we are not privy. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 14:26, 3 February 2009 (EST)
(EC)many of us are in danger of becoming second-class citizens to minorities in the name of tolerance and goodwill and rainbows "rainbows?" Way to minimise the importance of the question of tolerance. No, it's not a question of the majority becoming second-class citizens to the minority--it's a question of getting rid of the idea that there should be classes of citizens in the first place. because implying that homosexuality is imperfect or that a gay couple isn't as capable of raising two kids as their own grandparents is now considered homophobia Only because it IS homophobia. if anyone implies a minority group is less than perfect they are a bigot. Only because it's bigoted to attack minority groups, I suppose. TheoryOfPractice 14:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Do they have official, designated quotas they have to meet, or is there just an unofficial attempt to get more homosexual couples adopting kids? If there are official quotas that does seem like a bad idea. I'm in the US, so I don't know much about the situation there. Our police here do have quotas though, at least for some things. They say you are more likely to get a speeding ticket at the end of the month, when they are under pressure to meet their monthly quotas, though I can't attest to the accuracy of that. DickTurpis 14:31, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Just to clarify on the police quotas: my best friend is a cop, and I asked him about this once, and he said it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. At his current job, for example, they sort of have quotas. When they're patrolling, they have a minimum number of tickets to give out. If they don't, they need to document why (I was on a dark road that no one drives by). Too many no ticket days, they get suspended. So, basically, the answer is yes and no. Z3rotalk 14:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)
It seems that the grandparents were the ones who involved social services in the first place. They're both not healthy (Angina & diabetes) and couldn't cope. The child's mother is a drug addict & the father is dead [1]. It probably would be better for the kids to be adopted, by whom is up to courts/social services. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 14:37, 3 February 2009 (EST) (Oh & the "quota" stuff is bollocks)

This says that the kids had been under care of the grandparents and that the grandparents agreed to give up their parental rights. They only started bitching when the gays got them. Neveruse513 14:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)

TOP, I'll admit that when I said the second-class citizen thing I was exaggerating. I have nothing against homosexuality; I frankly find the CP article disgusting (and when I said rainbows, I didn't mean it in relation to gay rights; I meant it as a general referance to happiness and wonderfulness and peace). But I've lived in Britain under Labour all my life, and I've frankly grown tired of political correctness. Bigoted to attack minority groups? What do you think this website is for? Why do we have WIGO? To attack and debunk and point out the stupidity of the extreme far right minority. If there was a minority group that advocated the murder of all people called James, and actively pursued this goal, should they be attacked? Yes! To be honest, my beef isn't actually with homosexual adoption or gays or anything; it's with the government and the people who advocate pro-discrimination in the name of tolerance and actually require people to place a certain amount of kids with gay couples per year, regardless of whether the gay couple is actually suitable or not. I not only fear political correctness, I fear the backlash to PC. You may have heard about the strikes over the use of foreign labour in Britain when so many Britons are unemployed. On Friday a member of the BNP said 'this is a great day for British nationalism'. And frankly that scared me more than anything. EddyP 14:42, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Eddy, there's a difference between attacking ideas--which is what we do--and attacking people, what you seem to be arguing that there's not enough of. As for quotas for gay adoptions or anything else--affirmative action is the only viable short-term way to start dealing with the long-term effects of institutionalised racism, sexism and homophobia. TheoryOfPractice 14:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I have to concur with at least one point of EddyP's: "Political correctness" in the U.K. has given parties such as the BNP a leg to stand on. Although their views may have no merit, the attempts to prosecute some of their members give them one legitimate claim: the State is engaging in an active campaign to censor their views. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Neveruse, thanks for the source, but I'm not sure I trust it (then again, the sources CP use may not be so trustwrthy either). It's from the Gay and Lesbian forum, so I think we can all guess what stance they take. But I was reading it with an open mind (oh god, I sound like Andy!) until I came to this part: 'they say their decision is based on their religion and their belief that children need a mum and a dad!' That exclamation mark clinched it for me - as if the author thought that the belief that children need a mother and a father was frankly incredulous, and that anyone who thought so was an ignorant fool. That sentence as a whole though reminded me of what that homeschooler said in the LA Times: 'There are people out to destory us'. Sounded like hysteria, where the victim just noticed their assailants in time to get to safety. Sourcewise, I'm gonna wait for the BBC though; that's probably the best we'll get. EddyP 14:58, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I agree that it would be nice to see something from a neutral party. I saw the exclamation and it made me a little suspect too. But I don't even know how (or why) a neutral party would present this... Neveruse513 15:04, 3 February 2009 (EST)
as if the author thought that the belief that children need a mother and a father was frankly incredulous, and that anyone who thought so was an ignorant fool. I'd be incredulous, too. And anyone who thinks so is an ignorant fool. TheoryOfPractice 15:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
"We're not homophobes...Jebus is." Neveruse513 15:16, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Am I summarizing this correctly? The grandparents took in the kids, because the birth parents were slimeunfit. Due to health reasons, the grandparents said "we love the grandkids, but we're not capable of raising them. We're putting them up for adoption." Once they found it was a gay couple that was getting the kids, they wanted them back. Accurate? MDB 15:01, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I think that's it, except that the grandparents apparently may have stipulated that the kids not be given to gay parents. Neveruse513 15:10, 3 February 2009 (EST)
MDB, the only article I've seen so far which supports that is the one from the Gay and Lesbian forum. Please draw conclusions. (And I agree that the articles CP used may be biased as well). And TOP, name one person I've attacked in this argument friendly debate. None. I've attacked (or at least intended to if some of you got the wrong the idea) the idea that it is all right to take two children from their grandparents, overide the wishes of their family and place them with a gay couple, purely so that someone at a desk can write '+1 gay couple adopting' and so that some Labour member can say "This year X gay couples have successfully adopted. Hooray!". Notice above I said belief, not fact. I am fully aware that a gay couple can (and often do) adopt successfully and a mixed marriage can fail (something that happens all too often - again under Labour >:O ) but I'll be honest; if you asked me (and I'd wager my house that most other people would say the same) whether a gay marriage or mixed marriage was the best environment for a child to be placed in, I would say mixed. That is my belief; it is in no way a fact. But nor is it a proven fact that a gay couple is just as good for children as a mixed couple; that again is a belief. And also, this website doesn't attack people? I'll just read our articles on the CP sysops (the Fun Andy article is particularly good). Or most of the WIGO's. Believe me, I'm not judging; if it weren't for WIGO or the history of CP's many adventures I wouldn't be here (I'm a November '08 newcomer). But anyway, TOP, I think we'll either have to agree to disagree or move this into other channels; we're (more me than you) clogging up this page. I'd enjoy continuing this with you. EddyP 15:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I think you mistake attacking someone for attacking their stupid public postings. We're actually very good about not attacking the CP sysops, going so far as to delete things when jackasses post private information. All of our Sysop pages are attacking their CP personas... We don't even have real names on most of them (and the one's we have may not even be real) so I don't think we attack people, we attack ideas and stupid things posted to Conservapedia. As to your second point, you have every right to beleive anything you want, but once the kids were put up for adoption, there is no control from the parents. What's to stop them from complaining that "my child went to a muslim couple, they can't raise kids?" SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:38, 3 February 2009 (EST)

"But nor is it a proven fact that a gay couple is just as good for children as a mixed couple; that again is a belief"

This is not true, although it is a common belief. In fact the issue has been exhaustively studied and there has been enough time gone by to settle the issue to the satisfaction of most social scientists. Here is a great summary by the American Psychological Association.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 20:30, 4 February 2009 (EST)

I put the WIGO in[edit] illustrate what constitutes Conservapedia's idea of "family values." Although a closer view of the facts of the case are bound to reveal that the State was being at least somewhat reasonable in the grandparent-to-stranger transfer, I think that the original point (Conservapedia not caring about children given to strangers instead of grandparents, but caring about children given to gays instead of straights) will hold no matter what the facts of the case are. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 14:49, 3 February 2009 (EST)

There's a reasonable debate about this issue -- should the grandparents be able to take the kids back, and should they be able to express their disapproval of the sexuality of the adoptive parents? CP, of course, misses the possibility of intellectual debate, by phrasing it was "ZOMG!!!1!!! Gay adoptive parents preferred over birth grandparents!" MDB 15:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
The only reasonable debate is whether or not the couple in question are able to provide for and care for the kid. Their sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with that, is not something to be either approved of or disapproved of, and it's completely unreasonable to even bring it up. TheoryOfPractice 15:09, 3 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) True. So why are you advocating "affirmative action" in adoption that would also consider other factors? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)
The only way that nonsense like this is going to be a non-issue is when things like gay parents are commonplace. The only way that will happen is for us to make it happen, and the best way to do that is with affirmative action...TheoryOfPractice 15:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Tell a child who is brutalized after being put with abusive parents as a result of some affirmative-action policy that "the ends justify the means." He will probably give you the finger. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:12, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Agreed. If normally guardians can take children back, then fine. If they can't, sexuality should play no part in this case. Z3rotalk 15:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Regarding the original "this is not a good WIGO" issue, I think an important point is that WIGO's like these spark interesting debates, with various people discussing, agreeing, disagreeing, and in the end, hopefully, also loving and learning in the process. Pretty much the opposite of what's going on at the CP main page talk - blocks, reverts, and 90/10-induced silence. IMHO, that, in turn, illustrates the crucial difference between RW and CP. Etc 15:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I think I started the debate (but it somehow grew to encompass the whole gay rights movement, government quotas and which sources are reliable) because I felt that CP was right for once; that the kids were given to the gay couple because of just that; they were gay, and that looks good and fills quotas. I didn't start it because I am against gay couples adopting, I started it beause I am against children being placed with gay couples purely to meet quotas (it is because of these quotas that people are arrested for standing up to drunken yobs and people are denouncing the exams I'm taking at the moment as worthless) and I felt that this was merely more interference from the politically correct state (damn you New Labour!). Of course, all of the sources online differ wildly, so some of us may have to revise our opinions before the end. EddyP 16:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
That's just your speculation, though, isn't it? Isn't it more likely that the Social Services personnel are simply trying to fulfill their (I assume under British law as well) legal obligation to consider the needs of the children first? --LadyLuck 19:38, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I wonder why the grandparents didn't do a bit of looking around themselves first? I would have called up every reasonably sane relative/friend those kids have, explained the situation, and tried to get someone suitable myself before giving them to strangers of whatever persuasion. I assume social services made some attempts to find family as well. Apparently those avenues were exhausted, though. So social services found a two-parent family willing to take two non-newborn kids. That ain't easy. And after all that work, the grandparents say "never mind, we'll take 'em back"? Are they really in a position to be picky? --Too tired to log in 17:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I hadn't heard about this story before, but I certainly wouldn't trust the Daily Mail to be giving a balanced and sensitive coverage of it any more than I would trust Conservapedia. EddyP, you said further up that "there are very few right wing nutcases in Britain, and I find it unlikely that they've all gathered at a single newspaper". Clearly you've never encountered the Mail before. And sadly there are many tabloid-reading small-minded right-wing nutcases in the country.
I did a Google search on the story, & it's very telling that all the news coverage of it outside Scotland has been from the right-leaning papers (Mail, Telegraph, tabloids) or from the LGBT publications (whose interest in the case is kindof obvious). Unless Google is being selective in some odd way, it doesn't look like any mainstream broadsheet newspapers other than the Telegraph have covered the story, except this editorial in the Indepedent, which is a critique of the various right-wing columnists, & makes a very good point: whether or not the children's futures should be decided by social services, they shouldn't be decided by emotive campaigns in the popular press. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:52, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I wonder if/how CP will cover this...[edit]

The founder of Habitat for Humanity has passed away.

On one paw, he's a man who founded a great charity, based on his Christian faith.

On the other paw,

  • Jimmy Carter loves it!
  • He was forced out of the group due to inappropriate conduct with a woman.

Oh, hell, you know they'll make a snarky remark about Carter if they mention it at all.

If they cover it, it will likely be from Faux Newz. Faux mentions Jimmy, so ya know they'll have to take a parthian shot. Neveruse513 15:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Oh, I see how they'll spin it... Carter came to the man's defense when they were getting rid of him for the inappropriate conduct allegations. "Jimmy Carter defended the late sexual harasser who founded Habitat for Humanity..." MDB 16:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Heaven or Hell? Let's Rock![edit]

PJR vs TK. Love to see how this one turns out. If PJR turns TK's new arbitrary blocking rules against him and Teacake gets a block for MYOB I will fly over to Australia to give PJR a high-five. ENorman 17:15, 3 February 2009 (EST)

My Ma's on holiday there now. I'll have her high-five him for the both of us.DSFARGEG 19:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
As an aside, I love Guilty Gear.

Jinx v Britney[edit]

What is jinx on about? ("The blatant vulgarity of this song (the name of which I can't even mention) makes it difficult to write about, but it is causing quite a stir." ]) I thought it was called "Circus" or am I behind the times? (Probably - I'm an old bag after all) Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 17:15, 3 February 2009 (EST)

It's prolly Womanizer. It was released in September, but's CP. Neveruse513 17:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)
From Faux News:
Warning: If you say the title to Britney Spears' new single really fast, it sounds like you're saying something really nasty.
And yes it is from Circus - If You Seek Amy. Give me an "F", now give me a "U", now give me a "C", ..... Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 17:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)
It's always amusing when foul-mouthed dirty-minded little Jinx is morally outraged by sex or swearing in the media. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
You noticed that too huh? SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 22:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)
There's an opportunity for a Schukky there for anyone who was interested. DogP 22:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Maybe someone should sock up and ask him why he can't say "If You Seek Amy" but he has no problem using colorful language around these parts... like the time he used the word fuck 11 eleven times, sprinkled with a few shits asses and other such words... Including calling me a "black racist prick" This last one is my favorite, as it came in the middle of Jason screaming about how he doesn't notice black people because of skin color.... I couldn't figure it out either. Lest you think I'm making this up, see here for more SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 00:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

The thing with this new song, though, is that it's not even clever. It's a single-entendre, if such a thing exists. If it had clever lyrics they would at least have something to fall back on, but the lyrics are, and I do not kid, "All the boys and all the girls are begging to If You Seek Amy". Which clearly only makes sense in one way. Fox are missing the point. Dreaded Walrus 05:54, 4 February 2009 (EST)

The Britney Spears article at CP is pretty funny (mostly an Ed Poor effort). "Her version of 'morality' was to delay premarital sex until age 21, when she had relations with Justin Timberlake. After that, she plunged headlong into the concert and recording industry". Wait, is that chronology correct? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:30, 4 February 2009 (EST)
No, it's completely wrong... She was recording and touring at.... I wanna say 16. 17 at the latest... There was actually this big flare up when she debuted, with the fundies screaming about how a 16 year old could possibly sing such overtly sexual lyrics and appear in that outfit (her first music video had her in Catholic School, with all the costuming elements added to turn on 14 year olds) as usual, Ed is an idiot. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 11:29, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Red Telephone to TK.[edit]

"I also notice that liberals are always full of deceit as well, making and re-making socks, just to argue. And why do you Canadian liberal trolls care so much about United States matters, anyway? --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)"

If it's the socking up that's your problem, unban either Barikada, HDCase, or Kazumaru. I'm perfectly willing to discuss these things with you on those accounts, and I'd like to continue the productive work I'd been doing on each, and the project I'd signed up for with Ed Poor before you inexplicably upped HDCase's ban.

And: The United States is just south of Canada. Only a moron wouldn't care about their nation's neighbours. --User:Barikada

Also all users from NYU are AmesG.-Diadochus 18:13, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Yeah, why do Canadian liberal trolls care about American matters? Could it be the fact that we're the world's two largest trading partners and quite possibly the closest strategic allies (NORAD)? Or the fact that American policy has an enormous effect on not only Canada, but the world itself? Or the fact that our culture is almost entirely shared? Nay, it is none of these. The truth is that we have fewer wingnuts in the Great White North, and thus look to Andy for amusement. PubliusTalk 18:45, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Is it just me or is he acting even more "unhinged" than usual? Maybe "uninhibited" is the better word, but he seems to have ratcheted up the angry arrogance lately. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)
It's his MO. As he gets more entrenched there, he'll get more unhinged, blocking quicker, because he's more confident he can destroy the "encyclopedia" without getting noticed.-Diadochus 19:17, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Barack the Magic Negro - CP Style[edit]

Holy crap, that anti-Obama song is pure gold. I can think of all kinds of juicy parody that could fit right in. I've given up socking CP, but I look forward to the WIN that is sure to ensue. Stile4aly 18:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I didn't think I could like this man any less, but there is absolutely no redeeming quality about him. I've never seen anyone this bitter. I note he's letting the word queer stay in his epic ballad, sure is family freindly around there. Why not go the whole hog? He should just replace black with nigger too if he's goin going to be such a scumbag. I honestly have no words to describe how much his stupidity, his wilfull ignorance and his intolerance offends me.DSFARGEG 19:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

The comment that "Liberals have no sense of humor" makes me laugh. Had RW done a song about Dubya, it would have been all up in flames. Actually, I'm have half a mind to write one about Bush to the tune of "We Didn't Start the Fire".
Well the real song uses all the major events over a 40 year time period, but I'm sure Bush's presidency was eventful enough to stretch the length of the song and more. Might be able to put it up on Indaba or write a page for it here. Blush.gif~Ttony21(talk, contribs) 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Since Andy is so open minded and ready to embrace humor, even when mocking your heroes, I hereby offer immediate acceptance as a Penguin to the first person that creates a sock and makes a new essay page with This bit of humor. Email me first as your sock so I can verify membership. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 22:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)
On the topic, did a 'We Didn't Start the Fire' parody for the events of 2007. It's worth watcihng. Czolgolz 23:26, 3 February 2009 (EST)
I'd like to see a Hillary hit-job posted on CP to the tune (ahem) of Elton John "The Bitch Is Back", now that Andy has opened the door... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Honolulu (To be sung to the tune of Nagasaki)[edit]

Also, preferably to be sung in the style of Cab Calloway for maximum comic effect.

Fellows, if you're arn,
I will spin a yarn,
That was told to me by Able Seaman Karajou.
Once he had the blues,
So he took a cruise,
Far away from night-clubs and from saxophones.
He said, "Yo Ho, I've made a certain port,
And when you talk about real he-man sport."

Sharia and dynamite,
There's nothing but that at night,
Down in Honolulu, where the president is a Zulu,
And probably a secret Muslim too.

In North Dakota, Acorn forged some voters,
now our troubles increased.
He ain't American, but then-again,
he ain't black and don't share my religious beliefs.

He loves terrorists and the gays,
by jingo! it makes me rage.
Down in Honolulu, where the president is a Zulu,
and probably a secret Muslim too.

Add More! --JeevesMkII 01:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Not really sure what to add to that but it's definitely better in all ways possible than Andy's pathetic attempt. Which doesn't say much, though. Anyways, bravo! Etc 12:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Ok, fess up[edit]

Who was responsible for this? I almost spit Pepsi all over my laptop when I read that.... Extra points for using Musicals and Light Opera. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:58, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Damn, that took commitment. Neveruse513 17:37, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Wow. We really need to have some of these recorded. PubliusTalk 17:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Fun:Conservapedia, The Musical Stile4aly 17:56, 4 February 2009 (EST)
The one based off of "When You're a Jet was genius". ENorman 19:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)
'Twas I. But it didn't take any commitment at all; I just copied some of my favourites from what others had done on CP The Musical. They deserve the credit for their witty lyrics. I was glad that the Pasty Shadow of a Naval Petty Officer himself was the one to do the blocking. Johann 09:07, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Hmmm....(To the tune of Modern Major General)
I am the pasty shadow of a Naval Petty Officer,
Every post I see, I feel the need to offer comment on,
Despite the fact I have no clues, I think I know most everything,
and every edit will be vetted how far it is to the right-wing.
(chorus) and every edit will be vetted how far it is to the right-wing. (repeat twice more)
--tsk. This is made harder by the fact that "Conservapedia" is horrendously awkward to fit into a tune. But I do like Gilbert and Sullivan... --Gulik 22:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

The self esteem meter is reading zero.[edit]

"To imagine a time when one language was spoken is difficult to comprehend, but if language wasn’t created by God, we would probably be speaking in primitive grunts!" Parodist or ground down homskollar, you decide. --JeevesMkII 15:33, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Since y'know, humans aren't smart enough on their own to place a pattern of sounds to symbolize either an object or idea. And of course because we aren't that smart, whenever a new word is added to any language, it must have been created by God and not people. ENorman 16:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)
This way of thinking also fails to consider non-verbal methods of communication. Are deaf people more "primitive" because they use sign language? Of course not. KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 16:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)
P.S. I still have a hard time believing Andy missed the mark on the accepted date for the flud by a millennium and that none of his fundie homskollars have mentioned it. It's 2300 BC, not 3300 BC. Neveruse513 17:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)
He's just trying to smush the Biblical timeline in to secular history, and discovering they simply don't fit. He has the choice between the idiocy of claiming the pyramids survived the flood or the idiocy of claiming that Adam did. Neither is a very palatable choice. A sensible person at this point would conclude there's something wrong with one of the timelines. A smart person would figure out which timeline that was. A practical person would push creation back a couple of thousand years. What does Andy do? Ignore the problem and hope his homskollars don't notice. He's practically begging them to in the homework, but none so far have pointed out the plethora of ridiculously inconsistent dates in his first lecture yet. I live in hope. --JeevesMkII 18:13, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Here. (not me....) TheoryOfPractice 18:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Even moar surprising is that the lectures/homework aren't protected. Neveruse513 19:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)
What about people copying other peoples work? --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 21:09, 4 February 2009 (EST)
They are honest conservative Christian homskollars. Only liberals, atheists, or public school studints would even think of cheating like that! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:54, 5 February 2009 (EST) - late sig, sorry.
Do you have to be a conservative Christian to enroll in Andy's class? --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 21:36, 4 February 2009 (EST)
The only requirement is being able to parrot back whatever Andy says, no matter how absurd. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:43, 4 February 2009 (EST)
The main problem CP seems to have is that they only have one real rule: I am right, and unless you completly agree with me, you are always completly, utterly wrong, and are clearly against me. It is that kind of group mentality that makes CP so amusing, causing their insane fear of anything that does not "fit in" with their viewpoints. Aimless Blaster 23:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Honestly, I think when the standard of work is that low what incentive is there to copy anyone's work? You could do better in a minute or two of typing. I know we try not to speak ill of the kids, but Andy does seem to have boiled his class down to only the half dozen most ignorant. No surprise there, I guess. --JeevesMkII 02:10, 5 February 2009 (EST)

That godamn swabbie again![edit]

That latest WIGO of Karajou's madness reminds me of the time he was going to block someone unless they drove to the library, hired a book on whatever the subject was, drove back and read it to him. He's a fucking power tripping Hitler - so much so that there should be a picture of him on the Evolution page. Ace McWickedRevolt 22:10, 4 February 2009 (EST)

MOAR KARAJOU!!!! doesn't have the same ring as MOAR HITLER!!!!!111!!one! Think it's that extra syllable. And MOAR SEAMAN!!!! just sounds wrong. ENorman 22:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Although it does tend to get Ken's interest. --Kels 22:20, 4 February 2009 (EST)
The whole thing is amazing. FNNoonan didn't even make an evaluative statement. Karajou was trying to lure him out with the whole "read it to me" thing. Still, TK's entrance is superb. His piling on takes it to a whole other level. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:45, 4 February 2009 (EST)
This is one of the funniest WIGOs in ages. Seriously, Karajou is making Andy seem perfectly sane. "I need information." "Sure, here it--" "READ IT TO ME." "Why?" "FASCIST! YOU HAVE REVEALED YOUR LIBERAL SELF!" Aaaand scene! PubliusTalk 00:41, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Moron is as moron does. Swabbie at his best: "confused". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I usually don't go in for adolescent nicknames but I think he has thoroughly earned Karajerk. It really all boils down to he and Andy just being typical internet trolls who have found a womb-like home. I predict, mostly based on the contents of his user page as indicators of his approach to self esteem, he is the type of bully that would be crying after three exchanges in any open forum. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 10:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)

crying after three exchanges in any open forum : Aschlafly - left wikipedia after his edits were reverted. Karajou - left wikipedia after losing a couple of arguments. Conservative - kicked off everything that could kick him off. Ed Poor - kicked off Wikipedia, back now but most of his contribs get reverted. now they all play power games in their wikibunker, blocking everyone who disagrees with them. You are correct! Totnesmartin 12:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I love TK's latest rejoinder. Guess someone's a Cold War Baby, eh, TK? Also, Kinkyboo seems to have completely failed to read Limbaughs quote "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.". DogP 02:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

My God. It's like they're pulling a train on the poor guy. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:25, 6 February 2009 (EST)


We have no way to control your access to CP. Get over your paranoia. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)

?--l'arronsicut fur in nocte 02:26, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Is it not true, that we have no way to limit access to CP? Some people are more paranoid than even our more paranoid editors. What, you want diff links? Shoot, I think I lost them. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:07, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Of course, only CP can limit access to CP. And it does so: I got the impression, that they don't like bots at all, even if the bots comply with their robots.txt . Instead of setting a crawl delay, they seem to ban everyone from looking at CP who visits certain pages to often - I'm afraid that this could occur even by opening to many tabs in your browser. So, error 403 messages pop up.
That's my theory, perhaps, others have a deeper insight.
l'arronsicut fur in nocte 03:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
What's this? Who's an idiot? The tone of the above sounds frighteningly TKish. Will I get told to MYOB? Scarey StarFish 04:09, 5 February 2009 (EST)
MYOB -- Nx/talk/admin 04:12, 5 February 2009 (EST) (jk)
Dah - you got me! Although it doesn't feel as good without an instant ban, publication of my employer's address and a quick report to the FBI. StarFish 04:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Ah, we work slightly differently. Instead of being all publicly stalkerish like TK, we've simply visited your flat while you were typing your last message and force-fed your goldfish collection to the neighbour's cat. --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Based on the strength of not knowing what you folks are really talking about I will say that we do, in fact, have a way to limit access to CP. One of this site's direct functions is marketing CP to our vast and rapidly growing readership. We could limit access to them by simply slowing down on the WIGOs. I'm not advocating this mind you. We here at RW do our feverishly devoted readers a great service: We provide lulz for our intended audience and proofreading services for those rat-bastards (Hi, Andy and assorted degenerates!) over at CP. — Unsigned, by: Sheesh! / talk / contribs

I think we should start charging Andy for proofreading his blog for him. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Bring Back Hitler...[edit]

Like many of you I have been very dissapointed to see the de-adolfication of CP recently. this image is used in a paltry 3 articles, 1 of which is legitimate. Where's the fun in that? Hitler/Darwin/Parrot pictures? None that I can find. The "We Love Evolutionary Racism" pictures was an all time classic and Conservapedia (and by extension my life) is poorer for the lack of it. In my opinion that was one of the funniest things ever to appear on CP and completely impossible to parody. Ken excelled himself. But he can't go on living on past glories! Even Ken's user page has been cleaned up. What's happened? Had he been told to knock it off? We need to start a campaign to bring back Hitler. Preferably with Darwin-parrots. StarFish 03:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Wait... What the hell happened to Ken's userpage? -- Nx talk 03:50, 5 February 2009 (EST)
We taunted him for about 2 hours about so he deleted it. - User 05:32, 5 February 2009 (EST)
ok, so the ideal of professionalism is to make yourself redundant, but aren't we undoing ourselves by taunting CP into improving itself? One day it'll be a semi-reasonable "family values"-based encyclopedia, and it'll be all our fault. Totnesmartin 07:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It seems out of character though as previously he has taunted us that he is going to add MOAR HITLER. And that Hitler is here to stay. It's like admitting we were right all along. It's a shame as it was probably the funniest thing on CP. StarFish 07:11, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I agree it was out of character, & I suspect it wasn't entirely Ken's decision. Maybe somebody (Andy? TK?) told him that he was making the site look ridiculous. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:55, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Someone could probably add Hitler to their smoking article: "Hitler was a proponent of anti-smoking campaigns..." Commodore Guff (what a ridiculous name) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Why so small-time? Someone add Hitler to their Pants article. "Hitler, like many of his Nazi followers, wore pants..." --Gulik 23:04, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Not in this photo, which was on Ken's user page for awhile. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks Weasel. Unintentionally comical pictures of Hitler are exactly what the doctor ordered. JoeDuffy 10:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Foxtrot the new HelpJazz?[edit]

TK has a new target in his sights. Countdown to Foxy being called "liberal" in 5-4-3... --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)

This reminds me, do we have a salem witch trials article? Totnesmartin 05:26, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Actually, does CP have an article on the witch trials? Seems like it would be one of those things only liberals think were a bad thing. *goes and checks CP* --ScottA 05:29, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Now that is funny, TK deletes his user page after Fox gives a reasonable argument as to why TK is stupid and that he is making shit up. Keep at it TK, you are doing a great job!--TimS 06:27, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(ec) No surprise, TK burns the evidence. Anyone know what all was said? The edit comment for Foxtrot's last edit to TK's talk page was something about not being confrontational, or something. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 06:29, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Ah yes, TK the great proponent of Conservative Deceit. Locked his talk page too. That's why he prefers e-mails - he can't be made to look an idiot in public (although he does a good job on his own.) Basic summary is TK attacked Foxtrot for something Foxy didn't do and when he realised he was wrong, burnt the evidence like the maggot he is. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:32, 5 February 2009 (EST)
(EC2)TK just doesn't like us linking to him in case we get pictures of his arseholeness. TK's MO has always been no record. Unfortunately he was successful this time. Foxtrot showed him up a dick because he was spell checking quote, which is not conventionally done. - User 06:35, 5 February 2009 (EST)
And then he criticizes RW because sysops can hide revisions... what a hypocrite -- Nx talk 06:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Foxtrot's last edit was something along the lines of 'I don't want to be confrontational, but you keep saying I reverted an Admin's change, but I can't see where I did that - I only reverted a vandal's changes. Show me what I did wrong. Worm (t | c) 07:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Folks, always remember that TK is deeply insincere. His end goal is likely simply daily entertainment as his pulls strings and pokes sticks at people. He is an instigator not an ideologue. He likely wants stuff done via email so he can more effectively compartmentalize his destructive activities. Much can be gained by setting a collection of idiots on a variety mutually exclusive paths. He does seem to have learned a lesson from his last unmasking in this regard. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 10:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Looking at TK's talk page deletion log shows this delightful tidbit - "Whenever Andy publicly and sincerely apologizes for calling me names and being rude, I will return." Did I miss Andy's public apology somewhere? Because I'm pretty sure it would have been WIGOed. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 17:50, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Both too much and not near enough information...[edit]

Could someone with a sock recommend this story for CP's broken news please? I'm just dying to see what the Assfly makes of it. --JeevesMkII 06:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I suppose it doesn't help that there's a link on the bottom to the 'delicious' site. AwesomeJack16 06:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I apologise in advance, but I to say that it sounds like she was eaten, but not in a good way. --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:07, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I like the related stories: "Celebrity Big Brother girls strip to bikinis and get steamy". I dread to think exactly how much those stories are related... Dreaded Walrus 07:28, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Well, steaming preserves the vitamins. Yours trulyDear Sir 07:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Finally! Girl Scout cookies that contain real Girl Scouts! Stile4aly 11:49, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's relatively new song[edit]

So he used the word 'queer', huh? Along with his apparent homophobia, there's also a hint of masked racism. (I'm not black / affirmative action's got my back)

How long do you think it is before he uses the word 'negro'?

And is it me, or does Conservapedia use race as a sympathy vote when talking about the 'evolutionary racism' pseudoscience that was embraced nearly a century ago, but when they are actually talking about the different races directly, the speech is notoriously hateful?

Just an observation.

AwesomeJack16 06:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)

this is very typical of people who try to replace the truth with ideology - they'll say anything that supports their position, and attack/dismiss anyone who notices such inconsistencies as you just spotted. Totnesmartin 06:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It's important to note that those two paragraphs weren't added by Andy himself. You could argue that by leaving them in when editing since then he's "endorsed" it, though, as with DeanS editing the "hit list" article. Dreaded Walrus 07:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
The twin positions are great take this where they are offended on behalf of Muslims because San Fran is called the Gay Mecca, versus pretty much anything else they write about Islam. - User 07:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Parts of their Islam article (namely the parts lifted from the CRS Report) are perfectly fine. Not sure if I'm allowed to say this or not, but back in the days of ye old SDG a senior sysop championed the idea of a balanced Islam article so as not to appear too biased. Of course, all the ancillary comments about teh eevil Mooslims reveal the truth. Stile4aly 11:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, I thought this one was actually funny. I doubt BenP made it up himself, though. --Gulik 23:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)

How could conservapedia cover this...[edit]

Man pleads guilty, gets off with life sentence after killing people in a church shooting if the guy had shot up a conservative church rather than a Unitarian one? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.... MDB 10:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)

TK and his Torch[edit]

I think this accurately sums up how 'reasonable' TK is. Neveruse513 11:06, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Time to stop the wandalism?[edit]

OK, so it seems quite an extreme idea, but I think perhaps it's time to stop posting on CP, full stop. Hear me out:

  • You may not like the fact that assfly uses his propoganda blog to teach kids, but he does, and always will. Posting rude comments puts us in a bad light as we are exposing children to it. The kids will grow up with first hand experience of why 'liberals' are evil, and are far more likely to take after teh assfly.
  • If the aim is to discredit the site, then we need do nothing. It's blatantly obvious that none of us can ever make the site look any worse or stupid than it looks in its unvandalised form. It is the laughing stock of the internet already.
  • Following on from the above, the vandalism not only keeps them busy, it only reinforces their delusions of greatness and drives them harder to develop the site. Leaving them alone will allow the boredom to set in.
  • Creating socks and edits reinforces their belief that the site is popular. So many page hits and accounts. Forget the fact that only a fraction are welcome visits.

In my opinion the best course of action is to just leave the site alone. Continue pointing out the lunacy on this site in order to give people a reference who have stumbled upon CP for the first time and want to google articles about it, but just let them slowly kill each other or get bored. If it wern't for us, there would be tumbleweeds on CP. Crundy 11:08, 5 February 2009 (EST)

To be clear, we don't actually encourage or coordinate vandalism. This editor has had a few socks, but never to "vandalize," except in the sense that disagreeing with Andy is "vandalism." That said, I agree with you that vandalism is unproductive, that's why I've never done it.-Diadochus 11:10, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I've vandalized CP. I stopped. Here's the thing though- we can't let him go unchalleged. People are being indoctoriated with his beliefs, and we must do something to stop it. The more they develop the site, the more ridiculous it becomes. Sooner or later, we will make it implode, as it will be too big to support itself. The more they develop it, the closer we get to making it breathe its last breath. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 11:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I agree with Diadochus. I also think that one of the worst things to happen to CP was the whole Bugler thing. Bugler was so despicable that the "kids" now have ample evidence that liberals are deeply unpleasent people who are not to be trusted. While Andy, TK and the swabbie are all idiots, the site is still used by children, who should not be abused in any sense of the word.
In fact, far from carrying out vandalism, we've done more to point out the obvious parodists and vandals than CP itself. Bondurant 11:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)
"We" do not promote vandalism at CP. Some people post at both CP and RW. That does not mean they post at CP on behalf of RW any more than they post at RW on behalf of CP.--Bobbing up 11:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I've vandalized CP in the past but I think Bob may be right. Proxima Centauri 11:28, 5 February 2009 (EST)
In regards to the issue of vandalism/unwelcome visitors boosting CP's web traffic, I would like to point out that RW does sometimes hold boycotts in regards to CP, to look at the effect of vandalism/unwelcome visitors in regards to CP's web traffic. Also, when RW does hold a boycott in regards to CP, CP's web traffic has significantly fallen, so that CP should know that a large proportion of CP's web traffic is likely the result of vandalism/unwelcome visitors.--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 11:32, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Also, I'd be willing to bet that many/most of the day to day vandals over at CP have never even heard of RW. Non vandalist contributions to CP are a bit of a double edged sword. On the one hand they have the ability to point out precisely why something over there is ridiculous but on the other, as noted above, they sort of empower the klannish impulse. I personally avoid direct contact with CP ( I try to only follow links form here to there, not go there directly)I got tired of the queasy feeling talking with the stars over there gets you Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:33, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I would say that very few of the long term RW members partake in vandalism (as per the non-CP definition). Whether creating parody is vandalism is open to discussion. The mention of Bugler is odd though. As despicable as he was (sorry, FP), the fact that he was allowed to carry on for so long, and rise to the heights he did, speaks volumes about the management of CP. Bugler did not make CP an unpleasant place for children - it already was and Bugler was simply allowed to thrive within its environment. They can cry deceit now that he's exposed, but at the time Andy and co fully embraced and defended him - to the point that if he hadn't botched his name, he would have been a sysop today.
That said, no amount of vandalism (non-condoned, of course!) is going to bring CP down. Only TK can do that at the moment. We're just waiting for him to start by opening up the SDG again. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:41, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Or we can. We just do some TK. I might be able to do some TK on CP. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 11:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I would say that most of the editors here have moved on from vandalism to parody; I myself have had roughly four vandal accounts each lasting up to 15 minutes (oh, the happy memories!). I would say that most of the people here have moved on to parody or other, more interesting things (such as Operation Smoke and Mirrors). I myself don't go in for creating socks just so I can argue with them and point out that they are wrong; it's like spitting at an ocean. EddyP 11:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I never found the exact cause of Bugler's outing (linkage?). Regardless, vandalism is usually just as incoherent as actual content. The sincere contributors are vandals as well, they make as much sense. Teabag 11:49, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Andy tried to promote him to sysop and demanded his real name which he tried to pass of as Brian Ugler. Even Andy's BS detector picked up on that one. Stile4aly 11:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Re Vandalism, I agree that actual vandalism says more about the vandalizer than the vandalizee. We don't encourage it, but I think we need to go beyond that and actively discourage it. I'm talking about stuff like page blanking and MOAR HITLER. Regarding parody, I think it serves a purpose, but socking up for the purpose of parroting Andy to obtain block rights and pulling a Samwell doesn't reflect well either. I've changed my tone some since the 'hit list' incident. I still believe it said something about CP, but the idea of the 'hit list' was so distasteful to me, and I believe I'm a better person than that. So, I've given up on socking at CP.
Honestly, I think the best thing is that if we do sock up at CP we should attempt honest debate. There's no doubt that we'll be banned, but at least lurkers on the site will see how unreasonable they are without giving them ammunition as to how evil liberals are. Stile4aly 11:59, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I agree with this idea - give'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Joining up and asking honest questions will force CP to show its hand as a nest of vipers, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. Totnesmartin 12:05, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Better idea- give me teh fly's email address. I'll do a Lenski. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 12:07, 5 February 2009 (EST)
you won't do a Lenski because you're not Lenski -you don't have his credentials, so you could be easily dismissed as "just some guy with a gripe." btw have you read Don Quixote? I think you should. especially the bit with the windmills... Totnesmartin 12:13, 5 February 2009 (EST)
But I CAN do a TK- I accidently did some here, (thanks everyone for helping me pull out of that nose-dive) so I should be able to do one on Conservapedia. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 12:17, 5 February 2009 (EST)
No need - TK is already doing a TK. You could do a CUR if you like. (Liking the new not-logged-in warning by the way.)--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 12:20, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I've never vandalized CP, never made an account either. I wouldn't be surprised if TK had blocked my IP though. Luckily, I work for a large university, so by blocking that, at least I'm sparing thousands of students from being able to participate. I think that most of the things that CP regards as vandalism is just people disagreeing with someone. If I thought that they were in any way reasonable and could talk without resorting to blocking at the first sign of distension, then I'd be more likely to have an account to point things out. Otherwise, they simply aren't worth the effort most of the time. -Lardashe

Conservapedia is at the core the blog of Andy Schlafly and a platform for his home-schoolers. This core TK isn't allowed to touch. He may - and will - create mayhem everywhere, but not there. In Andy's eyes all other things are just add-ons. Oh yes, he'll take credit if someone admires conservapedia, but he'll avoid any work as Hell outside the yard of his home-school. Even, if this means to let TK take over.

to stress my point

And this explains how the common editors are treated at conservapedia. For Andy, they are mostly a nuisance, sometimes uttering pleasant background sound. But at most times, they are negligible, cattle to be taken care of by your trusted shepherds. Andy will count them, but won't know them by their names, as they come and go.

The high-handed approach to the loss of the editing efforts for a whole week, and currently, the arbitrariness of the night-mode are examples for this treatment. In my opinion, that's the reason that the non-core parts of will die off: they rely on common editors, and the reservoir for those is not infinite. Sometimes, the last well-meaning editor will be blocked, and their will be only socks to replace him.

Just my 0.02€ l'arronsicut fur in nocte 12:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)To do a CUR, one must be a sysop and get charged with administrative abuse. One then must edit war over an article. Then, one must contribute. After a while of contributing, one must get involved in another conflict, and take down the wiki- if one wants to. I don't. At least not RW. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 12:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)

You couldn't have taken down the wiki; you just caused an incredible annoyance. Stupid educated Hoover! 12:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Good. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 12:47, 5 February 2009 (EST)

What wandalism? Where? DogP 12:52, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I'm in the same boat as most of the other posters here. Never vandalized, only parodized. Vandalism accomplishes nothing and is really quite immature (relatively speaking, I know). PubliusTalk 12:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)

There's a world of difference between Parody and Vandalism, just putting Aschlafly is a twat on a hundred pages is vandalism, no matter how true; Bugler was sublime parody as can be seen by how TK (& Kajagoogoo) are outdoing him. Keep up the parody and down with vandalism, say I. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 13:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)

There's a bunch of fine lines between "wandalism" and "parody". For example, if someone replaces cp:War of 1812 with ANDY YOU TWAT, that's stupid unfunny wandalism. If someone goes through and changes every "18xx" date in the War of 1812 article to "19xx", I'd call that unfunny wandalism but maybe it'd float somebody's boat. *cough*CUR*cough* If someone goes through the entire wiki and replaces all references to "War of 1812" with "War of 1912", and for bonus points moves the article to War of 1912 as well, I'd call that interesting if not particularly funny wandalism, but I suspect that some people here might call it low-degree parody. If someone replaces cp:War of 1812 with cp:Image:Cat.jpg and the edit summary (recat), which has happened, but I'm too lazy to find the difflink, I'd call that funny wandalism. (For me, (MOAR HITLER!!!1) also falls into the funny wandalism category.) If someone edits the article to claim that the War of 1812 started when Dolly Parton burned down the White House, and it isn't immediately reverted, I'd call that parody. If it did get immediately reverted, then obviously it wasn't subtle enough, and so it counts as unfunny wandalism.

But then there's the whole issue of non-parody hoaxes. If someone creates a new article about the War of 1815, in which the British tried to recoup their national honor by invading Mexico and were repulsed by Napoleon's forces at the battle of Geneseo Heights, I'd call that a straight-up hoax; it doesn't seem similar enough to reality, or POV-pushing enough, to merit the title of "parody". But again I suspect that someone here might be lumping hoaxes in with parody. Me, I write a lot of hoaxes these days; I'm using CP to practice my creative writing.

I'd be glad to see less of the ANDY YOU TWAT–style wandalism; it just encourages them to lock account creation more often. I don't object to a well-executed 4chan wandal every now and then. --Marty 05:06, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(In)sensitive Ed[edit]

Ah, yes Wiki-genius Smeg Ed - he who started the "Harmonious Editor's Club" at Wikipedia - shows in his edit comment his attitude towards CP's resident Oriental editor. Good way to build harmony Ed! --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:29, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Wow. How the hell does Ed know about that uprising anyway? It's clear he doesn't actually read. Does he just take stuff from Wikipedia? Teabag 11:42, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Real classy, Ed. Pseudomonas 11:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Oh dear, oh dear. You'd think a devotee of the Rev Moon should be at least a little less vulgar with Oriental stereotyping. But then it is Ed, so no surprise really. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Well, the moonster isn't really from Korea is he? He's originally from heaven. On a side note, does anyone else wonder what's going to happen to the moonies when he eventually dies? D'ya reckon they'll make up some weird myth around him returning to heaven, his work here on Earth now complete? --JeevesMkII 12:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Same as all the other cultists - they'll claim he was taken back to heaven, fall out with each other about his divine nature, and carry on ad ludicrum. For previous examples, see most other religions founded by a single person. Totnesmartin 13:20, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Maybe like his fellow countryman Kim Jong-Il he'll pass the 'Being A God' torch to his son? DogP 22:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Ooh, Ed spell solly long! He no make good Chinaman! --Malty 05:08, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Locked out of CP[edit]

Is it just me that can't edit on CP or did they forget to turn off night time mode? Looking at all the recent changes, they are all from the 'elite'. JoeDuffy 11:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like were in nite moad. Neveruse513 11:46, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I can't edit either. EddyP 11:48, 5 February 2009 (EST)
CP is now invitation only! --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'This isn't wookiepedia, fanboy.' 11:49, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Yeah, editing is switched off. If you see "view source" instead of "edit" in the tabs on every page, it means it's night mode. If you're blocked, you should still see "edit" tabs when it isn't night mode - you'll only get the "you are blocked" message when you click on it. If you see "view source" tabs on one page, but not on others, it just means that page is protected. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Ed is "up for discussion"[edit]

see here

====[[:Ed Poor]] → [[:Grumman]]====

Don't know why this redirect exists, so I am RFDing it in case someone can provide an explanation. Is wp:User:Ed Poor related to wp:Grumman? User:Ryan Delaney 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is related to wp:Edmund Ward Poor (also a redirect), who was a cofounder of Grumman. Apparently wp:User:Ed Poor is his grandson (I get this just from the history of the various redirects). However, there's no evidence I can find that Edmund Ward Poor was commonly referred to as Ed Poor, at least in public discussion. Since the redirect has a history of problematic edits (see history), it's probably best not to have this. I'm going to give wp:User:Ed Poor a heads-up that this is being discussed here.User:Gavia immer 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 12:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Liberals are literally impossible to offend[edit]

I don't know how I missed this. Even if you call liberals traitors, liars, and satanists, they just can't be offended, according to Andy. I guess this gives them great mental strength. Coarb 13:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Priceless. And I got to see a bit of Bugler in there. Great thing is, even though he's been found out, we can all look back on his work. He truly was a genius. AwesomeJack16 17:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)
That's because to Andy, Liberals aren't actually human beings--we're all soulless golem-like creatures animated only by our depraved glandular impulses and the will of our evil master, Charles Darwin (and his sidekick, Satan). Since we lack the necessary mental equipment to feel any emotion but SEETHING HATRED for Jesus and America (tm), we OBVIOUSLY can't be 'offended' by anything!
(Man, I wish I thought I was just joking.) --Gulik 23:15, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Foxtrot tries again on cp:Continuum, fails again[edit]

This is what happens when you run an encyclopedia devoted to anti-intellectualism. AndyJM, just give it up. These people are devoted to proving that complex numbers are a liberal conspiracy and that the Axiom of Choice is abortionist propaganda. Coarb 13:44, 5 February 2009 (EST)

How many mathematicians tried to put some sanity in these articles? cp:Axiom of Choice, cp:Elementary proof and cp:Continuum are just doomed. I pity the children who are taught mathematics by Foxtrot and his kind. OTOH: the user who see that conservapedia can't get right the most elementary mathematical facts may be inclined to doubt its other insights: Imagine the pupil who thinks that he fulfilled his homework in maths by quoting CP: he'll be marked for his life. [0,1] or (0,1), continuum is continuum --l'arronsicut fur in nocte 18:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I'd love to see someone quoting Andy's (and thus CP's) stance about Proof by Contradiction: "When resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself." --Sid 18:51, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Maybe someone should point out this.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 19:02, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I'd WIGO this, but it's sort of esoteric. That is, Foxtrot isn't so obviously wrong as Andy is when he says things like "cuneiform can't express the concept of 'sin'". Coarb 20:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)

What does Andy mean by his hatred of proof by contradiction[edit]

The objection to non-constructive logic is not actually so rare. There exist plenty of mathematicians that don't accept the Law of Excluded Middle or the Axiom of Choice. What Andy's really objecting to is the elimination rule for False. I think this is, essentially paraconsistent logic. The unusual thing about it is that (edit: some) people who want to use paraconsistent logic want to add more axioms. Leaving out False Elimination allows some contradictions without making every proposition derivable. They view this as helpful, but Andy views this as heresy.

(Edit: I think there may be some advocates who share Andy's distaste of _|_-elim. For instance, I think Jean-Yves Girard may dislike it. What's bizarre about this is that Andy (a) has no fucking clue what he's talking about and (b) is advocating something STRONGLY against mathematical tradition. Well, I guess it's not unusual for Andy to be mouthing off about a subject he knows nothing about, but it is unusual for him to be so anti-tradition.)

Also, Andy's statement that "it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself" is true of any axiom. That is, if I conclude Q from the assumption P and the axiom A, it could be that A is inconsistent (that is, there exists some R such that A implies R and Not R). Andy only objects in the case that Q = False. Coarb 20:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Re: "Andy has no fucking clue what he's talking about"
I think Andy's greatest problem aren't even his claims, but how he defends them:
Andy: "[CLAIM]."
Other guy: "What do you mean by [CLAIM]? Maybe you meant [SOMETHING ELSE]. Because if you take [CLAIM] at face value, one could object [ARGUMENT]..."
Andy: "You are a liberal. [CLAIM] is obvious because of [CLAIM]."
Other guy: "...uh, no...?"
Andy: "Your failure to comprehend is typical of public school mentality. Open your mind and you will see that [CLAIM] is true."
Other guy: "Hey, no need for personal-"
Andy: "[GUY I LIKE] supported [CLAIM]. See? It's as undeniable as 2+2=4. Godspeed. PS: 90/10. PPS: Banhammer."
Most of the time, you have to assume that Andy simply doesn't know shit about these things because of his complete refusal to say anything beyond repeating his claim. I mean, I'm no math prof, either. But I won't make such strong claims, and if I got involved in a debate, I'd try to read up on the subject to at least be able to comprehend what the other people are talking about. --Sid 22:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Andy has also, as demonstrated by the Lenski affair, never learned the old adage: "When you find yourself in a hole: stop digging". He is incapable of backing off. Whatever he said, no matter how off the cuff and unplanned, (and stupid!) was right so there! ToastToastand marmite 12:37, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The Latest Ed Poor Ravings[edit]

I like the latest Ed Poor ravings. In addition to what's been WIGO'd, he indulges in a little historical revision - suggesting the US fought alone in WW1 and 2 ('Pretty good for a ragtag bunch of former colonists...For an encore, we win two world wars...') and suggesting that the internal collapse of the USSR's government had nothing whatsoever to the end of communism there, and also suggesting that China is a defeated power, or is not communist ('...and defeat Communism'). Lovely. Zmidponk 18:17, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, Ed is something else entirely... It's like he thinks that both World Wars were won by a supreme battalion of christian conservatives beating the pagans to death with their KJV bibles. It's an amazing thought, fun to play around with in a video game, but it's not really what happened... In fact, America's entry into the war was more of a morale boost to the troops in the field already... We weren't exactly the biggest group in the war... SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 18:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)
There's a reason why he's been dubbed the biggest idiot on CP. We can count on Andy for hypocrisy, TK for nastiness, Ken for downright batshit insanity, but they can't beat Ed in terms of simply being a complete fucking moron. ENorman 18:43, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Why did someone "WIGO" something that happened two months ago? or did I miss something? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Regarding the slavery issue, Ed's rant reminds me of a bit on Mr. Show. David says to Bob something like "You know, my grandpapa told me that the black men in this country used to be slaves, until Abraham Lincoln, a white man, came along and freed them. So we think it's never to late to say: 'you're welcome!'" DickTurpis 23:39, 5 February 2009 (EST)


The number of times it took Ken to finish editing the news item in the most recent WIGO. Also, to whoever put it there: not sure if it's really WIGO-worthy. He's done this a lot, and it just furthers the fact he is batshit insane. ENorman 19:38, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I know, and I agree that the WIGO-worthiness is debatable because Ken is... well... Ken. I usually try not to WIGO his antics too much, but the sheer "No freaking duh?" value of this one caused me to make an exception :P --Sid 22:36, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Has he ever followed one of these items up with specifics? He's constantly citing mysterious, shadowy organisations who are preparing to step up their attacks on atheism/homosexuality/evolution but as far as I can remember he has never posted anything about any concrete result of these machinations. The only conclusions it would seem possible to draw is that he's just making it all up, and all his "operations" exist only in his mind, or that the organisations he plots with are about as effective as the tooting popular front. --JeevesMkII 03:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)
The only times he's ever mentioned an actual organization backing his stuff, they've turned out to be a huge disappointment with less web presence than CP itself. Blogs, Concerned Women of America, etc. The Dumbski link was pretty much the pinnacle of his achievement, but he lost that one in the end. Probably because someone at the other end read it. --Kels 06:16, 6 February 2009 (EST)

About Ken...[edit]

I've only been laughing at Conservapedia since Aug 08, but throughout all these past 6 months Ken has been claiming that the new wave of creationist material is about to hit us. I know he's often vague, but I remember that he specifically stated that this wave would hit us in December, and then in February, and now in March. So I have two questions:

1. How long has Ken been warning us about our fast approaching mass-conversion in the face of overwhelming evidence? Just the past six months? A year? More than that?

2. How long do you think it will be until it all falls apart? i.e Ken just shuts up about it or someone finally bursts his bubble for good? Surely if Conservapedia's still around in 2011 he wouldn't still be there posting videos of animals that metaphorically represent the stacks of new creationist "research" that's soon to disprove all our claims?

Really interested in the answers to these two.

N.B I don't have to ask whether or not this new material will ever arrive because we all know the answer to that one. Bil08 21:56, 5 February 2009 (EST)

  1. At least 18 months (but years if you include elsewhere than CP)
  2. Never
Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 22:03, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Yup, Toast pretty much nailed it. Ken's been trolling on various forums before Andy had founded CP, and he will never stop. Especially because Andy is protecting him. Whenever someone brings up Ken's trolling ("MOAR HITLER", "Dear Gentlemen", "Something may or may not happen somewhere within the next months", etc.) and corners Ken, Andy steps in and declares that nobody is allowed to voice criticism until they have at least x% of Ken's contribs, which (thanks to Ken practically NEVER using the Preview button and constantly shuffling around and tweaking things on his pet articles) basically equates fifty million. Of course, Andy will assume that 100% of Ken's contribs are substantial and insightful while anybody who complains is a Dirty Liberal who will never contribute anything of substance. So nobody will be able to burst his bubble, and Ken's only reaction will be "LOL, I hit a nerve! Look at how the atheists are squirming! *inserts bullfight image* Do you know who else always complained? Hitler! *inserts Hitler image*" --Sid 22:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)
So is Kenny a Parodist, or just batshit insane like I think he is? ENorman 22:19, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Right second time. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 22:23, 5 February 2009 (EST)
I think Ken has been doing this for over a year. As RW's article says, his style often includes (1) Apparent indifference to ridicule, (2) Announcing "exciting new developments" or "major developments" expected in relation to his pet articles and (3) Finishing a sentence with more than one exclamation mark, the sure sign of a diseased mind. Therefore, Kenny will be deluding himself until the end of the internet, because if Conservapedia disappears, he'll still be around forums and the like, preaching his usual crap. That's a CP sysop. JJ4eI christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot 22:22, 5 February 2009 (EST)

I'm fed up of telling people: KEN'S GOT A MENTAL AGE OF 10 (a retarded 10, at that) Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 22:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Then don't. ENorman 22:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)

It may well have been going on for longer but the first big headline act I recall was the "Ides of March" last year. Try the 11th bullet point here. Matt 05:15, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Speaking of which, I hope by now you've all got the email about this year's Ides of March? If you've glanced over the plan, you'll understand when I say "it's going to wreak havoc". We'll keep you updated as the project develops. DogP 14:22, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Dear gentletwat, redux.[edit]

Ken, in your latest gentlemen you challenge us to show one of your predictions was wrong. You said this:


Well, really we're spoilt for choice because none of your predictions ever come true. All your hot air has never, ever produced any concrete result. Here's just one example I could find screenshot evidence for:

Ken-grassroots and fortesses.png

So on or about the end of September 2008 you predicted that "operation grassroots" would "significantly" increase the traffic to the evolution article. Has it? Well, thanks to your obsessive running stats, we can check that prediction. Here's the graph for the relevant time period:


Oh dear, no growth at all... perhaps even a slight drop off. I guess you were full of shit, weren't you. I believe that's what the kids these days call pwnage. --JeevesMkII 04:29, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Good effort Jeeves. StarFish 04:35, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Nice! Reminds me of Andy's claim: By this Thursday there will be dozens of homeworks posted by other students in the course. Now, the day after said Thursday, there are eleven homeworks posted - not even one dozen! --l'arronsicut fur in nocte 04:56, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Hey Ken. I'm not so partisan I can't recognise hard work when I see it. I have to congratulate you on your Google rankings. It takes hard work and you get pretty good rankings for the searches you suggest. Some better than others, but on balance pretty good. But the articles themselves are truly rubbish. Utter garbage. As has been demonstrated above your Google rankings are not being converted into page views. While we're talking about Google searches I just tried Googling your name. You know, just for fun. And fun it was! How does it feel to be the laughing stock of the internet? The pages returned are nothing short of hilarious! Seriously, how does it feel? Ken the whole world is laughing at you. Really laughing. StarFish 05:35, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Now, now. That's not really fair you know. Some of us are pitying him. And laughing. Mostly laughing. --Kels 06:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)
It's weird though ins't it? It's like he is so desperate for attention he trolls all over the place (including trolling us). I sometimes think his articles on CP are just trolling too, he is so desperate for attention. It reminds me of the famous Rodney Dangerfield quote "If it wasn't for pickpockets I wouldn't have any sex life at all." Well if it wasn't for people laughing at him Ken wouldn't get any attention at all. Ken wake up. It's a beauitful world. Life is precious. You have some skills and you're obviously good with Google rankings (although I would leave the actual writing of the articles to someone else. I meen anyone. A small child even. Or a dog.) The world doesn't hate you. StarFish 06:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Actually maybe I've been a bit unfair. Credit where it's due. His articles are intellectual deserts - fucking funny though. StarFish 06:41, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Aside: when did Ken start gentlemanning? It's hilarious but I haven't been a WIGO fan long enough to know the origins. Also, what does (EC) mean? I get the feeling it means Earlier Comment, judging by how it's used... -- Gurp.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
EC means Edit Conflict. When two people edit at once the mediawiki software gives a warning. Its actually really annoying. StarFish 10:25, 6 February 2009 (EST)
As every Gentleman page has been memory-holed you need to check Ken's deletion log. This shows all of his user pages which he has deleted or restored. It' seems to have started the moment that he was made a sysop in March 2007. Redchuck.gif Генгисmarauding 12:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)
As I recall, the actual "Gentlemen" shout-outs started a little while after he stopped posting here as Newton, presumably because he realized that posting links here didn't increase his Google ranking. So he laboured in silence for a bit, until he realized nobody was paying attention to him at CP, so he started begging for RW's attention instead. He's a very needy man. --Kels 18:19, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Looking at the deletion log the first was that IDES-OF-MARCH on early last year. - User 19:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Googling your pet subjects[edit]

I Googled (au) your pet subjects

  • Evolution 17 (got a pile of pro-evolution material first)
  • Theory of evolution 4 (not bad)
  • Evolutionary theory 13 (still a pile of pro material first)
  • Atheism 4 (again not bad)
  • Homosexuality - I couldn't find it after 15 pages before I gave up. Not impressed at all Ken. Update: You have climbed back to 24 well done.

Keep trying harder. - User 00:25, 7 February 2009 (EST)

DeniseM, Bible retranslation, world history and common sense[edit]

It seems that Andy is none too pleased with DeniseM injecting a large dose of common sense into the Bible Retranslation Project (see [2]). He reverts her without addressing her obvious counterexample of the tricky word "and". He's also getting pretty pissed with her criticism of his history lectures [3].

Worth watching, but unfortunately this is what passes for entertainment in these post-Bugler days. JoeDuffy 10:35, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I saw that and updated the WIGO. I dunno, I think it could be amusing to watch the seeds of dissent and dissillusionment spread around some of Andy's previously most trsuted editors, especially one so important to his Saint Andy Bible Project purge of liberalism from the Good Book. EddyP 10:44, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I've only been half-watching DeniseM's edits but from what I have she seen has a vastly superior intellect to Andy. And she seems to know what she is talking about. Why on earth is she even contributing? It's a bizarre situation, almost like a professor taking instruction from a 6 year old. JoeDuffy 10:50, 6 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) "Denise, your edits both on this page and elsewhere appear increasingly biased to me." Yeah, Andy, biased towards accuracy and truth. ToastToastand marmite 10:52, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Moar: "Bias is not allowed here" Coffee spray.gif ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ secret trainer of stool samples!
I thought being "biased to me" was what Andys like best. 18:55, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Pondweed has a superior intellect to Andy. Pseudomonas 11:12, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I've been looking more closely at the Bible Retranslation Project. I'm sure that this has been WIGO'd before but I can't wait to read the new version of the bible where the apostles are homeschooled [4]. JoeDuffy 11:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Do you mean where the apostle John was home schooled by Jesus personally. 18:55, 6 February 2009 (EST)

How long and this dialogue will be gone, wiped from memory? We should try to preserve it for posterity - perhaps someone can keep an eye on it? As I did with this one? --l'arronsicut fur in nocte 11:38, 6 February 2009 (EST)

No you can't improve our encyclopedia[edit]

It's hilarious how CP editing is still locked, at I believe 12 noon and counting Andytime. My, they are getting forgetful.

Plus we know they all read this page - what's the betting it gets unlocked in the next 15 minutes?--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 12:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)

you lost your bet - as I stated above, Andy isn't interested in the contributions of common editors... l'arronsicut fur in nocte 12:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)
These guys are on to something with this night mode thing. Neveruse513 12:57, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Countdown to CP News[edit]

This discussion was moved to Saloon bar.

Obama running late[edit]

Why don't they just call it Colored People's time and be done with it? Don't they realize the historically racist context of that type of statement? Stile4aly 17:44, 6 February 2009 (EST)

No, of course they don't. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'is a puerile idiot' 18:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)
He's probably running late for photo ops because he's actually doing work, unlike his famously lazy predecessor. --Kels 19:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Why you evil librul! --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'is a puerile idiot' 19:06, 6 February 2009 (EST)

...and? --Kels 19:15, 6 February 2009 (EST)

"I do so apologize that I am not editing as quickly as you wish!"[edit]

(IMHO a bit too long for WIGO, but if you guys disagree or know of a good way to shorten it a bit, feel free to proceed. I'll be away for a while and/or the rest of the night.)

Oh, TK... sarcasm isn't really appropriate when you leave an article hanging in mid-sentence for a freaking HOUR. An hour during which you uploaded pictures, added a news item and created an article. (Note that I said "created" and not "wrote" because this is still TK we're talking about.) --Sid 19:19, 6 February 2009 (EST)

So TK doesn't take his own advice about paste-eating. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:38, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry ...[edit]

... but I couldn't read more than a couple of paragraphs of this. Would someone give me a synopsis please. ToastToastand marmite 22:32, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Christianity can't be very healthy if it needs to keep getting revived all the time. --Kels 22:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Just going by a quick scan, what it seems to be basically saying is that Christianity hasn't had a facelift in a while, and is looking a bit past it, so it's time for it to go to the plastic surgeon again to try to fake youthfulness and relevancy for a bit longer, even though it's had that many facelifts, that mole on it's cheek is actually a nipple. Zmidponk 23:46, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(ec) It's an interesting read, actually. Somewhat on the weird side because of slogans like "The style of Barack Obama, the substance of the Gospel, and the media genius of Disney" (Yes, he likes the style of Obama. Yes, the same style Andy calls Mind Control, apparently. Kinda makes you go "Hmmmm...", doesn't it?), and quite fascinating because he suggests (at least) two things that IMHO completely go against CP's current style:
  1. Inclusivism is the tendency to include everything unless it is explicitly opposed to Christianity, Catholicism, etc. Thus, exclusivism is "anything not explicitly Christian is bad," while inclusivism is "anything not explicitly anti-Christian is good." I believe that inclusivism must govern the Awakening.
  2. Most importantly among concepts, the future Awakening is not, is not, and once again is not going to be fire and brimstone. Like the Jesus Movement, the driving force, the "mission statement," if there must be one, is going to be salvation and conversion, from a positive view. The mission statement that comes to mind is "Out of the darkness."
Yeah, sorry, Ken and Andy. Maybe it's time to reconsider the entire "Evolution = Hitler" approach. Not to mention the whole "I would convert the faithless by reminding them of Eternal Damnation in Hell!" gig. Oh, and the "Anything not ultra-rightwing-conservative-Christian is liberal and thus EVIL!" view that CP is pretty much based on.
I dunno, though. The entire thing sorta rubbed me the wrong way for various reasons. Especially in the way that Kels (and now Zmidponk) mentioned: It's kinda weird to cite the need/desire for a "revival". It comes oddly close to admitting that Christianity isn't doing very well out there. Hm.
I may give this some more thought tomorrow, but right now (with "right now" being almost 6am, FFS) I'm not overly impressed by a plan that basically seems to grind down to "Advertise a lot, hope for media attention and then preach about salvation". The question of what would be a good plan to make more people believe might be an interesting one, though. Thinking about it, I'm sure that any answer would seriously piss off Andy and his "The Bible needs to be even more conservative! Let us distance ourselves more and more from anybody who isn't exactly like us!" mentality. I think the "Preach salvation, not damnation" approach goes in the right direction, but the framework around it looks like simple spam. But eh, I'm tired. So maybe I'm just missing some brilliant aspect here. We'll see, maybe. Goodnight. *thud* Zzzzzzzz... --Sid 00:00, 7 February 2009 (EST)
It should be noted that at least around where I am a good majority of the people do the Inclusivism and "salvation not damnation" approach. The Exclusive fire-and-brimstone types are just louder. ENorman 00:55, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Hallelujah! There's more: "And so let us pray, let us hope, let us believe, let us love, let us be absolutely certain that the power to renew the faith and transform our world lies in us, through Christ. Let us pray that He will guide us and unite us and employ us in building and renewing His Church. And let us say, let us pray, with confidence and faith and absolute and loving submission to our Lord and Savior, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”" I really feel sorry for these people, so dependent on a supernatural "saviour" to put all things to right, What's wrong with doing it ourselves? Can we do it? Yes we can. ToastToastand marmite 14:04, 8 February 2009 (EST)


What the fuck are you doing? These are students homework. Why do they need to be de-deadended? - User 00:10, 7 February 2009 (EST)

He's probably just trying to clear up the Dead-end pages list. Or do the homeworks not show up on it anyway? FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 01:16, 7 February 2009 (EST)
I don't doubt it shows up on it, but tapering with the homework just because you don't want a dead end list is a little dodgy, besides it is the students work, it might be on the encyclopaedia but it really should not be touched by anyone other than Andy and his students. - User 01:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)
I believe that she is one of his students. Refugeetalk page 02:12, 7 February 2009 (EST)
That is only slightly less dumb of a thing to do correcting all your fellow students. - User 02:28, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Since Andy never created another space, the lectures and homeworks are technically articles. Scary. DickTurpis 09:57, 7 February 2009 (EST)


Ed doesn't like cp:Jack the Ripper referring to the murdered women as prostitutes because he's had got children and finds it "lurid". How about the comment just below that: "Mary Jane Kelly, born 1863, murdered 9 November, 1888. She was the only the victim to be murdered indoors and upon whom the Ripper spent a considerable amount of time." --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I love it when CP gets on its Puritan track. Especially when it bowdlerizes historically relevant information in an effort to "Think of the children." --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 06:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Except when they need to a typical Religious Right talking point, in which case no detail is spared. - User 06:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Hypocritical Puritans are the best kind. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 07:01, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Putting the bit about cp:Homosexuality in just made it WIGO-worthy methinks. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:50, 7 February 2009 (EST)
<imitating exceptionally weird conservative>Who cares? They were evil prostitutes!</imitating conservative> --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor'is a puerile idiot' 09:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Actually, that's true in a way. Jack comes along, kills them horribly, and then to add insult to injury the Kind And Loving Godtm tosses them in eternal hellfire because they were sinners to start with. Just can't win. --Kels 10:17, 7 February 2009 (EST)
"Don't make it so lurid" - this coming from the guy who, not so long ago, was enthusing about the details of Nazis raping one hundred boys a day. Also, Ed has kids? I don't remember him mentioning that before. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Even worse, he was enthusing about one Nazi raping all those boys. Impressed by his work ethic, no doubt. --Kels 10:49, 7 February 2009 (EST)
<obscure science fiction TV show reference>I wonder what Nicolas Tesla has to say to John Druitt about this. "CURtalk 10:30, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Wtf.gif Nikola Tesla was a vampire?? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:36, 7 February 2009 (EST)
I vant to suck vour blood! -Nikola

Obviously Ed learned sourcing from Andy. You're on the wrong wiki for that stuff, Ed! --Kels 10:11, 7 February 2009 (EST)

God Ed loves himself. - User 19:16, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Just to go off on a bit of a tangent here, I do like one hypothesis I heard put forward for Jack's motive for killing all those prostitutes - he was trying to locate the soul. The reason he concentrated on prostitutes was that the metaphorical staining of the soul done by sinning translated into a physical staining of the soul, and thus prostitutes' souls should be very dark, and therefore easier to find. According to this, it also explains why Mary Kelly, who was more or less given a very crude, but complete, dissection, was the last victim - he had tried as hard as possible with her to find the soul, failed, and therefore gave up. Zmidponk 15:29, 7 February 2009 (EST)