Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive14

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <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>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, (new)(back)

Anyone else?[edit]

Anyone else think that the placement of the picture of the RPK(LMG)is ironic? By this I mean the fact that it's located right below the "No Babies" picture. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 20:00, 26 November 2007 (EST) Oh, and one more thing: Who doesn't want kids running around with RPK's? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 20:00, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Ken, Ken, Ken[edit]

Holy FSM..........I don't know what to say..........but wow...........what a freak...........24.141.169.227 21:50, 26 November 2007 (EST)

(assuming that this is the talk section about the recent Conservative entry - if not, please move this to its own section) ...fat lesbians get their own "encyclopedic" article? Gnnnngh... must... stay... strong... must... stay... away... from... CP... must... talk... like... Shatner... --Sid 06:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Here's a fun little fact. Only 212 of Conservative's last 1000 edits haven't had the word "homosexual" in the summary. And most of those are either picture uploads for homosexual articles, drafts of homosexual articles or articles only mentioning "lesbians". He's creepily obsessive. --JeєvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 04:33, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The more I read, the more likely it seems that Conservative is really a closet homosexual in desperate and delusional denial. (Reminds me of that episode of South Park, actually). I mean, look at this. It's like he's trying to give himself 100 reasons why homosexuality is bad, then to convince himself that Jesus Christ can still save him. Because if it's on the internet, then it must be true right?

That, or he's just a complete and utter bigot hoping to inspire the deepest of self-loathing in Conservative homosexual kids. Yeah, come to think of it... probably the latter.

UchihaKATON!

I don't know, as others have said the whole homophobe = repressed homosexual is something to be pretty skeptical of....but his obsession........in all seriousness I think there is a very good chance he is gay. 24.141.169.227 22:59, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Recruiting[edit]

Anyone got the expertise to lend me a hand with the Best of bot? 24.141.169.227 21:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Growing rapidly!!!11!!11!![edit]

Not only have they beat Limbaugh, but they finally surpassed Fuck.com! -DickTurpis 23:26, 26 November 2007 (EST)

"Surpasses" Limbaugh's website? Did they even look at the bloody graph? They clearly dipped right back under it.-Shangrala 23:50, 26 November 2007 (EST)
Bah! Your liberal bias is showing. 24.141.169.227 23:57, 26 November 2007 (EST)
When is someone going to break it to them that their pages are most likely deliberately bumped (by whom is another question), and their traffic is due to people laughing at them?-74.73.167.218 00:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia's most viewed articles are all super-homophobic drivel...[edit]

And while I agree that the recent spike in CP's numbers has something to do with the page views making it onto the blogosphere, I'm really curious about 1. why those are the most viewed pages, and 2. what that means. If the answer to question 1 is "people deliberately running up the page count," which, given the fact that a few of those pages are fairly young, seems at least plausible, then the answer to question 2 is "nothing." If people are logging on to CP because those pages match their own agenda on homosexuality, that might tell us something about CP's target audience. But part of me doubts that's the case - I imagine more people are just craning their necks at the car wreck that is Ken's opus.

Kind of rambling, I know - but those articles are so much the product of one disturbed individual, and if the hits are being bumped artificially, then really the whole thing means nothing. PFoster 01:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I posted this question on the site a few days ago and proposed the possibility that the homosexuality page counts might be artificially boosted to bring CP into disrepute. The response, perhaps predictably, was that only a deceitful liberal might think that. The logic is interesting. "Only a deceitful liberal might think that a deceitful liberal might do that." Does that mean that TK (I think) is therefore a deceitful liberal? Ajkgordon 04:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)
From what I saw, the sudden rush of the past week went like "Certain pages got a major boost -> Blogs picked up on the resulting Top 10 list -> More boost". And while I haven't checked CP directly, I've seen the Top 10 stats, and yeah, those do look pretty much inflated. Especially some of the more obscure ones that had only been around for one or two months.
I'd guess that the Alexa boost is a result of the blog rush itself, though (and of course, the blog rush also pumped the Top 10 pages since everybody went there to laugh).
So CP got a very temporary visitor boost, but practically all of those visitors came to laugh and then left again. I'm with PFoster: It means nothing in the big picture. CP didn't become more popular, and aside from some of the homeschoolers, practically nobody uses it for educational purposes (and if so, only the less controversial articles which are basically Wikipedia Lite versions).
The thing is that CP (via Conservative) did try to get a homophobic target audience (see Conservative being so proud about "Americans for Truth" linking to his articles), so the initial conclusion of the blogosphere was actually fairly correct.
Oh, and I don't think that the goal was "to bring CP into disrepute". That seems to assume that it had some sort of good reputation at some point. :P CP on the other hand had been an incredibly bad execution of a basically interesting idea... from Day 1. The only thing this blog rush did was showing CP's idiocy/obsession to more people. Keep in mind that those articles were created by a Conservapedia sysop, not by vandals/pranksters. So in my eyes, Conservative is to blame for people laughing at CP this time. (But knowing him, he's proud about it.) --Sid 07:29, 27 November 2007 (EST)

There's loads more homosexual articles that'll soon join them. 208.53.158.156 06:40, 27 November 2007 (EST)

What could you mean? Ajkgordon 07:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)
It ain't over till the fat lesbian sings! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 07:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I think Ken knows his page views are artificially inflated. He stopped updating his running stats page nearly a month ago. However, he enjoys basking in the limelight and is now playing to the crowd by increasing his output of homsexual articles with tenuous links to all sorts of other subjects. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 07:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, in Ken's mind everything has a link to gayness.-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 09:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Moon talk page[edit]

Ignore the moon article - it's simply too surreal for words. But the talk page is dynamite. So dynamic that TK really throws his toys out of the pram (look for the TK bullets). A reason for his abandoning ship? Will those edits be deleted if he comes back? I think we should be told. Ajkgordon 06:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Andy is... trying to deny that any Pope has ever endorsed evolution. Does he, I dunno, consider these some sort of challenge? Like he can change reality itself if he argues hard enough? It's gonna get awkward when the sources and quotes start coming in... not that we haven't seen him "handle" those before. UchihaKATON! 20:05, 30 November 2007 (EST)

"Night Train" blocked[edit]

Anyone notice that cp:User:MattM was blocked by Karajou for being RW User Night Train!

"07:13, 27 November 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "MattM (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (RW user Night Train)"

Susanpurrrrr ... 09:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Yes someone added it to WIGO - poetic justice. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:41, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Goddamn. They really are willfully blind about TK aren't they?-αmεσ (advocate) 09:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Is Karajou aiming to take up TK's mantle as "most favoured"? Susanpurrrrr ... 10:04, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Wonder how many more like him there are in the US armed forces - now that's scary! Susanpurrrrr ... 10:09, 27 November 2007 (EST)
So wait, NightTrain really was TK? I was so disinterested in that BS of revealing forum info and such. My attendance is too sporatic to find out what exactly links TK to being NT. NorsemanWassail! 22:05, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Norseman, aye, he was. Have a look at some of his last edits, and the style and direction of his commentary should give you a clue, supplemented by other data which you'll have to take it from me is conclusive (IP checks and whatnot). TK used a pay-proxy service to get a seekrit IP for use on his third sockpuppet here, and no doubt some other CPers use it, which is what's making Karajou pick up the false scent.αmεσ (advocate) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)

There is a surprising sense of satisfaction to be obtained from watching TK argue against one of Andy's ideas from a more rational perspective. Sort of like watching plague (somehow) exterminate a swarm of locusts... or something...

I dunno, I need to work on my analogies. It's still always neat to see TK's "style" turned against dumber CPers, though. Uchiha 00:14, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Internet infidels[edit]

I found this pretty funny:

"Christian apologist JP Holding has stated regarding the website Internet Infidels the following: "The Secular Web has a few intelligent people, but overall has long been a haven for every skeptical know-it-all to pronounce judgments upon matters outside of their expertise."

Sound familiar?-Shangrala 21:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, that's us!!! humanUser talk:Human 21:08, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Oh, wait... you meant teh assfly, didn't you? humanUser talk:Human 21:09, 27 November 2007 (EST)
I would admit to all of the above except I would scratch the "...outside of their experience."--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 22:31, 27 November 2007 (EST)

"RobS guilty of liberal placement bias. "[edit]

Actually, Andy just moved RobS's edit to a new section, and changed stuff that other people had done. Researcher 23:46, 27 November 2007 (EST)

True, but Andy has defined placement bias as a liberal tactic to move important pro-conservative information to unnoticed sections of articles. It's always a laugh when he reverts liberal bias or placement bias because the circle of editors is now so closed that it's basically Andy's brownnosers left (plus a few socks, myself included). Stile4aly 23:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
That's what the edit summary stated was "liberal" wasn't it? Hence the word "placement." NightFlare 23:58, 27 November 2007 (EST)
My abject apologies, I was unaware of what "placement bias" was. I thought it had something to do with . . . well, actually biased content, rather than where something went in an article. My mistake. (Jesus, he's battier than I realized.) Researcher 00:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)
No need to apologize. It's a Schlafly-ism, which naturally means that it has no meaning outside of CP. Stile4aly 00:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
This great invention of Andy has even it own article. Tohuvavohu 01:58, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Refreshbots[edit]

Well, the refreshbots are out of the bag. Some estimates seems to indicate that they may have been responsible for a substantial number of pageviews. I think it's time to shut them down. CP has had it's mocking blogboost, but that's over, and now it's time to see how many people really look at their site. Let's see their pageviews drop like a rock. DickTurpis 01:43, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Wait, you where you using refreshbots?! 98.17.56.87 01:47, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Well, that's not a sentence. But I think the correct reply is no, I have not used any, but their existence has been rumored for some time, and mentions on WiGO and associated talk pages seem to confirm their existence. I just think the time has come to end their use, and let the invisible hand drag CP's alexa rank into the toilet. DickTurpis 01:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I don't see the point in them at all (apart from the fact they generate cheap laughs). But even if it's funny, CP still gets it's rocks off with high page views - what's the point in upping their egos? bah, just what i think - if we love it, let it go. airdish 03:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Gay pride goes before a fall. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 04:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah! JSCHLAFLY 08:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)

"Refreshbots" do absolutely nothing to Alexa rank, unless they happen to work via a web-browser with Alexa toolbar installed, which seems unlikely (though not impossible). --90.184.132.144 09:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Anon, if RW editors are the ones orchestrating the refreshing (which they are) they would obviously install the Alexa toolbar. It's not really that much of a mental leap here.
And anyway, why isn't that WiGO material? Everybody knows that it was RationalWiki raising those pages and it's a blatant lie to suggest otherwise. Sure, those pages get bumps every now and then from blogs, but only because they are already highest rated. Lurker 10:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)
(I'm not the IP above.) I agree with you on your second point, but what? You think that the people doing it are directly responsible for the Alexa spike? I can't believe that, particularly when:
  • I can't imagine any motivation for them wanting to increase CP's Alexa's rankings.
  • Using a web browser with the Alexa toolbar would be technically inhibiting; indeed, I doubt they're using web browsers at all.
  • Alexa will almost certainly discount masses of hits from very few IPs. If they didn't, it would be easy for any site to artificially pump their own rankings.
72.9.150.10 10:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Are page hits calculated by the wiki software using Alexa? I honestly don't know. The WiGO entry is talking about the cp:statistics page, not Alexa site ratings.
I can certainly imagine reasons to increase CP's Alexa ratings, at any rate (CP reason: find more conservative nutjobs to help edit; RW reason: find more liberal nutjobs to entertain RW / help vandalize CP) and I can certainly see RW's reasoning for wanting to bump up Conservatives --ehem-- "articles". Whether or not they are using web browsers or not is immaterial; I don't know exactly how they are doing it, but it doesn't mean it isn't being done. Plus, these aren't just random people being funny for a day or two, it's several tech-savy people with a purpose and long-term goal. They know how to do it, so why do we think they wouldn't do what it takes? Lurker 10:49, 28 November 2007 (EST)
All the page view statistics given by the wiki software are its own counts and nothing to do with Alexa at all. OK, there might be good reasons for wanting to increasing the Alexa ratings, but I don't think they did it, because of the other two reasons I gave. I assume, as you say, they just wanted to bump up Conservative's "articles", for obvious reasons. 72.9.150.10 11:02, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Before the refreshbots get shut off, oh anonymous refreshbotter, could you direct some attention to the Homosexuality and Scotland article? The title is so ridiculous, it deserves a top 15 spot. Stile4aly 10:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I agree, and he's got a whole series of them planned [1]. I guess we'll have to watch this space... 72.9.150.10 11:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The Alexa spike is purely the result of blog interest and people visiting the site because of it. Alexa does not count multiple visits from one IP. So the Alexa spike is real whereas the page views are almost certainly bogus (but let's not forget that the pages are real). While CP might like to feel good over the Alexa spike it is a temporary blip and they will subside into ignominy again. The page views counts have been a source of minor lulz but any emphasis placed on them is purely for CP's internal consumption as a way of deflecting the truth. So while Assfly raves about "This site is growing rapidly" I bet he knows that it probably hasn't been growing at the rate that the numbers say. The creator of all the most-viewed pages has indulged in page count manipulation of his own, if you read his running stats pages you can see some spikes from long ago, when he first started working on homosexuality in Earnest you might say. He also deleted and recreated pages with higher counts in order to reset their statistics and therefore push his own pet pages higher in the CP rankings. You can see that he hasn't updated his personal stats page in over a month, previously he would often update it several times a day, which indicates to me that he knew they were being inflated. CP could get rid of any embarassment by simply resetting the page count for those bumped pages but I suspect that they think there is no such thing as bad publicity. Any self-respecting sysop at CP would do the decent thing and rest the page counts. They revert other types of vandalism or trolling at the click of a mouse but I think Gollum Ken would throw a crying fit if he lost his precious page views. One thing the "refreshbots" have done is expose one sad individual's private homophobic obsession and the tacit complicity of those who share the site with him. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 11:21, 28 November 2007 (EST)

What? No Homosexuality in the Bahamas? Someone needs to add that to his list over there. I'll bet he'll thank you for it. Anyway, not knowing a whole lot of shit about alexa and such, I have no idea if the refreshbots do anything about alexa rankings. Could one calculate their average alexa number of daily views and multiply it by 365 and see if it comes at all close to CP's claimed number of pageviews? Not sure if that would work. Anyway, even if it doesn't cause the alexa rankings to drop, I do think it's time to shut down the bots so their site does not grow quite so "rapidly." Let them walk ever so slowly to the next landmark (42 million, I believe). But if someone wants to boost a few more homosexuality articles up (homosexuality in Halifax, maybe) I have no real objections. DickTurpis 11:30, 28 November 2007 (EST)

The Alexa spike is not directly caused by the bumping at all. It is caused because of wide spread coverage in some very high profile places. It was a one day thing though. Anyway, I find the bumping to be pretty funny. But it also highlights some of the craziest aspects of the site in a nice little concise package. Remember those articles have to exist first.... tmtoulouse nettle 11:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps we could start a new page with suggestions for Ken of titles for new pages
Queers in Quebec
Shirt-lifting and the Olympics
Fudge packing is not a career
Hell I'll even write the first line for him:
In respect to shirt-lifting and the Olympic Games....
Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 12:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Remember too that this last week was the firstest Thanksgiving break (college), all those new IP from Mom's and Dad's computers were kicking into the total. Daughters ans sons showing ma & pa something on the intertubes that is funny and isn't pr0n...CP.16:04, 28 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

Did anybody else see this?[edit]

First, Dan says that a user removed stuff from a page [2], but the user says "no I didn't!" [3]. Dan then apologizes for his mistake. (This, by the way, is a prime example of why ping-ponging conversations suck). But when I look at the user's edit, he very clearly did remove the paragraph. The current version does not have the paragraph anymore. (Just do a Ctrl+F for "combined" -- it ain't there). Did this guy pull one over on Dan, or am I really missing something here? If so, how can this be explained in a concise WiGO entry? Lurker 17:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Um, I've been blocked[edit]

by RobS as a RW troll. Probably for things I've said on here either re. Aschlafly or TK. Although how any of that is trolling, I'm not sure. Hey ho. How does one tell the length of the block? Ajkgordon 11:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Wow. You're just noticing this now? I could have told you last week, but I assumed you knew. You got 6 months, my friend, though Robbo seems open to the idea of suspending your sentence if you contact him. Not sure if it's worth the indignity. Anyway, congratulations, you lost your cherry. You're one of us now. I got 5 years for the same thing, posting here. And yet they "don't block for what you say on other sites." Bullshit. DickTurpis 11:20, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Yes, I can survive a few days without visiting CP. It's hard but I watch Monty Python instead. I have mailed RobS pleading for a bit of Christian forgiveness. I too, was not aware that posting here was a capital offence. Ajkgordon 12:06, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Posting here isn't a capital offence. The question is what is your purpose in contributing to CP? Unfortunately, many of your contemporaries at this site are not very helpful and therefore you will be viewed with suspicion. If your posts appear to stray into parody or causing difficulty, then you will pretty much be blocked on sight. Learn Together 02:20, 30 November 2007 (EST)
They just might not like you telling the truth arguing with Andy though ... especially if you're right (and therefore he's not!). Susanpurrrrr ... 12:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
The most annoying thing to me about being blocked a while ago (for showing TK he didn't know what he was doing) is that I can't refute or comment on their retardedness. Luckily RW came along and I can do that here knowing that they do check WIGO (but still ignore it). Jrssr5 12:20, 28 November 2007 (EST)

That can't be right. Aschlafly's repeatedly said that CP won't block for things said on other sites, and he wouldn't be deceitful, now would he?!?!?!? ....Yeah, welcome to the Goat Pen. --Gulik 13:33, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Gender-bending kids in Iowa[edit]

Okay, so an Iowa school had a cross-dressing day for spirit week. Yeah, that will probably anger the fundies (where in the Bible does it say guys can't wear skirts? Do the Scots Presbyterians know this?), though it's a far cry from Gay-Buttsexxx Day. But where the fuck did they get the idea that it was mandatory? DickTurpis 16:17, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry to do my bit for biblical literalism but the bible actually does explicitly condemn this (or for the pendents amongst us the old testament does). Deuteronomy 22:5 - A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Disclaimer: This is added for information only and to answer the question above. It does not represent the opinion of the poster.--Bobbing up 11:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Good to know. The question was in fact an honest one, not rhetorical, so it's nice to get an answer. Of course, it's OT so the Christers don't really have any real cause for objection on that grounds. Thanks for the daily Bible lesson. DickTurpis 11:48, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Ah, but "homecoming" week never bothered them? You know, a typical drunken, rowdy celebration of a violent psychosexual land acquisition game and vandalism-inducing rivalries with nearby schools or towns? Heck, we used to burn the "opposing" school's principal in effigy. humanUser talk:Human 16:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
That's just good, healthy American fun, y'know? Builds character an' all that. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 06:03, 29 November 2007 (EST)
At my school, we'd rape cattle! Slink 05:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

TK[edit]

Is on a "technical hiatus." God, I miss him so. Well, there's always Ed Poor's chain to pull. PFoster 20:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No one will agree with me on this, but I actually feel bad for TK (don't ask me to explain why), as opposed to Ed who I see as a bit of an obsessive sycophant.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Update: They've pulled the plug. PFoster 20:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Aw... *sheds a tear* We should give him warm consolation here at RationalWiki. ... 23:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
YES, I know this is the internets but that was actually NOT sarcasm...
Considering he was a parodist and troll and was on our side all along, yes :) - Icewedge 23:30, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Short of incredibly convincing evidence to the contrary, I'll always believe that TK was on his own side. Stile4aly 23:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Well technically... everyone is on their own side, are they not? Some people's goals just happen to coincide with those of others more consistently and effectively. ... 00:00, 29 November 2007 (EST)

  • Well, since Stile has never once communicated with me, gone to the jackasses mouth, so to speak, there is little chance of his/her ever actually being informed is there? And from the lips of which of the three or four who are Icewedge, is this font of knowledge about who's side I have been on coming from?
  • Thanks, Doc, for your comments, Uchiha as well. Learning that Andy is neither really a Christian or moral, was indeed something I came very late to.
  • One thing CP and RW do have in common, I have found out only within the last couple of days, is that both CP and RW have a penchant for trials in absentia. Star Chambers. Yes, before someone jumps up and objects, I know, I know, RW hasn't done that on 2.0 or 2.5, just 1.0. Still, confirms what many think, there isn't much difference from far left to far right, they sort of meet around the bend! For the record, I never asked Jallen to block me. I asked her to lock my talk page. I am informed if once I take a "rest", I could be unblocked at CP, and if I am a good boy, make diligent and productive edits, and not the talk page kind, the "court" will reconvene and review the matter, and Andy, has said he "will defer to the majority". Like after finding out he is neither Christian or moral, I would want to contribute to anything that helps him! Barf.
  • Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight since Icewedge has no idea what I think and Stile never has asked me directly, so he could never garner any kind of evidence that smacks of reality. As for CP, you should starve it of oxygen, and watch how fast it becomes Kenservative's personal blog, his vehicle of hate. Then laugh along with the rest of us, watching how much more it becomes marginalized and no more than a YEC hate site. --TK/MyTalk 01:31, 29 November 2007 (EST) Que inevitable AmesG/(sub)Human/Kels/Whoever babble-hate posts!
We loves teh TK! 01:50, 29 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

Concur in Cracker's judgment.-αmεσ (advocate) 02:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)

TK, as you were always such a controversial character on CP, I think that your leaving will starve it of quite a lot of publicity.
But I am intrigued. I'm fairly new to this so-called culture war. What do you believe? Some of our on-line conversations have been rather contradictory - at least to me. An example is the bizarre CP Dawkins article. You lambast contributors including me who constantly argue with Asclafly, but surely you can't believe any of that convoluted reasoning. You're obviously no Creationist (thank God) but where do you stand? In a couple of paragraphs, how would you describe your political, social, moral and religious views. Ya'see, you're a bit of an enigma. Which, of course, may suit you. Missing you already. Ajkgordon 04:44, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Does he have to, to satisfy "our" curiosity? I don't think I could outline my views in a few sentences and do them justice. And, you know, privacy? Totnesmartin 06:17, 29 November 2007 (EST)
No, of course he doesn't have to answer for privacy or any other reason. Ajkgordon 06:30, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • What I think is, with the constant edits here at RW, the users, like Cracker, who first post one thing, than change it to mean quite another, make users here work over-time. They have truly more in common with Kenservative than they would care to admit. :P
  • I believe in Intelligent Design, something I must have posted over 100 times on CP. Lambasting editors for constantly arguing the same idiotic point with Andy shouldn't be a surprise to RW members, because they love to do the same here. Argument for the sake of argument, pot stirring out of boredom, as they say here, for the lulz, is intellectual masturbation. Masturbation can be satisfying only if it isn't one's only sexual outlet. Same goes for wiki's, it can become an addiction, an outpouring of public thought that is actually as "real" as the Simpson's are a "real" family. Arguing with Andy can never be "real", as the man has shown by his deeds and thoughts he really isn't Christian in the way Christ or most people would recognize as being Christian...he is more like a parody of the Old Testament version of God. If you want to know my thoughts you know how to contact me, but this isn't a venue for interviews. Most of the senior management here, the ones here since Rational Wiki 1.0, have more, so much more in common with Andy than they will ever admit to. They are aggressively mean-spirited and unforgiving, of the school that anything is permissible on the Web, hiding behind their oft-repeated statements that it isn't real. Isn't real until their own actions are turned on them, then they cry like stuck pigs.
  • Thanks, Totnesmartin, but people here have never let privacy stand in their way of trying to hurt others, and one can always decide not to answer. --TK/MyTalk 06:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Thank you, TK.
As I said, I'm quite new to all this so don't know any of the history, but do you not see RW as a bit of a parodist's site? Just a few guys taking the piss? Or do you think it is actually damaging to something? Ajkgordon 06:29, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Most of us believe you have a right to your site and if you want to make it a parody, then that's fine. A lot of us can laugh at humor even when it is directed at us. But when the line is crossed to actively infringe upon another site that offends your sensibilities, then that is when you go from good 'ol boys to something else. Learn Together 01:44, 30 November 2007 (EST)
  • There are many people here at RW I respect. Some I even have grown to "like" inasmuch as one can like someone on-line, having that limited knowledge. RW isn't much in the way of parody, and I would submit that anything starting from spite, hate and retribution can ever much rise above it origins. Perhaps like CP, if at some point those who cling so desperately to their power here, as Andy and the rest cling to it at CP, are replaced by others, both wiki's could be something else. The "Party Line" here is to say that RW is as you describe, but parody is usually best without the hate and rancor it is served up here with. WIGO is the best example of that. Sometimes it is brilliantly funny humor and parody. Most often it is slimy with hate and mean-spirited, highly personal insults at those who people here feel they were wronged by. When their insults are returned, they mock and claim the other party shouldn't take things so seriously. Thus RW totally mirrors the same "Andy" discourse on CP. Andy would feel just as much at home running this place as he does CP. I would submit he (Andy) is, after all is said and done, a Christian of the same magnitude as those who run this place. --TK/MyTalk 06:53, 29 November 2007 (EST)
My friend I think you are talking out of hurt. I am sorry for the difficulties that came between you and Andy, but deep down I think it is evident that Andy is a man of strong convictions, and those convictions could never lead him to run a RW environment. Peace to you Learn Together 02:27, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Hi TK! What's up? You just convinced me a few weeks ago to go back to contribute to CP, and then you leave it?!? Are you going back anytime soon? And what about all those plans between you and the other two-three CP Sysops to have some fireworks at CP? Editor at CP 07:27, 29 November 2007 (EST)
  • Your parody is of the kind discussed above, "Editor at CP". Not much, and filled with spite. You should try Unencyclopedia to hone your skills. --TK/MyTalk 07:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Or Encyclopedia Dramatica, which actually believes in humor. Treyverlyn Wyermere Lythwynglo 10:46, 29 November 2007 (EST)
No parody TK! I am serious in all my points above. Ok, forget the fireworks part that I understand you don't want to discuss in a public place like this. But really, you convinced me to come back to CP. And I am honestly asking, did you leave forever or are you going back? Because I am pondering myself, should I leave CP forever or not. Editor at CP 07:42, 29 November 2007 (EST)
(regarding your revert) Well, they are buying what I am posting there. Not that I am posting anything false or wrong. Editor at CP 08:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)
This has been an encore presentation of "Deranged Ramblings of TK." Support for DRTK comes from Mastercard, and viewers like you.
TK, if you've come to try to change us - that is, to help us move past your criticisms - please, by all means, stay, and do it constructively. As you see, more than a few of us feel badly for you for your treatment at CP. I can't say I'm among them. But since your time as a double-agent is over, I think it's possible to welcome you "in from the cold," and maybe you can finally be the real you here? I think a large part of the problem with CP and RW has been because of conflict spawned by, or perpetuated by, you. Now that that's no longer, maybe we all, you included, can move past it? Please help contribute to it, rather than perpetuating the anger.-αmεσ (advocate) 10:23, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Before we all welcome TK with open arms, I think everyone needs to sit down and watch Miller's Crossing. DickTurpis 12:04, 29 November 2007 (EST) ...and bear in mind his constant characterisations of those who disagree with him as "subhuman." PFoster 12:21, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I swear, some days watching CP reminds me of Cold-War era Kremlinology. I'm guessing that with TK gone, all the other mods will have to ban harder to keep any new users from sneaking in, and the site's death spiral will continue unabated. --Gulik 13:38, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Karajou seems to be having no trouble becoming the KingConservaborg's chief drone. Auld Nick 14:49, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Futurama[edit]

So CP has a Futurama article. And? Ok so there's a slight drift there towards popular culture (I forsee all wikis ending as mostly pop culture sites one day), but why make a big deal of it? Totnesmartin 06:35, 29 November 2007 (EST)

It's at -5 now. THE (M)ASSES HAVE SPOKEN! ollïegrïnd 09:11, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Well, despite everyone voting it down, it is remarkable in that assfly doesn't want any pop culture fluff on his blog. Remember, teh evel pickyweedia has 10,000,000,003 articles on Moby song!!!!eleventy22! humanUser talk:Human 14:59, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Their article on Zoidberg was amazing before it got deleted.
It's gone? Damn, that was one of my favorites. DickTurpis 15:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)
That'll learn yer. Seriously, if anyone sees a funny article on CP that appears to have been overlookd then save it for posterity so we can stick it in our creationist museum of the absurd. 81.129.34.30 06:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Bender is great. The Assfly even saved it from Islamist terrorists, yes man who gave us: In general, the quality of entries here is much higher than on Wikipedia. Try using the "Random page" entry on Wikipedia and you'll be astounded by the high percentage of junk that is returned, found room in his heart to save Bender.(User:Aschlafly 09:29, 22 May 2007)
Auld Nick 15:32, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Next week: Conservative's article on "Bender and Homosexuality". Though Bender claims to be disgusted when he thinks someone calls him a robosexual, his name clearly implies support for the homosexual agenda. --JeєvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 15:45, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Bite my shiny metal ass!

—Bender the Robot





Read that as you will.-αmεσ (advocate) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Pope or Pimp?[edit]

It doesn't matter what John Paul II says about evolution because Aschlafly has uncovered some deceit in Karol Wojtyła's resumé and knows he was never Pope. 69.158.107.138 17:05, 29 November 2007 (EST)

The smoke released wasn't pure white, and Catholic doctrine requires that white smoke be released, therefore JPII was only nominally the Pope and therefore his encyclical about evolution can be ignored. Stile4aly 17:49, 29 November 2007 (EST)
JP II was never "Pope" - he was donated a "post" as the "bishop of Rome." In fact, he didn't even earn the "post", but instead was donated the "post" by a secret election. JP II, while he may be "bishop of Rome", he was never really "Pope"Shangrala 17:53, 29 November 2007 (EST)
My view is that the Vatican "conferred" a "title" akin to an honorary papacy and subject to the unusual disclaimer that deprives the title of meaning as a real "pope." ...I can find no specific confirmation of it on Wojtyla's own resume. The "priest" who responded to the inquiry... appeared to be unaware of the unusual disclaimer, which was printed in a section above a list of names rather than identifying Wojtyla specifically. The bigger question has been resolved: the Vatican... confirms that Wojtyla is not the Heir to St. Peter, as that position "has not as yet been filled."--Aschlafly 14:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I'm glad that we've been able to establish the falsity of Wojtyla's resume with respect to the title of "pope". One falsehood has exposed, now we are working on a possible second falsehood. Wojtyla also claims the title of "Vicar of Christ", however I see no subsequent documents confirming this decision by the Vatican. Surely if "Pope" John Paul II has really been elected to this position through the peer-review process, he can easily post the letter of appointment? Of course he will not - the letter does not exist, and his title is not valid. Godspeed. -Aschlafly 14:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)
But the Catholic Church in every way considers him to have been the pope. They let him lead all those masses and stuff. They gave him a pretty hat. If they say he's pope, who are you to argue? --PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:20, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Wikipedia attempts to censor this fact by citing documents from the Vatican, which of course, constitutes hearsay. NightFlare 19:24, 29 November 2007 (EST)
The term "pope" is well-defined, and we've defined it here. A donor cannot simply call his friend a "pope" and expect everyone to use that title. Is Wojtyla "a clergy member of the highest clerical rank at an institution of higher religion"? Objectively, I'd say clearly not. I found that not even the zoology department at Appalachian State Technical College classifies him as a "pope".--Aschlafly
PalMD, based on your belief that JPII was the Pope (and not merely the holder of the title "Pope") I can tell with 95.638% certainty your views on School Prayer, Abortion, and the dangliness of my left testicle. Stop inserting your pro-Catholic evolution bias or you will be blocked for violating the 90/10 rule. In Christ! Stile4aly 20:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)

also see[edit]

Fun_talk:Pope You pimps, I pwnd you, you so funny. humanUser talk:Human 00:31, 30 November 2007 (EST)

A Schlafly's qualifications[edit]

Think it's probably finished so moved to Andy's talk qv

Why Conservapedia is Wrong about Evolution[edit]

Vaguely interesting. Anyone care to take a look before it dies? [4] UchihaKATON!

I've pulled the essay down. It's here for now. airdish 03:23, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Re: this[edit]

I'm not one to completely remove entries from WiGO (I ususually just add over-the-top sarcastic snark to riducule whoever added an entry I thought was stupid) but I think in this case it's justified. The Dawkins post makes no sense -- what's back from the dead? The discussion has been continuous for weeks, and that specific post doesn't seem to have to do with anything "dead" related. The disclaimer page is months old, and the stats page has already made it to WiGO (and I've already changed to wording once to reflect the actual condition of what happened). Lurker 10:12, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Yeh, I knew the disclaimer was old. I looked for it in the WIGO page but couldn't find it. I'd only just found it and thought it was funny. whatever the consensus... airdish 11:18, 30 November 2007 (EST)
If the disclaimer is as I recall it then Wikipedia has basically the same thing. It's not terribly relevant. DickTurpis 11:22, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Cool. It's a bit more interesting given the wording and considering kenservative takes such high road on a lot of the articles, but yeh, whatever, leave it out. airdish 11:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)
No, I agree that it was kind of funny in a "heh heh" sort of way (as opposed to "heheheheh", "ha ha", "LOL" or "ROLFL", in increasing order). It was just old, is all. Lurker 16:01, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Thousands of times greater?[edit]

What?. tmtoulouse nettle 11:53, 30 November 2007 (EST)

No no no! Not those sites! this site! DickTurpis 12:00, 30 November 2007 (EST)
So if CP gets so much more traffic than their critics...I am trying to figure out why when they are getting made fun of they get huge traffic spikes........must be a positive additive feedback loop right...somehow all those CP lurkers goto the blogs then come back to CP and somehow magically multiplied in the processes. tmtoulouse nettle 12:05, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Archiving to best of[edit]

When moving select material to Best Of, and deleting the rest, shouldn't we leave the additions from the previous few days at least? Some of them had little time to be seen. Also, is there an official score that qualifies one for Best Of, or is it a non-binding referendum? DickTurpis 13:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Ideally, I'd do it as a rolling half month - archive on the 1st and 15th anything that is older than 1 month. One problem that this might expose is with numbering for the best of (250... was that number stored in a byte?) - having to cycle mid page and such. --Shagie 14:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)
With the numbering it does make 15 day archiving tougher. But, hey, the stuff is still in the archive if people want to check it out.
Question: Do we keep the poll formatting in the archive or will that raise hell with the program? Cause it will be real work to remove all those poll things, won't it? Someone call Trent and ask for help, maybe he can automate it, replacing the "poll + #" with the end result of voting? Maybe he can automate a renumbering, too? humanUser talk:Human 14:24, 30 November 2007 (EST)

A thought[edit]

You know, I haven't seen Rob around in quite a few days... [5] DickTurpis 15:55, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Hmm...[edit]

What's this now? Empty or intriguing?

UchihaKATON! 15:58, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I looked for it but got nothing. DickTurpis 16:02, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Try [6] --Brian 16:08, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Much interesting reading there. Fair bit of anti-ken stuff (my quick skim didn't show anyone sticking up for him). I think that TK originaly set it up and has since changed the access to 'Anybody can view group content' (or never set it that way in the first place). Searching for one's CP login can be fun. --Shagie 17:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Quality stuff :) TK is a tool2. --Robledo 17:43, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Interesting indeed NightFlare 18:15, 30 November 2007 (EST)
For any that want to read the discussion prior to Hoji's desysoping for inactivity... linky... No... not deceptive at all. --Shagie 19:06, 30 November 2007 (EST)

And here's Karajou getting a serious boner at the thought of having unleashed the hellfire wrath of the FBI. You rebel scum! --Robledo 19:49, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Anyone else getting the message that they're not allowed to view the contents of the group? Stile4aly 00:03, 1 December 2007 (EST)

It gots the locks back on...but some enterprising peoples gots D/L of the entire thing somewhere. CЯacke® 00:17, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Sudan[edit]

CP of course had to turn the Sudan incident into an anti-liberal rant by pointing out that the National Organization for Wymyn hasn't taken a strong stance on it (not exactly their department, really, the teacher happened to be female but could just easily have been male; this is more Amnesty International's department). But what has the Bush administration done? They issued a statement saying they overreacted. Wow. Please try to control the outrage. DickTurpis 16:13, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Dapope[edit]

DAPOPE!

I really don't think that a Nazi pope is in any position to be criticizing the "genocidal" atheists who killed people just because they were atheists. --Ζωροάστρης 19:51, 30 November 2007 (EST)

I think it's kind of a low blow to call him a nazi just cos his parents thought it was adorable to dress him up like one when he was young. And why do we need to, when we can just replace "The Catholic Church" with "atheism" and make his statement so much more true? Slink 15:04, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Ratzinger was not a Nazi. He was in the Hitler-Jugend and in the Army. That. Is. Not. The. Same. Thing. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:17, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I can understand you not liking him, and I can understand you not liking this encyclical. I don't like him/it either. But he was enrolled in Hitler Youth because it was required after 1939, and was drafted into the military. He had a mentally disabled cousin who was taken because of Nazism's eugenics campaign. If you're going to accuse him of being a supporter of Hitler, you might as well say that every German alive at that time was. He's a religiously rigid douchebag, that doesn't make him a baber-eater too. Slink 21:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I have a German ancestry on my dad's side, and I've never eaten a barber in my life!
...a stylist or two here and there, and maybe nibbling on an aesthetician, but never a barber! --Kels 22:07, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Blogs are dinosaurs?[edit]

Huh? Why does he say this?--142.68.53.250 20:03, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Because we exist with Jesus! --Kels 20:08, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Google Group[edit]

So if you're looking for something to do instead of finishing that term paper or talking to your wife, go to that Google group link and put your favourite sock's name in the search engine - man, they talk about them a lot. Even really minor stuff (like my Teddy Kennedy entry) gets a lot of play. PFoster 21:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Especially considering that the new conservapedia:Boycott is starting in a few hours... humanUser talk:Human 21:08, 30 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not getting in ("You must be a member of this group to read its archive."). Have they changed the permissions, or am I doing something wrong? (I am not familiar with the workings of Google Groups...)--WJThomas 21:14, 30 November 2007 (EST)

They must've changed the requirements to see it, I could see it just fine hours ago. Hopefully others saved some of the stuff. NightFlare 21:19, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I can't see it now. I think there are some copies of bits and pieces of it floating around, though... humanUser talk:Human 22:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

The mad Rochester NH bomber[edit]

That was just 20 klicks up the road from here. And yes, we are like that in NH. Happens all the time, just this time it coincided with our quadrennial "news attention". humanUser talk:Human 21:10, 30 November 2007 (EST)

boycott[edit]

now that wer boycotten' cp should we protect this here page? --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 21:48, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Nah, it's an honor system. We hope... humanUser talk:Human 21:50, 30 November 2007 (EST)

It looks like they've disabled account creation - damn, I wanted to sock up and mess with them one last time before the boycott took effect. PFoster 22:27, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Please no posting to RW of SDG Material[edit]

Terry, we all know how it got there. You opened the SDG for a little more than 2 days and people read it. But, and I want to be clear about this, RationalWiki.com is NOT, repeat NOT to become RationalWiki.info. We will not post content from SDG, while it was opened, to this site. At least, not yet.-αmεσ (advocate) 00:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no "bosses" here! This is a mobocracy, damnit! :p --TK/MyTalk 07:14, 1 December 2007 (EST)
*peeks out meekly from behind wall*
Alright, sorry for that... it was really good. --Ζωροάστρης 00:43, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, but who cares...? Sure, it's funny, but it's pointless. humanUser talk:Human 00:45, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Fair enough. But it was sort of reaffirming to know that they really are as bad as we thought (or as some of us knew already, I suppose). Trustworthy? Indeed! I found the glimpse into their rank little lair to be most satisfying - and had the chance to observe, uncensored, all the slandering, plotting, manipulation, unwritten rules, deceit, backstabbing and double-crossing and we've come to expect from CP. UchihaKATON! 01:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah it is pretty funny. And VERY telling, especially telling how truly much they hate each other, and hate the people who weren't in the group (poor Ken!). I think this is le morte d'CP. And the time will come when it's proper to post this. But Terry's being bitched out, and it might make life very hard for everyone, us included, and it'll make us look evil :-(. Although, if you've read SDG, they already think we're Satan. Oh, and one thing I will say about it, is that the FBI investigation is... not going well. And, apparently my open letter was pornographic?-αmεσ (advocate) 01:01, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Did they mention the FBI? Oh man, I missed that. What did they say? I would have perused it more if I realized time was of the essence. But anyway, I have to disagree with PFoster's comment way above: I typed in every account I ever had over there and got very little. Even my earnest account I used for quite some time when I thought I could reason with some of them had just one mention. Same with my username here. I guess I'm of little consequence to them. My poor ego. DickTurpis 01:32, 1 December 2007 (EST)
I didn't get to see much, but, remember when Karajou blocked somebody for "interrupting criminal investigations"? Apparently he was serious and wasn't just looking for an excuse to block. NightFlare 12:10, 1 December 2007 (EST)

::By the way, I think at some point posting of SDG materials, selected & bare of private information, should be pursued. Just not yet.-αmεσ (advocate) 12:15, 1 December 2007 (EST)

  • Well, so much for previously stated intentions. End of game. --TK/MyTalk 13:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)

How so?-αmεσ (advocate) 13:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

You pulled my membership, but I printed a few of the threads there to PDF. As a matter of history, the few that I have are important. But sharing things like that is one of the things that could be stopped by some sort of truce between CP and RW. A little respect on CP for us, a little respect on RW for you, a mutual existence of each others' right to exist, etcetera. If the "end the war" thing meets with some acceptance from Conservapedia, things like that would be improper.-αmεσ (advocate) 14:00, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I've been chastised by the mob, properly, for saying that. I'm sorry. Look for no SDG material to be published here, ever, as it currently stands.-αmεσ (advocate) 15:11, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry to ask if it's bad, but what the heck is SDG? Slink 15:13, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Special-Discussion Group, a Google Group where some Conservapedia sysops meet and deal important issues such as identifying AmesG's latest sock and detecting unchristian sysops. NightFlare 15:23, 1 December 2007 (EST)

We edit conflicted, but I was going to say, "Super seekrit Conservapedia forum for dissing sysops who aren't part of the group, and hyperventilating about how apparently evil we are. Article forthcoming..." Apparently we agree on a lot NF!-αmεσ (advocate) 15:25, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I started the article by quoting NightFlare and following the link from "end the war". humanUser talk:Human 15:39, 1 December 2007 (EST)
See article Conservapedia:Special Discussion Group --Bobbing up 15:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Heh. NightFlare 15:56, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Personally, I'd like to see this stuff. We already KNOW the CP Inner Circle are a gang of vindictive, paranoid kooks, so it's not like exposing their Sekrit Club Memos is going to damage their reputations here... --Gulik 23:08, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Personal and private info. Not nice. Etc. Besides, we'd only be vindicating Rationalwiki.info. UchihaKATON! 23:11, 1 December 2007 (EST)

OK, see, that actually makes sense. And I don't care about what .info thinks, so I wanna see the Inner Circle's Master Plan for Infodomination. (Shoulda downloaded it all when I had the chance....) --Gulik 23:23, 1 December 2007 (EST)