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

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive146

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 August 2009. 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>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <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)

Too Whipped To Work Up A Proper WIGO[edit]

Has anyone happened to notice that Andy is a half-wit? Here he goes on about how The President is some kinda traitorous foreigner because he said "this country" in reference to the USofA instead of saying "our country". He's mentioned this before, that a real American would always say "our" and not "this". Never mind that it's a perfectly normal phrase, and that a search for "this country" on CP brings up endless examples of said formulation used by every politician and conservative hero that's ever been, from Washington and Lincoln to Reagan and Limbaugh, and Andy himself uses the phrase regularly in his lectures and other rants.--WJThomas (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the same as republicans having bigger flag lapels. Nationalism bullshit like that really pisses me off. BTW, Andy never has a flag lapel in any of the pictures he puts up of himself. Think he loves American as much as he says he does?--Tabris (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a trap. Saying "our" is problematic because it may be misinterpreted as "inclusive we" that people will bash him about including illegal immigrants into the "our" notation. Saying "my" simply will be misinterpreted as "This country is all mine, so f*** off!". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to Andy either way, he just needed to relieve his priapism for bashing Obama. If Obama had said "our country", Andy probably would've been all "What does he mean by our country?!! Is this perhaps a vague reference to the Muslim shadow government that has truly installed him into power???????"--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the Gettysburg Address Lincoln referred to the US as "that nation", by Andy's logic he must be even more foreign. - π 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
All can be understood by assuming Andy = Aspberger's + conservative RC upbringing. (No offense to any RW aspies out there!)--Too tired to log in (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Obscene usernames[edit]

I would like to think that the lastest barrage of obscenity at CP isn't anyone from this dark side of town. Its getting a little over the top. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, now if it stops if definitely was "us"? I thought it was mostly a response to our pointing out Andy's (and others') foray into blacklisting strings, probably instigated at anonymous, not here. Could have been "us", of course. Who knows? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I was always under the impression Ebaum's World does most of the childish vandalism to CP. I have never dived into their forums to find out. - π 05:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Jersey politicians[edit]

I couldn't remember if those guys who got busted in Jersey were dems or GOP, so I checked conservapedia. Since there's nothing about it on the main page, I'm guessing they were republicans. Czolgolz (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They're actually almost all Democrats (one Republican); you can't be corrupt unless you're in power, and the Dems have controlled Jersey for quite a while now. [2]. But mostly I just want to quote lyrics to you: "Czolgosz, Angry man, Said, "I will do what A poor man can. Yes, and there's nowhere More fitting than In the Temple Of Music By the Tower Of Light Between the Fountain Of Abundance And the Court of Lilies At the great Pan-American Exposition In Buffalo, In Buffalo." - Poor Excuse (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I chose to live in NJ because that is where our Lord and Saviour resides too. The scandal is all over the news. In my opinion, CP is in a bind about this because, yes, it's mostly Dems, but there is also 1 GOP, and a bunch of rabbis. How can CP cover this? Unless they can find that the only innocents are the people they want to be innocent, it's going to be a big problem. My prediction is that it will never make their news. Jimaginator (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a vote?[edit]

While things seem a bit quiet over at CP is it time for a vote on biggest idiot, abuse of sysop power, etc? I can't remember when we had the last one but it feels like yonks. StarFish (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for a vote, Ed Poor is still the biggest idiot, and TK is the ultimate abuser of any sort of power. Now go give them their medals. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking but then maybe Ed is resting on his laurels just a bit. I mean he used to post regularly with often creepy, always bonkers updates on 17 year old episode of Star Trek or whatever. Great stuff. But since winning the biggest idiot award I think it's gone to his head and he just isn't putting the effort in like he used to. StarFish (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice point and you maked me laff, twice or even thrice. Oh, and I think the ST eps were more like 37 42 years old. What is this world coming to? ħumanUser talk:Human 10:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The last votes were November last year, so it is getting on a bit and Nx has given as a new vote system. The last lot were the Conservapedia Day awards, we just need a hook to get started. Besides I think Jpatt is now the clear biggest idiot. - π 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Is Ken automatically disqualified to give everyone else a chance? EddyP (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Ken looked a shoe in last time but he came third. I think we should disqualify Ed, instead he should be given a life time achievement award and enshrined in the Professional Idiots Hall of Fame. - π 11:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you can be so assertive about biggest... Ed Poor, JPatt and Rob are very close in the race. Also, we should acknowledge Rob for having the biggest balls at CP, being the only one who will directly face criticism and defend himself. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't around for much of Ed Poor, so I have to go with Jpatt or RobSmith. Probably Rob though, Jpatt is just completely insane. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ed "attention span of a cockroach" Poor is now just a shadow of his former self. He used to throw his weight around, laying waste the maths and science articles in particular, while boasting of his great expertise. See Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics for more info on his rampage in 2008. Now he just harasses teenagers, liveblogs old Star Trek episodes, and is generally weird. I doubt that he would merit any prizes now. BTW, I wonder how his writing course went? Gauss (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Andy himself is easily the biggest idiot this time around. He's totally oblivious. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Many good points, and I suffer from being blinded by the past. Yeah, lets spend the end of the summer/winter picking our awards once more, in time for Andy's next class? I volunteer (maybe) to make award banners with my fabulous PSP skillz. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Amusing Development[edit]

I tried to look into the consequences of conservapedia's treatment of new editors:

Active editors at CP sorted by time of membership
Active editors at RW sorted by time of membership

The most amusing part: last month, when I took the numbers of active editors (editors who commented at least once over the last seven days) RationalWiki had ~140 active editors, while there were ~170 at conservapedia. Today, the conservapedia's statistic's page states a number of 92 active editors, while there are 130 at rationalwiki (see here).

At the moment, the chance to survive for a new editor at conservapedia are slim to none...

larronsicut fur in nocte 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean we grow larger than CP now? This is profound. Nice Job again, LArron. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
how many such active editors on CP survived whatever arbitrary period or number of unreverted edits? IIRC the last few weeks on CP have seen an unusual number of caca dodo usernames that didn't last very long. We don't have that problem. Umm hehe, yeah. I didn't see the graphs because I was editing on a handheld. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Active users down to 89... this could become a running tally. The blog is shrinking rapidly. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken and composites[edit]

Say, for the sake of argument, that Ken was actually honest over there at aSK (I know, but just for the sake of argument) and he's actually too incompetent to create those idiotic Hitwin and Obapolean composites. So I was thinking, where are you most likely to find 'shoops that retarded? Why, Little Green Racists, of course! They're all retarded children...I mean, staunch Conservatives over there, and they love that kind of shit. Dunno if that's actually where they came from, I'm not masochistic enough to wade into that sewer to find out, but they do come off as soulmates to the luntics over at CP, don't they? Ken would feel right at home. --Kels (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't get past the shitty tone on LGF to discern much more than that the blogger is angry and put-upon, or something. The one worthwhile thing I found there is a link to a Daily Show segment dealing with persistent birthers that briefly features Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., JD, DDM, LRB, the crackpot attorney/dentist/real estate agent pursing several birther lawsuits in federal court. Stewart's lambasting of her is precious. She is a wild and crazy guy. If you don't recall, she or someone impersonating her briefly popped up on Conservapedia and was welcome with a vanity page by Jpratt and a Terry Koeckritz lovemistrust-fest. I surmise from the lack of traffic on her talkpage that DrOrlyTaitzEsq didn't respond to TK's overture, and yet wasn't blocked, for surely TK himself recognizes that any reasonable person not worth pissing off would be offended by his open mistrust. Plus he's a giant coward whose tactics only work when he's harassing the anonymous and (he hopes) powerless. Taitz gets quoted in WorldNutDaily alot more than TK does, as far as I can tell. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ken certainly did not create the Hitwin image. In fact, I'm quite sure it appeared on RW before CP. No he got it from somewhere else. Let's face it, Ken is far too stupid to create anything like that. I think the only reason he isn't the overall winner of CP's biggest idiot is because he's too obvious and it's just too easy. That and the fact that's it's pretty clear he has at least some sort of mental disability. DickTurpis (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, we know Ken can't create new wiki pages without first creating a red link to them, a year or so ago he couldn't figure out how to block people (hint! click the "block" link!), and we know he doesn't know how to rename the images he steals to sensible, non-random strings. Given that, it's a pretty safe bet he doesn't know how to work any image manipulation software. I'd say it'd be a minor miracle if he could work an ATM. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Ken did create the one where Darwin sits on Hitlers shoulder and the red type reads "We love Evolutionary racism". That was definiatly all Ken. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I remember that image! Back when I still cared about CP, I was looking at the evolution article daily to see if he was including a scientific viewpoint (I was new, and didn't know much better) that I showed was missing in the article. When I saw that image, I sent an email begging him to change it back to Hitwin. It was THAT BAD. -- JArneal 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Is it just me or the video they link in that newsbite with the Obapolean composites has the narrator sounding awfully like the guy from Zeitgeist the movie? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen the Darwin on Hitler's shoulders pic elsewhere but Ken probably just added the red text. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Browsing that Little Green Footballs site I came across this posting which alleges that a photoshopped picture of Obama as a witch-doctor with a bone through his nose, was being circulated on a Tea Party mailing list by Dr. David McKalip, a member of the AAPS. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Now that's very interesting. So to use RobS' line of reasoning above, by allowing him to remain a member of AAPS, they must endorse his racism. And just what wiki owner has a close association with AAPS, and may very well have met the man? Why, that means Andy is closely associated with known racists! Rob, you gotta get on this, who knows what other skeletons this "Andy Schlafly" monster is hiding! "This isn't being fecesious, it's a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations." --Kels (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. "Perhpas this area needs more study." --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly this new evidence throws edits such as this into a new light. Surely these are "powers" often ascribed to witch doctors, are they not? But the question on everyone's minds is, WHY IS ROB SMITH REMAINING SILENT ABOUT THIS ISSUE?? --Kels (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worth WIGO-tweaking, but...[edit]

You'll notice that while Obama's exit from the honeymoon phase of approval ratings is front-page newsworthy, no one over at CP is going to acknowledge that Sarah Palin now has unfavorable ratings over 50%, and that her approval is dropping even among 'true believer' Republican Evangelicals. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What they have mentioned about her is that the allegations against her are part of the "Democrat smear machine", and they've put "independent" inside scare quotes when discussing the independent investigator, implying that the investigation is in the pocket of teh evol democrat socialists... except that the whole investigation was launched by the Republican controlled legislature. I guess Alaska is just swarming with teh evol librul RINOs who fail to sufficiently bask in the glow of Sarah's wholesome goodness. Bluefish (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

in passing[edit]

While looking at something completely different I noticed that CP's longest page at 297kb was chiefly written by cp:User:MasteRing who was blocked as a sock of Human. Just sayin'. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

With 909 cites, it must be liberal! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Already burned — unbelievable. 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
TK continues to rape the site. That long pages page is intesting; lots of strange pages like History of Poland. EddyP (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look at them, they're mostly the creation of monomaniacs (and Ken, who's just a maniac). This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Scheisse! Must use <capture></capture>. (reminder to self) This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So was the block log oversighted, too? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it still in your temporary files Toast? FallenOak en passant 20:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice chain-yanking there, by the way. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) On an unrelated note while I was checking longest page, why is there still people not blocked for posting on the "yes" section on this debateimg and the "yes" section on this debateimg? Waiting TK's Banhammer in 3... 2... 1... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd contribute to the debate, but the Conservapedia SS already seized my papers and sent my IP to cyber-Auschwitz. Then again, i'm surprised it took them this long to ban me. Their xenophobia has weak points, I suspect. Kinda bummed I didn't get a parthian in, though. EDIT! Yes, I know I invoked Godwin. So sue me. -- CodyH (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well as it's already cropped up in the previous section you can have an exeat. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, it's found my new favourite quote: "You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can." Just wondering if it's possible to miss the point by a wider margin? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 13:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure it is! --Kels (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz[edit]

Didn't we try not feeding the fellow a few weeks ago in the hope he'd fizzle out and die, kinda like the last series of the A-Team? SJ Debaser 10:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour (even though I am also guilty of poking the troll (maybe lancing the boil is a better analogy, given what comes out of him) - it's a bit playing with a loose tooth - you shouldn't but it feels good), he's only feeding on us noticing him and if we ignore him, it'll probably drive to even greater lengths of insanity over there to get noticed. I hereby propose that all future TK WIGO and TWIGO items are <!---'d out. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell no- most of his stuff is just hate trolling, but some of it is genuinely funny, so why should we deprive ourselves of the lulz? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I don't find much of anything he does genuinely funny. Maybe if Rob or Ken did it, or even the Koward, but in TK's case there's this overriding sense that it's utterly fake and he's just trying too damn hard to get a reaction. That sort of just sucks the funny out of it. --Kels (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
After having silently observed him for several weeks after he blocked my account under completely dishonest circumstances and cowardly failed to respond to my inquiries, I can only say that I agree. His pattern seems to be to read this website for a reaction, dial up his hateful skulduggery on Conservapedia, and refer back here to continue the cycle. Nothing he contributes is substantively interesting. Therefore, all you can look for from him is the same disingenuous button-pushing he's very good at. After only 2 weeks of giving him my intermittent attention (and I'm basically a shut-in) I find him far less interesting than Minesweeper and celebrity blogs. Conservapederast (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what's really odd? I find the fact that you're an effective shut-in far more interesting than anything TK's done (I used to be a Personal Support Worker specializing in homecare). --Kels (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
TK is a little prick with a little prick. Face it, if it wasn't for him CP would be a very dull place to poke fun at. Therefore, yes, do keep poking the rabid dog with a stick. It's fun to see it foaming at the mouth (note the animal cruelty sentence, this means I am a good person and not a Nazi according to CP). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way round. He doesn't react because we poke him; he reacts so that we will poke him. EddyP (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It's not his actions that are amusing, it's the lack of any control being exerted by anyone else that's amusing. TK is now the de-facto head of Conservapedia and it's fun to watch him driving it into the ground. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Crundy, you've got it backwards. TK makes the place more dull to poke fun at, since he dominates with his clearly intentional trash. What's fun about that? Having idiots like Andy, Ken, Koward, Weird Ed and Rob "The Commies are coming!" Smith who actually mean what they say are fun to make fun of. TK tends to overshadow them, thereby reducing the actual fun. --Kels (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. TK is just playing to the crowd (us), whereas the others are fricking serious. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Did anyone catch TK's latest piece of internet stalking? Ace McWickedNecron99 23:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess he won't care if I have my skip tracer find a bunch of personal shit out about him so I can post it on my userpage. I love that he's such an inconsistent liar he sometimes says his name isn't Terrence F. Koeckritz. He'll get his in spades. If he wants to call me off he can contact me by email from my userpage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like a photo of him. Something compromising. Ace McWickedNecron99 00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We'd all like a photo of him to puke at. But, please, go light, or at least "careful" on the "stalking". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You cant much more stalkerish than thisimg. Ace McWickedNecron99 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh, me and Trent don't care much, but that doesn't make Terry Koeckritz any less of a loser who is desperately trying to wipe his own internet history by "slamming" others. PS, hey, Terry Kroackjizm, thanks for the link! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
PPS, you lameass, why didn't you link to this page? Don't want to accidentally do me any favors? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thing I don't get is, like putting our names into his edit comments, how exactly is this supposed to actually hurt any of us? Nobody who enters our names in Google are even gonna get that as a hit, and nobody who takes a look at the page would take it seriously for all of two seconds. It'd be more a case of "who's this mental deficient, and why should I care". Nice to see him promote a comic that's been dead for about a year and a half, and a hosting site that I haven't been to in two years, though. --Kels (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He is indeed a pretty sad man. Thing is, he's actively acknowledging our existence over there by having that stuff on his userpage, he just uses "vandal site" instead of "RationalWiki". Why does the Conservapedia Secret Police not tear down his page at 3AM and banhammer him?! (Answer: because he's Andy's lapdog.) SJ Debaser 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a point I've made elsewhere... nobody does more to keep mentioning RW or things like PJR's valid list of complaints than TK (especially now that Ken has stopped his "gentlemen" - probably on TK's orders, which leaves him the only person allowed to keep mentioning us). (Ok, Jpratt too, but that's more a case of moron monkey see, monkey do). He constantly reminds editors that RW exists and even long after the hissy fit over PJR's allegations (like 2 months later) he deletes the ASoK article, citing PJR's "lies" and sending more CP editors out there to find out what he's talking about. It's a clever scheme, and one that even the paranoid like Karajerk and RedRob haven't seen through yet. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(UD) Ok, I'm starting the process of gathering information to send to my skip tracer so he can dig into TK's background. If TK wants to escalate things that's his prerogative. He can't both complain that Terry Koeckritz isn't his real name and that we've put up too much personal information about him. Please privately forward me any information you have about TK - email addresses, location information from emails and IM sessions, IP addresses, telephone numbers, etc. I will keep the results of my investigation private for the time being, but will be happy to forward TK's personal information to parties specifically named on his userpage. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


yay... never a dull moment as Andy begins tweaking his economics lectures for our pleasure. heh heh - not much chance of this rubbish getting memory holed. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was considering sending him a shiny new Adam Smith £20 note. That's probably his porn. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
One would wonder why people attempting to take this course wouldn't copy the model answers by now... oh wait, one can get on average 98% without looking at the lecture to begin with... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope this guyimg isn't counting on Andy's lecture to finish high school early. Unless he's planning a career asking "D'y'all want fries with that?" --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
First, it seems there are very few legitimate users on that website, so I'd assume right out of the box that he's a faker. Second, if he's trying to finish early, he's already doing OK. In my previous life as an educator I found that students capable of graduating early were usually good self-starters and capable of accurately discerning the value of a great many things on their own. I wouldn't assume this student would be flipping burgers just because he might be looking at Mr. Schlafly's laughably poor materials. Conservapederast (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree - it was a dig at the value of Andy's "teaching" material, rather than the qualities of the student. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to have my liquor delivered because it's going to be over 105 today in the desert and my car has no air conditioning. I haven't been able to get properly intoxicated back into my familiar state and missed your point. I am ashamed to be sober this late in the day. Conservapederast (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
PsyGremlin, That user just created the account todayimg. Are we so eager to let TK know about this and drop the banhammer? perhaps I said too much. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, K/T, the user is probably one of Andy's paying homskollars. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Just saying, isn't that more reason to get the idiots there to ban him, so we can watch Andy having to actually manage for once. Come on Jpratt, you can do it. I found a New Mexico proxy... it's me! It's me! --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Shall we attempt to find the list of users who are classified as "paying honskollars" (I suppose there may have been orders that make the other sysops not paying as much attention to these people). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Easiest way to drop the hammer would be for someone to own up here. Hi guys! It's actually me. I'm yanking ya! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Orders to Ignore[edit]

??? Huh? Web (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Happily, so far it seems I didn't need to say that. EddyP (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Seven kittens died for your sins... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

Andy: "99.6 million page views!!!"img
Joaquin: "uh, Andy...."img
Ace McWickedNecron99 00:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

99.6 million is apparently a "more conservative" estimate, according to the Dear Leader.--Johann (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I find his recent addition of 200k all the more amusing because I added ~1/4 of them. He thinks he's somehow accounted for the July 4 push, but has no idea how many views are legitimate. PubliusTalk 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps he's saving the announcement of 100M to link it to an auspicious occasion--probably the beginning of the (home)school year ("Just in time for another year of edumacation! The worlds bestest online reference hits 100 million pageviews!!! The Truth Shall Set You Free!"). That way, he can turn it into a "win". My second guess for the notable occasion would be Mommy's birthday (8/15). --WJThomas (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
When is he being replaced by a script? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You mean he hasn't yet been? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy...[edit]

... but thisimg made me smile. Banned and burnt of course, but nice to see something other than the mindless Ebaumsworld and 4chan vandalism. --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Such wit is surely to be expected from Guybrush Threepwood, mighty pirate! Dreaded Walrus t c 09:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Is there a way to activate the "capturebot" manually, that is, outside of the WIGO page? I tried putting <capture> ... </capture> around a URL, and it put up the "img" thing, but it's still a redlink. Sometimes one needs to run a capture instantly, because things get incinerated fast, and one doesn't yet know whether it will be WIGO-worthy. Gauss (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found it pretty fast - like the one I did above. Saved the page, refreshed and it was there. If it's something you're worried might get teakayed quickly, use alt-prntscreen or the Firefox screengrab extension first just in case. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You can also follow Capturebot's instructions for adding your own sandbox to his path - I've done this for exactly the purpose you're talking about with success. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You'd be better using a program like Fireshot rather than wait for a bot to get round to it - things vanish fast these days. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"FireShot is not available for Linux." screengrab is though This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As someone else said, just use printscreen as a backup. But do make sure you add lots of liberal deceit into the image afterwards, otherwise TK won't have anything to complain about. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken on aSK and CP[edit]

After Ken eliminated the claim that Nils Heribert Nilsson was director of the Swedish Botanical Institute on CP, he elaborates his line of reasoning at aSK:

I did some digging on the internet and I saw what a person apparently fluent in Swedish said about this issue so I have temporarily or perhaps permanently removed the Swedish Botanical Institute statement. I would also be interested in finding out if Nils Heribert-Nilsson was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences as a Swedish speaking person has apparently asserted. I do have contacts overseas and perhaps I will be able to clarify the biography of Nils Heribert-Nilsson further. I certainly believe in cognitive flexibility and I believe pride is a sin, so unlike many evolutionists, I have no problem fixing errors when I make them as far as errant or probably errant statements. :) Ruylopez 18:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my answer, all he did was to read the new article on wikipedia... But now he tries to avoid further discussion and is opting out for moral reasons:

I just found out about the RW member perhaps making a mean spirited and tasteless remark about being glad Dean's wife died on his userpage and I have seen other mean spirited and tasteless behavior as well by RW members. I also don't think RW is doing enough to police its members and offers tepid responses or no responses to these inappropriate actions of its members. I am no longer interested in having any dialogue with RW members and I won't be reading any CP WIGO posts at RW. Feel free to enjoy your mobocracy, but I am not interested in your activities. Ruylopez 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found out? That sounds fishy! Hasn't he complained over this earlier? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken's a dishonest little shit and always has been. He's doing this now because he's cornered on the Nilssen thing and wants to get out of it. So he uses some trumped-up crap from TK (was the guy who said he was glad about Dean's wife actually from here?) as an excuse. Saves him from having to deal with any questions about his big stack o' lies. --Kels (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken's obviously not following what's happening in the ZDG. But then all the others ignore his posts anyway. As for the sick post about Dean's wife then it has not been established who the tosser is. Certainly nobody at RW has admitted to being the poster and if they did then I can imagine a wave of revulsion from most other editors. The problem is that mud sticks almost as much as the truth that Terry Koeckritz is a plagiarist and a liar. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken better hope the atheists are right, or he'll have some 'splainin' to do on Judgement Day:
Jeebus: Oh good and faithful servant, how did you bring glory to my name while in life?
Ken: I lied like a fuckin' bastard in your name, O Lord!
Jeebus: You go to hell.
--Kels (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as usual, Ken is a fucking liar. --Kels (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if the religion promised people to spend the eternity in Heaven and said person is religious, shouldn't we be glad that said person will be spending time in Heaven when he/she died (assuming if you don't die you can't spend time in Heaven, except one of those blessed figures that bodily ascend to heaven)? Or is Ken trying to discourage people from becoming religious? I am confused. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am, too. What did you just say? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking down into a derivation (substitute "Religion" with the actual religion of Ken and Dean, Presumably sufficiently similar):
  1. Assumption: Religion asserts that going to heaven after death is a good thing
  2. Assumption: Religion asserts that if one belongs to their religion, he/she goes to heaven after death
  3. Observation: Dean's wife died (Assumption: we don't have sufficient information on causes of death, so we assume it is within the rules).
  4. Conclusion from 2 and 3: Religion asserts that Dean's wife goes to heaven.
  5. Conclusion from 1 and 4: Death of Dean's wife is implicitly a good thing (from Dean's wife's own perspective)
  6. Inference: We should congratulate Dean for his wife being in heaven (from their view point?)
  7. Ken somehow believes the act of us being happy for Dean's wife in heaven is a bad thing.
  8. Conclusion: Ken somehow believes the chain of logic from 1-6 is invalid somewhere, but he doesn't seem to want to spend time pointing out what exactly is wrong.
Hope that helps (should this chain of logic go into one of the articles?). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
When I was about 11 or 12 I pointed out to a priest that everyone should be happy at funerals as that person is now in heaven. He told me that I had wisdom beyond my years. Ergo, ken is more immature now then I was at 12. - π 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should ask at aSK or CP about it (and subsequently question Ken's faith). I suppose by Ken's inability to grasp this logic, he is not qualified to write from a Christian point of view (is this ad hominem?). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, K/T. Still, I think making the argument you make using a specific person that someone who loved them just lost makes me a little uncomfortable. "She's in a better place now" is usually how it's said, by means of comforting, not mocking in a painful time. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I truly stand by my statement (that we should be happy that Dean's wife is in heaven); afterall it is not me who come up with all those concepts of Heaven. If they mean something else they have to rephrase it to correctly reflect the view. Moreover, I am in no means trying to have a bad attitiude towards Dean or his wife. If their beliefs dictate that they are in a better place, wouldn't it be customary to congratulate them? Maybe customs are to be changed (I perhaps value consistency in thought above a lot of other things) or they have to align their beliefs coherently if that's not the case. It's mostly Ken's attitude toward this that I have a problem with, claiming to be Christian while the beliefs aren't even properly aligned. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see. While it's certainly "true" in a sense that the bereaved might be consoled by knowing their loved one is finally at their Father's side, there is the other issue that here in this mortal coil, the bereaved misses their lost loved one, and has to learn how to live a life with them gone, which despite the consolation that they are "in a better place now", can still be painful and miserable in its own right. I do hope, for instance, that some of Dean's sense of loss is mitigated by his beliefs. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Whats this about then?[edit]

[1]img so he removed the personal details but whats the edit summary about? Ace McWickedNecron99 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

TK's been drinkin' again. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He removed the comment about Dean's wife as well. Didn't TK once claim to be 404 blocked from here?EddyP (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
He was. I did it for about 2 hours one day, that was what, 2 years ago? He is not blocked now. tmtoulouse 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems odd is all, perhaps Andy asked him to take it down and now he just makes up some weerd edit summary in order to deflect attention. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
That was wise of you, TK. I will put my investigation of you on hold. As for the 404ing, if you want to contact me you can use a proxy to access my userpage and email me, though Trent is here calling you a liar. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously he thinks he's 404 blocked, which means, he probably can't log in. He was once e-mail blocked; maybe that didn't wear off? Or maybe RW cookie-blocked him, or something like that?
Also, glad you're putting your "investigation" on hold, Nutty. Honestly, no matter what he's done that's a super-privacy invasion that you were planning, the kind that Karajou would be proud of.-Excelsior (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a 403 block? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The most like person to have made that comment about Dean's wife would be TK anyway. Matt oblong (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deceit, thy name is Ace! EddyP (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
If he was really 404 blocked then he wouldn't have shouted out to Ace. All in all it's just another "poor little picked upon me" episode. And I think Toast is right it's 403 block but a 404 not found error, Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
actually: "403 Forbidden: The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated. If the request method was not HEAD and the server wishes to make public why the request has not been fulfilled, it SHOULD describe the reason for the refusal in the entity. If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, the status code 404 (Not Found) can be used instead." This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 21:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, TK, I have no idea about this block you mention. Secondly I am at work and because of your past history there is absolutely no way I am going to email from my work thereby giving away personal information to someone such as yourself. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I've figured it out. He's using edit comments as shout-outs on unrelated topics. (TK: Why don't you just log in here under your Nighttrain account, and tell us directly? Or create the "gentleman" pages that Ken is so successful with?) He has added a couple more of these shout-outs, as comments on completely trivial edits—one of them was just a change in border color on a box.

Putting them together, the message appears to be

  • 404 blocked, cannot reply, typical of liberals only wanting their side heard, but invite conservatives to respond just to make themselves look fair. drown in your own mud.
  • If Ace really wanted to know, he would AIM me. But he knows I am 404 blocked. Deceit: thy name is liberal or Ace, either way, bad music.
  • Ace, since you aren't blocked, simply use the contact info top of this page. Of course I think you are all show, no go...but always room for me to be wrong.
  • as usual TMT is wrong, rather just throwing out red herrings
  • people like you" Hmmm....I think ignorant people said that about Blacks, still do...nice to see bigotry and ignorance dont discriminate on the basis of left or right! Do go on!
  • clear evidence" from T? Added by T, as if TMT never lies? He has become a pide-piper, lol satisfies his ego, I am sure.

I have no idea what those mean. Any idea, Ace? Perhaps our cryptographers can look into it. Gauss (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what he is on about. I dont care either, why would have anything to do with such an openly deceitful, hot-headed, power mad freak like TK? Ace McWickedNecron99 22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My guess is he has confused Nutty with Ace. tmtoulouse 22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Nutty and I are very alike. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Ace is my brother in power mad, hot-headed, open deceit. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
And dont forget freakyness. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) It was Ace who started this thread. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 22:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was kind of cute how his edit comment about Ace referenced PsyGremlin's blog: Refugeetalk page 03:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm: For weeks, the tasteless entry is to be found at TK's user page. Then, Ken/Ruylopez mentioned it at aSK - and within two hours, it is gone from TK's page. But perhaps, I shouldn't wear my tinfoil reasoning hat. larronsicut fur in nocte 22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Another shout out. Here's a shout out TK, no one gives a fuck about people like yourself. Please continue and if you're lucky I'll email you from an anon email address after work. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
So there we go, clear evidence he is not 404 or 403 blocked from the site. tmtoulouse 22:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes TK "people like you" meaning - lying, bullying assholes who make themselves feel big by abusing others. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
wassa matter TK? Got no new editors to bully today? Ace McWickedNecron99 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised he hasn't bullied PhyllisS at all today. (aka.. Kettles) (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
True to form, when TK stomps his little feet and doesn't get his way he goes on to bully and block others like an impotent jerk. And it is amusing TK for you to suggest in an edit summary that I am bigoted when it was you that added "mulit-culturalism" as a block reason. Hahahahahaha. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Typical of a liberal like you to deny you're biased. So blinded by your own deceit that you can't even admit you're totally and completely bigoted against Australians. Sad sad sad. 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, is TK finally in? I wonder why he doesn't have an account yet. -- CodyH (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get this. TK is claiming he is blocked from reading the text on this page while arguing with it. That does seem a little self defeating. StarFish (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel quite left out. Why can't I have a nonsensical shout out in an edit comment? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he's actually claiming that someone has managed to maliciously and deliberately cause him to be 404 blocked from replying only. Which seems kinds dubious to me. 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. TK, it's "Pied Piper" not "pide-piper", dumbass. Most first school kids can spell it right. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey TK. Explain what the problem is. Post a screen shot or something. It's just that without it you look like a fucking idiot. StarFish (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Betting Pool[edit]

active editors at CP
active editors at aSK
active editors at RW

Two weeks ago, CP had about 130 active editors. Now, it has about 90. Would anyone like to start a betting pool on when aSK will have more active editors than CP? My bet is December 13th of this year. Web (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing one week after the CP course for the spring term 2010 has ended. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind how many of those "last seven days" editors have been blocked. We really need a 3-D graphic of this... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
July and August were the slowest months at CP last year - so, if aSK is going to overtake CP, it should be in August. And aSK has a realistic chance if CP keeps account creation disabled. larronsicut fur in nocte 06:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. They turn it on and straight away someone does this - can't say I blame them really. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 06:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh that is so incedibly purile and really not top be encouraged. Though I have to admit in context of the above discussion with TK it did make me laugh coffee out of my nose. StarFish (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It's lame, yeah, but you know what? It's what those idiots attract. They are such jerks that any bored teenager, or 58 year old, sees mucking with them as an easy and trivial way to get some yucks. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone put in trendlines? Thanks Jimaginator (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall we now go promote aSK to wandering strangers? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please no. We need to set our sights on more aggressive and hateful fundies and weirdos once CP finally kicks the bucket, which will be by fall I predict. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat paradoxically, traffic may increase at CP after the summer when there are less outdoor distractions for folks. Or not. (Someone more able than I am should do a Fourier transform to see if there are "cycles" of activity.) Sterile milquetoast
Are there any CP related stickers that I can post around my neighborhood / school? (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! TK![edit]

Investigation suggests that Ken thinks you're a troll and a parodist! EddyP (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Ken hasn't say anything however. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken! Ken! Bing loves you... sort of.[edit]

WooHoo... now you have a whole new search engine to linkspam Ken... Bing already has your atheism drivel ranked at number 9. Now once you've finished masturbating in glee, get out there and start spamming, little man. Extra the pop-up summary even includes an "in regards to"... aw... innit nice? --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So basically you've got a bunch of useful pages about atheism that people trust, and then one heavily spammed blog post. Sounds about right. --Kels (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Now its number 5, good job folks. Web (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Still at 9 for me, no need to worry. Dreaded Walrus t c 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative... Movies???[edit]

I don't know how many of you have seen this - it's probably old news anyway - but I just stumbled along the Greatest Conservative Movies. Just... wow. The first Spider-Man (2002) in which apparently Peter Parker chooses abstinence in the end, Star Wars series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil, and if you can believe the last one... Ghostbusters for "Fitting satire of an environmental regulator." SJ Debaser 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's gotta be Bugler!--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of this is blatant parody. I do love that every shitty quasi-inspirational movie that I can think of is on this list. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't Trading Places on the list? It's Jesus' favourite comedy! --Kels (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It probably isn't Buglerimg. I can't tell for sure if it is one of Bugler's socks or other parodists though. Afterall, Andy started itimg. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The talk page for that entry is gold. Ace McWickedNecron99 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I debated starting up a greatest liberal movies mock page.... But after I saw the explosion of the Greatest Liberal Songs page, I backed down. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 19:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Holy shit, you're right Ace. That might be my favorite talk page on the entire site, if only for this gem from Andy himself: "I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith." Definitely my favorite thing he's ever said. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Terrific! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: Anyone know why "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed" and "The Voyage that Shook the World" isn't on the list? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it's mostly piss-taking. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hang on, the Borg symbolise communism? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for/on/about TK[edit]

Question: does TK have a habit (or developing such a habit) of fixing the corresponding pages on CP after we point it out on WIGO?
Message to TK:
please stop doing that now, because this kind of action implies you are buying into the liberal deceit on this purported "vandal site". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Through WIGo we have done more to help CP than TK ever has. We have fixed spelling errors, exposed blatant parody etc etc. TK should be on his knees grovelling thanks to opposed to just being on his knees....Ace McWickedNecron99 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
He prays? Interesting concept. -_- (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That's "preys". --Kels (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

World Treasures[edit]

putting blatant copyright violations aside, can anyone tell me what exactly are the criteria for being a "World Treasure"? (listed hereimg and hereimg) Stuff I found odd:

  • Entire province and cities: How do we distinguish that from randomly adding nice pictures from arbitrary geographical locations?
  • "Jungle region" of Venezuela -- So jungle regions elsewhere aren't? And why is the jungle consists of 2 birds?
  • Only Mount Everest for the Himalayas, but the entire Andes?
  • What exactly is the "Framed medallion" of Turkey, as in Anyone find this thing sufficiently notable to the general public?
  • The talk pageimg seems to be refraining from saying that there is one official list. So what kind of lists do they employ?

Perhaps TK will help us in sorting things out by deleting thsoe pages, but who knows. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The criterion is very simple and straightforward. One would almost say...concise. "Anything JM thinks is pretty." --Kels (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"[P]utting blatant copyright violations aside", I think that at JM has fairly good taste in what he "thinks is pretty". ħumanUser talk:Human 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
This is my favourite "world treasure" (not, I hasten to add, included in the CP list. Just a personal favourite). Much better than that medallion thingy. Apparently, when you turn the handle it makes the noise of a tiger eating an Englishman. --Horace (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Does Conservapedia always cite the Rassumen poll? --Crazyswordsman (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it returns the lowest results for Obama. - π 01:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
They used Gallup and Fox news pollimg too, but it is indistinguishable from them simply cherry-picking the poll that fits whatever the message they are saying. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Is this news story about? - π 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Still dead, I guess. --Kels (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the 156th anniversary of Eidlitz' birth! I think I'll have a pint in his honor. --Simple (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow I am impressed he became a founding member of the American Institute of Architects at the age of 4. - π 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Reread, please, Pi. That was his daddy. Anyone notice that JM is far more fluent in English (& wiki?) than "it only took me eight edits to spell everything, almost, correctly" Ken? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
He is more fluent in English than me apparently. With regards to the wiki issue, that comes down to competence. - π 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Who indeed? I am not a Doctor. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


New Jersey, apparently. And on a computer display near you! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

really? (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Some of New Jersey, at least. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't...[edit]

...but watching TK stomp around CP after having his wrist slapped by Andy in the Blues Room makes me smile. First he revertsimg this perfectly good edit which brings the Trusworthy encylopedia's football entry up to date and then zeroes in on Dadsnagem2‎img, who surely can't be long for this world. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

and this sequence is pretty funny too. The Deceitful One is probably spitting fire right now. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
watching TK stomp around CP after having his wrist slapped by Andy in the Blues Room ...referring to what now? (Been out of town most of the last week, n ot following closely...) TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In regards to his attack on dadsnagem2, I marked everything minor when I changed categories, sorts, etc and didn't hear one word about it. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
See "Whats this about then" above. TK suddenly removed the sickening reference to Dean's wife as well as his stalking of Kels, Human, et al from his user page. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I get that stuff, but where did Andy slap his wrists? Clearly I missed something. --Kels (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, just extrapolating that TK wouldn't have done it of his own accord, so it would taken Andy having a word with him 9after all, TK isn't going to listen to anybody else) to get him to remove it. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Does he even listen to Andy? I thought it had more to do with him starting to take Nutty's skip tracer threat seriously and didn't want to play that particular game of chicken any further. --Kels (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken's sudden interest in the event points to the fact that it was being talked about in their Zeuglodon blues group. Fifth Horseman (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the way TK expects Dads to correct the mistake of not marking an edit as minor. Silly git. BTW haven't they sussed the euphemism of Dads name yet? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Great, spend half a day doing valuable category/sort work and then TK goes and blocks Dads. What a kunt. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what happened to TK in real life to make him such an asshole. Wasn't hugged enough as a child perhaps? Wasn't breast feed? Or perhaps continues to breast feed to this day? Ace McWickedNecron99 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well he does live with his mum. Normally, any 58-year old still living at home would attract wild speculation about their sexuality but I am almost pretty much convinced that TK might be normal in that respect. After all teh gays are usually more sensitive types. (Sorry if I'm perpetuating camp stereotypes here.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know, I speculate that he may in fact be a homosexual. Maybe I'll email him and ask later today. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, living with one's parent(s) in that age range is often a sign of compassion and caring - they hit the point where they need some help getting things done, but not a daily nurse visit. Who moves in with who is usually based on who owns "more house". ħumanUser talk:Human 21:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Commpassion/caring = TK? Hmmmmmmm. Anyway, I was engaging in wild speculation for the hell of it. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah, TK's lived with with his parents for many years and many addresses.--WJThomas (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I have seen, pressure/guilt work just as well as compassion/caring to keep grown kids in the home to take care of less-able parents. --Kels (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Most people I know who moved back in with a parent(s) did it for financial reasons - they ran into a little money problem. (Or problem of little money). - and sorry for sticking this comment in out of order, I came to this conversation late. :p Refugeetalk page 03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Does he really live with his parents? I think this might explain why I couldn't find a home phone number for TK. I thought the name I found was his wife, but the possibility of him living with his parents is much more plausible to that case. (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Without wishing to be too stalkerish or indiscrete (private IM), he just lives with his mum. His father died a couple of years ago. As for not being able to find a phone number or the very few other links to him, isn't that rather strange for someone who claims to be a public policy consultant? One would think there would be dozens of references to him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Remember he also has White House connections so all his numbers are probably secure lines and red telephones. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I rather think they might have been disconnected now. :) Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll try calling that number as soon as I get to a pay booth. ^.^;; (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to Dadsnagem, it's terrible the way TK jumps on any new user doing productive work and finds a reason to be unpleasant. It's so bad for the site. Sure, in all probability Dads isn't a real Schlafly-style conservative, but neither was Wesley and he was an enormous help. Amazing that Schlaf lets it continue.--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideological purity > results. --Kels (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he is too aware of what goes on at his own wiki. Refugeetalk page 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Basically the system is this: Andy doesn't want to argue with dissenters. TK is his premium "dissent stifler". It's a symbiotic relationship made in heaven. The other goons just aren't good enough at blocking every new user who isn't a homskollar. PS, is Hsmom still "alive"? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a fool-proof way to find out whether cp:user:Dadsnagem2 is a troll or a legitimate user: if he comes back, he's a troll, as no normal person would stand this kind of mistreatment. larronsicut fur in nocte 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken's on the ball, again[edit]

Not a WIGO but a facepalm moment with this edit by our favourite OCD. Not only does he make the remark several paragraphs below the typo (and it is a typo as the editor gets the spelling right elsewhere) but the guy was banhammered by Terry Koeckritz a week ago. Oh Kenada! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New disorder similar to the ones with Ed Poor (reply after banhammer) and Andy (Paragraphs below, typos in his own reply)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Not WIGO-worthy (the voters have been awfully fussy of late), but we note with sadness the passing (well, speedy template) of our favorite elementimg, Polynesiumimg. (Cue the hula dancers and the Tiki bar.)

Now it seems that TK has recently enlisted (apparently in secret email, that's how he operates) ChrisZ to check the various star articles for parody. Those articles having been written by BMcP, a recently-joined astronomy expert. TK has been on BMcP's case before, apparently over a link to a 90-year-old magazine article, and ChrisZ has been on BMcP's case about the exact name of a star.

So you take ChrisZ as your expert in your battle against parody? Let's see. The Polynesium article was created by user GeorginaD. You blocked her. She had made only 6 edits. You didn't bother to check them? You were more interested in running checkuser than in the veracity of CP? You didn't look at Polynesium, wonder why a new element was being added in 2009, and look it up in a periodic table? You didn't notice the symbol Po, which is Polonium? Or the atomic number 72, which is Hafnium?

ChrisZ: You edited that article! From the edit comment, you seem to know your way around the chemistry and element categories. You didn't look at the elements category, and notice that it already has at least stubs for virtually all of them? You didn't think it peculiar that a new one was being added in 2009? You didn't look at the symbol or the atomic number?

TK: So you take ChrisZ as your expert in the battle against parody? That is, when you're not taking Ed "attention span and scientific/mathematical erudition of a cockroach" Poor as your expert? Why did you block the person who reverted the obvious parody to an element the cube root of whose atomic number contains the digits 4142257351? Or the obvious parody to the element the cube root of whose atomic number contains the digits 3962147226? Or the many other instances of parody, some fixed by people you have since blocked, and some still extant, in science and math articles that don't involve atomic numbers? Why is running checkuser, and banhammering people, more important to you than letting really knowledgeable people help you?

Yes, those are all rhetorical questions. The answer is clear: "because TK is an ass". Gauss (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Never fear my friends; it has gone to a better place alongside Iberium (which is now locked ;_;). EddyP (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC):Well, it's not too deeply burned, you can see it here. This ChrisZ guy doesn't look like a parodist, but he's editing a few articles with some real humdingers in them so if he is non-genuine, he's missing a lot of stuff! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about Iberium. As I recall, its atomic number was also 72, same as Hafnium. Gauss (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It had a mass of 181.6 and was a brown-red colour, I recall. Its discoverer (whose name evades me) was mocked by scientists jealous of his success due to its apparent uselessness, but recently it was found to be particularly adept at absorbing beta-radiation and is used in lead alloys as radiation insulaion. EddyP (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I did a science report on Polynesium and got an 'A'. You can't just go making stuff up you mavericks! Jimaginator (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a report on amnesium, but I don't remember the grade. Gauss (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually lol'd and sprayed water on my monitor (I was drinking water at the time, I don't have super active saliva glands). Now I need to find LCD monitor wipes. Thanks. X Stickman (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Man I awesome[edit]

I seem to be able to sock-up in my sleep!
(Block log); 09:58 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked SandyV (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Sock of blocked user: AceMcWicked)
I knew I was amazing! Ace McWickedNecron99 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked the sleepwalking to Australia. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Sleepwalking is so old hat. It was astral projection. Ace McWickedNecron99 20:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals[edit]

I used to use "Hitler liked puppies, therefore anyone who likes puppies must be a Nazi!" as an example of a ridiculous argument, thinking no one could be that asinine.

RobS has proved me so very very wrong by implying that Obama wants to protect animals, Hitler and Himmler wanted to protect animals, therefore.... MDB (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) cruelty to animals is a good thing? --PitchBlackMind (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I nearly wore out my left mouse button upvoting this. Good catch. Fedhaji (talk)
So, lets see.... if you believe in the story of Noah and the Flood, God wanted to protect animals, too, therefore God is a Nazi! QED. I mean, sweet merciful crap, theft was (presumably) against the law in Nazi Germany, too -- if Obama comes out in favor of prosecuting thieves, will that be more "evidence" that he's a Nazi? MDB (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the Religious Right against the whole stomping on animals thing in the 70's and how that was related to the Satanic Panic? Just saying. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
They used to say that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Ergo, good timetables=Fascist. Honestly, what the fuck is with these people anyway? Jimaginator (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Jesus breathed oxygen, and so did Hitler, ergo Hitler was Jesus! Man, this stuff works for EVERYTHING! Thank you and your logic, Schlafly Doo and the Conservapedia Gang! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that RobS goes for the Ivan the Terrible theory of life, which is that it is fun to throw puppies out of high windows in the Kremlin. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't "prove" that Jesus breathed oxygen (Since Jesus can be classified as a mythological character, You have to first prove that Jesus has organs that functions as human organs, but there is no autopsy/CT Scan/Xrays/Other things available for validation). You can, however, proved that Andy Schlafly/TK/Jpatt/RobSmith/Karajou/Ken/other CP Sysops breathed in oxygen. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
TK breathes in pure hate. Vulpius (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hitler wore pants, therefore... --Gulik (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The Bush family fortune was derived from "doing business with the Nazis." You will recall this story was floated for two decades (of course, the ADL gave the Bush family a clean bill of health on these rumors about 6 months before Jr. left office). Let's follow the logic on this one...David Duke shops at K-Mart, therefore K-Mart does business with Nazis. RobS (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This makes sense of your Obama/Hitler comparison how?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
RobS, what are you on about? Firstly, given what you just said it's hard to believe that you actually think that "Hitler liked puppies, so did Obama, therefore Obama is a Nazi" is a good argument. So I'm guessing your using it in a "dirty liberals said it about Bush, so therefore we can say it about Obama" kind of way. Secondly, whether the Bush family made millions by cooperating with a regime bent on and capable of conquest with a genocidal agenda is different from whether KMart will made a buck out of some idiot with all the influence of a smoked haddock (and that's an influence on the contents of my stomach). Thirdly, saying that making money from such a regime is morally heinous is different from saying that making money from that regime means you subscribe to their political ideology. But I digress. Both your arguments are stupid and wrong. Bil08 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, you didn't honestly expect RobS to construct a sound argument, did you? That he almost managed to string together two consecutive sentences that had something to do with one another is quite an achievement. Baby steps. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this began with a search of PETA's site for Michelle Obama's pledge to be "furr free," and I accidentally came across what appears t o be a personal pledge Obama delivered to the head of PETA. Seems curious enough, with two wars, the global economic meltdown, etc. etc., that both Michelle * Barack would have time to indulge the head of PETA. Then, in reading Obama's comment, "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," that simply did not quite stand up to scrutiny because it is well known that Himmler spoke of being kind to animals. So particularly how Obama would have time with two wars, global economic meltdown, etc. etc., for a personal pledge to the head of PETA seemed curious. And it also appears from Obama's statement that doesn't have clue what he is talking about.
It appears in WP's quest to salvage its credibility & expertise they began with the Animal Rights article. RobS (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, because he certainly wouldn't have time to give a quote about animal rights with all this chaos. It must have taken all of an hour or so to "indulge the head of PETA", I'm surprised the unemployment rate didn't rise to 15% and our troops didn't lose the war in that time. As for his quote not standing up to scrutiny, how a person treats animals isn't a bad way to judge how they treat others.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hitler found time to both give his views on Animal Rights, and to disastrously (for him) micro-manage a world war.Adolf Sockfucker (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hell, George Bush managed to find the time to take a rather European amount of vacation time, even though he had all the same stuff going on (well, to be fair he was causing the economic meltdown rather than fixing it, so I could see how he'd have more free time). --Kels (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And from the speed and height of the WIGO's vote, I'd say that you can tell what RW thinks. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the Obama's are on to something. If Obama were to adopt Hitler's anti-vivisection policy and require the troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to eat only vegetables, that could reduce Defense spending and possibly lower the deficit. This probably wouldn't work unless Agricultural subsidies likewise were eliminated. Foodstamps could be restricted to only agricultural products, and that would be in keeping with Michelle's "fur free" pledge to reduce senseless animal slaughter. But the whole idea probably still needs more wathcing and research. RobS (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you have it. Proof positive that no matter what Obama does, no matter how innocuous it is, there's no way he'll catch a break from the paranoid ideologues in the "Conservative" movement. Seriously, the man effectively said "be nice to puppies and other critters", and this is cause for "more wathcing (sic) and research"? Truly incredible. --Kels (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Kels my friend, you still miss the point. He said "how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other." Obama evidentally never heard of Heinrich Himmler. That's freightning. RobS (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, seriously. He wasn't stating an immutable law of nature. Humans can, indeed, defy such expectations at times. Himmler was one of those cases. It takes a special sort of paranoid ideologue, prepared to criticize Obama for what he eats for lunch (oh wait, even some ridiculous shit like that happened, didn't it?) to automatically call Himmler to mind in response to a "be nice to animals" comment. --Kels (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Not to sound preachie, but this is exactly where Judeo-Christian beleivers have it over godless rational athiests. Psalm 8:4-6 says, "What is man, that thou art mindful... Thou hast put everything in subjection under his feet... [3] So the natural order of things is thus:


Once you remove God out of the picture the order becomes:

man = animal

Hence if you can kill an animal, you can kill a man. There is no final judgement. This is precisely Nazi propaganda aimed at young people to indoctrinate them into a killing system and ease their consciences and moral qualms they may have harbored from a religious upbringing. You guys should be a little less confrontational sometimes and see CP may be on the same page with some of your objectives. RobS (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rob, that's a lie and you know it. Removing the Big Sky Daddy does not say killing men is just fine. You should know better than that, although if you're willing to call Obama a Nazi for saying not to kick puppies, you're obviously not smart enough to. --Kels (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? So there is no final judgement, one can kill at will, and God won't send them to hell cause he doesn't exist and there is no one to answer to. So what are we left with, Marx who thought people would willingly become slaves and eat garbage in the gulag out of a sense of civic duty? Good luck with that one. As to Obama, time was I thought he was a Christian, but now I have my doubts. He most assuradly is a Marxist. RobS (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder, would an X-ray show if you have an honest bone in your body? Because your words suggest you don't. I've said it before, the inside of your head is a strange and frightening place. Fortunately, reality doesn't mirror it. --Kels (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You can do better. Can't address the points under discussion, so trash the man. Don't make embarass you with that. Thanks. RobS (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt that I'm the one who has much embarrassment to worry about. Just a hunch. --Kels (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a little more ad hominem: Rob, when you reach your heaven, be sure to Look up Mr McCarthy. You and he seem to be on the same wavelength. Oh, yes Get a spellchecker. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it sure is fun having you around, Rob. Back up a few, you said god > man > animals, then you erred. If we remove gods from the picture, we no longer care what the bible says, so the rest of your "argument" falls apart at the seams. Obama a Marxist? You are so funny when you try. Like I said, it's great having you around. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, you're not even consistent. You start with God > Man > Animals and "remove God out of the picture" and go to Man=Animal. That's just wrong, it doesn't make sense. What you should end up with is Man > Animals - which is a whole other debate Worm (t | c) 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"RobS, Obama, Hitler and Animals" That's a slashfic waiting to happen, innit? --Kels (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's the killer?--PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're using a somewhat different definition of slashfic than I am. Although I guess you could have a "killer" in the metaphorical sense... --Kels (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Eeek! I read it as slashflic, which I wrongly assumed was a misspelling of slash-flick. I didn't know you were referring to a RobS/Obama/Hitler/farm animal orgy.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Psst... Rob.... Stop gettting your talking points from whatever radio signals are being beams from your ass to your head. Marx wrote nothing about Gulags. I don't know if you know this, but Karl Marx died in 1883 (no really, look it up). The Russian Revolution and the first Communist State didn't even begin until 1917.... Nice try though my friend. While I'm here, you seem to think that all morality comes soley from God and the bible.... Maybe you should look into the writings of Kant and the categorical imperative.... It's very good and has nothing to do with faith or religion in any way..... Have a nice night. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 07:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh, Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable... But as for RobS's so called point, he goes from claiming that Obama wanting to defend animals makes him a Nazi, than argues that there's some grand design to indoctrinate young people into thinking killing is okay. That's not even internally consistent. This just depicts how intellectually bankrupt the American conservative movement has become. They have reached the point where "lets treat animals nicely" is considered Nazi indoctrination. Wow. Is there any-fucking-thing B. Hussein!!!!!11one!!ZOMG Hes a Socialist Atheist Muslim!!!!! Obama could do that you would not attack him for? Anything at all? I swear to God in his high heaven, if Barack Obama today walked into the White House press room, held an impromptu news conference, and declared that he had a personal awakening and was going to devote the rest of his Presidency to seeking a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion, the American right would instantly become pro-choice. MDB (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion... RobS, I think it's possible to feel that a certain level of animal cruelty is unacceptable without going all the way down the vegan, animals-are-people-too line of thought. For example, we have laws for those who breed dogs that talk about the minimum cage size, that the dogs must have access to food and water, that their cages must be kept clean, and so on. Many women won't wear fur because they don't see the sense in killing an animal for fashion purposes, yet they'll still eat chicken or beef. Also, it always astounds me to hear the argument that, without religion threatening them with consequences, people will do bad things. The atheists I know are morally good people because it's the right thing to do, and their heart leads them in that direction, *even* when no one's looking. Do religious people not have that inner moral compass? --Too tired to log in (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they don't wear fur because they fear being a victim of animal rights terrorists. And the commie connection of animal rights terrorists is also being brought into focus. [4] RobS (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they don't wear fur because they fear being a victim of animal rights terrorists. Nope. I suppose there have been a few incidents of animal rights people assaulting fur-wearing women, but I haven't heard of one in ages, and even back then it was pretty darn rare. But those few incidents got people thinking, and lots of people decided that they'd prefer not to kill animals just so they could be fashionable. So now real fur is out of style, and faux fur is in. Fur is also darned expensive, and hard to care for, so it's not hard to decide to go without. Michelle is making a quite sensible choice to forgo fur. I think most folks are pretty sensible, and feel that animals should be reasonably well cared for, without going overboard. You've really only got to watch a few episodes of "Animal Cops" or "Pet Rescue" to be glad there are SPCA-type organizations out there, and to see how important the laws against animal cruelty are. (FWIW, I read once that there were laws against animal cruelty before there were laws against child abuse. Interesting, huh?) Whether or not some extreme animal rights activists are communists really doesn't make a difference when the average woman is deciding how she feels about animal cruelty. The arguments for the less extreme stuff work pretty well on their own. --Too tired to log in (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
You know what's really cool? If you take every instance of Rob saying "commie" or "red" or something similar, and replace it with "boogeyman", it makes the exact same amount of sense! --Kels (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Also coming late to the discussion, I second Too Tired. Robby boy, it is possible to be an atheist and a good human being. Like 2tired said, there is such a thing as an inner sense of morality even if a God is absent from ones life. As for your Obama-Hitler comparison... excuse my English, but it's pretty fucking pathetic. The same logic as saying you can use the same server for a PS3 and an Xbox 360 - the wishful dreams of a madman. SJ Debaser 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, the christian god provides that inner moral compass you feel. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a flashback to when Philip was pulling the same dishonest stunt of claiming that fear of God's punishment is the only thing standing in the way of a global orgy of rape, torture and murder, which atheism will inevitably lead to (I'm lookin' at you, PZ Myers!). Basically I mentioned the idea that religion didn't come first, but that morality is a natural part of the formation of social structures and goes right back to the very first co-operation between humans. Societies and cultures develop morals based on these basic building blocks, and society thrives. Then religion comes along, adopts the morals that everyone is following already and takes credit for making it up in the first place. Inherently dishonest, I know, but that's how it goes. However, complex societies have a way of getting away from its roots, especially when those roots are actively denied (i.e., we're better than animals!). So you get cases where leaders with power see themselves as so separate that they're above even basic requirements of humanity, something that seems to come from a religious template (god-emperor, Pope is infallible, etc.) and you get dictators, holocausts and the like. But that doesn't invalidate anything but their own mistakes. So to recap, morality is there naturally, religion lies and claims it made up morality when all it did is co-opt it, and the horrors of Stalin, Hitler, etc. are no more an inevitable by-product of disbelief than growing wings is. --Kels (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Kels: "goes back to the very first co-operation between humans" - I think you understate here. While AFAIK humans do have a particularly good ability to co-operate which has proven to be very important, there are plenty of other animals that have been able to live and work together without slaughtering each other at the first opportunity. Anyway, this debate always frustrates me as a philosophy fan because it denies the existence of secular ethics (Immanuel who? Ariswhatle?) while ignoring the Euphythro, a minor Platonic dialogue that decisively refuted "God as a source of morality" a good 2500 years ago (and there's not that much in philosophy that anyone's kept decisively refuted for more than a hundred years or so.) Bil08 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, loads of animals do it and there's recent evidence that there is some form of actual moral code among animals. But we are actually talking human morality here so it seemed simpler just to focus on the human version. No sense cluttering it up too much when all we're dealing with is Rob, who probably won't understand much of it anyway. --Kels (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I had now idea this really was such a deeply emotional subject among some leftists. Let's return to PETA's question then, Does Obama bring hope to animals? Would the Pet Psychic be able let us know? This isn't being fecesious, it's a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations. Even President Obama himself evidentally felt so in responding to PETA's questions. RobS (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Does Obama bring hope to animals? Who knows? What kind of hope are you thinking of? What kinds of extremes do you fear? The guy was campaigning, and PETA is on the left. Of course he wanted their vote. Did he promise anything specific? Anything you feel is going too far? Is there a link somewhere to his remarks, so we can see what he said? --Too tired to log in (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Rob, I know this bears no relevance to the current debate, but what do you think of TK's destruction of CP's longest article, Pan-Arabism? EddyP (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"'s a serious question that mandates serious investigation and serious explanations." No. No, it isn't. I'm sure an idiot would think it was, though. --Kels (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"This isn't being fecesious" - seriously Rob get a spellchecker. Your spelling is really shitty. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's only left wing pseudo intellectuals who bother with such things. When Rob spells it that way - that's the way it's spelled. So put that in your communist pipe and puff it. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 19:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Currently it is set to overtake the Wheaton WIGO to 2nd place with one more up vote. And may I ask why the Godwin WIGO isn't screencapped?[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The above headings are in the wrong order, according to the Three Stooges, Abbott and Costello, please fix[edit]

Or perhaps according to the classic humor routine. One way, or another... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Who's on first, What's on second, I-Don't-Know's on third..." "You don't know the fellas' names?" "Yes!" "Well then who's playing first base?" "Yes..." "I mean the fella playing first base." "Who!" "The guy playing first base." "Who!" "Look, all I'm trying to find out is what's the first baseman's name--" "No, no--What's on second." "I'm not asking who's on second..." "Who's on first." "I don't know..." "He's on third, we're not talking about him." (And so on ad infinitum) --WJThomas (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's not true, they also introduce the pitcher "Tomorrow," the cather "Today," the Left fielder "Why," the center fielder "Because" and of course the shortshop "I don't give a damn." SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This might help me with a cryptic puzzle I am trying to solve... oh, shit, no, it's British, they are confused about the base-ball. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This video has been around for a while...[edit]

But it made me think of TERRY KOECKRITZ.

Just replace "World of Warcraft" with "Conservapedia" and you have his initial demotion. Ignore the first little bit and you have last weeks chastizing by Andy. I think what the kid does with the TV remote fits Terry Koeckritz to a tee (kay). The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We're the ones yelling "Shut up!". Too bad he doesn't listen. (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, man... Just... Wow. I watched the other four videos and Steven has serious anger management issues. If I was his Dad, I'd seriously consider signing the under 18 waiver and packing him off to the Army. I figure basic training and a good 12 month trip to Iraq or Afghanistan would do WONDERS for his attitude and give him the perspective that he, just like everyone else, is not entitled to SHIT. Goddamn crybaby. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This is more like TK's Daily life (next video from the same guy). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Aschlafly = the dog. He notices "TK" a few times, then lies down trying to ignore him.. finally he just leaves the room entirely (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I initially thought it was a Western PA poe, but umm, that kid appears disturbed. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is acting. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If not, this guy's going to be mighty mad at his brother when he finds out he's famous. --Gulik (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Lil Phyl has been promoted to administrator. Nice job, Andy! Good to know that hard work is rewarded. Gauss (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a bit of nepotism. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 04:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Or, of course, a bit of brown nosingimg. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, but stating as the reason Earned it? With less than 230 edits? What did she do? Did the dishes without being asked to do so? Cleaned her room? larronsicut fur in nocte 04:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
She has still contributed more than CollegeRepublican. - π 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kels has contributed more than CR & she's never edited there. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 05:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For that matter, I've contributed more than TK! --Kels (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What I find creepy is TK's "TK (Talk | contribs) protected "User:PhyllisS" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (You'll need this now...;-)) (hist)" ħumanUser talk:Human 05:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Now only the sysops can interfere with her private space. - π 05:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"You'll need this now.. "
"What?! I don't need protection! I'm still a virgin!"
"Not after I get done with you, you won't." (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You a little bitter you didn't get to hit it, kettle fish? - π 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Only ticked off by how much of a lie she created after the whole break-up. That and generalizing me into the Cp definition of a Public schooler. (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, folks, I know we get really personal here, but can tone this one down a tad? It sounds like it's really cutting close to the bone - IE, hurtful. Pi, that was a bit nasty, assuming the BON is Kettle, wasn't it? And hey, if that's you, Kettle, don't make things worse, please. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
PS, I truly doubt the BON is our friend kettlekick. He has never seemed to be the way the BON is trying to strike our wick on the steel and flint. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That ain't kettle. Pi, don't be an asshole. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Really. Why Kektklik of all people was he creating fake accounts of? - π 07:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence there, other than some internet prick. And, hey, if it was kettle, "a little bitter you didn't get to hit it, kettle fish?" is just fucking nasty and you should apologize. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay point taken. I apologise to fuzzy kettle where ever he is now. - π 07:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Decapping/shouting. Now back to whatever the hell we were arguing about that wasn't about teenage lovers... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Schlafly's nepotism? BTW this is what makes me think it is kettle!. - π 07:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If that aint Kettles I wonder who has been stealing my thoughts this time. Ace McWickedNecron99 07:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but when did we start being a stalker site? I see no rational background to the above claims, and I am actually embarrassed to be associated with them. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed though tame in comparision other transgressions. Ace McWickedNecron99 08:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The sexual innuendo is a bit too far but I can commiserate with Kettle-man (if it be he), my own experience and that of several others who have posted in the Saloon Bar is that when we get dropped (or not so gently lowered) it's often not for the reason given. It's not nice getting the heave-ho but ultimately its better if you know the real reason, otherwise it's like getting kicked in the teeth three times - once for each reason and once for the deceit. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the sexual innuendo was hilarious and not really over the line. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Who's been talking about me? o.O
Oh, and PhyllisS was a decent person regardless. It's not so much evolution that she believes in, it's more like minor adaptation.
I think the main reasons why it didn't work out was because of the flaws each of us had outweighed the other compatibilities that we had.. every one has some sort of deviation from the norm.
The reason she broke up with me kinda helped me push myself a bit more in that aspect. So, every thing has some sort of "good" in it. ^_^ Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Isn't it nice to know if you have a problem, there's a nice, helpful admin you can approach to ask for assistance. Er... unless you're talking about Conservapedia, of course.
01:24, 30 July 2009 DeanS (Talk | contribs) protected "User talk:DeanS" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (only admins)
[5] Dean doesn't want to talk to mere peons. They should be creating articles for TK to delete. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You know what? If someone used my talk page to tell me that they were glad my wife was dead, I'd do the same thing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we be glad though? and it's like an entire monthimg after such comments posted (The revert by JessicaT) that he locks the talk page. Alternative explanation: He only listens to peons while he's away (he locks the page after he posted on the "Welcome back" section) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it has much, if anything to do to J. Random Troll making a horrible comment about his wife, unless there was an agreement in the Sooper Sekrit Clubhouse Mailing List to milk the comment for all it's worth. And no, k/t, it's not reasonable at all to suggest he be glad about it, that's ridiculous even taking his faith into account. Human is absolutely right in his comment to you. --Kels (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The One?[edit]

I thought Neo was "The One".. not Obama. TK is showing his parodist side a bit more lately now. (improper grammar, I know.. but I don't care) Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've actually read about half that comic, before my usual habit of drifting into something else to obsess about kicked in. Great fun, her mom's assistant/lover who is and isn't gay is an absolute hoot. --Kels (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's more obvious than not that TK's largely a parodist now. When he asked the second person for the link to the porn video that was - albeit funny - pandering to us, methinks. SJ Debaser 10:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we notice the existence of certain articles...[edit]

before Jpatt burnsimg them? Or is it simply suggesting that Jpatt is getting dirtier these days? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That sort of stuff is utterly puerile and we should ignore it. Otherwise it looks like it's something to do with us. It's up to CP to do their own policing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's childish and pathetic. Not funny nor clever. Ignore. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, don't mention that BS. That stuff is getting way out of bounds lately. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem I am having is since the creation of the article is nowhere found on the RC, One of the 2 scenarios happened:
  1. These articles lasted longer than it should be
  2. Edits on deleted articles doesn't show on RC, which means we may need better captures/monitoring on other articles that isn't puerile?
Feedback on these points? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
When a page is deleted all references to it in the RC vanish including the creation and any edits. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost of those are worthlessly juvenile, but two of them work - I like "Karajou's Hilariously Unimpressive Military Rank". "Nobody here to block me guess I'll type SHlT PlSS VAGlNA PENlS BlTCH" also has a wonderfully sublime and insightful quality to it. Megaten (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I sort of like all of them if we're talking poop humor, but they just blend in with the shocking amount of obscene names and articles already created. Even Nutty's eyes need a break. This would work better if whoever is doing it could pull off a cool anagram, lipogram, or acrostic. And then of course tell us about it because few people here, if any, actually scour CP articles for that kind of shit. Thanks. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


It's quite unusual that I've only been inactive for about 48 hours and 6 whole things have been reported on WIGO. Anyhoo, opening the Obama-Napoleon picture and looking at it I thought "who could possibly post this?" Oh wait, of course... Kenny. SJ Debaser 10:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh this should be good![edit]

Air New Zealand has produced a nude safety video! Oh No! Those morally corrupt liberals! Hang on, wait a second? Isn't New Zealand run by a right of centre party? Why yes it is! Ace McWickedNecron99 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

TK's reply - Quick, send me the link! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
well they are actually wearing body paint. Also Air NZ is State Owned not State Operated so it has nothing to do with the government. Ace McWickedNecron99 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You can watch it here. But if you're looking for titillation then try something else. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh now this is getting stupid! Hey TK!!!!! New Zealand is NOT run by the Labour party! Its the right wing National Party!!!!!! Fucking nitwits! Ace McWickedNecron99 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thanks for reading IScott! Ace McWickedNecron99 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the nudity? All I saw was a lot of people in Spandex body suits. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it is body paint and G-strings. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Anyway, even TK thinks that IScott is going overkill with this one. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ace, you are IScott, and I claim my $5. Anus Deaton (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that from CP's point of view, the NZ National Party is a socialist left wing labor party that runs NZ. DamoHi 06:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, NZ is half way to being NaZi. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey damo! Nice to see ya again! Anyways it really grinds my gears when people talk about NZ is such a fashion. If this is communism then communism is awesome. NZ beats the USA in nearly every category - lower infant mortality, better education, higher literacy rates, better health care, open government, more freedom of speech and press, lower crime, better quality of life - everything. Suck on that Schlafly. Ace McWickedNecron99 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes it seems to me that NZ has a very representative political system that caters for viewpoints across the whole spectrum from the loony left to the loony right. To govern requires some ability to find common ground with all. Hence we get some of the best features of all political idealogies. DamoHi 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but do they have as many GUNS and BILLIONAIRES as the USA? I don't THINK so! --Gulik (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Ace? Cuba beats the US in five of your eight categories. Mountain Blue (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
People, you ignore the important things- The US has enough military firepower to remove the crust from an entire planet, while New Zeland has enough to maybe remove the outer layer of a sheep. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much as I expected that NZ sheep are crusty and a major focus of their armed services. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Ok maybe I missed it but when and why did BrianCo get blocked as a vandal? I see that is why TK is killing all his pages but I can't remember him getting banhammered. --BoredCPer (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, TK personally did it back in Feb 09. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhhh TK, what a wank. Ace McWickedNecron99 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
he still hasn't deleted my parody bird articles with all those nonexistent species, but perhaps that was too long ago for him to remember. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Account creation on CP[edit]

Can anyone else see the button? It seems to have disappeared. Time stupid Phantom Hoover! 10:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes and goes like special offers at the supermarket. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The Creation option only appears if you are on an unblocked IP. Owing into TK's strange fascination with blocking entire IP hosts, I think it's safe to say we may never see that option at CP again...shame, because TK is gonna run out of people to block. -- CodyH (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen it on blocked IPs before. It comes on at about 7am US-EST and goes off a bit after midnight same time as editing. - π 12:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It'd be really nice if we had something like that. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is going to work a second time Neveruse513. You got CUR stirred up last time, but I doubt anyone is going to bite. - π 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Humor me, god damnit!! — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, pick which one you want? Account creation disabled randomly, or "night editing mode"? tmtoulouse 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
An automatic MC detector that turns off account creation for as long as it takes to pull a decent pint of Guinness (about 27 minutes) This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 17:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yay tmt!! I want account creation disabled randomly between 19:00 and 13:30, but always under the guise of "night editing mode". Perhaps not even fully disabled, just with unnecessary red tape that we're going to throw away anyway. Pretty standard...Geographic location, last known IP address(es), have you now (or have you ever) edited on CP, IM contact, race (no Jews can register after sundown!), 3 desired username candidates, 2 security questions and a backup email address. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You can only see the "Creation" button if you are a true believer. If it comes and goes, then you have doubts about your faith. Godspeed. Jimaginator (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition to night mode they've been periodically disabling account creation, mostly when TK is active as far as I can tell. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
He is a siteadmin, which I think gives you this power as well as turning off the database. We use to have a scanner but it is offline now, don't know who was running it. I guess he likes it off when he is around so he can bully people in peace without someone turning up to point it out or come to their defence, he an pretend he is the right then. - π 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Any day now and the only way to get an account is to IM the exculpatory1 (I just threw up a little in my mouth), lay out your entire life story, and put it all to TK's beneficence. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Two years ago (seems so long ago) when I joined CP, I actually had hope for it. When I joined, TmToulouse was an Admin (yes, it's true! lol) :p although that didn't last long. Back then I enjoyed reading the philosophical debates by Sid, AmesG, Myk, Jtl... ah, memories. Then the coming of TK, and the many bannings and all hope was lost. I held in there a few more months but finally became a Refugee. CP is almost dead, just a matter of time now. Refugeetalk page 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you up to telling us your CP avatar's name yet Refugee? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
CP will never die. Just like zombies don't die. --127․0․0․1 (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
@Toast - right, like any of us would out or sysops over there. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So, just askin': If somehow, one of us is lucky enough to create an account while TK is away and we don't get blocked for it, what do we do? I have never created another account for any other reason than trying to continue my "minor" edits.. then I get blocked for pointless things like, "Thanks for the spelling fixes, but your attitude needs fix-ins" or whatever Karajou said. Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


This day is a special day indeed. One must wonder what superpowers Andy have in making the edit at 14:32 saying what the counter will read at 10pm on the same day. (Ok, I shouldn't pick on him too much about his lazyness or stupidity, but still) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

w00t! Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 18:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm the only superhero around here. Nonetheless, well done to the Conservapedians. SJ Debaser 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Kendoll's latest idiocy[edit]

I was going to WiGO this, but I thought I'd rant here instead. So Kendoll (in his sub-literate style that always makes his writing easy to spot) thinks that Ben Bernanke losing money in the stock market last year is somehow relevant and indicative of his competence. Nevermind he was a Bush appointee; nevermind that when the markets drop some 40% everone loses money and he was lucky it was only 29%. Imagine what would happen if it had suddenly been revealed that he had made a few million in such investments? I know I'd be clamoring for an investigation into whether he used insider knowledge or influence to game the system, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. The fact that this and everything else he writes appears as if it were written by a 10 year old (to say nothing of his logic) has basically convinced me that Ken is at least slightly mentally retarded. That at times makes me feel a bit bad about mocking him like this, but then the stupidity is just so painful. DickTurpis (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I saw that I too thought 'I wonder what CP would have said if he had made money?'. If you're a Democrat, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. EddyP (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I also like how Ken encourages investment in gold. Yeah, Ken, hoarding gold is a sure way to get the economy moving again. And nothing like buying a commodity when it's at its high, or is the idea of "buy low, sell high" another liberal deceit? Plus his "source" is practically one of those Cash4gold sites. DickTurpis (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ken probably invests in WoW gold. --Kels (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Buying gold may not be a way to kick-start the economy but it may well be a way to protect your own savings. And gold is nowhere near its high - on an inflation adjusted basis it would have to get to $2700/oz to match the 1980 peak. With government debt-levels at record highs there will inevitably be inflation which will propel the price of gold higher from it's current level. Having forseen the financial problems that were building many years ago up I bought gold-related assets in 2003 when the price was $325 and have just about tripled my investment. I fully expect that to happen again over the next five years. You may mock "the barbarous relic" but ultimately gold has proved it's worth over the fiat currencies which governments are only too eager to debase. If there's one thing that I cannot forgive Gordon Brown for it's selling of UK gold reserves when the price was at a low. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

SES Application[edit]

I recall someone (Norseman I think) saying that it looked as if the SES application failed (if it had passed, Andy would have said something), but that they would phone up the administration just to be sure. Did anything ever come of that? EddyP (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: sock up and ask to see if your sock get banned. If nothing comes of that then you'll get banned for that comment. But then account creation is pretty much off these days. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The IPs of myself and roughly 200,000 surrounding people have been cast out from CP, never to edit there again, and I always found proxies to be annyoing to use. Socking up is difficult. Also, now that TK can see this conversation, anyone asking about the SES Application will be blocked anyway for being my sock, regardless of the thruth. EddyP (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The block by TK will get more lulz (and more embarassing for Andy -- driving away potential customers) if Andy comes up with something for the SES, so I would suppose TK will at least wait to see if Andy has something to say. But then again, we are talking about TK, whose action does not necessarily make sense. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I just called, and was told that status queries are answered most quickly when submitted by email, so I just did that. I'll post an update here as soon as I get anything back, but since neither Andy or CP is listed on the 2009-10 provider list, it looks like he either didn't file, or the application was rejected. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was quick: "The letter and copy of the mean scores with reader comments was mailed today. You should have it by the middle of next week."
Andy's submission got scored with reader comments.
Andy's submission got scored with reader comments.
Andy's submission got scored with reader comments .
I am trying SO hard not to get my expectations up... --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This should be good. tmtoulouse 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
oh the anticipation! Ace McWickedModel 500 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It'll be like Festivus come early! Corry (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Bless you many times over Norman n_n. EddyP (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Squeeee! Do US government officials use humour? Oh dear Jebus, I hope they know of sarcasm. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dear Mr. Schlafly, we would have approved your application if you were a woman, but we set the bar higher for male applicants out of chivalry, so you were declined." Godspeed! --SpinyNorman (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"Dear Mr. Schlafly, we'd say don't quit your day job, but our policy prohibits calling filing the occasional brief on behalf of quacks a job. Even if your application were printed on $100 bills and was mailed directly to our bribes and/or backhanders department head by name, we'd still feel it inappropriate to entrust vulnerable youngsters to your care. Please find enclosed an invoice for the mahogany desk I destroyed while stamping "denied" repeatedly and extra hard on your application." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Well, I shouldn't be surprised. Apparently they thought I was writing on behalf of Andy, and when I clarified that I was not they quickly responded that in the interest of applicant privacy no details about an application status are shared with anyone but the applicant. That's fair enough, but I wrote back asking for a simple confirmation that it was approved or declined, with no details or scoring required. The response was that if an applicant is not on the 2009-10 list, then they were not approved.

So, it's pretty safe to say that the application was rejected, but we'll never get to see the scoring or comments behind that rejection. Anyone wishing to block an IP range can post from it and Ask Andy to publish the response under his original submission, since this will now be the new FBI Incident. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear that? That's the sound of my heart breaking. EddyP (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dins, you just ruined Festivus. Corry (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
God, I hope the comments weren't too constructive...we don't want him passing next year. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You harshed my buzz. I'm going to have to go and buy some ice cream and comfort eat now. I'll name my first bypass after you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't be so downhearted. After all, when's the last time Andy followed constructive criticism? --Kels (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I just re-read the Talk page for the draft SES application I had linked to above, and noticed that it ended with Andy thanking folks for their help, and commenting that while he'd like to have posted the final version, concerns about "liberal vandalism" prevent him from doing so. Okay, Andy, here's a simple challenge. Post a copy of your final submission with nothing removed but personal data like addresses and phone numbers, and post the complete response, scores and feedback from the SES with nothing but the personally-identifying information removed as well. Protect the page so that no one but a bureaucrat can alter them, and if people try to quote-mine it you have the original to stand behind for all to see. You're free to comment on any perceived liberal bias or unfairness as long as your comments are made distinct from the application & response themselves. In case you think this is simple arrogance, here's why you have a moral obligation to do so:

  • You have no problem posting the homework and exam responses of your students, most of whom are probably minors, and allowing the entire wired world to see when they stumble in their answers, and the feedback & grades they got. You are a hypocrite if you do not do the same for your own academic submission.
  • You were willing to have the taxpayers of NJ support sending students to Conservapedia. As a NJ resident and taxpayer from South Brunswick, I am asking you to be public in why you believe you were qualified for this, and what the taxpayer-funded review board thought of those qualifications.
  • You continuously attack the quality of public-school education and the superiority of what you offer through Conservapedia. Post the scoring and comments of why your application was rejected, and tell us why the educational review board was wrong for doing so.
  • If "showing the raw data" was expected of Lenski, it's fair to expect it from you.

If you think I'm a coward hiding behind a screen name, Mr. Schlafly, you're wrong. Provide me with a way of emailing you directly through the mail feature on this site, and I'll provide you with my phone number. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You know we have his SES application already, right? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We have the draft from the CP page, but not the final, unless I missed something. Oh, and sorry for ruining Festivus, Corry. I was looking forward to it, too. --SpinyNorman (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you missed something big. See through to . I'm sure there's some more convenient way to see the whole thing, but I can't immediately find it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Page 0019 and 0021 is missing, or in the wrong name. BTW, does anyone mind OCR the images so we can better annotate some of them? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I kinda wish Mommy would intervene on Andy's behave. It would be epic if she started using the Eagle forum to get Andy approved--Tabris (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My OCR software took a poke at the project but got owned. It would have been easier to retype the whole thing. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought someone already transcribed the whole thing? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And I have a vague memory of helping make the TOC that linked them all together, sort of... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, there's this... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

here — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 05:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's waht I remembered! I'm gonna link to it from the page I linked above... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Moar edit buttons![edit]

Does Andy already claimed expertise in teaching or is it some sort of new claim? I don't think "straightforward" or "logical" are the words that should be used to describe methods teaching people with learning disabilities (Being straightforward to normal people does not necessarily imply it is straightforward to people with learning disabilities; that's why those are called "learning disabilities"). Can anyone else distinguish that from simply bullshitting? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it, Andy is an expert on everything. See Andrew_Schlafly#Inflated_sense_of_expertise etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nope, that's not on the list yet. I guess I'll add it now. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Cowgirl, Anal Sex, Hot Girl-On-Girl Action....[edit]

CP gets into the good stuff.... TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess they never heard of this (Vestigial sexual behaviour) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Apparently the flavour that keeps all the CPers comin' to their yard is deceit. --Kels (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That dangerous, controversial, subversive group[edit]

(Protection log); 06:28 . . TK (Talk | contribs) protected "Beach Boys" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)

--- What?? Why the Beach Boys? A laid back, vanilla flavored California surfing band, no history of vandalization to the article, but in need of protection? Refugeetalk page 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that, having made significant inroads to blocking the planet, TK has started the next phase of his plan — protecting the whole site to prevent all editing. Word educated Phantom! 21:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, can't think of any reason for it otherwise. Has anyone else noticed that "account creation" is almost never "on" these days? Right now it says "log in" and there is no option to create an account. Guess they have finally closed registration to anyone who isn't already there. Refugeetalk page 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't wait 'til my ISP starts using IPv6 and I ascend from the territory of CP's blocks. What would happen in that case, anyway? Word educated Phantom! 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I may not always block you
But long as there are lies to talk through
Your opinion's not worth cow spit
Your IP range never need to doubt it.
God only knows who I'd block without you.
If you ever get socky
Whether on your own, or with a proxy
The world's full of people to hate
Just wait till I can do a /8
God only knows who I'd block without you.

Stile4aly (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LoL - maybe we can set that to a melody and make a song out of it. :p Refugeetalk page 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on Refugee, it already has a melody! Probably my favorite love song ever, or at least tied with In My Life.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Once again my pathetic attempt at humor falls flat... thanks for the link to the video! :p Refugeetalk page 23:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you should have used a graphic emoticon instead of an ASCII-base one. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the page with the smileys. :-( Refugeetalk page 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If you use FF (possibly others but not in my version of IE) go to Preferences/Gadgets/Editing gadgets and you can enable a smiley toolbar. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 00:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The Beach Boys are WONDERFUL. Check out this guy's remix of Surf's Up from the unfinished Smile record with some of Carl Wilson's vocal's from a 1971 version of the song. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not cool![edit]

TK's just blocked Interiot! Sure, he hadn't edited for a long while, but he was one of the most useful guys they had when he was around. Naturally K has also stuffed up his talk page and user page, claiming that they can be restored if Interiot returns... I know the guy knows his way around a wiki, but how's he meant to return from an infinite block with his email disabled?--Little Bobby Tables (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Using your Cp-decoder ring, you'd see that "cleanup" translates to "lockdown". --SpinyNorman (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that any of us could be doing a better job of putting CP into cold storage than what TK is doing at the moment. Terry, I salute you! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Interiot said somewhere that he hadn't been able to do anything since the last software upgrade for some reason. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall Interiot saying he was taking a break for studies or something, but hopefully he's realised just what a dump CP is and how much his contributions were valued. But as you said, TK has noe exsised the one person who know anything vaguely wiki-related on there, but his last remaining edit was in December. I'm opening the pools on who's next to go. Geo.pld (last edited 22 June, but very few edits this year) and Jallen (last edit also recent, but has done little except revert lately and she's a girl) head the list. (Oh, and he was on CPalmer's "backstabbing below" list - sure sign of impending doom. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Of the major leaguers I think Crocodile will be off soon. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 09:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Geo.plrd was the Judas who let TK get his foot back in the door and covered up his plagiarism. TK owes him big time. Also although he doesn't edit much he is still involved in the latest incarnation of the SDG. Major Tommy is a veritable ghost but because of his CreationWiki (?) credentials (he often gives Andy advice on technical issues) he stays a sysop despite his on-site inactivity. Whether Crock o'shite stays probably depends how he handles the loss of his wife. He may even rededicate himself to scouring wingnut blogs for anti-liberal stories. As for JAllen I believe she was taking time-out to concentrate on her career but she's one of Andy's favorites - remember RobS was absent for quite a while but mamaged to hold onto all his rights. Freedom777 would seem a likely candidate for removal as he has done nothing since the ID article. Although Ken might press to keep him as his backup access point in case TK turns against him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tebow WIGO[edit]

The current WIGO re CP's stub on Tim Tebow derides Andy for his claim that being homeschooled is relevant to someone's skills in throwing and catching a ball. Except, A) Andy doesn't make that claim, he just adds it as a piece of trivia (one that's certainly of interest to CP's theoretical audience), B) There's nothing wrong with adding interesting background facts to a bio article, C) Wikipedia also mentions Tebow's homeschool background (and more extensively), D) Homeschooling could be relevant to someone's sporting abilities (more time/focus for individual coaching), unless one ascribes to the notion that athletic skills are completely god-given, and E) Tebow's homeschooling is most definitely relevant to his bio, tho' WP does a much better job re this than CP (which is a bit ironic, doncha think?).--WJThomas (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though it's still an amusing line to see tacked onto a "sports hero"-type article. Didn't think it would get 40+ votes, but the hivemind has spoken. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 12:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think his homeschooling does effect his football. How many snaps has he taken under center? 17. Unless he can over come his unwillingness to get up close and personal to a man he is not going to be able to go pro. - π 13:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Good points. I didn't think it through that far, though you could hardly call that piece of shit a bio article. Tebow's article consists of homskollar/Christian missionary/college football star. Also, Pi is correct, Tim Tebow will not be going pro (successfully anyway) and will be another forgotten college athlete. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was funny... TRIVIA IZ BAD!! WP IS FULL OF TRIVIA!!!! By the way, Tim Tebow was a homskollar. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Touché. I forgot about that particular divine mandate. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually think the update makes it unfunny. Remove? - π 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks again[edit]

editors blocked per month
Top 30 blockers
editors blocked per month
Top 30 blockers
editors blocked per month
Top 30 blockers

Certainly Andy will try to keep up the fantasy of administrating a wiki for the duration of his new course on economics. But even his block-log hints in another direction: For the last seven months there are virtually no short blocks of editors - formerly a sure sign of lively discussions - but almost exclusively blocks of five years and longer.

larronsicut fur in nocte 13:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest LArron, when will the number of blocked IP address pass the number of pageviews at the current rate of a 100 day trend? - π 13:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also why do all the graphs have DiEb on them? - π 13:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't make any predictions at the moment: over the last year, they were up to 4,000,000/month, but at the moment it's slower than 1,000,000/month: TK has last momentum...
DiEb was my moniker at CP, for RW I translated the German word Dieb to the French larron...
larronsicut fur in nocte 13:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A million a month would mean they are slower than the pageviews without our bumping, so never. Sorry I got you banned when I ran around signing as Jinx and calling people mouth breathers. - π 13:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It was meant to happen. Yes, I was annoyed at first, but foremost by the unbounded stupidity Ed Poor was able to display.. larronsicut fur in nocte 14:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
At least CP and WP have pretty and regular graphs; ours is all over the place. Word educated Phantom! 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick count of the top 30 blockers reveals that at least 13 of them are now perma-blocked themselves! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay! I am the fifth most active blocker on RationalWiki. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ my sig is my own opiate! 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Pibot is the largest now. Looking over at RationalWiki:Active users and Conservapedia:Active users, I realised we have more very-active editors and above than Conservapedia has semi-active or above. Are we now official a larger site? - π 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Death of WP[edit]

I recall Andy saying some time ago that Wikipedia as we know it will not exist before long, and Conservapedia will have largely taken its place. I think he said "within a year" well over a year ago. Anyway feel like going back and trying to dig up some of these statements so we can have a good laugh about them now? Maybe we can get some statistics to show just how untrue Assfly's predictions have been. I think even Ed "User 188" Poor said similar things. I'll see if I can find a few examples. DickTurpis (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia:timeline might be a good place to start looking, it might be there. Might not be, though, since it wouldn't have been an "event"... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
His "Conservapedia's Law" essay comes to mind, but that's pretty recent. I'm sure it's not the first or last time. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
While looking for this statement, I found gems like "As Conservapedia exposed Wikipedia's liberal bias, Wikipedia began to decline despite a record of six years of growth." and the classic "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public" line... *idly keeps looking* --Sid (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm strting to think everyt day is backwards day at CP. Someone should sock up and ask Andy or TK about this theory. Remember, if they say no, then the answer is yes. And if they say yes...then that would create a paradox that would cause the users head to explode and/or the end of the universe--Tabris (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a related prediction at least:

Please summarize what you think is so insightful about this. I do understand Wikipedia, but not from listening to Jimmy Wales. Understand Wikipedia by watching how it prefers the for-profit Wikia, by how it drives away the smarter editors and administrators, by how it allows bullying and mobocracy, by how it features porn, and by how it is dependent on search engines for 70% of its traffic (i.e., only minority of Wikipedia users go there looking for info). I predict that in a mere 12 months Wikipedia will not even look like it does today.--Aschlafly 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Should be fun (read: "a quick ticket into banhammer country") to ask Andy if Wikipedia really doesn't look like it did two years ago... --Sid (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. Andy's such a twit. And all because his two insane edits were reverted... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Andy at some point said that CP would overtake WP in the near future, and I'd love to see him confronted with those words. Andy's all happy that CP finally got 100 million pageviews, whereas by some calculations, WP gets several times that every day (presumably without clickbots). "This site is growing rapidly!" DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, Andy put something on main page right about how CP would overtake WP within five years, but it was some time ago. Maybe a year, I dunno. It is ironic, given that most articles that aren't parody, blog posts by the admins (Liberal X, EvolAtheSexuality, etc.), or outright copies from glossaries, are basically reworded cut/pastes from WP in the first place. --Kels (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)