Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive170

This is an archive page, last updated 31 March 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <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)

More Ed on WP

Another piece of User 188's silliness is up for deletion ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's still sulking. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abortion & Breast Cancer

I note that Ken's^img reawakening the debate just to get a link to one of his pets. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Monique^img is the one who awakened the beast. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eff me! Nice screed. I missed that! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See here for the full text ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ken is asking for a comment by someone blocked on the same day he created the account, in September. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] is a complete dismantlement of the entire medical issue. I'd really love to see Andy tear into this guy in his own particular way. It'd be Lensky all over again. --Opcn (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing Andy get trounced by Gorski would be awesome. (more) Of course, he was totally impervious to Pal, so who knows. Corry (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK only knows the cheap stuff

Someone doesn't eat a lot of foie gras, hmm, TK?^img – Nick Heer 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And probably has not read The Wind in the Willows... ListenerX^TalkerX 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Luburrral reedin' – Nick Heer 21:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how a member of the Schlafly family is hosting a website with members bitching about how rough things are for workin'-class folk. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone read the article? They listed that it was JW red in their complaints, ignoring the fact that JW red is one of the cheaper varieties of scotch available. --Opcn (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of a Lagavulin guy myself. how's that for snobbery? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I read that comment by TK and though he was talking about Astroturf. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lagavulin, eh? I think ToP just got one of my votes. DickTurpis (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Better check the spelling on Wikipedia and Google, Nick Heer. Cheap shots usually are just that...cheap. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the spelling of Dean & Deluca, TK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't need to check the spelling – I know the difference. That said, I did Google "faux gras" and it seems it's a knockoff, cheap version of foie gras. – Nick Heer 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and bad spelling is always just that...bad. Ignorant troll. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And if 3 billion people claimed that rock was bread I would quite happily buy tickets to watch as you break your teeth in that brainless sheep-reflex you seem to have going there, T'Cupcake. In many ways a fitting end for a troll.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A really cool Idea, that I haven't got the faintest idea how to do

I have no programming skillz. However I think it would be a really cool idea if someone could write a scrip to report here with say a traffic light or something like that, if registration was available on conservapedia. They shut it down often, and rather than running around like a chicken with my head cut off looking for a clean IP to soil it would be nice to know if it will work first. Can we do that? --Opcn (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. Just check any CP page while not logged in. If it says "Log in", account creation is disabled. If it says "Log in / create account" (if I recall correctly), it's enabled. If you're too lazy to log in and out, you can also simply go to the Account Creation page and see if it gives you an error or not. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If like me you don't have a clean IP to look from then it's kinda hard. ^{— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs}

Then log out and simply look at the top right corner. That should work no matter how your IP got hammered. --Sid (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a lot of IPs have been server-blocked because of page-bumping. But you can always use a web-proxy, which will at least let you view the page even if you can't edit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but feel TK is talking about us

Here. TK usually just takes the first lines from the article he quotes but he added some words this time. TK's additions are bold:

"Need a Job? Cyber Thieves / Vandals Are Hiring.

The people who brought the world malicious software that steals credit card numbers from your personal computer, empties bank ATMs of their cash and have their own vandal sites to attack other sites, are hiring, and they're advertising online!"

My my, this "vandal site" is in the same league as cyber thieves. Who knew? Internetmoniker (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

He is just bitter because I blocked him for three days when, according to him, he has donated vast sums of money to RW and anyway, who am I block him when he has been around far longer than me. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what you get for abridging his human rights, you monster. --Kels (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed how he has added RW User #45 to his sig as both a bit of a joke at Ed and to show how long he has been here? - π 22:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That just might be a bit of hyperbole on your part, Ace. I don't recall saying I had donated "vast sums" of money. And I have been here longer than you, that's a fact. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm apparently User #7. I doubt that means I'm the seventh user on the wiki, though. --Kels (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen up, butter-cup. You sent me an email bandying around the fact that you have donated money to RW and you have been around here longer than me as if that gives you any currency whatsoever on whether or not I can block you. As if I don't have any authority. Well bugger you sweet heart, didn't work for Ed on WP either. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's only your good idea of what I meant, Ace. See things as you like, that's your right, doll. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wha Wha Wha. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you look up what user number you are? What number am I? I want to put it in my sig if it's like, 27 or something.. but on the other hand if I'm number 859 or something, forget it. Refugee^{talk page} 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its on your preferences page. Never mind though because your User#1 for me! Aceⁱ⁹ 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Awwww... my sweet baby love *hugs* and more... Refugee^{talk page} 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Refugee: User ID: 281. Drats, that sucks. Refugee^{talk page} 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am User 212: Affirmative Action worked for me. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So how do I end up as User #7, when I'm sure there were more than six before me? Or is that seventh since the switch from RW 1.0 to 2.0? --Kels (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(checks myprefs) 2,190. Fuck. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

2'827. Brilliant. SJ ^Debaser 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone admit to being #188? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3,161 here - I'm safe. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain why Ace can block you, TK. Let $A$ be the respect the members of RationalWiki have for Ace, let $T$ be the respect members of RationalWiki have for you, TK. Than $A>T+x$ where $x$ is any number such that $0<x<\infty$. - π 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

HCM much, π ? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about you silly little man? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the logs, out user 188 is Fibonacci is a dago, someone whose only edit was a revert reinstating a Metapedia link on someones userpage. I was expecting it to be someone a little more, well, important. Pi is user 182, though, so only off by 6. A mere 3% error! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not me by the way, I am user 1,154. - π 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea is correct, Kels, that is since the switch from RW 1.0 to 2.0. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, looking at the User Creation logs, Kels is #1, TK is #38, and Ed Poor is #40. I wonder who the 6 prior to Kels are? Trent et.al. perhaps? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be Colin, Trent, Doc, Linus perhaps....odd the numbers differ from the pref page...must have something to do with accounts already there, or accounts removed, etc. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking @ that log: allowing for Kels being 7. see here^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, make me do work...

RWadmin, Linus, Colin, Trent, Human, and Huey gunna getcha are 1-6. I want a cookie.

--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Users can be created at the time the software is installed, there are 6 users that do not appear in the user creation log as they were probably created on the install. See Human doesn't exist. - π 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we all know that Human doesn't exist. He's probably just the most cunningly-programmed spambot ever. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Kels was the first non-RW1 person to join RW2, by the way. But we hung out with her, or her with us, somewhere else in the late days of RW1. And, yeah, there's a glitch in the U creation log that for some reason doesn't show those first few entries. I created my account manually, btw. ħuman 02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I was a member of RW1 for about a day before the changeover happened, and somehow that didnt' get saved. So I signed up for RW2 right away. So in a way I was the last member to join the original RW, and the only one at that time who'd never had a CP account. Pretty sure of that last bit, anyhow. --Kels (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have been here longer than you, that's a fact. - It all depends what you mean by "being here", TK. Let's not forget that you have "been" at CP since March 2007, but you were noticeably absent after your UCLA plagiarism humiliation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, TK is also users 73 & 348.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pi

Out of cooriosity, I had a look at the Pi mentioned above; Not a lot of contribs but one's quite nice. Wonder what happened to him/her. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He gets around. (ahem) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

^{(self promotion warning)}? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not nearl clever enough to be Pi, which as my faith teaches is exactly 3. CЯacke® 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cracker (nice to see you around b.t.w.) I'm a bit lot thick when it comes to jokules. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gambling WIGO

I've neevr been to Las Vegas before, but does spending a lot of cash in Las Vegas have to involve gambling to some degree? Unless it implies so, CP is not implying that people should gamble there. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true, there's also prostitution. --Kels (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

there's also drugs and alcohol. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

and Siegfied & Roy, and Wayne Newton.--Simple (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality and animatronics? --Kels (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be "CP is encouraging people to spend a load of cash in Las Vegas -- we encourage CP to share the methods of doing so without sinning."? Oh shit. People usually go to Las Vegas on weekends so some of those people are working on sabbath and as such should be immediately executed. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those Sigfried & Roy and Wayne Newton shows still put money in the pockets of the casinos, since that's where they play. The better part of the city is tied up in gambling and support industries for it. --Kels (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And the theaters where they perform, plus pretty much all the rest of the non-gambling attractions like restaurants, are placed so you can't avoid going through the casino on your way to see The Flamboyant Magic of Gunter and Ernst or whatever. (And at least at the hotel where I saw Blue Man Group, its even difficult to find the theater.) The only way to avoid even entering a casino during a vacation in Vegas would be to stay in a non-casino, off-strip hotel, and only see attractions outside the city, like Hoover Dam and the Liberace Museum. You couldn't even fly into the city; the airport has slot machines in the terminal. MDB (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Annotating Conservapedia?

Hey, uh, this is going to be pretty vague. I just had an idea but I don't know how to present it sensibly or if it's already been discussed.

A while ago I read about a phenomena related to high-end cellphones (perhaps the iPhone in particular) where people (in Japan, I believe) were using the various functions of the iPhone to leave comments in "real life", so you could point at somewhere another user had been and see what they had to say about a restaurant or a statue or something. I'm pretty sure there's actually quite a few apps like this, but I don't know anything about mobile devices except the games being made exclusively for them are starting to look really nice :(

Just now, I flashed back to that and also to some other app for desktop web browsers, a plugin or some such that would create chatrooms based on URLs you went to - so you could go to www.ohlookagoat.goat and talk to everybody else who had this chat program running and was surfing that site. Once again, I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff out there like this, but I don't know anything about it (and once again, there's about ten zillion flash games, so there must be like two or three hundred that are actually good, etc etc).

These two thoughts merged in my mind to form a new one....are there currently plugins available for Firefox/Chrome/whatever that allow people to "tune in" to the information on one site that will pop-up as they visit another site? And you could set up something like....someone connects to a RationalWiki database of some sort, then they can browse over to Conservapedia's relativity article and read the kind of stuff that was posted above?

You'd probably want to keep the people who wrote these annotations limited to a small, closed group (to avoid outing parody or pointing out things that would get flushed down the memory hole by certain parties). But if something like this could be done - and I emphasize again, I have no idea if it can - it could serve to make a very interesting "guided tour" of Conservapedia possible. Megaten (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was a recent(last 2 weeks?) discussion in the Saloon Bar about a Google tool that would allow you to comment on websites and which would be available to other users. Can't remember what it was called though.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

google:Sidewiki. -- Nx / talk 12:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to WIGO the kids...

...and I apologize for crossing that line, but I'm not out to ridicule this student^img. I'm just wondering if someone is writing a "PETA is great' essay as a tongue in cheek way of amusing Andy or if he's just being a jackass. Or was the assignment to write a position paper on something you don't believe in, as an exercise? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fucking satire, TOP. Student10 seems to have a netter sense of humor than you, apparently. I, for one, found it quite hilarious. All he's doing is pointing out the inconsistent, bizarre, and just fucked up behaviors of PETA. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite fun trying to reverse engineer the vocabulary list from the essays. Words like "populace", "transcend", and "alluding" (to pick the first three that sprang to the eye) a) make me wish we could hack the list to include words like "frot" and "ringpiece", and b) remind me of the "Little Johnny" jokes like:

• Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "centimetre"?
• Little Johnny: My aunt arrived at the station and I was centimetre.

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The favorite of those was always:

• Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "gladiator"?
• Little Johnny: A big hairy monster ate my teacher and I'm gladiator.

-SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "isthmus"?
• Little Johnny: Isthmus be the place! MDB (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I only read the first few lines and lol'd. Nice work. ħuman 12:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We need to steal that student. The satire could be more subtle, but it's damn funny and arguably one of the more intelligent pieces posted on CP. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Teacher: Who can give me an example of the word "contagious"?
• Little Johnny (for it is he): My next door neighbour was painting his fence with a one-inch paintbrush and my Dad said "That'll take the contagious" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly astray, but always a good one. Dorothy Parker: "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think". An apt description of Andy and Conservative methinks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "perturbed"?
• Little Johnny: I have to take a scoop when I walk my dog because the city charges five bucks perturbed.

and:

• Teacher: Who can make a sentence with the word "fascinate"?
• Little Johnny: My shirt has ten buttons but I only fascinate.

If only he learned phonics when he was in kindergarten! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That muslim homosexual Obama

This^img may have been deleted from the mainpage talk page, but I can still imagine something similar making it on to the hallowed mainpageright... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I chuckled warmly. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Islomosexual, for short. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is Prof. Jensen?

The good Professor hasn't been around on CP for a few days, and he normally doesn't let more than a few hours pile up on Recent Changes without his name turning up. Is real life keeping him away from CP? Is he a little disenchanted with his recent slapdowns? Or has he finally realized what a colossal waste he's been making of his golden years? Burndall (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The longest time the professor has been absent from CP was nine days: so tomorrow, we can start to worry... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

....and? Gone? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now we can start to worry: since the insomniac academic started to comment on CP in August 2008, he was absent from CP for less than fifty days - and the longest time in a row were eight days (between Jan 19, 2009 and Jan 28, 2009).

So, what happened? Perhaps he is just skiing.

But I may dream: perhaps he read some of Andy's stuff - probably some of his statistics or on the theory of relativity. The good professor has quite a good grasp of stats - and takes some interest in it (Andy should read his Historians Guide to Statistics sometimes). And as a historian, he should be aware of the similarities between Andy's view on physics and the Deutsche Physik.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course in Europe a minimum of two weeks holiday/vacation is pretty standard.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Tragically Hip...

Are a heavy metal band^img. They wrote a song about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In 1989. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Parody? --Opcn (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Having known a lot of Hip fans in my time, I'm not sure. Many of them are pretty brain-damaged. Or have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, JacobB^img!!!! TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey come on now, don't knock the Hip, they are awesome, its stupid americans who are brain damaged

Definite parody; I wrote some of it. They're not heavy metal, the song 'New Orleans is Sinking' was written at least 20 years before Hurricane Katrina and the band name comes from an old music video that has a rehab center for "the tragically hip." Anyway, the page was deleted while I was writing this. Too bad! PrincipalScudworth (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Debate WIGO

Gotta love how they say the atheists have no chance, because their stance is 'illogical'... same planet, different worlds... -Ravenhull (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, in a Monty Python sketch where an atheist wrestled an Archbishop to determine the existence of God, the Almighty won, three falls out of five. So, at least the Pythoners felt it would be close.

Y'know, that's what RW and CP should do: hold a wrestling match over the existence of God. As a theistic RW member, I'll volunteer to be one of the officials. MDB (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It always pains me immensely when people use phrases like 'logically' and 'rational' etc, whilst in the same sentence shouting "I believe there's a magic man living in the sky!". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to represent the RW side under the guise of my militant black power character Isiah Luther Evers I'm really not kidding, I have done a few wrestling shows as that character SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 16:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. In my college amateur professional wrestling collective we had a character called Black Rage, the Nubian Nightmare. He wiped the floor with southern redneck Rebel Yell. I was just a manager myself, but I was not above hitting someone with the occasional folding chair. I volunteer to do the same to Andy at any time. DickTurpis (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Really? You have a militant black power wrestler character? Blimey, my hobbies sound rather mundane in comparison... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating how the main page entry could only be Ken. He has such a wonderful (lack of) command of the English language. I wonder if he's thought of taking Andy's writing course. Come to think of it, wasn't that what U188 was allegedly

teaching last summer: haven't noticed a lot of input from him on the course. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we get some school to host a live (in person) debate with Andy/Ken regarding existence of God? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time we challenged Andy to a debate he demanded an outrage price for a deposit and then said he won because Ames would not accept the conditions of the debate, so his case can not be that strong. - π 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Take a look at the TOC on cp:Canada. Since when did Religion and cultrul style become sports? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the article for 'Atheism' that they link at their main page? I do warn you, red herrings, misconception and quote mining abound, as well as a negligence to get a decent sample size and a perchance to listen to moonbats. Also, it can be overly and needlessly wordy, as with the 'Atheism and the Euthyphro Dillema' which they stretched out over eight paragraphs to say 'Things are good because God said so'. I think they need a bit of Mr. Schlafly's help in toning down the word count. -- CodyH (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Depraved NZ!

Aside from the fact the NZ must be depraved in some sense for having brought me into form I always find it amusing that NZ, by CP standards, is a disgusting leftist pit of socialism. What with our clean environment, low crime, booming business, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, zero corruption, parliamentary democracy, 99% literacy, international peace keeping......We are MONSTERS! Aceⁱ⁹ 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arrogant monsters, at that. Time word Phantom! 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

overly sexed, drunken, arrogant monsters. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I always understood that the consumption of alcohol increased the desire but decreased the ability among the male of the species, so the arrogance is probably misplace. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll see about that later tonight. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So the story is that some Kiwi girl auctioned off her cherry for $30K? And that makes the whole country depraved? what about the American girk who got 3 million bucks for the right to deflower her? What does that say about American depravity, TK? Or about the law of supply and demand? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps its depraved because she only got 30K? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The American girl isn't too much of a looker AFAIC, no way would I have ponied up that much dough. Can't find a pic of the Kiwi. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The American girl seems to have drawn her eyebrows on with a felt-tip pen. Time word Phantom! 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course New Zealand is socialist, just have a look at this Karajtoon:

QED. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced! --Kels (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're a lying sack of shit! "Since this is an American encyclopedia, New Zealand is a socialistic government, more than America is now becoming, being not greatly unlike the U.K." That came after the user referenced the Heritage Foundation ranking. So, this means, when an American organization ranks NZ above the USA in terms of economic freedom, it's still socialist because you say so? This is factual relativism, which is worse than moral relativism, which you guys claim to be against. I can't wait until you block the poor sap for "contradicting admin (with inconvenient facts)." Junggai (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kiwis, just give it up; TK's got you bang to rights on this one! Your country is socialist because he says it is. End of story. Maybe your socialist leftist government run public school education has left you all unable to understand logic? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, the US as a base income tax rate of 31-odd% on all income over a few hundred dollars (15.7% FICA - employer+employee plus 15% income tax). Maximum rate? 39.6% on millions of dollars, since the FICA stops at about 100k. Talk about your flat taxes. Oh, and of course the wealthy who make money on buying and selling only pay, what 15%? 20%? on capital gains. ħuman 08:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I was once in New Zealand, and I rolled down a hill inside an inflatable ball. I'm sure that says something about the political climate of the place, though I'm not sure what. --GTac (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to sock up anymore...

...Jpatt is now bringing up arguments against his own cause all by himself: "Awesome Christians totally desecrated that Wiccan site by placing a cross there! High-five!"^img --Sid (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

God, Jpatt's a despicable human being. ChrisY:

I wouldn't characterize that as "Christian" behavior. Sneaking a cross into another group's place of worship like that was a cowardly act of disrespect, not an act of people who are proud of Christ's message. The cross is also a symbol that is to be respected, and not used as a prop for childish pranks. A true Christian would show character by meeting with the wiccans openly, treating them respectfully, and starting an honest dialogue as to why the wiccan faith isn't the road in life to take (and the consequences of staying on it)...

Jpatt's numb-nuts reply: "Good thing your advice was discarded during the Crusades or all of Europe would have been Muslim."

I wonder if the bastard's ever opened the Bible, much less the part about "turning the other cheek?" Junggai (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he only got to the part about wetting your sword and dashing bitches' heads to pieces? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in case this response^img disappears... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What I love about Jpatt's response is the idea that wars are won by passive-aggressively putting wooden crosses in various places on the ground. -- Coarb (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, speculation plus a quarter may buy you a soda, but I'd venture to guess that if there were real persecution of Christians, like of the "Lions' den" variety, these clowns wouldn't be the first in line to publically affirm their faith. Their kind of smug boorishness is only possible in a comforable society that allows free speech. They would never strike me as the heroic type that early martyrs were. Junggai (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about conservative Christians that makes them especially Christian. If they grew up in Egypt they'd be conservative Muslims. If they grew up in Soviet Russia they'd be conservative (in the sense of pro-government, authority-respecting) socialists. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone have an idea what the fuck Jpatt is talking about here? "Why ChrisY, why must Christians have tea-time with evil? Christians had better fight evil less they succumb to it. Turn the other cheek if evil ones try to murder your family? That's not what Jesus meant." Junggai (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments on that news article are incredible, e.g.

“”I never understand, how you people focus solely on the so called ‘wrongs’ of others. you’re SO perfect that you need not focus on your own life. pathetic. i hope your family is raped and murdered and you spend the rest of your life burning in hell you f*cker.

Nice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's official: Jpatt fucking SCARES me.^img Freedom of religion? BAD! What Would Jesus Do? Kick Wiccans out of your family and drive them out of your community! Suggested course of action: "Put a cross on your shield and fight evil my fellow Christians" --Sid (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Beatles

News flash, it's a fucking stupid idea to build your home on the edge of a cliff! --Opcn (talk)

Best fucking band evah! ħuman 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

link^img--Opcn (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or to be more correct, on the edge of a fucking cliff that is known to be fucking eroding away beneath you! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More like Rolling Stones! Hahaha. Ha. Geddit? Ha! Internetmoniker (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or Jimmy Cliff.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or The Beatles! _{(amidoingthisright?)} --GTac (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I could have sworn there was something in the Bible about being careful where you build your house... 92.18.85.65 (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

he listed his religion as being "atheist"!

By that logic putting 'unemployed' in the 'occupation' box means you're no longer jobless.[2] Jaxe (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You can put "Unemployed" or "None" at 'Occupation', it's the same thing. With religion you could say "None" and "Atheism" are also the same thing. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Internetmoniker: Then should agnosticism correspond to "I don't know what my job is"/"I don't know whether I have a job" in the occupation field? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...and is "bald" a hair colour? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who brought the unemployed metaphor into the mix, but if the form asked for "Hair" then "bald" & "none" would be synonymous answers I guess. @k61824 as I've learned from Andy that would be a part time job (50%) Internetmoniker (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with this, I-Mon. By making "atheist" an appropriate answer for the question "what is your religion?", as interesting thing happens--atheism becomes a religion, something it avowedly is not. And then, suddenly, millions of people who don't have a religion all of a sudden have one--not something that they necessarily want. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you see atheism as a synonym for none though(like unemployed is a synonym for none) then there really is no problem. I was just trying to point that out to Jaxe who said unemployed now means job. Of course Buddhists are technically atheists as well, so what I said doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Buddhists can and do believe in the existence of god(s), but belief in their existence isn't necessary to follow Buddhist teachings. For instance, it isn't unknown for liberal Christians to also be Buddhist as there isn't anything in either belief that contradicts what the other philosophy/religion espouses. In such cases the person would be Buddhist, as they follow the philosphy of Buddhism, but also Christian as they believe in both the existence of God and that Jesus is the Messiah.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand escalates a bit

TK may hate you, but that doesn't make him less of a friend:

• Feb 4: "Disgusting Depravity In Socialist New Zealand"^img
• Feb 5: "Today is New Zealand Day. [...] Congratulations to our Kiwi friends!"^img

And Ed decided that only bumbling around in the CP talk page isn't enough, so he decided to also bumble around on the WP talk page. --Sid (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, before it disappears^img and ChrisY is "politely removed" from the site. Junggai (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He forgot the emphasis: it should be "Congratulations to our Kiwi friends!" - i.e. not the nasty depraved liberals and socialists. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Feb 6th is NZ day - which it is here for me but not for TK. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. TK - The day is Waitangi Day, it is never known as NZ day. I added that here so people would know what the fuck Waitangi Day was. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting, it was Waitangi Day, then it was changed to New Zealand Day, which wasn't popular so it was changed back. --Sean^talk 19:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct title is Waitangi Day and celebrated on the 6th, which I kept in mind when saying "today" was it, in a hat tip to all those Kiwi socialists who run on a different day than the normal world, just to confuse us. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I love that you included the word 'socialists' in that comment. I'm not even sure what a socialist is, but apparently Conservapedia thinks its bad and 4 million people can be put into that one category. Anyway, there's no such thing as normal. I get very confused trying to figure out time differences between New Zealand, the UK and Canada. --Sean^talk 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that in this case, ol' TK was trying to make a funny... -Ravenhull (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

it's a clue that he's a deep cover liberal - he's saying "socialism is the future". Real first name and last initial (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me the most is that day/date thing.....the liberals need to be elite causes them to always be a day ahead. Sean, "normal" of course, is the US and West Europe. All them odd places like Oz and NZ should at least run on our time, but noooooo! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how the sun always rises in the east? Think about it. -- =w= 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(At TK) I don't know if to take that as a joke or not. Living in another country is one of the best experiences I've ever had, made me realise how I just come from one culture, and that there are many, many more to consider. --Sean^talk 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely a joke. His second post is basically 'yes that was a joke'. -- =w= 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing serious ends in 'but noooooo!' -- =w= 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah my bad. --Sean^talk 22:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is certain with TK. Be ever vigilant! -- =w= 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mei for getting the obvious... Mei is helpful! Sean, I have lived for extended periods in more than one country, and find it odd anyone wouldn't instantly recognize my humor, as several have. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're new to me. --Sean^talk 22:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I never realised that lying and plagiarism were forms of humor. (I left out the "u" especially for you, most noble one.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, I'm still waiting to hear how a rankng by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, which finds NZ's economy much more free than the USA's, doesn't sway your opinion. You're blithely ignoring that shit on the talk page as you call them all socialists. Do you have any integrity at all, or are you just simple? Junggai (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets celebrate racism or, TK's a douchebag part 876

So TK wants to celebrate Tom Tancredo. I'm sure he didn't miss the part where he suggested that the US return to literacy tests and claimed that Obama wouldn't be president if we had them..... No racism there right TK? Fuck you SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You say you want a revolution? You'd better free your mind instead. The ability to be able to read a ballot, in English, isn't racism...just thought you should know that, SirChuck. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off. You know damn well that literacy test have nothing to do with reading English. PS, in order to vote, you have to a be citizen. In order to be a citizen, you have to prove the ability to understand basic English? If someone is voting, they have basic English skills. On top of that, if you pick up a history book, you might do well to learn how literacy tests were used in this country. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very well aware of how they have been used, and find it odd you, full of hate, have assumed I wouldn't know about such things. What else about me, including my race, have you also assumed, you ignorant fool? You are so full of hate and self-loathing, you couldn't stand to see any thread with me without insults, you made it your mission to ruin the fun. Good going. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it Terry, I said... "Damn, TK is just such a nice guy, but I hate myself and everything about life, so I'm gonna start up some shit." Your mind tricks don't work on me TK, I know you're a douche, and always act accordingly. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Go back to your hole TK. Everybody knows what Tancredo meant when he said we should bring back the literacy and civics tests. Just like what we all know people mean when they start talking about "states rights" ENorman (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why're we feeding the troll? Barikada (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a lie-ber-rul thing. Conservatives don't feed trolls, as they know it only encourages a cycle of dependency and undermines a troll's self respect and work-ethic, making them into welfare queens.-- 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so ignorant as to suggest I am trolling, when this thread was clearly started by one, Barikada? Have at least a shred of decency, huh? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey B, to answer your question, I'm just warming up for the Jinx Baiting season. I believe this years season may be interesting, as we'll have to travel. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"In order to be a citizen, you have to prove the ability to understand basic English" noooo... being born here is enough. Only naturalized citizens have to meet any standards. ħuman 23:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's black, so he clearly gets a free pass and the label "not troll" due to Affirmative Action. Maybe you should bitch about it in the News section at CP- "Liberal troll SirChuckB censors dissent at terrorist liberal vandal site" --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I assumed that it was obvious we were speaking of naturalized citizens. Tancredo only seems to hate Non-Americans. Plus they don't tend to print ballots in ebonics (although I would love to see that) SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 23:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And I take strong offense Emperor. I've never censored a "Dissent Ant" in my life. We Penguin Knights work hard to support all species.... Except Polar Bears and Killer Whales of course.... SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TeaKakkke, when you stop accusing others of "Marxism," "socialism," "deceit," etc., then you can try to take the high road about name-calling. Until then, your labels are just stupid versions of what we do with you; at least we have the courtesy to be specific with who we are tarnishing, rather than calling everyone we don't like something. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. We would never say "Every conservative is a lying sack of shit" or even "Every admin at Conservapedia is a lying sack of shit." We don't generalize, but when it's true, there's nothing hypocitical about saying "TK is a lying sack of shit." Capito? Junggai (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking time: You just said both of those lines (See point 3 here), Junggai. Perhaps rephrasing them would be in order, but I have already said too much.

Back on topic: Wouldn't the candidates love to use literacy test in some non-existent language on everyone so nobody (saves the person inventing the language but that person can't be eligible everywhere due to residency requirements) would be eligible to vote and as such flip of a coin usually determine who gets to be in office? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they have already done that, at least in Washington. It's called "budget language" and "bill language", carefully refined over decades to ensure members of the public remain clueless as to what they really are doing. It doesn't matter what party, or if liberal or conservative....they all perfected it together. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 00:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, TK, if it walks like a troll, smells like a troll and talks like a troll, it's a pretty safe bet that it's a troll. Barikada (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly safe to say the Tea Party is finished. If lunatics like Michelle Bachman are feeling the radioactive toxicity of this hate group, and morons like Joe The Plumber aren't doing their thing with them, that's the end of them. Now, since they're done and over, can someone please turn down their volume knob? They've proved they're entirely unelectable, so why should the rest of us have to listen to them? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, the same cretins that said conservapedia is dead are now saying the tea party movement is over.. D'em liburalz sure can dream --Lipps

You don't seem to have noticed that conservapedia is dead. There are very few encyclopedic additions being made and the only active editors are the core team of nutjobs who have been expelled from other projects, or just like coming to cp to spew hate on the front page, and the parodists. I'd call any wiki-style encyclopedia with little (if any) new encyclopedic entries a dead project. However I don't speak for everyone, others might see conservapedia as alive and well but rather sickly. -Redback^G'day 02:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The only substantive edits made to CP anymore are to

• Mainpageright (stupid talking-points screeds about news items)
• Talk (arguments in which Andy's particular lunacies drive away any new good-faith users that start editing)
• Conservative Bible Project (internet laughingstock)

As for, you know, the encyclopedia? Well the article on the Ring cycle by Wagner (great German composer!) has less than a dozen edits, most by a user who was nearly permbanned by TK for daring to put book citations in his articles.

Is CP dead? You tell me. Is the Pope a Nazi? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or are the washington post and the WSJ different papers?

RobS^img isn't a very good reporter apparently :/ --Opcn (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ runs that regular column, reporting on other outlets web stories. Rob is apparently linking to one of stories they repeated there in the Journal. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 05:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am infact the lazy on it would seem, no news hereOpcn (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ShockOfGod

Anyone know who this is? They're always linking to CP, which means they must be an active member there. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's a very well known YouTube Creationist, but I doubt he's a regular editor there. And I base that on nothing at all. SJ ^Debaser 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Think yr right. Richard Garcia? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"He's a very well known YouTube Creationist." I think you're stretching the meaning of "well known" by describing YouTube Creationists that way. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My generous description referred to the creation/evolution, theist/atheist communities of YouTube. By real life standards, he's as much a nobody as you or I. SJ ^Debaser 14:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't SoG one of Ken's "friends"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on how you define "friends", but it would be shocking to see the word used in this context. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservative bias WIGO links broken

Clearly Mr. TK hath noticed it here and deleted just about all the evidence. All that's working is the block logs. Webbtje (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...then I realised that there are screenshots, and we all lived happily ever after.Webbtje (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, doesn't deleting the only substantive edits CP gets these days, count as vandalism? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TK is the exception to the rule--Thanatos (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk like ignorant dolts. I deleted that article, didn't oversight it, at the suggestion of an editor, for the reason given...jeeze. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 04:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons that you can't see, because the talk page was deleted. - π 05:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you followed the suggestion of "an editor", then why not move/delete/rename Liberal Bias, since it's also "perjorative"? If you don't, then that would have to be added to the Conservative Hypocrisy article, which doesn't exist, and therefore has doubly good reason why it should. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 08:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, CP isn't WP, it doesn't pretend to promote liberal thought, does it? Is there something you find unfair about that? If so, clean up your own house before criticizing another. This is yet another Red Herring convo...it really isn't anyone's business what is deleted there, is it? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR - "Liberal thought"? My brain hurts. You unfortunately have shown a/several red herring in this very section. Here, I shall demonstrate:

• "Well, CP isn't WP, it doesn't pretend to promote liberal thought, does it?" - Here is the old "we are a conservative encyclopedia!" red herring. The failure of this, is lacking emphasis on ENCYCLOPEDIA. It really has nothing to do with being conservative. That's your red herring, sir.
• "Is there something you find unfair about that?" - On the basis of which you removed the true, factual information on Conservapedia as liberal thought, it's hard to say. That's like saying, "My sign says they're twenty dollars, but I priced them as fifty. You find that unfair?! TOO BAD! TWENTY DOLLARS IS LIBERAL! *rageface.jpg*" If I answer no, my IQ will lower, and I'd feel dirty. If I say yes, I'm just fighting gravity. Wait, are you saying Conservapedia, the conservative encyclopedia, isn't fair? :D
• "If so, clean up your own house before criticizing another." - Rationalwiki isn't my home. I don't think I've done any good work as a sysop, much less make any substantial contribution to this site in a long while. Instead, YOU have the clout, bullying-power, and impunity to "clean up your own house" on Conservapedia.
• "This is yet another Red Herring convo..." - But, you allow red herrings all over Conservapedia. Here is an obvious example. I don't see you jumping into that conversation and telling Andy off, but instead, you jump right in and call New Zealand socialist (because it's an American encyclopedia? Does that reason make any sense?). So you allow and condone the red herring fisheries on CP, but here, you're against it? Is that because you don't have the power to silence your objectors here, as you have there?
• "it really isn't anyone's business what is deleted there, is it?" - Well, Rationalwiki was created from the abuse, hypocrisy, and logical damnation of Conservapedia, and flourishes from it. Is it any of your business what Rationalwiki does?
• "Don't talk like ignorant dolts." - Hurr durr, herp derp. It's hard to imagine you saying that, then reading your response to me (I know it's more of a general response), in the same section, directed at everyone else but yourself.

See, this is why I love you, TK. You not only abuse the hell out of CP, flying in the face of logical reasoning, rules, responsibility, <insert term relating to having power>, but you troll here on RW, an act in itself is a bannable offense on CP (being a member of RW). It's astounding! RW was created on the basis of what you, Andy, et al do on that site, yet here you are, defending the actions which RW has stood against with the freedom to say so. While some think you're an idiot without boundaries, others acknowledge you as a troll gone too far... I see you as a troll genius, dumbing down both the systems you work for and against. I wish I could bring the lulz half as good as you do. <33333333333 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, CP doesn't promote thought, period. And as you well know the only reason we comment on what's deleted there, is the fact that 99% of the deletions (and oversighting - loved your insane excuse about the "fake" screencaps by the way) are you covering your ass (like the citations debate). It makes for good comedy. I'd still love to know what went through what passes for your mind when you deleted this page. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 09:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psy, you know full well he dpesn't care what he does - he's got to the stage where he can pull any old shit and get away with it. That's all the explanation there is for what he does. Seems though he's found supreme power boring and decided to come over here to engage in more desperate attention seeking. - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

HRT pretty much nailed it. Hey, can someone block TK for another three days? It was nice not having his spume around for a while... ħuman 11:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your command is my wish, O Lord. --PsygremlinSnakk! 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of screenshots, think it would be possible to set something up so we can easily replace the original link with the link to the screengrab? Yehyeh, it ain't hard to click the IMG link after you found out CP deleted the original, but seems like a process which shouldn't be too hard to automate to me. --GTac (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy, it burns!

Andy Schlafly considers it tyranny to haul someone away in handcuffs after an act of petty vandalism.

Let me repeat that: Andy Schlafly considers it tyranny to haul someone away in handcuffs after an act of petty vandalism.

Yeah, I'll admit, arresting a kid for writing on a desk is insane. But considering Andy called the FBI over cyber-vandalism, he's a fucking hypocrite of the highest order.

Oh, and Andy -- if you read the article, the ACLU is on your side. I guess they're not the evil monsters you think they are all the time, are they?

MDB (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But you're forgetting one thing - in Andy's mind somebody rearranging some electrons on his block is tantamount to treason, plus when he gets a chance to flog one of his pet peeves, then all bets are off. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 13:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree totally. We all, Andy included, see this story for what it is - sheer stupidity. But when it comes to the attack on CP, it wasn't an act of vandalism; it was an act of terrorism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christian^{-ism? -ity?} and *gasp* liberalism! I honestly doubt he can see that the two acts were both, at their core, the same - completely harmless, almost instantly-reversible (she used an erasable pen, ffs) bouts of silliness. -Redback^G'day 13:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Andy can hold two thoughts in his head at the same time. --Kels (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"What? We don't have an article for each separate incident? Ah hell. Just make one.^img" – Nick Heer 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy always writes the best parody articles there... "...tyranny consists of ... administrators engaging in exaggerated control and punishment..., perhaps to make the administrators feel powerful." Wow. ħuman 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone hacked Andy's account and has been inserting parody in using it. The real Andy is probably still using it too. There's no way that Andy ever actually reads over what he's written in the past, so he'd never notice someone else posting under his account. X Stickman (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would just open your mind, you'd know that hypocrisy is an example of liberal deceit. I'd advise reading a more logical book, such as The Bible. Godspeed. Aschlafly 25:81, 6 February 2010 (Bible Standard Time)

(UI) Is this similar to TK blocking suspecdted RW members (no reason to believe any of them are or are not, since we have no checkuser) with the reason "member of website supporting vandalism" while he signs in here to talk about CP? But then TK is the exception to the rule. So is Assfly. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy - but funny.

DouglasA: "Ken, your writing style isn't very good. Here's some helpful advice^img."
TK: (MYOB? What MYOB?): "SILENCE!!"^img
Ken: "Thank you for your non-existent message, which I shall ignore, whilst reminding everybody that I'm not a well man^img." --PsygremlinPrata! 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you for the good advice which I will totally ignore" --Kels (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug plays with fire^img TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And with this slap in TK's face^img it gets upgraded to a crappy WIGO. --PsygremlinSiarad! 16:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice there's no captures on the WIGO, is that because the screens were captured here first? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you just checked it to quickly. It does take it a few minutes to capture and add the link, it's there now. --GTac (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever DouglasA is planning, I like it. Maybe the user has grown tired of CP and is just going around insulting all the sysops, hah. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DougA: I removed all the suspicious math stuff that made relativity look true. Well done, faithful servant! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug's gotta be cashing out his chips, no parodist bitch slaps TK if they're playing the long con. 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DouglasA: Now there is a frood who really knows where his towel is at. --Opcn (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's it. I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands anymore.

I'm taking WIGO:CP off my watchlist, and CP's Recent Changes off of my bookmarks and investing the time into WIGO:World or just writing articles here. I get it: TK is an asshole/bully/racist/jerk, Ed is a creepy sexist idiot who can't write a proper article to save his life, RobS is a batshit-crazy conspiracy theorist with a predilection for barely-legal porn, Andy is a total space cadet who only avoids living on the streets because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The place is a joke, and I'm a reasonably-intelligent, reasonably-well-read, reasonably-educated guy. There's nothing for me to learn from the place, and no possible way that these people could ever prove to me that they're anything other than a bunch of losers. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I bet you're one of those people who wake up after a night of heavy drinking and say "I'm never going to drink again!" It'll never take. Keegscee (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't pay much attention to this part of the site either these days. The TK stuff bores me to tears, since it's basically people trying to get an honest answer out of someone who they already know isn't going to give them one. The only one who really provides much entertainment over there is Andy, since his lectures and non-sequiteurs stay pretty fresh, but that's about it. --Kels (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hell man, I barely look at CP these days, nuthin goin on....Aceⁱ⁹ 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good parody can't happen without good-faith users to be the straight man, and TK basically blocks them on sight now... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well not all of them. 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

With how TK block people it's only the 5 of them really involved in everything that happens. CP is hardening off.--Opcn (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only good-faith non-admin is, I think, BMcP. And he's obviously not long for this world. There won't be many more good-faith users, and hence no more lols... it will just decay until a day comes when there are no edits, and then... HoorayForSodomy (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

TK made a mistake

TK made a mistake. (*gasp* no! - yes, it's true. lol) So, this is what he did: DannyD http://conservapedia.com/User:DannyD^img - wrote on his user page: "Was reminded by φ to help out here." So TK, mathematical genius that he is, blocks dear old Danny D: "02:55, 2 February 2010 TK blocked DannyD with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked - Member of a website supporting vandalism: Bye-bye American Pi)" apparently assuming that Danny D is RW member Pi. But φ is Phi. NOT π Pi. Phi is a mathematical term (the golden ratio: 1.61803399) and not the same as Pi (3.14159265). even I know that. But the bigger mistake is that Danny "Was reminded by φ Phi" to help out... and Phi is lil' Phyllis, Andy's daughter. even I know that. TK blocked her little friend. Just wait until Andy hears about this one. Capturebot anyone? Before it's oversighted away and thus, never happened. Refugee^{talk page} 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy'll just undo the block and they'll go on living their lives as normal. They're all dicks over there - the fact they give five year blocks for being guilty of nothing proves what terrible human beings they are. SJ ^Debaser 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The block log^img, since you ask. Hope I'm using the cap tags right, I never mess with these... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - just the stupidity of this struck me as funny. Refugee^{talk page} 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It was KettleTicket's (see block log list above, waaay above - aka NathanG)way of referring to P Schlaf. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FTR, I was just wearing my phi t-shirt whilst giving a computer tute. (I am still wearing the shirt, I am no longer in a tute). Keep trying TK you will block me eventually. - π 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think she referred to herself that way, too. ħuman 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh hai. Thanks for raging about this too.

As far as I know, I gave her the nickname, "Phy". And she does use it to refer to herself. *talked to her a few days ago*. Keklik 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry, but I never considered that it was Pi. Just someone foolish enough to say he was sent by him/her. Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, please learn to read. The user was sent by "φ" - that's "PHI". There's a difference between that and "Π" - that's "PI". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png

IP blocks at CP

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? This may be new to your over 19,000 currently blocked editors... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since 18,800 of them are duplicate blocks and socks (past and present) of users here, not a big deal! --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this should be good. *gets out the popcorn* --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Amusing example of a Schlafly statistic! But even 200 wronged editors are considerably more than the 82 active ones... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And the more than 22,000,000 IPs that are blocked would no doubt all be socks as well. Gosh we have been busy. --Worm^{(t | c)} 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL only 82 active users. If that's the 'best of the public' then those are some stringent standards (that somehow also still allow Ed Poor to qualify).--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) PS Hi Nate, I wondered if that was you!

Blocking isn't so big a deal, as you guys keep saying here....it can always be undone, eh? yes, but only when you (likely! allegedly!) blackmail someone via email, get a 12 year old kid to "parole" you then quietly delete the terms of your probation. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Editors at CP

Shorter Blocks at CP

One of the areas in which Conservapedia excels is the hypocrisy in blocking editors: today, less than 30 editors of the currently blocked 19,000 have a chance of returning in the foreseeable future, i.e., in less than a year. Most blocks are made for eternity - or at least for five years, the internet's equivalent! So, there is nothing educational in this blocks, they are meant to repel the editors. That was (somewhat) different in the beginning of the project - and at the end of 2008. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooooh someone just got owned - science style!--^talk 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Owned? Well yes, if one accepts the postulation that block lengths equal reality. Of course they don't, but LArron knows that already, his graph is just for dramatic effect. I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. Blocking people for violating CP's rules, when they know the rules, isn't some bad thing, to most people, only here where they seem to agree with violating the rules there, but want people blocked here for disagreeing, and blame them for the reactions of others. Odd. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying you have never blocked anyone that hasn't violated any CP rule? Aceⁱ⁹ 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, the blocking rules are just broad enough that you can block everyone. You can not edit Conservapedia without conceivably committing one blocking offence. - π 01:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the figures quoted are, as far as I know, blocks currently in place, not historic blocks that were made then unblocked. over 20 MILLION IP's are currently blocked at CP. --Worm^{(t | c)} 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Worm, who cares? That is each site's power and decision. Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? The 20M figure isn't literal, just a possible number, if all IP addresses in a given range are actually being used. It isn't something others can logically criticize, if that is what some site wants to do....it would be the same if some other site says it is "bad" for RW to sysop most users. I mean, WTF, who cares? --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No one's arguing whether the IPs are in use; the argument is that over 20M IPs are blocked. That's insanely large for such a podunk blog of conservative craziness that only gets recognition when its owner goes insane publicly. Just look at the history: The only times CP got any press happened when Andy was in way over his head. Lenski, Bible project... Otherwise, even conservative Christians couldn't care less about your site. RW has far more active editors because we don't allow you to have any powers here. CP had more active editors when you had no powers there. It's too bad that Andy can't see what a delusional piece of troll shit you are; but it's funny when you fuck up CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? - we'll never know will we - because they're blocked! Personally, I couldn't care less - block the whole world if you like, just don't pretend it doesn't happen. And you know as well as everyone else does that breaking the rules is a nonsense - anyone can be deemed to have broken the rules. You yourself were blocked for doing so on more than one occasion I believe? --Worm^{(t | c)} 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My only point here on RW has always been the same: The same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. The fact that most have a strong hate towards me is the point...demonstrating the same mind-set as many conservatives have towards liberals, which you constantly complain about, but demonstrate your commonality with CP daily, by the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives, which surpass (in actuality) anything CP says. If RW were truly open to contrary opinions, there wouldn't be the automatic personal insult mode for anyone posting what you disagree with. There is a difference between personal insults and insulting ideas, something RW hasn't yet taken up, or made an enforcable policy about. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be more Conservative Concise by just saying "no u" every time you post. Fake anecdotes aren't any more effective. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"...the vile insults hurled here towards conservatives..." You don't have to cite things that are obviously true.

--Kels (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

TK, I am curious about two things: 1. Is your life really so impoverished that you have to boost yourself by abusing your power on a site that is really little more than an internet joke? 2. Will you now do the honorable thing and ban yourself from Conservapedia for posting on a "vandal" site? You would do it to anyone else, so, really, do your hold yourself above your own rules?

And remember, it is always possible to step back, realize that you could be a better person, and make a change to your life. Are you really that happy with how you have treated others? With the power games you have played? A change for the better is always possible. Remember that. Kaalis (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors's return after a block at CP

Blocks/Unblocks per month at CP

• I don't think anyone here is honest enough to post data on how many were actually unblocked, or were unblocked, violated the rules and were blocked again. That would demolish your goal. No, we are. No, it doesn't. Only caveat: whether the editors actually violated the rules before blocking can't be seen. I leave it to your fellows at CP to automatize the evaluation of intentions.
• the same applies here at RW. No matter if the block is "only" for one hour, the point that some cannot undo those blocks, with or without sysop powerz, is intimidation and bullying of the same kind RW accuses CP of. Judging from these rates of return, editors seem to be less bullied by a short block! Quelle surprise!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Science ftw. TK, you idiot, LArron is querying the CP database, these graphs are simple "facts". PS, did I call TK a congenital liar on enough pages yet tonight? ħuman 07:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Human, your de jour knee-jerk insults aside, mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? That is the problem with statistics, they can be bent to show all kinds of things....like politicians do daily. And Aaron, your stats for RW do indeed reflect what they do, because of the multitude of blocks, which can be undone by most here, right? No surprise, so sorry no cigar for logic in your comment. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 08:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an "insult", it was a statement of fact. Eh, TK, TK, TK, when will you learn how to write English? It is so easy to find your puppets because they use commas as badly as you do. Oh, what was your point, you lying, power hungry loser? Ah yes, some of those zillion IPs you blocked on CP might have used dirty words. Funny how that's the way you got Andy to kick you off CP for a while - sliming a dirty word in his email. You'd be funny if you weren't so toxic. ħuman 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some might say what is toxic is you continually making comments as if you knew something, which you don't. I was blocked on CP by what were eventually found to be RW users who lied continually to get promoted there, typical deceit of the kind you embrace. Odd you talk about power-hungry losers, when you still are emailing around trying to get unblocked on CP. Why? And odd, just like Obama, you and others here continue to ignore the points about how this place acts the same as CP whenever you don't like what someone says, and only focus on other issues. You would be funny too, if you weren't so transparent with your cheap shots at the ready. --TK_/MyTalk^{RW User #45} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks in 2009
	CP	RW
Blocks against editors	5868	5910
Blocked editors	5641	609
Blocks against active editors	3226 (55.0%)	5398 (91.3%)
Active editors	4317	1132
Blocked active editors	3039 (70.4%)	509 (45.0%)
Returned after block	185 (6.1%)	374 (75.6%)

TK: I suppose you are talking about these values. Let's have a closer look: In 2009 there were 4317 editors who made an comment on CP, and only 1132 who contributed to RW. But the number of blocks issued on both sites was roughly the same: 5868 blocks on CP, 5901 blocks on RW. First of all: mere facts, don't show if the blocked user chose a pornographic name, blanked pages, inserted false or misleading information or cursed someone out, do they? Yes, to a certain extant, they do: Comments of an insulting nature - and a by someone with an unsuitable name - would be reverted: these editors have no comment left at CP. Of course, this is no exact correlation, as some edits are removed without being insulting, just for being inconvenient like this one which I took from User talk:TK /Archives7#Deceit:

• So, what's not deceitful on oversighting this File:Talk-Global Positioning System - Conservapedia 1264634820907.png? FvC (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Would you care to answer, please?). 2602 blocks at CP are issued to users for whom no contribution can be found - this leaves 3039 editors blocked who contributed to CP in a way that not all their edits were reverted: they seem to have said at least something inoffensive. These are 70.4% of all the editors who made a comment in 2009! Only 185 editors came back after being blocked at least once, so at the end of 2009, there were just 1463 editors who contributed to CP unmolested - or cared enough to come back. And the situation at RW? Not 70.4% but only 45.0% of the active editors were blocked, 512 editors were blocked without leaving an evidence in the data base, i.e., for spamming and such. The return quote of blocked editors is much higher, so the blocks don't seem that repellent. At the end of the year, there were 997 editors unblocked or returned... So, while CP has roughly four times as many editors who made a un-reverted contribution, at the end of the year, there are only 1.5 times as many left interested in CP as in RW... And now you may interpret the data. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm in love with LArron. --Sean^talk 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

♥ larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

top 1000 editors at CP

Is there really many conservative (U.S. standard) people blocked? I can't answer this question definitely, but I can give some fodder for thought: If there are less than 100 computer-savvy conservative people in the U.S. who are interested in contributing to a conservative encyclopedia on a regular basis, than, no, all have found their way to conservapedia and non of those is blocked. Otherwise, either the marketing is lacking - or your site's treatment of your editors is repellent. I can firmly state that many people are blocked who were quite committed to the site and contributed extensively - have a look at the first picture (how to read it: until Feb 2010, 476 editors made more than 100 comments on Conservapedia which are still in the database. 48.3% of these 476 editors are blocked currently)

top 1000 editors at CP

A similar picture arises if you look only at the contributions to the main namespace (second picture). An exemplary data-point: until Feb 2010, 337 editor made more than 100 comments to the namespace main at CP - 44.8% of those are blocked now.

Are there many conservative people under these very committed, but nowadays blocked editors? I suppose so. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz's plagiarism

Hi Terry Koeckritz - we know you read this - any chance you might quote your sources or are you once again going to pass other's work off as your own. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I also like how as he copied it, he incorrectly changed "who" to "whom". It's easy: it could be either "[...] who is going to take care of him." or "[...] by whom will he be taken care of." It's a small thing but I enjoy how he changes the language to try to make himself look clever and achieves the opposite. StarFish (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget: never end a sentence with a preposition. The second should be "by whom will care be taken of him." I think. Time word Phantom! 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it's like saying don't split infinitives, it doesn't have any real clarifying or stylistic function. It's an 19th century affectation we really need to dump, actually... -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from TK stealing other's material, which is fairly common, I looked more at the sheep stupidity of the post. I think I feel a side by side coming on..... SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 20:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I applaud such efforts! Please do. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put the list here. The ones I have yet to have a counterpoint is commented out. Also feel free to rename the article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   * If a conservative disagrees with a liberal, he ignores them and carries on with his life.
   * If a liberal disagrees with a conservative, he will argue. 

Uh... Wasn't Conservapedia itself founded because Andy disagreed with "liberals" and couldn't just carry on with his life? Barikada (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like that one, since it illustrates the concervative's deliberate ignorance. Whenever someone objects to something you belief, just go LALALA and walk on! --GTac (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this one immediately gave me the impulse to write a side-by-side (with the title of our response being "The way things happen at Conservapedia"), and I posted the list already to my sandbox, but I'm still trying to figure out the side-by-side template. I especially love the "homosexual conservative" and "non-religious conservative" entries. Junggai (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

McKellen

Gd' evening, I'm also known as Twitcher. I know it's not particularly good form to out oneself as a parodist quite so openly (and indeed when I've done so relatively little), but the stub was so entertainingly small, and the talk page so entertainingly revealing, that I couldn't help but wander in and spread some hatred. I would carry on with my trollery, but frankly the god-fearing members of Conservapedia do a good enough job by themselves. Godspeed y'all. Oh yeah, and TK - bullshit were you ever at Slayer's recording sessions. Webbtje (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Nice one. StarFish (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Webbtje - you do know TK uses this site? You should've held off for a bit - one you post here, odds are you're gonna get banned from CP pretty sharpish now... - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware. I was, at one point, half-intending to cause some actual havoc in the far-ish future, but then I usually have way too much on to do a proper job. I'd rather be banned from CP and resist the temptation of wasting time vandalising it to fuck. Webbtje (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't ban people simply because somebody here pretends to be them. You could get anybody you like banned that way. YourEnemy? (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I could admittedly be anyone pretending to be Twitcher. The mystery deepens. Webbtje (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we got TK to block Andy's IP doing that once if I recall correctly. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was the CP site IP that we got banned. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

There's only one StupidTK ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned for redundancy. 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

That made me laugh too when I saw it today. Impersonation account. hehe. :p Refugee^{talk page} 08:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar name CP:User:KTDiputsho which has some links here and on UCLA talk. That was when TK was caught with his pants down over his WP plagiarism, unfortunately he had to rely on his kids (Geo.Plrd & HenryS) doing the dirty work for him then. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't comment out WIGOs unless they should be deleted...

The delusions one makes sense... The Tea Party is focused on Sarah Palin for their leader, Andy thinks a candidate can't win without the Tea Party vote, yet their leader lost the last election. It makes sense, whether or not the Tea Party was around when she was on the ticket. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that deleting them screws up the numbering of the polls or something, that's why I commented it out.

The WIGO doesn't make sense. Sarah Palin was not the leader of the Tea Party movement when she ran against Barack Obama. How could they possibly affect an election when they didn't exist yet?

Clearly, they couldn't. So it doesn't make any sense to mock someone for thinking they could make a difference now if your point is that they were tragically impotent to affect elections before their existence. That'd be like telling Napoleon that he stood no chance of defeating Austria because he didn't win at Themopylae.--^talk 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The WIGO points out that the Tea Party is rallying around someone who's already lost an election. So Andy's delusion that the Tea Party's endorsement is required to win is already dumb because they picked a loser to champion them. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The WIGO doesn't make the point you seem to want to make. It doesn't say, for example, "They don't seem to be choosing winners themselves." Because that makes your point and is funnier.

It still doesn't make a good point, unless you are presuming that Palin is politically irrelevant because of her loss. Consider Obama himself. He lost a race for the House, but following a change in local demographics he hitched himself to a rising wagon and won after a lucky campaign. Saying that the Tea Partiers are dumb for picking a loser to champion them assumes - very wrongly - that a politician who has lost can never win.

The Republicans were never going to win in 2008. But when chosen, Palin was launched from governor of one of the least-central states into the national spotlight. At the Tea Party convention, she made about $2,500 per minute for her speech. Her Facebook messages have shaped the national dialog on occasion - "death panels" ring a bell?

To be frank, this WIGO is also just silly. Any Republican nominee will have to take the Tea Party into account if it's still in its current form in 2012 - and it certainly seems like it's onmly going to win major momentum in 2010 with the inevitable midterm losses. It's not smart to mock Andy for making a relevant point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.--^talk 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you can make the WIGO funnier or vote it down. But because you don't like a WIGO doesn't mean you should comment it out.

And Palin is politically irrelevant (how many people who lose elections then become part of FoxNews end up winning their elections afterward?). She lost the general election because her base didn't know enough about her; now that she's out in the open and being a complete disgrace to anyone who can think, she's not about to win enough support from the smarter Republicans and definitely not from Democrats. Add in her constant problems, the revelations that her husband had some control during her tenure as Governor, her quitting her post just to go on her book tour and be on FoxNews, and so forth... and really, all she has is the Tea Party. That won't get her far, and I think the focus she has on FoxNews will hurt her political career more when people understand she's just a pretty face, nothing more. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just assumed (wrongly) that whoever submitted it would want it gone if its mistaken nature was pointed out. I won't comment out your WIGO again, don't worry.--^talk 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Palin is politically irrelevant? That's... an interesting statement. Excuse me while I go assembly a series of news articles illustrating her power in the political realm.--^talk 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "death panels" changes the entire health care debate. Her endorsement of a local candidate draws thousands. Even Palin's wild overreactions on colloquialisms are news. Palin PAC raises $1.4m in last half of 09, to spend on other campaigns and Palin's future campaigns. Palin's endorsement, sought after in Kentucky, is given to Rand Paul. And that's just the surface.

It's hard to fathom how you can think she's irrelevant. I think she's incredibly unlikely to win in 2012, but no one who gets crowd chanting for her to run is "irrelevant."--^talk 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pfff, I could raise $1.4 in minutes! --GTac (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

She may be media-relevant, but there's no way she could win any seat again. Remember how the Christian Right said they were the powerhouse (and had similar numbers in 2008) and were backing Huckabee? What happened? He kept going on the media, became a FoxNews contributor, and so forth. These R-celebs get gigs on television, and then kill their political careers when the smarter Republicans, those who don't think Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity speak for them, vote for the better of two evils. Because she can repeat talking points doesn't mean she can still win elections. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If your claim is now "she could never win any seat again," that's one thing. I still think that's a silly prediction, but it's not blatantly wrong like "politically irrelevant." Words mean things.--^talk 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

People thought Reagan was a doddering old fool, after two losses he won two terms. People thought GWB was a blithering idiot and he won two terms. You'll never lose a bet misunderestimating the voters. Or something like that. ħuman 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that both Reagan and GWB surrounded themselves with people who actually knew what they were doing. Palin is far too arrogant to do that, the information that came out of the McCain campaign shows that Palin has a habit of refusing to listen to viewpoints that don't match hers exactly.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How many teabaggers voted for Obama? Zero right? Has there been a single example of a teabagger in the news saying something like "I was inspired by Obama but now I'm having buyer's remorse?" No, they're all "independent conservatives" (lifelong Republicans) who are "worried by the direction our country is heading" (shocked that the scary Black Mooslim actually won) and want to "take our country back" (deliver the Senate, House and White House back to the GOP) "to our Christian roots" (electing a trailer-trash fundie like Palin or Huckabee).

So why does it matter that the Tea Party didn't formally exist before Obama won? These pro-Palin Iowans probably all voted for her in 08 and guess what, it wasn't enough to deliver the state for McCain.

I guess one could argue that putting Palin at the top of the ticket will mobilize even more Teabaggers to come to the polls in 2012. But at the same time, there's the risk of having her in the national spotlight for a whole year, not for a few weeks before the election.

Long story short I agree with the WIGO. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, in point of fact there have been several former Obama voters who are now tea partiers - they're the most prized among the ranks. But it's true that they do not generally compose much of the Democratic base.

I suppose I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that because you can't win as President by grabbing the tea party vote, of course I'll agree with you. But that's not really the point. The point is that, like any sizeable minority, they will have to be appeased at least in part. Just like you can't win a Democratic election without appeasing environmentalists at least in part, the tea party is going to be a force to at least deal with in Iowa.

Presidential politics isn't really about getting the majority, it's about grabbing so many minorities that you forge your own majority.

For comparison, the 65+ vote is not a majority either. But tell me they're not a force in politics.--^talk 18:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit late to update the WIGO, but this article is fascinating. The same poll that had 33% of Iowans supporting the Tea Party has 38% with a favourable view of Cuba, 36% with a favourable view of Socialism (are you reading this, RobS?) as well as 55% who think they are personally protected by a guardian angel. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Food in Afghanistan WIGO

Anyone used ebay before? a lot of stuff did come with free shipping. Of course we will inquire TK on how to administer the load of food enough to feed 7 million for free (yes, transport with Noah's ark Mk II built completely by only volunteers. Good luck with that). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Fox article makes for interesting reading. They keep referring to experts, but not once do they explain who the experts are or why they are considered experts. Andy would not approve. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

REPENT!!

And ye shall be saved. So there you go. If you get blocked for adding facts and common sense into CP then you should repent your sins and ask for forgiveness rather than moan about it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At least that page is now a closer reflection of their actual policy. They just need to delete the bit about CPWebmaster - he hasn't done anything for months.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the edit is just... almost three years late (Ed once did this to me back in 2007, if I recall correctly), but now at least it gives you a more accurate preview of what to expect if when you get blocked/banned. --Sid (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Professorwatch

The good professor hasn't edited Conservapedia since Jan 25, 2010^img, so he is missing now for 26 days — 17 days longer than his longest previous time of silence. Is it the fault of Terry Koeckritz - or of some liberal interpretation of holidays? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If RJJensen is really done, any infinitely small shred of credibility that Conservapedia had is now gone. Keegscee (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

But... but... but... what about the building trades articles I labored so assiduously on? ħuman 04:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

the stupid never stops

Sickening and stupid. Thanks Ed. Refugee^{talk page} 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

that is kinda creepy. Hands up if your a guy, 30-50 years old , and that book is on your reading list, oh, and you watch Sailor Moon ? Hamster (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"If you contact more than person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting." Is "person" an account there, Uncle Ed? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget watching Mean Girls and Star Trek episodes about intersteller pimps. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And Shanghai Kiss. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The man wrote the book on creepy. It has lots of teen and preteen girls in it. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have to appreciate the clarity. "If you've been wrongly blocked, think about ways it could be your fault. That'll save us time of making something up." As to the other, authoritarians like Ed always seem to be preoccupied with the sexuality of teenagers. Creepy as hell, but it's what we've come to expect. --Kels (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Ed Moon, it looks like he's active at WP again, in typical passive aggressive style. --Kels (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit is incomprehensible. ħuman 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Urge to quote his Contributor's Guide edit to his Biopsychiatry Controversy section... rising (just replace "blocked" with "topicbanned"). --Sid (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did it for you Sid. I never edit Wikipedia, too many WikiNazis. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice, Sir Chuck. Very nice. In fact bloody lovely! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to provide a source. Don't worry. I did it for you. Keegscee (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bravissimo, ChuckB. Junggai (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. Was that just organized wandalism of Wikipedia? ^{— Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs}

Dunno if I'd call a pointed (and possibly ironic) comment on a talk page "wandalism", exactly. --Kels (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He ain't responded, anyhow. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I would consider it one college douchebag mocking another user on Wikipedia, but that's just me. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

lol. arrogant much Ed? 1 (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are they talking?

The SDG is history, but all of the cross-chatter that normally was on CP is gone now, I've noticed. Do we know where their new SDG is?--^talk 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ħuman 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are going to receive a Very Important Email.--^talk 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where is it? 20:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After SDG they started a new one but got panicked when they thought some of us were reading it, so they started another one. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we're reading that one too. --Fawlty (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that! Am I missing anything fun? Etc 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Same as the last one. Ken posts stuff everyone ignores, TK bullies other admin, Jpatt and Karajou spout paranoid nonsense about RW infiltrators, and Andy pops on infrequently to preach gospel truth. 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If somebody with knowledge of the new and improved SDG's whereabouts would like to send me a Very Important Email, I would be very happy. Johann (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - sounds like fun. But then I'm a masochist. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot that Ed interjects conversations with two page long sermons about how great Sun Myung Moon is. They are usually Google group mail list things, Psy blogs about them when he has found something worth writing about. The weird bit is Ken types just like that in private conversations as well; all cagey giving, hints but not explicitly saying what he is up to. There are usually 6 follow up emails correct the spelling of his first, but nobody responds to any. He also changes his pseudonym every few months, probably when he changes his underwear. - π 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Upping the ante

The waterloo shtick became old. Now he's heading for armageddon! Internetmoniker (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, well it's from the Torygraph blog-post that he linked to. Bondurant (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. That's the reason I didn't make this into a wigo. Still a bit of an hyperbole. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the assumption that Obama must move to the right. Maybe the Indys disapprove because he's not far enough to the left for them? ħuman 14:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't they bring out the older shtick about Obama being the antichrist by now, if they have to use that word? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the next step up from Obama's armageddon (Obamageddon?) The "entropy death of Obama's universe", maybe? MDB (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Far from health-care reform being Obama's Waterloo one commentator I read suggested that it could be his Moscow - one that he wins but then finds too expensive to maintain. (I'm not offering my own view here, just pointing out that as usual Ken's grasp of meatphors is abysmal. Olé! Olé! Olé!). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Atheism Edit by Conservative

I know Ken makes totally useless edits every hour of every day, but this really cracked me up. 03:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He's done long strings of those 1-pixel resizings. Only reason I can think of is that he thinks it will improve his Google ranking, which he seems to think makes it more true or something. I doubt it has any effect whatsoever, but it keeps him off the streets so I can't complain. --Kels (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I dunno why he does that. Perhaps just to turn up on recent changes? "Hmm, I can't think of an edit to one of my perfect articles, I'll just change the thumbnail width by a pixel"? Google sure as hell doesn't care. I have pages on my bizniss site that haven't been updated since Clinton was president, and they still come up 1 or 2 if you search for what they are about. ħuman 04:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god.... I just looked at that page for the first time in years... That page looks like the entire internet took a giant shit on CP. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 03:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, that page has just put my cringe gland into overdrive. All those "anti-atheism" blog plugs written by Mariano - remember how he removed all mention of the author from the blog articles, wiped the history list and locked the pages? Or pseudo-Wikipedia crap like "See main article:..." at the top of a section and then the article is just a straight copy and paste of the section with no additional material. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't anybody ever told him that duplicating material drive down search engine rankings? - π 10:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Whinge all you want. Fact's a fact. William Lane Craig Is Still Reported To Have Called Dawkins A Coward(tm). 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Laugh all you want, I for one think it is a great improvement of the atheism article on Conservapedia. Maybe he should have even gone with 257/258 pixels for that atheist jailbird in the atheism artiel. I think you will stop laughing when Conservapedia rolls out the new developments that will push the Conservapedia atheism article's ranking on Google searches considerably in regards to atheism on the internet. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand this

Not worth a WIGO, cause it's just TK.... But I'm trying to follow this "reasoning." The Obama admististration puts out a call for a contract to supply the IRS Criminal Investigations department with shotguns. TK, being as ignorant in law enforcment as in every other part of life, screams about this on the broken news feed. He doesn't accuse anybody of anything, he just JAQs off a little bit. When someone then shows TK what the IRS CID does, he answers back implying that Obama is planning on killing the Teabaggers. A question or two. First, why would he order shotguns? Rifles are much more effecient for targeted killings and automatic weapons are better for mass killings. Second, Why the hell would he post a public contract for everyone to see if he were planning on gunning down American citizens? I know TK is an idiot and a troll, but there are other people who really think like that. What is wrong with them? SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Motherfucker, see that giant thing that says "add new section" right below this? That's there to prevent plebes like you from edit conflicting prophets like me when I choose to dignify a thread with my giant wisdom. This will be your only warning. ħuman 04:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

anyhow... a shotgun can not be traced balistically because it has no rifling and the shotgun pellets dont carry barrel markings anyway. So if you are after untracable killing tool, use a shotgun. Hamster (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That'd only work if nobody saw you shooting. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC how ironic) Check the history Human. I did use the add section tab. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 04:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You call it your 'Giant Wisdom'? I've heard about little head and thinking with the wrong head, but that's a bit grandiose, Human.... -Ravenhull (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had similar problems to Human where I get an EC while editing and then find that the EC is the addition of a new section. Is there a bug in the add new section code which causes this? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so much a bug - I think the wiki creates a new section by writing on the previous one (although it doesn't let you write an edit comment when creating a newie, so there may be some difference). Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Yeah, prolly some obscure bug that only happens once in a while. @ Ravenhull, I hope you don't think I was serious. ħuman 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry... it's rare that I'm being serious... even when I am serious... seriuosly... -Ravenhull (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Productive work?

Should things that look like productive work (I am sure stuff like most of linear PDE for science/engineering can be covered in less than 6 weeks) belong to CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the "Miss Me Yet?" Dubya Billboard

The wigo for this is from a few days ago, but...

Snopes has a new article today about the billboard. Apparently, its officially from Obama supporters, but there's suspicion that its actually from conservatives posing as Obama supporters.

If that's the case, wouldn't that be conservative deceit? MDB (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All the best humour works on multiple levels. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Open your mind and translate the bible more and you'll understand that if they're deceitful, then they are actually liberals. By definition conservatives are always honest and liberals always lie! It's as obvious as 2+2=4! HumanisticJones (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much political as humorous. And it might actually be targeted at humorists, since Obama isn't as funny/stupid, luckily we get little bits of Palin to be sure, but GWB was a comedy goldmine on wheels. ħuman 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncanny

From "Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson:

Noah Webster (1758-1843) was by all accounts a severe, correct, humourless, religious, temperate man who was not easily liked, even by other severe, religious, temperate, humourless people. A provincial schoolteacher and not-very-successful lawyer from Hartford, he was short, pale, smug, and boastful... Webster was a charmless loner who criticized almost everyone but was himself not above stealing material from others... He was also inclined to boast of learning that he simply did not possess.

Separated at birth?

--Matt 11:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute here! That's completely baseless! We have no evidence Andy Schlafly is short! 12:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mother Tongue is a great book, and Webster was the twat who almost single-handedly downgraded American literacy (IMHO). Maybe it's the fate of unsuccessful lawyers to become schoolteachers as they are probably ill-equipped for anything else but didacticism. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How does that old saying go? "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach"...? TheMayor (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it goes, "Don't read a book, write a book!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's old "write a book" method of learning always puzzled me due to the inherent chicken and egg problem. Did he ever explain how this would actually work? Given the recent argument over book citations I'm suspecting that Andy's idea of learning is to look up stuff on the web, copying and pasting it in to CP with a suitable ideological slant and scare quotes? --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's the approach taken by TK, Jpatt, etc. Andy's approach is to simply make shit up and repeat it until people accept it as truth. See "Jesus invented humor", "Jesus' healing disproves relativity", "Muslims don't dance, Obama doesn't dance, Obama is Muslim", and so on. No wonder that he wants to write books - all existing books disagree with him. --Sid (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Then what is he compensating for every time he boasts about the size of his class? Vulpius (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

From the "liberals are condescending pricks" article...

Of course, plenty of conservatives are hardly above feeling superior. But the closest they come to portraying liberals as systematically mistaken in their worldview is when they try to identify ideological dogmatism in a narrow slice of the left (say, among Ivy League faculty members), in a particular moment (during the health-care debate, for instance) or in specific individuals (such as Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom some conservatives accuse of being stealth ideologues). A few conservative voices may say that all liberals are always wrong, but these tend to be relatively marginal figures or media gadflies such as Glenn Beck. Well there you go, then... Not that the article isn't horseshit, but still... ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.10.105.29 / talk / contribs}

Context? 16:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's from this Washington Post article which is linked to from the Main Page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The UK Guardian has a pretty good take on it. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That Washington Post article - along with many of the other articles linked to from CP - just shows how good smart people are at rationalizing. It's sad, really. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting (to me) postscript: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002080023 173.10.105.29 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Explain Voting Trend, Please?

Hi all,

So, occasional observer, ex-CP natch... I thought I had a decent grasp of the ebb and flow of WIGO:CP, but I can't figure out why the RJJensen WIGO is voted down so low. What am I missing? Explanations appreciated. . . 173.10.105.29 (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not chained to CP, you know. Odds are he's just gone on holiday. If he told anyone he told them by e-mail. EddyP (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the good professor leaving without a Parthian shot so

• He's on holiday as hypothesised above
• He's poorly - in which case we wish him well
• Something unexpected has cropped up and he's too busy.

None of these justify a WIGO. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We also don't really care, it seems. RJJ isn't my kind of guy, but he's not remotely part of the reason CP is such a cesspit. Seems to me that the best WIGO's aren't a single factoid but a story that could only be told through the insanity, bigotry, hate, or idiocy of one of the main players at CP. And even then some categories have gotten boring. I could do without another TK WIGO simply because he's such an ogre on CP and any fool with half his brain tied behind his back could predict most outcomes involving him. 18:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the WIGO is leaning towards gossip, since we don't know why he's absent. Gossip is a deterrent of lulz. It's worth a mention on the talk page though. Gossip, what a strange word when you read it a few times. Gossip gossip gossip gossip gossip gossip gossip. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

When I created this wigo, I mainly wanted to try out the magic word {{CURRENTDAY}}. But I didn't expect it to tank: cp:User:RJJensen is the only editor who makes sane edits - and numerous of these. And it's a surprise to find him there, like spotting a Persian rug in a latrine. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Persian rugs are great at soaking up spilled urine. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a Persian rug in my latrine. But, so anyway, since that was built with a magic word, does that mean that a year from now in the archives it will say "380 days"? ħuman 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. It'll just keep counting until someone goes back to hardcode it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I also found the voting trend a bit strange on this WIGO. I don't mind it being voted down at all, but the first few hours after the WIGO was created I saw it rise to something like +8, and a few hours after that it was suddenly -30.. Either it's a weird coincidence or someone is using proxies? --GTac (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Seems way more appropriate to vote neutral. "Hey, one of the few largely sane people hasn't posted in a while." Not bad as a post on the talk page, but not amusing or memorable enough for a WIGO.

Though it's still better than "Hey, TK said something stupid in the news", in a way. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I get why it's not considered a great WIGO. A quick scroll down the page, though, seems to show (I may have missed one) that it's the MOST HATED WIGO currently listed, and that struck me is odd, that's all. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I voted it down because it describes something that 1. isn't a big deal and 2. is based on conjecture in a way that made me think of mainpageright more than WIGO. Larron is usually awesome though, go statistics. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also surprised it got down so low. I voted up because he's an extremely important part of CP's dynamic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I voted it down because WIGOs are for describing things that happen on CP, and that particular WIGO was about something that wasn't happening. Instead of being a specific incident or comment, it was a vague speculation. And also because there's nothing that interesting or funny about it. If RJJ had left a parthian shot, or been blocked, or left after a huge argument with Andy, it would be an event worth mentioning. As it is, it's not noteworthy. Johann (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the wigo was replete with bolded words, which I took to be a wigo arrogantly affirming its own importance ^{ONE / TALK} 09:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I voted it up, and I still think it's an up. Jensen's work was just about the only thing lending the slightest bit of credibility to Conservapedia. A short while ago, he'd taken some slapdowns and now, perhaps as a result, he appears to be gone. It seems to me that's a pretty significant GOCP. Is my take on this overlooking something? Burndall (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen at CP

• the magic word {{CURRENTDAY}} will only work for February 2010
• thanks, Internetmoniker, for your Larron is usually awesome though, go statistics :-) The wigo was motivated by statistics: When should one start to worry about the absence of an editor? I suppose, with Aschlafly, it's two days of absence, while for Ed Poor a couple of weeks wouldn't be surprising. RJJensen has only taken short time-outs, once for eight days, once for six days, otherwise not more than two days. So, fifteen days without him seems to be newsworthy.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm changing my vote.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

lol...you bastard, that shit is so cool. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

LArron, you are amazing. Graphs ftw! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming & Petitionproject.org

I noticed the petition image in the Global Warming article, with the heading "Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming" and decided to go the the petition website (http://www.petitionproject.org/) and find out more. And, surprisingly, the heading was not true. The petition clearly accepts the reality of global warming, but disputes that it is man made. Anyway I am sure they would want this mistake corrected, but I was unable to create an account to let them know131.107.0.101 (talk)

"Anyway I am sure they would want this mistake corrected." Apparently you are unaware of Conservapedia's polices. Deceit is something they strive for. Keegscee (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Oregon Petition, is it? Looks like the same Edward Teller ballot/signature. – Nick Heer 07:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally TK passes along the RW suggestion.

Huh? News about the snowstorms? I don't get it. ħuman 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

See above. 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. For some reason I remembered that as being about Rep. Murtha. Thanks... ħuman 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Light years

Is it just me, or is Andy removing the measurement "light year" because he thinks it indicates how old something is? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It ain't just you. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that even though a lightyear is purely a measurement of distance, it also implies a time factor due to the constant speed of light - ie, if x is 50 light years away, we are seeing it as it was 50 years ago. So if y is 50 million LY away, this implies an old universe. So when measuring how far something is from us, we are also finding out how old it is. Measuring how far apart two other galaxies are, however, would have no implications of time whatsoever. ħuman 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so. The references he removed had nothing to do with the age of those galaxies. --Yo-Yo^{Invitation to a Beheading} 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What is really strange is in addition to removal of extra-galactic distances, they have also begun to remove references to the size of various extra-galactic objects. That makes even less sense if that were possible. From my time there I can tell you that you are probably right on Andy's motivation behind insistence of removing distance, size though, again that makes no sense. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It can't be too big or too old, that raises too many problems. So, it gets shrunk down a bit. Because, after all, until an actual man goes out there with a tape measure, anything anyone says about how far stuff is away is pure assumption and conjecture. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add, as a Creationist who pretends science is on his side, the idea of a changing speed of light is important. Measuring with light years, to him, suggests the speed of light is a fixed and reliable measurement (which it is, to sane people), and he just can't have that. --Kels (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Light has been slowing down though, and only recently has stabilised at the lower speed. 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC) sorry is me Hamster (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong enough but far too polite to be Andy. PJR? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It's funny, because you'd think the "action at a distance" canard would suit an ever-constant speed of light. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Man I hope that was satire (About light slowing down). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As most of them are unable to grasp the vast periods of Deep Time, I suppose it is difficult or unnerving to them to contemplate the true size of the universe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

there was a graph of the slowdown , the further back you went the faster light was travelling . Hamster (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly logical that light slows down to walking speed by the time it hits your retina. The only problem I have with the speed of light thing is that during Adam & Eve's time it must have been burning holes in their eyes because it was going so fast.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to once again restate my confusion over the fact that Andy and other creationists are so against the idea of god and/or Jesus being able to defy reality. Rather than just saying, for example, x object is 5 million lightyears away, but the light was itself created en route (which actually *makes sense* with a literal reading of the bible, with *light coming before the stars*), they have to needlessly complicate matters by making up pointlessly complex ideas about the speed of light changing and all that bollocks. It actually serves to make god seem *less* powerful. X Stickman (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Why did it take the lazy bastard six days to create the universe when if he was so omnipotent he could have done it all in an instant?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well from what I understand, the idea of saying "God just made the light in route" possibly suggests deception on the side of God. However most Creationists have accepted the undeniable fact that objects exist at more then 6,000 light years (Well most do, from the removal of distance information on CP, some Creationists stand on the idea that such distances are a lie), so they have to come out with some kind of explanation to shove billions of light years into 6,000 years. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone needs to get over there and insert the important distance information back in to their astronomy articles, like this

• Distance <6000 lightyears

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

God was setting the pattern for human conduct by example. Labor from dawn to dusk 6 days of the week, and then have a day off to rest. Great demonstration of lead by example. He also needed real time to let Adam name all the animals , and to pick a 'helpmeet' Having to make Eve might have thrown off his schedule , if he wasnt Omnipotent , and he knew it was going to happen anyway. Hamster (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)And Since the liberal scientists now define metre based on speed of light, and foot from metre, what unit of length should we use on CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"more than" or "more then"?

(UI)Speaking of which, did Andy intentionally change the grammatically correct "more than" into the probably(I don't claim any skills in any language, and I have never been taught whether "more then" is valid) incorrect version of "more then"? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(sarcasm) Andy teaches a writing course to prepare students for the SAT, enrich their lives , and etc etc . Could he possibly make a mistake in spelling or grammer ? He is after all an engineer and lawyer. Consider the quality of his briefs (/sarcasm) ... then what ? then he went to the store? they are different words. Not great at English either but pretty sure of than/then. Hamster (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy done got it wrong. "Than" is a conjunction, "then" is an adverb. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the funniest part of that edit, that he mucked up the English while deleting all references to light years. ħuman 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand, Jonah Goldberg, and CP

I happened to notice a section of an article today that struck me as particularly appropriate when used to describe Conservapedia. Discussing rising Republican star Paul Ryan, Jonathan Chait discusses two of Ryan's influences: Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead) and Jonah Golderg (Liberal Fascism). Both of these influences are also enormously important over at CP:

What do those works have in common? They're written by people who don't understanding liberalism and the left at all, and are thus unable to present liberal ideas in terms remotely recognizable to liberals themselves. The specific lack of understanding lies in an inability to grasp the enormous differences between American liberalism and socialism or communism, seeing them as variants on the same basic theme. The historical reality is that the architects of American liberalism saw it as a bulwark against communism, and communists and socialists in turn viewed the liberals as in implacable enemy. (Yes, you can cherry pick a few data points of commonality, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule.) The result is a tendency to see even modest efforts to sand off the roughest edges of capitalism in order to make free markets work for all Americans as the opening salvo of a vast and endless assault upon the market system.

Thought it was interesting and worked very well to describe CP.--^talk 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great find, thanks AD! I've always found Rand's essays frustrating because they completely misrepresent her opponents. However, in a slight defense of CP, there are petty commentators on both sides of the political divide that deliberately misrepresent their opponents. CP (read: Andy) just cherry-picks the misrepresentations it likes in order to rationalize its interpretation of conservatism. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug A

What is he doing ?

Do you mean this, Toast? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly do, Tet. Forgotted the "Cp" - wikiskillz going fast: Halp! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Doug decided that there was way too much content over there and decided to remove some of it. What's the general consensus on DouglasA, anyway? Good faith editor or parodist?--Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but possibly parodist. In any case, he knows that no one is going care very much about those articles, so he's just going to go ahead and kill them. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been in email contact with DouglasA before. He seems to be genuine. Keegscee (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I could have sworn he was a parodist, though I can't remember specifically why. Editing the CPB alone seems to confer parodist status. 01:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, this is the guy who created cp:Template:Relativity with a link to cp:Moral relativism... --MarkGall (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

JacobB 1984 WIGO

If he meant it the way we think he did, that's one of the cleverest things I've ever seen. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

More fun

This. Pure brilliance. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rule Change?

I know we're not supposed to mock the students, but this is obvious parody, no? 04:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The crack about global warming and the rigors of a public school education seem like they may be parody, but the rest of the essay is pretty innocent. Keegscee (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)