Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive118

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>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <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)

New study on evolution by the Université de Montréal

Hi guys

I have been a fan for a while, I thought I’d join the fun after reading this today: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/20/ribosome.html . I wonder if there might be a new “Lenski incident” in the making here. I mean my understanding of molecular biology is limited (to put it generously) but did this not just prove that life can evolve without the actions of a supreme being?

Bonus points if you can figure out the science in question.

Of course it proves nothing of the existence (or lack thereof) of God, Allah or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but it should be hard for YECs to find a way out of this one. Well probably not, I mean they will likely assign this to one more example of God putting false clues to misguide his beloved children into going to Hell… ^{— Unsigned, by: MortSubite / talk / contribs}

If only it were so, all that happens is they get backed further and further into a corner each time scientists come out with such discoveries, and so they become ever more ridiculous in their opposition to them. Jammy 11:25, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Science: It Works, Bitches. --Gulik 13:54, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I can't be the only one who thinks that it must take a certain lack of imagination for anyone to insist a creator must be at the heart of it all. Madeleinebiscuits 18:24, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I say we use Gulik's response as our official motto. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:42, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It would be great, if it weren't stolen from xkcd. Bastard bastard Hoover! 03:01, 22 February 2009 (EST)

AHEM. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 157!

Sorry to say, I know EXACTLY how they'll answer this. They'll fall back on the old teleological argument of "universal laws inherently infer a universal 'Law-giver'" (i.e., who gave the rules for the proteins to follow?). See HEAR for MOAR. The Foxhole Atheist 13:05, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Geo shuts down the abuse page

What do you think guys, was TK behind this? 71.193.205.16 01:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

• "carefully and professionally"
• "efficient, effective, or businesslike"
• "try to see things from the other side's point of view"
• "Do not rant"
• "hold it in the strictest confidence"

He appears to have compiled a list of everything CP sucks at and smooshed it all into a pontificating rant. I'm sure this works in their favor, now they can honestly claim that nobody ever complains about abuse! As for emailing a CP sysop with a problem, I'm sure nothing bad has ever come from email conversations with TK, and I'd feel very comfortable giving Andy my email addy so he can contact my ISP/employer (in a confidential way, of course). -Redback^{OMG, someone get the Raid!} 02:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

To quote Dilbert: "Does it work?" "I haven't listened to a single complaint." --Gulik 03:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

There were no new entry on the abuse page since Dec 19th, 2008. Shortly before, TK had stated that he is the only one who knows how the abuse page is intended to work. As most of those common editors who commented on this page are banned now, it worked quite well, I suppose. But I'd like to quote one of the last entries:

“”If you want to have good contributions to this site, you have to care for a pleasant working environment. That is especially important as all the workers here are volunteers. A main point in such an environment is the fair treatment of all serious contributors.

For TK, the premise is false. An Aschlafly isn't interested in anyone outside of his posse of home-schoolers. So, we'll view less and less volunteers at CP. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'm sure that most blocks now have email disabled, so that it makes it impossible to complain without using another account, which is of course a blockable offence. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, LArron could you check that out? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'll check it out - but the findings will be no surprise, having a look at this advice of TK:

When blocking someone where there isn't any question about their intent to vandalize or insert liberal hooey, please make sure you check the disable email link, okay? This would not be for someone you block for a day or week, but those which there can be no doubt. Thanks! :-) --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 18:37, 16 February 2009 (EST)

As vandalizing can mean as much as talking back to TK, it's legit to have the email disabled for most of the blocked users. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 04:50, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Worse, you're not supposed to mail a CP sysop, but rather the other party, which will be the asshole who slapped you around. Wonderful, I just got up 15 minutes ago, and I'm already fuming. There'd better be a damn good Sunday Insight today to make up for this... --Sid 06:14, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Blocks at CP	Blocks at CP since June, 2008
Blocks made by TK	e-mail blockers

Just a quick overview of the blocks with email enabled option vs. those with email disabled...

• The first time, the email disabled feature was used was on June 17th, 2008 by Aschlafly himself:

10:29, 17 June 2008 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Berat1234 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (bye)

• TK uses this feature since January 2009. Virtually every of his newer blocks has the email turned off
• As he encourages other sysops/blockees to follow his lead, this deplorable custom will spread
• The diagrams only include blocks of editors, not of IPs or IP-ranges

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

BTW, Aschlafly used the feature only twice, the other time against a certain Aschlaflie. OTOH, Aschlafly can't be contacted via email, so it's a moot point for him: He never gets any complaints... --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Which all shows what a barefaced liar TKunt is - he's the first to claim 'Oh, but I've unblocked more people here than anybody", "and I'm the most reasonable", 'and only 5% of those I block complain". No wonder. All that's left is for him to block the last 20 editors on CP, get crat status and kick off the sysops and CP will be at an end. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Kicking everyone off the wiki would be suicide, and TK knows it. Andy would just have to ask PhilipB to sort it out and then block TK for good. Bastard bastard Hoover! 08:46, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Implications

Image backup since it has been deleted

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Implications Anyone think this will go anywhere? Adding the Hitler picture might have been a step too far. Broccoli 06:11, 22 February 2009 (EST)

...yeah, this might hurt. *checks who made the article in question* OH YES, IT WILL HURT. --Sid 06:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Strange... it seems to have slipped through the grid. How long will CP tolerate this? The user only makes it worse by asking not to be blocked. Broccoli 06:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

TK smelled blood. Rony's "Hathor" article has already gone the way of the Dodo... and now his talk page... and now he has been banned for trolling. --Sid 07:03, 22 February 2009 (EST)

...and now he got his own rangeblock. --Sid 07:04, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, and his mail was blocked, so no chance to appeal. --Sid 07:05, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And now all common sense has left TK as he has deleted ED'S ARTICLE. --Sid 07:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Whoa! Hey - TKunt, what was your motivation for deleting a Senior Admin's (and certified wiki idiot genius') article? Surely, not the fact that we commentated on it surely. Hell, you didn't like when people just moved Ed'd articles to essay space and now you delete them. pass the popcorn somebody. maybe we should mock cp:Atheism next? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:15, 22 February 2009 (EST)

It seems that TK's on a Hate Trip against anything that RonyB ever touched yesterday. Popcorn time indeed. --Sid 07:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And it's back. You're welcome, Terry. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:03, 22 February 2009 (EST)

But the talk page has been selectively deleted: The only edit is TK's blanking, making for a VERY odd page history. Lemme see if I can cache-grab it... --Sid 08:39, 22 February 2009 (EST)

World History Homework 5

Nice to see Andy's got his priorities sorted when it comes to writing the homework questions. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Wasn't that inspired my one of the new homeworks he "corrected" yesterday? I think some student mentioned the "faith" of people of another religion, and Andy went all "Good point, but I wouldn't use the term faith because that's a Christian-only concept". --Sid 08:29, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Of Xianity is the only religion that requires faith. How else are you going to believe in 3 people being 1, the universe being 6000 years old, but thanks to a time vortex we have stars billions of LY away, dinosaurs walked with jebus, kiwi walked from Turkey to New Zealand, etc, etc, etc. Only faith can have you believing that stuff. or LSD. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:52, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Perfect Homework Answers

I got as far as "it could be argued the zero is unnecessary" then I gave up. yes Andy we could have sent a man to the moon in MCMDIIX, but not without the zero, trust me. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:43, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I love the answer to the Sun Tzu question and Andy's reaction. It made my Irony Meter explode. --Sid 08:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Clueless, thy name is Schlafly. (PS Lovely answer student 7 - now if only the sysops would take note.) PS Could the Chinese ve the new Vikings - sailing to America before the Christians. *stay tuned for developments* --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:05, 22 February 2009 (EST)

"Buddhists believe that the creator is Buddha." "Excellent answer." This finally demonstrates that Andy is among the worst people ever to allow to teach your children. Bastard bastard Hoover! 09:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

He said what? --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 19:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Pedantic note: I doubt we could have sent a man to the moon before developing the Saturn V booster... ħuman 19:01, 22 February 2009 (EST)

"it could be argued the zero is unnecessary"????? I weep openly. Just compare adding MMMMMLXXXII and MMMMMMMXXXVII to adding 5082 and 7037 and tell me zero is "unnecessary". (Yeah, its possible. But its painful.) Heck, decimals aren't possible without zero. I suppose fractions are possible, and I'm pretty sure at least some ancient cultures had the concept of fractions, but I don't know how common it was to work with fractions mathematically (such as adding I/II to I/III, as opposed to just saying "looks like about I/II pounds of salt there, Gaius"). Yeah, I know Andy is an attorney, and the math he needs to know doesn't extend beyond the difficulty of balancing a checkbook, but geez.... MDB 09:40, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Wait just a gol-durn minute -- Andy may be an attorney, but he has a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical freakin' Engineering! I invite him to try to analyze an RLC circuit without using zero. MDB 09:54, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The Egyptians did fractions without zero. A given fraction was the sum of distinct reciprocals. For example, 2/3 would be written not as 1/3 + 1/3 (not distinct) but rather 1/2 + 1/6. If you like the math, give [1] a read. --Shagie 17:45, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I gotta hand it to PJR...

...he's not a decent human being, but he is good at poking things with a stick. And you gotta respect that. TheoryOfPractice 09:28, 22 February 2009 (EST)

perfect gentleman, including the obligatory eccentricities, i.e., YEC... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:31, 22 February 2009 (EST)

...hijacking Auschwitz to score political points...TheoryOfPractice 09:32, 22 February 2009 (EST)

....and he gets owned by TK. How does that taste, Phillip? TheoryOfPractice 12:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Why CP will never work.

Andy's answer to RJJ says it all really: "Interesting, and thanks for the historical insights. But I think Hitler did believe in survival of the fittest". Screw the evidence, this is what I believe, so it's right, lalalala can't hear you. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Mengele got a Ph.D. in Darwinism? And the discussion has now reached the next phase:

CP Hive Mind: "Hitler was influenced by Darwin!"

RJJ: "No, he wasn't!"

CP: "Yes he was! See these quotes!"

RJJ: "The people you quote know shit about Hitler. If you actually looked at the material, you'd see that Hitler wasn't a Darwinist."

Andy: "Hm. WELL, ANYWAY... let's not talk so much about Hitler (even though he totally is a Darwinist, of course), but rather look at various people under him! Betcha can't prove that they weren't Darwinists, huh?"

Is it just me, or is CP extra crazy today? It's not even 10am there, and we got enough WTF to last for a full day. --Sid 09:48, 22 February 2009 (EST)

It looks like Andy has finished his pre-church editing. Only two hours to go until the next Sunday essay/insight/mystery. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:51, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Not to mention Andy is incorrect on his point regarding Mengele's Ph.D which was enititled: Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups and does not seem to have had anything to do with evolution, it was just a bunch of racist pseudo-science. Jammy 09:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Well, using a little bit of circular reasoning, they could say that racism was inspired by Darwin, so Mengele's Ph.D. is indeed about Darwinism in a way, so Mengele was influenced by Darwin, so Nazi Germany was inspired by Darwin, so racism was inspired by Darwin. Ta-da! --Sid 10:09, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And Andy's claim that Hitler's personal views didn't shape the Nazi government?!....how wrong can he be in just one paragraph?! Jammy 10:14, 22 February 2009 (EST)

He's still making a go for that SES application. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Hitler was just a liberal pawn, of course. But in reality, Hitler was inspired by a guy in Missoura. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 10:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And that guy was Darwin's parrot. Etc 14:29, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Libel

Please, please notice, Democratic governer, and sue them. Please. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 09:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And don't get Andy to defend you in court. Jammy 09:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

No, no, do get Andy to defend you in court. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 10:01, 22 February 2009 (EST)

A little e-mail in said guvnor's direction, could help matters along. Altho he'd be more likely to sue WND. Still, I've said it before - I'd buy a plane ticket to see Andy get pwnd in court. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

So who is going to e-mail him? --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 10:15, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And Andy removes it.... What a cowardly sack of shit... Lets get that Boxing Tourny set up....... Anyone know Andy's Email address? I'll put the challenge out there. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 16:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

While I'm no fan of punching people in the face (not even Andy!), you'll find his mail address on cp:Conservapedia:DMCA Agent. --Sid 19:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Lord of the AssFlies

Lovely new article about a classic piece of literature, and already they've got it wrong, it was NOT set in World War II. Jammy 10:01, 22 February 2009 (EST)

You're welcome JessicaT Jammy 10:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Countdown until being perma-banned for reading an 'enemy site': 3. . . . 2 . . . . 1. . . . BOOM! AAAAND REVERT!--"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 10:25, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, but Jessica T...you've still left one reference to World War II in there.....countdown to edit.... Jammy 10:28, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Where've you been CUR? The lovely Jessica is one of CP's goon squad. Which just goes to show that even really nice people can be sadly deluded too. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:31, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, and so was Bugler and RodWeathers. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 10:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, this is fun! Do we secretly control CP then? :D Jammy 10:40, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Beware people! You never no when TK will ban you! --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 11:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Mr TK, Mr TK!!! JessicaT was copying me! Jammy 11:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And for the second time today, we cause TK to go wild:

(Deletion log); 13:06 . . TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "Lord of the Flies" (Vandalism / parody: Obviously a work of liberal parodist/troll/vandal, anti Christian)

At this rate, I won't even need a Sunday Insight! :D --Sid 13:11, 22 February 2009 (EST)

• bangs head on desk* How the hell is that obviously liberal parody? And how long until you ban Jessica? Do it, TK, do it! --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 13:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

In an encyclopedia aiming at high-school pupils, I'd expect lots of reviews of great books, like Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye. You know, these books teachers ask you to read, not only Lord of the Rings. But if you want to protect these sites from being recreated, that's fine with me, too. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I can haz crabburger?

this image has been placed here for no particular reason. Feel free to remove it. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 13:36, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Woooooow, except for the WWII thing it looked to be completely accurate. TK way overreacted. FernoKlump^{Mr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition!} 14:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)

A looooong time ago I used to compare people to Lord of the Flies characters - I wonder how that would work with the CPers? Totnesmartin 14:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Homework

Not to mention the rather dodgy sense of humour of student 9 and his/her teacher...is Andy actually editing their homework and then marking it? It seems there were a couple of grammatical/spelling errors in the original which Andy changed before grading [2] Jammy 10:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Buddhism is less moral, therefore requires less work? What? --Kels 11:30, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Grade inflation? What's that? Great work, by the way, 95%! --Kels 13:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I love the part about Buddhism being "less moral", I think I saw the same phrasing somewhere in the lectures as well. Another gem is the 7b question in CP:World History Homework Three: The Silk Road established and developed during the Han dynasty was similar in some ways to the internet today.

Andy, that's an assertion, not a question. Your brainwashing techniques are showing. Etc 14:25, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Andy slips up when responding to this student: "H3. If God is in control then Christianity will still be at the top."

Andy: "Good point."

Who wants to bet that if Christianity falls in popularity Andypants will reject logic and still believe in the existence of god?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:39, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Andy the teacher. So when a student very incorrectly says that Buddhism believes Buddha is the creator, andy says nothing. does he really not know anything? --En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 16:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)

If WND or the Eagle Forum don't have an article about it, then no, Andy does not know it. --Sid 16:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Which brings up the obvious question of who was "in control" when Judea was a backwater province of the Glorious Roman Empire, and Christians were either dangerous subversives or lion chow. --Gulik 17:04, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Gentleman PJR

Don't know if anyone's noticed (at least nobody's commented), but PJR's posted a lengthy reply to us over at his talk page. Far as I can see, it's mostly him trying to defend his use of LiarsOnTheWeb.com and generally getting his back up about the folks here. Particularly me, for some reason, even though I wasn't that major a part of the above discussions. Guess he doesn't like me. --Kels 11:00, 22 February 2009 (EST)

"coming from someone obviously hates creationists!" I don't hate creationists, I hate it when people use one of the worst tragedies in human history to advance their loony agenda. "It's not really my intelligence (for example) that they have a problem with. It's my views. Yet they impugn my intelligence because they disagree with my views." Because your views are stupid. And stupid is as stupid believes, I'm afraid. TheoryOfPractice 11:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)

(undent for lazy formatting) I, for one, am getting a bit bored with PJR's tiresome and baroque red telephone messages. He really misses the three very obvious objections I think a lot of us have to his POVs as expressed over there in the "midden." Here they are:

1. His insistence of the priviledge of evidence from the bible and sources that follow the bible is irrational (see the name of this site for why that might be problematic for some of us) and effectively wall off meaningful discussion on the topic(why it is problematic in general). This, by the way, is a trait of conspiracy theorists who claim a special relationship with evidence and clearer view of the truth than common folk.
2. The aborrant suggestion that people whose life styles he disagrees with (and whom his "special evidence" defines as amoral and perhaps evil) should be sanctioned for the sake of thier souls. PJR has suggested this ideally should be a function of government. Thus, the aborrence.
3. The most obvious, his contribution and support for the slew of hateful, distructive, and false crap (PJR's nicely put this as "objectionable") that Andy and his merry band of cronies spew forth. Given the nominal audience for CP (kids) and his stated awareness of this "objectionable" material, it smacks frankly of child abuse. PJR has let us know that he knows better.

Note also that his red telephone conversations are almost purely vanity projects, a rough equivilent to drunken dialing, and to my mind quite contrary to the "rules" of CP and likely harmful to its stated mission-- quite apart from how the site actually functions.

HI PJR: Unless you change your ways, it is obvious that you are going to be drummed out of CP. Once that happens come to this site and admit that your worldview is founded on faith, a faith based solely on an absurdly specific myth (of tangled and uncertain provenance) that includes a great many events which are probably impossible (and thus probably did not happen). Admit also that the root of the reason you have faith in this absurd story is your arrogance and your selfish, umoored desire to belong to some totality. Admit this exactly,and here-- none of your weasel words from behind the current-- or lose whatever is left of your credibility. That is my writing project to you. Please include at least three references to various species of goats in your reply. Enough of this endless talk, talk, talk. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 12:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Sheesh (if that is your real name), you failed to pick up on the absurdities of PJR's name and failed to tell him to open his mind also. 9999/10000. Opening your mind in the future may produce better results. Godspeed. EddyP 12:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps of more danger would be if PJR ran his own 'Conservapedia' - shorn of the narrow straitjacket of the bible re-writer AS and cronies. Otherwise the current Conservapedia is doing its best to discredit the very word 'Conservative' - as it seems to bar everyone except themselves from the 'communion'. In other words they are behaving like a religious/political sect . But then I have wondered what would happen to Rationwiki if the toothless/witless paper tiger of Conservapedia disappeared and a more formidable religious/political foe appeared.--Rovander 13:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I doubt I'd call it dangerous or anything like that. If anything, it would just be a LiarsOnTheWeb mirror with a bit broader focus, nothing to terribly get excited over. All the same refutations would still apply, and unless he did the whole thing himself, it would still attract a lot of the same sort of loons like Ken. --Kels 13:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I really don't think you can adequately attribute PJR's lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory and consequent purposeful misunderstanding of it, its claims, the evidence supporting those claims, or the nature and practice of science to his being a person of strong faith or theism. I know a great number of theists of various stripes with strong belief in various mythic worldviews who have no problem with evolution. Indeed, I work in a lab that studies evolution, and there have been a number of workers in the lab both currently and in the past who were theists. A number of them were devout Christians. None of them had difficulties with evolution or any portion of science. The problem is not faith or religious belief. The problem is a matter of how you view the relationship between your faith and the universe, and the degree of certainty you feel necessary for your faith, as well as your humility in your faith. Those Christians, for instance, who have no trouble harmonizing their faith with the findings of science, generally accept that the Bible is a human work that, even if divinely inspired, bears the mark of being human work, and regardless should not be read as a text intended to be read literally (the dominant theme of all religious texts is that they are dominantly metaphorical, as they are intended to describe that which, by its very nature, cannot be described literally). Further, they accept that, by their faith, the universe must be the direct work (in a sense) of their god. If the universe is found to be a given way, but a particular reading of the Bible says it must be otherwise, they don't assume that the universe is wrong, and don't try to find post hoc explanations to explain how the universe actually harmonizes with that particular reading of the Bible. Instead, they assume that particular reading of the Bible must be in error, and adjust their reading of it. This is an act of humility. Therein lies the difference. Both the Christians of whom I speak with not problem with science and PJR would likely agree that the Bible carries divine truth. They diverge in their humility and in what direction they point their harmonizing post hoc explanations. PJR and his sort take the arrogant position that they know without a doubt the correct way to read the Bible so as to have absolute understanding of its divine truth, decide that all findings in conflict with that interpretation are incorrect, and use post hoc explanations to make the universe harmonize with that interpretation. Others are humble, assume they cannot know absolutely the correct interpretation of the Bible, accept findings that might be in conflict with a particular interpretation, and then use post hoc explanations to make it so that their understanding of the Bible harmonizes with those findings. Now if you can attack the science-accepting Christians and other theists if you wish, but I think they are quite different from PJR and other literalists (I have never heard them ever be so cavalier with reference to the Holocaust, Hitler, or any other tragedies, for instance, and I think they deserve some respect for never denigrating their deity for the sake of their interpretation of their holy book, while PJR has no problem with that), and should be acknowledged as such. You can also argue with the use of post hoc explanations. Sure, they are a big no no in science (unless you then form new predictions based on them and test those independently of the data used to construct the post hoc explanation), but religion is not science and should not be understood or judged the same way. Indeed, I think one of the other problems that PJR and those like him have is that they don't understand this. Anyway, those are my two cents. Cheers! Kaalis 13:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Paragraphs, my child, paragraphs. 13:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry I'm still new at this. Kaalis 13:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

To give an example of religious humility of the sort I was talking about above, I once asked a Hindu co-worker about her belief in reincarnation. She proceeded to give me ten minute long answer describing the concept of reincarnation in Hinduism, and how important it is to the religion. When she was done, she smiled and said,"But we could be wrong, and that is okay." I have a doubt that PJR has ever said that he "might be wrong" in his interpretation of anything pertaining to his religious views. I find it all very interesting because the sense I get from reading about religion and talking to religious people is that such certainty kills religion. Kaalis 13:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)

(EC)That reminds me of the too-brief period when I used to study with the Buddhists in Halifax. One of the things that came up was the idea that if you have reincarnation, then there is the possibility of past lives. Buddhism's take? Well, maybe people do remember stuff, but who cares? Everything you need is in this life, so trying to look at any other is a pointless distraction. Taking that a step further, the idea of reincarnation suggests multiple chances to "get it right", but if there really aren't, it doesn't change the teachings one bit. The same "maybe so, but it's not important" applies to the origin of life and the universe, all just distractions from making yourself a more complete person. --Kels 15:09, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The whole "I could be wrong" is what really traps them over at CP. Never has one of the major players over there admitted that the Bible might not be the divine word of God; in fact they have explicitly rejected any such notion (except the adulteress parable). I think just about everyone over here will willingly admit that our beliefs could be wrong; I know I can. And yet somehow Andy is the most openminded person on the planet, and all our minds are closed like a fundie liquor store on Sunday morning. DickTurpis 15:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Just like the loons at Rationalwiki ? (you have a Troll Tolerant policy here ??)--Rovander 13:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not even sure what you mean by that... --Kels 13:33, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I have a dull memory that it was space saving monks who first created paragraphs when they started to write everything in 'miniscule latin'. Before then no one had any idea about paragraphs as far as I know and that included the Bible . Correct if I display ignorance in this forum.--Rovander 13:32, 22 February 2009 (EST)

the loons ref was a jokey response to my earlier post. Check above. Just that another response came in between. So no offence to you Kels. --Rovander 13:36, 22 February 2009 (EST)

What the butler saw

Firstly, I would have you know I prefer the job description "gentleman's gentleman", after all we're all gentlemen at this other site. But on the matter at hand, here's the thing. You refer to the people writing articles for Creation Ministries International as reputable scholars, but really are they? Take this Hickman quote. I'm not at all convinced that the person writing the article has ever actual read this "Biocreation" book (is it a book? Could be a journal of sorts, I suppose.) See, if you go looking for that quote you'll find it splashed all over creationist sites, all making the same tenuous link between evolution and the holocaust. It's even in the Conservapedia Evolution article, and I know damn well Ken

hasn't read it. I rather doubt he's ever read any book. Am I to consider that this Jerry Bergman chap was actually the originator of the quote mine, the one original person who actually read the source and presumably understood it? I have no idea, but I concede that it is possible. Now, I know that you haven't read it, and since Bergman didn't see fit to divulge who this Hickman was and why he is qualified to make this judgement you've taken it solely on faith that what he is saying is correct.

You say that you have multiple sources. No, sorry, you don't. Just because Bergman cites numerous sources doesn't mean that magically you have too. See, the purpose of citing sources is that people can go look at them to confirm what you're saying is accurate and supported. You actually haven't done that. When you recycle these quotes second (or possible third, or fifty-sixth) hand your source isn't actually the original work but a person citing that original work. Because you haven't done the due diligence to check what the source was quoted accurately and in context, all your trust is placed in Bergman that he is intellectually honest. You have only one source, Bergman has many. You say that looking at the original sources and citing them wouldn't have strengthened your point, but it would have immeasurably. What that does is demonstrate that you're actually verifying what Bergman says, rather than taking it on faith. Even better would be to cite some primary and secondary sources you have consulted, rather than a tertiary source that cites primarily other tertiary sources. Doing that means you're entering the realms of scholarship.

You say I'm attacking the source, not the argument. That was the whole point. Someone far better qualified than me and who is in a better position to be trusted by you had already demolished the argument, there was no need for me to rehash that. Mine was merely to point out why you failed to come to the correct conclusion, that you are relying on a single source who have an obvious and demonstrable axe to grind. Also, I merely suggested that it might be the case that creationontheweb is not intellectually honest, though I believe it to be true. I asked you to make the judgement. You have a couple of data points, in that they are obviously wrong in this case, and they cite sources that are not from people qualified to speak on the subject merely because they are the strongest quotes to hammer the phony point home.

One thing to say, you're right that I cocked up and selected the second quote rather than the first. However, the first is scarcely better. This Robert E. D. Clark turns out to be a naturalist who wrote a number of creationist books, including the one cited and who made a career out of denying evolution. Do you think he might possibly have had an axe to grind? Does this sound to you like a reasonable and unbiased source? It certainly doesn't to me. The third is perhaps even worse, it cites the autobiography of the wife of the creationist who perpetuated the Paluxy tracks hoax. Do you see a pattern emerging here? A creationist citing scores of other creationists all of whom have vested interest in making the theory of evolution look bad. Do you really believe this is reputable scholarly work?

The saddest part is you don't have to take their word for it. If you really want to know what Hitler believed, rather than merely have people who think like you prop up and reinforce your beliefs, then finding out is trivial. Hitler is perhaps the most written about person of the 20th century. English translations of all his speeches and of Mein Kampf are only a google search away. There are literally hundreds of biographies in the English language written by historians, none of whom have a dog in the creation/evolution hunt. And once you've taken the leap and decided to find out what Hitler really thought, you can do what Bergman and every other damn creationist fails to do and provide direct documentary evidence from the lips of Hitler himself that he vilified and exterminated the Jews because he thought the theory of evolution demanded it of him. Good luck in your quest, Philip J. Quixote. --JeevesMkII 14:32, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Prick Up Your Ears

I have nothing substantive to add, I was just inspired to plug a great film. ħuman 19:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Come over HERE and say that.

Phil--you know, I don't THINK you're banned here, unlike me at CP. So why not stop by and post sometime? Then we can have a real argument, with an audience and everything. (Oh, yeah--because if you do, TK will get Andy to expel you from The Promised Land of CP, and then you won't be able to write Hitler/Darwin slashfic any more.) --Gulik 16:33, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Dammit Gulik, now look what you've started! --Kels 16:36, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Oops. --Gulik 16:40, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's grading system revealed

This student loses 5 marks on his final answer, Andy describing it as a "non-answer". However, each question is clearly worth 10 marks. This guy got 5 for a "non-answer" (and, presumably, for attacking Andy's poorly written lecture). Seems like 50/100 is the glass floor for students. And I'm guessing Student 16 is one of you guys? EddyP 13:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I thought it might be someone on here too, student 16 is clearly the most intelligent and the only one that has written anything of any worth. Well done to whoever you are. Jammy 14:39, 22 February 2009 (EST)

That's an outright lie - as usual, a couple others provided good, researched, thoughtful answers. I mixed poor, banal answers, copy-pastes, "poor, banal answers with stuff outside Andy's minute sphere of knowledge," and finally the "this question is nonsensical" answer. Again, I'm amused to see Andy marking down stuff he ignored among his homescholars. I'm sad to see I got an "excellent," as I forgot to include the bit about how Rumsfeld should have learned from Sun Tzu before entering Iraq. (too lazy to sign in)

I love Andy's response to your H3 answer: "Give me your opinion." "OK, here's a perfectly reasonable prediction." "Your opinion is different to mine , -1." (-1 of course is tantamount to no credit in Schlafly Grading.) Bonus points for equating Catholics and atheists!-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Also, take a look at that WIGO I've just done, two students do exactly the same thing, no.18 gets full marks, no.16, the clever one, gets minus 1! xD Jammy 14:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

What's amazing is that Student 16 gets five points off for a "non-answer", even though one was attempted. However, Student 13 only loses one point for this honors gem: "I defiantly think it was the wheel. It is something that every person has one many things", and then gets no points off for the next honors answer, "The concept of 0 is very important to us because without it there would be no big math equations and after 9 years of age what would you be then?". I guess Student 13's parents wrote a bigger tuition check. --SpinyNorman 14:49, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Surely there's someone we can write to, to prevent Andy's SES application being approved...this is beyond a joke, these children actually think he's educating them, and Andy thinks he is too! Jammy 14:52, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I think his SES application could do with a RW side-by-side rebuttal. Regard this as an Ed Poor style writing assignment. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:57, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'm dying to do a side-by-side rebuttal, but I'm waiting until his application is actually in. No reason to give him ideas for improvement when he still has time to make changes. After it's in, let the fun begin. --Too tired to log in 15:07, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Wait 'til the deadline expires so we get notionally the final form of the "application", even if he hand delivers it or sends it by courier, that still gives him at most 4 more days to complete it. At present, it isn't anywhere near complete. I still can't imagine he's going to go through with it. I can see SES becoming the new FBI, where people enquire how his application went and then get banned for it. --JeevesMkII 15:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

(undent)

I had another one of those daydreams where a NYC area news team sends its consumer reporter to Andy's door and confronts him with examples of his "teaching" like the ones above, and asks him how he can justify not giving the parents refunds of their tuition. It's a nice dream. --SpinyNorman 17:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Go ahead, answer the question...I dares ya

I liked how Ashfly axed the question, thusly:H3. How do you think the major belief systems of today, as ranked in the lecture, will rank in 100 years? Clearly soliciting the student's opinion of a future outcome, right? ENNNNNNNNNTTT! WORNG!

I suspect Islam will rank at the top, due to its growth in Europe and rapid population growth among Islamic African nations. Christianity will see decline, resulting from ongoing generational disillusionment in Europe and North America. The irreligious will expand as social stigma attached to agnosticism drops and the masses of non-practicing yet self-identifying Catholics are more honest about their irreligion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is too narrow by limiting itself to Europe, North American, and Islamic African nations. Far more in the world than that. (Minus 1).

It's sort of like asking, "Which is the prettier color, RED or BLUE? RED, you say? Well that's WORNG!"

CЯacke® 21:50, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Something else that caught my eye on Student Sixteen's answers. Question 3:Explain what this is:

The yin yang, a Chinese symbol for a dualistic conception of reality, somewhat akin to a pantheistic form of Manichaenism. It describes a supposed unity of opposing forces, both physical and conceptual, throughout the universe.

You don't say what the "opposing forces" are, and "yin yang" is not it's real name. (Minus 1).

Erm, Andy, he probably didn't say what the opposing forces are because the answer is just about ANY opposing forces OF ANY KIND. It is used to symbolise the idea that many seemingly opposing forces are really interdependant and interconnected. It is also the case that it is perfectly correct to refer to this symbol as a 'Yin yang'. The two halves of it are 'yin' and 'yang', but the whole thing is 'yin yang', 'yin-yang' or even 'yinyang'.

And this guy is supposed to be teaching these kids? Sheesh! Zmidponk 09:09, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I think Andy suspects Student Sixteen is not a real student and is grading to reflect that. Student Sixteen seems phenomenally well-spoken for Andy's target audience, and especially compared to the level of writing and thought usually found in his students. (In other words, Andy I suspect Andy is thinking "you're too smart to really be one of my students! My students are all stoo-pid!") MDB 09:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I'm too lazy to verify, but didn't most students say that it's the yin yang symbol? Also, Andy, it's "its name", not "it's name". I usually don't mock people for such typos, but Andy is asking for it by constantly dismissing entire arguments because someone made a typo. --Sid 09:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Pay no attention to the men behind the red telephones

Being mostly a lurker here, without much to contribute to the community, I usually refrain from commenting on other users' behavior.

But I have to point this out: EVERY DAMN TIME that Ken, TK, PJR etc throw out another rant about us, some of us start yelling like stuck pigs, giving them exactly what they want: attention.

Gentlemen, you are making fools of yourselves. Don't answer the red telephone. Etc 14:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

This point has been made time and again. Ken particularly is just an attention whore. The only thing you can do is ignore it yourself, and hope the others come around... Also, when Ken has been ignored in the past his messages become lulzier and lulzier, so it's doubly worth our while to stand by and watch them spin out of control.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:48, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Counterpoint: PJR, at least, has never been an attention-seeker, as far as I can tell, and I think there is nothing wrong with trying to open up a dialogue. He, at least, can actually argue, unlike just about everyone else at the site who just insists they are right and then blocks. As for Ken, encouraging him to make an ass of himself is a win/win situation: lulz for us, even less credibility for CP (if that's possible). The question remains does ignoring or responding encourage him more? DickTurpis 14:52, 22 February 2009 (EST)

If anyone wants dialogue, they can come over here and get it. They all know that we don't do ideological blocking, don't do deletion of arguments against our positions and are willing to discuss almost anything with reasonable parties. They choose to reject openness and free exchange and remain inside their gated-community of ideological conformity. As to Ken, there is only one instance I can remember of us completely ignoring him (it was unorganized and lasted for 3-5 telephone calls, it's probably somewhere in the wigo but I am too lazy to go looking). In my opinion it produced the highest-quality Ken-related lulz. In Ken's case we don't need to address his telephone calls in order to keep them coming, we just have to ridicule his nonsensical edits (which we do anyway) and he will feel the need to "stike back." It wouldn't hurt to leave the receiver off the hook for a while and see...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 15:08, 22 February 2009 (EST)

You know, I really wish PJR would come over here and argue with us. If it weren't for others pointing it out, I probably would have missed his call. However, he says he won't, and even if he did TK would probably ban him for consorting with the enemy. Personally, I don't think PJR is attention seeking, and I would actually like to have a discussion with him though this method isn't perhaps the best. Kendoll is another matter, he's far too stupid to argue with, but it does feel good to call him on his bullshit now and then. --JeevesMkII 15:24, 22 February 2009 (EST)

By all means call him on his bullshit. Calling people on their bullshit is what this site is all about. I'm only advocating ignoring his "gentlemen" announcements.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 15:29, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I like when we make fun of the gentlemen announcements. They are hilarious. I think they are pure win for us. Who cares if they crave our attention? We are obviously willing to lavish it upon them. Plus, the whole semaphor-by-wiki thing really shows them is a good light. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Ken picked up the red telephone again to tell us that his IQ is 130. That might be impressive, if it were true, and if IQ really meant much. But in reality, making up numbers doesn't mean anything when one's stupidity is presented to us in no uncertain terms in a daily basis. DickTurpis 16:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I'm more worried about this foot fetish he seems to have developed. Say, isn't CUR's IQ somewhere in the same range? They could be friends! --Kels 16:28, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Bragging about IQ is the hallmark of the insecure and unintelligent. (Mine's 2 million) DickTurpis 16:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

130? WOW! Ken's as smart as George W. Bush! --Gulik 16:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The only people more ignorant, arrogant and insecure about their IQ than those who measure their IQ are members of Mensa, the entry to which which requires a lot more work to prove that you're insecure about your height, weight, hair loss, penis size, or intelligence. DogP 19:16, 22 February 2009 (EST)

All the lulz aside - I agree that many of Ken's shout-outs are hilarious - we just shouldn't sink to their level.

Also, in many aspects CP is becoming a crazy fantasy world of it's own - one where people like Ken and Andy can state their opinions and never be criticized, and nurture their philosophy to the absurd and beyond. That wouldn't work in the real world, and would never become as hilarious - and by intruding into their fantasy, or luring them out of it, we may actually contaminate CP with sanity. I don't want that to happen, either.

BTW, my IQ is 5 billion. Etc 21:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Don't worry about them getting sane because we talk to them. PJR's got his impenetrable wall of Biblical Literalism, so we won't be convincing him, Andy's so contrary he'll go off in the opposite direction from anything we say, and Ken...well, paying attention to Ken just makes him run off and do even more insane things just to show off. Responding to them not only doesn't cost, it's fun! --Kels 21:48, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Dance, little Kenmonkey! dance for my amusement! --Gulik 00:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

BTW, my IQ is 65. Icewedge 00:27, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, we know, but there are so many of you that you form a super intelligent hive mind bend on destroying CP through minor wandalism. --JeevesMkII 02:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

There will be blood

Oh noes! BenjaminS has been nobbled and restored TimS's talk page. What will TK do? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:15, 22 February 2009 (EST)

"Sorry, Ben. Tim is now BLOCKED, has been. You are welcome to discuss this with me or Andy, via email, though." --Sid 16:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Republic of China WIGO

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but you do know that the Republic of China is Taiwan, right? So I don't think it's silly to direct the page of the republic of china to Taiwan.. --GTac 15:58, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I am very aware of that and that is exactly why I have posted that WIGO, since Jpatt has blocked the user for trying to change the article to the country's official title and called it 'vandalism'....so what's your point? Jammy 16:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

My point is that the WIGO seems to imply that JPatt fails geography for not knowing that Taiwan is the republic of china, which isnt true seeing how he changed it into a redirect. --GTac 16:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know if you're familiar with how a WIGO works, but it's meant to be a bit of fun, you see there never actually was a test! :p Jammy 16:53, 22 February 2009 (EST)

But it's not really funny if you falsely criticize them, now is it? --GTac 17:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

It's not a false criticism. JPatt called the user a vandal and blocked them, and what I assume is the same user under a different name took up the argument, was again blocked but JPatt has since been told by Ed of all people, that this is unreasonable Jammy 18:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The irony: in the battle over the name "China" for a country, the conservative position would be to honor the capitalist democracy, not the communist dictatorship with the name. And let Taiwan be the redirect, or an article more about the island's history before the revolution & c. ħuman 19:31, 22 February 2009 (EST)

With regard to RJJEnsen...

...Ken

is certainly a little bit agitated: [..]So even if your "Darwin/biology/evolution" statement was true about Hitler it certainly would not be decisive. However, with that being said, Hitler certainly did certainly believe in evolutionary racism in the biological sense and there certainly is evidence of it besides the MATING passage I cited. [..]

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:06, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Mh, yep. CP relies heavily on people not knowing shit. The few who do know a bit will end up in an endless discussion until the entire thing sort of dies off (PJR) or the opponent gets a 90/10 hammer (everybody else). Since the statements in question are usually on a locked or heavily-guarded page, nothing will ever happen. This time, the Evil Liberal is a sysop, though, which kinda complicates things. Kinda reminds me of PJR (in topics like Gun Control), which makes this situation (with PJR on the other side) extra ironic. I'm actually interested how this is going to end. Right now, I'm torn between "endless discussion until RJJ realizes that his quest is doomed" and "RJJ will become an unperson". --Sid 16:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Who needs Cthulhu when you've got Ken's unseemly interest in MATING? Ow, my sanity! --Kels 16:22, 22 February 2009 (EST)

"Last time I checked MATING involves biology." Taking some time off from teh homosex...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:10, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Can I suggest we go through all RW articles and change any occurrences of the word MATING to all caps in honour of Ken? Jammy 17:12, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Again, I'm a bit concerned about his sudden fascination with both MATING and shoes with buckles on them. --Kels 17:19, 22 February 2009 (EST)

This is as good as the whole Abortion/Breast cancer incident. ENorman 17:48, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Again, I'm a bit concerned about his sudden fascination with both MATING and shoes with buckles on them....fer fuxsake, Kels, you're a FURRY. I'm sure you've encountered worse than Conservative's little foot fetish. TheoryOfPractice 17:55, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, I've run across stuff that'll make your hair stand on end. I think what makes this extra creepy with disturbing sauce is the fact that it's Ken

doing it. --Kels 19:40, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Well now I want to hear about the stuff that would make my hair stand on end. DickTurpis 19:42, 22 February 2009 (EST)

That's not the only thing that will stand on end...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:47, 22 February 2009 (EST)

No...no, I mustn't. Damaging someone's poor, defenseless psyche is bad. --Kels 23:21, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Tim

Tim's user page and talk page have been deleted. Down the memory hole with the best user. . . *sighs* They never do learn. So which editor is next? --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 16:44, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Well, they have been re-deleted after BenjaminS restored them, see a few sections further up. --Sid 17:00, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Sigh, another stupid block

[3] Jammy 16:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

(account creation disabled) ‎ (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial) - You have to love it --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:05, 22 February 2009 (EST)

TK's blocking people for stupid reasons? It must be a day ending in "Y". --Gulik 17:09, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Jammynoob. (A), what Gulik said. (B), "Bakdelsbrand" is indeed a fake name, so TK wasn't actually out of line in blocking the user (sockpuppet) with that block reason. (C), "Account creation disabled" does not mean what you think it does. --Marty 02:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Then what does it mean? Doesn't it prevent the user from "recreating their account with their real first name and last initial"? -- Nx ^talk 02:19, 23 February 2009 (EST)

RIP, BrianCo

Nice to see TK has eliminated one of CP's most valuable editors, but I wasn't aware he was a member of this site.[4] 18:17, 22 February 2009 (EST)

He isn't. Just my excuse. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 18:18, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I gotta say, TK is doing a great job destroying Conservapedia. I really have to take my hat off to him. I just hope Andy makes him a bureaucrat so he can desysop PJR, Addison, and RJensen, then ban them for liberalness. That would just leave the crazies, and we'd have less chaff to sort through for our WiGOs. DickTurpis 18:20, 22 February 2009 (EST)

And then demote Sir Assfly and everybody else, then turn it into an fansite for himself. But BrianCo can still unblock himself: he has not been desysoped. --"C, U R^{the rhodomontade, legislateing telephone.} 18:23, 22 February 2009 (EST)

That TK first deleted BrianCo's archives and only thereafter blocked him had a nice touch, too --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Meritocracy! --Sid 18:28, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Wow.. Brianco had been an editor since 18 May 2007 and made thousands of edits.. articles, templates.. he was one of the least controversial and most helpful editors... why ban him? Reminds me of Cp User:Tash same kind of productive edits, also told he wasn't welcome anymore at CP... slowly and surely they work to get rid of all the productive editors... killing themselves from within. sad. Refugee^{talk page} 19:37, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I don't see evidence that Tash was kicked out or encouraged to leave. It seems to me he simply went gently into that goodnight. DickTurpis 19:41, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, well.. some things are not so evident or public, but are true nonetheless. Refugee^{talk page} 00:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Schweet. I vote for cp:User:Taj next. --Marty 02:03, 23 February 2009 (EST)

And in yet another display of loyalty to a long-serving editor, Andy sticks the knife in. hey Andy - if you never trusted him, why'd you promote him? So that leaves what - 15 editors? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:02, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Heh heh heh... "inactivity" right after a permaban. Did Andy just develop a morbid sense of humor, or is he really a total assho-... yeah, stupid question. --Sid 07:42, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Brain who? There's nobody here by that name. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:02, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I haven't been paying much attention these last couple of months, and I'm too lazy busy to check--What did BC do to get on the Enemies List?--WJThomas 09:38, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Where TK is involved, breathing could be a good way to get on his shit list. Psychos like him don't need a reason, especially when it all forms part of bringing CP down. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:16, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I think he's been reading a little too much 1984 and decided to see if he really can unperson BrianCo. ArmondikoV^sshole 10:25, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It seems to be purely because Philip expressed support for him, along with HelpJazz and Aziraphale (and Iduan - could he be next?).--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:47, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Iduan is TK's bitch, so he's safe for the moment. As long as he stays in constant IM contact with TK (which he does - have you seen how TK magically knows exactly when to lock/unlock which template while Iduan is working?) and occasionally slaps around users who actually point out that a sysop made a mistake, he's on the way to Block, Upload, and maybe even EDIT rights. Yes, in that order. --Sid 12:03, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Well he almost made it to sysop before, but someone (allegedly) sent a defamatory message to Assfly pretending to be from his teacher just as he was having his ID test. Maybe someone else can remember the details. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:27, 23 February 2009 (EST)

They're still at it

PJR and RJJensen are still going at it over Hitler and Darwin. Why is it that fundies can never seem to understand the difference between genetics and evolution? Yes, Hitler did not want the master race and the Jews to interbreed for fear of diluting the purity of the Germans. Do they not realize that the idea of inherited traits precedes Darwin, precedes Mendel, and goes back to the very heart of civilization? If people never realized that traits could be inherited we never would have domesticated crops or livestock. Even those who don't believe in evolution believe in genetics, which is the basis for eugenics, or does PJR deny that as well? DickTurpis 22:00, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I see Ken's helpfully bringing the stupid by attempting to teach RJJ about his personal friend of 30 years Fisher. I'm sure RJJ had never read his stuff until now. Moron. --Kels 23:56, 22 February 2009 (EST)

No, HelpJazz was not a vandal

No Addison, HelpJazz was not a vandal In fact he often reverted vandalism. Refugee^{talk page} 00:26, 23 February 2009 (EST)

HelpJazz is officially one of CP's "unpersons," meaning they can make up whatever they like about him and it becomes the official Truth. The contribs list must just be wrong. Trust in minitru --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:39, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Or this statement.--76.188.19.60 01:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Glad to see Jpatt is honest, but sadly, the head of minitrue is actually TK, and he has spoken. The best part about it is that TK tried to be a sysop here, too, and he's said some pretty unpleasant things about CP as well. But that was the old past. The new past is that all that never happened, and HelpJazz was a deep cover TK asshole.

Also, welcome to TK's shitlist, Jpatt. It is an unpleasant place to be. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:50, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Now also continued here where Addison and TK slap PJR around in unison. My question is whether Addison is a genuine Goon Squad member or just a cowardly suck-up like LearnTogether who will agree with the biggest bully just to stay out of trouble... --Sid 08:34, 23 February 2009 (EST)

TK, of all people, complaining about bullying, just sent my irony meter into overdrive. No, offence to Fretful, but change the sig and TK is Bugler. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:44, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Oscars

How long until Andy ramps up the Hollywood Values, given that Heath Leger and Sean Penn received Oscars (the latter for playing *gasp* a gay man!) Countdown starting.... now. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 02:59, 23 February 2009 (EST)

And ending 44 minutes later, though I guess that's TK and not Andy. Still counts? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 03:49, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I think TK is drunk. Or high. "Moar" and "Keith Ledger" in the same post? That's daring. --Marty 04:08, 23 February 2009 (EST) stirrer

Probably, but you know, his goals are the same as ours. CP = down and dead. His methods are different, that's all. ħuman 05:56, 23 February 2009 (EST)

You what?

Can someone tell me what Ken is on about here? Jammy 05:42, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ken-cott is on for me, so I'm not looking. Bondurant 05:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ken having a mental age of about ten, his 'logic' is unfathomable to anyone with more braincells than a leech. Don't try to understand him - you'll go mad! _and marmite 06:11, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It's pretty simple. Someone complains that his "news" article has very little news in it, and is mostly "Well, they MIGHT write an article". Ken's response is a well reasoned, "They laughed when I speculated before, but they were WRONG! WRONG, HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" And then he forgets what he was writing about and tries to talk to an imaginary Bill Gates. --Kels 06:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Also the imaginary article is "bone crushing". Always with the violent imagery, Ken. What is it with that? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

That's "Bill Gates of MSN fame" to you. Hmmm MSN fame?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 14:20, 23 February 2009 (EST)

As in one of the search engines Ken

is trying to game. ħuman 19:08, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, I know what MSN is and why Ken is interested in it. I was pointing out that when you think "Bill Gates," usually MSN isn't the first thing to come to mind...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

He's Back

Ah Ken you know how to brighten up my Monday mornings. I feared this kind of thing was gone for ever. StarFish 06:50, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Ken's "Article of Until I Decide To Pimp Another One Here"

I would like to congratulate Conservative, actually. Yes, he's a complete ass and produces text that often makes me wonder if English is indeed his first language, but I gotta give credit where credit is due: He's damn skilled at showcasing just how much power you can grab just by being a stubborn ass on CP. He's like the TK/Bugler/Andy of the Main Page: Do whatever you like, and when somebody tries to oppose you, go "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!" or "I will not discuss this in public. I sent you a mail, and I will send you mails until you give in!"

Please keep it up, Ken. Show the world that CP isn't actually any sort of community project, but rather just a bunch of lone wolves pushing their agendas and hoping not to collide. :) --Sid 07:19, 23 February 2009 (EST)

All he needs now is to hijack the featured Article and he'll have a full house. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:52, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I think he once did that by replacing it with his own feature section, actually. But after a few weeks or so, Philip and the others carefully restored it. Memory's a bit fuzzy right now, though. --Sid 08:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I remember him totally blindsiding everyone with the Article of the Year, and it was interesting to watch them react with complete surprise before they got the "we meant to do that" mask back in place. His bluster aside, I doubt he discusses anything he does on the main page with anyone, since even among the faithful there probably isn't a high opinion of his messes. --Kels 13:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I would guess that the standard operating procedure amongst the sysops in whatever the SDG is known as nowadays goes like this:

1. Think of something that you'd like to do but which might get challenged by the others.
2. E-mail Andy at great length describing what you want to do, knowing Andy can't comprehend anything more than a single three sentence paragraph.
3. Andy "Oh another inconsequential email. I have moar important things to do with my time" Click! Recycle Bin.
4. Tell the other sysops that you emailed Any and he hasn't said that you can't do it.
5. Do whatever you wanted to do and with the de facto blessing of Andy behind you.

Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:54, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I really doubt it, since who is going to do any challenging? The faithful consist of about a dozen, and they all function within tiny spheres. DeanS copies news articles, Ken does crazy shit and repeats the exact same "news" month after month, TK doesn't actually contribute anything or have projects, but single-handedly changes rules and purges, JM puts his arts articles on the front page, Ed bastardizes math & science, while playing a very creepy "mediator" part, and Andy cares only about Obama, Liberalism, and his weekly crazies. Who remains to challenge things? PJR is routinely shot down, TimS was purged, and as we now see, RJJ's objections are limited to his areas of expertise, and he can get no farther than anyone else (he merely has 90/10 immunity). The junior sysops, being a mixture of parodists and sycophants, are unlikely to make objections and, if they do, will give up quickly. 14:13, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Well, I'm sure that the most of the sysops regard Ken with an OMG here he comes again and would probably rather not have all his crap cluttering the main page. TK's references about checking with the site owner about blocked users and the like are exactly the ones that he told Andy should be expelled. I wouldn't be surprised if TK is lobbying Andy to get PJR demoted, in fact I would bet that TK is like a Wormtongue forever dripping venom into Andy's ear that's how he manages to throw his weight about amongst the others. The way that PJR was abused by TK indicates that PJR is probably no longer in the top echelon but he is still a sysop and has oversight so he's a threat to TK. I'm sure JM is an embarrassment because of all his copyright abuses but he just goes ahead anyway and the others ignore it until someone makes an actual complaint. As for the juniors then I doubt that they are in the sooper-seekrit sysop club otherwise the likes of Addison wouldn't need to have been upbraided publicly by TK about his Conservapedia article. Andy has always tried to protect his homeskollars from reality which is why Beth & Sharon's user pages are invariably locked. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

TK! How could you!?

(holds back the tears) You broke my irony meter! Jammy 08:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Strangely I think TK is right on his last statement anyway. It's time PJR woke up and smelled the coffee. I know some people hold low opinions of PJR but his level of evil is on a different scale to others at that site. I think he needs to realise that people like him simply cannot survive in an atmosphere of such hostility with so many deeply unpleasent people in charge. I also agree he needs to get some self respect - and leave. StarFish 09:06, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I too agree that PJR should wake up and smell the coffee. I knew a man who once woke up and refused to smell any sorts of coffee. He wouldn't even take a small whiff of the bitter elixer. That man grew up to be Hitler. --GTac 10:00, 23 February 2009 (EST)

The last one to call PJR a bully was Bugler, AFAIK --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:20, 23 February 2009 (EST)

@GTac, lol :)-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 10:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I hate coffee; tea is the drink of the superior! Bastard bastard Hoover! 11:28, 23 February 2009 (EST)

PJR and TK are playing different games. PJR just wants to play bible trivia and occasionally defend the meek or the true just to keep his halo polished. TK is quite obviously and sincerely working in the best interests of CP, its staff and the community they support(1). Never the twain shall meet. Still, I'm convinced that PJR has got his feeling hurt over there and as a consequence has likely activated his self-destruct sequence. His romantic bent will compel him to make this descent seem a series of matters of principle, but at root, it's just hurt feelings^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 12:04, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Nice entry by cp:User:FranL: I'm new around here. I probably shouldn't be stepping on people's toes. Maybe I should MMOB. I feel compelled to say, however, that the etiquette guideline about avoiding personal remarks has been utterly disregarded here. FranL 13:29, 23 February 2009 (EST).

And an obvious reaction by TK... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:20, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Account Creation disabled?

I just realized that the top right link reads "Log in" instead of "Log in / Create account" and thought that Night Editing Mode is up and running, but a quick check tells me that editing is currently "limited to users in one of the groups Users, Administrators, edit", so it's not Night Mode. Did CP decide again that it doesn't need/want new people to tell them they're wrong? --Sid 09:50, 23 February 2009 (EST)

It's log in / create account here, maybe your IP is blocked? -- Nx ^talk 09:54, 23 February 2009 (EST)

No, it's "log in / create account" here now, too. And I'm 95% certain that I wasn't hallucinating, so I guess you're welcome, CP. :P --Sid 09:55, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Nup, I just doublechecked by grabbing a page from cache, and it indeed only read "Log in" a few minutes ago. --Sid 09:57, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Isn't edit the group of editors with night editing rights? Then, it would have been the Night Mode ... --larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Yes, but "limited to users in one of the groups Users, Administrators, edit" -- Nx ^talk 10:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)

upps, sorry, my bad, didn't pay enough attention, lack of coffee, I hope --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:35, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Try switching to tea. Totnesmartin 12:13, 23 February 2009 (EST)

We could find a third tea lover and become the three muskettears. Bastard bastard Hoover! 12:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I like tea. EddyP 12:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Athos, Pathos & Bathos. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

JY23 joins the Goon Squad

Someone with a better knowledge of the block log than me WIGO this please. In my head it went somerthing like this:

JY23: "Blocked for parody!"

ETrundel: "Parody? What parody?"

JY23: "Bugger. Vulgar name then!"

Sad to see JY23 has joined the ranks of the Goon Squad. EddyP 12:30, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, sad indeed. But the larger picture is very amusing: A site that claims that evolution isn't happening is populated by so many people who evolve to avoid extinction. ;) --Sid 16:05, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Unfortunately, the mutation needed to survive in the CP environment makes the brain a vestigal organ. --Gulik 18:09, 23 February 2009 (EST)