Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive168

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <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)

Panto and Conservapedia

Conservapedia is seemingly agin cross dressing.

The article mentions cross dressing in pantomime.

Anyone care to do 'Conservapedia - the Panto' (possibly involving kilts, or tights). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

wouldn't a Panto in tights lead to a Codpiece size war ? that would not be a pretty sight :( The male lead is of course played by a woman, so what woman would play Andy ? or would the lead be TK or maybe Uncle ED ? I vote for Paris Hilton or maybe Miley Cyrus. Hamster (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia, the panto, would suffer badly from the lack of stock characters (oh no it wouldn't). Who's the dame for a start? Bob Soles (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Phylis Schlafly? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

played of course by Alan Alda or perhaps Kirk Cameron, a gold lame dress, strapless of course with a small tiara blinking Conservapedia. Hamster (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the woman from Fight Club who says crazy yet insightful quotables? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Speak not her name, or she will appear! Either way, Ken would have to play Bottom. --PsygremlinSiarad! 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any female contributors on CP (after Kate Sorenson facted her way right out of there!) to play the lead? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only little Phy and Taj (if she's still around). As far as I know HSMom, Bethany (& sister) and Justine have all seen the light and left CP as Andy likes it - white and male. --PsygremlinSpeak! 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

From the lack of female contributors, how does one infer that the Wiki lacks editors who have darker skin? And how does it possibly infer that Mr. Schlafly likes it white? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Mr Schlalalfly likes his men like his coffee... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Black and bitter, or ground up and in the freezer? Unemployed philosopher (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Before you guys all said it I kinda realized the same thing... other than homskollars doing homework and tests, CP seems to have become an exclusively male province. ħuman 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly a surprise, given the rampant misogyny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

doesnt ED talk of Sailor Moon ? does that make him the token pre-pubescent girl ?

Again, a moonie in anime-terms is a fan of Sailor Moon. You guys can make jokes about which group he is in--Thanatos (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Human: It's called "the best of the public." Buh-dum-pshhh.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that CP is an exclusively male province but that it is a middle to old-aged, white, misogynistic, misanthropic, reactionary, male province. And while you guys fantasize about Conservapedia - The Panto all we are really left with is Conservapedia - The Pants. E.J.Thribb 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please to choose your divisive buzzwords more carefully. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we have anyone watching the CBP?

Is there anything happening besides Ecclesiastes to watch? --Opcn (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly has been trying to insert conservative buzzwords into the Gospels again. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the pace has slowed a lot. Andy does the main editing on the New Testament Gospels, while TerryH is working on the Old Testament at a crawl. My take on the CBP is that Andy's real interest is in making sure he's the only one interpreting what Jesus says in the four main Gospels - outside of that he's showing about as much interest as he does for any project he starts once the first few weeks have passed, i.e. none.

I wish he would write a book, that would be great. --Opcn (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would jump at the opportunity of doing a side-by-side on that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's book already exists http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFmwMxfy-Ik 82.23.209.253 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The pdf file see pages 25 to 39. Muchly good info in the first two dozen pages...outstrips CP by a mile, (1.2K). 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Anyone notice Ecclesiastes 5:3^img? --Opcn (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks a little too obvious, I'm afraid. The only person who could get away with such a blatant case of applied SchlaflySpeak would be... Andy. Unfortunately, it looks like ChrisY has answered the shout-out for help with this page, and he's cleaning up the crap removing the laughs again. --04:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That guy is clearly a poser. I edit the CBP, but I do it from the Greek so my edits are sparse. It takes like half an hour to do a few verses well. A contrived opportunity to practice Greek is the only reason I do it. I have no idea why I'm admitting this. 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The OT will never be done by anyone who isn't a poser, if you can read ancient Hebrew then you have a real skill, why use it on the CBP? ECC is easily the best book of the bible, Solomon was probably a little manic depressive (or just depressive). Also if you look at the basically schlafly article about word analysis in the bible it seems to indicate that the bible needs moar schlafly! --Opcn (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to point out his edits to Eccles as an example of how to do the CBP right, but what's the difference really - his "translations" may be more poetic, scan better, and stay truer to the text than Andy's, but they're both still playing Bible Telephone. Going over CBP edits with the handy Parallel Bible has just given me a new appreciation for how careful and exact the KJV translators were. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I try to continue the general effort...I managed to get some pretty big stuff approved. Alas, I can't talk about it, so you'll have to see for yourself. --Ireon (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou is taking a long time...

creating his Massachusetts junior senator 'toon isn't he. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

True art takes time, and is worth the waiting. Which doesn't explain why Karajou's latest is delayed. MDB (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really follow recent elections, so I'm hoping he'll go with something absolutely random again. Atheism in public schools maybe? --Sid (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He was likely scribbling something about the Dems pushing through healthcare, and had to give up when it turned out they weren't going to do that. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's a God-bashing idiot, part II. Was it worth the wait? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

At least he confesses his problem in the first sentence. Vulpius (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's... the first Karajou cartoon that's not even worth making fun of. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

I wonder if Andy's ever seen his own Victor Jara article. It sure makes his hero, Pinochet, look bad. I know Andy doesn't read this, but maybe you could point out a whitewash is needed here, TK. Liberal claptrap in Conservapedia? Surely it cannot stand! Oh, and see if you can get Andy to use the term "liberal claptrap" in his edit summary. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

About to get banned on CP, a worthy cause

Ok, I'm about to get banned on CP again, with my best account yet, for trying to discuss something with both Assfly and TK. This concerns the recent despicable Supreme Court decision to make government by Monsanto, of Pfizer, and for Walmart (corporations no longer have limits on campaign contributions). As things continue you can see them here^img. ScientificRigor (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make it on CP, you have to use facts less and agree more. Nice post, though. Make sure to use the <capture></capture> tags for links to anything particularly good on CP. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I. for one, welcome our SAME OLD corporate overlords. --Gulik (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And the banhammer has fallen. It feels strangely comforting knowing that I can get banned for pointing out Andy's grammar errors. Oh yeah, and for a fact here and there. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is just trying to prove himself. I wonder who he is here... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Irritating parodist, he should have let Andy try to answer, so we can laugh. Andy usually hands out short blocks, too. Broccoli (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you kept your actions to yourself, you'd have had a bit of a chance. Posting here was a sure fire way of getting whacked unless you're a sysop of course. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am JacobB! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC4)He's not even a good parodist. A real CP sysop would have made up a reason like last-wordism or 90/10 or Trolling/Liberal Trolling. Or the classic Schlafly "bye". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How can we ever get the old Spartacus joke going when someone asks who someone is, if no one participates? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what happened. I'm ScientificRigor. Whoever DanieleGiusto is is anybody's guess. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know we can get anybody banned, at any time, by claiming here to be them. 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I forget who did it, but someone got TK to ban his own IP...or conservapedia's IP...or something hilarious. Taking responsibility for a random CP users actions is great fun. Let's you know who's watching. Let's them know their your bitch. Jacob, step your game up. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone got TK to ban CP's actual IP, and I got TK to ban the Eagle Forum's IP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I never blocked my own IP, that I can remember, and since you don't have check user here, I doubt anyone knows it, and since I could unblock myself, doing that would do what? As for the Eagle Forum, do you honestly believe their server tries to post on CP? --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually a sysop can edit through a blocked IP, even if it is not set to anon only. - π 01:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference was to Conservapedia's IP, not your own. The block of the Eagle Forum server was intended, I believe, to demonstrate that you are prone to blocking IPs that are unassociated with vandals. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, whaddayouknow? TK concedes that we don't have checkuser. 86.134.119.71 (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Concedes? You cannot recognize sarcasm? --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have realized that posting here would have led to a ban. I think it was because I called dear leader Assfly (not on CP, of course; that would be liberal namecalling), honestly, although initially I thought I'd get it from the open mind and godspeed parts, which were pretty clear mockery. The ban expires tomorrow and I'll get back to correcting grammar errors and spelling mistakes like a good CP user, although I don't have it in me to feign conservative ideology. I was just very upset by the ruling, and still am. Also, I get a kick out of the fact that Daniele is Italian for Daniel (if I were a girl it would be Daniela), and that it was immediately assumed that I'm a girl. ScientificRigor (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, hard up for kicks much? Perhaps you need a good hobby! --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- π 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Like messin with Conservapedia? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am ASchlafly ... what didn't work? Oh well, back to the drawing board. I did notice someone else doing what looked like taking credit for my sock a little while ago, that made me unhappy. --Opcn (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken's incoherence

How can an article in an encyclopaedia, be a good use of an encyclopaedia?^img - π 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He's talking to himself...again. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 04:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

aSK is down, so he can't attract our attention that way. - π 04:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if he made those videos himself. The quality is certainly low, but the familiarity with the material is high. ħuman 04:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose these were the waves he was going on about. So much build up for so little. To be honest I have come to expect that from him now. Three YouTube videos that will probably never get more that 1,000 views. It is sad to see him try so hard for such little results. - π 04:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I haven't watched the YT video as I have an extremely slow connection at the moment, but I can already see the production values in the first few seconds (a camera pointed at a PC screen, with "conservapedia" written in notepad - with the YT star pointing at the screen with a pen...). Given the shiteness of the video, and the shiteness of the five comments (Ken's one actually says "good use of encyclopedia~ " (sic), why is Ken so keen to highlight it? Really, Kenny-boy, it's nowt to be proud of! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile, Ken has already won. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Not that guy again. He also did a video on the evolution article for Ken. Then when Ken posted that on the front page, the guy did a video about how his video was on the front page. Which Ken then posted on the front page and the cycle went around once more.

I sent the guy an email begging him to use Capture Fox, but he never replied. He heavily moderates all comments, so unless you are blowing smoke up his arse, your comment won't get approved. - π 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All religionist youtubers seem to be like that - ratings disabled and comments heavily moderated (if enabled). I like the thought of Ken getting in to that perpetual loop though, how did it end? Do you think it will happen again. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy didn't make a fourth video. - π 09:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible, or even probable, that Ken and this YT guy is the same person? Etc 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that question has already been asked. My guess is yes, he makes these videos himself. Etc 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually roll my eyes at these guys who can't even manage to clean their houses or put on a clean shirt when they're trying to talk about serious shit - but Shockogod takes the cake for lazy production value. And it's fucking brilliang. Why bother using your noodle when all you have to do is read someone's shitty article. This will be my big YouTube break. 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's Conservative. On another of ShockofGod's videos he's chatting up some biker in a gas station and says his name's Rich. SJ ^Debaser 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Challenge on!

Right then, who fancies making a YT video about CP, then trying to get Ken to feature it on the main page? (SuperJosh need not apply) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I really want to, but I don't have a video camera. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Woe with me! My spectacularly bad YouTube videos I posted about 5 months ago have yet to be recognised by the great Conservative! SJ ^Debaser 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it then, Josh! Your videos are certainly of the standard enjoyed by Ken, I'm sure he'd like the "British conservative praises conservapedia" angle. Can you do a David Cameron voice? (Not that Andy would consider him to be a 'conservative', despite being leader of the Conservative party. Anyway, I'm rambling a bit now) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually mind trying that, though I don't think I'd like the negative attention from the YouTube community, it has too much of a massive religious vs. atheist and conservative vs. liberal userbase. SJ ^Debaser 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Set up another account to use for your CP vid. Open it now and look at it now and favourite a few bible-bashing/right-wing vids so Ken doesn't spot that it's just been opened to make his video. (Is he that clever?) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting news story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34958965/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake 'the two church-goers from New Jersey had the best intentions in the world when they arrived in Port-au-Prince this week to help victims of Haiti’s killer earthquake.' ...'Trouble was, that was all they had' ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.112 / talk / contribs}

No comment! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Goddamned liberal commie Haitians don't appreciate the value of prayer. That's obviously what the New Jersey folk brought, AND THEY CENSORED IT! This wouldn't have happened if Reagen were in charge. You know what, I bet that news story was published by gay lesbian atheists. Perhaps they brought memorized verses of the most logical book in the world, the Bible. Hey, speaking of which, I just got a brand new insight! *Runs off to rewrite another portion of the most logical book ever written* Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But..but.. this is impossible. Not only are they the Best of The Public^TM, but they're also good Chrisjuns. Norseman is right. This is surely a liberal conspiracy, and I'm certain that Andy will get to the bottom of it as soon as Ed and Karajou return home. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The sheer weight of all the aid workers, even if they dont actually have aid with them, will help stabilize the fault that caused the first quake. The Haitians should not grieve for the dead , after all the voodoo preists will have them back up and moving in no time at all. :( Hamster (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and SCOTUS

The US Congress has been behaving like the legislature of a failed state. No matter what issue/problem we present to Congress, by the time it comes out the other end of the sausage machine it's been reduced and repacked into a series of corporate welfare measures. This happens no matter whether the agenda is right-wing or left-wing. Bush proposes Medicare Part D, it turns into a handout to PhRMA. Obama proposes a public option, it turns... into a handout to PhRMA. No matter who wins elections, the public interest loses.

When you look at it that way, why should Conservapedia be so happy about more corporate money in politics? Exxon will be able to spend moar money to defeat those dirty hippies, true. But who do you think is going to win in a fight between homeschoolers and Prentice Hall? How about anti-vaccine nutsos and Merck? How about small government teabaggers and Goldman Sachs or ADM?

Corporations militate against the political agendas of both the grassroots right AND the grassroots left. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Lipton might be on the teabaggers side. - π 06:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

buh-dum-pssh... 08:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's still an idiot

Geez, Ed, really? You're still on about that? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have no idea why this double-posted twice when I only clicked submit once. Test test? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SamF is in over his head

Looking just at this edit:

"The mammalian whale lacks plausible ancestors along points of a proposed evolutinary pathway." - Are there other whales besides mammalian ones? What happened to ambulocetus, protocetus, rodhocetus, basilosaurus and others?

"the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species between kinds in the fossil record." What's a kind? And why is a lack of an intermediate species a counterexample of evolution?

"No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms." It's been known for about a decade.

"A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species." How can anyone "demonstrate" a lack of something?

The whole page is absurd. There's no reason to dig for "facts" to back up those absurd arguments. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

EvanW brings some more DUHR to the talk page. "It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it is a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is." It's not known how something works, therefore evolution-atheistic evolution to boot!- is wrong? And creationists wonder why we all laugh at them and their arguments? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you have never heard of whittling. --Opcn (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the reason for his block. Couldn't find any specific reason to block him, so a vague excuse is the best TK could get. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Are there other whales besides mammalian ones?" He could be thinking of the Whale Shark, which is a fish, not a mammal. </devil'sadvocate> X Stickman (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he just didn't want to get blocked, but wanted the sentence to have a good meter too it. --Opcn (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

InTKrigue

I can't find any edit of AlexWD's to DouglasA's talk page or anywhere else, so I assume the whole shebang has been oversighted. TK also oversighted this edit to Joaquin's talkpage. Busy little bee aren't we. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deceit, thy name is TK. Keegscee (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More TK/Jensen dust-up

TK oversights one of Jensen's edits and calls him liberal^img after DanielPulido edited some talk page comments of Jensen's.^img Coarb (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TK smells blood - he knows RJ is vulnerable. I thought some estimates of a week were quite optimistic, but then, I don't expect to see RJ still there in a month - particularly with the continued baiting over dimwitted professors. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You never know - all it takes is one flame war with TK or Andy to end it all. It could happen at any time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all it takes, but that's not really what's happening. There are a number of editors in the cross-hairs this time, and I don't think they know how to get shut without causing extreme embarrassment. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pile on begins

RobSmith questions Jensen's conservative bone fides, with real evidence^img

-- Coarb (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little Red Guard ish don't you think? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No more so than what happens here, nearly every week. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 07:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's simply because there's no secret discussion group to hide all the edits/comments, which in thanks to you, we know exists. :3 And besides, the arguing is usually about following policy (from what I can tell), something Conservapedia can't seem to grasp. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Rob was absent the day MYOB became a blockable offence Entering into disputes not involving editor (MYOB) . Oh wait... he's an admin - rules and commandments don't apply to them. Silly me. --PsygremlinPrata! 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have a dog in this fight. The discussion began here. I needed time to study the Ben Bernanke & Larry Summers cites Dr. Jensen uses. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Rob, that "dog" is six months old. Nothing like digging up old bones is there. --PsygremlinSiarad! 08:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pot/Kettle much? --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Aw! are we all butthurt agwain? C'mere I kiss it all better for you. --PsygremlinSprich! 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

New Weakly toon (intresting thing about God)

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/6/62/WToon22.JPG Notice how he subtracts God the first time (thus making evolution anti-God), but then he subtracts God a Second time, only this time, God has a "no" sign around it (or whatever they are called), meaning they subtracted the negative of God, which would make the amount of God in Evolution = zero. Which is certainly not what they are arguing, but is the truth, that the theory of evolution is pro or anti-God. Unless karajou is sending us messages that he is secretly a liberal, it was just a screw up, but I am selectively OCD, so I just needed to say that. (I am a Christian, and I do believe in God, but I don't see any reason why God and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive, but then again, I am not completely batshit insane) EDIT: I would also like to point out that he did the same thing for common sense.--Passerby25 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, that cartoon does explain conservative's view of evolution: "I don't understand it so it's wrong". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Crundy, that sums up CP perfectly. (In addition to "I don't like it so it's wrong") DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems that once Karajerk gets into his groove, it's hard to get out of it. Hot on the heels of dozens of Climategate & Climate summit cartoons, we're now getting "evolution on a blackboard" cartoons. This is almost identical to last week's and even less funny. Please, snookums, punchline, baby, punchline. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 09:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative movie

Besides "Pillow Talk" getting Andy all hot when he watches the women getting slapped around, I'm surprised that a conservative movie^img has a gay leading man, who engaged in liberal deceit by staying in the closet. Obviously, the wife beating was important enough to win out.
Actually, to add to that, it won an Oscar and has been added to the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically or aesthetically” significant (thanks to WP for telling me that). Now things like that would make it a good conservative movie, but for Andy, it's all about the uppity bitch getting slapped around.
Oh - and "no distortions by feminist ideology" - it was made in 1959 ffs. Feminist ideology hardly existed back then. --PsygremlinRunāt! 09:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you count that lady on the dollar coin, and few other thousand suffragettes. Sorry if I hear a Bowie song in my head when I type that. ħuman 09:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It is a rumor that Rock Hudson was gay, clearly he was straight, don't you read anything^img?--Opcn (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

S-S-S-Suffragette City! Bowie was the best stutterer ever. What was that other song? Oh, yeah, I forget, but I dreamed about it last night. ħuman 10:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes! ħuman 10:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(I now have Rebel Rebel playing the background). Lol - I see it's a classic case of right hand / left hand over on CP. First we have Homosexual Historical Revisionism claiming it was false that Rock Hudson was gay, then under his (1 line) article^img we have category:Homosexuality. --PsygremlinRunāt! 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

LIES!Opcn (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your face is a mess! ħuman 10:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you forgetting The Who's My Generation? Several stutters including "Why don't you all f-f-f-fade away?" Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

They're all better than BTO. Corry (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TK went Al Gore?

Go green! But why is that important for Conservapedia? That's the opposite of "Drill, baby, drill!" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The argumentum ad populum, it hurts! ListenerX^TalkerX 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is still the frequent "Majority of people don't want new taxes!" Well... duh? Majority of people don't want to pay bills, either. And most people in the US don't want Congress. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Although sometimes the majority is right; as in: "The majority of people think Conservapædia is hilariously funny". ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Something must be lost in the translation for non-US readers. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the fish still bite when we cast the bait. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people don't want to pay tax, but people with a mental age over 15 see it as an essential part of governance. - π 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the poll didn't really have to do with taxes. It has to do with preferences for alternative energy sources, versus more fossil fuels, or cutting back our use of energy. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh TK, you are indeed a chump. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So the poll shows that people would rather "someone" solve the problem their behaviour is creating rather than moderate their behaviour, big surprise. - π 02:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're an asshole and an idiot. How's that for a poll? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote on that. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is TK?

Asshole	51	Vote
Prick	16	Vote
Idiot	2	Vote
Troll	29	Vote
A nice chap	14	Vote
Undecided	2	Vote

All of the above. Vulpius (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of George Carlin's game show, "Asshole, Jackoff, Scumbag". --Kels (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like RobS' night in.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 04:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There, there, TK

[1]^img. TK opens up the Obama article to editing after criticism of one of the sources. This is, of course, a honey pot -- anyone removing the bizarre speculation will surely be banned. Anyway, when the original critic keeps complaining rather than editing the Obama article, TK loses his cool. Coarb (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Been hanging around here so much our language has seeped its way into his edits on CP, I guess. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[2]^img TK must be grumpy tonight. Nick Heer 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wingers really are incapable of understanding the fallacies of their own argument. When Bush won, it was "a mandate" of the people. When Obama wins, it's "Why won't he listen to the people?" When the Democrats win Congress on, among the promises, a platform of making a public option for health care, the wingers shout, "Socialism!" When one senator wins against another who ran a terrible campaign, it's "The people have spoken!" So why is it "the people" speaking when it agrees with them, but not what "the people" want when it disagrees with them? I know! It's because wingers are utter morons incapable of rational thought, and thus perceive anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy. Nixon never died, he just transferred the creepiness to future generations. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how I'm the asshole who always seems to be losing his cool here and swearing at everything that moves, I'd like to think I have something to do with this. I can only hope. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor

Insinuations that Ed Poor is a sex pest or paedophile, I mean, WTF? Come ON! On what basis are these insinuations made? What possible justification is there? If there is none, and it would have to be pretty damn convincing if there is, then it's simply outrageous and totally inappropriate. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's one thing to comment on Ed's posts when they stray into creepy territory, but it's another to imply that he's a pedophile. Let's keep the comments appropriate, folks. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - he is down right creepy sometimes but creepy =/= pedo. Aceⁱ⁹ 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Censorship is such a liberal trait. Keegscee (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Censorship? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that Ed is a pedophile. I bet you don't think smoking causes cancer either. Keegscee (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Or abortion. --Kels (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut. It's much more important that the word is spelt paedophile 'cos it's of Greek extraction, you ignorant Merkins.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

<da>to be fair, he strays beyond the 'creepy' territory on a frequent basis. A list of topics he 'contributes' substantively to is pretty short.</da> Of course, it doesn't _make_ him anything, but I don't think there's much of an issue of insinuating stuff for comic effect when he writes things which cry out for mockery in that vein. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Insinuating that somebody is a paedophile based on nothing more than a subjective view that much of his editing is "creepy" has no comic effect. Get a grip. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By your use of the word 'subjective' I assume you know what it means. Would you not agree that comedy is also subjective? Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean that it's not funny to others. Keegscee (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, hyperbole and exaggeration just aren't funny. Who knew. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's only my view that it isn't funny. But that's not my primary objection. My objection, which you seem to be unable to grasp, is that calling an opponent a paedophile based on nothing more than a vague "creepiness factor" is just plain wrong. Having a private snigger about it is not the same as making those insinuations on a public website. You see? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed creeps me out. X_X Pedobear (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did this come from anyway/ My comments above? Because I'd say they pretty much imply that he isn't a pedo. However, somebody who calls himself "Uncle" teaches children and who claims to have lots of "information" on hard-corn porn needs watching. --Psygremlin話しなさい 09:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not your comments - they just reminded me.

Interesting point you make though. The way I see it is that, as a culture (well, certainly in the UK), we seem to be obsessed with paedophilia. And it's become toxic. "Must be a paedo" seems to be the default position many people take when adults take in interest in children. And it doesn't take much imagination to think that Ed might teach children and be genuinely worried about the effects of pornography on them. Indeed, it takes rather more imagination to conclude that he might be a paedophile. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@Ajkgordon - I hear you. In my country there is a shortage of male primary school teachers due to the idea that if a male wants to be one he must have some sort of nefarious intent. Its a hard label to shrug. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming out

I think the trick to getting someones sock banned is to come out as them over here as soon as they get into just the tiniest little bit of trouble. Thus poor Sam is vaporized. --Opcn (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am everyone. Jaxe (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was once CharlieT, but I handed that account off. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was (and still am 0_o) CharlieT. I can only presume Geo doesn't read this site as much as he should. EddyP (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WIGO fail

Pravda in the post-soviet press is an entirely different publication, only the name has been retained. The Russian press (although becoming less and less so) is pretty free, and the Russian press in the 90's was the freest in the world, so Pravda's reporting shouldn't be mocked in a WIGO... JeffD (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But what makes the whole thing especially funny, is that Pravda becomes a perfectly acceptable source for Rob "Reds Under The Bed" S, when it latches onto some bizarre conspiracy theory regarding Pres Barry. No barrel is too deep to scrape when it comes to digging up "dirt" on the Pres. I wonder how many other Pravda sources there are on CP. --Psygremlin話しなさい 14:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Point exactly, it's not Pravda it's CP using Pravda that's funny. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wandal Spree

Looks like Andy has got his hands full. -- 15:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Claims to be an Anon attack. See above two sections. StarFish (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TK WIGO's = fucking boring

I added TK to one just to see if it would bring the total vote down. It did. Based on my unscientific observation of this and other WIGO's mentioning TK, I conclude that mentioning TK in a WIGO, even without using his name, is the kiss of death.

I propose that the WIGO vote code automatically permablock and promote any editor who adds a WIGO involving TK unless the user affirms under oaht that TK's presence in the WIGO is not simply to illustrate that he's a dick. We already knew that. CP is about Andy and his hillbilly pals' crazy, not TK's trollery. 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the most recent TK WIGO, my feelings are hurt. Girlish whinge over, you have a point, as Terry Koeckritz is some kind of parodist/troll/thing, and WIGOing him only serves whatever kind of superiority complex he suffers from. SJ ^Debaser 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I only try to WIGO TK if he makes a ridiculous edit, but some other ones obviously slip through. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TK's not a a dick. He's the Puck to CP's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Okay, he is a dick, but it's all in-character. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that TK is getting bored with CP, he's thrown so many toys out of his pram that he's got nothing to play with. I would suggest that it is also the reason that he's started hanging around here again.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what the point is in WiGOing anything regarding TK, except when Andy actually says something supporting his actions. He's clearly not on board with CP's so-called mission, so it's basically the same as just about any other parodist/troll/wandal. --Kels (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bailed-out General Electric"

And here I thought it was General Motors that got bailed out... ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you were mistaken, because TK only posts the truthiest of truths. I also didn't know that NBC, while owned by GE, was the exact same company as GE. Glad he cleared that up for me. JazzMan 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) PS: If you Google the phrase "General Electric bailout" you will find some, um, very reliable blog sources about how Obama is secretly bailing out GE through various evil green initiatives.

Perhaps the GE/GM confusion should be added to the WIGO? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's there, it's just subtle. JazzMan 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a sketchy blog? Not quite a "bailout," but is seems as if parts of GE are set up to suck on the government tit. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That looks like insurance for some of their debt rather than a bailout payment. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sometimes I would argue that yes it is, but that's another discussion. As LX said, it's not a bailout so much as extending FDIC. Also, it's a little fuzzy whether a bailout of GE Capital (their lending division) would really count as a bailout of NBC (a subsidiary). The blogs I was talking about are more like this one. JazzMan 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's worse is that NBC is owned by NBCU, a joint corporation owned by GE and Universal Vivendi. It's being sold off to Comcast, at least 51% of the company. So it's NBCU, not GE, paying the bills. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Time out's make me bored

I just noticed the most revisions special page Big surprise, Obama>Alger Hiss>Evolution>Homosexuality>Atheism ...--Opcn (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind a few months, nearly a year ago Ken

deleted Evolution and restored it without its history, because he didn't know how to purge the cache. - π 06:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It had been undeleted again, though. --Sid (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't resurrect the page counter though. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"This page has been accessed 412,933 times"? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Those views are all bumped from zero. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ours is also quite interesting. I should note that a lot of the Phelps stuff must be reverting the Fred spam. ^sshole 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

TK has a small penis

Wow, TK... Someone wants to improve CP, you rollback the edit. Andy signs off on the project, you ban the user. How small is your cock that you have to abuse that much power? Your 90/10 ratio is more like 100/0 at this point. What substantial edits do you make there? For you it's rollback, burn, ban and bitch. What an asshole you are. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The prissy one won't respond to any questions, unless you e-mail him with your real name, and even then he won't, because he's scared of the truth. Which reminds me, just why is the colossal cunt hanging around here anyway, besides the fact that he's proving that CP's rules don't apply to admins? He doesn't engage in discussion, he makes what he thinks are witty comments. can't we just block him, like in the good old days, so he can crawl back to CP and carry on trolling everybody there? --PsygremlinPraat! 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be worse: we could work for him. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Hookers don't count as employees even though you pay them, dude. --Kels (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they do if you own the ranch. After all, he does live in Nevada. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Ooh, labour camps are not part of the capitalist model. How convenient to forget the capitalist model of the southern plantations with their slaves.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Even Karl Marx did not consider a slave society to be "capitalism." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That sending money home sounds a lot like our migrant workers here. I wonder how many of TK's employees are legal immigrants? Oh and if it was a choice between working for TK or letting Ed babysit my daughters, Ed would win 9 times out of 10. --PsygremlinSiarad! 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, it's my fault not TK's. Could someone get me Andy's e-mail addy?--Opcn (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all over the internet, like on his user page perhaps, and certainly on the articles about the bus trip to DC. I think it's Aschlafly@aol.com but I might be wrong. ħuman 02:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He would be the type for AOL wouldn't he --Opcn (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt, poke Ken with a stick

After Ed tried^img (without lasting^img success) to essay-fy one of Ken's satellite articles in 2007, TK tries again^img with a more epic edit summary. Oh please, Ken, revert the move. We could use some wheel war entertainment. =D --Sid (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"This is not an article, but rather an essay, so more properly belongs in the Essay name space. Still. Once again. Always." - It's true and it has good rhythm. I like it. -- =w= 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not like anyone is going to rush to Ken's defense. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TK's bored. After his little anon stunt, he's trying to stir up some internal dissension for the lulz of it. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you, whatever you might say about TK, if he manages to drive Ken off CP it'll be something for the annals of trolldom. --Kels (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken replies in an almost predictable way: Delete years (creation date: June 24, 2007) of edit history^img and paste current version into the old place.^img --Sid (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The TK I know and fear wouldn't take that shit. EddyP (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd call that a direct finger in TK's eye from Ken. You gonna take that shit? --Kels (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like the cowardly way out to me. He could have just moved it back. Doing it like this is just kinda childish. -- =w= 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You expected someone to do the more honorable thing? Specifically, Conservative? On Conservapedia? Yeah, right.

Oh, what am I saying. I can't comment against someone so cute. I agree with Mei. (Dance, Konami, dance!) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the less honorable thing of just reverting him. But I can't argue with Lucky Star either so I agree with Norseman. ^______^ -- =w= 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the RW archives are full of the TK vs. Conservative feud since forever. TK's opinion of Ken doesn't differ so much from ours. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of Ken

pussyfooting around can be seen in the fact that the talk page from the mainspace article will redirect you to the talk page for the essay, because Ken fails at wiki. Does this butt pirate have a youtube channel of his own? --Opcn (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen's got a project.

And it has to do with NatGeo book covers for images of colonial states?^img "Fair use" my butt. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it's CP, and I know he's slapped a "fair use" disclaimer on it, but does this actually count as fair use? He's using it to illustrate an encyclopedia article on New France, not making any sort of commentary or parody on the work he's using. I was under the understanding that fair use of an image involved actually commenting on the image itself in a critical fashion, or parodying it. Am I way off the track here? --Kels (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've told Random House (publishers of the editions copied). Let's see. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin Martinez would be worse if anyone could be sure he knew better. He's putting blatantly stolen images as window dressing on the American Jews article in the last few days. 02:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The situation is made worse, not better, by the deletion of the article providing a basis for your site's fair use rationale. 03:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "fair use my butt" an order or a suggestion? Corry (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? Professor?

So, RJJensen wants to prove that there is no "Jewish conspiracy" by writing an article that shows how "very elaborately organized" the Jewish community is. Wow. Just, wow. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more amused by Andy's response. "I don't think we even referred to Barack Obama as the "first black president"". I think he's correct because they called him the first affirmative action president. Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 06:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he actually went to lengths to claim that Obama didn't deserve the title of first black president, by claiming that we didn't know if any of the other presidents were black (yes really)76.121.56.100 (talk)

You mean this? -Redback^{not Redneck} 08:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Astonishing how shameless he is sometimes. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, that seems to discredit the claim that other presidents were black (and besides was written by Bharlan). See here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive5

Quote:

'The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the first black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--Aschlafly 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)'

76.121.56.100 (talk)

I see where you're coming from now. That's a bit of a turn around, in the version of the article I linked which has the Schlafly seal of approval, the article claims "President-elect Obama is multiracial; his father was part Arab and part black, and his mother was white". Andy himself tinkered with that sentence, and in an article explaining how extremists want us to believe certain US presidents were black, it comes across as "No he's not black, well, maybe a little but it's dilluted so it doesn't count!".
See what happened there? A bit of time passes, and he goes from "Obama may be black but the other presidents may have been too" to "there were no former black presidents and Obama isn't black". Weirdos. -Redback^{not Redneck} 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the only thing that matters to Andy here is to deny Obama acknowledgment of any sort of achievement, including being "the first black president".76.121.56.100 (talk)

"The age of reason"

"Also, more than half of the users claiming to belong to Christianity or otherwise are only mocking it, with added quips like 'Until the age of reason.'" How dare those covert anti-Christians mock Christianity with such obviously anti-Christian terminology! - Cuckoo (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was Catholic until the age of reason is also out of a George Carlin bit. Although I would think that this was a claim about not being Christian, rather than being a Christian. --Opcn (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Which seems to support Mr. Schlafly's point rather than debunk it. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it's deliciously ambiguous. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

is it just me...

... or does Karajou's explanation of Devils Tower^img (with no mention at all of Close Encounters! Sacrilege!) fly in the face of a 6,000 year old earth? --Psygremlin講話 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Devils Tower was formed by molten igneous rock forcing its way into the area's sedimentary rock, cooling before reaching the surface, and the sedimentary rock being eroded away. What's wrong with that? obviously plenty of time in the last 6000 years for the forcing, cooling and eroding. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 18:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Igneous, schmigneous; everyone knows that all rock is sedimentary and was deposited by the Deluge. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all rocks were placed as sediments. That doesn't mean that God didn't make all the different kinds of pretty rocks for us to enjoy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You forget your Flood Geology ! The flood laid all the sedimentry rocks and while it was still a bit moist a comet of water ice returned from its orbit and punched a hole through the drying sediment. The layer of water that supported the crust was now gone (waters of the deep) so there was just MOLTEN MAGMA ! underneath and it bubbled up through the new hole. This dried the mud to rock and formed the tower. See how Creation Scince solves these small mysteries. :) Hamster (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a close follower of the Schlafly bros but wasn't erosion of Devil's Tower by the great flood one of Andy's pet topics on those pre-CP Talk Origins discussion boards?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Devils Tower: Andy v. the geologists! Epic pwnage. --Robledo (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Andy: Here is something that's impossible to explain! That means God did it! Geologists: Explanation, and by the way the Catholic Church disagrees with you. Andy: Blasphemy! If I had my own private blog I could block you from replying to me.

And so, Conservapedia was born.... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, what I loved was his continual insistence that it was "obviously" formed by erosion, without having a clue that such a claim would require explaining "how". ħuman 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, did Andy start CP to have somewhere he'd always be right under cover of a homeschoolers' project, or did he pervert a homeschoolers' project for that reason? --Kels (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The latter. Before the world found CP, there was little use of the banhammer. When the world found it, he circled the authoritarian wagons, under the prodding vigilance of helpful centrists like TK, and now has his little corner of the blogosphere where he's always right. ħuman 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Negroes

The CP article on African Americans^img has some classic parody. My favorites are:

• "Colored" was popular until the 1950s, but now is generally out of favor except among some left groups.
• Blacks were Republicans from the 1860s to the 1960s, but few who lived in the South voted.
• The standard practice since Reconstruction is for black ministers to be political power brokers...

Excellent. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt -- =w= 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The first two are correct (although the modern version of the term is "persons of color" rather than "colored people"). I suppose they got the idea for the "power brokers" business because the only black ministers they know are the politically active ones, like Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright and the Martin Luther Kings. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I know of a another group of people who still refer to blacks as "colored". And, gee, I wonder why blacks weren't voting in the south in the 1860s-1960s? Why the fuck would that be? Huh... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That lot prefer "n****r," I think... ListenerX^TalkerX 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've heard them use "colored" in a strange attempt(?) to be "politically correct", but you're probably right about that one. Or maybe they were just really old... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy is a jaywalker

I shit you not, Andy Schlafly jaywalked in front of my car on D St. on my drive home. He runs exactly like you would think after hearing him talk. More of a prance, really.Cooter (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me that you rolled down your window and did a shout out --Opcn (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wish. I didn't realize who it was until he had pranced across the street and it was too late to do anything. I yelled out, "Holy Fuck!" to my baby daughter, but she didn't appreciate the gravity of the sighting. I should say that while traffic was completely screwed on the way home, the anti-abortionites sure do a lot better job cleaning up than the dirty hippies that are usually behind the protests around here.Cooter (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I could imagine Cooter doing that: Andy stops in the middle of the street, pauses for a moment, turns around slowly (without effort, like he spins on a swivel), and gives cheeky smile with the closed eyes from the Colbert Report. He then proceeds to laugh, really low-like, then another moment of pause. He turns around, and slowly continues jaywalking. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a cluck than a laugh --Opcn (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ha! Ha! Ha!"Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't walk in front of your car, stop, turn and look and say "Motherfucker!"? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy only laughs when he needs time to think of an answer.--Thanatos (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

March

Nothing yet on the massed hordes of Conservapædians on the March for Life Fundy march. We want photos! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

probably went as well as Andy's university talk, which has been conveniently forgotten. Not to mention the National Strike - hey, TK, how'd your day at home go? --PsygremlinParlez! 13:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. --PsygremlinSprich! 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thta's an old one. From the EXIF - "Date and time of data generation 00:01, 1 January 1980". Or else he only gets his camera out once a year and then finds the badderies are flat.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's a recent shot, regardless of the date stamp--he must be the kind of guy whose VCR flashes 12:00 all the time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Come off it, did you think I was serious? Digital cameras didn't even exist back in 1980.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, since my camera resets itself every time I change the batteries, I don't bother to dig through the menus and fix things like the date and time it thinks it is. I suppose if there was a critical reason to have that meta-data be correct I might though. Why don't they make these things so they remember through battery removal? Hell, they've got a great big memory card in them most of the time... why not add a few k of non-volatile memory for the clock? ħuman 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like for that one in the front middle with the yellow scarf to abort my pre-born bastard child, yummo --Opcn (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon?

There's an (alleged) anon assault taking place^img. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm takes place at the one moment of the day when even TK and his banhammer are absent. Coincidence? --Psygremlin話しなさい 14:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My word Psy, you're more suspicious than me, but Hmmm? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Database is locked--was gonna have a helpful sock start to clean up. Then I saw that over 500 pages had been messed with. Wow. Nasty. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[3]^img link. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd at Andy's actions. He takes all that time to block one wandal (last 500 edits anyway), then locks the database for only 90 minutes? "I did my part. Fuck it. I'll let someone else fix it later." Who wants to bet Andy will do little or no cleanup at all? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of damage. Two questions: how an it be undone, and while the database is locked, can they block the accounts? EddyP (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Effme, it's worse than I thought look at the 500 limit^img changes! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

659 articles 'improved'^img by my calculation. StarFish (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Won't it be easier to just restore from the last backup or something? Who cares if a few good faith edits by the plebes get undone? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Backups are for whimps and Liberals. StarFish (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly (almost) one year later. IIIIIIIInnnnterrrressstiiing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know if anything on this scale has happened to CP before? StarFish (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Call the Cinncinati office of the FBI, they will won't be able to help. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A certain CP sysop claimed to me that he was interviewed by the FBI twice regarding a pending investigation into vandalism of CP by the FBI cybercrime people in Chicago. He was, of course, unable to provide any specifics. I'm still chuckling at that. 17:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles vandalized, but Andy still needs to fuel a light persecution complex: "clearing out vandalism; not surprising that vandals repeated attacked this entry"^img --Sid (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou, Joaquin, and Wuhao1911 are cleaning up the mess. Nice to see some articles haven't been updated since I've been there, almost a year. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 16:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm loving how Andy made a few token reversions and is leaving the vast majority of the work to others. Maybe he's planning a new article: Liberal Anonymity EddyP (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What a total douchebag. He's got the nuke extension installed for his permission level. He can rollback all of a user's edits with a single click, yet he has Woohoo5iu134 toiling away there like a field hand. 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think NUKE only allows deletion of all articles createed by a user. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It's mass delete, not mass rollback. --Sid (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Then I take back the douchebag remark. He's a kindly and beneficent leader. It's only through hard work that one truly learns the meaning of thrift. Or some shit like that. 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised they don't use a bot to correct the vandalism. Is it that hard to write one for this sort of cases? — Pietrow ☏ 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a splendid opportunity for Uncle Ed to put his wiki-programming skills to good use.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's only been one "/24" and one "/16" IP block since and them by JPatt. TK mustn't want to block himself for when he wants to do it again. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I could write a mass rollback bot for them. Hey TK, I'll trade you a bot for an admin account. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog

More colours= more truer! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say it's not a blog when you get 'articles' like the March For life^img - just showing Andy's personal photos and not much else. Also comparing the photos from 2009 to 2010, it would appear this year's event was much mroe low key. Maybe it's just the weather but everyone is looking cold and pissed off. StarFish (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should explain the "gallery" tag to Andy sometime. ħuman 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The weather in the DC area Friday was nice, for January. MDB (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also like that "A stunning new report with new pictures is available here" - at TerryH's blog.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That article is funny. You want to know what the real tragedy is? Missing the Molly Hatchet concert because you had to spend your beer money on an abortion. 17:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe... and "New Jersey conservative activist Andrew P. Schlafly," someone should direct Terry to our article so he can get Andy's MI right - or better yet, stop using it, since Andy doesn't use it. ħuman 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it that Andy is such a bad photographer? Hey Dummy, you take a picture of the crowd behind you not the one in front of you! how an I supposed to lecherously pick out which fundies I would do if I can't see their faces? --Opcn (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy and ethnicity

Andy sez: "The reality is that almost any ethnic group today holds political positions that span the spectrum from left to right. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that race is no longer directly relevant [to politics]."

Coming from the same guy whose blog has special sections on Hollywood values, mainstream media bias, a 50-cite article on ACORN, and an article on Barack Obama that specifically mentions the "Black liberation theology" of his church as well as what percentages of the Muslim and Black votes he received. No racial overtones there?

Ultimately I think Andy's problem with the article had less to do with ethnocentrism and more to do with the fact that the article talks about a lineage of American intellectualism that, inexplicably, doesn't trace itself back to stalwart Protestant Values. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic. (2) Racial identity politics (e.g., "black liberation theology") are entirely different from race. (3) The racial overtones are in the "Affirmative Action President" article. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Andy is a practicing Catholic. In fact, there is evidence that he is not a Catholic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not this again. Of course he's Catholic. His mother's a catholic. His son is too. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And his brother is gay. None of this proves he's a Catholic. He takes many positions that are not Catholic. He apparently goes to a Congregationalist church. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I used to be a Catholic. It started innocently with petting a cute kitten, but I ended up not getting through the day without like a dozen cats. I lived in squalor, throwing cats at random passers-bys. Remember kids, it just takes a single purr to get addicted. --GTac (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The minister at that Congregational church said explicitly that Mr. Schlafly is not a member. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. Have any priests claimed responsibility for him? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"[Dara] Ó Briain has said he sees himself as an atheist, but “ethnically Catholic”: “I’m staunchly atheist, I simply don’t believe in God. But I’m still Catholic, of course." found all over the web. He once quipped^{(!love that word)}: "A Catholic who joined the Taliban would still be a Catholic, albeit a bad Catholic." The point being: Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Church, yes, but not anyone else. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's not much question that he was Catholic, but a lot of things changed for Andy over the years. He had many insights. Discovered a lot of truth. Got set free. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If Mr. Schlafly had removed himself from the Catholic Church upon becoming a creationist ten years ago, I doubt his son would identify as Catholic. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Baseless speculation. Here's more of it: Andy Jr. could be trying to stay on the good graces of Phyllis. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually speculation based on circumstantial evidence if you say he is Catholic. The opposite however, is baseless. Internetmoniker (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way it is possible to leave the Catholic church. You have to ask the church you were baptised in to strike you from the baptism records. Excommunication by higher ups would also do the trick. Internetmoniker (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an argument from incredulity. His argument is as devoid of logic as mine. I guess I was taking "baseless" as "not based in logic". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Excommunication removes you from the Catholic communion, but does not remove you from the Catholic Church. Also, since Mr. Schlafly was raised a Catholic and married in a Catholic ceremony, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose he is one — albeit one flirting with heresy — until given hard evidence to the contrary.

Neveruse, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that if Mr. Schlafly had converted to Protestantism while his children were still young, he would have made them convert as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an old joke about someone who was caught up in an argument between a bunch of Catholics and Protestants in Glasgow. When challenged by one of the diisputers he replied that he was an atheist. Ah, but are you a Catholic or a Protestant atheist?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable, but not a logical argument. I'm a little shocked you don't understand this, but I think it's just trolling. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I ever say it was a logical argument? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're both clear that you weren't making a logical argument... Did I ever say your argument wasn't reasonable? Twat. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't see how Andy's "official" faith affects the argument. He is profoundly a Protestant in his social and theological outlook. He believes in the Bible as sole authority, grace as sole source of salvation, I've never seen evidence that he's too fussed about sacraments or saints, he is a young earth creationist. That all points to Protestant.

Andy, like many Christians, is fundamentally an authoritarian, that is: he believes what he's told to believe and then he reads the Bible and thinks it proves that what he already believes is true. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He has also said that the Pope speaks with the authority of St. Peter, contrary to the historical Protestant position that the Pope is the Antichrist. This put him in conflict with PJR. [4] ListenerX^TalkerX 21:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He's also brushed off what the Pope says. Telling the Pope he was wrong about the death penalty comes to mind. I believe he concluded that papal encyclicals are only true if he agrees they are true. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly could not have called the Pope infallible if he were not still a Catholic. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Therefore Mr. Schlafly is not Catholic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He's a Cafeteria Catholic, like most of 'em (probably including the pope) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in such a thing, but still...No evidence he is a Catholic, lots of evidence that he is not. Doesn't Andy think everyone who wrote the Bible did so with the power of infallibility? God...wouldn't it be a lot easier if we could just ask him? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically Andy's position is not that the Pope is right, it's incredulity that the Pope would ever disagree with Andy, that would be a reversal of the natural order of the universe. "I'm sure no pope" has endorsed evolution, then when proven wrong by an encyclical he says it is "logically contrary to faith."

Like I said above, he believes X then he goes to find authorities and reads X into whatever they have said. The Pope was just an innocent bystander of Andy's craziness. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy is just a catholic who practices doublethink at times. But he would certainly never rebel and convert to another denomination. I just don't see that happening. Do you honestly believe he has the guts to do something like that? Saying things on his blog is one thing, but doing something drastically life-changing in support of his developing twisted views, nah. Internetmoniker (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In a rare upset CP has a passable article on something religious/political --Opcn (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Except their examples only include liberal deviations from Catholic theology. It doesn't include conservative deviations, like supporting the Iraq War or the death penalty. (Although, to be fair, it's my understanding that, strictly speaking, the RCC does not oppose the death penalty; it just believes there is no place for it in a society where life imprisonment is a realistic alternative.) MDB (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Like belongs with like"

I think TK is objecting to balkanization there... ListenerX^TalkerX 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think balkanization is splitting up by ethnic groups. TK objects in that diff to splitting up of ethnic groups. Coarb (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He might have misworded it; I get that impression because the thread is about "exaggerating the importance of ethnicity," which would tend to produce balkanization. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A conservative inveighing against balkanization? Ethnocentrism is one of the defining elements of authoritarian conservatism. Read this whole book, or here for the tldr version. Here's an insightful quote from the book:

Most of us associate with people who agree with us on many issues. Birds of a feather do, empirically, tend to flock together. But this is especially important to authoritarians, who have not usually thought things out, explored possibilities, considered alternate points of view, and so on, but acquired their beliefs from the authorities in their lives. They then maintain their beliefs against new threats by seeking out those authorities, and by rubbing elbows as much as possible with people who have the same beliefs. (The Authoritarians, p. 87)

Sound like anyone we know?

Dr. Altemeyer then explains why parody works: authoritarian conservatives rely deeply on social reinforcement to reassure themselves of their beliefs. So anyone who comes along and sings the right tune....

The need for social reinforcement runs so deeply in authoritarians, they will believe someone who says what they want to hear even if you tell them they should not... they rely on the authorities in their lives to provide their opinions... then once they have “their” ideas, someone who comes along and says what authoritarian followers want to hear becomes trustworthy. High RWAs largely ignore the reasons why someone might have ulterior motives for saying what they want to hear; it’s enough for them that another person indicates they are right. Welcome to the In-group!

In other words you can email Andy all you like that TK is a parodist (as PJR vainly attempted), but Andy has a deep psychological need to surround himself with people like TK.

Conservapedia itself is a massively ethnocentric place of course, with an "us vs them" bunker mentality that's out of control. The vast majority of Americans would be to Andy, if they dared to start editing, Deceitful Liberals. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Spare me the quotes from Bob ("People Who Take Too Much Exception to My Politics Have a Mental Disorder") Altemeyer, if you please. Nevertheless, as paradoxical as it may seem, there is an element of ethno-centrism in this case; the American national identity involves the melting pot, which means that making a big deal out of one's pre-melting-pot ethnic identity is frowned upon. See Hyphenated American. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Authoritarian conservatism is not a political identity, it's a psychological orientation - "conservatism" here meaning defending the moral authority of the establishment, the status quo. The Soviet party faithful were authoritarians, in fact studies showed that the hawks on both sides of the Cold War were psychologically horses of the same color.

As for the retarded "melting pot" metaphor, it conveniently ignores that at every step of the way conservatives fought to keep ingredients out of the bowl - Irish, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, you name it, at different points in history every ethnic minority group in America was assailed by conservatives as being unworthy of "mixing" its genes with the WASP establishment. Even today.

Evangelicals can claim they believe "We're all God's children" as much as they want, I'll believe them when they stop tuning in to TV hosts worrying about America's white-minority future. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Authoritarian conservatism is not a political identity..." Moving the goalposts much?

"As for the retarded 'melting pot' metaphor..." It ignores no such thing. The concerns (at least with the Irish and the Jews) were more cultural in nature.

"Evangelicals can claim they believe 'We're all God's children'..." Funny thing about that; evangelicals tend to be one of those multi-racial bunches... ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

LX, on 2 you're just wrong and on 3 you're so far from right you must be as am as drunk I ħuman 09:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2: How so? The primary reason for opposition to Irish immigrants was that they were Catholics, and it was only the Nazis who tried to portray Jews as a "race." Once the groups had assimilated (and American culture had altered itself in the process, which is what the melting pot was all about) only fringe groups remained very much opposed to them.

3: Are you speaking from experience, from statistics, or from an ignorant generalization that some hack plucked out of the air in aid of pulling a Godwin's? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought this was funny...

...so I thought I'd capture it^img Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

eeeerrrr, can you give me a hint? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you insist. Mostly because the word "Asshole" appears in the statement, on CP, which means that he has somehow surpassed the filter; and as a secondary aside, the user is in the same state of mind as I am currently. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think ace saw this instead. I did too when I first pressed your link. Internetmoniker (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted before was not the same as the one above now. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Drunk is an operative word --Opcn (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And you'd be correct. I did stick the wrong link there, saved from an earlier edit. You folks are quick on the draw, as I changed the link within a minute. Some people are good at drunk-editing, some fail miserably. I guess I'm the latter. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 11:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Saint Ronnie?"

This WIGO should be commented out; it is obvious that Mr. Schlafly is talking about the word rather than the economic policy it denotes. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be voted down. Best way to get rid of lame WIGOs is through shaming their writers. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

True; I suppose this is not quite in the libel range. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Because there have been a plethora of bad WIGOs lately so I am going to save it. This is more of an excuse to use the word plethora though, so I take no credit for the result. Yorick^{Doing public school work} 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing me an excuse to make the pedantic point that it should be "has been a plethora". Silly twit (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This one was mine, as I continue a string of negative WIGO's...I totally misread the linked diff. 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

The register misses the point.

I'm pretty sure that Rational wiki is responsible for the bulk of the grad school traffic at conservapedia. Not everyone who visits a site supports it. --Opcn (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I got the joke and voted it up. ħuman 08:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the Register even know the education levels of website viewers? They must have a very small sample from which to base conclusions. Since Andy is Conservapedia and Andy has two degrees, I guess that makes a pretty high lvel of education coupled with an extremely high level of idiocy. But of course, the only people we know actually use CP are his homeschoolers, that should bring the average down a lot. Also, does that article actually say that the teatards are an intelligent group of people? That is wrong on so very many levels. DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Various site traffic trackers have some concept of education level of the household or machine. It implies you've got that extension installed in your browser. --Shagie (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken's

favourite tool for these statistics is Quantcast. They give Conservapedia 120% of the average number of grad school visitors and RationalWiki 134%. - π 23:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert WIGO

Awesome. Watch the reply get reverted and oversighted as soon as possible. Andy has a weird habit of pwning himself. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been better if the user didn't include the Lenski part in his reply. "Do you accept only the opinions of experts?" would be enough to trigger BotP backtracking by Andy. Now I think he's just getting a Trolling/Liberal Trolling: Bye. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No way, andy actually replies^img with an attack against Lenski's education. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Andy thinks he won against Lenski. But has BotP been downgraded to just not relying on experts? Broccoli (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DanL added Andy's handling of the Lenski debacle as an example of the best of the public. It hasn't been removed since DanL was outed as a prodst. Does Andy really think he handled the Lenski affair well? There aren't many links to the correspondence on CP; I think Andy's only grudgingly keeping the letters on CP because he has to. 62.56.68.180 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea Paaarrrtay

Laugh at the teabaggers. Want to see a true grassroots movement's convention? Try this one. More than half the cost with much bigger names. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Less than", Shirley? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 15:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was running out the door when I finished that, and meant that the cost more than halves the price tag of the teabagger orgy. My error, but I'll leave it so people don't get confused by your reply. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It begins

Andy has started the lectures on writing.^img MDB (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. -- =w= 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

His explainations of why writing is important is cringeworthy. E.g. "Writing is essential to Christianity. Each week there are readings from the Bible that help enlighten everyone and strengthen our faith. Someone wrote the books in the Bible to make this possible." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone spotted the typos in his article about how to write property? Here's your starter for 10:

"Houghton College in New York recently recently started taking the highest critical reading and math scores for the SAT"

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's going to be full of lulz with this one. "Example 4: In the beginning was the 'λόγος', and the 'λόγος' was with God, and the 'λόγος' was God. (John 1:1). What does the Greek word 'λόγος' mean? (a) evil (b) light (c) universe (d) chaos (e) word" Let's see... Nope, no Bible passages in the SATs. No Greek translating in the SATs. Anyone mind if I setup a page to rip apart, as an English major, the writing lectures? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That question, while not SAT-style, is an interesting problem, though based purely on textual analysis, I think either b or e are reasonable choices, and c is a decent one, though not as good as the other two. Of course, if you know that passage, as Andy's students are likely to, its a slam-dunk to fill in e. It would be kind of like asking "Mary had a little _______; its fleece was white as snow" to anyone who had gone through American nursery school and kindergarten. MDB (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the homework assignments.

• Explain why Phyllis SchlaflySarah Palin has been far more important than the following "women":
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Oprah Winfrey
  • The Virgin MaryEleanor Roosevelt
• Discuss the lack of humor before Christianity.
• Disprove evolution.
• Imagine you are running for President. Explain how you will
  • Hire the best of the public to work on your campaign.
  • Overcome liberal media bias.
  • Appeal to the tea party movement.
• Take a long-accepted translation of an ancient work and remove liberal bias from it.

MDB (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does he actually know what the syllabus is for the SATs or is he making it up (or both)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that, Irrational Atheist. I just ran λόγος through Google translate, for what it's worth, and the translation is "reason", not one of the listed options. However, that may be because of context.Nick Heer 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's translated as the word (of God, in this context). My mistake. Nick Heer 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is cringeworthy: And it's still 11 months to Christmas!^img But we get our presents in January! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"example of paralyzed person in church" - What the FUCK? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a stub under the "importance of attitude" topic. I'm betting on some schmaltzy story. MDB (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would seriously consider choosing to be illiterate rather than having Andy teach me his special brand of American English. SJ ^Debaser 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too funny! Public speaking is really nothing more than reading what has been written down?^img Please, Andy, more of your stupid insights! I need the humor. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. -- =w= 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times no. Unless you are someone whose entire job revolves around public speaking (minister, politician), the absolute surest way to guarantee a dull speech is to just "read what is written". I've set through a talk given by someone who was obviously reading the presentation directly from a sheet of paper. It was so dull, I found myself hoping for a massive coronary just to get me out of the auditorium. MDB (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Even speech classes emphasize how to speak to people, how to maintain eye contact, how to use your hands properly, how to speak to the back of the room and the front of the room at the same time, how to deal with a question and answer approach, and so forth. Which is why I found it hilarious that Andy feels that public speaking is nothing more than reading what has been written. No wonder he tanked on Colbert. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I haven't looked too much at the other courses Conservapedia offers, but aren't lectures supposed to offer information that is actually useful? This lecture has zero useful information, apart of a) common sense morale boosting (yes, writing is important; yes, you can do a whole lot of stuff just by writing; yes, if you write you'll get better and you're able to use fancier words eventually), and b) stuff that's pretty irrelevant as far as writing itself goes (I don't remember darn about the "tips" and requirements that were part of our equivalent of SAT, 10-and-some years ago, but I sure remember a lot of stuff that were said in our language and literature classes). I'd like to ask Andy: Where's the big plan? Where's the awesome, overwhelming display of erudition? Where's the part where you show that this course is going to be informative? Right now, all I know is that a) writing sure is important, b) SATs are confusing, but some people paid good money to get their kids educated, hence this course exists, and c) this course takes 15 weeks. Come on! Give us a reason to care! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Give him time. This is just the introduction, and a certain degree of fluff is to be expected. (Great googaly moogaly, I'm defending Andy.) MDB (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

$20 might be a better bet. Or even this? (being a brit, I don't really know) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Slightly related, DMorris needs a refresher course in punctuation marks. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

he left a bit out. "Someone wrote the books in the Bible to make this possible. However, they didn't talk English as good as I do, which are why I are writings the Bible all overs again and learning yous how to writes proper too." --PsygremlinPrata! 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy has been wiki-writing too much. I highly doubt the SAT evaluators will go for one sentence paragraphs. Sterile syringe 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but shouldn't AndyPandy's lectures on writing be limited only to: Don't Do It. 'Cause as we all know, the more you write the more liberal you are.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Andy's flipflopping gain. Before it was "Don't read a book, write a book!", then it was "Don't write a book!"^img, now he's back to his old way. I guess the only consistency is that he always against the reading of books. Go forth and learn, young homeschoolers. DickTurpis (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. Aschlafly is always deleting stuff from his userpage. -- =w= 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A Brief History of Logos

Before Christianity were the stoics. One of the earliest stoics was Heraclitus who used the word logos as a core part of the philosophy. Logos was what separated humans from animals - the ability to talk, to use words, to understand reason. It was an attempt to understand the reason of the universe. Things come and go in accordance with logos. The good times and the bad times are both part of the larger balance of the universe, and logos. Being good in stoic philosophy was to be in accordance with logos - in harmony with the universe. Good things happen, bad things happen. And thus, we have a stoic person today - that takes the good with the bad. Anyways, when the Gospel of John was being written it was trying to appeal to the greek intellectuals (Matthew was written for the Jewish people - showing a close alignment of Jesus with the OT prophecies). And thus, the author of the Gospel of John wrote "In the beginning was logos and logos with God and logos was God" - trying to draw stoicism and Christianity together. Word and Reason are both acceptable translations of Logos. For a good read of stoicism, I suggest Heraclitus [5][6] Epictetus (born a slave) [7] and Marcus Aurelius (Roman emperor) [8]. --Shagie (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DWiggins

Just blocked by TK "Troublemaker / Prevaricator: talk,talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Bye-bye, Brit". I thought they'd made a lot of good edits no? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TK must not have taken his meds today. Shortening a ban on a university in a liberal city? Tsk tsk. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"password thief"? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume it has to do with this. -Redback^{not Redneck} 16:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, TK, make my day!

A MYOB ban on User 188. PLEASE!^img I'll stop calling you an asshole for the length of the ban. Pinky swear! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. -- =w= 23:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eisenhower

was liberal^img? --Psygremlin話しなさい 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He did say something to the effect that a political figure who opposes social security and farm programs will become persona non grata, and he said that we should guard against the Military-Industrial Complex. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy rewrites history with his magic hands once more. EddyP (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If he strikes too many more Founding Fathers off the "conservative" list, he will alienate most other right-wingers; his removal of Jefferson, who believed in small government and made attempts to pay down the national debt, speaks volumes. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eisenhower wasn't exactly liberal, but he wasn't terribly conservative. I'm surprised he removed Lincoln from the list. Isn't that one of the Republicans go-to guys to show what a great party they are? Hasn't Andy tried to claim Lincoln as one of his own? Of course, Lincoln was hardly conservative, but that never stopped them before. DickTurpis (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, the conservative. Jefferson, the fiscal conservative. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For his day, Ike was a centrist. I remember hearing once that the only reason he ran as a Republican was that they talked him into it first; both parties wanted him, because his election was a sure thing, because of that whole "winning World War II" thing. MDB (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, if you're not Reagan, then you're a libral. No argument. Conservatism was invented in 1981 and anything else is a poor imitation of the One True Conservative. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just that before Reagan they didn't have the powerful new conservative words required. — Pietrow ☏ 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Laager mentality

I think Andy said in his transcript of that radio talk with mummy, that "anybody can edit CP". Well, I see 48-hours after TK allowed Anon to run amok, account creation is still turned off. (and no, Ace, nobody mentioned lager). --PsygremlinParlez! 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By "laager" do you mean the military fortification? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Andy said people are removed by the "Best of the public"--Thanatos (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tim Tebow

Tim Tebow is in the news because he will be starring in an anti-abortion ad during the Superbowl. It got me thinking: given that Tebow was a homeschooler and is a figure that almost everyone recognizes, Andy doesn't talk about him that much. CP's article on cp:Tim Tebow is about as stubby as a non-Ed article gets. Any thoughts? Keegscee (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he is mentioned on Example of bias on Wikipedia and one of the Conservative Parables is a fairly obvious biography of the guy. - π 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob?

What's with the title of this horrific image?^img Who's Kara? Can we see her in her yellow dress? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he got his CP uploads confused with his private pretty girl pictures. The 'Kara Yellow Dress 08 Cover' refers to (Warning: Kinda NSFW, definitely creepy) this picture (which has that exact title) I'm sure it's in plenty of other places. What this tells us about Rob's mind I shudder to think. EDIT Looks like she's Kara Duhe - a porn star. Thanks for that unintentional glimpse into your life Rob. StarFish (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to clear my cache and cookies after clicking on that link. Rob, I'm looking forward to your explanation of this. someone wanna WIGO our friend's browsing habits? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any other explanation than Rob's been caught red handed (sorry!) Looks WIGOable to me but I'll leave to someone more able to check and create one if they want to. My Wigos usually get minus several million. Thanks for the NSFW thing - looks like it is a porn site. Go Rob! StarFish (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted and moved. EddyP (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Busted. Utterly, totally busted Rob. You, despite being a "Christian", like and collect teh porno. Oh well. Internet 1 Rob Smith 0. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't resist. EddyP (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha awesome. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a blog with "non-nude" in the name and the guy post pictures of attractive women with their clothes on. Is this some kind of weird Christian porn? It is okay, so long as you don't see her boobies. Reminds me of those jokes about Puritans getting excited by the sight of woman's ankle. - π 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the copy underneath the picture? "Kara is multi-orgasmic, which means she can have as many as 4 orgasms within five minutes." Although it does then prattle on about how 'glamour girls' increasingly look like porn stars. Whatever. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I lost interest after the non-nude bit. All this talk about NSFW got my hopes up. - π 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The blog is dedicated to a guy named Ron Harris. His [WP article]has links that'll bring you to the good stuff. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda went to WP and nommed that shite article for deletion. I think I did, anyway. ħuman 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been researching the issue at length. - π 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Length" indeed! _{Get it? Length?} TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just surprised his porn includes females. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The bodies of millions killed by communists did seem more his type. - π 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this pic is raw stock before he pastes on Stalin or McCarthy's head. --Kels (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Imma burn a sock to tease him about it later. Suggest we all try to keep this alive until they call the FBI. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The best bit is the fucking idiot posts it on CP of all places. He must have been copy / pasting the image title and got the wrong one. StarFish (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply Epic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I always thought that Karajou is male. Vulpius (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob's clearly enjoying a game of "Masturbation Minefield". You start with a selection of pornographic pictures, and hide a few pictures of things like death camps, bloated corpses, and nasty injuries in there. After arranging the images in to a random slideshow, Rob will begin pounding his pud and hoping that he doesn't hit an atrocity at the wrong time. The risk is that he bends his brain to the point where he's unable to get wood without switching on the History Channel.--^{Ask me about your mother} 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Boy, Man, I mean Wow. You guys take the bait everytime, GARR-AUN-TEED. Watta ya gonna do, oversite the last WIGO? RobSmith^{don't bother me} 22:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see you were doing it as joke to get our attention. Nice post hoc, Rob. - π 23:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rob, are you making your little soldier cough custard while editing CP, or do you take breaks for that specific purpose? Either way, Matthew 5:28 is worth a look. JC will not be impressed. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Um, excuse me Rob? So you're saying that you

1. Got the idea to pull one over on us,
2. Found a creepy almost-porn site,
3. Uploaded a Holocaust pic and intentionally gave it the same name as a pic on said almost-porn site,
4. Sat back and twiddled your thumbs waiting for us to figure it out?

It sounds about as plausible as Obama being born in Kenya and covering it up the whole time just to be president! Junggai (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That theory pretty much fails at the "Rob got an idea" stage. --Kels (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at little Rob pretend it was all a big joke. Dude, we all do it - there is nothing to be ashamed of. Unless you think JC was watching. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

About as plausible as Obama's explanation why his approval and agenda are going down in smoke and flames. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

“”Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts?[9]

Meh. Change the subject all you want. Who cares about Obama? Not when we can be looking at more pictures of the lovely Miss Duhe.TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr Rob, yeah hi there. Sorry, all your Obama bluster aside, but this section was detailing your sordid teen fantasies. It was a joke, right? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh Rob. It's nice to know that you take time out of your busy commie hunting schedule to play a quick game of flog the dolphin. No really..... Without mentioning Obama or communist or liberals, explain what the joke is in this whole debacle. SirChuckB^{That is all} 04:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that would end up something like this. --Kels (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Rob, so you're agreeing with me then that your post hoc was full of shit? Or are you saying that Obama's explanation is plausible? You really are a soup of negativity, aren't you Rob? At least I beat my meat with a light heart. Junggai (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. FYI: You're not helping your cause, btw, by quoting Charles Krauthammer. One angry little man quoting another angry little man cuts no water here. Junggai (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"HAHA! YOU TOTALLY PLAYED RIGHT INTO MY HANDS! YOU SEE, IT WAS MY PLAN ALL ALONG TO GET YOU TO REACT, YOU'RE ACTUALLY ALL PUPPETS DANCING TO MY STRINGS!". Awesome. That's just a classic response of a twelve year old when they don't want to admit that they were wrong. I just read about this specific archetype in an article the other day (was it cracked? Can't find it atm), it's hilarious to see RobS trying to pull it off. --GTac (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 1. - π 11:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one like it when JC watches me--Opcn (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the one I was talking about, Pi. Quick, someone send it to Rob! --GTac (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to turn to Christ, Rob

He's always watching, you know. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All things in moderation (how does one fornicate in moderation?). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know how, ask her. ħuman 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Stick it in halfway Stop at second base Cyber her online. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

*frantically taking notes* --PsygremlinHable! 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wordy "Obama's an elitist"

Yes, Obama's an elitist.^img Hey, wingers, you know what? You should want a president who is smarter than you. You should demand the president surround himself with intellectual heavyweights who may, at times, disagree with the president. You should want someone who puts everyone's interests ahead, rather than some good ol' boy you can have a beer with. Haven't 2001-2009 taught you anything yet? American politics has gotten to the point that short-term-memory eight-year-olds are running the show and being damned petulant about it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. -- =w= 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it with capitalizing the every word in the first sentence? I find it really hard on the eye, as I. Read. It. Like. This. And. It's. Very. Stacatto. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be like a newspaper headline, which I think usually would be all-capped like a book title. ħuman 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, TK's the only one who does it, or at least they don't all do it. And he capped one "The" and not the other... ħuman 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting frustrated with the stupidity that emanates from the wingers. Earlier I saw a report quoting Fox that stated that Air America Radio's bankruptcy shows that America is ditching liberal ideas. No, it's not. It's showing that a network with few high profile voices, an inability to sell advertisement and a lack of good programming is doomed to failure. Their previous bankruptcy was due to management issues. There are other liberal syndication networks still in good standings.

It would be great if we could have adults being adults, and discussions about rational, reasonable issues. Instead we get very immature ideas and filler, and a whole bunch of hyperbole and ignorance. America doesn't want an elitist president, for example; they want a guy they could have a beer with. Democrats take 60 seats in the senate, but they should listen to what the people want; one Republican wins a senate seat held by a Democrat who passed away, against a poorly run campaign to boot, and the people have spoken. It's ridiculous and it's only getting worse. Conservapedia is just part of that infuriating faction of the American public. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly it. Look at the whole goddamned teabagging movement. A democrat wins the presidential election soundly, and the democrats win overwhelmingly in congress. What does this prove? We have to speak truth to power! We have to make the people's voices heard! We the people cannot allow these elitist despots to push through the agenda they were elected on! Here's a fun game: try to imagine what America would look like if the wingers got their way: Obama fails miserably, Republican ideologues hold congress for ages with a more puritanical nut than Bush in charge. 16:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And they can't even be honest about the Tea Party movement itself. It's billed as a "grassroots" movement by FoxNews, which created it! It's promoted as a bipartisan or non-political movement, when it's all wingers. It's got extremists and nationalists heading up TP groups throughout the country, but somehow it's simply "the people's movement." Honesty, rationality and critical thinking seem not to apply to the very people this kind of shit brings out from under their rocks. And they fill the 24 hour news networks with it.

You want to know what people want? See at the elections. And stop forcing your opinion onto everyone because you have a media empire with which to do it. And TK? You're still an asshole. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual Dishonesty and the Right

The claims that the Teabagging Party movement are "grassroots" are belied by its own attendance numbers. When Fox News relentlessly promotes them (the original Tax Day protests, Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally) they get decent to impressive numbers. When Fox doesn't promote them, like the 4th of July rallies, the numbers are laughable. To give another example of intellectual dishonesty... moveon.org sponsored a "Bush in 30 Seconds" video contest. One video was submitted that compared Bush to the Nazis, protests ensued, and moveon.org pulled it, rather quickly. But all you heard was "moveon said George Bush was a Nazi! Those awful liberals!" But now, people of the same political philosophy, if not the exact same people, claim Obama is simultaneously a Socialist, a Nazi and Muslim. MDB (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Or the people who intentionally darken Obama's photos... It's a bunch of children who can't grow up, think for themselves or even bother living in reality. And it's growing because it has a network, a political party and many formerly-underground groups who want legitimacy. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See...I've always kind of wondered about that. Not to paint with a broad brush. I know both sides of the isle have their respective shares of idiots. But the more I read of the so called "conservatives," the more I see them in the news and read their ramblings and hear their words, the more I wonder about something. I know its been joked about before and mentioned and mulled, but honestly...is there really some kind of requirement to being a conservative today that you have to be a hypocrite? Looking back I see it more and more. The same person who says adulterers will burn in hell is also the one who gets caught having an affair (Swaggart). The same person who says drug users are losers we wouldn't waste money on rehabilitating goes into rehab for a dependency on pills (Rush). Then we have the preacher who decries gay marriage and then gets caught buying drugs and getting massages from gay prostitutes (Haggard). A senator tries to get a nude beach closed on the grounds he wants to protect children and then gets busted sending lewd texts to senate pages (Foley). Abortion is a society destroying sin but its ok to shoot the doctors and bomb the clinics. When their president is in office those who disagree with him are traitors, but when our president is in office doing everything you can to defame, discredit, or decry him is a patriotic duty. Its ok for the government to tell people who they can marry but heavens forbid you try to regulate the sale of handguns. Etc...etc...etc...

I guess my point is its one thing to stand at the podium and say you should be in charge because you want to serve the public interest and do right for the country and better our society and meanwhile be boinking your secretary, taking under the table hand outs, so on and so forth. That person is a crook and liar. But the person who stands at the podium and says he should be in charge because he so much more moral than everyone else and believes in traditional family values, yadda yadda, and HE is boinking his secretary, taking under the table hand outs...this person is a hypocrite and theocrat. Maybe its just me but I can at least stomach and work with the first guy. The other guy I have nothing but contempt for. And maybe its just me, and maybe I'm off my rocker, but I've been seeing that guy more and more in the conservative ranks lately. -Tygrehart

I would submit that the people who murder abortion providers are not hypocrites. They are extremist zealots, to be sure, but if someone honestly believes that abortion is the taking of a human life, then it is not hypocritical to use violence to stop abortion. (It's wrong for a whole host of other reasons, but at least its not hypocritical.)

Now, if you want some intellectual amusement, try to get a pro-lifer to answer whether or not they think doctors who perform abortions should receive whatever penalty they feel is appropriate for first degree murder. I tried it once. He avoided the question repeatedly, but finally, after essentially demanding he answer, he admitted they would not support that, but still tried to argue he thought a fetus was a human life. MDB (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I could split the hair about one of the usual arguements from pro-lifers being that abortion is murder and murder is wrong, thus making those who think its ok to kill the doctors and staff involved hypocrites, but your observation is noted and will be considered should I ever engage in this topic of discussion again. Still, I ask again if anyone else has noticed an upswing in the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality amoungst the right these days. -Tygrehart

Just playing Devil's Advocate here... I don't think they view killing an abortion provided as "murder", per se; I think they view it as justifiable homicide. I'm not defending that view, mind you; I'm just pointing out what I perceive their logic to be.

As for an upswing in "do as I say, not as I do"... hhhmmm... I'm not sure. One of the things you learn from reading Shakespeare is "great men have great flaws" (great in the "influential" sense). From Shakespeare, Caesar was overly ambitious, Hamlet was indecisive, etc. From recent history, Nixon was paranoid, Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants, etc. Couple that with a media that will expose your flaws eventually. Add in an American right that's set itself up as the nation's moral guardians, many of whom have very prominent voices (can you name a left wing moral critic -- all I can think of are Jim Wallis and C. Weldon Geddy), and "do as I say..." cases are inevitable.

And lets not kid ourselves... liberals aren't immune from moral failings. Bill Clinton's sex scandals are obvious (though I personally suspect Bill and Hillary have an open relationship, but they could never admit that in public. And if I'm feeling catty, I'll add "they're both allowed to sleep with other women.") And John Edwards ought to be fucking ashamed of himself -- cheating on a wife who has cancer, knocking up his mistress, getting a staffer to take the blame, lying about it for months. He's a disgrace.

Now, of course, liberals generally take the "consenting adults" philosophy, which makes them less open to charges of hypocrisy. But our leaders can't claim that much moral high ground. MDB (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article

So whereabouts should I dump this? I presumed it belonged somewhere in the CP namespace with a link to it from assfly's main page but I don't know what the nomenclature is that we use. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Disappointed homeschoolers? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whooee! Crundy took my suggestion! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is that such a surprise? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Many of the most influential people in history were writers...

...starting with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the authors of the four Gospels."

Not the first time Andy has pissed off the ghost of Aristophanes. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention most of the Old Testament, which was passed down as oral history and mythology before anyone got round to writing it down. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of a dumb thing to say anyway? People who write stuff are going to be more influential than people who don't write stuff (on average) simply because more people get to hear (read) what they're saying. X Stickman (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Even if he is going to pooh-pooh the ancient Greeks, someone should at least tell him that (according to Christian tradition, anyway) Moses preceded the Apostles as a well-known and influential writer. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx3 bastards!) Of course it's dumb, but Andy has to justify the $120 he fleeces from the poor kids' parents. Anyway, surely we're only a hop, skip and a jump from cp:Greatest Works of Literature Written by Teenagers/Homeschoolers/Conservatives? --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stickman that's an interesting point. I guess it would be MOST accurate to say that the most influential people in history were either writers (Horace, Ovid) or written about (Socrates, Jesus) or both (Julius Caesar).

I wonder if you gave Andy a list of ancient names, what he would make of them. "Ovid? Oh, yes, the Battle of Ovid. Ignored by public schools because they suppress how important military history is." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody with a sock to burn want to mention Homer et al. It'll be funny to watch Andy claim there were no writers before Jesus, like he did with comedy. --PsygremlinSnakk! 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

X Stickman, that is a conclusion that is firmly supported by memetics (or whatever you might prefer to call it) which was named by Richard Dawkins, who is an atheist; Atheists are always wrong.--Opcn (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What did Jesus write? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the difference...?

"This image is considered copyrighted by its creator, who has specifically authorized free use of this image anywhere world-wide." and "This image is considered copyrighted by its creator, who has specifically granted permission for free use of this image in Conservapedia."? If it's "free use" "in Conservapedia," and Conservapedia's license is "Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer..." That disclaimer reads, "By contributing information to Conservapedia, you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." Am I wrong, or is giving "free use" for use "in Conservapedia" granting "free use" "anywhere world-wide?" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If the image was licensed as a condition of posting then I believe that license applies to any subsequant use. The site should have rejected it if the license terms were not acceptable. (Not a lawyer - legal opinion worthless :) )Hamster (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the general copyright notice doesn't appear to allow for other licences. Our equivalent says the following:

"RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA. Unless released by the author(s), such material falls under the terms under which it was released by the original authors. Under these circumstances, the use of the material on RationalWiki is per allowance in the original license, or in some circumstances, per fair use."

CP has nothing comparable to that, so they'll end up with conflicting copyright/licence statements. --Thor's Mighty Phallus (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang! We should have got a lawyer to write our copyright notice as well. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, hope you'll report this!

The man who brought the hidden video of ACORN people to the right wing has been arrested for trying to illegally tap Senator Landrieu's phones. If it's important that the "liberal media" report on the problems of ACORN, then shouldn't it be just as important to expose those who attempt crimes against our lawmakers? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come now; everyone knows that one only condemns crimes of that sort if they do not share the political sympathies of the criminal. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

IT FINALLY HAPPENED! Can't wait to see how this will affect his case with ACORN. THERE IS A GOD!--Thanatos (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the conservatives to start arguing its a frame-up as revenge for exposing ACORN. MDB (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Cyber Bullies

So apparently a girl killed herself after being taunted online by "liberal" cyber bullies. It is currently unknown how Andy knows they are liberal, but expect a hilarious response.--Ericm6 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

un-WIGOed

Well I put a WIGO up about it, but Terry Koeckritz put up a story about a 15yo girl who was bullied to the point of taking her life, never attempted to connect it with liberals, except to say it was all the liberals fault. --Opcn (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Once you seize the moral high ground by defining "liberal" as "people who do bad things," it's pretty easy for Andy to do what he does. SockityMcSockSock (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) _{make me a sysop, dammit.}

Per this discussion and not wanting to turn a tragedy into a WIGO, I removed it. But I could be wrong. Keegscee (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove WIGOs comment them out, you screw up the number table things. Also TK you are a fucking pig. - π 00:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Who ever created the wigo stuffed up the number. I'll ask Nx to clear the number. - π 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Turning a tragedy into a WIGO = bad. Pointing out that a tool is turning a tragedy into political fodder in a stupid and hurtful way = why we're here, IMHO. SockityMcSockSock (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I mention TK is a fucking pig? - π 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, but some things bear repeating. Could be a ripe opportunity for bans if anyone should object to such an obvious case of exploitation. TK, you may well be the first person to actually die from a lack of class. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel ill after reading that. I'm no stranger to watching Conservapedia manipulate horrific things like that to their own ends, but it doesn't make it any less disgusting when they do it repeatedly. In fact, it makes it more disgusting. SJ ^Debaser 00:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...aaaaand he follows up with a sexist Godwin's Law^img violation. Dude's on a roll. SockityMcSockSock (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Capt. -- =w= 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the comments on this page, and elsewhere, about me and others, prove what liberal sensibilities are quite clearly. The same kind of taunting and vile name calling, in place of reasoned arguments against what a person believes, is shown here daily, like the taunts described in the news article about that girl. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You called the bullies liberal without any sources. Name calling anyone? Keegscee (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is that Liberals do X there for X is only done by liberals? If it rains the road is wet, so since the road is wet it must be raining, no one could have washed their car or anything --Opcn (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing that, however repugnant to someone, isn't an excuse to use personal attacks and name calling. Straying off point, using one thing to excuse another, isn't rational. The name calling and personal attacks here offer circumstantial proof that what I said is true. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was you using this tragedy to advance an agenda that has brought on the name calling, not that you are calling anyone names or using fallacies of weak correlation --Opcn (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no rational discussion to be done with anyone who believes the world is only 6,000 years old, that Obama was born in Kenya, and that liberals want the terrorists to defeat us. When you make up stuff beyond the evidence that is openly available, you've dismissed reality and rationality. So why bother being rational, when it's more fun riling you up by using dirty words and laughing at your stupidity? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you guys berate gays, liberals, minorities, non-Christians, non-Americans, and so forth. How fucking stupid are you to say that liberals are the only ones name-calling, when you make labels your name calling? "He's a socialist!" "He's a Marxist!" "Homosexuals are sinners!" and so forth. Your ignorance of your own hypocrisy is staggering, but that you feel it necessary to play holier-than-thou here is hilarious. You're still an asshole and an idiot, and now a pig. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah TK, learn to read Aurebesh.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record I'm pretty sure TK does not think most of those things, but is simply towing the CP party line, as evidenced by offboard discussions with him. --Opcn (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

At least I am not personally attacking, in public, and calling people vile names, unless you are saying "Socialist", "Marxist" are vile names? You cannot see the difference? But of course you do, and merely post here to obsfucate and drive the subject matter off track. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you are simply maligning whole categories of people --Opcn (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They may not be vile names, TK, but your intent is clear. Just because you try to hide it doesn't mean that you aren't attacking people. Keegscee (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Terry, did your widdle feelings get hurt? I never knew you were such a sensitive widdle flower. Listen, dickhead, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, so saying you're a vile pile of filth is nothing more than pointing out the obvious. Making broad, sweeping attacks against groups of people based on nothing but your prejudices is another matter entirely. Now go back to trolling CP where you're actually wanted (for some reason). DickTurpis (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying, "Marxists dictated this economic theory," that's one thing. If you're saying, "Obama is a Marxist!" because he does something you don't like, that's name-calling. How can this not be clear? Obama has never instilled a single Marxist idea of economics. The bailout was under Bush's watch, but it was the government *loaning* money, which it has done since the US formed as a country. The government loaning money is in the Constitution! So when you stop being a complete asshole and the turd in Assfly's bowl, hoping to keep your bullshit powers at CP because no one else wants you around, we'll stop making fun of how much of an internet troll you are. If your feelings get hurt, too fucking bad. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty disgusting, and TK, you are a worm who isn't half as smart as he likes to think he is. But then again, this is par for the course... remember Andy's obsession with school shootings all being the fault of liberals? H. Randolph Twist (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be new here. School shootings are a liberal trait. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on guys, leave TK alone. After all, liberals are trying to invite more Muslims into the country, which will make the US morally depraved like the UK. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, shit like this gets you mocked. Look above. You blame the liberal media for not reporting on the overblown ACORN story, which is landing quite a few people in court for wiretapping charges, but where are the links for the court cases, or the guy getting arrested for attempting to wiretap a senator's office? You claim the liberal media doesn't want to cover stories you find important, even when they're completely false (as the teleprompter-with-kids story is), but you neglect to mention anything that goes against your ideology. In other words, stop tossing the rocks in your own glass house, asshole. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Being mocked is one thing, Irrationalatheist. Logical refutation is another. But name calling, outing of a persons full name for no other reason than hating them, and personally attacking someone for their own opinions is totally different. Please stop dressing up your distaste for CP in some false intellectual wrapping. The motivations anyone can read above have nothing to do with political or intellectual disagreements, and everything to do with hate and intolerance. I am talking about things happening here, not on CP. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you understand, IrrationalAtheist? TK fights the powah! Now he's playing victim on his talk page. "Waah! I was blocked for 30 seconds! RW is an autocratic regime!" What's the matter TK, are you frustrated we're not WIGOing your awful attempts at parody? Take my advice Terry and leave the funny to the pros. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK if you don't want people to comment on it, don't put it out there. This includes your real name, which you gave to a journalist, and you diatribes on the main page. As for abusing a tragic event to make a "point", if you give hate, you will receive hate. - π 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK hates it when people out others real names^img Aceⁱ⁹ 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ace and Pi, nowhere in the article RW used to say that was my name, did the reporter state that user was the CP Admin known as TK. Nowhere. You made the connection totally on supposition, and over my objections. One Bureaucrat here agreed, and removed all such reference's, and after he apparently left RW, he was reversed, and the community guidelines were changed, post facto. How is that fair? And Ace, both Trent and Ames have publicly, in many places outed their own names, with links to RW and CP. For Ace to equate and claim that is the same thing is a lie. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, how did we work out Terry Koeckritz is TK, there is no obvious hints? This reminds me of Ken

. You also use that article to claim we are a vandal site, if you want to split hairs what was actually said was some of the members participated in vandalism, not that the site was for vandals. This is a wiki you dumb motherfucker, things change on it; including policy which we are constantly debating, refining and revising. - π 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong once again, Pi. Here is the Los Angeles Times quote, in full:

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And -- by their own admission -- engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: "Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants." [10]

So, as I always point out, it was the Los Angeles Times stating this was a vandal site. Why did they do that? Because of the things members here told the Times reporter! As for things changing, you dumb Mofo, changing things post facto to make violating the rules here okay isn't logical or rational, just mean-spirited, and I am sad most of you posting here keep proving what this place is really about. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"changing things post facto to make violating the rules here okay isn't logical or rational" yet you block people for being editors, despite the fact you edit here yourself, because you changed the rules "post facto". TK the whole vandal site thing is played out. We, as a community, don't condone vandalism, but yes I am sure people who are members have vandalised the site. Now stop getting your panties in a twist just because we monitor and comment on the site. - π 07:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I care nothing about monitoring or commenting. I care when people like you keep posting lies, Pi. Several on this page, like saying I am calling this a vandal site, when it was the Times, saying I was calling people (plural) at work, getting them in trouble, when I have never, not ever, done such a thing. The only Rational Wiki user I have spoken to at work (or anywhere else) was at his email invitation to do so. Quit using distortion to obfuscate legitimate complaints. Attack ideas, if you must, but stop with the personal hate. You should stop getting your panties in a twist...and stick to the facts. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 07:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose all those mentions of the term "vandal site" in your block log were added by the Times as well? -Redback^{not Redneck} 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay the idea that you can use a tragic death of a girl to score a cheap political "points" is disgusting. How do you know her bullies are liberals any way? And shouldn't using tragedies for political gain be off limits? - π 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have posted here, Pi, I can only go by my personal knowledge, and the personal destruction hate here, a liberal site, and the comments I read here, show me that is a pretty common liberal trait. I am not talking here about generalities about conservatives or liberals, which I don't mind, but very personal vituperation aimed at one person because you disagree with them, where their family can come across it, unlike those of you who are permitted by the rest to hide in anonymity like cowards, as you bash those of us who cannot, only due to your own actions. I have shown enough here to others who had doubts about my assessment of RW, as to if this is a serious and notable place. Through many of the members own comments (see Irrational just below) and actions you have shown it isn't, and will never be. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So you have nothing to support the claim but your own prejudices. How do you imagine the girls family would feel if they knew that that, based on nothing but your own hate, you are using her death to bludgeon us and other liberals who have nothing to do with it? - π 08:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, TK, I mock you because you're simply an asshole. You're predictable and paranoid, which makes you even more entertaining. You're stupid in wisdom, meaning you don't even realize when your arguments fall flat because they're so hypocritical. And attacking someone for their opinions? I'm attacking you for your trolling, you fucking moron. I could care less what kind of ice cream you like or which band you prefer on long drives. But I will point, laugh and ridicule because you think Obama's a marxist socialist muslim manchurian candidate seeking to overthrow the country. I mean that shit is right up there with L. Ron Hubbard's paranoia. Whether or not you truly believe half of what you say doesn't matter. You say it and therefore you get made fun of harshly. If you don't like it, get the fuck off the internets. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining? I think it's the opinion of most observers that Conservapedia would be a more entertaining place without TK. This is one of the key similarities between Conservapedia and RationalWiki. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times article also states that Terry Koeckritz is 56. I think that is no longer the case. Just like the few RW members who admitted to having vandalised CP 30 months ago are no longer active editors here. Of course what is demonstrably true is that Terry Koeckritz is a liar - witness the UCLA plagiarism case, the "self-made" Christmas neon image, and numerous other examples, not to mention PJR's indictment. Now Terry, will you lie again and deny that you set up the "Godspeed" discussion board where you attempted to recruit, aid and abet people to help vandalise CP and that you have actively engaged in editing here under the pseudonyms of User:E.Wig and User:NightTrain?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite all TK's protestations here, he remains the cunt who tried to gain some kind of leverage (only he knows what) out of Dean's wife's death, by posting that disgusting message on his own user page (and maybe Dean's too?). The man is lower than scum and deserves the same respect accordingly. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TK: Explain to me how this does not constitute "name-calling?" Love and kisses, Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)