Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive139

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <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)

Congrats Ken[edit]

I know nobody here likes Ken. In fact the guy can lick my balls, but good manners cost nothing, so Ken, congrats on winning Prom Queen buddy, you've earned it.Rad McCool 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting to wonder if Ken's a high function austism spectrum person instead of just a fundie weirdo. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's not stigmatize the spectrum by conflating it with Ken-ishness. Corry 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


There's a possible RFC coming up on whether CP should be categorised as an encyclopaedia. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with it being in the encyclopedia category. Sure we joke, with good reason, about it being Andy's blog, but there are people who try to make it an actual encyclopedia, and that seems to have been the original intent. It's an encyclopedia, even if it's a shitty one. --Kels 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Susan, soliciting people to join in comments at WP on other websites is at the very least "mildly frowned upon". But you knew that. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did, H, but I thought it would interest people &, as Kels comment above shows, hasn't furthered my view of the discussion anyhow. It's not as if I'd said "Come to WP & de-encyclopedia CP" is it? - that's why it's "Requests for comment", not "Requests to agree with me". This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I know, I just wanted to remind you before you slipped down the slope ;) You were also, of course, pointing out something of interest to CP-watchers. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins and Darwin[edit]

This is interestingly revealing, particularly where it says, "However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read Darwin’s works." That difficulty understanding that there are other paths to evolutionary theory besides Darwin seems awfully common. I've never seen BenP as a malicious sort, but he seems to have bought something he was told somewhere. Maybe it's the authoritarian mindset, where the originator is inseparable from what was created, or the whole "evolution as religion" thing, comparing Origin of Species to the Bible. Not sure, but it's interesting to see the attitude presented so casually. --Kels 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Darwin as Jesus. They can only understand another worldview to the degree that it is similar to their own, even if they have to force and twist the other to fit.--WJThomas 12:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The only thing you can do is quote Samuel Vimes from "Monstrous Regiment"; "Holy writ gets... written.". The basic problem for Conservapedian Nutcases (and other conservatives, generally) is accepting that there IS no holy writ for science and/or atheism. Everything changes with the facts. Dendlai 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I like this part from the same piece: "Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures." Dawkins wasn't famous until he became famous, and he's had to work to stay famous! Scandalous! --WJThomas 12:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I fucking loved Monstrous Regiment. --GTac 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. How can someone remain a relatively obscure professor when he was never a professor to begin with? Bluefish 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Andy Schlafly might have remained a relatively obscure lawyer if not for ... oh! Sorry. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 13:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This comment made my 1:30 AM! --Opcn 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Best Conservative Songs[edit]

My first time to see this page! What a goldmine. I like the addition of Genesis' "No Son of Mine," about a son who's been disowned by his father forever after running away, and is continually spurned as he tries to make amends.

This page is just begging to get vandalized. I'm surprised more people haven't tried... Junggai 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this one? The talk page is rich with great Schlafly belly-laughs. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that where he said that Saving Private Ryan is a liberal movie because it doesn't explicitly talk about hell? Corry 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the same page when talks about liberals not understanding disabled people in relation to the "liberal Tom Hanks". Its classic stuff. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 23:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I know we aren't supposed to expose parody, but I just have to give props to the person who added this: "Ghostbusters (1984). Fitting satire of an environmental regulator." --Passerby25 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Scratch that, I just checked, and that is truly pure, uncut Andy. That's some high quality stuff, and hard to get nowadays, ever since the government crackdown on stupid --Passerby25 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

From the conservative movies talk page: "I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith." -- Andrew Schlafly

Nice. Coarb 03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. The man thinks "Happiness is a Warm Gun" is a conservative song. It's about heroin use, friend.--Woloct 05:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"61. Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions." Alright, who added that? Fess up. Also, where's "Kiss My Ass" by Ted Nugent, best conservative song ever and Aschlafly missed it?? Secret Squirrel 05:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"This page is just begging to get vandalized" - will you people stop exposing the endless parody entries? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's face it, it even lists the Clinton/Gore election theme song. Oh shit, did I expose it? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hilarious. Aschlafly added that one. He also added "Still the One" by Orleans, whose lead singer is now a Democratic congresscritter from New York. Secret Squirrel 05:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the ultimate problem with parody. You'll never outdo the real thing. Corry 05:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it time for an RW side by side treatment of these lists? This could be fun. Secret Squirrel 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we already have the voluminous "best liberal songs" somewhere... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That page is hilarious. I added "American Idiot" by Green Day and it lasted 6 weeks. I mean, the name itself should have been reason enough to remove it. FernoKlump What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition! 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, with that title it could easily have been the story of some liberal... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely liberals are unamerican? Totnesmartin 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I added 'Deportee', a folk song about a bunch of Mexicans who die in a plan crash while being deported. I thought they'd like it, but they banned one of my best socks.Czolgolz 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Screwed up vote numbers[edit]

Okay, I added a WiGO without realizing that K6 had gone and screwed it up by moving an existing number higher. I'm not sure what to do to fix it, honestly. Move his back where it came from? Simply make mine the next number (2014, I think)? Change both numbers? Can someone smerter than me either fix it or tell me how? --Kels 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Change yours to 2014 and cross fingers (I did it already). I have been asking without really useful results at tech support for a trick which tells an editor which is the next number to use on polls, I never expected WIGOCP to be a problem that needed this. Nice work K9 (shall we agree to call him K9 from now on?). What he did actually made sense - updating a WIGO should "move it to the top" - but then the instructions fail, since they say to "add one to the number before". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
One thing really fucked up: "File:Wigo2004 0.png" is now really the 2014 image, and capturebot allowed itself to overwrite the old image. A flagrant abuse of bot-power, I would say. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
@Human: AutoWIGO works, you just have to activate the gadget. --  Nx/talk  07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I will not use your gadgets; I will alter my monobook.js like a real man! Cubic bastard Phantom! 07:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
When can we have an extension that produces it for anyone on any page? Like <nextvote poll=wigo>, say, that simply returns the #? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Holy shit, you're a genius (seriously). I wanted to reimplement the whole edit form, but instead I'll just do what you said: when a page is saved, I'll simply run a hook that replaces <nextvote poll=wigo> with <vote poll=wigoXXXX>. Why didn't I think of that? --  Nx/talk  20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha, why did you never think of that? Even I noticed it before, but thought there would be some reason why it wasn't set up like that. No offense though Nx, you're doing mighty fine work, that's why it just blew my mind that you seemed to have missed that ;-) --GTac 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't see the forest for the trees I guess. Anyway, prototype version is done: when saving, it takes <vote nextpoll=stuff></vote> (or <votecp nextpoll=stuff></votecp>), and converts it to <vote poll=stuffXXXX></vote>, except when directly preceded by <nowiki>, so <nowiki> Lengthy instructions <v0te nextpoll=stuff></v0te> </nowiki> will not prevent the replacement. (Which is why I had to write v0te there). There's no preview, since the replacement is done after clicking the save button, and the wigo extension will not render it because the poll id is missing. --  Nx/talk  22:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit shows how it works: the edit summary contains the text I typed in, but the extension changed it just before the article got saved, so in the diff it's different. --  Nx/talk  22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My cincere apologies for the stupid attempt to improperly move the updated stuff from the earlier entries upward. Maybe instructions in the "How to add WIGO items" box (about placements of updates) would be very nice. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, K, read the above. Your very appropriate "gaffe" resulted in making the system much more streamlined. And Nx wrote something I've wanted to have for several weeks now. So we should be thanking you for your awesome prodding!ħumanUser talk:Human 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I take that as people aren't noticing the gadgets in the preference tab (AutoWIGO, Preference/Gadgets tab) (which I just noticed 5 minutes earlier); but oh well. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the extension is more error-resistant, since processing takes place after edit conflicts and other problems have been resolved, immediately before inserting the text into the database. --  Nx/talk  05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should "updates" be moved to the top?[edit]

Since the awesome new system automates the poll numbering, should we start doing what Kvwxyz did, and move updated items to the top? Also, Nx, if a wigo is commented out for epic phail, will the number get re-used? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It should detect commented out wigos, so the number won't be reused. I like the idea of moving updates up, btw. --  Nx/talk  05:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: moving updates up: agree totally. I t'other day bumped one that would have been better moved up. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some WIGO's write themselves[edit]

Terry Koeckritz lets everyone in on some sordid family business. TK's family being accused of toxic contamination of their own property? The irony is so gorgeous. I would WIGO it, except for the fact that his family might include some very nice people. Anyone with a stronger stomach can feel free. Junggai 22:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should someone ask him who his family stole the land from in the first place? Poor love. 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I vote to leave it out. It's no good to laugh over a family's protracted court battle, even of that family contains a capital douchebag. Corry 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Remind me, who was running the American Government 5 years ago when the land was allegedly stolen from his family?Mick McT 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Logic dictates that it must have been some evil liberal, probably Barack Hussein Obama. Deny that obvious fact and lose all credibility. Etc 12:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that this story is written a bit like something they would write. It isn't good practice to assume something bad about your opponents when it is not similar to any behavior seen before. We have seen a lot of informational contamination on the part of TK, but never dumping. --Opcn 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Awww, poor Ken![edit]

I;m not sure if this is WIGO worthy, but this may be the first time I've actually seen Ken whining on the main page. Poor baby Kenny, are the mean ol' Wikipedians saying bad things about you? There there....HollowPsycho 03:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how he repeats himself incessantly. And the WP editor who raised the question? A BoN! Get over it, Ken. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken's about to shoot his load![edit]

Faster, Higher, Stronger: Just keep the wolf away from the door a little longer Ken! Matt oblong 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look out! They're citing the Conservapedia! --Kels 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone needs to burn a sock and tell Ken how to embed YouTube. His quest for YouTube will be forever over. --Prim arthropleura.jpg 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Or write a quick blurb to Groening's people about the use of "Homer's" skull as a prop for fundyfollies.CЯacke®

Assfly has got to be the worst lawyer ever.[edit]

Here he whines about how Sotomayor "has, however, joined panel opinions that have both...declared that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right...[and] declared that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, but only limits the federal government". The panel cited Presser v.'s not like those opinions are taken straight from the landmark decision...oh wait. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 05:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the actual problem is history as he knows it only lasted for 100 or so days. (See WIGO 1981) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
He forgets that history is written by the victors; and he's a loser. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of lawyers, my wife is away for the week doing her higher rights examination to get her rights of audience in court. Therefore please do throw suggestions my way as to what to do with my newfound (if temporary) freedom (aside from furious masturbation to transexual midget pr0n and drinking excessive quantities of fermented vegetable drinks of course). Crundy 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The World History Final Exam is being graded today.[edit]

Andy liveblogs the scores as he grades on the main page. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One of my favorite Conservapedia extracurricular activities[edit]

Looking through links in the news section to find out what opinion article authors have written elsewhere. See that Pravda opinion article by Staislav Mishin? I browsed his blog linked at the end, and it's mostly paranoid pro-Russia anti-West ramblings. However, his labeling of Obama as a Marxist takes on another angle when you discover he thinks Lincoln was also a marxist dictator. Wonder what Conservapedia would think of that? 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I love that "...and rightly hung". You don't see many apologists for 19th century European monarchs (except maybe Queen Victoria). --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
At least he didn't say "...and well hung". DogPMarmite Patrol 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Is it really update-worthy that somebody socked up and said basically what's in the WiGO, especially if it's just to ask if they're going to get argued against or banned? --Kels 13:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No. No it's not. Just reeks of self promotion even. --GTac 13:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, but the reaction (to the WIGOish comment) might be. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Not update worthy until Jpatt responds. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it would be worthy even then. So we have a reaction, either burning and banning or arguing and banning, that is entirely ordinary and we've seen rather a lot of times in the past, in reaction to an obvious sock. So what? --Kels 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If he makes an argument to an obvious sock for why this is an American story, it is WIGO-worthy because I'm sure it will be hilarious and delusional. That's about all we get anymore...these jackasses refusing to admit their wrong about anything. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Transistor is a Conservative Word![edit]

Oh, the humanity. I'm going to die over here from laughter. Transistor? Wow! Assfly is either insane or a parodist, or both. This is fabulous! Jimaginator 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

err ... Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#.22Transistor.22_is_a_Conservative_Word.3F.3F.3F This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Jimaginator 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia vs. Scientology[edit]

I am not really understanding why CP have "Scientology banned from editing Wikipedia" on their mainpage. It doesnt state what angle CP takes. Good? Bad? So it will be funny if someone prodded Aschlafly on this. I can see him defending scientology like he did the BNP. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's TK trolling. Any positive portrayal of WP is verboten, so I'm sure that TK is accusing WP of censorship. Coming from TK, it's very funny. That said, it's a pretty strong move on WP's part, but I imagine that they must have had tons of problems with the $cientologists. They're not known for being down with free speech on the internets. Corry 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
others are known for NOT being down with free speech on the internets--Lipps
tbh, I didn't really get the WIGO on their news item. For perhaps the first time ever, they didn't seem to take the oppertunity to make up a snide remark towards wikipedia, so it just seems like a pretty far-fetched WIGO... --GTac 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked for the blocks of Scientology at Wikipedia. I found: and So, less than one /22 block - and they talked about it for ages! Could someone please tell Andy that way bigger blocks are made by TK without any discussion (or reason)? larronsicut fur in nocte 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Assfly already told you. Conservapedia blocks individuals, not groups. Deny this and lose all credibility. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We ban individuals for breaking clear rules. Your suggestion that we've banned people for "disagreeing with the site's official editorial policies" is nonsense.
We ban individuals for breaking rules - and those who share IP ranges with individuals without any further reason... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Transistor" is a Conservative Word???[edit]

Doesn't this finally prove that Andy is a parodist? Rpeh 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would help if he actually explained why they were conservative (besides the fact the Wicked Witch his mommee said it), but then that would show that he is pulling words out of his ass. Have we done a side-by-side on this yet? Especially as he can't even get the dates right. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What about internet? Or even better, telephone? I'm sure, R. Reagan used a telephone, so, it has to be conservative. Wait, that could lead to a new essay: Best Conservative Inventions... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he's just picking these words at random out of the dictionary. Let's give him some help: extirpate! metatarsus! rip! bouquet! purlieus! yonder! stevedore! gadget! cranny! tallyho! benzene! woolsack! rind! dreamboat! olive! larrup! diathermy! clank! mop! harquebus! lignin! snook! vernier! amputate! farinaceous! jerkwater! Our list is growing exponentially!--WJThomas 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can't see that 'transistor' is conservative word then you're clearly beyond hope. OncomingStorm 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Terry, I'll bite. Please enlighten me as to exactly why "transistor" is a conservative word. Who knows, your pearly drops of wisdom raining down upon me, could just make a convert out of me. Or are you going to do your usual "We hold some truths to be self-evident, gentlemen." --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely 'teabag' is a conservative word now? Vulpius 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is 'Resistor' a liberal word? --Prim arthropleura.jpg 15:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, because RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! --Kels 16:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Andy is Idiotes of Borg in the collective. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has updated his "reasoning". (Hi, Andy! Thanks for reading!) He says it's an example of "Yankee Ingenuity". Whatever. And that Bell Labs is a "conservative" lab. Whatever. And that the name (as opposed to the invention itself) was given by John R. Pierce, who criticized AI (that makes the transistor conservative?), and later developed Telstar (that makes the transistor conservative?) and that Telstar was a precursor to SDI (WHAT???).

John Pierce was also involved with the traveling wave tube, commonly used in UHF and microwave transmission, and pulse code modulation, used everywhere (telephones, CDs, digital audio in general). So I guess those (and Telstar too!) are conservative words too. Go for it, Andy! Gauss 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But the CP article on transistors says that modern variants use Quantum Theory, which I thought Assfly regarded as unproven? Or does this mean that transistors were a Conservative invention before being destroyed by Liberal Deceit? Or is reading CP simply burning my brain away? Rpeh 17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Some of each. Note that, aside from various problems Conservapedia has with quantum mechanics, Andy praises it to the skies in his attempts to denigrate relativity. I don't think he's really thought out his attitude toward QM. Unlike his attitudes toward complex numbers and proof by contradiction. Gauss 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

God, I hope he's reading RW. He can see our glorious articles on him! But nothing can penetrate his Upstanding American Conservative Protection Suit, bangin' out the best conservative songs and words all day long. SJ Debaser 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This one is both easy and complex at the same time, but offers valid insights (oh how I love the smell of an insight in the morning) into Andy's thinking. Right down at the end, you kinda get to where it comes from. Andy holds everything Reagan did to be Holy, and the Strategic Defense Initiative is, strangely, just about the ne plus ultra of Reaganisms to Andy - people are banned and branded liberals for suggesting that it didn't work, has never worked, and won't work. The very first time he wrote History Lecture 13 he claimed "President Reagan ....had the most original and influential idea of any president in all of American history: the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)". It seems likely that as a young engineer, forming his conservative, ahem, 'vision' at the same time, he found an engineering thing to be a wonky fundamentalist about - I guess he felt it was a topic he could 'own'. In an early debate here, he tells us a story about hearing an eminent IBM scientist in the 80's say it was unpossible - naturally the scientist was branded a liberal. So because the SDI is From God, and because transistors are certainly involved in the SDI, transistors are conservative. Sigh. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose "transistor" could - Admittedly by a bit of a Stretch - refer to a cross-dressing sibling. Which would probably make it Sinful and therefore Liberal. --Tolerance 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Har har. When I was young, people would frequently refer to their small, portable transistor radios as their "tranny". "You going to bring the tranny with you today?", etc. You could have a very gay time if you were out with your tranny back then. Ah, how language changes. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow you're going back a few years there, but WP has a few words about "Danny's Tranny" - a children's cartoon. Anyway. Good to see that it's not just me in awe of the latest piece of conservative thinking. Rpeh 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
John R Pierce also wrote science fiction and made significant advances in electronic music - neither of these are usually thought of as conservative genres. Couldn't find out his views on classroom prayer, though. Totnesmartin 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I went to a lecture series a few weeks back by a few guys who worked at Bell Labs "back in the day". They never once -and they had ample time to do so- mentioned praying before starting their work, or protesting against abortions and the lecturers didn't thank God once. So Bell Labs cannot be Conservative! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Inventing new technology is, by its very nature, anti-conservative, if conservatism is defined as "wishing to preserve the status quo or revert to older ways" rather than "whatever Andy says it is this week." Totnesmartin 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I claim my Gold Bahnstah for being 100% correct in my analysis of Andy. I'd like to thank my manager... DogPMarmite Patrol 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: now he's claiming that almost anything to do with the SDI is likely to be a conservative word. OK, how about 'Government Expenditure', 'Government Program', 'Union', 'Labour', 'drill', 'coffee cup', 'door'. Wow, this could really ruin his exponential or geometric growth stats. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Steak" is clearly a conservative word, because Andy likes steak. You don't think he'd like a liberal food, do you? (This is good, more sushi for me) --Kels 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In Assfly's defense the steak case was made by a parodist --Opcn 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You could say that a transistor wouldn't work without liberal principles. The very function of a transistor is that when you apply charge to the base, it enables current from the collector to the emitter. That current couldn't happen without the contribution of the base! - Cuckoo 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr Tiller[edit]

In spite of everything Conservapedia stands for - essentially everything I stand against - I still think it shows they may have one or two shreds of human dignity left that they condemn the murder of Doctor Tiller. Of course, this could be a lie to cover their real opinions, but seeing as they don't have a problem speaking their mind everywhere else on their site, I don't think that's so. SJ Debaser 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This may be relevant. --Kels 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Glorying in the blood[edit]

It's not funny to pre-mock CP for what they might say. It's not funny to make hay of what they do say. It's just not fucking funny. RW vs. CP is game. A murdered doctor is not a game. Please stop making stupid wigos about this. Does the phrase "moment of silence" mean anything to anyone anymore? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Silence speaks volumes. CP's previous policy seems to have been to pretend that anti-abortion violence doesn't happen. I thought that warranted comment. Feeble Lance 05:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
CP has on multiple occasions used the murder of others to promote their agendas- and I'm talking recently and in America (and by Andy himself), not just the Holocaust and not just by Ken. It is the single most vile and sickening behavior I have encountered on that site, with no close second. It is my opinion that we should avoid going down that road at all costs. These are real murders of real people, not something only found in a book or movie. We should condemn without apology any attempts to marginalize or find "humor" in such acts. Frankly, I think the WIGO in question should be removed and an appropriate rule added to the guidelines. My two cents: take the high road. Kalliumtalk 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As natural law is impossible to break, what is truly holy cannot be defiled. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I commented out what was probably the wigo in question. It was already down to -20 or so, I only blanked it because it embarrasses - and pains - me to see such tripe on this site. I also wasted all your time with an intercom thingie. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say you did the right thing with the WiGO. However, I'd also say that the comments above by Josh and myself were appropriate given the situation. --Kels 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) CP may have shown rare tolerance on this, but others haven't. Rpeh 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Randall Terry was a phone guest on Thom Hartman's radio show today. Sick bastard. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment shouldn't be perceived as offensive to anyone, sorry if it was taken that way. I was just pointing out my surprise at Conservapedia's recognition of it. SJ Debaser 09:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken's saddo friends[edit]

OK, this is good fun. Ken's friend, NephilimFree (the one who's destroying Evolution on the interwebs), is very upset and crying about not being able to save his online gaming friends. DogPMarmite Patrol 01:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dog - that's the funniest thing all week. "I'd love for you to be with me ... in paradise." Precious. Are we sure NF and Ken aren't the same person? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
He ends his video with "I'd give everything I own if I could just save one of them". One of them should call him on that: "Sure, I'll accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior...just sign over to me the deed to your house...and everything else you own..." DickTurpis 02:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Does that offer include the sweet headpiece? Corry 02:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt his Mom wants to sell the house though. She might be happy if you took some of his hundreds of bobble head dolls, Christian rock CD's and old game consoles though. DogPMarmite Patrol 03:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The internet at large would be happy if you took his microphone and webcam, that'd do fine. --Kels 03:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding voice chat in online games: There's no atheists in the 3D foxholes, just Group A (people who chatter endlessly about stuff unrelated to the game) and Group B (people who unplug the headset so that they can actually get something done in the game). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr spelling[edit]

I'm not really one to pick about typos, since I'm kind of prone to them myself. But when spelling is clearly just utterly fucking borked, it makes it very clear that the person is, basically, uneducated and stupid. 'Hanus' is clearly not a typo of 'heinous'. If you can't spell, what credibility should I give to your arguments? Might you also be claiming to know more than you do about other topics? Jpatt - get yourself a fucking education, mate. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, their all a bunch of flamers.
Ooh ooh ooh I'm on fire... (the Boss) ħumanUser talk:Human 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this time it's a grammar rant. Ken, you need to understand why your use of the word "and" is utterly wrong in the sentence "The YouTube video producer SwordsmanofFaith continues to battle evolutionists over his anti-evolution video which cites the Conservapedia evolution article and the video was produced over 60 days ago!" which you slapped on the Main Page, no less. I don't think a single one of those fucking morons over there ever took an English class. Why do I even bother? I don't know any more. "Some idiot on the internet is wrong". DogPMarmite Patrol 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading a lot, today, about the nature of Right Wing radical extremists who like guns, and who don't like abortion, immigrants, teh gay, etc. And sadly, most of them seem ill educated in general, and in English specifically. The lunatic fringe seems to think that frothing at the mouth and hitting some random keys with some level of English tossed in is acceptable "argument" for their fear driven hysteria.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not like they care about impressing us effete intellectual elitist snobs, anyway. Their arguments are aimed at the common people-the salt of the earth! You know, MORONS. --Gulik 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbie Boy[edit]

I suspect Ed is more interested in Barbie's consumers more than the doll itself. Although I imagine he has a healthy Skippertm collection. --Kels 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, but did you look at teh essay? I don't even know where to begin with that horror show.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I lost a few more brain cells after reading that essay. Using a few song lyrics to prove a point? God--Nate River 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's insanely bad. I'm going to spend the rest of my life trying to forget that, it was so bad. --Kels 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO worthy?[edit]

So Andy repeats that no one has been banned for disagreeing with editorial policies. Hardly a notable event, but still funny, like a roadrunner cartoon. We could make a huge list of people banned explicitly for disagreeing with the editorial policy. Z3rotalk 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I done WIGO'd it already. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't ban whole categories of contributors, eh? Five words: "member of a vandal site." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
One word: Europe. tmtoulouse 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"We ban individuals for breaking clear rules." - Yeah, like Commandment #73, "Ye shall not have a silly pattern of editing". ħumanUser talk:Human 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I got a shout out![edit]

Yippee! TK never returns my calls, but he still cares! "It is patently inhuman of you to suggest..." - at the "getting tired of dealing with tough questions" WIGO. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Knight picture[edit]

I can't believe nobody here or on CP is complaining about Ken's fighting paladin image, it is fucking annoying; the moment I see it I have to fight the urge to kill my browser. If you are going to make a moving gif file please have larger time delays between the frames.</rant> - π 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more comical than annoying. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the fighting Paladin, I think it forcefully presents a fighting image and makes Conservapedia look tough, mean, hard-hitting. But I think that in regards to evolution on the internet, what would REALLY help the cause of the Fighting Conservapedians would be MOAR HITWIN ON THE MAIN PAGE PLZ TO BE KTHXBAI. DogPMarmite Patrol 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It helps make CP epilepsy friendly. Silver Sloth 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but geocities and angelfire have established a long time ago that adding animated gifs to your website only makes it more awesome, there can't be too many. --GTac 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm at work on IE6 (yes, 6) so it looks pretty tolerable to me. I assume it goes nuts on Firefox? how long is a complete animation cycle for you guys? 11:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It is 16 frames that are replaced every 30ms, so the whole thing is cycling less than once every half second. To give you idea of how annoyingly face that is a frame on TV is only replaced every 42ms. - π 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen that somewhere before. I'm not saying that Ken's abilities fall short of animated gifs I am ;) Worm (t | c) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Ken's abilities fall short of putting his underwear on before his pants. --Kels 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
In the Land of The Mother Tongue we tend to put our pants on before our trousers. LateralQuercus 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't say "Mother" and "tongue" in the same sentence anywhere near where Andy "I named my daughter after my mommy" Schlafly's name appears. --Kels 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you kiss your mother with that tongue? --Shagie 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are having problems because of your operation of a lower Internet browser. Perhaps you need a hierarchy

   Google Chrome

is light-years ahead of

   Internet Explorer 

which is slightly (just bareley!) better than


which dosen't nearly suck as much as


which I can at least operate, unlike the screwy mouse gestures in


Yay! I managed to piss off everyone in the entire Wiki with my browser opinions!

The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It needs a little horse-corpse to beat. --Gulik 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Only one change: FF is defintly superior to IE. The only problem I have with it is that it takes a while to start up (but it may just be my computer, I'm not sure) --Passerby25 11:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
How adorable, Passerby25 was taken in by the fakepost 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Google Chrome convert, although I understand Firefox loyalists. IE has left a bad taste in my mouth after Windows Update went on continuous non-update mode last month because of IE. Sterile kitten 02:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken fiddles with his favourite past time[edit]

It's okay, Ken. Accept it. Enjoy yourself.

Priceless, absolutely priceless. Ken isn't fixated by homosexuality, no, not at all, but he does seem to love 'research'.-- 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hubby #1 and I did some "research" this morning...I "researched" all over him then we had a cigarette, just like real researchers do. Later we'll go to a "research bar" to find other "researchers" and maybe do "research" with them...albeit safely. CЯacke® 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
In all seriousness, it is most likely Ken is struggling with these certain feelings. He's drawn to the subject, but hit's out against it because, at the moment, he feels ashamed of what's happening to him. Matt oblong 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Right...and when he does the gay community (in Buffalo?) will take him in and take care of him heal those self-inflicted wounds and he'll find freedom (nay, even joy!) at (at last!) being true enough to himself that he can see that being gay isn't the end of himself but the beginning.
Until that time, however, he's "fair game" for gentle jabs at his wall of denial.
On a related subject, one that I've opined before: When TK (or Ed or Jpatt et al) vigorously agrees with Andrew Layton Schlafly it is often noted by the use of the phraseology of "sucking Andy's dick" (or somesuch)...I know this is meant to portray an act of subservience but please, remember, these are self confessed heterosexuals and should remain such unless and until they self-identify otherwise. (User:C is the obvious exception to this "rule".) CЯacke® 17:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There are any number of explanations for his bizarre fixation and editing patterns. I don't think being homosexual and the ensuing shame he might feel (as an ostensible fundamentalist christian) sufficiently explain the absolutely staggering number of edits, both consecutively in single sessions and over years, he's made on his pet articles. I've already taken a small amount of flack for this, but the analysis is still sound: both OCD and Asperger's might explain his unusual behavior. But I'm not a physician or psychologist and I certainly don't mean to offend people here who live with either OCD or Asperger's and are intimiately more aware than I am of how these conditions affect them. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
JY23's editing pattern is what I'd expect from someone Asperger's...WesleyS seems to fit even more. It's a certain level of tedium (listing soccer players, categorizing) that's not present in Ken's edits. And I don't think an Aspie would make nearly as many mistakes as him. There is definitely something about homosex that pulls viciously at Daniel and Ken's heartstrings. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ken fixates on subjects regardless of whether they're actually interesting to anyone, has an apparent inability to empathize with and play well with others, and displays seemingly obsessive behavior. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Like obscure football clubs? Shitty emo bands? Ken primarily sticks to homosex (he's gay or terribly afraid of teh gays) and evolution (he's fucking stupid and angry at intellectuals). — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can diagnose them with OCD or Asperger's any more than diagnose them with Crohn's or diabetes. Corry 17:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No shit? I thought I could come up with a definitive diagnosis based on a glossing over of his internet ramblings. You've totally set me straight. Thanks. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to be an ass. I think that not only is it fruitless to try to diagnose mental illness over the internet, it is insulting to those who suffer from mental illness because we're using their conditions to explain away people we don't like. Mental illness is stigmatized enough already. Corry 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There's also no need to state the obvious (that we can't make diagnoses online). I think that it is not only fun, but entertaining because we're using their conditions to explain the behavior of people we observe. Everything we do could be considered by some as insulting by someone (esecially everyone at CP), maybe you should take off. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. I'm not offended at all- my sensibilities aren't that delicate. I just prefer not to add to the stigmatization of mental illness by using it to explain away people I disagree with. Corry 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fare enough. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't we all just get along? OncomingStorm 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"Can't we all just get along?" - How very utopian of you Jinx. However in nature some, like me, will always be superior to others, like you. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Must be that random mutation you had McWicked. OncomingStorm 22:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
@ Neveruse: I've never been diagnosed as an Aspie, but that doesn't mean I'm not, I guess. My editing wasn't really fixated on anything, just finishing and keeping up on projects. Oddly enough, I really have a short attention span, contrary to my "silly editing patterns" (hi Human!) Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I was just kind of a poke. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oncomingstorm apparently doesn't understand mutations, in that they are random by definition.--Opcn 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You appear to be an idiot Opcn. OncomingStorm 12:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Corry: being offended by something on behalf of someone else is what leads to the stupidest political correctness out there. Especially in Britain. If people are insulted, let them speak up. Being insulted for them is in itself insulting to them. 13:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Sockpuppet theater! Thank you, Jinx hi Jinx!. --Irrational Atheist 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Andy is partially right on this one. The "Columbus discovered the world was round" story is both false and commonly accepted. What are we ragging him about?

I'm changing the WIGO to focus on his insane paranoia and blindness about the liberal media coverage of the shot soldier. Coarb 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you're public school teach you that "Columbus discovered the world was round"? Prolly not... — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand? And yet he used it to "excuse" himself from addressing said issue? Looked like brilliang sockpuppetry to me. Pull this string, Andy say this. Pull that one, he says that. How to make an andyquote on CP without copying and pasting? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And no one fucks with my WIGO's. Vote them down sure but dont revert. I may come from the most peaceful country on earth but I can still be your worst nightmare (Heh, sounds like a movie tag-line) Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, except it wasn't "your" wigo, you added an update, so technically you might have been fucking up "someone else's" wigo. Also, they're all "our" wigos in the end. The possessiveness on this article has always irritated me... Considering it is most obviously a community project. But I liked what you added to the wigo, it made it better, followed the trail further... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh dont get me wrong - I take no particular "Ownership" or "possesion" of any WIGO I add. Just i figured it was policy not to remove them. And I felt like throwing my weight around and feeling like a "big man on campus". Ace McWicked

Yeah, he did avoid the question. The WIGO doesn't mention that, and even if it did, only answering one of two objections is not lulzy. Coarb 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Schlafly Sidestep, masterfully executed. Also I love the obligatory invitation to take his test. Corry 04:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The invitation reminded me of how Scientologists would have a table on city street corners, inviting you to take a free test of your mental well-being. Unsurprisingly, it always indicated that you needed to learn more about their worldview to improve your score on future tests. --SpinyNorman 14:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have these statistics?[edit]

Does anyone have the stats on what time of day the big admins at CP are active? It seems like most of the time when I am up they aren't doing anything, and it is a waste of my time to load the page. Thanks.

We did have these at one stage, a graph of edits by the hour, they would be out of date now but if you go back through the archives you might have some luck. - π 05:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Here you go
What amazes me with that graph is that there's only 2 sysops/editors left of that original list. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Aschlafly, Ed Poor and Foxtrot are still there - though cp:User:Foxtrot hasn't contributed for a couple of weeks. larronsicut fur in nocte 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Steven Lonegan WIGO[edit]

Could we change the statement about his opponent getting 31% more votes to state that his opponent got 55% of the vote. I believe that the second statement is clearer. I also have an immediate suspicion of any difference in data presented as a percentage. It is often used to make a difference sound greater than it really is; as in "The number of murders has increased by 100% over the last year" when the increase was from 1 murder to 2 murders. Of course I am not attempting to pass judgement on whoever wrote the WIGO. JoeDuffy 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The original WIGO was mine. I don't usually present stats the way I did, but I'm going to revert for two resaons. First, this as a Republican primary, so it's not just that "more of them were from Republicans" - all votes were Republican. Second, what I was trying to convey is that while a conservative and a moderate were the two top vote-getters, 31% more people chose the moderate one over the conservative one. If anyone can state this more clearly feel free to tweak, though. --SpinyNorman 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the change didn't make things any clearer. I like "Lonegan got 42%, Christie got 55%". This really is a non-issue though. I'm just keeping this going to avoid doing work. JoeDuffy 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When you say "31%," do you actually mean 13%? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's (55-42)/42*100=31% not 55-42=13%. JoeDuffy 15:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Percentages of percentages, that doesn't make it confusing at all! --GTac 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now changed it to a more typical form. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be perfectly accurate and clear, it should say " a margin of 13 points" (not 13%).--WJThomas 17:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Other exciting ways of phrasing it might include "Lonegan gained an astonishing 76% of the percentage of votes of the winner, Christie". Or, "The difference between Christie and Lonegan's vote tally was four and two-thirds that of the third-placed candidate". Or an even more Schlaflyesque definition might run "Lonegan polled an incredible fifteen and a half times that of the third place contender, leaving him for dust, and won an amazing three quarters of the eventual winners tally". Or maybe "Christie hobbled into first place, scraping together votes from only 54% of the electorate". DogPMarmite Patrol 16:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The pwnage - it burns! Thanks for resetting it to the 13 point margin, which reads much better. --SpinyNorman 18:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I could use some help[edit]

Can someone who actively and successfully socks drop me an e-mail (Opcnup on G-mail) I have something that I really want to get up on the new conservative words page but I was blocked(along with some other poor bastard). I might not be as dumb as I look asking for help like this ;) --Opcn 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested if it helps the list get closer to a perfect geometric fit. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You know TK reads this, and will be extra suspicious of anyone trying to get something on the list now? Also, try using a proxy --  Nx/talk  20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I know TK reads this, that's why I asked folks to email me, so I can discuss things privately. I've tried to proxy but never had any success. --Opcn 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Your IP address has been noted, User Opcn, and has been reported to the authorities. Yours in Christ. --Aschlafly
Apart from which, who's gonna risk a sock on the word of someone who's been here one week? You might be TK, for all we know. Shakinghead.gif This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 22:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You're TK.jpg
That must be why I gave myself the 5 year block. --Opcn 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
How do we know you aren't TK using the name of a blocked user at CP? Also we don't really want to get involved in silly games, we document events and provide analysis. If you want to play, that is fine, just stop trying to drag others into it. - π 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Opcn, if you were a TK sock, wouldn't the most obvious setup for credibility be to block "Opcn" on CP first? Look, if you can't master that proxy crap, chances are you'll suck as a parodist, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
PS, why don't you just list the words you think it would be funny to add here, and we can all chuckle at how well-chosen they are? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure TK cleverly made Opcn with the intent of infiltrating a site that hadn't been made yet. I've also been BrendanW, EmersonW, Mr.Emerson (yup, these were me, although the IP addresses were not) and JGHuston, along with a few others that I have forgotten. You can probably look back at the blocks of those characters (Brendan and Emerson) to check their IP addresses, and verify that I am on the same block using the whois function. --Opcn 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow that is a while back, yet you only became a member a week ago. TK has a long memory about this place, he is the only one who remembers Colin, he still talks about him though. - π 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Jallan and BrianCo blocked you for for inactivity (the blocking didn't help) and then for having changed your name, not TK. - π 08:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
TK is the only person who's repeatedly (although usually covertly via email [and always excluding CUR, of course]) suggested co-ordinating any anti-CP action. You'll forgive us if we don't all rush to your assistance. I can't remember the names of my past CP socks or even my present ones without looking them up, so well done, you. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I was not trying to martial the forces, I am trying to get one person to either tell me how to go about making a stable sock or to sneak in a tiny bit of parody, something that I'm sure that they will not catch. I know quite a few of you have to be socked up. I e-mailed Human, who hopefully will not give up the idea until after it is done, but can presumably let everyone know if it is any good and after it is done that I did it.— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs

I read your email, and the idea seems to have little to no merit. Or point. But that's neither here nor there. Odd that you wrote me, since I have no idea at all how to use a proxy - although I think if I wanted to, I could find pretty good instructions on the internet. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

When will Conservapedia outmatch wikipedia?[edit]

moved here larronsicut fur in nocte 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

TK WIGO[edit]

Ok, so I changed the TK WIGO about him banning some guys after saying that conservatives don't have to back up ridiculous assertions. I think the real crux of the matter is Andy using a tragic shooting at a recruiter office to take a (baseless) potshot at liberals. And when cornered, we get a bunch of classic Andy, spewing stupid and refusing to back down. And finally TK wins by argument ad banhammer. It's kind of long, so if somebody has a neat way to trim it up, please do so. Finally, with the vote tag having changed, how do I make the red img links not show up? Corry 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't make them not show up. However as long as Capturebot2 is running they'll turn blue very quickly. --  Nx/talk  14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I thought the whole Andy "liberals are against me" was kind of blah, while TK saying he didn't have to back up assertions was rather funny. Z3rotalk 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm GTac and I approve of this edited WIGO. --GTac 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy's such a stupid cunt for turning a murder into something against liberals. If there is such a thing as heaven, Andy's not getting into it. He's a fucking disgrace. SJ Debaser 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
At least I got a classic TK response: CP turning murder into petty liberal-bashing = appropriate and laudable, "Liberals" asking CP to show some decency and respect = "inhuman". Thanks TK! You're doing a great job. Kalliumtalk 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
They need a labotamy each. Do the CPians know you're over here? I'm surprised they didn't block you before. SJ Debaser 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, so am I. I thought at least TK would have pounced on it, but perhaps I'm not active enough for him to have noticed. Might also be that I only edit from one IP and never did any parody/vandalism, so that may have kept me under the radar too. More likely he just didn't bother. I periodically checked the block log to see if I had been randomly blocked shortly after an edit here, in the absence of activity there. Figured it would have made an entertaining WIGO, at least, but alas, I was deprived. Kalliumtalk 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The derail about Galileo is a pretty funny detour from something which wasn't so funny to start with. Andy says "Cody, Copernicus discovered that Earth revolved around the Sun, long before Galileo..." Yes, but what was seen as 'obvious' in Galileo's time? What did the Catholic church, for instance, say about it? Also does Andy think he's now refuted the argument? Tuner 22:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Axis tilting party[edit]

No wonder it's down in the polls, an edit from over two years ago is not exactly "what is going on"... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's Rashfly going about with the "annual tilting of its axis" thing? I think the axis wobbles slightly (does it?), but it sure as hell doesn't do some sort of annual flip. At least it's still there! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's confusing the cause of the seasons with the Earth's orbit and the earth tilting on its axis...the axis does wobble though. ~Ttony21(talk, contribs) 23:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I continue on mine "quest for a positive wigo". I said it was an oldie...jeez you people are tough. What struck me as funny is he wrote "The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis." I thought the tilting was constant not an "annual event". CЯacke® 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that part was hilarious. Trouble is, he wrote it 27 months ago or so. And yes, the tilt is fairly constant - as mentioned, it wobbles a bit (not sure what the time frame is on that, though). Crackhead, you used to be so good at this, wha' happen'? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger's comment about "annual tilting" seems to me to be utterly moronic. It's not consistent with what I learned in my atheistic public school, nor is it mentioned in liberally-biased Wikipedia, nor does it make any sense. Roger is more knowledgeable about science and math than any of the other CP goons, but he still doesn't come close to real expertise.

It's true that, if you considered both the Earth and the Sun to be fixed (so the stars revolve once per year), the axis would appear to precess once per year. But no one, not Copernicus nor any other sensible person, views the solar system that way.

Now the axis does precess with a period of 26000 years, but that's not annual, and it's very unlikely that Copernicus knew about that.

Sorry about the voting down. Stuff happens. I've even had some of my WIGOs fail. Gauss 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Greeks knew about precession from comparison of their astronomical data with even more ancient data.[1] Ptolemy knew about it and wrote about it. In the middle ages, it was called trepidation. Copernicus wrote about it in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium as the third motion (revolution, rotation, and trepidation). --Shagie 00:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for straightening me out. But it isn't annual. Roger, wanna fix that? Gauss 01:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"LOL, that turd of a woman would abort her grandchild"[edit]

How fascinating. I only now stumbled over Jpatt's Twitter feed (which he openly advertises on his user page, just to cut off any "Oh noes! Stalker!" cries), and I gotta say that the guy is busy. Some interesting posts (like the one quoted up there), considering that he lists "Conservapedia" as his "name" and uses the CP logo as his icon (it really looks like CP's official Twitter channel, aside from the jay_pe handle), though he basically seems to be the lovechild of DeanS and Ken: Repost right-wing "news", linkspam CP, and promote your own idiotic articles. --Sid 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, after realising that he couldn't find any more suitable editors, Andy used some of that antediluvian genetic modification technology - that is far more advanced than ours - and created hybrids of his sysops in the hope of one day developing someone who works as well as PJR, but won't talkback to him like Ed. - π 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you picture Ken being restricted to 140 characters? --Shagie 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I reckon Ken should take up twittering, he would have to learn to stop repeating himself, it might improve his frontpage rants. - π 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Rummaging around in what he's following, I noticed this feed. Now, this "Obama uses a teleprompter" thing - didn't they ever see a Republican using a teleprompter too? Where do these people get off? They're just jealous of BO's writing chops, I guess. No Republican ever had a speech writer so good. DogPMarmite Patrol 01:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh, if Ken took up twittering we'd end up looking at posts followed by 7 shorter posts correcting mistakes in the first one. HollowPsycho 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
He does that on blogs, every comment he makes is followed by 2 to 3 more saying "foobsr -> foobar". - π 02:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That awful tit went and locked his Shitter page, the coward. I was looking at the wrong turd. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fucking what? I must say looking through his blogs I see a very angry man who feels betrayed because his country didn't vote the way he wanted. - π 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, it's like watching a mind vomiting. I always thought JPatt was really young, hence the juvenile command of the language, but he uses some grownup words in there. Perplexing. Of course, his Twitter syntax isn't that much of a step down from how he normally writes. Corry 04:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (addendum) He has almost a thousand followers, which is kind of scary. Corry 04:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well that is nice it has been deleted (hopefully by him). - π 05:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he's afraid that TK will hammer him for such strong language... I'd imagine that using the Conservapedia name and logo to write things like "Michelle Obama has become the queen not just of America but of the world"-Ayers. LOL, that turd of a woman would abort her grandchild #tcot might have some consequences. ...or he will be promoted for "spreading the truth". Knowing CP's odd standards when it comes to family friendliness, insults and decency, it could really swing either way. --Sid 09:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And look what Jpatt just happens to add to the Michelle Obama article... Hey, Jay, why'd you leave out the rest of your remark? ;) --Sid 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
But even with that one thing deleted, it's interesting to see some of the memes he is participating in: Take for example "#3wordsobamahates" or "#3wordslibshate":
Apparently, while creating Jpatt, a few Andy Genes were thrown into the mix, too. --Sid 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Apology![edit]

Ahhhh I found it! I think that I am one of the only people here to have received a full and frank apology from Andy -

Since you have insulted me I will no longer debate you. The facts are above, you have provided none of your own. Safe to say that compared to you, I am an expert on NZ. And you still have not answered my question as I dont believe can answer it. Good day. AdenJ 19:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
AdenJ, you're right. My tone was insulting and I apologize. I hope you accept my apology.--Aschlafly 09:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
It can be found at the top of this page under gun control. Its actually quite funny. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a (decent) screenshot of it before it magically disappears. - π 02:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I got one for you. - π 02:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's the only one, either. I'm sure there's a second apology out there somewhere, though I don't recall it being quite so frank (and in fact might even have seemed sarcastic if not for the context). We should have an article on the elusive Schlafly Sorry. 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here, he conceded that he was wrong and two other editors were right, thanking them for their tough love. Needless to say, that both were blocked shortly after. larronsicut fur in nocte 09:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia vs. Scientology II[edit]

On June 3rd, 2009 alone, Terry Koeckritz blocked 172,288 IP addresses - without any discussion. OTOH, wikipedia - after great deliberation - blocked 896 numbers. Excessive, isn't it? larronsicut fur in nocte 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly a unique example, but he blocked >8000 IPs in order to keep the only one I use off CP. Kalliumtalk 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It might have been discussed off-wiki. This is feasible when there are only 4 or 5 users whose opinions matter.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


"Cody, Copernicus discovered that Earth revolves around the Sun, long before Galileo. Do yourself a favor and admit that much of what you think you've learned (from public school) is false. Take our World History Final Exam and then learn the truth. And please learn her by contributing to encyclopedic entries, rather than simply ranting and awaiting a response.--Andy Schlafly 12:26, 2 June 2009 (EDT) " [2]

I've never realised just how accurate our Assquote Generator was. SJ Debaser 09:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it wouldn't be Andy if he didn't make the kind of mistake that usually allows him to discredit anybody else's comments; "please learn her". Tut tut. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And Aristarchus of Samos discovered that during the time of Ancient Greece. Proxima Centauri 11:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Aristarchus (if that is his real name), was born before Jesus. Thus, heliocentrism did not exist that early. Sorry. Nice try though. Jimaginator 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's yet more evidence of Liberal bias in Wikipedia! Just look, they actually imagine that Seleucus of Seleucia who also lived before Jesus believed heleocetnrism. Can we adapt the Fun:Schlafly Quote Generator to say bad things about Wikipedia or RationalWiki? Proxima Centauri 13:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It does, when he does. As for RW, we are they who must not be mentioned. - π 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic determinism of homosexuality[edit]

Anyone else notice that he is using resources that are 9-16 years old? Its like someone arguing about particle physics using a text from 1902--Opcn 09:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as they conform to his world view, it doesn't matter. SJ Debaser 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This is par for the course, really. Look at cp:Talk:Gay bowel syndrome, for example. The basic pattern usually ends with "Prove that they don't say that anymore!", which is usually pretty hard because you'd have to look for evidence of absence of evidence. And even if you somehow manage that and silence Ken, people like Ed will come along and claim that they should still report on the controversy. --Sid 09:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also par for the course is taking a fragment of one statement based on a very elementary understanding of the issue at hand, often- as in this case- from someone who likely is not qualified in the field, i.e. MDs talking evolutionary genetics. Will Ken ever find the giant gaping hole in the good doctor's argument? Stay tuned (just don't hold your breath)! Kalliumtalk 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Giant gaping holes are relevant to Ken's interests. Or so I've been told. --Kels 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Walked right into that one, didn't I? (should probably rephrase that too...) Kalliumtalk 12:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is what happens when you let a creationist organization do your research for you. Does Ken still read us? I know this shit is way too new for a creationist to use, but check it out. God...It's like he doesn't know how to use the internets. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 16:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary literature has liberal atheist evolutionist bias. True knowledge without liberal atheist evolutionist bias is only obtained through careful reanalysis of scientific claims by those who are have invested belief in the interpretation of primary literature. You first link (all your links were on some obscure unconvincing website) even shows an erratum listed that show that it itself is wrong! -Conservative

Gentlemen, I will be a lot less active![edit]

Behold, it's Operation RC Flood!

Either Ken is really that obsessed, CP is really that dead, or TK finally managed to ban everybody else who could be around to edit in the post-midnight (CP server time) slot.

...oh wait, it's all three. My bad. --Sid 10:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Night mode is midnight to 7 or there about on the server clock. Ken and Bret are amongst the privileged few that can edit at that hour. It is worth noting that Ken lives in the same time zone as the server so he is up at 3am editing. Either he has a night job or he is an insomniac. - π 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Kendoll lives an exciting double life. By day he's a mild mannered janitor, by night he fights the forces of homosex, atheism and evolution on the internets. He got his super powers by being exposed to a radioactive copy of Left Behind: Eternal Forces. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That just makes you kill civilians and refuse to patch things properly. -- 12:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel sorry for Ken. He has a non-descript smooth plastic bulge where most of us have genitals. It makes masturbation so much more difficult. Have pity. Jimaginator 12:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he has two personalities. By day he's an ordinary conservative sore at the world and incapable of channelling this, and by night, when his insomnia's present, his separate personality channels this through Conservapedia. The first rule of Conservapedia is you do not talk about Conservapedia. SJ Debaser 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I question whether he has one personality. He could easily be replaced with a simple script, you know. --Kels 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Ken's first rule of Conservapedia that you don't admit you're kendoll when talking about Conservapedia? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It could well be. In which case it is also Ken's second rule of Conservapedia. SJ Debaser 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
By Zeus' enormous hairy testicles, who let Ken near their stash of speed? Or has Ken spent another dirty weekend with a furry 'friend', and is now in a state of denialism and poorly disguised self-flagellation?-- 16:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Let us not stoop to his level guys...--Buscombe 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) Ken, saw this, thought of you. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A request[edit]

I can only assume that the conservative(cp) position on systems of measurements is that the imperial system totally pwnzors and the metric system is a hundredweight of librul hogwash. Can someone please bring up the metric system and have one of them explain how it is evil? I am dying to know. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The liberal NASA used the metric system to dispose of the Mars Climate Orbiter, which would've proved the earth is 6000 years old, instead the "accident" costed $125 million in taxpayer money, which is now going to be deducted from military budget and making it harder for marines to survive against Sudden Jihad Syndrome, much to Barack Hussein Obama's amusement. Deny this and lose credibility. FlareTalk 18:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Superb analysis! May use as an {{assquote}}! — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages Wigo[edit]

It's a little ripe, isn't it? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's only 26 months old... What's up with these recent "not so recent" wigos? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Like a fine wine, WIGOs only get better with age. With Conservapedia continuing its death spiral, how else are we to keep ourselves amused? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but the golden oldies should be on a different station than the hot pops, shouldn't they? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
WWGO > nothing? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Meh, it inspired me to write that thing on the military surprise question. I joined CP when one of my soldiers was reading it. Apparently he did a few courses there, the soldier in question believed he had a working knowledge of history and was dismayed at his inability to be accepted into a continued education program. Awaiting the banhammer for going against almighty andy. - Dylan.Biery -- 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Request granted. As you were. Oh, and TK CAN SEE YOUR HOUSE FROM OVER THERE!!!!1!ONE! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't those 3 wigos (test results, today's pwnage, bannination) be merged, since they are basically all stages in the same story? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of space, they should. For the hell of it, I sent TK a nice email requesting to be unbanned as I have an interest in keeping tabs with my subordinate's edits and am not really a liberal. Its nice to know what a good American he is, banning us petty un-american American soldiers. On the bright side, I did win a small ammount of money for going unbanned for more than two weeks but had hoped that the quality of my edits would allow me to keep my real name. Remember kids, military history is FUNdamental.
And who cares if TK can see my house? I like my house! -Dylan Biery -- 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, you're being a little cavalier. I wouldn't use my real name. Andy really did turn someone in to the FBI, even if the effort was laughable. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
For one to get in trouble, you have to have done something wrong. Your advice is warranted and appreciated, but I was most civil and accurate in my dealings over there. Plus I could just be an angry neighbor taking advantage an unsecured wireless network. I don't practice or advocate cyber vandalism and will be damned if anyone tries to sequester my name. I have been more offensive in letters to my grandmother than by my words on their website. The "I am gonna tell mom" threat looses its teeth after the 9000th time. FFS its a bloody wiki. -Dylan Biery-- 01:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Update! I just received a lovely email from TK which both denied my ban appeal and threatened my career as a officer with a mix of white house and senior army officer contacts. "I suggest to you that it is long past time for you to stand down" were his final words, which is interesting that due to the ban appeals process that was indeed the last step. I am sure it made his self worth go up writing those manly words. I laud his efforts for trying to scare some response out of me and will continue to hope that Conservapedia comes back to rational thought, albeit from a non editor viewpoint. I'll toss his nasty-gram up on my talk page for those who are interested. Conservapedia losses another member and rationalwiki gains another. -Dylan Biery --DylanB 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"continue to hope that Conservapedia comes back to rational thought"?
But yeah my sympathies for your encounter with TK's 'unique' style of 'hospitality'. --Gulik 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I know have 5 love letters from TK, each more delicious than the previous as you can almost taste his hate. Which tastes like strawberries, oddly enough. While not yet threatening my life, he has taken swings at my liberty and pursuit of happiness; here's hoping he goes for the full douche bag tri-feta. While the attention is flattering, I got his most terrible insult most recently. That I am a closet liberal DUH DUHN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!--DylanB 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
WEAR'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE LETTER??? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alger Hiss has reached critical mass[edit]

And the newly created article starts out with (brace yourself) 98 footnotes. --Sid 21:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When the Alger Hiss articles become engorged, they reproduce by binary fission. With enough FOIA requests, there will be more of these articles than atoms in the universe by next September. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Countdown until FOIA founds the Alger Hiss Wiki. 10:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone ever read the whole Alger Hiss article? What's it like? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at it a while back and imagined I would read it but I became frightened and ran away. Something similar happened with that Korean Air flight thingy of Bert and Ernie's. DogPMarmite Patrol 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On noes! Another one! Z3rotalk 15:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve Lonegan Epilogue[edit]

Now that the "conservative" candidate for NJ Governor has been eliminated in the primary, it looks like CP is going to hold off on calling the victor, Chris Christie, a RINO for the time being. I live in central NJ, and the Lonegan radio ads in the last two weeks of the primary campaign were calling Christie a liberal in every other sentence. Now that Christie beat the conservative with the voters, his CP article features his pro-life stance, and conveniently ignores his differences with Lonegan's hard-conservative views that led voters to pick him. This is reminiscent of last year's Republican presidential race coverage on CP. First McCain's a war hero but a RINO, then he's a conservative after winning the nomination, and after his defeat he's written off as a RINO whose running mate would have been the better GOP pick. --SpinyNorman 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm also from central NJ - originally from Fair Haven, right next to Rumson and Red Bank. -Lardashe
Isn't Red Bank where Jay and Silent Bob are from?
Regarding the post-primary love-in, we're just as bad across the aisle. Look at Obama and Clinton. It was so cutthroat leading up to Clinton bowing out that we got to witness the birth of the PUMAs, who would have voted for Rush Limbaugh before they voted for Obama. After the convention, though, Obama and Clinton were suddenly best of friends. Corry 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Those people were ridiculous tits, their minds filled with codswallop and buffoonery. What ridiculous stance-taking. I'll bet you ten Best of WIGO's they all voted for Obama and are now found to be claiming him erudite and wondernuts. Morons. DogPMarmite Patrol 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You owe me 10 Best of WIGOs. The PUMA movement still exists and in some ways has merged with the birther movement. Orly Taitz is a former PUMA. That being said, a lot of the PUMA movement seems to have been something of a false flag operation. Like the tea parties it seems there was a small cell of organized people pushing the PUMA talking points claiming to speak for Hillary supporters as a whole, though the tea parties were clearly more successful in pulling together birthers, tax protestors, secessionists, and disaffected rightwingers into a giant ball of crazy. I would bet you double or nothing that the PUMA movement has its origins in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. Stile4aly 18:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me if the Fat Florida Fuck is behind Osama bin Laden, frankly. So, yes. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a great bit from Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 about the absurdity of two people fighting for the nomination, calling each other "whores" and "traitors"....and then miraculously uniting in harmony against the REAL enemy, the Other Party. As he said, a little of that bullshit goes a long way. --Gulik 08:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Life in the Theocracy[edit]

I know it's not WIGO related, but...The more I read CP, the more I realize what it would really be like to really live in a theocracy. Yes, there are rules and commandmants, but they can be interpreted as the ruling priesthood chooses. There are arbitrary rulings (Andy et al), excommunications (banning), gagging (deletions), witchburnings (pick an article of somebody CP doesn't like), and a whole lot more. What's worse is the kids being inculcated into this BS, so as to perpetuate all the crap. I think I finally understand what Dawkins was saying when he talked about how there really should be no such thing as a Muslim child, a Jewish child, a Christian child, because by that point, the brainwashing has become such that it is almost impossible to break out on your own. I read in many books how only about 10% of people break from their parents religions, and often that is just a switch to another one, not an embracing of reason. *Sigh* Jimaginator 13:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to see the glass half full here. Sure, one could glean a hint of what a theocracy would be like from it, but also remember what a failure it is. It's really just a joke that people kick around in their spare time. While the US definitely has spikes of puritanicalism (er, 2001-2009) the overall trend is towards secularism. Fifty years ago you couldn't be openly atheist. Fifty years ago you couldn't be openly gay. Things aren't perfect, but they're heading in the right direction, I think. Corry 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, there is cause for hope. I guess I am just in a hurry. How many blacks were told during the Civil Rights Movement, to 'just be patient'? The lunacy just seems so staggering at times.
Pale shadow of actually living in a theocracy or cult of personality. What is poorly conveyed by reading CP from a remote seat of ease, is the need to sit through hours-long sermons or other droning tirades, in order to avoid being purged from a position of relative comfort. When my browser's elevator bar gets tiny, I know it is time to consider switching to TLDR mode, rather than be exposed to a flood of minutiae of interest only to the writer jerkwad who earnestly thinks they are making a series of valid pints. Living through the the Real Thing®, sometimes you even have to pretend to be awake and listening. </voice of experience> Sprocket J Cogswell 17:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You make a good point. My eyes glaze over mere paragraphs into one of Ken's epic pets, likewise, say, the history "lectures". Imagine being forced to sit through Ken or Andy reading an entire one every day... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Class meets weekly --Opcn 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's 4 1/3 times a month too often, I think. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor in debt[edit]

TK added a nice little piece to the news section about how Sotomayor is in debt. He says "She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill." Ok so she has a TNW (total net worth) of around $750,000. And an annual income of $200,000. But TK's conclusion: "Sonia Sotomayor Deep in Debt Documents show." Worse still is the statement: "may be living paycheck to paycheck due to poor judgment." It seems intellectually dishonest to claim that someone with a TNW of $750,000 and debts that are just over two years of gross salary is "deep in debt". Living pay check to pay check? An average Joe might have have a gross salary of $50k, a $200k mortgage on a $250K house and no other debt (if he's doing well). As he only has a TNW of $50k and debt 4 times his gross salary would he then not be "deep in debt"? Of course if he never bought the house he'd have a TNW of 0 but no debt. Would TK say he's better off? TK, that is the one of the laziest smear attempts I've seen yet. You are a pathetic little man. JoeDuffy 14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I loved that one. She has three times her levels of debt in liquid assets, including her home, and a hefty salary. Oh, and that hefty dentist bill? What might it be? $20K? TK dreams of having such a salary, but keeps finding himself the victim of wage discrimination on the basis of his fundy beliefs. They sure don't pay fundies properly in today's America, that's for sure. DogPMarmite Patrol 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
TK is one stupid son of a bitch, but he's not that stupid. He's just trolling because there's not a whole lot else going on. Hi Terry! — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 15:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether it's TK's lack of financial understanding or him just being an ass. There are a huge number of people that have no financial IQ whatsoever, TK could be one of them. Z3rotalk 15:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
His news item consists of two passages straight from the fox story. Thoe two passages stradle a third, that thirds passage? "She listed her bank balance as $31,985" pay check to paycheck indeed. --Opcn 17:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
TK's not a fundy. He's just a centrist gun for hire. And, yeah, that news item was a wonderfully well-placed troll. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
He's now arguing that her home has lost all its value, ignoring the fact that she is in an affluent area unlikely to have been swaed by the bubble. --Opcn 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. I wish I was as broke as she is. So she owns 3/4 of a house that's only worth five years income, she's got a couple months income in the bank... and as some troll pointed out, a very secure job and pension. I guess the dental must have been cosmetic (nice caps to prepare for the TV eye, when Obama tipped her months ago she'd be his first pick?) or insurance would have covered most of it? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Federal appellate judges presently make $179,500 a year. For life. And they can only be removed from office if impeached. I'd say that's more than a very secure job. Oh, and I think they can also make up to $21,000 a year from a teaching job, which Sotomayor has. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did say very which is more than very ;) But, yeah, unless caught, as they used to say, with a dead girl or a live boy, they don't even have to retire. $180G/annum is a pretty good pension for a job which involves dressing up in robes and looking bored, then making your clerks write smart stuff you can sign. (color me jealous ;)) ħumanUser talk:Human 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I like here were TK says any financial planner will say $16,000 in cc debt is too much and living beyond your means. Hey, TK, I'm a financial advisor, and I have clients with more than $16,000 in cc debt, and they're not living beyond their means, because their means are huge! The other thing any financial planner will say is that like mental illness, you cannot give advice on a person's financial situation based on information on the internet. Everyone's situation is different. Way to fail finances, TK. Z3rotalk 14:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Even with a ridiculously high interest of 18% her credit cards would still only be $240 a month, which given that her salary is $16,700 a month she would not bat an eye lid paying that off. I must say for someone on her salary she has surprisingly little assets, although she maybe paying children through college or something like that, you don't know her other details. Anyone with more cash than credit card debt is in a good situation. - π 14:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"What the Hell, we actually have users trying to edit our open encyclopedia again?"[edit]

(If anybody wants to turn this or parts of this into WIGO(s), be my guest - I'll head to bed soon, anyway.)

Done. Gauss 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TK opens a can of Hatorade again, deleting an "unauthorized" disambiguation page for "silly, foreign cities" - and then there are his recent exchanges on cp:User talk:TK and cp:User talk:Daniel1212...

Or just look at cp:Special:Contributions/TK for the full range of reverting and bickering. Fun, fun, fun. --Sid 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting implied rule:
My problem is, Ilikecake (Please post to Aschlafly's talk page and ask him to change your user name to your real first name and last initial) you added the material, based only upon your own word, without a link to verify the book says what you say it does, or any ability to check the book out. That is not an acceptable primary source for the information you wanted to add.
(And yeah, mandatory bonus Lulz for "TK" reminding people of the rule(?) to use your real first name.) --Sid 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does it really matter anymore? Sid, cmon, NOBODY reads CP anymore except RatWikians and random seekers of lulz. It is done, dead, deceased, passed on! That wiki is no more! It has ceased to be! It has expired and gone to meet its maker! Its a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to your wiki it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-WIKI!! Fox 01:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You saying that Conservapedia is not doing well Fox? - π 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I lol'd. Nice one. =) Fox 01:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I lol'd at both of you. Nice two. Perfect. I think I will enshrine that somewhere... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

CP's Human Evolution article[edit]

So much wrong so far. I notice there's not even a mention of the most famous A. afarensis fossil in the notes. And there are quite a few hominid ancestors missing. --Irrational Atheist 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"CP's Human Evolution article - So much wrong so far..." ORLY? Did you actually think about that statement before writing it? I mean, shoot, if you're after evolution info, CP is your first port of call for accuracy, right? I swear, I'm gonna start a degree course in the Fucking Obvious, and get rich just off RatWik users. 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Fox
I'm surprised (well not really) that their article on Human evolution doesn't include Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which has been regarded as the oldest known ancestors of Humans. --Beishanlong grandis 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Start your course and they will register ... Welcome, Beishanlong, or student #2 as I shall call you. Fox 01:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I was reading up on "Homosexual Atheists and Evolution" at Conservapedia, and some of the facts seem a little off. And there were two or three quotes that didn't seem right to me. I hope they get it straightened out, I am so enjoying opening my mind and learning having it filled with toxic swill! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My remark was that it wasn't a Ken production, and it had so little information on the page. With those two positives, it still was an exercise in wrongness. --Irrational Atheist 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Aw, Karajou has annexed one of my articles. PubliusTalk 05:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


I can't be arsed to search. Did those fucking morons at CP play up the church shooting of the abortionist? Please feel free to be not arsed to reply, btw - I've been in a not arsed mood for too many months now to actually be arsed whether you're arsed or not. Fox 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox, you might want to swing by Hot l Baltimore for some recreational arsing with Slutty Roax, Ace and the Sluts, and Bad Hoomin. Ignore the little signs our misfit child Arthur stuck up earlier today and have a good arsathon. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps surprisingly, they did not. There was a few hints here and there of something ready to burst free (Jpatt had a fun edit comment of "I condemn all abortions, including the abortion of Dr. Tiller", and when a user suggested on the main page talk they should cover how Tiller focused on birth defect-motivated abortions and performed special special services such as baptism, he said "I don't think his craziness is wiki worthy"), but there was essentially nothing really objectionable in their (very brief) coverage. Like several other groups,

they had the rare good sense to know that shutting up would help their image. 01:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I recall watching that story evolve, and wondering how those nutjobs would spin it. "Rare good sense"? Well, if you mean, they knew they would have their heads torn off while librulz shat down their neck hole if they dared opine about it, I guess that's "good sense". Just goes to show what a hypocritical, evil, lying, warped freak Andy has become, I guess. Fox 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The story's still evolving, what with the Hal Turner business, and a bunch of right-wing blogs persisting in the "Tiller the Killer" crap. They really want to dance in the streets about this stuff, but even they know it's crossing the line. That doesn't stop some of them from crossing it anyway, intentionally or not. --Kels 01:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy's refused to admit/inject the fact that abortion attacks, bombings, and killings are hate crimes. For all we know, in his warped mind, he thinks its fine as long as nobody mentions it ("If it's not a hate crime, it's okay!" sort of thing). Would be funny to see someone open an Abortion Clinic Attacks just to see what he'd say or do. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
PJ Myers has an interesting video up at [3] and today's Grauniad has a full page spread ....but for the life of me I can't get the damn thing to link! Mick McT 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(Guardian) I think you have to wait till it's a day old before its on the website but here: [4], in the meantime. --Scamp 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually saw someone on the news mention how strange it was that the killer, who claimed to be Christian, murdered Tiller in the Sanctuary of the church. Christians believe the Sanctuary to be the most sacred part of the church, where no violence of anger is to occur at all. So this "Christian" committed a murder, breaking one of the 10 commandments, against a member of the church, acting as an usher in the Sanctuary... It's going to take some serious rationalization to square that one up with morality. BTW, there was a great quote from the suspect: "I haven't been convicted of anything, and everyone's treating me like a criminal." Ah, he wants sympathy, how cute. SirChuckBWhatever happened to Skip It? 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


TK blocked me for asking why he was shredding Obama in the Tiananmen Square news feed. What a poo poo head! SJ Debaser 09:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is a bully who misuses blocking power. It's no good trying to appeal to his better nature as he hasn't got one. Proxima Centauri 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother / care about appealing, cuz I only created an account quickly to question the stab at Obama on the Tiananmen Square issue. They're just so thick, if they're going round trying to put that kind of bullshit out there, they NEED something to back it up with when asked about it! The fact that they can't just proves they're wrong. SJ Debaser 11:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, wrong, he's the guy with the banhammer. --Gulik 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You wish![edit]

[5] - just the edit comment --Scamp 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

*chuckles* --Sid 17:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hee hee! Totnesmartin 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

homoliberal wigo[edit]

I don't really get what you expect of Andy here. Seriously, how would you have responded? 10:1 the guy is just another parodist and Andy must know that, and if not, and the guy really has no idea where to start, no thoughts of his own, then what good is he anyway? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Andy said, "we have 30,000 articles". So he replied, without even bothering to add any content. How would I have responded, here? Kan we haz artikle on Co Q10 pleez? Of course, the red "down arrow" is just as available to you as anyone else, I presume you availed yourself of it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk section was available to me too.

Well, Andy could have said "Look at the homosexuality category. It has 164 pages, plus two subcategories with another 19. Take your pick." Gauss 00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

TK outdoes himself.[edit]

How many problems can you spot in this short paragraph? The meaningless snarl words "socialism" and "moral relativism". Is TK suggesting that the condoms are to be held in common (ew!) or that handing out condoms is a moral issue in some way? Then there's the whole condoms in the scout hut thing. You don't have to be a paedo to be a scout master, but it helps. Best not to encourage them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A) Tante Kopfschmerz is just trolling and sucking up, as usual, and B) Amongst conservatives of Andy's ilk, condoms are Evil, because they prevent both pregnancy and disease (both are which are necessary punishments for the prevention of illicit sexual activity), and making condoms available to teens is Double Evil because it "encourages" them to have sex whereas otherwise they'd be pure and innocent and virginal until marriage.--WJThomas 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Amongst conservatives of Andy's ilk, condoms are Evil, because they prevent both pregnancy and disease Not exactly - condoms actually spread AIDS, purely through posessing them, as they are the Devil's work. Ilk does not mean 'type' or 'kind', btw, but, in Scots, 'place': 'The Dunottar of that Ilk' means 'Mr. Dunottar who comes from Dunottar'. Just saying. Oh, and it's 'careering' rather than 'careening' that means to travel recklessly fast. To careen means to turn a boat on its side and scrape all the barnacles, seaweed and associated crap off the bottom. Pip-pip. Fretfulporpentine 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What? Oh, yes, I'd forgotten--words can only have one meaning, and that meaning can only be the original one, because language does not evolve. Thanks, Andy.--WJThomas 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And what's worse, FOOTBALL! Their being given out at FOOTBALL fields. Now, they might have less of a problem if it was at an AMERICAN FOOTBALL field, like 0.000000000000001% less--Nate River 03:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's spinning of the NJ governor's race[edit]

As someone who lives in Jersey and knows Jersey politics, if Chris Christi wins, it's because people around here hate Corzine, not because they hate "tax-and-spend" liberals (and Corzine isn't exactly a "tax-and-spend" liberal either; he closed down public beaches one year because there was no money, for example). --Crazyswordsman 14:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Corzine could be better, but I believe that one of the main reasons he's disliked is because he's a fiscal realist, who started the very painful process of cutting spending and raising taxes in order to get the NJ budget in order. His predecessors, both Democrat and Republican, kept playing bookkeeping games that allowed for wasteful spending and accommodation of special interests while passing the ultimate cost on to their successors. It's no fun being the one who has to say "it's time to grow up and do what needs to be done to fix this", and then deal with opponents who attack you for making unpopular but responsible decisions in the next election cycle. Conservatives love to bash Bill Clinton, but he made the unpopular choices to raise taxes and do what was needed to finally get the Federal budget back in balance, only to have W. blow it up back to the fiscal stone age. --SpinyNorman 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The only actual complaints I've heard about Corzine are that he wasn't wearing the seatbelt while his driver was speeding. Of course, those are from conservative in-laws. -Lardashe
And now, of course, Clinton's popularity rating is back up. --Crazyswordsman 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
So is Nixon's. A little Dubyah's gone a looooong way towards making us appreciate all the other presidents. --Gulik 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the occasionally truly incompetent or corrupt administration provides good perspective. I think Hoover was the last one, so it's been a while. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hoover was bad, but part of his reputation lies in the timing with the Great Depression. Harding was far worse, but because he was a conservative, Andy claims that any negative judgment regarding his administration are liberal smears. I suspect a connection between Harding and the Schlafly family is driving this passionate defense, but I've yet to find it. --SpinyNorman 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone mention me? Cubic bastard Phantom! 22:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Harding was the next previous one I think I was thinking of. Anyway, it's the coincidence with catastrophe that is part of what marks a poor admin - in other words, how they handle it. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That's very true - Hoover was the wrong man for that moment, just as FDR was the right man. Whether one thinks Roosevelt was great president or not, he was a great leader when the nation needed one. --SpinyNorman 12:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people[edit]

With some people, you just wonder HOW they got into the position they're in. this story, liked form CP's main page features this quote, from a freaking dean at a law school

"Schools are not religion-free zones, and any attempt to make them so is unconstitutional."

Really, sir, really?! Now, granted, I'm not a dean at a law school or anything, but I was pretty sure that the exact opposite was true, what with the whole Separation of Church and State thing and all. Gah! HollowPsycho 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(I could be completely wrong about this and someone with a legal background would be better equipped than myself for arguing this) I would like to point out a key quote in the article linked (for what one accepts from wnd) "the school's separate counsel had agreed to a consent decree that "essentially bans all Santa Rose County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities"" - students are not employees. Furthermore, student lead religious activities are not prohibited, and to do so would be a violation of free speech (the first amendment). In Tinker vs Des Moines - "students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door." Another read would be (again, taking into consideration the slant in the publication) [6] [7] - (a simpler version [8]). So no, public schools are not religion free zones, as I understand it, it is that those in an employed position by the state cannot advocate or discriminate against a religion. --Shagie 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thank you for setting me straight. HollowPsycho 22:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
AHA! Proof that they DO exist! :p--Passerby25 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah this brings back memories. One of the smartest guys at the tech college I went to (I think he was working on three degrees at once) was a Vedic Creationist (same silly arguments as Christian ones, only based on the Vedas rather than the Old Testament). His valedictorian speech was denouncing the Blind Faith in such silly, unscientific notions as "Evolution" and the "Big Bang", and nobody lifted one finger to stop him...probably because hey, at least he wasn't a CHRISTIAN, right? --Gulik 17:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably because a court precedent has been set in the intervening year between then and now, that the school is officially sanctioning the valedictorian's speech and so he has to abide by the first amendment requirement of separation between government entities and religion. - π 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Books aren't legitimate sources[edit]

Okay, that's a good one. -- 04:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to mail your copy to TK, with the pages bookmarked and highlighted, before citing it. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Gawd, he's on it again??? Speaking as someone who actually went and got a local uni library card to read what some YEC quote-miner was abusing, I find TK's protestations, well, yes, "too much" (quote stolen from another wigo, I guess). ħumanUser talk:Human 05:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
There ws once a debate on wikipedia about this - someone questioned a citation and it led to "i won't believe the book exists until you post a photo of you holding it open to the relevant page". the stupidest thing was that the dispute wasn't about what the text said, but whether certain words were italicised or not. It almost goes without saying that the article was about religion. Totnesmartin 08:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
While this one is about German military tactics in WWII. TK = Arch-Troll. Bil08 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is causing quite a dust-up on Andy's talk page. It seems that there are a number of people who still think books are a good thing, and that being too lazy to read them may be a bad thing. Including one comment "I am a big fan of books". And TK is starting to make explicit banhammer threats. Gauss 11:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that this has come up before, with Unkie Ed as the antagonist. Don't recall details, though.--WJThomas 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't it Andy's advice anyway that one should write a book rather than read it (in other words, make facts up rather than looking them up)? I mean, if you write a "book", you are free to put it online, and then it's OK to cite it on CP, isn't it? Just a thought... --Just passing by 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
So do you have to have been vetted by Larry Sanger to be able to cite books on CP? Or is RJJ going to be disappointed at having to pick from TK's stack of dusty Archie & Jughead comics to use as primary sources? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Andy's silence on the matter speaks volumes. Ironically, an encyclopedia that stresses the importance of things being true and verifiable should not have an additional "and online-linkable" qualifier. So in TK's world you can't cite research papers where the abstract is published but you'd have to pay to get a copy of the full document? Righhht. --SpinyNorman 12:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This came up when I was trying to verify sources while 101'ing yesterday - you don't actually think Ken read any of those pay articles, do you? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
@Gauss: Someone should note TK's new rule that email is required when he wants to intimidate you privately. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Last time I looked, the bible appeared in book form before the internet was created. What a lame-ass. Jimaginator 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, on a wiki where the founder once cited a dinner conversation, one might have been forgiven for thinking the boat had long since sailed on verifiable sources. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This reminds me of the WP entry for "Vampire Pumpkins." People screamed bloody murder that the article must be a fake, and yet when it finally came down to it, yes, there was some obscure BOOK by a reputable author which did, in fact, talk about people in the Balkans that did believe in Vampire Pumpkins. Of course, this was BELIEF, not proof of the existance of Vampire Pumpkins. The question becomes: What is a primary source for any claim? Dinner conversation? Books? Newspapers? Blogs? Internet gossip? Twitters? Photographs? Physical objects? The ability of CP to have a constantly shifting standard of proof underlies their wingnuttedness. Yes, they can take a 2000 year old book of hearsay, written by non-contemporaneous "witnesses", and say it is the truth (when they want to), but a physical fossil has obviously been faked.Jimaginator 13:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the classic "This really happened" cite for one of his parables. What interests me, is that as the owner of the "Trusworthy Blog", Andy is amazingly uninterested by the fact that TightKnickers is actively making the sources less trustworthy (although I have a feeling that soon, unless it's on WND, you can't use it). I wish I could understand why Andy allowed him back in the first place, especially as he's up to his usual tricks - abusing editors, warring with other admins, etc. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it will become less reliable if books are out. I didn't mention peer reviewed journals either, since CP would probably never use such things unless they are creationist magazines (are they peer reviewed? I wonder). Real Journals require rigorous science, and even those are subject to cheating and errors and the whole gamut of human frailties. What they fail to understand, is that the consensus (oh, that bad bad word) requires multiple sources, and science, like evolution, is a gradual building up of such sources, until the theories become relatively unimpeachable. I like "TightKnickers" BTW! 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Creationist journals are peer reviewed in the sense they are read by other creationist to make sure they reference the bible correctly. - π 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is really on top form. After blocking a good portion of the western world from editing he's now trying to remove all sources of information until we're left with just AIG and WND. If you wanted to kill someone's baby then I guess smothering is a pretty good way to do it. As for the email requirement I feel a WIGO coming on. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you really blame him?[edit]

When I wanted to insert insane or nonsensical information which propped up Andy's worldview, I'd cite a book or journal article, knowing they'd never so much as take the time to see if it existed. This policy is a logical extension of the "everyone is guilty of parody and vandalism until proven innocent" mentality. PubliusTalk 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A prophet in his own lunchtime?[edit]

Maybe TK is just ahead of the curve. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

European Elections[edit]

Anyone care to point out to those clowns that the Greek party PASOK, that beat the (very) conservative Greek governing party, New Democracy, into second place in the European Elections, is the Pan Hellenic Socialist Pary? Mick McT 07:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you can't trust the Greeks. They invented gayness.Adolf Sockfucker 09:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
How did Andy's choice, British National Party, fare by the way? Vulpius 10:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
They got two members into the European Parliament, alas Cantabrigian 10:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed for my native Lancashire :( At least Labour got the shoeing they so richly deserve. Rpeh 10:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Obvious parody is obvious. Hi Terry Taupkhunt! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 12:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I would have voted labour a million times over rather than the BNP. I'm ashamed to live in a country where over 900,000 people have chosen a bunch of racists and fascists. Jammy 14:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly suprising, I know of a few people who voted BNP and they said they were just using it as a protest vote. I'm almost inclined to agree, as scattering your votes among various independent members isn't going to change the result, just the numbers that composed the result. Getting the BNP into some seats might cause the mainstream parties to wake the fuck up, stop dicking about and get out and do their jobs rather than engage in the petty squabling that's lead to people wanting to vote BNP. With the expenses scandles and leadership struggles, they were hardly in a good position to win anything. But at least it's not the Christian Party, which is BNP with added homophobia and theocracy. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
On the plus side, the BNP actually got less votes than it did in 2004, according to the BBC --Smg87 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that was the other thing, it seems that once people have seem how appalling the BNP is when they actually are in power, they go off them again. If only we had elections more frequently so we could speed up the cycle! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I see the "Pirate Party" won at least one seat maybe two. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reading TeaKake! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the BNP's vote dropped is that the turnout plummeted. Their share of the vote increased by 1.3%. It's true that many people turned to them as a protest, but unfortunately a large number of people genuinely believe in their bigotry. I live in the South East these days and some of the things overheard on the train are quite shocking. Rpeh 07:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tangent - political boardgames about european elections[edit]

I'm a board gamer and this reminded me of a game I played awhile back - Koalition about european politics and elections. It has parties such as the greens (represented by a leaf) that have trouble identifying a leader, roses and hats (two major parties), lemons (maybe business dunno?), crosses (duh) and fists (nationalist types). At the bottom of each card icons represent the coalitions the party can be part of. The goal not only being part of the winning coalition for that country, but playing part of the winning coalition for the most countries - see the bonus round. Though of course, the most respected political boardgame is Die Macher, though I haven't played that one. --Shagie 15:56, 8 June 2009 (U

Lemons? So it's the Lemon Party? Do they have a website? 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is running out of ideas[edit]

Archiving material before you reach a certain length of membership is now a blockable offense. Although old Terry Koeckritz is getting soft. He only blocked for ten minutes and then relented and unblocked him six minutes later..... SirChuckBWhatever happened to Skip It? 22:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

TK having issues with archiving is nothing new. He never understood how archiving works, which led to my banning just over 2 years ago. Jrssr5 12:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
TK is the Dick Cheney of conservapedia. Sure, he breaks rules, makes new ones up on the fly, threatens and bans anyone who even slightly steps out of line, but they're at war dammit!!! Terrorist websites could attack at any moment!!! They have to work on the dark side...

"Old Crone"?[edit]

TK gets nasty. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's so filled with hate that he had to come back for seconds to reblock the already blocked account just to get that dig in. What a creep. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and Nutty! resend me that fucking email! Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
He's been calling Susan (or anyone who thinks is she) names like that for years now I think. Including, pretty much, to her face here. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Was that user even Susan? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Half the accounts he bans are lies just to block someone, or blocking for the daily quota. The other half of his blocks are fed throughout RW as Spartacus claims, and half of those are usually true. Half of what I say is bullshit. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 01:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to add... isn't Susan younger than TK anyway? Old Crone, that the best he can do? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 01:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What a venomous little slug he is. Even if he does turn out to be the deepest of deep cover moles, he's still a fuckwit. That shit is hardly Susan's style. I know I've been blocked before as AmesG and Ace McWicked, a far as I can tell he just takes a random stab at it, and congratulates himself for being a big man. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that is just harsh. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Susan is more mature than TK, which I think from his is actions is self-evident. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Susan is more mature than TK" in spades, yeah, doh. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, my pun seems to have failed. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I had some really ripe ones from TK a while back on the forum. Made "old crone" look positively genteel, it did. Not that I didn't expect that sort of thing from him. --Kels 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Why are we standing here flapping about this? This is what he wants to do is get us all worked up, he is a troll of the highest order. He doesn't even have to be on the site and he has everyone's attention. - π 04:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt it make him any less of a dick however. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are worse? Andy "Definitions" or Philip "Definitions"?[edit]

On the one hand, we got the infamous "definition" by Philip:

"Meaning" has the meaning that it means something. Yes, that definition is self-referential, but the point is that you understood it because you know what meaning means.

And here we got Andy with a classic "No effing duh" "definition":

I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.

Go ahead, Addison, ask Andy how you identify a "conservative insight". I could use the Lulz. --Sid 19:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no definitive loser. I'd argue that it is a matter of personal preference. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is how I KNEW, just plain KNEW, that Transistor is a conservative word: "In electronics, a transistor is a semiconductor device commonly used to amplify or switch electronic signals." I guess the electronic signals referred to are diarhhea of the mouth. Jimaginator 20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Philip loses (or wins?). At least Andy's def, in theory, could be used to build a list of some sort. Philip fails at even seeing the complete underlying emptiness of his answer. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Parse error. So which one didn't see the underlying emptiness of his own words? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

2 years[edit]

I wonder where this guy has been hiding? He started July 2007 and hasnt edited since August that same year. I wonder if he knows of the new regine. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably just killed her. Whatever. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Comes out of hiding today (June 9) he/she probably reads this too, just like the sysops on CP. It would be funny if the sysops blocks him/her just because we are discussing it, which we will then spread the rumour on other people as well in that case. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Block graphs make news[edit]

I was a bit slow in tipping off the Wikipedia Signpost folks, but they wrote a story about RW's Conservapedia block statistics as they were compared to WP's. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! To answer these questions:
  • All the pics should be licensed with this: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
  • I read the block logs via api...
larronsicut fur in nocte 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't help but think that TK will get a nice warm feeling in his undershorts over that. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure this has been done alread[edit]

but I don't's pure gold. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Calculus without symbols is like a Conservapedian without a brain. puro oro! Jimaginator 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the one below as well 'An additionanl reason for blocking, which applied to Ed17, is an non-factual or snide remark in the edit summary' - if that's the case then TK should have been banned for just about every edit he has ever made. Worm (t | c) 15:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And further down, under "Merit pay", the schlafmeister speaks: "Also, your blocks are terrific!" *snigger* Cantabrigian 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Holy living fuck, I've never looked at jpatt's talk page before. That's just an enormous shitpile of tremendous arselicking, bumcrawling dudley-doright sycophancy right there. "Hi, can you give this article the jpatt once-over?"; "Your article has some merit"; "OH THANK YOU JPATT!". "Hi, I wrote this piece of shit,do you like it?" - "Like it? I LOVE IT! Carry on." Jeebus, get over him people. DogPMarmite Patrol 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More Schlafly magic[edit]

No matter how the list changes, I can still make it a geometric growth curve!!1!!111!!one!!1 forgetting that 0-1-2-5 is not perfect geometric growth. Of course the fact that he can always make it fit means that the notion that it is a geometric growth is unfalsifiable, so it must be true right? --Opcn 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Inspired by the Best New Conservative Words page I give you Andy and Webster. --Shagie 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Andy and Webster.jpg

Wow, nice! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Shame about the spelling mistake. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What mistake? Is this about "Hell" vs "hell" or something else that I overlooked? I've still got the original photoshop open so fixing it would be trivial. --Shagie 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
gemoetric --  Nx/talk  22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not a bug its a feature --Opcn 00:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. --Shagie 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Knife WIGO[edit]

While I initially laughed about the knife-ban article, it is actually serious business if you really read it. Basically, any kind of knife they want to label a "switchblade" would be such labeled. As a person who owns and uses assisted opening knifes, I am actually concerned about this topic, and may need to make sure my representatives hear about this. Z3rotalk 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's CP news entry and the website it links to typically distort and grossly overstate the reclassification and its effect. Because of course switchblades are a bedrock of conservative values. I'll do an analysis later. I have a meeting to get ready for. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to defend TK, but such a reclassification would actually have a big impact. Reading through the article, it states that currently, only knives with buttons on their handles are classed as switchblades, and thus illegal in most states. The new classification would be any one-handed opening knife. You know how many kind of knives that is? The article claims 80%, though that sounds high, it's at least 50%. Imagine half of all kinds of knives no longer offered for sale, for someone who uses knives alot, that's a problem. Z3rotalk 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really? It doesn't include butter knives, steak knives, hunting knives, Bowie knives, machetes,... EDIT: cheese knives, putty knives, fish knives, throwing knives, juggling knives... What kinds of knives do you use "regularly", and what do you use them for? I see banning certain types of knives as a problem in that it doesn't indicate a particularly freedom-loving philosophy, but I honestly don't see how you can argue it's an actual logistical inconvenience to anyone. --Marty 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Do you own a pocket knife that folds? Chances are it would be regulated as a one-handed opening knife. The knife I use around the house and camping is a one-handed open knife. So is the knife my wife uses everyday at work. It's quite handy to be able to open a knife with one hand when doing a job, I'd rather not have that taken away. Z3rotalk 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You won't. You also likely won't be crossing any borders with your fancy knife so you don't have to worry. It will continue to be a matter of state law. The article is totally hyperbolic. 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Many knives are moved in from other countries, and thus won't pass customs to make it to me. Also, most states take their guidelines from federal guidelines, which would mean they would classify the knives as switchblades. Here's an experiment; try getting a switchblade if they're illegal in your state, and tell me how easy it is. Almost no companies make them anymore, and getting them shipped anywhere is a huge pain. Such will be the fate of many knives is this passes. Z3rotalk 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Around here, borders are a day-trip affair. As one who gains my livelihood with my hands (and all of the rest of me and my kit, walking around the job site) I'm biting my tongue big-time here, Marty. For just one example, your basic Stanley-type utility knife exposes its triangular blade with a one-handed button push. I'm not interested in arguing, but take those away, and you'll start to see logistical inconvenience. Sprocket J Cogswell 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Good example, and thanks for it, it makes thinking about this easier. Now, how about a less polemical source than the "article" TK cited? And yes, the basic retractable utility knife is an invaluable tool, when I did "warehouse" work I carried one, along with a big black magic marker, in my back pocket all day. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Does a customs definition carry through beyond their own bailiwick? What I mean is, surely it only applies at the import stage? It might be creeping protectionism or is a customs definition active in a normal court? </ignorance> This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two problems with the customs definition; first, most knives are made out of the country, and if we can't import them, we can't buy them. Second, most states take their definitions of what is legal or not based on federal guidelines. Since switchblades are already illegal in most states, redefining knives as switchblades makes them defacto illegal in most states. Z3rotalk 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is TK being cute or dumb?[edit]

He just blocked - does the wiki software treat that as 16.8 million addresses blocked or merely 65,000? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's 65536: -> --  Nx/talk  20:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone with mediawiki prowess should allow for him to do /8 and just get it over with. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I only ask because his zeroing out 3 octets immediately stood out as strange. I can't find any explanation of what happens in the wiki software when you zero out an octet rather than assign a block range. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Trying to test this but it occurs to me that RW might not permit rangeblocks. ... Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Zero in itself does not mean a range. is a single IP address. --  Nx/talk  21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken latest[edit]

I couldn't tell if it was funnier to have him use the words "The future of Conservapedia's evolution article appears to be very bullish!" which, If read that really quickly, becomes true or his ending the post with "Faster, stronger, higher!" which I believe is Ken's O phrase. The man has way too much time on his hands. SirChuckBWhatever happened to Skip It? 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO with[edit]

Why did no one here catch & mention Kendoll's horrible use of statistics? --Opcn 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only on days that end in the letter y. Z3rotalk 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh god that's a great series of events. Ken uses bunk stats, CJH points it out, Assfly doesn't get it, starts calling him a nit picker and makes up his own stats, ADM steps in and corrects Assfly (but still misses the boat completely) and CJH provides a link that they aren't going to be able to figure out. I can't wait to see what happens next!
This is going a little too far on CP. I wonder if they change it to 1300% after they ban him? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
5 bucks says yes --Opcn 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Guns, Videogames, and the News[edit]

Is it just me, or does the news item about a 9 year old getting shot seems to me like it would be a good argument AGAINST owning a gun, not against owning a video game. Especially since it doesen't say what game it was. It could have been Donkey Kong for all we know! --Passerby25 12:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Open yore mind to the weapon of gun's defensive nature and reconsider the situation. How do you know that the weapon was not used defensively? Deny the possibility and lose all credibility. Regardless, the game of video is not defensive and therefore must bare some blame for the boy's actions. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That post on CP is absolutely ridiculous. People have arguments everyday over the most trivial of things. That's not a reason to ban the thing they're arguing about, it's a reason to ban something that can turn a simple argument in a fatal one. Jammy 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
On planet Andy the kid gets resurrected by Jeezus to get a spanking for bringing a whine to a gun fight. Ahh, I understand better now - this is a TK post - it's pure troll venom intended to piss any sane reader off. Not even hillbillies with gun racks on their gun racks think the problem is kids fighting over video games. Well played TK. Well played. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
After some deliberation because it involved a tragedy and kids, I decided to WIGO it anyway because I couldn't stand the senselessness of TK making this about video games instead of the fact that there was an unattended, loaded shotgun within reach of these kids. Even die-hard members of the NRA would be critical of the lax gun safety that allowed this horrible accident to take place. --SpinyNorman 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
EC) Strange that that WIGO got an immediate negative vote: Is someone @CP watching? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 15:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No, there are just those of us who find the plethora of TK news-post trolling WIGOs to be a crushing bore.--WJThomas 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that someone had altered the WIGO to make it TK-specific. I'm not going to revert it, but less is more, folks. Less is more. --SpinyNorman 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I took the TK mention back out. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic parody by TK, mighty fine work. --PitchBlackMind 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that the news item is a good argument against having kids. Not guns, not violent video games, kids. Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Nice try with the trolling. Back to your doublewide. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
hehe...reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker: "Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people" — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"Guns don't kill people: people kill people; and monkeys do to (if they've got a gun)." Bluefish
Largely offensive weapon of video game? --Phentari 22:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Largely offensive weapon of kids, largely offensive weapon of gun, largely offensive weapon of video game. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Which reminds me, why does video games depicting consensual sex is rated older than video games depicting killing each other? Killing each other obviously carries way heavier penalties than consensual sex. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Killing Russians is better training for future military service than taking Natalya in the back and banging her.

--PitchBlackMind 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you video games for teaching me to fly jets! Now I know that X fires my machine guns, O launches one of my 60+ missiles and if I die, I can always retry--Nate River 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So here's what I don't get: Terry Koeckritz is an obvious troll, no one is stupid enough to blame the game...but is he counting on the contrary? Why does teh Ass let that stand? Does he fear offending teacake, his trusty henchman? Is teh knife testing Assfly's limits? — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

But, see, Andy is stupid enough to blame the game. So TK gets points from Andy for posting crazy right-wing spew, while still making CP look bad for posting crazy right-wing spew. --WJThomas 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)