Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive140

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <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)

Law Terms watch

Great news everybody: cp:Law Terms D is back up to almost 90,000 page views - over halfway towards getting back into the popular pages list, and 85,000 views ahead of erstwhile rival cp:Portsmouth F.C. Go Law Terms D!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: It's also the top result for the search 'Law Terms D' at a popular search engine beginning with Y. Awoogar! This site is growing geometrically!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What gets me is why D is the hit. I just went through all 26 and they're all them same. Totnesmartin 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please. Do not look at A-C or E-Z. D is the exciting one. Look at it! Notice, across the top, that it lists 1, 3, and 4 before the alphabet. Ponder the metaphysical implications of this (but don't look at them!), and perhaps gain some conservative insights^TM. Gaze appreciatively at the "Category: Law" at the bottom. Look at the page again. Let its fascination, enchantment, and awesomeness wash over your body, cleansing you of any vestiges of liberal style. Let it hold you lovingly in its thrall. Gauss 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Another 10000 and we can put it over pork rind. Gauss 22:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"This page has been accessed once". That's really zen... ħuman 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I should have screenshat that before hitting ctrl-shift-r...? ħuman 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well! That was quick! It took TK 1 hour and 33 minutes after the above (remember the time difference between EST at CP and UTC here) to deep-burn and restore the page. Thanks for reading, TK! Gauss 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. Homosexual obsession is Number 7! All pages lead to Homosexual Obsession. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone with scripting skills able to tally the pagecount of extant pages? I'm curious just how many hits Andy and TK have nuked, yet still proclaimed on the front page. 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All my favorite law terms start with D, and I always go to CP to learn about law. Sterile ear candle 02:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, man! TK is a big grouch. However, I do enjoy the way they keep deleting the page and then restoring it again, when it contains no encyclopaedic value (artistic and metaphysical value is a different matter of course).-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of page views, why is This ‎on number 8 (37,625 views) on our list of popular pages? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

there's a few odd things which have got high placings due to being mentioned on a blog somewhere. The atheist wager thing is high up as well. While on this topic, check out what's in RWW's top ten... Totnesmartin 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: SES Application

As per this section, I hereby post the reminder to keep track of the SES Application.

Relevant part from the archive:

“”The review process can take several months, and the only way to confirm that it's done is if we see Andy listed on the SES website as an approved provider. She suggested that if we check back in late June the review should be done by then.

I didn't keep track of the events between March and now, so maybe this is outdated by more recent events. --Sid 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Arsefly isn't on the list so I guess he got the inevitable EPIC FAIL. It's only surprising we haven't seem him bitterly complain about the evil state denying students his valuable tutelage for such trifling reasons as "competence" and "standards." Bloody lib'ruls. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. CP and us hit the top 2 results in google. Nice. Meanwhile neither CP or Schlafly is on the list of approvals or list of approvals pending renewals as of the time I am posting. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Addison's talk page

Interesting discussion about the justfication of America's wars here. Anyone want to bring up Operation Ajax or Operation PBSUCCESS (American government-sponsored overthrows of democratically elected governments, replacing them with dictators)? We might be able to save the boy from blind patriotism yet. EddyP 10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but those dictators promised to shoot Communist peasants FIRST, so those were Good and Right. Remember, Pinochet was a humanitarian, though not in the same way as Idi Amin. --Gulik 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss CA (hopefully for the last time)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!} (or was it Foxtrot?) is going to have a fit over on CP. His little darling, Carrie Preteen has just been stripped of her title... and not because of the oh-so-naughty pics of her that turned up, either. Because she's a brat who didn't feel like going to all the places her contract obliged her to. Countdown to CP spin in ... 4... 3... 2... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's delicious. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if CP comments at all, it will be about her gay marriage comment getting her fired. Obviously a left-wing, liberal, atheist, hiterlesque, evolution loving, Jewish, Hollywood Values conspiracy. The fix was in all the time! I wonder what will surface about the runner-up? Could she have taken science in high school? Did she miss a Sunday at church? Inquiring minds want to knowJimaginator 15:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh this should be good

Andy's new fall course is economics. Like with every other course we can expect "Liberal Denials about Economics" and "Greatest Myths of Economics" Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OMG. Does he even know anything at all about econ beyond layman viewpoints? This will be excellent. Too bad we have to wait until fall. Can't we talk him into offering it as a summer course? ħuman 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about the topic didn't stop him teaching World History. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 01:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We should expect some of that fantastic conservative maths throughout the course as well. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a taste. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the entire course be two words - tax cuts? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 01:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How about "Laffer Curve"? Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn it! He did economics in Spring 2007. He hasn't done maths yet. We want maths! We want maths! Gauss 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is sort of a "Critical Thinking in Maths" course in the works, but I'm not sure anything but the syllabus is written. I believe CP user Economist has a hand in it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tax cuts solve everything. Obama is destroying America with government spending"--Nate River 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget his hard-on for the Invisible Hand. You know, as in The Invisible Hand of Marriage - a term so obscure that the day after Andy had introduced it, Google showed only one result for it: Us. --Sid 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I completely missed that insight. Best is how Andy points out that his insight is more important than that of the founder of modern economic theory. 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The guy was probably a liberal anyway. They got along just fine without modern economic theory in the Middle Ages! -- JArneal 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith is like Jesus--the more often someone mentions him, the less of his teachings they actually understand. (Smith was IN FAVOR of government regulation, since he knew perfectly well businessmen WILL try to rip people off if they think they can get away with it.) --Gulik 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I tell ya, I wish and hope that next time he does a science course. That would be filled with laughs. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 04:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The lectures are up right now --Opcn 07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Each day billions of buying and selling decisions are made in America. Economics consists of studying those decisions." Quoting slightly out of context is so much fun. ħuman 07:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there is nothing wrong with the Laffer curve. It is entirely intutitive (tax rate 0%, no revenues; tax rate 100%, no body bothers working therefore no revenues - therefore there is an optimum point between these two extremes). However, Laffer never applied any scales to his curve. When tax cutters refer to the Laffer curve they are just trying to amend the shape and scales to their own benefit. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold mine

Yes it is.

"Economics is basic to our freedom, and is very influential in determining who we elect. Countries that lack economic freedom often lack religious freedom. If we lack rights in deciding what career to go into, then we will lack rights of worship also. "

what a person in need of basic remedial psychological and medical help fucking retard. (apologies to fucks and retards) ħuman 07:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. SJ ^Debaser 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MOAR!

Andy sez (Lecture 2 footnotes): "The graphs here use Wikipedia open source images."

Who says Wikipedia is biased again? Andy! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have "open source" images. They're all covered under the GFDL, which requires Conservapedia to display specific license text, which of course it doesn't. - Cuckoo 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Open source' of course refers to software, what he may mean is Public Domain images which WP does have. However, I hope that people will keep an eye open for those that are GFDL or CCA and let them know. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AAArrrggghhh

Sorry every four words I read that that idiot wrote makes me want to spout twenty more here. But you all have your own brains and eyes, so I leave you to your first-hand pleasures. ħuman 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already found my favourite stupid quote. From lecture 8

“”Finally, but perhaps most importantly, are government grants of monopoly such as patents and copyrights. Thomas Edison still holds the record for receiving the most number of patents for his inventions. He created more economic wealth than any American, or perhaps anyone in history. (Except for Jesus, that is, whose teachings created the potential for unlimited economic wealth in addition to the obvious spiritual wealth.)

Emphasis mine. - π 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am screaming loudly to no one who can hear as I read this drivel that Andy will now "teach" to his victims. ħuman 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After saying "what the fuck" (and variations thereof) for too long, I'm now calm enough to say that Jesus's economic policies amounted to "pay your taxes"[1] and "give all you have to the poor"[2] - but these are older translations. What does the Revised Schlafly Version say? Totnesmartin 09:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they re-translated "all" into "none". ^theist 09:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(from Lecture 1)

“”Economists would say that beer is scarce, while most of us would say there is too much it.

"Too much beer" is an inherently self-contradictory phrase. This alone invalidates anything else he has to say about economics. Rpeh 10:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most of us" -- is that the Royal "us", Andy? I don't even drink (well, I drink very very little), but I know that a definite majority of Americans at least occasional consume alcohol, beer especially. And I wonder how Andy feels about his candidate in the last Presidential being married to a woman whose wealth comes from a beer distributorship.... MDB 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention his (Andy's) cousins. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, "please splain". MDB 15:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.schlafly.com/ ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Thomas Schlafly. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 15:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else has seen this, but I personally just love this bit from Lecture Two: "Alternatively, workers enter this country illegally to work at low wages and displace American workers, according to several lawsuits." Really, Andy? Allegations in lawsuits are now considered to be legitimate sources for teaching children? What's next? "Bigfoot marries Elvis according to several websites"? -Drek

Even accepting his point here, who is employing or using the goods or services provided by these illegal workers? What's the betting he pays minimum wage for his yard (garden) maintenance? If he doesn't, being a man of principal as he is, there's still a load of conservatives, and liberals of course - no favourites, who are. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I really want to see his response when someone challenge his contents with *** curriculum materials (The name is of course, left to imagination for the time being; there isn't a lot of economics/business/finance related things with a 3 letter acronym.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice tidbit from lecture ten: "FBI agents say that the one common attribute of every criminal residence that they raid is the presence of pornography." (emphasis mine)--WJThomas 21:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Economics Questions

I was just scanning lecture one when I noticed this little gem among the "honors" level questions: "7. Read the account of the multiplication of the loaves by Jesus. Matthew 14:13-21. After reading that, do you think scarcity really does exist?" Does anyone even understand what he is even going to with that question? How the frak is that even remotely an appropriate question in anything with a pretense to being an academic course. Kaalis 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading: Jesus multiplies goods out of nothing. Therefore, scarcity does not exist if you can get Jesus to do it for you. Q.E.D. Haven't you check out the indoctrination at the World History Lectures already? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy loves to pretend scarcity doesn't exist. Remember his Lifeboat Ethics discussion where he claimed that if you are ever in a situation where you're on a sinking ship and there aren't enough lifeboats for everyone your response should be to sue the shipping line since there is no shortage of lifeboats in the world. One problem, Andy... HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SUE ANYONE? YOU'LL BE F***ING DEAD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DAMNED OCEAN, YOU IDIOT! Stile4aly 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since God created Earth for Man, there's plenty of stuff here - God wouldn't have made Earth without enough stuff for us to have a great time, forever. There's enough oil, coal, and all other resources for everyone, for all time. Once you've taken that view onboard, there's really no supply problem, and thus all economic problems are caused by librulz. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I'd forgotten about the Lifeboat discussion. The talk page is still classic CP giggles, with Andy insisting that everyone who died on the Titanic did so voluntarily out of the goodness of their Christian heats. But you're mis-remembering Andy's solution, which was, "Pray, and have faith."--WJThomas 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) and whoever passed CLEP and give the words for Andy to put on front page news really showed CLEP:Business is freakishly easy (not that I have personally taken it, but I do consider myself good at non-essay test preps) and/or the dude is taking business/finance in a diploma mill. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lecture Uno

I've just read the introduction, and it's basically explaining the concept of capitalism in which money is exchanged for goods and services. Thank you. Unsurprisingly, the left wing was dragged in somehow...

“”...Or money can promote evil, as when communist countries build armies to suppress freedom.

Not that I support communism - at all - but I can just tell straightaway that this whole course is going to involve "teaching" how the American capitalist system is better than everything else, and make sure all his poor students know that nationalisation and centralisation are terrible, terrible things. SJ ^Debaser 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"CP is not biased" -- Assfly

[3] Me again. Paul 18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Too late, the admins at CP read these pages. You may want to erase your sigs and sign again with an account name. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, what are these so-called "system-wide rules against bias" that Conservapedia supposedly implements? - Cuckoo 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the "Conservapedia Commandments", everything must be "true and verifiable", and therefore free of bias. The trick, of course, is that at CP "true" means something approximating "Andy's opinion", and "verifiable" means "anything that agrees with Andy's opinion".--WJThomas 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you're getting the banhammer over there for sure now. Though it was probably going to happen anyway since you close every post with Godspeed. --PitchBlackMind 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bah, who cares if that account get banned?

BTW, I finally created an account at RationalWiki. I've been looking at this page for quite a while, but had no reason to create an account until now. Diego pmc 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case TK decides to burn this

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=672780^img I don't know if it's WIGO worthy, but I think it's worthy of preservation --  Nx/talk  21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also TruthKiller's banhammer comment: Only liberals are racists. That puts it over the WIGO threshold, don'cha think?

BTW, the "Conservapedia laws" WIGO is now at 196. A new record (right?) and only 4 away from perfect geometric^TM fit! Gauss 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how sincere that email exchange is. But, according to JPatt, only liberals are racist? How blind can you possibly be? Most of the people I work with that drop the N bomb day in and day out associate themselves with Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. And what of Limbaugh in the first place? And what about "Liberal Multiculturalism" as a blockable offense? That sounds awfully shady to me anyways. Piss off. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you know? "Liberalism is the root of all racism" (go ahead - check who wrote it) --Sid 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, JPatt, I really hope you are a troll and you don't really believe that. Just watch videos of McCain rallies in the '08 election to see who the true racists are. I'm not saying that all conservatives are racist and all liberals aren't. But to claim that liberalism = racism is bullshit. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That JPatt essay is so over the top, there's no way he believes it. "Racist against the unborn" and "racist against the religious" made me laugh really hard. It's either a pure troll, or I'm convinced that JPatt is a kid.--PitchBlackMind 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, TK self-proclaimed James Von Brunn as a liberal: [4], following the argument: "someone embarrassing you? Throw them to the other side!" And besides, a good portion of the comments on the Fox Nation are, from what I understand (I read NewsHounds, which monitors the Fox Nation for me), right-wing racism. I'm sure there are racists on both sides, but most racists associate themselves with radical right-wing causes, not left-wing causes. --Crazyswordsman 21:36, 11 une 2009 (UTC)

Turned another tragic event into another politic finger-pointing. I expected TK to do this earlier. JPiss' comment about only liberals being racist reminds me of the McCain rally where someone was shouting "KILL HIM!" when he spoke about Obama. This shooter hated Obama as much as CP does - but it doesn't matter. Damned him either way. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I bet TK and Andy think the people who said that were actually liberals who somehow managed to get past not only security but also the ideology screening test to see Palin. --Crazyswordsman 06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I usually assume anything TK says is just inflammatory bullshit he doesn't believe but I think he's actually xenophobic; the anti-multiculturalism thing a few weeks ago was unprecedented, while normally he uses an already existing excuse to block and delete (MYOB, talk, talk, talk...) he just took the initiative and started purging CP of multiculturalism, that, previous comments (particularly uncalled for attacks against europeans) and of course things like this make me think he's serious. Flare^Talk 22:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the comment was reverted by Karajou (twice on main page talk, once on Assfly's talk) RJJensen (first,once), Jpatt(once). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record, records of racism does not even require the 08 campaign to show. Check Bush vs McCain in Republican primaries 2000. All it takes to cripple your opponent is one black kid. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Moar! Conservapedia's Law hits 200 in WIGO:CP. I'll shut up until someone else post something for now. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some Quality Sources, There, Andy-Pandy!

I decided to take a peek at their source for the claim that the Holocaust Museum shooter is a liberal Democrat atheist evolutionist commie Obama supporting abortionist. The first lines from this "political expert?"

The media is a abuzed about this, and the lefty blogs are acting as though this being some nuance of the right.

Uhm...yeah. That's...an interesting writing style. Can I submit it as Engrish even if I'm afraid the author is a native speaker? --Phentari 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tk is a pretty bad writer in general, and since he does this weird "up for 50 hours crash for 20" thing, late in the fifty hour day he becomes even more incoherent. He's most excellent when separating the subject from the predicate with a comma (an error others make, of course, but he's partial to it). TK in short:

• Some Democrat, said shit, eh?

And, oh yeah, add it to Engrish. Adny sent me there last night because there was some weird "human" thing... ħuman 05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia Law!

Is Andy really, really, that deluded? His wiki is dying at a geometric rate and he is still harping on about beating Wikipedia. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how he says "The liberal practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin." I got a real kick out of that. --Beishanlong ^grandis 00:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am looking forward to when applies Conservapedia Law to everything. "Best new Conservative Dress Sizes" and "Best New Conservative Dinner Items" "PERFECT GEOMETRIC GROWTH!" Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice how wikipedia will have to utilize conservapedian principals or die. And just think, they can change the software to support /8 blocks, which would make TK's job easier. The system works! Z3ro^talk 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had an account over there to egg him into the bible rewrite reflecting Conservapedia Law. Somehow tie it to conservative words. "In rewriting the Bible there is perfect geometric growth in the translations being to new conservative words!" Andy would really go for that - a real "insight". It would be epic. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"The liberal practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin." Isn't Conservapedia already largely abandoned and pretty much in ruin? FYI, for those of you who might have been wondering I got a new stable account there last thursday and so far so good. --Opcn 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Opcn. Now TK is going to ban every editor that registered last Thursday at the slightest provocation (not that he wasn't going to anyway, you have just made sure they will be specifically targeted). - π 02:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That CP article is the best laugh I've had all week. Thanks Andy! Jammy 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What, the software does not support blocks bigger than /16? That's the first time I have heard of it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that Andy has been sneaking some of mommy's pills. The power of blind faith is astonishing--Nate River 01:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Loony, absolutely loony. ħuman 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Andy's mom even use pills. maybe Andy's old friend Rush Limbaugh can help Andy out on medication supply. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you crazy? I bet she rattles like a maraca if you shake her. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't get is why Andy insists on having his encyclopedia (which I think he thinks is a serious work) have "insights." Insights are primary sources and encyclopedias are meant to be tertiary sources. --Crazyswordsman 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it's an essay, not an "article". Still, he really outdid himself with this. What a chump... ħuman 02:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Epic. This is an all-timer, we may very well be witnessing a slow spiral into dementia through text. I can't imagine anything that I would find more delusional than this. --PitchBlackMind 02:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the irony of the fact that Andy's new "law" comes from a list that he constructed using an extremely LIBERAL definition of the adjective "conservative". That's plus good doublethink there, Andy! Kaalis 03:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, Andy hasn't written something this good in a while. I guess we can test this hypothesis by watching for WP to block Europe in order to stave off collapse. Corry 04:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the craziest shit I've ever heard Andy say.^{— Unsigned, by: 99.250.97.108 / talk / contribs}

It's the bit about Wikipedia that makes it true art. The rest of it is just his usual insanity expressing itself, but the last line actually made me laugh out loud. You really couldn't make this up. Rpeh 04:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Conservapedia law clashes with one of Andy's former insights, i.e., Article count beyond a certain critical mass (say 20,000 entries) doesn't have any particular significance. People who are interested can look at the statistics. But fewer than 20,000 entries, and perhaps fewer than 10,000 entries, are of any value to 99% of visitors. But if the insights were interesting enough to lead to new articles , one should expect a exponential growth of Conservapedia:

Number of Articles at CP: this site is growing rapidly

the ever-dying Wikipedia

(more details) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Carried through to its logical conclusion, we'll eventually be communicating using nothing but Conservative words.

Person 1: Bork!

Person 2: Bork, bork, bork! ¹

Person 1: Local, open-minded decrypt potential?

Person 2: Non-justiciable interventionism.

Person 1: Trust but verify traditionalist tree-huggers.

Person 2: Underemployed straw man self-destruct.

Person 1: Ah. Transistor.

Person 2: Transistor. Transistor.

¹ Person 2 is a Swedish Chef

Rpeh 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Rpeh, Thats pure Bork!--Opcn 07:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is awesome. My favourite bit is Andy talking about historical inevitability, which makes him sound like a Marxist (though obviously with different ideals).-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a back-of-the-envelope calculation: CP has 1% of the number of articles of WP. According to Aschlafly, most of the interesting insights are covered. But the rate with which new conservative terms originate doubles each century. So, taking CP to double its volume each century, we can expect it to match WP in log₂100 centuries = 664 years (666 years after the start of CP!). Yes, it's time for WP: Another implication is that Wikipedia, in order to survive, will inevitably feel compelled to adopt principles similar to Conservapedia's. The liberal practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a surprise. Andy is following lockstep in previous footsteps. He is no different than any of the other whackjobs that have predicted the end-of-the-world or Jesus coming back or whatever. He'll be disappointed just as they were. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the obvious idiotic nature of Conservapedia Law, they can't even get Moore's law right in the essay. Andy pukes: "Conservapedia's Law is analogous to Moore's Law, which holds that the rate of increase in the number of transistors per chip roughly doubles every two years." If the rate of increase doubles every 2 years then, assuming over the first two years the number of transitors per chip doubles, then we sould see: 4 times as many in year 4 over year 2, 8 times as many in year 6 over year 4, 16 times as many in year 8 over year 6 etc. By year eight we would have 2*4*8*16=1024 times as many transistors. In fact Moore's law predicts 16 times as many by year 8. An editor tried to recitfy this error and reverted because, according to Andy "which one my ass and which one is my elbow?" Schlafly "Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion." JoeDuffy 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What would be great is if folks started contributing new, justifiably conservative words to Andy's pet article, but only in the earlier centuries, so he'd either have to lock the article down despite no vandalism taking place, or scramble to pile on more "obviously conservative" words like transistor into the later centuries to maintain to uphold Conservapedia's Law. --SpinyNorman 15:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ne most interested in seeing what he things WP should do differently to avoid failure, and what failure would look like. He would know very well what a failed wiki looks like were he to pull his head out of his ass. Corry 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering what specific changes Andy would propose were he to somehow be put in charge over at WP.--WJThomas 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a wild guess, it would involve putting Ken and Ed in charge of all science articles, and banning everyone politically "left" of Mussolini. --Gulik 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I loved the talk page - where Andy exclaims his his surprise - nay, amazement! that whenever he "fixed a mistake" on his list, it moved closer to a "perfect geometric" progression (the only one he can conceive of, of course, where i or whatever = 2). ħuman 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not go gentile into that good knight -

Charts

I've seen charts that show how Andy's empire fares in terms of traffic rank, but I couldn't seem to find any chart that tracks the number of contributions to it, at least not over the course of more that a week or so. I had some bandwidth to burn, so I made one.

At the time I started this there were 43,960 pages in the article namespace according to Special:AllPages. This number includes 12,773 redirects, a total of 558 Debate, Essay, and Mystery pages, a total of 680 Homework, Lecture, and Model Answers pages, and a total of 657 useless Terms lists. These page counts leave you with a whopping 29,292 actual articles. What I did was request the histories of all these articles and screenscrape all the revision timestamps out of them. I had to make Andy send me complete HTML pages because I'm too stupid to use the API, but homeschooling is up 74% so he can afford it.

Of course this approach dramatically underexposes Conservapedia's early days because it doesn't see the many edits lost in all those wacky purges of yore. Even so, the decline is fairly apparent. Special free bonus: The second image shows what you get if you only count the first edit in every history, i.e. if you only count contributions that create rather than just modify articles.

What is not immediately obvious at this resolution is that May 09 was an all-time low. There seem to have been 254 new articles this last month, slightly less than the 272 new articles of February 09 and even the 269 new articles of July 08. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Ideas for future research: If anybody is interested in that sort of thing, I could tweak my scripts to filter out (a) reverts and (b) revisions immediately preceding reverts. This would allow us to track the number of (a) actual contributions that (b) actually get accepted. Alternatively, I could start screenscraping article byte counts; this would let us chart actual net growth instead of just numbers of randomly-sized steps of growth.

I'll be overseas for about a week, on a secret mission codenamed Asia Gets the Banhammer, but as soon as I'm back I'd be happy to share my code if anybody needs it. Mountain Blue 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The statistic that I think would be telling is: in a given month, how many different people make (non-talk) edits that (a) weren't reverted within, say, two weeks, and (b) were made by a person who wasn't banhammered within two weeks. Lately it seems that only Ken and RJJ are making significant edits. And, of course, re-creating, editing, and deleting "gentlemen" pages doesn't count, and thereby puts Ken out of the running. TK makes a few actual edits when he isn't reverting and banning. Same for Kara. ADM and JPatt are about the only other serious people. Everyone else is quickly driven off as a troll, rightly (in many cases) or wrongly (also in many cases.) I give CJH another week or so. Gauss 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CJH stays around a week, that spat over the bad statistics has probably put him in 90/10 territory, heck, do they still enforce 90/10? --Opcn 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as CJH drops it, they will stay as far away as possible from it. That's their way of conceding. I doubt Ken

pops his head in because even he knows what's up. If Terry Koeckritz was going to have a go at him, he'd have done it already. CJH needs to make sure that his next edit isn't on a talk page or else that'll do it. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs  00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken

did pop in, and what he said made no sense. Its like when dumb people string words together that don;t belong together in hopes of loosing you and making you feel dumb, you end up unsure of what they were trying to say, but quite sure of there mental handicap --Opcn 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gauss: No problem, assuming that by "reverted" you mean "explicity reverted, with an edit that says reverted in the comment, and there are no other edits between the two of them". If you mean "either explicity reverted or undone in some other way": that would need some serious artificial intelligence. Mountain Blue 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the many intelligent comments that Mountain Blue's comment might inspire, I am so glad I mucked up the header. I lolled when I saw it on my watchlist. Thank you all for playing. ħuman 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked the pics and added one to this... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your appreciation is appreciated. I'm currently preparing one of the statistics Gauss has suggested: number of contributors by month, counting only those contributors that fail to get banhammered for their efforts more or less within the hour. Stupid me, I threw away all those article histories I downloaded, immediately after extracting the timestamps I needed for my first two charts... now I have to download all those pages again. I must be single-handedly doubling Andy's bandwidth bill. So sorry. Mountain Blue 10:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moar Charts

I made something similar:

CP	edits per day	edits per day by blocked/unblocked editors	editors per day	new accounts per day
since 2007	File:Ppd-Conservapedia-20090301.png
last 90 days

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, using the API is straight forward: e.g., you get a list of all pages via

• http://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apfrom=&aplimit=500&format=xml

instead of making inquiries like

• http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Anagram&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history

for the article's history, you use something like

• http://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=anagram&rvdir=older&rvlimit=500&format=xml&rvprop=size%7Cids%7Cflags%7Ctimestamp%7Cuser%7Ccomment

Have fun! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Those charts are pretty fucking spectacular, LArron; thanks for sharing. What exactly does "editors per day (blocked)" mean? Is that the number of editors blocked that day, or the number of editors making contributions that day that subsequently get blocked? Or something completely different. Oh, and many thanks for explaining the API. I had no idea it was that simple; I had given up some fifty lines into the documentation. Mountain Blue 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it's the number of editors making contributions that day that subsequently get blocked, or, more precisely, the number of editors making contributions that day and who are blocked today. This includes a handful of editors whose blocks are shorter than five years... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So these things things pretty much answer Gauss's Question B then. I'm going to make bar diagrams for Question A: the number of contributions the conservapedos leave standing, and the number of editors that make them, by month. Mountain Blue 07:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sayonara Jessica

And in typical style, TightKnickers makes sure that JessicaT can't come back, even if she wanted to. Hey Terry - care to mention what trolling she did, besides highlighting your own deceit, you malignant scumbag? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

...maybe it's because I missed a few briefings, but how do we know any of those IPs belong to Jessica again? When I thought of her, the words "South Africa" didn't really seem like a direct association... --Sid 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She mentioned a few times that's where she lives (also see her ASoK page) and and apparently she teaches here (from her CP user page). --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She should e-mail someone else with checkuser to complain. It might make some trouble for TK. EddyP 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll save you, Kotomi! _{she's screwed. lol} I thought she can still edit since she has an account already before the blocks... can't make new accounts though, right? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

lol! _{(I thought that would be the point of saving her, Viking :)} @Eddy, I doubt she cares, but even if she did, it wouldn't help. Andy stripped her _{down, Viking!} of rights when she tried to stop TK's nonsense, and given that Andy the lawyer is quite willing to have TK expose CP to COPPA violations by demanding e-mail addresses (not to mention Ed asking for phone numbers), then it stands to reason that TK can do no wrong in Andy's eyes... just like Bugler and RodWeathers not so long ago. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that ends that saga. So, who's next to be run out of town? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, doesn't really matter. We are still waiting the sysops to range block each other. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care who wins, as they say. I'm just praying for injuries. --Kels 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still really really really really really really really hoping for TK to block Andy, or vice versa. That's going to be teh best EVAH. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is really starting to cramp my style. :( Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium on TK news WIGOs please

TK's a disgusting xenophobic hate-filled troll. So what would you expect from his new entries? I respectfully propose a moratorium on dignifying them with anything more than talk page responses. Ken and Jpatt seem to truly believe what they write. Andy's a fucking moron who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. But TK. TK knows exactly what he's doing. He feeds and lives on hate. As obvious trolling attempts, whether to draw people to the Talk/Main page from whence they may be disappeared or to indulge TK's fantasy of being anything more than an intellectual eunuch, TK's news entries doesn't deserve our energy and indignation. 70.228.38.134 17:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's news entries doesn't deserve our energy and indignation.

There, I fixed it for you. Bjones 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As of late is has become increasingly clear that he's doing it with us in mind. While I know that just takes the piss out of most of you, I'm kind of interested in seeing how far he can go before someone over there steps up to him about the absurditites. So if you don't WIGO it, I will. A kid dies from an unsecured firearm and he blames it on unmonitored video gaming....and no one says a peep! It speaks volumes. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 18:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If this is just Terry Koeckritz trying to wind us up, it has the useful side-effect of making Conservapedia look even more ridiculous. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Neveruse. He's definitely got his eye on the WIGO page while posting some of this shit, the video game news post being the latest example. Ignoring something because of the person involved doesn't make it go away, plus every once in a while there's some solid gold lulz to be had.--PitchBlackMind 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go TK, Go! How about "The Origin of Species causes disease?" "Atheists have contributed nothing to society"? Jimaginator 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I support a moratorium. Educated cubic Phantom Hoover! 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but most of those WIGOs tend to suck, so you can see the dillema. Z3ro^talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I put them in all the time and they regularly poll +20 or higher. The one about Sonia Sotomayor being "deep in debt" has +48 at the moment. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just focus on posting WIGOs of quality more than worrying about the source. It's also better to let a few days pass without updating WIGO if there's nothing on CP that merits it. --SpinyNorman 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that since Ken decided to cut back on his conributions to CP (am I hallucinating?) the only events of note are largely TK related. Thank goodness Andy has started on his economics course, maybe that will give us some light relief. TK is a felcher extraordinaire, so he licks out of Andy's arse at every opportunity. I am puzzled as to why he keeps at it though. He has effectively suffocated CP as a going concern and apart from Addison none of the students seem to contribute any more. There is not much more he could do to kill off CP as all new editors now must be saboteurs of some description. As for TK's news items, I don't recall him being so gung-ho about adding new ones; it was always Crock o'shite's purlieu before TK came back from his 40 days in the wilderness. Even if TK gets his craved-for bureaucatship, I don't see what good it will do him. Knowing of TK's history at Hot or Not, I can only assume TK gets some perverse sadistic pleasure akin to pulling wings off flies. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor aside: I'd like to see a graphic showing the CP mainspace contributions of the people who were enrolled in the most recent class (and perhaps each of the classes that have been run on-line). IOW, are the homskollars even bothering to play encyclopedia for Andy any more? ħuman 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I first became aware of CP (long before I joined RW) I wondered about TK. He's the personification of Poe's law so either he needs locking up in a nice cell with deeply-padded walls or he is due for some kind of award for single-handedly fucking up CP. I hadn't previously commented about TK because to my mind he is such an obvious parodist that to mention him breaks the WIGO guidelines about exposing parody, but recent activity suggests either that he's for real or that he's losing his touch for subtlety. (parody subtlety I mean, not subtlety in the general sense).

Ken

is so obviously trying to deny that he's gay that it's almost tempting to send him love letters just to see how he reacts. Now I know that sort of thing is normally not nice, but given the tone of his posts I think it would be almost justifiable. The only tricky bit is coming up with a plausible reason for the attraction: "Your well-thought-out posts have warmed my heart" would be parody obvious to anybody.

As for Teh Assfly... what worries me is that he is passing on his ignorance to a new generation. I'm sure I don't have to elaborate further as he sprays appropriate examples all over CP. Rpeh 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"or he is due for some kind of award for single-handedly fucking up CP" - well, he ain't gonna get it from us. ħuman 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the Wigo about TK and smoking has made themselves look an arse. From the context it is clear that TK means smoking tobacco and nothing else. Any other interpretation is an example of CP 'logic'. Auld Nick 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind.

CJohnson's quote continues "I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t". That couldn't be more false, I would not accuse any of the major contributing editors of having open minds. --Opcn 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Same is true here. I did the test and it seems I am pretty open-minded. And yet, I still am not conservative and I'm also an atheist. How can this be? Diego pmc 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't really have an open mind because you don't believe Saint Ronnie's mere words caused the collapse of the Berlin Wall Jericho style, and you don't believe that missile defence is a productive programme of government spending that has produced significant results leading to the defeat of evil communists. You closed minded jerk. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly like the book I am reading:

Belief marks the line at which our thinking stops- James P. Carse, The Religious Case Against Belief

[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous last words--Nate River 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Webscrapers?

Could a webscraper with some time and compute power ping me via email? I have a website to point at and regular expression that I'd like run. I'd be looking at Mountain Blue, but (s)he claims to be attempting to bannhammer asia this week. --Shagie 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can ping from 65.60.9.250; make sure to open your firewall so the program can get an estimation of latency through various backbones. --Irrational Atheist 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a really well-made bridge reaching fron Brooklyn to Manhattan, a major artery. Bids start at "however much cash you have". ħuman 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is this webscraper of which you speak? The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to run a regular expression against a large number of pages at a particular site (not conservapedia), identify the table rows that match and build a list of those rows and give me back the list of rows and pages. I've lost access to much of my batch processing ability (that whole laid off thing). I am being a bit cagy about it because much more would give enough information for a mildly incompetent admin to go about banning people. --Shagie 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find your email address on this site, sorry. Please mail me at mountainblue@notomyo.com if you still need me. I am in fact trying to have the banhammer brought down on (a certain part of) Asia, but I still have connectivity; how could I do the banhammer thing otherwise? Also, I'm male. Just look at my picture. Mountain Blue 05:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame Andy never defined a conservative word in any way that wasn't entirely based on his judgement

Lets just come out and say what we have all been thinking, It would have been great if someone added twenty words from the 1600's that were conservative, throwing of his fudged data. Sadly up until this point the only thing a word needs to do to be conservative is to fit the desired model of expansion. --Opcn 08:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that most of us have just been laughing at Andy's "fit the 'data' to the preconception" thing. Works very well for laughter. Screw people bothering to find the three remaining IPs that can join CP and editing it in order to play our your fantasy - why not do it yourself? ħuman 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Its all a load of shit. --Shagie 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Info for Ken

Hey Ken, take some time over the weekend and read these articles - they'll help I'm sure. Don't be beating yourself up all the time, honestly. Have a good weekend. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel worst for Ken

out of them all. The poor guy is as queer as a two dollar bill. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs  17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

THREE-dollar bill. Two-dollar bills really do exist. --Gulik 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Two-dollar bills really do exist. And they're totally gay, yeah. --Marty 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) is as queer as a Texas state quarter

I've got one. Educated cubic Phantom Hoover! 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama's "flip-flops"

Well, I don't know quite what he wears on his feet to the beach, but the whole "pretending to be Liberal" thing really underscores why it's a fool's game to attempt to build bridges to modern Conservatives. Simply put, if you don't deal with them you're a traitor to the country (which is identified as them, they are the country), and if you do deal with them then you're not only not to be trusted but a traitor to the other side, and any deal is worthless to them unless it involves total capitulation on all counts. Courting moderates is worth it, it'll make a stronger base in the long run. But the more extreme types? Screw 'em. --Kels 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As much as I agree with that, I don't like grouping them together as "modern conservatives". I want there to be more rational conservatives out there, but it sure is hard to find them these days. They get lost in the sea of loonies. I wish the conservative movement could uncouple itself from religion/anti-science. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We NEED there to be strong, intelligent, conservatives out there - political thought is a marketplace of ideas and it's not good when one faction disappears up its own fundament. The disappearance of the secular conservative is a disgrace to the Right, a total abdication of responsibility. They won't be vocal again for some time, either, I predict. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 09:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see more rational conservatives out there, in both our countries. But modern Conservatism, unfortunately, has become dominated by the lunatics who made it into a "movement" (with all the baggage that entails) and so-called rationals who were only too happy to let them because they kept winning elections. The fact that now they have buyer's remorse doesn't exactly let them off the hook for aiding and abetting. --Kels 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was horrified to see people like George Will and Buckley Jr. becoming apologists for the "movement" version. ħuman 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

91.2 GeV/c² / 938.3 MeV/c² ≈ 97.2

... and 97.2 ≈ 100. It's just an example of Aschlafly's sloppy editing when he implies 97.2 ≈ 90 (possibly looking at the mass of a W boson instead of a Z boson). It seems to be nitpicking, but for me, it's essential. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it then just vote it down. That's why we have two arrows. Генгис^evolving 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As errors at CP go, I think it's minor. Give credit where credit is due: Andy at least wrote a two-sentence science article that, aside from that numerical error, is sensible. But not to worry—Andy's utter stupidity is on display elsewhere: In [5], he thinks that, because "fission" was introduced in 1617, that means "nuclear fission" is "not a new idea after all". Where does he think Galileo (or whoever) got his Uranium samples from? Gauss 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Harry is eeeviiil...

... or so says CP.[6] Thought it might be worth adding to the list. Paul 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Boy, are they behind the times. Fundamentalist spazz-outs about Harry Potter are SO last year. --Gulik 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that they forbid to mention the most anti-Christian aspect in Harry Potter: Dumbledore was confirmated to be gay. Barraki 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that edit read: "...Harry Potter would have been burned to a steak". Delicious! 194.6.79.200 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gone, then they homohammer it, then gone again--Nate River 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wigo-ing students

With the recent "News" item about a student giving his "Unsolicieted" (Sure, just like America was using "Enhanced interrogation" and not torture) opinion on the economics course, I have a few witty (or sophomoric... actually, mostly sophomoric) things I want to say about Andy's brainwashing having been successful. However, I'm not sure what the policy is about WIGOing the students. I'm under the impression that it is frowned upon. Anyone care to enlighten me? --Passerby25 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is largely frowned upon, although I don't remember anyone removing a WIGO because of it. Please remember it is mostly the parents fault as they have chosen to send their children to Schlafly's classes, you can't blame them for how they have been raised they will need a few years in the real world before you can criticise them for what they say. - π 03:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's important to note that the quote in question is from a former student now of college age. In other words, old enough to know better. The current students are victims, and it's just not funny to mock a victim. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem all that WIGO-worthy - one of Andy's indoctrinated former students provides an endorsement of Andy's indoctrination. There's probably a "Stockholm Syndrome" joke in there somewhere, but with quality offerings like "Conservapedia's Law", it's better to focus on a few prime examples instead. There have been too many low and negative-rated WIGOs as it is. --SpinyNorman 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, every time I see the words "Conservapedia's Law", I can't help but think of "Brannigan's Law". Just had to put that out there. --SpinyNorman 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia's law is like Conservapedia's love: Repulsive and church-approved. (Can't think of anything better right now, anyone got something)? --Passerby25 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy was attacked by a brain-slug once, but it dropped off after dying of starvation. --SpinyNorman 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Conservapedia's Law is like Conservapedia's Love - primarily an act of self-gratification. --SpinyNorman 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What, because Andy tweaks it by hand practically every day? --Marty 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) is growing rapidly!

But only for Pro-Creation! --Passerby25 00:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With all that said, it's ok if you can spin it so it focuses the admin instead of the victims, which I found difficult to do. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading an article off site somewhere that did this successfully. It's premise was how liberals vs. conservatives see America. The article said that liberals see America as a nation that uses America's history, lessons, triumphs, and failures to note how America is always a nation in learning, and how we should celebrate our victories and learn from our mistakes (such as slavery). Conservatives, the article says, ask "so, how else is slavery like gay marriage?" And it showed a whole slew of responses on an exam rather than just pointing out one student. --Crazyswordsman 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Ken's

usual low shit ==

You would think his vulture like picking over the holocaust he used to attack Dawkins with that concentration camp picture would be as low as he could go, but he is now using the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum to attack evolution. Can he be any more of an opportunistic little shit? For fuck's sake someone is dead, have some respect you low life. - π 08:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

After all this time, I wouldn't expect any less. Funny how one terrible event can be spun in two totally different, yet equally deplorable ways, branching off the exact same tagline. Not funny ha-ha, but funny in the way that's actually pretty disgusting and makes me weep for the future. The media's so abuzz, CP has to say it twice. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In many ways he's even more annoying than Terry Koeckritz. Not only is he an opportunistic little shit, he's an opportunistic little shit that takes 10 11 edits and over half an hour to write less than 100 words. And given how long he's been spreading his obnoxious crap all over the internet, you'd have thought he would have learned to write by now. Rpeh 09:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken

and Terry Koeckritz are playing radically different games. I cannot believe for a moment that Terry Koeckritz believes a word that he writes on CP, he's just found the perfect forum where he act out his manipulative power games. Ken

, on the other hand, seriously believes that he is at the forefront in the fight against Atheism, that he's some sort of cyber-warrior and that his efforts are making a difference. Silver Sloth 10:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy - a supporter of the BNP, let's not forget (although he hardly knew what he was talking about when he said that, but what's new eh?) - should be thrilled to hear that the Holocaust-denying Jew-hating bitter old white trash scumbag fuck had ties to the BNP. Perhaps someone should let him know? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TK's a power hungry madman, Kendoll is a typical conservative who thinks he has the right to tell people that atheism and homosexuality are wrong, while Andy's just a complete shit that has literally no idea what he's talking about 99% of the time. SJ ^Debaser 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Andy supported the BNP? Where did he say that? --Crazyswordsman 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a link to the statement in the Andrew Schlafly page. He said, "The BNP would get my vote for its position alone on education." (He also opined that their position on health-care was much too left-wing for his taste.) ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, sometimes they surprise even me. And Hitler made it in there too. Oh, but wait, what an oversight! Have we forgotten that Hitler was a Roman Catholic who had birthday parties attended by big shots in the Church? Spin, Spin, Spin. How about some truth, truth, truth, you motherfrakkers! Jimaginator 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And oh yea, the Nazis used "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) sometimes as a slogan. Maybe they were just the wrong kind of faithful ones huh?^{— Unsigned, by: Jimaginator / talk / contribs}

God mittens? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's not like they blame all science, just the evolution. Chemical reactions of gunpowder and reaction kinetics, the mechanic of guns, never managed to sneak into the picture. Not one bit on neuroscience, not even on psychiatry (I expect they put those up to be blamed (since they can be effectively separated from whether owning firearms are morally good) as well) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in my pile of stored crap, I have a replica SS fighting knife that I bought at a gift shop while touring the Battlefield of Normandy. Guess what is engraved into the blade along almost its entire length? That's right... "Gott Mit Uns". I didn't know what it meant when I bought it, but after I found out, I actually felt more revulsion than when I saw my first dead body. To think that those letters on the actual knives were at one point filled with Jewish blood is... Well, I don't know what word would suffice here... Just plain wrong. The Foxhole Atheist 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, every side, in every war thinks, nay, demands that God or Gods be on their side. Considering the bloodshed in the bible, I guess it's no surprise. But one would think that if that were really true, then over the millenia, things would have sorted themselves out, because God would have made things come out right. Why are there ANY religious wars anymore, if God was favoring one side? Twain said what needed to be said in "The War Prayer." One would also think that putting God on ANY weapon would be considered heinous, and yet... Jimaginator 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

...and yet: "I bring not peace, but a sword." Totnesmartin 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name. Exodus 15:3. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The polytheistic theory of Judaism suggests there was an entire pantheon of gods. This makes the first person plural of Genesis 1 a bit more understandable, as with the ease of which the Israelites of the OT fall back into polytheism. Killing a good chunk of the populace in the exodus is looked at as a purge of those who did not accept the cult (at that time) of the Ten Commandments. For some other more tangible items, some artifacts that were uncovered that appear to agree with the copper scroll location and thus would be from the original Temple were decorated with polytheistic/pagan motifs. The word 'elohim' was a reference to the entire court of deities in ancient cannonite religion. Anyways... YHVH was thought to be the war god of the pantheon who had some monotheistic priests who established the cult of the Ten Commandments that later became Judaism (just as some fishermen and a carpenter had what was seen as a small cult in Judaism about two millennia ago). [7] [8] [9] [10] It is interesting reading and thinking about this interpretation of history. It also adds some context for the above passage. --Shagie 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic...the "Gott Mit Uns" motto wasn't associated only with the German army in WWII, it had long been the motto/battle cry of the German/Prussian army and appeared on German equipment long before the Nazi era. Mick McT 09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gods have been with soldiers (alegedly) for pretty much the whole of recorded history/warfare. Many battles were in fact tests of whose god was the stronger. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And to be just a bit more pedantic, "Gott mit uns" was a motto of the Wehrmacht. The SS (who weren't that much into God in the first place) generally used "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" or similar words. 65.49.2.13 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of words

That's the funniest thing I've seen from Andy in quite a while. "Fission" shows he's so fixated on getting dates for words that he isn't reading the definitions themselves _{(Andy, they're right there next to those numbers)}. Let me guess, since "fission" apparently originated in 1617, and that can only refer to nuclear physics, it must have been coined by a male American teenage conservative creationist whom the Liberal elites in Big Science have been suppressing ever since! But it took them 300 years to catch up! Another CP victory!!! Also note how theism itself obviously didn't originate with its word in 1678 because it was such an "obvious position" that it must have been around for a long time already, but 'flagpole' is so obscure that actual vertical extended flag display devices clearly could not have existed before 1884. At the same time, it's interesting that he claims that the root word of atheism developed 91 years after the word that it's in. That's like airplanes being invented in 1903, with the first wings produced a few decades later. Or, to use a completely random and hypothetical example, nuclear fission being discovered 294 years before nuclei... Kallium^talk 05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to know Andy's back to being funny. This Conservapedia Law thing of his made me suspect he'd gone officially off to being clinically insane. Seriously, I sorta started to get worried for him there. Mountain Blue 06:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious! What did flags hang on for centuries before that? Umm, perhaps a flag-pole? Or just a flag pole? What's about telegraph pole? If these word are sometimes melted into one, does this mean that wired telegraphy will be possible at last? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. "Pole" has been around since before the 12th century. Hence, by Andy's thinking, so has telegraphy. And pole-zero analysis of electronic systems, too. Oops, sorry. That would involve complex numbers. Whatever was I thinking? Gauss 18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That flagpole wigo is a bit lame - Andy typed that over a month ago - and it was probably wigod or at least discussed back then... along with the fission thing. Oh well. ħuman 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Today's semi-funny is that the Assfly doesn't know the humorous story of the telephone greeting. I thought the Simpsons had popularised that one. Maybe he has never watched evil, liberal TV. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the "essay" before, so it was new to me. I'm not the WIGOer though. Kallium^talk 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Helping our mad old pal, Ken

Ken's marathon session

Somebody needs to help Ken. He's been editing CP now right through the night, for at least 12 hours straight (he owns the vast majority of 'Show Last 500 changes'), with breaks no longer than 10 or fifteen minutes until midnight, then absolutely no breaks since server time midnight, 6 hours ago. I don't know what timezone he's in, but assuming it's in the US, this doesn't look good. Ken, you should talk to your doctor about this, maybe your meds are making you unable to sleep. Not sleeping is a good way to go CRAZY. Seek some help, it's not healthy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's very good reason to believe he dwells in the EST zone. But I do believe he has commented on problems from sleep deprivation in the past and said that he has overcome this but sadly now appears to be backsliding (just like his promise to cut back on editing). Ken, heed DogP's advice for your own sake! Look after yourself. It's only a crummy website you know. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If he keeps it up, Andy'll have to go back on his "0 mental health problems from his contributors" slogan. Or, maybe he'll just get his lover TK to banhammer whoever mentions that Kendoll's an insomniac... SJ ^Debaser 10:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the SDG members regard Ken as a bit "special" and rather like the Jasper Carrott sketch about the "nutter on the bus" (Why me, Lord?) they try and ignore him if they can. Strangely, we are probably more concerned about Kens's wellbeing than all those caring "Christians" at CP and I believe that Ken has more of a rewarding relationship with us then he does with Andy et al - as the old saying goes "the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference". Ken has admitted to some health issues but always denies any "mental" problems. I think the evidence shows that at the very least he has poor social skills, probably a low self-esteem and a disposition towards obsessive/compulsive behaviour patterns (don't we all to some degree). I regards his user page links to self-help websites as postive proof that he needs re-affirmation of his own worth (which is what most self-help books do) and being able to point to his holy trinity of atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles gives him the esteem which obviously lacks in the real world. The sad part about that of course is that he does not present these articles under his own name but hides behind an alias. (I do the same here of course, but then I am not endeavouring to get the internet to regard me with awe because any of my writings on RW.) Генгис^marauding 11:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have a feeling a sit-down over a beer with Ken would be very weird, but varied and quite possibly result in many laughs, whereas a TK social encounter would be embarrassing and require great patience along with inner calm. At an Andy meetup I'd probably be thrown out of the pub and/or arrested for GBH. Anyway, Ken, send us a Gentlemen message and let us know what's up. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I'm sure Ken is quite harmless IRL but TK would either invite or incite violence. Генгис^marauding 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm really quite worried about him, it's now 21 hours straight (no pun intended) editing. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you keep up this sympathy for Ken (not that I disprove, although I think most of his entries are quite disgusting) you're going to get him booted out of Conservapedia for conspiring with liberals, like Zinoviev or someone. SJ ^Debaser 12:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We all know just how much Andy cares about the well-being of his contributors - remember his distinct lack of in interest after PJR's wife was ill. (For a devout Xian, Andy is remarkably unfeeling about anything except himself. Actually, replace 'for' with "because he's" )Likewise, all his little shout-outs and pleas to be noticed are ignored over there, by those who should care. I think the only interest he has received was from Ed or Tk, smacking him down for his shout-outs. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's made 392 edits since midnight last night=one edit every 84 seconds. And he's made 678 edits since midnight on Friday, or one edit every three minutes, and that includes sleeping for nine hours on Friday night at 2am. Ken - get help. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "insomnia". It looks like some sort of manic phase.--WJThomas 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Now 470 edits in 22+ hours and still counting. As it's Sunday does he go to church? He'll either be a complete wreck or be suffused by the spirit of Jebus and carry on where he left off. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's sat huddled at the back of the church, editing from a laptop hidden inside a Plain Truth. Totnesmartin 13:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

40 minute break and he's ba-a-ack! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that user " conservative" is not a bunch of pranksters? Just a thought--Buscombe 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If he is for real, I am also worried about him. Spending that amount of time on any internet project is not worth it. He is most likely a harmless fellow in real life. I suspect that in spite of his attitude towards us, many of us like him a bit.. just a teeny weeny little bit. --Buscombe 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If Ken's a prankster, he is the most dedicated one I've ever seen. He had been on this crusade before CP even existed, trolling forums and editing on CreationWiki. --Sid 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If TK wanted to get Ken out of the way, a few timely deletions or reversions now might push him over the edge. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be mean to try and tip him over the edge by pointing out how his precious evolution article has slipped back to the third page of google, and his operation and years of promises that it will "soon" be in the top ten have all gone badly awry? Poor kendoll, his life's work slipping away. No wonder he has issues. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's something that a lot of us pointed out way back when he got on this SEO kick in the first place. The moment he stops actively promoting his pet pages, they immediately slip back into obscurity. They only sit as high as he does for as long as he's pushing, they won't stay there because there's no content that people will keep coming back for. --Kels 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"We brake for nobody"

I like how the image of Ken's marathon is so effing long that by now three new sections easily exist next to it. Really puts things into perspective. --Sid 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's back after less than four hours. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Four hours of praying the gay away at the megachurch perhaps? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. I typically come out against wikidiagnosis of mental illness, but this is bad. Corry 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Christ Ken, I was away all day and I come back and you're STILL editing! STOP! This is absurd Ken, just stop for your own sake. Please. No doctrine or theory is as important as your own sanity. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't bi-polar disorder something that was suggested in the past? I have counselled several women with BPD and it certainly looks like he's going through a manic phase. If that's true then the tragedy is that when it finishes he will have one hell of a downer, so I hope TerryK doesn't do anything stupid (in relation to Ken that is),  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's purging. Probably dreamt about bumsex with Jesus. --Robledo 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can whoever did that nice picture of his edits do an update please? He's still at it with only short breaks. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO is updated to 516 edits during 30 hours 7 mins based on 9 hours of sleep he got before that. (I am not the one who did the update though.) Speaking of which, isn't that a variant of OCD? Or really careless editing like myself? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from it becoming even more enormous, surely the point of the image is just to show Ken's mammoth session. His afternoon restart needs it's own image should it deserve it. Also, as DogP remarked he had a warm-up session on the previous day. Should not that be included as well?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be OCD, or it might be his meds. I had a roommate who was severely ADD, and when she abused her meds, she was often awake and working for three or four days straight, then to crash for several more. Not that her work was very good after a day or so, but she was still programming away. --Kels 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I had contemplated making the session begin at 23:57 on Friday night, when he edited until 2am-ish, but that struck me as normal-ish. Looking back into the week, on Thursday he edited a 'normal' amount, and earlier in the week looked 'normal' too - I'm sure any of us idiots might have edited as much ourselves. But it really seems like something happened when he got up at 11am Saturday - he just went to work and edited like a crazed weasel until a nap Sunday morning, whereafter he just picked right up after lunch and went back at it. Ken - that's not a good way to spend your weekend. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the larger range. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I notice he got up at 2.45am and edited for another hour last night. Definitely some insomnia there Ken. Doctor time. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss California was NOT dethroned because of her beliefs

Unlike what Andy, or she, thinks, she was dethroned because of her actions (or more precisely, her inactions, ie her lack of attendance at charity events that beauty queens have to go to as part of their contract). --Crazyswordsman 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you forget liberal deceit - that's just the reason they gave to cover up the fact they didn't want some pro-lifer running the show, especially when God told her she didn't have to attend the charity do's (they were for liberal organisations, after all). open your mind and lose credibility. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But how could she have been dethroned for those beliefs if the new Miss California also supports it? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What gets me is why anybody gives a flying one about Miss California's political views. "Beauty queen talks bollocks" - so bleedin' what? Totnesmartin 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's like people caring about Bristol Palin. I never gave a crap about her, and then I started feeling bad for her for being used as a campaign prop (which is what invited the media to go after her in the first place), along with the other four Palin children. --Crazyswordsman 00:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this would happen, but if Assfly felt the need to justify the removal of Prejean as Ms. California, he could always scream "look what Hollywood values did to this nice Christian girl!!!" ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's not even trying anymore

Looking at his reply to Umlaut regarding e-mails, Andy's not even trying to be civil to his editors anymore. "Please post legitimate suggestions here, or please move on. Godspeed." I mean, I know the man is an insufferable boor, but it's like the editors of his "greater-than-WP-blog" are becoming more of a nuisance to him. Maybe the novelty's starting to wear off. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The novelty has long since worn off for the Assfly. CP is just a convenient place for him to dump his homskolling courseware and any random thought that comes in to his brain. RJJensen is the only person actually editing as if it was some kind of encyclopaedia, the rest are just carrying out their own little agendas. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he even does his cocoa edit any more. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And then, who could think of anything more predictable than this? Etc 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I half-expected TK to say something about liberals seeking to hide the truth.Umlaut 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Errr....all burned up is? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, to follow this you have to go to the screenshots linked from the wigo item. ħuman 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch!

CJHallock suggests that "More News Terms A"...."More News Terms Z" could be combined into one article. This set is a Crock o'shite invention anyway - just how utterly stupid is "More News Terms" anyway? But if it goes ahead could it undermine the months of work by Andy's homeskollars? Генгис^pillaging 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... isn't that what categories are for, anyway? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Andy could never really get his head round proper categorisation, he thought a hierarchical structure would confuse his students and tried to impose a single level approach. All the other term lists were created as a way to suck up to Andy. There are several examples of new students starting off with these generally empty lists. I think the majority of DeborahB.'s edits which got her a sysopship were just churning out these alaphabetic list templates. The term lists are completely unworkable because somebody has to make the effort to actually edit the list and add the so-called "term" rather than adding a cat to the required page. Also categories aid navigation whereas the stupid term-lists just hinder it. Генгис^unbelieving 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well TopKunt has put paid to any ideas about deleting term lists. With CJ (Super! Terrific!) having several of his edits reverted can he last much longer? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell me I wasted my time categorizing over there! :) Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who edits over there wastes their time!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Touché. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Who iz zees?

TK banhammered Umlaut earlier for being a "member of a website supporting vandalism". Anyone here? SJ ^Debaser 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Me. I pointed out that Andy didn't have an email address, when he demands that everyone else does- see the WIGO. I created this account after getting banned (for only three months, which was a suprise) for pointing out that anti-hacking laws don't apply to wikis.

Too bad, though- TK reverted the "checkmate", so I don't get to see Andy justify his bullshit, and I don't get a Parthian Shot.Umlaut 19:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is so quick! CJH reverted Romans comment on assflys talk page before TK could I guess (for a moment his revert was all that existed), I tried to get a link for that too, before I could TK had burned the whole thing the the ground. --Opcn 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not fast enough. -- Nx / talk 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I caught that, it was CJH's revert of that that I missed. --Opcn 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a great WIGO. It shows how much Andy can get slapped in the face with so much ownage and just ignore it. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks to Sid for linking me something to throw at Andy- I didn't know of any specific evidence of TK demanding private discussion.Umlaut 23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess who's got Oversight now?

TopKunt's "well-deserved and overdue" promotion finally happened! Congratulations to the most successful parodist in CP's history! ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

Let the destruction within begin! _{after the slow rot of a few years settles down} Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I fear that this gives TerryK even greater burning abilities.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah what does oversight actually do? Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to include sneaky ways of making irreversible edits, hiding users, changing logs. See here. Also, does anyone know what nsTeam1RW on CP is? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From MediaWiki - "The Oversight extension adds a user class that allows revisions to be permanently hidden from all users. Note that the revisions can only be restored by a developer."

And there are some handy instructions froma delighted user

1. click on history tab
2. click on the revision that you want to hide
3. you get redirected to the old page that you want to hide and you see the tab hide revision on the top
4. click on the hide revision tab -- NOT the delete tab!
5. you get redirected to Permanently hide revisions page
6. type in the Reason box - this is a required field
7. click on the Hide this data permanently button

Now off you go Terry, you've got work to do.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? He thinks he can beat Capturebot2? Bring it on! -- Nx / talk 22:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

An epic battle between an automated program and an idiot who didn't use Wikileaks in the first place! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Just wait till TK program his own bots to automate the process. Ha! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "nsTeam1RW": Long time ago (back when CP had a halfway stable cast of editors, as opposed to the current "a few sysops plus people who last less than a day" setup), CP had contests. Week-long team events to see who could improve CP the most by creating and editing articles. (See also Category:Conservapedia Contest.) To enable the teams to coordinate their actions better, they created special "secret" namespaces for each team and the judges. Only team members with the proper user rights were able to access them (or that had been the plan, at least). So that's what the right means: "Namespace Team 1 Read/Write"

They later (or was that before?) also added a "secret" sysop mainspace, but that quickly turned out to be a bad idea because pretty much EVERYBODY could read it by various means. --Sid 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2)nsTeam1RW refers to the heydays of CP when they would have delightful, friendly editing competitions. Which Andy would then contest because his team invariably lost. The teams had their own secret namespaces where they could share Government websites which they could freely copy and paste from, nsTeam1RW was one of those namespaces. As well as showing Andy's incredible churlishness and lack of sportsmanhip the competitions gave us a list of US-registered boats all the way from A to well A, and a couple of Bs. Such happy days!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy lost the contests because he would pick his team the same way he picks his sysops, cronies rather than contributors. - π 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I miss the heady days of contest 3 when I added about 50% of the USDA glossary and Andy threw a shit-fit and got all the points tossed out and called the contest judges to sanction TK (my team's captain) for failing to control his team. I think this might have precipitated TK's demotion and departure. Stile4aly 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's such a shame they don't have those contests any more. They were such good sources of lulz, the filled CP up with shite and they were good ways to get your socks promoted. Ah, how great the days of yore were. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically what TK can now do is "incinerate", rather than just "deep burn" pages. Note that what he recently did (prior to this "promotion") to Andy's talk page was a deep burn. He had to delete the talk page of the site owner in order to "hide" something from us. Such an action would be considered insane on any sane wiki. Thank Deity for capturebot! He probably then went to Andy and said "If you gave me oversight, I wouldn't have to burn your talk page. Pretty please?" Gauss 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As Assfly said, private communication is disfavoured on CP. Seeing as how there is no record of such a conversation, it clearly did not happen. Checkmate. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to take bets on how long it'll take before TK starts incinerating vandalism/"liberal last-wordism"?Umlaut 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's probably already doing it. Gauss 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is already doing it you gave him the idea Umlaut, part of me enjoys it when he sends us shout outs like that --Opcn 05:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who wants to bet on how long it will take teacake to somehow insinuate that some of our captures are fraudulent? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the big problem with oversight is it leaves no trace. The only people who can even see the oversight log are the oversighters and it clears like the checkuser log (again only visible to the checkusers). This is why we went with hide/show as it leaves messages everywhere showing that something has been removed. - π 03:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TK has already started using his powers to incinerate the page with all the talk about fair use of that stupid white flower picture. Gauss 05:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he has. TK is fertilized by power, and he can't even wait a day to shower under it. PS, what was vaped: image:670132a9b4niner.png ħuman 05:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

His choice of language, "they are forging them to perpetrate a fraud", is interesting. If anything ever came to court, somebody could subpoena the CP webserver as evidence, because the oversighted edits are still there even if they can only be recovered by a developer. I wonder if TheKnife knew that. Rpeh 07:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The likelihood of that ever happening is extremely low. TK is not overly concerned with the actual truth, just the presentable truth. We can't present that information, so he can deny our screenshots are true. He has been denying emails and those screenshots of his IM chat were he said he is out to destroy Conservapedia for well over a year, I doubt he would stop now. - π 07:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but the thought cheered me up a little. Screenshots... do you mean the Conley material or is there something else? Rpeh 07:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

haha...I called it. It sure didn't take him long. Hey Terry! For fuck's sake, talk to Ken

about his well-being you piece of shit. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs  12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Natha.net

Amusingly, as I was following the fair use chat on wigo [11], I wanted more info, so I went to the article, went to the flower image page [12], and clicked on the "source" link (which is dead). So I worked up to the root. Natha.net, apart from looking like a fun source for debunking projects, features liberal use of photographs/drawings of naked women (and probably men?). Thanks, JM! ħuman 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That whole site is so New Age, what's JM doing there? Apart from nicking pictures of course. Totnesmartin 22:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

JM posted a series of "Mind and body" articles a while back which he had copy-pasted. I think he got a strop on when someone deleted them for infringing copyright and temporarily left for good.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From their article on sexual continence... [13]

"It all starts from the scientific fact that orgasm and ejaculation – for the man – or the specific squirt – for the woman – are not necessarily connected. There are many situations known when orgasm is plenary experienced without the physiological squirt. The scientific perspective suggested and proved as an explanation to this phenomenon the theory of the biological transmutation of matter for low energies, even inside the human body. This shows that man’s sperm and woman’s sexual fluids can turn into energy inside the human body, according to Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2. The calculation shows that such energy is huge and it stays inside our body at different levels, which secures the above-mentioned advantages."

I still haven't found where JM nicked the photo though. ħuman 22:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So how much energy do I loose each year when I go poo? --Opcn 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I always wondered how relativity accounted for sex. The more you know! 23:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the mass-to-energy involved would destroy a city. But that's just details, and if we learned anything from Andy, it's that those aren't important. Kallium^talk 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would destroy a city, but it would certainly make the earth move. Totnesmartin 11:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the evil Liberal Wikipedia, 1 g of mass-to-energy was all it took for the Trinity/Nagasaki bombs (~21 kt TNT). Kallium^talk 12:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright WIGO

Is CJHallcock on shaky ground, given that the photographer's website clearly specifies "you can use the images for whatever you want, personal, commercial or non-profit use for free.....you are free to distribute and modify these files, commercial or otherwise, as long as you attribute its author. Doesn't this mean RJJ doesn't even need to Fair Use the image? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC34) LOL, Joaquin routinely claims fair use for PD images. Which shows that he really doesn't have a clue about the whole thing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Let's hope that he shifts to the one actually has a problem before he gets banhammered. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? DogP, is that where the flower image at cp:sexual continence came from? ħuman 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it is covered by the license of natha.net, CJHallock is on no ground with that claim (has that ever stopped any conservapedian before?) I'm pretty sure his argument that it is not fair use is 100% rock solid. I suspect that his removing it had more to do with the improper use of fair use than an actual dislike of the image, although the image doesn't seem to make much of an impact on the article. I wonder how long it will take TK to see this topic. --Opcn 23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! That's a lesson in 'read the damn title' before posting. I was referring to the image of the lovely man and woman and sky and lawn and fence thingy. Excuse me for being a twat. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. okay. well I'll bet he read that image entry too before going on his tirade. He surely wont survive this. Andy must be paying attention because of his edits to two copyright articles, but he is remaining silent, I wonder why. --Opcn 23:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe banhammering CJH would give unwanted consequences? Not that he would think that far into the future though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use tests

One of the tests for fair use spelled out in 17 U.S.C. § 107 is the purpose and character. Does it advance the understanding of the subject at hand? This has two questions that need to be answered:

• Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
• Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

A flower does not advance the knowledge of the subject (flowers are quite promiscuous). The image has not been transformed by adding new expression or meaning, nor was any new information aesthetics, insights or understandings added by the inclusion of the flower. This fails fair use test #1. It also fails tests #2 and #3 quite easily. The question of if it has impacted the potential market is debatable, but still - tests #1, 2, and 3 are failed. [14] --Shagie 23:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever come back from a 1 month CP block?

and not been immediately (within the next two weeks) blocked for five years? --Opcn 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised. If they block you for a month it is an attempt to appear fair, after that they feel justified in bring down the ban hammer because they already gave you a chance. Human, Ames and Dinsdale have some of the longest block logs have a look at them. - π 02:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and short blocks usually seem to be for being reasonable, when that contradicts Andy; this isn't a condition that goes away.Umlaut 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in the day, month-long blocks weren't "reinforced", but were just as rare. Its like they're trying to fool viewers into thinking they're merciful or something. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Return of Blocked Editors

This gives me the opportunity to (re)introduce one of my favourite pics, which seems to answer your question: yes, there are a few editors whose blocks weren't reinforced - and the best way to get this kind of lenience is to stay away....

(The underlying data is of April 2009, the situation surely has changed a little bit)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sad to see CJH blocked

He was going so strong too, I had high hopes that he would make it the distance. --Opcn 03:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, you kept openly questioning them. You should work quietly for a bit and any contact you do have should be overall positive. Too much lackeying and you appear like Bugler, too much arguing and you will be banhammed, too little contact and they won't even notice you so you won't be given rights. Oh well have a sysopship on us. - π 04:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I have no idea what you are talking about ... I'm shocked, shocked I say to find trolling going on here --Opcn 04:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I call bullshit! Either CJH was the real deal, or both Opcn and CJH are socks of Terry Koeckritz. It would make sense, wouldn't it? Fabricating a shit storm on CP worth goading Andy into giving him Oversight, burning the evidence, and then coming here to brag about it. I don't buy for a second that someone from here socked up and instigated it all. Junggai 11:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was in fact CJH, to my knowledge TK does not have his tand up my ass (thats the sort of thing Ken

might try though). Did you seriously think CJH has one of them? I thought I was caught for sure when I edited the article for some football club after someone brought it up on this talk page, TK reverted me hard after that. --Opcn 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch

Update: JM changes the block setting for CJH to infinite. Fat chance of seeing that user coming back. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with the E-mail I sent him that said basically "Just because you fail to understand the law that doesn't mean that you can call me a liar" I think he didn't like that.--Opcn 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is this the demise of WIGO?

Now that TK has oversight he will undoubtedly oversight away as many lulz as possible just to piss in our corn flakes. All the Best of Conservapedia past that we've collected is practically unreadable thanks to all the deep burning. Capturebot will probably be a short term solution at best. Eventually we'll be storing so many screen caps that storage and bandwidth will begin to become an issue and could at some point become untenable. CP is clearly so far down the path to madness that it has long ceased to be a source of novel humor, merely just new iterations of Andy's insanity, TK's masterful trolling, and the continued quixotic charges of true believers. At what point does WIGO become a fond memory of lulz past? Stile4aly 04:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the current lulz, other than the Conservapedia law, have been a pale imitation of the past for a few months now. Image storage is not a problem, the pictures aren't that big but bandwidth is and so is CPU time because of the rubbishy way MediaWiki stores files. Trent was looking at an image server to get around that, but that may have petted out. To be honest I think we need to get the other big three going more, world, clogs and blogs. CP is now a tragedy, not a comedy. - π 04:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if those are his plans, he can't be everywhere at once. Besides, I think looking at the WIGO page for updates on himself is one of the pleasures in his life. Assuming his megalomania doesn't wane, I don't see him putting a stop to anything that gives him attention. --PitchBlackMind 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Capturebot may be a short term solution, but TK may be a short term problem. I think that now that he's a bureaucrat, he may be running out of ladders to climb. And we all know what happens when he runs out of ladders to climb...-- JArneal 05:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He is not a bureaucrat yet and probably will never be one. The site will be a living fossil by the time TK has finished with it, the homeschool children will grow up and move on, the strong moraled sysops have left, the easily intimidated sysop will be driven off like Jessica, only the likes of Ed will survive and all Andy will have is an empty shell full of errors and rubbish receiving a few edits a day. - π 06:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight... I meant oversight... either way, TK is only playing power games in the end. I think he may just give up when he realizes he can't gain any more power.-- JArneal 06:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TK is not called TeamKiller for nothing. He is not a natural wiki-player and his role at CP has never been more than a thug. His mainspace "contributions" have largely been copy/pastes because he is not interested in making CP an encyclopedia his aim is to get his sadistic kicks, as Kevin warned us about him. The problem is that the more successful he becomes the less kicks he's going to get out of it because there won't be enough "action" so expect more oppression of his fellow sysops if they are not fully "on message". Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This could indeed be indeed the beginning of the end of WIGO and, by extension, the final nail for the conservapedos. Where would they be without all those loyal fans driving traffic to them? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Mountain Blue 06:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is the rebirth of WIGO. Now, WIGOing trolling, one-off accounts, etc. will be more difficult, but he can't oversight away the ridiculous antics of his fellow sysops. Articles like "Conservapedia's Law" can't be shuffled under the carpet. He's actually forcing what a lot of people here wanted anyway - a focus shift. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at it that way... Mountain Blue 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, he did oversighted RJJ on talk page. Unless of course, you mean he can't Oversight the mainspace without trouble or RJJ isn't actually a sysop. I think most silly antics are from the talk pages anyways, like Godspeed or clueless. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Forged screenshots

Of course, if the original diff link was still extant then that could prove whether a screencap was forged or not. The very fact that it is missing is proof that they had something to hide in the first place. I expect far more deep burning of pages as Lord Acton's dictum of "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." plays out before our very eyes. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here we go - it seems he's deep burned the RJJensen contrbution that he reverted in the copyright debate on cp:Talk:Sexual continence. Look at the history. Copyright debate? What copyright debate?! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At least Jallen, Kara and Dean used it sparingly and normally only to revert vulgarities and the like. TightKnickers, however, is about to embark on a blaze of conservative deceit, the likes of which we've never seen before. I love how he's already reverting Andy (Private communication comment) - might soon be time for the final endgame. Dean! Kara! I know you both read this - don't you think it's time to show you have a spine and reel the troll in? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that the return of Rob might lead to a confrontation. It was Rob TK tried to frame for leaking SDG material to RW 1.0, right? EddyP 10:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on Karajou being the one to forestall TK's reign of terror. If this tag team arseholery is anything to go by, they'll be skipping hand in hand down the destroy CP highway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As the Terry Koeckritz fuelled paranoia reaches ever greater heights they're circling the wagons ever closer. The 'forged screenshots' line is just perfect wingnuttery - who on earth outside of their tight little circle would believe we need to make anything up; the script writes itself. Silver Sloth 12:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Winston Smith would be sooooooooo proud! If only CP had real power to fix all the liberal lies. Why, we could go back 100 years, and repair newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, TV, history books, text books, poetry, folk art, the congressional record, the bible, rock and roll. Oh the things we could do...Jimaginator 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One can show bias or deceit quite easily at CP, but examples of flat out lying are not that common. Well done TK. You have shown yourself to be a liar. It is now clear to anyone that moral victory is ours. I suspect even the majority of admins and users at CP now know you are a liar. Can't wait to see what's next. StarFish 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait. Liar is too ill-defined for the purpose here. He's not spreading "falsehood" (As CP probably defines it); he's simply not letting you see what happened (he doesn't have his false version to spread, that's what separates him from liars). Subtle differences there, pal. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe where he states the screenshots are faked he is deliberately spreading falsehoods and is a flat out liar. Deleting the content from the page is deceit. Saying the screen captures are faked is lying IMO. I stand by my words. StarFish 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He mentioned it on that Stanek blog thread (I think) weeks ago. Fucker plans ahead all right... even if the car dealership *is* going tits up. Totnesmartin 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly a lie, however, he will somehow insinuate that this is not a lie because we can neither account for nor prove the validity of every single screen capture the RW community has ever taken. Of course the burden is on him to prove a screen cap is fraudulent (as his claim is a positive one for the fraudulence of our caps), but stupid people rarely place the burden of proof correctly. Hello, Terry. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Forged screencaps" has been TopsyKnocker's defence for a while now (and it's getting a bit lame. You need to come up with something fresh while you sit in mummy's basement, you grizzled wanker), especially when he was caught out slagging off CP the last time he was trying to bring it down - a good example is the one Helpjazz provided. That was edited and doesn't say anything near to what TK meant... according to TK. What amazes me, is how he managed to convince Andy that his opening the SDG to everybody, was actually a special seekrit undercover operation he was running. I wonder what his excuse this time will be? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Defence to whom!? Is there a large audience of potential CP-contributors that we're unaware of, which are being continually deceived by RW's hatemongering, to whom TK needs to respond? No one on earth is reading his defences outside this circle. 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know he's kidding himself, but srsly

What does Andy think he's doing by giving his essays (which are already in the mainspace) mainspace redirects? I think he thinks it's a clever loophole for his "fact"-based requirements of the "encyclopedia". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 15:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrupulous adherence to scientific method

The lunacy continues. Or perhaps Andy is just having some fun with us?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Andy has never acknowledged reading us. Probably never will. He can't. He's way two big of a man to bother with lowly ol' us. Do I think he reads us? Probably not. He ignores us like he ignores everything else that is contrary to his truths. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The best part of that edit is the summary: "removed "constitutional" because its origin had nothing to do with a "constitution"; it's amazing how removal of clear mistakes like this one restores the perfect geometric fit". Translated, it means "It's amazing how when I change the data to fit my theory, the data fits my theory." Rpeh 16:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain funny. How those words are not conservative, yet all the nonsense Andy added is is inexplicable. At this point, he's just obsessed with a "geometric increase." He should submit his findings to a linguistics journal. 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know on what criteria she judged it, but my cousin, who has a PhD in linguistics from MIT and studied under Chomsky, gave a bit of a laugh and rolled her eyes when she saw Andy's Conservative Words page. That was about it. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

TK just can't be arsed anymore

He's not even bothering to come up with blocking excuses now. It's of course unthinkable that someone may have a name like 'Jacob'? Or perhaps the surname just sounded a bit too foreign for TK's liking? Jammy 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Americanizing your name, even if you live in a foreign country, is a liberal trait. --PitchBlackMind 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Koustoulis is arguably more Americanized than... Koeckritz. Funny that. Mountain Blue 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheists not really atheists

There may not even be true atheists today. More typically an "atheist" is simply an anti-Christian. What planet does this guy inhabit? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's world, Christianity is the only legitimate religion, and so the only one which can be properly denied. SJ ^Debaser 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is even funnier when you realize that he insists in the Atheism "article" that Atheism solely means denial of God.Umlaut 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So, Anti-islam, Anti-Jewry, Anti-Hindu never existed, or everyone are doing it in addition to Atheists. that explains a lot of things he said on his blog. (See, he supports the "one god further" argument; Athiest simply oppose to one more religion than the followers of religion: the one the believers are following.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that a lot of the folks that the Slacktivist crew call "Real True Christians" really do act like they believe that everyone else, deep down inside, really believes _exactly_ the things they do, but are pretending to be Muslims/Hindus/Jews/Atheists/Whatever out of spite towards God. --Gulik 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation "Asia Gets the Banhammer" seems to have succeded

[15] 16:23, 14 June 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 61.73.224.0/19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: KOREA TELECOM) --Opcn 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If TK reads this talk page, and therefore knew about this, why'd he go along with it? Just to get more IPs banned?Umlaut 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mountain blue was still leaking freethough and non-fascism in to CP --Opcn 20:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Opcn: Nope, wasn't me. Umlaut: I might have lied about being in Asia so as not to tip TK off. Then again, I might not have bothered to lie, assuming that TK would assume I was lying so as not to tip him off. Then again... aw, forget it. Too complicated. It's already 7 AM on this beautiful Monday morning here in Asia and I haven't even gotten to bed yet. Mountain Blue 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work, always leave them guessing. It heightens the paranoia. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What did 61.73.224.0/19 actually do anyway? There's no contributions link and no nothing. Mountain Blue 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think TK needs a reason?--WJThomas 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probable that they have already been banned and TK widened their IP blocks, just to be sure. It's kind of like in the movies when the psycho thug lets rip a round of machinegun bullets into the corpse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Their block log is growing rapidly!(June 14 alone has 3x/16, 1x/19, 1x/20, 1x/21, 2x/32) Expecting arithematic or geometric progression at some point. speaking of which, who lives (we are not doing drive-by stealing wireless networks, the last time we have talk about this issue) in area around Newark, NJ? I would love to see Andy's acolytes got collateral damages[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I live in SE PA, but I think I am too far to have an effect on anyone in Newark. Who is in Newark that is damage collaterable (A new Conservative Word!?!)? --Passerby25 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suppose since Andy lives near Newark NJ his attending homeschoolers would live fairly close to it. Andy himself would not be vulnerable to blocks but I would like to see the acolytes getting collateral damage. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... Andy is from New Jersey? This really explains soooo much about his personality.--Passerby25 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that you need google for it (Google may give you the actual address); the copyright notice on CP says use the exclusive juridiction of Newark, NJ tells you something. And I think he lived in New York for some time before (this is from some outdated documents found on Google), so where exactly he's from is at least arguable. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was for me, I think. I live in South Korea, and that was very nearly the IP from my old apartment's connection.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We salute you, sir. Mountain Blue 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not Really

Operation Asia is officially cancelled. I actually went to Asia last Friday, and I was scheduled to go to Tehran tomorrow, do some consulting, and leave next weekend to Rhiyad, via Dubai. Tehran, Rhiyad, and the Dubai airport have hotspots like you wouldn't believe, and they all go through an extremely narrow range of IP addresses. My plan was simply to flitter and prance and flutter and dance from access point to access point and programmatically improve a random article or two at every stop. Beautiful little butterfly that I am, I'm extremely good at that flitter thing, you know. I would've had quite a gay time, and it should have been exquisitly delicious to see TK rain a couple /16s on the Socialists of Dubai, the Liberals of Saudia Arabia, or the Atheists of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Alas, Andy's fellow conservatives in Iran apparently don't want any additional witnesses to how they bring the hammer down on their liberals IRL, so they cancelled, among others, my whole fucking gig. Because, kids, this is what happens when bitter, bigoted mysogynists with bad teeth and failed careers run nations instead of websites nobody reads: actual people actually fucking die. We're actually quite lucky to live in areas in which pathetic little creeps like Andy and his enforcers are just that: pathetic little creeps. Sorry, but I really had to vent now. Mountain Blue 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to record it, but TK disappeared some of the CJH edits

Vasopressin, a pretty darn innocuous edit I did, has gone missing, lies/vandalism. I had a clear and authoritative scientific source and made four claims. 1) It's called ADH, 2) It is released from (but not manufactured in) the pituitary 3) It is involved in Male-partner bonding and 4) It causes the body to maintain its water. This oversighter thing is going to be a bigger problem than I had previously thought. --Opcn 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grab some popcorn, sit back and watch TK make everything disappear over time. TK is going to use oversight like a blunt object rather than a scalpel. But then, using a scalpel would imply TK has opposable thumbs. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing how often he uses it. Will he use it for run-of-the-mill vandalism? Or only when he gets called on something? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely when he gets called on something (I have a suspicion that he begged for oversight right after Umlaut called Andy out on the email is required thing), and probably will for the first to dick with us. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got 100 internets and a penguin (SirChuck doesn't know he's donating one yet) that says we never see another revert from TK. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. TK will go straight for the incinerator. But Andy may be a bit squeamish about it. Here, he reverted someone's "threatening rant" and blocked him. But Andy only reverted ("shallow burned"). It was later incinerated, I would guess by TK. Otherwise Andy would probably have incinerated it himself. The items, from the "recent changes" log, are below. No point in giving the actual link; it's gone. The Bucephalus contribs list shows nothing, of course. Gauss 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. (diff) (hist) . . m User talk:Aschlafly‎; 14:44 . . (-588) . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Bucephalus (Talk) to last version by TK)
2. (Block log); 14:43 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Bucephalus (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (threatening rant)

I didn't grab it but it was the same what GJennings posted. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question for people with more wikiskills than me- is it possible for a person to bork the database by injudiciously using oversight? Corry 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, but because it can only be restored by direct database access, restoring a lot of oversighted stuff is tedious, only CPWebmaster or Andy can do it, and they can royally screw up when directly manipulating the db. -- Nx / talk 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At most, you will increase the R/W time for queries if they don't run an optimize script every now and then. tmtoulouse 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I didn't know that I was going to be donating, but I've checked the records, and it just happens that we have exactly one penguin available. A Macaroni.... Good luck Psy SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at that Keijo

Keijo just did a whole lot of vandalism, left people to do many reverts, I'm a little impressed that he made it that far. --Opcn 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that's anything special. It's not that hard if you really feel like going through the trouble. Just open a bunch of tabs to the edit pages and submit all the changes at rapid speed. You could probably pull off 50 in a minute or two if you had a quick finger. --PitchBlackMind 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's actually quite a good way to get vandalism through. A team of three people, one to vandalise and two to revert. The reverters obscure everything (but leave one piece of vandalism) and make it hard to see what's been reverted - if the vandal makes 20+ edits, something might get through. EddyP 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't doing that though, I was more impressed by how much time her spent up rather than how much damage he did. Not that I condone such actions. --Opcn 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So you would be the much vaunted WIGO that just got me banned, I presume. PTaylor, my CP account, was just banned because of your comments above. Cheers guys, way to go. Why not actually do something, rather than just hate ranting CP? I presume Keijo was one of you? OscarJ? Bastards. Annoyed 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Not your fault. I can't be bothered anymore. I've been KarlJaeger, PeterWinchester and now Peter Taylor, and I keep getting blocked for doing nothing. I genuinely am giving up at this point. CP just doesn't want users. Annoyed 20:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember Mr. Winchester when I was over yonder. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you. I wrote some quality articles in all my guises. Glad you remember me. Annoyed 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The future of claims of faked screenshots

TK suggested that some of our screenshots are faked. I doubt anyone will believe this about any particular screenshot. First, everything we post on WIGO is believable, but already about as outrageous as imaginable. Unless TK starts to drop N-bombs, no screenshot will be so out of character from the diffs that don't get covered up that the screenshot will seem unbelievable.

Second, edit numbers are sequential, so oversight should, assuming it doesn't renumber every edit, leave a trace.

As a preventative mechanism, we might consider WebCite, which produces third-party screenshots. See also Iterasi and kwout. Coarb 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you start this in a new section? Haven't you read the rest of this page? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm feeling lazy or important, I'll do that too. Just like not signing my comments.

The other discussion was about a particular forgery claim, then about completely different things. I wanted to point out two technical pieces of information. I forgot that the other section had that title when I titled this section. I changed the title of this section so you will not annoyed that it nearly duplicates an earlier title. Coarb 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not annoyed, just irked. :) Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we all got together in a room with a rabbit, forty pounds of duct tape, five large bunches of bananas and a thing that went 'whheeep', and a gallon of grog each, we couldn't write, photoshop or think of things as good funny as the WIGO's produced by the staff over at CP. So why the FUCK would we forge them Mr. TK? You fucking nincompoop. I hope you win, by the way, and destroy the whole fucking dump. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I gave up writing parody articles on CP. I was shamed to discover I couldn't out-crazy the True Believers. --Gulik 06:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re: page content

As I just caught myself posting my second TK WIGO directly in a row, I propose that we simply replace the article like this:

= What is going on at CP? =

TK.

Really, do they take turns being obsessed? First Ken went on a marathon, and now TK's going wild at full blast. (And yet, I'm willing to bet that in a week or so, Ed will pop up on aSK again, going all "We can work together to make CP more balanced!") --Sid 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see he's still making up his own rules as he goes along. Now the TV show Angel gets deleted because it's "pop culture". Like somebody said, remember the good old days, when they used to create articles? Oh, and given this edit, Terry Koeckritz has given implied permission to use his name all over the place. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing With TK

Quick thought - and I probably know the answer - but has anybody ever considered hiring a private detective to follow Terry Koeckritz? I know it's a bit icky to discuss such a thing, and I know what the overall answer will be... but I like the thought that it'll increase his paranoia even for a minute. If you don't like that idea, just be thankful I didn't suggest sending male strippers to Ken's

house? Rpeh 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Um...yeah. You can do what ever creepy/stalker things you want in your own time. Don't involve the site in it though. Z3ro^talk 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the strippers might actually be appreciated. As for Terry Koeckritz I don't care nearly enough--Opcn 21:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow TK where? From his Mom's house to the 7/11 and back again? tmtoulouse 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about anything he does except on CP? Why would you want to spend money to pay someone to observe stuff you don't care about or already knew? He's a disgusting creep. If you feel the honest need to know more than that, you should take a break because his poison is the most sickening kind. Nothing good can come of what you're suggesting. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd imagine following TK in real life would be profoundly disappointing. Internet bullies seldom make intimidating real-life figures. On CP, he's the stuff of nightmares. IRL, he's the stuff of hot-pockets. Z3ro^talk 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terrible idea to harass a person in real life because of childish internet games. Corry 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I love the fuck out of your last addition to this topic Z3ro

On a side note, why isn't Andy being the first target? (As in someone dig out his darkest secrets and, ur, post it somewhere?) I am sure Andy would be a more interesting target IRL (not that I am suggesting anything, but Andy should get preferential treatment before TK I would think) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I miss TOP, by now he would have been around to tell you stop having this stupid conversation. This is the internet! It is not that important. It is especially not important enough to involve peoples actual lives in. This is the sort of sick games TK us to play calling peoples work and shit (ask the old HotOrNot admins). Only a real sad loser would continue a fight off-line. - π 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your all fucking retarded. At least Rpeh seems to be down with my brand of humor. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 01:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It has to be said that people on this site are even easier to wind up than those on CP... Rpeh 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you just made an asshole suggestion to stalk someone, and not many people have chimed in to tell you what a loser idea that was. Loser idea, end of story, you should be sorry you posted such tripe. ħuman 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you are new, it is hard to tell whether you are joking or just that clueless. - π 05:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Neveruse513 got it, as did tmtoulouse and Z3ro to some extent. And fuck you all if you can't take a joke. Do you really think I give a flying fuck what TK does? It was just an attempt to start off some lulz. Didn't work. Must try harder next time. Rpeh 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I got it too Rpeh. It was part joke and part attempt to increase TKs paranoia. It was in no part a serious suggestion. As for you being too new for people to tell the difference I couldn't disagree more. I think some people struggle to tell the difference precisely because they have been here too long. Personally I'm here to laugh at CP. The day I take it all as seriously as some of the above comments I'll leave. As yogi bear might say "yeeesh". StarFish 06:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, suggesting real life stalking of an internet persona is creepy. I saw the fragile attempt at humor when the editor mentioned sending strippers to Ken's house, but sometimes a bit of proofreading and thinking can actually make a joke, you know, "funny", instead of just creepy. ħuman 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read that first as "poofreading" - which I thought was a funnee by teh Human. But no. :( Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So not a "Loser idea, end of story" after all, but one with at least a scintilla of humour? There's also a difference between making a genuine suggestion and saying something as a deliberate wind-up. When I tell you to go fuck yourself, I don't actually expect you to spend some time trying to carry out the act, so when I post a suggestion on a joke site about hiring a detective to follow a known paranoid control freak, you should realise that it's not a serious suggestion. Thank you StarFish for proving that not everybody on here is completely dense. Rpeh 06:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting a little hot under the collar there eh Rpeh. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a little, yeah :) Rpeh 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, happens to us all eh. :-) Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Skillfully using his absolute control over the press wiki, he gradually built up the legend of the "Duce" "Dick", a man who was always right and could solve all the problems of politics and economics. Italy Conservapedia was soon a police state. With those who tried to resist him, for example the Socialist Giacomo Matteotti Ames Grawertti, he showed himself utterly ruthless. But Mussolini Assolini's skill in propaganda was such that he had surprisingly little opposition.(Grolier Encyclopedia)

(undent)Now sending in the captain to deal with TK, now thats an idea we can get behind --Opcn 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How did I miss this WWGO?

The Obama manifesto doesn't exist, but if it did, we are sure it would bear striking resemblance to Mussolini's manifesto. Thanks JPatt --Opcn 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The more I see of this stuff, the more I get the feeling Jpatt is laughing his butt off. His essays are so over the top that they come off as funny more than disturbing, and they fit in so well with Andy's stuff it's hard to just point at them and say parody. --Kels 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I hadn't seen this before either. That clinches JPatt for me. Well done, brother.--PitchBlackMind 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's taking names

That's just creepy. Bjones 22:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that gives us free rein to use his full name in every mention now. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse ... I would consider Americanizing, how on earth are you supposed to say that? I wonder if I could get my name on the list ... --Opcn 22:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude! That's not my name, my name is Trent Toulouse, my user id is tmtoulouse, it comes from my full name Trent Morgan Toulouse. Come on TK, its on my damn user page. tmtoulouse 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The little troll is clearly running out of people to harass on his own wiki. Corry 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, he will have to do better than that, the three of us are old school veterans of TK and all of his tactics. We have been the focused harassment of multiple CP sysops who have tried to damage our "real life" reputations. None of them were remotely successful. You would be hard pressed to find three people more immune to his trolling than us. tmtoulouse 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Or three people less likely to bother faking CP screenshots. But it is amusing to be famous, if only briefly. I wonder if I can get a lawyer to send Andy a letter requesting that he remove the slander or libel or whatever it is from his web site? ħuman 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, sue him in small claims court. Use the discovery portion of the process to request all records re CP, including funding, secret communications (probably containing more libel), and so on. Maybe throw in a goodly number of interrogatories for Andy to answer. Could be fun.--WJThomas 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to twist the internets panties into a Mobius strip and stuff them into a Klein bottle, let's see him call this a forgery! ħuman 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he used those names since they're the only three he knows right off. I'm sure he could find mine and a few others easily enough, but he's got those right at hand so why bother? --Kels 00:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooo it's becoz we're teh rulzorz of teh Fandal Sight! ħuman 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (timestamp a bit later than actual post due to forgery)

Hey Terry Koeckritz, other people have names too, so STFU if you can't get the whole list. Now let's see how Terry Koeckritz's creepiness will match up with the Church of Scientology. Prediction: epic fail of TK to get the complete list of our names. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him mine along with my address if he really wants to tally names. If there's anyone we shouldn't be scared of it's Terry Koeckritz.--PitchBlackMind 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey TopKracker, why don't you put my name up on your userpage? After all, I'm the superhero of the group.... I can teleport myself from Denver to Salt Lake for vandalism purposes..... SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 03:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

TK: "I am going to add more names, and not stop there, but link to it other places, like Ken has shown us to do.

Why?

Because you keep using my full name, in spite of your ex-admin's promise to stop it. Therefore I am going to link your names to the same types of things you keep doing to me. Fair is fair."

Let the hilarity ensue! ħuman 06:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• snigger* As Ken showed him how to do *snigger* Z3ro^talk 13:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, folks. Remember, Tk knows people. --Gulik 06:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ex-admin's promise? Sorry but what weight does that carry round here? Ames is no longer an active contributor but devotes his spare time to his blog. He has no influence over what is published here and never carried more influence than any other user even when he was active. Having driven away most editors at CP, TK has no more toys in his pram with which to amuse himself and needs to cause more mischief. Tell you what Terry, why don't you actually try writing some genuine educational articles for the children that you have professed to care so much about? And furthermore do it without such obvious copy/pastes that underpinned most of the other articles you "created". I presume you haven't forgotten the UCLA article when you lied to Andy and the sysops at CP that it had not been copied from Wikipedia. It was shown both here and independently by Philip J. Rayment, to be an utter falsehood so why don't you expunge that from your database with your new powers, as any other sysop can resurrect it whenever they wish if they want to know the truth? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That list is insulting to User:Nx. TK, I demand you rectify this at once! EddyP 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)