Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive180

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <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)

Ken DeMyer project[edit]


I thought it might be a good idea to have interested RationalWikians do a Ken DeMyer Project similar to the RationalWiki:Zoology project. I generated a small list of topics, but I am sure if I applied myself I could come up with 50-100 more article topics. RationalWiki could become one of the premier places on the internet for information on Ken DeMyer. Of course, these articles would be much different than the web articles created by the acolytes of Ken DeMyer. By the way, I am aware of someone in Nigeria who has a very large amount of money that he wishes to get out of the country if we give him our bank details. This could fund the Ken DeMyer Project.

I am sure I could generate a list of 100-150 topics for this subject.

  • Ken DeMyer Quotes
  • Ken DeMyer and Quote Mining
  • Ken DeMyer and Search Engine Optimization
  • Ken DeMyer and Hitler
  • Ken DeMyer and Homosexuality
  • Ken DeMyer Critics
  • Ken DeMyer and Abortion
  • Ken DeMyer and Living at Home with His Mom
  • Ken DeMyer and Wikipedia

- π 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Ken DeMyer project may I also suggest the following pages regarding Ken DeMyer in regards to the Ken DeMyer project on the internet. Ken DeMyer may soon not be a safe place regarding Ken DeMyer on the internet and your boats don't look to seaworthy regarding the Ken that gets hit with the shoe :)
  • Ken DeMyer Regarding
  • Ken DeMyer In regards too
  • Ken DeMyer a certain search engine
  • Ken DeMyer Ole!
  • Ken DeMyer Ole!
  • Ken DeMyer Ole!
  • Ken DeMyer :)
Acei9 10:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ken Demyer and Medication
  • Ken Demyer and Marathon Editing Sessions
  • Ken Demyer and Obscure YouTube Video Links
  • Ken Demyer Man of Mystery
  • Ken Demyer and Being Ignored
  • Ken Demyer and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
  • Ken Demyer and Page Deletion
  • Ken Demyer and Regards
  • Ken Demyer and Repetition
  • Ken Demyer and Predicting the Future
  • Ken Demyer and Secret Friends
  • Ken Demyer and Scotland
  • Ken Demyer and Canada
  • Ken Demyer and Oriental Ladies
  • Ken Demyer and Roman Catholicism
  • Ken Demyer, Man of a Thousand Transparent Aliases
  • Ken Demyer and Godwin's Law
  • Ken Demyer and PRATT
  • Ken Demyer and SEO
  • Ken Demyer and Google-bombing
  • Ken Demyer and Page Ranking
  • Essay: Why is Ken Demyer so obsessed with Richard Dawkins?
 Lily Inspirate me. 10:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, the Ken DeMyer's Best Writing article needs no further work. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ken Demyer and Seaworthy Boats
  • Ken Demyer and his Fish
  • Ken Demyer and the Red Telephone
  • Ken Demyer and the Ides of March
  • Ken Demyer and Operation Flying Fortress
  • Ken Demyer and Operation Grassroots
  • Ken Demyer and Failure (tl;dr)
EddyP (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ken Demyer's Grasp of the English Language
  • Ken Demyer: You Can Never Have Too Many Question Or Exclamation Marks!!!
  • Ken Demyer and People on Youtube Who Agree With Him
  • Ken Demyer on Chronic Masturbation

Webbtje (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • In regards to Ken Demyer
PsyGremlinFale! 12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
(Never to be de-redded)
  • Ken DeMyer and the Ladies
  • Ken DeMyer and Wit
  • Ken DeMyer and Logic
  • Ken DeMyer and Usefulness
  • The Original Works of Ken DeMyer
Röstigraben (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wait, isn't Ken DeMyer and Homosexuality roughly the same as Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to create a boatload of red links to articles we won't and shouldn't ever have? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I hate all of you. So very, very much. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
EC - No. Mei (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Human was kidding. I am the TK to his Ed Poor and have complete authority to speak for him as his proxy on this matter. I fixed the redlink issue while preserving everything about the redlinks that made you all giggle. Carry on. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear DouglasA[edit]

User:Additioner has created some naughty pop-culture related articles recently, such as X-Men. Destroy them! EddyP (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out whose stuff he's deleting now. Still, luckily Ed's creating movie stubs as fast as Douggie's deleting them, so all Andy's in his heaven, all is well with the world. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I know he's got a hard-on for Jess, but he might be over-reachingimg himself at the moment. That's 5 previously featured articles deleted, plus Joaquin specifically asked for the Japanese Dance article (and we all know what he's like) and Ed asked for the Japan-Korea treaty stuff. Will the wholescale destruction of the few remaining decent articles on CP continue unabated? People want to know. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 07:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Between this ongoing destruction of actual content and Ken's project-spamming, I think we're about to witness a new stage in the evolution braindead design of Conservapedia...Röstigraben (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That's 250 articles (good articles, mind you) that he's deleted since April 29th 9including a couple of Ken meets Enid Blyton pages). I think he's really enjoying the delete button and I can't believe that TK or Andy haven't noticed their blog being stripped down. --PsyGremlinTal! 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Finally somebody notices what he's doing! Oh no, wrong, it's just a gentle love tap from Terrykins. Carry on Mr Adams Sir. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Tabloid ...[edit]

...journalismimg or encyclopedia hate blog? SusanG (I am a person not a template) 05:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Worthy of a WIGO methunks. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 05:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Countdown to Crazy Bobby updating the Obama article in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 05:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
OMG but what if it's true? What if Obama had sex with 120 other (WHITE) ladies like his race brother tiger woods? We are coming for your daughters! ħumanUser talk:Human 07:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a well known fact that those darkies are all sex-fiends after your womenfolk.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Damn straight. I shall do my part by drinking heavily this afternoon and then coming online to demand that Sir Chuck apologise on behalf of Obama! I won't refuse to listen to Barry White, but I can promise to avoid enjoying it. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our communist 13:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"we do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" Totnesmartin (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Silly, that rule only applies to truth gossip about conservatives. When it comes to sneaky Maoist, socialist Muslims, even Pravda will do as a source. --PsyGremlinTal! 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)t
I'm sorry CR, we black people are not authorized to apologize for each other. You'll have to file a formal request with the current leadership of the Black Union and wait 3-6 months for a reply. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 20:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
South Park lied to me. Ah well, I'll fill out the form and wait in line. (CR) (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a small thing, and the history page appears to have been nuked for some reason so I can't see who added them, but three of the references say "May 1" and the other two say "May 01". It amuses me that they can't even keep that consistent. X Stickman (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears to all be the work of parodist DerekE, unless, of course, as you say, the history has been oversighted. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
TK vapes it SusanG (I am a person not a template) 05:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"Content was: Page was empty"? No it wasn't. X Stickman (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Silence. Sysops are not wrong! --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our TK 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just shit a kitten! A PZ Myers project![edit]

I shit a kittenimg--Opcn (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That no-good evilutionist who booted Ken off Pharyngula...let's see how he copes with another hundred or so red links detailing his high crimes and misdemeanors. Röstigraben (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I love how Ken is so vague about when it will start. Professor Moriarty 08:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we get him started on the Cristopher Hitchens and Sam Harris projects as well?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To get the attention of PZ Myers is a sure way to boost the number of your viewers. larronsicut fur in nocte 09:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken is banned at Pharyngula? Under what name? --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, lolwhut?! ħumanUser talk:Human 09:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
He called himself "Peter Moore". I couldn't find him in the dungeon either, but see comment #30 on this thread. Röstigraben (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Kenny? (Not really, not Ken's style)  Lily Inspirate me. 09:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Full list of the International man of Mystery's covers here. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't Ken's projects based around coming up with lots of names for articles and little else? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our belfry 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Er, yes. The whole idea is that other people write up the redlinks. Ken then compiles them into one article under his control but with reciprocal links to the originals to enhance his Google ranking.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I am waiting for the Thunderf00t Project. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Or the youtube athiests/evilutionists project [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
PZ didn't just ban him, PZ eventually erased any reference to him and disallowed links to conservapedia, in order to prevent feeding their google ranks. --Opcn (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the comment #29 by Peter Moore: ≈ 1700 words, ≈ 600 of which are quoted. regard is used thirteen times. Has to be Ken! larronsicut fur in nocte 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was any doubt that Peter Moore = Ken = KDbuffalo among others. It's undoubted fact AFAIK. SusanG (I am a person not a template) 06:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no controversy: but I hadn't read anything of this Peter Moore before, and I got amused... larronsicut fur in nocte 06:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It is highly amusing reading Ken's 'work' (ie trolling) outside CP, as LA says above, it is so clearly Ken, he doesn't change at all. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When the cat's away...[edit]

a bunch of wandals will play.img Not a sysop in sight either. Funny that, TK's normally on 24 hrs a day... except when there's a vandal spree. Coincidence? --PsyGremlinTala! 12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They're damn lucky. If Richie wasn't so lazy, or if RW was the vandal hub they claim we are, they could easily have over 500 vandalism edits, EddyP (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, Ken blocked two accounts (but only after updating the main pageimg and his user pageimg)... but then lost interest and didn't revert the vandalism, instead opting to pimp that video some moreimg even as the next vandal is doing his thing. Hooray for priorities! --Sid (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't TK away in Arizona (offering Puplic Policy advice?). He was moaning about not being able to check the updates on WP:Conservapedia.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's actually New Mexico.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
He is not in New Mexico, that was a veiled threat at me. tmtoulouse 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
WHAT? TK lied????? Surely you must be mistaken.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Shush to several of your comments. TK isn't on 24h/d. He's just on when he can be and isn't at work. And if you've ever emailed him, then you should know where his possible place of residence is. Kettle o' fish 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Gay marriage, not economic problems cause unemployment[edit]

At least according to Andy, the reason Spain has 20% unemployment is partially due to that Euro-Socialist state allowing them gays to marry.[1]img --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is he suddenly ending his stupid news headlines with a dumbass comment in italics? Everything he does gets under my skin. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you ever think that, once gay discrimination is finally thrown into the same pit that racism and sexism are rotting in, Conservapedia and conservatives like Andy will make homophobia a 'liberal' trait, whatever the hell liberal means. I start to lose the meaning of the words conservative and liberal when I look at Conservapedia. He might as well replace with good and bad. --Grey (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In Andy's World, they mean the same thing. SirChuckBI have very poor judgement 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I somehow doubt Andy wants sexism in the same bin as racism.Webbtje (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Within the next five years Andy will still be a failed bigoted everything, but he'll fell the need to prefix his sentences with "I'm not homophobic, but..." Progress is slow but inevitable. (CR) (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy will never change his mind on this. He'll never utter the words, "I'm not a homophobe, but..." After all, he says shit like "Women can't do math" without prefacing, "I'm not sexist, but..." User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 21:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm an optimist, at least at the moment. The alternative is to wish Andy a speedy exit from this world and then hope that the damage he's done to children and Ed will somehow be repaired. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our nexus 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
In October 2008, before the passage of Proposition 8, California's unemployment rate was 8.2%. About a year later, it had reached over 12%. This awesome finding, founded on an extensive analysis, proves beyond a doubt that banning gay marriage will immediately and severely damage a state's economy. Deny me the Nobel Prize and lose all credibility, Sweden. Röstigraben (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Capturebot outage[edit]

The botserver is down, so Capturebot is running on my computer now. This means that it won't have 24/7 coverage, so if you think a diff is likely to be oversighted, don't rely on Capturebot to get it in time. -- Nx / talk 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, this is going to cost more money isnt it? tmtoulouse 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
We should put a tip jar on capturebot's sandbox. -- Nx / talk 21:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Or get people to install fireshot. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to set up Capturebot (or any bot for that matter) in a decentralized manner? I have spare CPU power on my computers that may be put into better uses. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Where is the botserver? And why does it need to be separate from the site's server? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's here. It needs to be separate because capturing large images (e.g. the barack obama article) eats up cpu and ram. -- Nx / talk 22:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe worth thinking outside the box a little - the bot itself doesn't need to capture any images, it just needs to capture the content. If a page is vaped and the image needed, that can later be created from the captured content. That would probably make it a lot more lightweight to run. MaxAlex Swimming pool 08:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's true, but capturing screenshots is the most reliable way to get what we want. We could capture the wiki source with all templates recursively expanded, but that would still leave tons of redlinks and missing images, and that's no good for showing diffs. We could get the final html output along with all elements on the page, but uploading that to the wiki would be a bit complicated. -- Nx / talk 09:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing point: I'm not talking about uploading the HTML, merely creating the image later. The actual capturebot itself doesn't need to be so heavyweight, because it's the HTML/CSS/images etc. which are the important bit. MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
But where and when is the image created? I actually tried something like that (per Jeeves's suggestion) - capturing an SVG and uploading that. The result was that the svg thumbnailer ate up hundreds of megabytes of ram trying to render a thumbnail for the svg. Inevitably you'll run into the problem if you want an image as an end result. -- Nx / talk 09:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I also have spare capacity on the server that hosts (and, but I didn't put that one there). 24/7 hosted virtual Linux instance, something like a capturebot would be just fine. Email me if that'd be of help - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The source code for capturebot is available on its userpage. It needs pywikipediabot and pyqt with qt-webkit. It also needs an x server - by default it tries to start an xvfb instance. It can also eat up CPU and especially ram - trying to capture pages like cp:Barack Obama costs hundreds of megabytes of RAM simply because the screenshot is that large. -- Nx / talk 22:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also have an account on a fast mac located in the US to run Capturebot2 from whenever you need to. Let me know. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Is it just me or has Andy just lost any pretence of trying to run a real encyclopedia in the last month or so? Looking at the CP mainpage, I see remarks at the end of news items drawing links which aren't there; Gay marriage and socialism causing unemployment in Spain, Britain is the "land of atheism" (fuck off, Asschlahlfaflyaffydaffyshitbitch), and such? SJ Debaser 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

They acknowledged that a long time ago. That's when they started to insist that the main page news items aren't bound by any encyclopedic rules or Commandments. --Sid (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well you've got his trusted sysops editing their own stuff while vandal run riot (Ken), TK blocking anybody who makes more than 2 edits, Douglas deleting every article ever created there and all Andy does is gibber about how the tories are going to sweep the Island of Atheists. I think realisation is finally dawning that CP is never going to beat WP and the conservative movement isn't exactly beating a path to his door. --PsyGremlinSprich! 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy will never, ever overtly admit that, though. He's got way too much pride to admit he'll not only never beat WP at their own game, but is barely worth their notice. That's the main reason he still has open registration (albeit not 24 hours), instead of limiting it the way other Creationist wikis do. --Kels (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Jesus, he's really overrating this election "Socialism is finished - even in atheistic Britain." By that logic socialism has finished seven or eight times in the last 90 years in the UK. SJ Debaser 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dishonesty in Detail[edit]

Bonus: For a field which isn't algebraic complete (e.g.,  !), the number of roots not necessarily matches the degree of the polynomial. So, the sysop is wrong this time :-)

larronsicut fur in nocte 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And I see TK Karajou has murdered Versatile in the process. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Where does he say "edit is not inaccurate?" Is there a missing screencap? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
yes, one screencap is missing: But if your read the left side of this, you see the - now obliterated - edit comment: (Undo revision 774716 by DouglasA (Talk) - edit is not inaccurate). I didn't catch the previous comment, where DouglasA reversed the edit of Versatile stating that the edit is inaccurate. larronsicut fur in nocte 22:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy: How should we handle the issue of complex eigenvalues and eigenvectors? It's a niche in linear algebra, and perhaps a dubious one at that, but it is in textbooks now.img A niche? Get real complex! larronsicut fur in nocte 06:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A niche? WTF? How the hell did that man ever get to be an electrical engineer? Has he never studied, oh I don't know, simple LRC circuits??? alt (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How did I miss this....[edit]

....Did anyone else hear Schlafly vs. Colmes? Acei9 05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Classic Andy. I cracked up at about 3:00 when he was talking about the word 'government.' Keegscee (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Colmes does a good job of high-lighting how bat shit insane Andy is. Acei9 05:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Holy fucking shit. Colmes pwns some moron from Jersey. We must take this to wikipedia. Schlafly is such a public moron. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone who cares type the words they say into an article (I forgot the English word for that right now, please forgive me) Transcribe? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I can haz transcript please? SusanG (I am a person not a template) 06:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Doing it now. Please don't anybody else start or I've already wasted a lot of time! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's here. If anybody else wants to clean it up, feel free. There are one or two places where I couldn't make out the words because they talked over each other, but it's pretty accurate. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you SR. Really good. SusanG (I am a person not a template) 10:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I remember listening to this last year. Very funny. "Oh, but you just said you didn't read those. Anyway..." SJ Debaser 11:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The interview was featured in the Conservapedia Bible Project article. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe it was even on the main page at the time. DickTurpis (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh Andy, it must suck for you when a liberal knows more then you, a so called conservative genius. I can't wait for him to be done with the retranslations, just so i can read it for the lulz.--Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Liberals knowing more than him is Andy's whole life. It's the main reason he started his revenge fantasy blogwiki in the first place. --Kels (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's to you getting your hearing back - it's one thing to read the idiot words, it's another to hear them in Andy's UFOlogist voice ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • After reading the transcript it's clear, to anyone, that Andy Schlafly is not a Christian as that descriptor is commonly understood. At least, no more than one could say Torquemada was an authentic Christian following the gospels. --Leotardo (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
No True Scotsman. "Authentic" Christians cover the gamut from Mother Theresa to the guy who shoots up the local abortion clinic. P-Foster (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. --Leotardo (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no central authority as to what constitutes "Christian", particularly not other Christians. Mr Schlafly is certainly at least as Christian as any priest who ever abused his power to rape children - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Overlooking my minor hyperbole: Yes and no. Unlike a descriptor--"Scotsman"--that is primarily defined by the happenstance of a geographic location where one is born/lives, Christianity is a philosophy that one either subscribes to or does not. There are basic tenants of the religion; it's quite easy to read what Jesus said, and see that Andy Schlafly often says the opposite. If I say I'm a liberal, but that I'm against gay marriage, abortion choice, health care reform, and that our Exceptional American society should be constructed around every man for himself and help only comes via individual charity, then it wouldn't be hard to say, "You may say you're a liberal, but you don't hold views espoused by liberals so you're hardly a liberal." Whereas if I'm born/live/love the United States, then to say I'm not an "American" outside of partisan bickering holds no water. --Leotardo (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The definition of Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of God. That encompasses a wide variety of interpretations and philosophies. I'll give you that Andy isn't a typical Christian. Hell, even by Christian conservative standards he's way out there. However, he's still a Christian. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There's an easy way to settle this. Leo, do you have a copy of the correctly translated and internally consistent Bible that's by no means open to interpretation? We can look it up in there. I only have the regular KJV here, and it's a bit confusing. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our glue 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that all it takes for someone to be considered Christian is to believe that Jesus in the son of God? If that is true, theistic Satanism is only a subset of Christianity. --Leotardo (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I always thought you were a Christian if you believed the Nicene Creed? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Most nominally Christian groups would accept that. On the other hand, they don't have authority to throw people who don't agree out of Christianity either. - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's my point. If you believe in the tenets set out in the creed, you're a Christian. It doesn't matter whether anybody says you aren't. It's like a big jug o' Kool Aid. If teh Assfly wants to claim that Christians who want to help people, ipso facto, aren't Christians, then he's simply wrong. Yes, I know it's more complex than this, but this is one place where his "It's what I say it is" mentality simply doesn't work. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It probably is. See, in your text above you assume (a) it is comparable to such relatively testable criteria as "Americanness" and (b) that gross hypocrisy disqualifies someone from the label "Christian". (b) may be the case, but only to make the term at tremendous variance to the way it's actually used in English and therefore useless for purposes of actually discussing Christianity with anyone who doesn't already agree with your special usage of the term.
If you're after a bright-line definition of Christianity, I strongly suspect there isn't one. It really gets very fuzzy at the edges.
In particular, Andrew Schlafly is certainly within the English language meaning by usage of the word, even if it were the case that most Christians would prefer not to be associated with him. I'm sure they wouldn't want Fred Phelps or Jack Chick either - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well--lol--I was sort of arguing both at the same time! :-D I was arguing why No True Scotsman was inapplicable, but then I turned around and said that we perhaps can define what is a "Christian". What a fool's argument I've lassoed myself --Leotardo (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Arguing this fuzzy stuff is hard. The other problem with the comparison to Americanness is that there is actually an authority on the subject: the US Government. If they say you're not American, you can try very hard to disagree, but very few people will be convinced. A better comparison might be proper versus improper usage of the English language - there is something that is and things that are English not done properly and things that aren't English at all, but there's no central authority whatsoever, and the process of things moving from the edges in or the interior outwards have much more to do with politics than might be expected - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more that a Christian believes in the Trinity, believes that Jesus is the Son of God, and follows His teachings. That leaves a very broad church which excludes Satanists. However, there are a lot of Christians who don't consider other Christians to be Christians (stay with me here) because of one or many differences in theology or even politics, hence the No True Scotsman thing. There are even a lot of American evangelical fundamentalists who do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians - a position that, incidentally and interestingly, Roman Catholic Andy Schlafly seems to proclaim on occasion. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Not only does Andy come across as a complete idiot, but as an unprepared idiot. He had nothing to back up his allegations, which is nothing new, of course, but it was an interview. He had a chance to really sell the idea and fumbled at the first pass. --PsyGremlinTala! 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are some nontrinitarian Christians. Perhaps a monotheist who believes in the teachings of Jesus is a better definition. However you define it it would be weird not to include Andy. Even if he has some bizarre interpretations he does believe Jesus was the son of God. That said, I think Andy is more fanatical about being a conservative than about being a Christian. I think if he found out God or Jesus were liberal he would become a satanist. :P --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, Night Jaguar, I think you are right that he is more in love with being a conservative than being a Christian. I think that's what was behind this exchange:

Colmes: What liberal overlay? Jesus was liberal!
Schlafly: I'm trying to peel that... well you say...
Colmes: You think Jesus was a right wing member of the GOP?
Schlafly: Well you think he was but if you peel back the liberal bias and let's see what he says. Many of his parables were economic parables.

Jesus was just an economist, that's all. --Leotardo (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Believes in the teachings of Jesus" doesn't work very well, as you'll come across countless Christians who really don't know most of what Jesus is said to have said, but instead follow the vague humanism of "peacful Jesus," a creation who doesn't keep going on about hell, wailing and gnashing of teeth, but just says "love your neighbour" and does nice things for people. So the definition would be: Christian. n. Person who identifies their particular moral and ethical code with someone called Jesus, and likes at least some of the stuff in the New Testament. Likely (but not certainly) a theist. PubliusTalk 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, as with all these sorts of things, it largely boils down to common sense and a rejection of too much pedantic definition. While it's not simply sufficient for someone to claim he's a Christian, the onus is probably on the person rejecting that claim to justify it to the satisfaction of the majority of self-described Christians. Therefore, a non-denominational baptist in the Bible Belt screaming that Roman Catholics are the spawn of Beelzebub and not Christians can probably be safely ignored when deciding whether Roman Catholics are Christians or not. But an Anglican claiming that there are fundamental scriptural, theological and moral flaws in the teachings of Joseph Smith that render Mormons as cult-members and not Christians even though they're mostly jolly decent and can safely be invited round for tea and won't eat your children is probably worth more attention. The amusing thing is watching people like Aschlafly denounce their own denomination's teachings and essentially claim that Liberal cannot equal Christian because Jesus was a free-market economist. I mean, talk about fucked up. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Best of the public[edit]

I remember watching Andy on Colbert and thinking to myself that it must have been so validating for him to be on a show that was ridiculing his re-write the bible project. He trumpets that he created a neologism, "the best of the public" on that show. The phrase is roughly translated as "we would prefer common people because experts should be disdained as they have agendas--whereas you don't--and if you agree with us then you are clearly the best of the public." Someone raised the point that Eero Sarrinen, who designed the St. Louis Gateway Arch, hardly fits this description [3]. Sarrinen had his own design firm that had undertaken numerous architecture and design competitions, and a casual reading of Wikipedia (or its sources) would show that. The commenter raises just one example, the Tuplip Chair, and Shlafly replies that it was a "joint collaboration" and doesn't disqualify Sarrinen as a non-expert "best of the public". Yet the Gateway Arch was co-designed with structural engineer Hannskarl Bandel.

Instead of realize that his shoehorning historical figures into a neologism doesn't work as well as he'd like (and that it ignores the far more numerous contributions of experts), Schlafly appears to think that Eeron Sarrinen was just some random everyday dude who one day up-and-designed an arch, submitted it for an open competition, and won! Whoopee! Except, that's not the case... --Leotardo (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. Thanks. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain amount of precedent in the Arsefly's thinking. He did the same thing with his "teenagers are responsible for 99.5% of all innovation" crap. Basically, cherry picking the odd person who may have done something vaguely interesting in their teen years, totally ignoring their often much greater contributions to society in their older years as well as all the rest of the world's great people who never did anything of note in the teens. The Colbert thing just enabled us to watch a live example of his thought process. He has the idea first, then looks for the evidence later. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, there is some merit to the idea of "Best of the public" in that there exists talent without credentials. In some fields, it may be a good business model to try to tap this resource, though such members of the public are difficult to identify. Wikipedia uses this to an extent, though it mostly consists of the decidedly mediocre public. Andy, of course, mutilates this concept. He says Wikipedia is ipso facto the very worst of the public (liberals!!!!) while anyone he edits Conservapedia without being banned is automatically the best of the public, and, of course, CBP is edited by the BotP, who are vastly superior to people who, you know, actually know the languages they're translating. And then there's his teenagers crap. I hope that gets brought up again, because I love to hear him try to justify that claim. It basically comes down to "Gospel of John (which I say was written by a teen)! I win!" DickTurpis (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
As a former Wikipedia editor, I very much believe in the concept that non-credentialed experts can often be as useful as credentialed experts. I liked to use the example of a trainspotting accountant who has always loved trains, has amassed a library about locomotives, but who crunches numbers all day and never earned his PhD in trains. I believe such a person can be just as useful as the dude who teaches train stuff at a university. But Schlafly's "best of the public" phrase doesn't reflect that at all. It's more of a playground "If we think you're cool, then you're the best of the public!" mentality. --Leotardo (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Saarinen. I apologize for not having anything more meaningful to say, but that just really bugged me. Vulpius (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo, Mrs. Saarinen :-) --Leotardo (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why I love CP (part 94)[edit]

Pages in category "Evolutionary Racists"

The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total.

  • Charles Darwin
  • Adolf Hitler

Just plain brilliant DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The results for a term which describes the likes of Hitler and Darwin at a popular internet searching utility has a certain webpage created by a certain gentleman having a rank equal to the lowest prime number. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What is an evolutionary racist? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
An ordinary evolutionist, all of which are racist. SJ Debaser 16:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A certain someone should pick up a certain telephone of a certain color and have a certain article made by a certain gentleman :) — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's actually another example of doublethink.
  • It's been shown that girls are inferior to boys in math; deny this and lose all credibility.
  • It's been shown that race X is inferior to race Y in metric Z; accept this and you're an evolutionary racist.
— Sincerely, Neveruse / [[User_Talk:Neveruse|TalkBlock 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
^^ And that metric system is particularly liberal. Just look at the math.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's like Hitwin for those really basic web browsers that can't show any pictures. Beautiful. Vulpius (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I used to use both Lynx and Links back in the day. Really useful for some things, and needless to say fast as hell page loads. --Kels (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I demand to know why Stalin is not on the list. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not even trying anymore[edit]

Because all good encyclopaedias describe people as being "cronies."img --PsyGremlinSermā! 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that he'd use that term without really explaining why Duncan is nasty enough to warrant the title "crony". Perhaps this article will grow in to a rich source of Andy lulz. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our padlock 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lax about LAX story[edit]

[2]img it's still up this way, even after Andy made another edit. One of them is apparently in jail for having been killed, the other is not mentioned on CP. :/ --Opcn (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He fixed it. To be fair to him, Ken was shitting all over the borken news in the interim with something about cretining a hundred article about Dawkler. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Or is that Hitkins? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's Hitkins at some point it will morph into Hitchens. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
He fixed it? clarified per talk page says Andy. Also his previous edit summary trime a line. Andy, you really should stop denigrating other people for their grammar and spelling typos, it's embarassing.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone catch what happened with QK?[edit]

He's doing just fine, then he switches his user boxes to Obama, legal pot, and gay rights support and he gets blocked for three days by JM for 90/10. --Opcn (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a shit thing to do. Especially since it's JM. I'd have expected it if it were TK or JacobB. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 23:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
3 days is the new pi seconds. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well JacobB did extend it to 5 years. News to Jacob, you are already in the inner circle, you don't need to be hyper trollish to prove yourself, Andy isn't watching anyways. --Opcn (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really glad JacobB has found his true calling. To think that he used to waste his time doing mathematics. Now he's become a hard-core goon. The only way to survive. Gauss (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A dickhead thing to do[edit]

Hopefully, nobody in British Columbia plans to edit CONservapedia ever. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 00:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's merely everyone with Delta Cable in BC. He should just go ahead and create a whitelist of him, Ed Poor and Andy instead of attempting to blacklist everyone. – Nick Heer 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have offered him assistance before. All has to do is run that script and only the sysop will be able to edit. - π 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's just not fun, that's why. TK would rather go about blocking the entire world himself, editor by editor. He gets more erections that way. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
When should we expect TK to use the global block script? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Poor TK[edit]

TK Is so misunderstood bye you guys. Y'all git yer rocks off by blocking folks all the time, what's the difference? He just wants too be herd. Don't be so hard on the ol' sumbitch. Corn Butter (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel bad about violating his human rights like this. Well, not all that bad. Not bad at all, really. In fact, I'm kinda okay with it. On reflection, I feel pretty good about the whole thing. Hell, really good. Hot damn, TK being blocked is AWESOME! I hope he stays away forever! --Kels (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yer talk sounds like liberal cold sore to me Corn Butter (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Whats all this about then? Acei9 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sympathy for the Asshole Devil, looks like. --Kels (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun Facts of the Moment[edit]

April 2010 was the slowest month in Conservapedia history since February 2007; film at 11. Thanks to their recent deletion sprees one out of every fifty words in their article namespace proper now deals directly with homosexuality. mb 09:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They've still got a long way to go then.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
*brings up the edit counter* Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 10:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You call that a fun fact? Please...this is a fun fact: The 1972 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has no entry for "Common Era." [4] — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Culture Wars, CP-Style[edit]

Kenny defends Sonic the Hedgehog, Bob Hope, jazz, and Leave It To Beaver. Meanwhile, Andy allegedly has a soft spot for Tim Conway.--WJThomas (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy has no choice but to defend these deletions, as he is clearly Puritan in believing these forms of entertainment take time away from reading the Bible daily. (talk)

Those damn, arrogant, British![edit]

Conservative on mainpage: Nick Clegg, a proponent of arrogant big government in the UK, accuses David Cameron of arrogance!

I'd happily bet a stupid item in my possession that Ken hadn't heard of Nick Clegg until 2 weeks ago. SJ Debaser 13:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, neither had much of the British electorate. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but most would've heard of the Lib Dems. If not, then it just highlights CP's angle of jumping on any old bandwagon s'long as it "works" for them. SJ Debaser 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hit "Random Page" on CP...[edit]

...and get a debate where almost all the participants are RW sysopsimg. Those were the days.... P-Foster (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ooh, I got Physical Science Terms K, which doesn't include Kelvin], or anything else except Kinetic friction, which looks and feels like an EdStub. --PsyGremlinParlez! 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Geographic block[edit]

JohnPatti blocks a user interested in Kenny's PZ project for being from Germany. To add insult to injury, Mr. X-ray undoes the formatting done to PatM's original request, which has been left to stay. JPatt, you are a very big man. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and that was just after Kajagoogoo had blocked a brand new user for being a racist. Do you think they'll add "Being from Germany" as a block reason? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Naw, he ain't no racist, he wus jus' protekkin' them thar folks from that nasty librull multi-culturism thang. (Just checking to see if I would qualify as an Arizona English teacher). --PsyGremlinPraat! 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, "Being interested in Kenny's projects" would be closer to the truth as well as an understandable block reason, but they don't want to hurt his feelings. Röstigraben (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point[edit]

You know Andy, when you have to write "...The land of atheism (Britain)" in order to explain what you meanimg, it's pretty evident that you... and only you... thinks of Britain in that way. PS What will you do, when the Tories don't have a landslide? Oh yes, lie, block, delete, oversight and pretend it never happened. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It really will be interesting to see how the Assfly responds to the election result (because no-one at all thinks it will be a Tory landslide) when it results in a hung parliament or a slight Tory majority. I don't think he'll oversight the lot (too much, including all the discussion on mainpage talk) so he'll have to employ his usual tactic of completely ignoring reality (difficult) or most likely go for an Assfly reversal and claim that what the liberal atheistic UK call a stunning victory isn't what he meant. Of course. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get it do you? When a liberal wins an election by 1%, it's a narrow victory due largely to deceit on the part of the liberal, and hardly even counts as a victory at all. When a conservative wins by 1% it's a landslide and an utter condemnation of the entire liberal agenda. Duh. DickTurpis (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah. We all know librulls skew election results, so if a conservative gets a 1% victory, that means they got that on TOP of overcoming the 20% of vote fraud that the librulls added in. Hence, landslide. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Charming fellow[edit]

Who says Ken doesn't have any charm?img He's all class. Acei9 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And Richard Dawkins fits in... how? Nutty Roux (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's referring to that Dawkins quote “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." that he likes to throw around. X Stickman (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Coming up next: Richard Dawkins and "gentle pedophiles". I swear, one day Ken is going to get himself into a lawsuit. This one seems to be about Dawkins arguing that the damage inflicted on children through threats of eternal damnation is worse than the groping no small number of priests seem to revel in. On the other hand, Ken seems to be getting chummy with his supposed arch-nemesis. Röstigraben (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing there. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Check the page's title. Röstigraben (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That first 'reply' from Ken is just awful. On a lighter note, I don't make a habit of following Ken's links to nutter websites, but I clicked the one about clowns (or something) and to my delight I found that the 'author' there had the following to say about Dr Dawkins:

He is likening any and everyone with whom he disagrees to Hitler

- I know the use of such a device is now frowned upon, but there is a certain measuring device which would be off its scale with that one. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's about a random homosexual encounter, I thought it particularly appropriate. DickTurpis (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Huffington Post and the Canadian publication the National Post have both referred to Richard Dawkins as a "clown" recently

The National Post? Really? --Kels (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Although I note that they carefully avoid mentioning the bit about how

On the subject of evolution, he argues with wondrous self-assurance and a brilliant command of detail. He’s established himself as his generation’s finest author on the human sciences and (in many opinions) the most effective popular science writer in the world.

And, of course, there's the fact that the National Post is arguably the most conservative newspaper in Canada; still liberal, from CP's point of view, but it's not like we're talking about the Toronto Star. (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's still a right-wing rag solely kept alive by wingnut welfare that nobody takes seriously except ReformaTory supporters. All they've ever been good at is bleeding money. --Kels (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant you the bleeding money, but I object to the characterisation of just under a sixth of my country as wingnuts, even if merely left implied. O' course, I am Calgarian. (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My country too, Jack. And the country of a lot of folks the ReformaTories would deny it to. --Kels (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"No one would have believed in the last years of the twentieth century that this country was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences different from a Liberal's and yet as mortal as his own; that as Liberals busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency Liberals went to and fro over this nation about their Socialist affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over Conservatives. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older parties of Canada as sources of political danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life within them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most Liberals fancied there might be Conservatives in Alberta, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, a mind that is to our minds as ours are to Conservapedia, Stephen Harper regarded this nation with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew his plans against us. And early in the twenty-first century came the great disillusionment." --[War of the Words]
Seriously though. Accusing the Conservatives (and, prior to that, Reform) of having a hidden agenda of unmitigated evil died with Paul Martin's political career. Or at least it should've. It's that kind of blatant, propagandistic fearmongering that led to the infamous "We did not make this up" ad series, or the standard comment-rage that follows any CBC story on the Conservatives. Then again, there IS Mark Steyn, professional troll and shoddy fact-checker... (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Stephen Harper Party of Canada doesn't have a hidden agenda, they have an overt so-con agenda, as inherited from the Reform Party, who didn't hide it either. I don't think they're evil, but the anti-democratic moves of the last few years (both prorogations, the Afghan detainee debacle, getting rid of rights groups by defunding them so no debate can occur, "shut the fuck up" on the abortion issue lest Harper turn more of his wrath on the rapidly vanishing rights groups, smearing KAIROS as anti-Semitic, smearing Jack Layton as fucking supporting the Taliban WTF, using "separatists" as a snarl word to suggest the Bloc aren't real Canadians, the most secretive Parliament in history, the largest media arm in history, allowing the oil sands concerns to skimp on environmental concerns, etc., etc.), it's hard to describe them as acting in the interests of the whole country. --Kels (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
An overt so-con agenda? Like apologising to the Natives? Like allowing a free vote on abortion, and doing precisely nothing about it afterwards-- whilst Canada has exactly zero legal (and minimal proceedural) restrictions on abortion, which are supported by government funds? And isn't the defining point of seperatism (Quebec and Albertan alike), you know, not wanting to be Canadian, for whatever reason? And, of course, the oilsands are one of the biggest drivers of economic activity in the country. I, for one, have no desire to see Alberta wind up like, oh, Hamilton. Moreover, it's a bit rich to criticise the oilsands for lax environmental empathy when, at the same time that Suncor's in court for killing a few ducks, BP is busily contaiminating the Gulf of Mexico. The blatant mischaracterisations of the oilsands by people who benefit far more than they are aware of from the billions and billions of dollars being spent there and the millions and millions of barrels of oil that they produce 'really' irritate me.
I'd like a cite for Harper saying Mr. Layton supports the Taliban; Google is not yielding results. If you want to talk smear campaigns, though, you'll have to go a long, long ways to top the mudslinging that's been tossed at Harper, Stockwell Day, and Preston Manning over the years, very little of it justified. If you want to talk anti-democratic, there's always Mr. Chretein's attempt to throttle a protester, or the APEC conference in Vancouver that saw Canadian citizens peppersprayed and that Chretein subsequently joked about. (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. I know better than to argue with an apologist, carry on. --Kels (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do love passive-aggresiveness. That work for you often? (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Do goading attempts work for you? Well, other times I mean. --Kels (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"It's still a right-wing rag solely kept alive by wingnut welfare that nobody takes seriously except ReformaTory supporters. All they've ever been good at is bleeding money. --Kels (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant you the bleeding money, but I object to the characterisation of just under a sixth of my country as wingnuts, even if merely left implied. O' course, I am Calgarian. (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My country too, Jack. And the country of a lot of folks the ReformaTories would deny it to. --Kels (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)"
Not as often as they do for you, it would seem. (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You're really bad at letting things go, aren't you? I wasn't talking about every single person who voted for the party. "Wingnut welfare" refers to the right-wing corporate and political interests propping up propaganda outlets and individuals that wouldn't survive in an actual open market. That applies to the NatPo. As to the rest, well, I have no idea what your comment means, and frankly I don't care. --Kels (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Blockquote didn't work the way I anticipated. Fixed; I was quoting three lines, not just the opening. Y'going t' claim that ReformaTory isn't intended to be derogatory? I call bullshit. (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Call whatever you want if it makes you feel good about yourself. Me, I'm going to bed. --Kels (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your gracious permission. I will. (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Jeez, so much bitterness and passive aggressiveness, for a moment I thought I was reading CP's template:mainpageright! --GTac (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

CP Alexa[edit]

Looking here, I see their 3-month reach has fallen by 30%. And unless I'm reading it wrong, they get more traffic from Ireland and New Zealand than from the US. Must be Ace & Marcus double-teaming 'em. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Always remember alexa should never be taken too seriously. As per Ireland New Zealand et al. That is the "rank" in the country not level of traffic. There are many more sites in the US which get a lot more traffic, but there are also a lot more people. So a "lower" US ranking could still mean many times the level of traffic from the US. tmtoulouse 17:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look what I did for you guys [5] and how much love and respect do I get? nobsdon't bother me 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Er, no Bobby, sorry to burst your little bubble, but that was due to people coming to see our tumbleweed picture, which is far more interesting than what you and you-know-who got up to. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not WIGO worthy[edit]

Yes Terry, that completely 'clarifies' your made-up claim. You stupid cunt. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Jesus Christ on a stick. TK's parroting Ken now? And since when is the 2 sources Ken could find an increasing number of any significance? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
TK supporting Ken might actually be WIGOable, I seem to recall him talking about how hard Ken is working on his big projects, maybe it was on Andy's wall. --Opcn (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually it reads to me like an attempt at dry humour by TK.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I read just the first and last paragraph[edit]

But did little Phyl just come out as an evolutionist? --Opcn (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the entire thing either, but I think she is indeed an evolutionist. I believe she used to argue in support of evolution on the debate pages. Keegscee (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I like how Terry has to once again pull a little power trip and protect it. Phyl's a sysop, I'm sure she's capable of protecting it herself. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 20:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
TK says it's about the tricks Darwin used to get his idea spread around, I still haven't read it, been reading articles out of PNAS all day, and cant muster the attention. --Opcn (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What a craven lickspittleimg Terry Koeckritz is.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
She has been working on a paper about Darwin for college (which she is not liking). Leave her be. ~ JonG ~ 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
She's a big girl now, and she chooses to publish her work for the world to read. She's fair game. Cry about something else. Burndall (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
She's always been tall. o-o I don't quite get what you're biting at here. Obviously not my neck (the place you should be biting). Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What Burndall's saying is that she's put it out in public and must suffer the consequences good or bad. If it's not to be critiqued, then it shouldn't be on an open webshite. SusanG (I am a person not a template) 22:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
*just saw the main WIGO entry* Now please excuse me while I don't behave in my normal manner:
You people talk shit like you haven't copied sections of articles into your essays when you were younger. Fuckin' douchebags. Candlewick 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Err, no. Not without saying they were copied and giving sources, anyhow. SusanG (I am a person not a template) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, never, not once. They kick you to the curb for that. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Never. Was taught from an early age to paraphrase and/or quote and footnote. Of course, at such an early age I did not have access to ctrl-c/ctrl-v. Opportunity is still not an excuse for laziness. I hope her eventual paper is better. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal gloating by Andy[edit]

Wow! Gloating muchimg, Andy? I love how he has no clue that the Conservative Party is conservative in name only, compared to his beliefs. He'd be happier with my country's old Conservative party. And the land of atheism crap? Because Dawkins is British I suppose. I hope he gets to eat humble pie next week. Not that the sanctimonious prick will, of course. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

At least he's consistent Matt 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
CP's main page is amazing. Andy seems to have forgotten that a) he's running an encyclopaedia and b) it's the front door for the uninitiated arriving there. Unless he's preaching to the choir (all 7 of them) he's going to come across as a bitter little whackjob. And that's just from the "news" bytes, never mind Ken's drivel plastered everywhere. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 22:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
That is just further proof, if it were needed, that Assfly has no clue about British politics at all. Everything indicates that the Tories are actually out in front - but not enough to win a clear majority. This means that the party that could end up with quite a stonkingly large amount of real power is the Lib Dems, as they can then offer to form a coalition with one party or the other - which would then give an overall majority. Just to rub Assfly's face in it, that's the Lib Dems - short for LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The "land of atheism?" Who the fuck does Andy think he is? A 2005 census found 71% of Brits identified as some kind of Christian. But - obviously - Andy ignores everything that isn't in fitting with his stupidity. For example, how the Conservative Party isn't conservative. SJ Debaser 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This is why most people on the planet think Americans are idiots. They don't ever leave their country and assume the world is either A) exactly like them or B) is clamouring to be like them. Mr Schlafly, if you're reading this which I doubt, my advice to you: GET A FUCKING PASSPORT AND TRAVEL A LITTLE! Scarlet A.pngnarchist 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He also writes as though the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are the two main parties ("They don't say that when liberals win"). This fits his bipolar view of the world divided into Liberals and Conservatives forever, but of course further shows his willful ignorance. Bluefish (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he realizes that Labour and the Conservatives are the two main parties, but like you said, he has a bipolar view of the world, and in his analysis, both the Lib Dems and Labour are "liberal" parties, i.e. political parties that don't share his definition of conservativism.--Justme (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. According to this wigo, he's a bit confused [6]. CS Miller (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Lib Dems are liberals as it is in the name, doh! Labour is just confusing, so it's a liberal trait. And the conservatives aren't even republicans! larronsicut fur in nocte 09:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, the only UK party Andy's ever come out and said he supports (some) of their policies is the BNP. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Though to his small credit, he backed down when people managed to get through to him that the BNP were actual neo-Nazis. I suspect Andy would quite like the UK Independence Party, if he ever heard of them and learnt anything about them - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the UKIP a bunch of reactionary, left wing racists, as opposed to the BNP being a bunch of reactionary, right wing racists? CS Miller (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
They're about as reactionary and generally right-wing, but they're not actively racist by policy. (Just passively racist by culture.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup, just did a bit of checking on the National Enquirer of on-line encyclopædias; it seems I was confusing the UKIP with No2EU. A second check, I'm not sure how racist they (No2EU) are, as long as the foreigners stay in their own country. CS Miller (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC).
Oh FFS Andy, Now you're just being childish.img --PsyGremlinHable! 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
He proves yet again that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Best bet at the moment is still a balances parliament (with, admittedly, the Conservatives as the largest party) but that's not a landslide. The best the Tories can hope for is a majority of about 30. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious to see how far labour fall and how well the Lib Dems do (having grown up with staunch Soc Dem parents in the good old days). I wonder how Andy would react if his precious Conservatives form a coalition with the Liberal dems. --PsyGremlinPrata! 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Even The Daily Torygraph isn't predicting an outright Tory win [7]. According to them, Betfair is predicting Tories 318, Lab 216, LibDem 87, Others 29. Tories would be 8 seats short of an overall majority. This forcast is far move Tory-leaning than others I've seen, including ComRes (same site, Tories 282, Lab 259, LibDem 77, Others 32, 44 short). CS Miller (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy *does* know that the conservative party has been in power before, right (admittedly it was 13 years ago but they were in power for 18 years)? He's acting like the conservatives just appeared out of nowhere to topple the opressive liberal regime. X Stickman (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my general ignorance of British politics, but Andy does know about the Iron Maiden, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He must know, surely. Thatcher (conservative) from '79 to '90, John Major (conservative) '90-'97, Tony Blair (labour) '97-'07, Gordon Brown (labour) '07-now. The UK certainly hasn't been dominated by Labour (or "liberals") for so long that a conservative win is "huge news -- and highly significant -- that conservatives will win in a nation as liberal as Britain." Yes, the UK is a lot more liberal as a whole than the US, but that includes the conservative party as well. At best, a conservative win in the UK would make the UK (by Andy's standards) "just ever so slightly less liberal". So I don't get what his deal is. Off in his own world, I guess. X Stickman (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy is really guilty of denial here. Every single poll is showing that there will be no majority for any party. The Conservatives certainly appear to be in the lead, but by a very small amount and certainly nothing even close to being enough to win an overall majority. He may not understand UK politics but he still has to misread anything he reads, because I'm not aware of any source that is saying anything other than 'hung parliament' Worm(t | c) 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy is way too ignorant about the world to expound on other countries. Regarding the MSM (as they like to call it), we have The Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun all in the Tory camp, Grauniad and perhaps Indie with Lib-Dem, and just the Mirror behind Labour. So is there a mass cover-up by the press of the Conservative's position? I think not.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
He's so emotionally invested in the Tories now that the aftermath of the election should be entertaining no matter what happens. If his new favourite party actually wins, he'll first claim that getting a little more than a third of the votes amounts to a total repudiation of liberalism, and then start screaming "CINOs!" once the Tories implement their actual policies. In the event of a hung parliament and a coalition government, he'll either blast the Tories for cooperating with liberals, or - if the LibDems join Labour - go completely postal over how the will of the people has been neglected. Either way, his theory about the inevitable comeback of conservatism is going to receive another blow. Röstigraben (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh TK, you cad you. "The tossers in the U.K. better hurry out and buy their 50" LCD TV's before their dole payments are cut!", those maximum-of-£102-a-week payments (with fortnightly reviews) are going to get you a £1,600 TV in no time. Also, "tossers"? Family friendly. (I posted it here 'cos it was in the "discussion" thread on the UK election over on cp). X Stickman (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is "tosser" ever used in any derogatory sense in the US? In the UK it's pretty much synonymous with "wanker", and only slightly less "family friendly". Presumably (though who knows?) TosserKock thinks it means something like "waster". Andy's insistence that the Conservatives will win by a landslide, despite everyone pointing out that no one else is predicting that (not even the Tories themselves), is hilarious - I'm longing to see how he explains his way out of the actual result. BTW I wonder if he is aware of their position on the evil global warming conspiracy. Cantabrigian (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No, TK just likes to toss out/up/back the occasional Britishism, usually clumsily, to show off his cosmopolitan knowledge of all people's ways and means. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
He prolly confused it with "dossers" - or not. SusanG Toast 03:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

More Crazy Kenny[edit]

I've got 10 internets that say the Project goes ahead and Kenny uses most of the now-blocked PatM's pages. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Did he just claim that CP is more popular that PZ Myers? And did he just call out people for being attention whores? I just looked at the CP Dawkins project, does anyone doubt serious mental illness now? Also, his pathetic attempts to get Andy's attention and how they are completely ignored makes me a little sad. tmtoulouse 17:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken desperately desires the notice of his liege, it is how the loyal sysop vassals know they are in favor, and thus have the edge over other sysops in the ongoing battle against each other.
As for the PZMyers Project, one can only hope so because it offers such potential lutz. Of course I honestly exspect most of the Richard Dawkins Project links that Ken created to remain forever redlined. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has serious problems (as in much worse than the aspergers that some of the wiki freaks have) and I wouldn't advise messing with him. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks Richard Dawkins sends him secret messages. I wouldn't be surprised if Ken eventually tries to murder Richard Dawkins (or at least hears voices telling him to). He's really not ok. From here on out, I'm officially boycotting all things Ken. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
How about Ken going off on JimPT, I gues helpful suggestions are out of the question. Anyone know how he generates his numbers? --Opcn (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Does Andy not realize that, as creator, owner and despot of the site on which Ken predominantly resides, he has some responsibility for Ken? The man is clearly not right in the head, but Andy just lets him carry on simply because Ken happens to be gibbering in the same language. Why isn't Andy actually talking to Ken, advising him away from this sort of stuff, and perhaps even trying to help him in the physical world? EddyP (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've said a few sections below, true conservatives wouldn't do such a thing in public. If Andy is helping Ken (which I highly doubt), he's doing it in private. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Are there any legal experts here? US ones? What are the honest-to-god chances of a slander suit or something? I really know next to nothing about this sort of thing. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at some of the crapimg he's now spouting. No wonder we don't need parodists when admins write shit like this for us! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is he actually claiming that CP is more popular than Myer's blog? It gets, what about 30-40 times the daily traffic of CP? What is his metric he keeps talking about? tmtoulouse 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Ken says "given the lack of evidence for some of your proposed articles which make serious allegations, I have decided to block you from the website" (emphasis added), hmmm this thing might explode when it sees your other 'projects' then. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Good-oh. After deciding that the project is 'over ambitious' and proposed by a LIBERAL(I don't know if he means the German blockee or this guy) and it's time to start the memory-holing. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And now we get a Kenny-essay on why he's not doing the PZ Myers thing.img Tl:dr, but it doesn't contain a single 'regard'. Really, I'd love to know how what passes for his mind works. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I figured it out! Ken is upset because PZ unpersoned him, so now he brought the subject up just as an excuse to pretend like PZ is a nobody. --Opcn (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good explanation - but it doesn't explain why he felt the need to delete and recreate his on personal scrawl so many timesimg. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, Andy, acknowledge Ken's existence and awesome projects already. Each day that goes by without a nod, his RDP article suggestions are getting more bizarre. Röstigraben (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How long do you think he will keep it up before he gives up and moves on to another ignored and pointless scheme? tmtoulouse 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if he stopped constantly deleting and recreating his main article and actually got round to writing some of the articles, he might get somewhere. That said, I think this project is already stillborn. The abortion project too - seems Andy's ADD has kicked in again, and now his focus in one the Tories winning... for the next 30 seconds, anyway. The he'll- ooh! Let's ride bikes!--PsyGremlinSnakk! 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken's the big picture guy, the army of normal CP contributors can handle the writing of articles, they just need direction. tmtoulouse 18:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"the army of normal CP contributors", I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this phrase. Are you sure it's something that exists in English... or at all? PsyGremlinPraat! 18:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The "normal CP contributor" is a parodist, and there's no shortage of those guys. Plus, dear god, I can imagine what's coming next. Bingo. Röstigraben (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear god. "would more Asian ladies finally believe Richard Dawkins had more yang than yin?" I just threw up in my mouth. He's obviously lusting after dear, sweet, virginal, Christian Jessica again. I need a bath. --PsyGremlinFale! 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just took a real look at this "project" for the first time and, man, this is fucking hilarious. I really cannot believe it's not parody. At the bottom he begs people to use facebook and the like to tell people about this project. I think we have to. Not quite Lenski and the CBP, but it could be the top 10 article thing all over again. Can anyone, and I mean anyone regardless of how batshit conservative they are, read this and not think Conservapedia is run by fucking retards? I hope he writes at least a good portion of those articles. It would be so much better than Summa Homosexualita. DickTurpis (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of informing the RD Facebook group about it. But it's a wonderful example of how batshit insane he is. Watching him work on his project is like watching somebody polish the bumper of a Rolls Royce... that has no engine, or interior fittings. --PsyGremlinFale! 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

snickerimg 19:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I rather liked Karajerk's comment as he shows LukeG the door: "We can't fix stupid", which really does sum up CP nicely. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Where is little Johnny boy getting his 'IP blacklisted on five sites' from, besides sucking it out of TK's ass? I suppose it's the little man's way of saying 'look, I have soopah seekrit look-up stuphs. Now when I block you, playback's a bitch.' --PsyGremlinParla! 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is one of their favourite checkuser lookup sites. If you look up the IP address then on the second page is a button with "Blacklist Check" on it.  Lily Inspirate me. 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Whadya know, I'm also blacklisted on five sites! What the hell? Junggai (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing, it's always five sites. And he never blocks the IP. Only mentions the blacklisting while blocking the editor. What a queer little chap Johnny boy is. --PsyGremlinHable! 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That blocking is about spam generation, fuck all to do with what they think it is.

Chilling contribution from Ken[edit]

Sorry, too dumb to link it. The Beaver conversation elicits this from Ken:

...Is it because the show revealed great truths such as the character Eddie Haskell warning parents to examine their children's friends more closely. :)...

The sentence capped with a kind of knowing smiley creeps my parental instincts. I'm seriously creeped. — Unsigned, by: Brendiggg / talk / contribs 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) -- Nx / talk 18:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thx nx --Brendiggg (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I Think we have to let Ken make the 35 required revisions to the post before we can accurately judge what he's saying. P-Foster (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's sweet of you to say that, but we all know Ken's writing doesn't improve with the number of edits. He'll still be mostly incomprehensible tomorrow save these brief moments of clarity. I found the Mengele/mother one far more disturbing that this one. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Mengele/mother? Whuwuzthatabout? mb 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Down the memory hole, nutty. Luckily, we have a screencap: [8] HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I love that although the edit that put the comment has been removed, the statement remains on the page: [9] HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken and Ed are starting to sound the same? Dear Goat, I think I finally understand the true sinister purpose behind CP! Through careful banhammering, Andy has finally managed to purge all but the purest specimens and is now in the process of sewing them together into some sort of a "perfect conservative" that will lead America to a new golden age. If only St Ronnie had agreed to reproduce with Mama Schlafly there wouldn't have been any need for Andy to play god. Vulpius (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
He would have played gOD anyways. --Opcn (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well guess who got blocked from Conservapedia within five minutes[edit]

18:24, 4 May 2010 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked TheMoonbat (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Troublemaker / Prevaricator: back to your bellfry)

I didn't even edit one thing, One thing!! Though i guess i get to join the fanclub of RW users who have been banned by conservapedia. --Skeptical Moonbat is Skeptical (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What did you expect, man? If only you had formatted your name ThemoonbaT.HoorayForSodomy (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I transplanted this from main page talk. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My God. Make TheMoonbat a bureaucrat right now! Keegscee (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Getting blocked from CP is an art form in it self, personally i have been blocked around 7-8 times, and all the block reasons have been wrong even by CP standards, using anonymous proxies when i have not, being an vandal while i have never vandalizes any of their pages and so on... One time tho, TK guessed right and blocked me as a RW member, but at the time i was using a computer, IP and an account never used on RW, so i don't count that as a valid block. Currently it seams that making an account is all the reason they need to block you. Timppeli 08:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-Breaking News[edit]

A few news stories we won't be seeing at CP anytime soon:

  • Los Angeles County coroner rules that actor Corey Haim died of natural causes (pneumonia).
  • Republican Florida state senator views porn during debate on an abortion bill, sez he was "bored".
  • Prominent anti-gay activist George Rekers, a co-founder of the Family Research Council and a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), is busted returning from a "vacation" with a male prostitute.

--WJThomas (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They were obviously all closet liberals. Such behavior is so common now we don't even report it. Acei9 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Or this one: RNC kicks back at lesbian bondage club. As Jay Leno said, Republicans might be against gay marriage, but they sure like to see them tie the knot. --PsyGremlinTal! 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, people have sex. I think I read that in the newspaper somewhere. nobsdon't bother me 01:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
But only the liberals would descend into such debauchery. Acei9 01:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberals love to accuse conservatives of hypocrisy, because it's something a liberal can at most rarely be guilty of. Conservatives set high standards for themselves, and being human, occasionally fall short. Liberals don't set standards for themselves - if a liberal is caught have sex with men or some other disgusting thing, well, liberals love that, so there's no hypocrisy. YourEnemy? (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolled line: everybody beneath this line got trolled

Carry on trolling there lovely boys. In the meantime the adults that make up this site will ignore you. Gods Pee.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Damn those liberals and there realistic approach to reality! --Opcn (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere around >50% of the human population does not think sex with men is disgusting, in fact they like it. And many that don't "like it" also don't find it disgusting. You are funny. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Should take this to the Saloon Bar but all you hear there is "Can I push in your stool?" nobsdon't bother me 05:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like my kind of place. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
To respond to Huw's point (and certainly not the troll) I actually do find the thought of sex between two men disgusting; that's why I don't do it. However, if other people want to, it's certainly no business of mine - or anyone else. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The phrase was "sex with men", not "sex between two men". And I reiterate, half the population likes sex with men, and many more don't find it "disgusting". ħumanUser talk:Human 07:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sex with men is gross? Compare eating a hot dog to cutting a stack of pancakes in half and eating them from the bottom up - with your face. Which sounds grosser to YOU? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? I find sex between two men to be gross (I'm sure most women don't find sex with men gross, so you need to clarify your point) - but that has no bearing on anyone else - go hotdog crazy, it's nothing to do with me. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 07:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It was a joke, dude. If we're going to be serious, all sex is pretty gross when you think about it. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Sex with me is awesome. Sex with any of you other people is disgusting. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's true. Sex with Human is awesome. Disappointing with the blow-up variety, however. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not every female likes sex with men (or so I hear) and even those who do don't like it all of the time (or so I hear from married men-friends).  Lily Inspirate me. 09:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Conservative women, of course, are supposed to lie there and not enjoy it, even if they aren't in the mood. Mama Schlafly says so. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering under what circumstances she told you this (ewwwwwwwwww!). Cantabrigian (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"I like my tea like my men - when I feel like it" (Jo Brand) - David Gerard (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Every time a anti-gay bigot gets caught with a male prostitute, an angel gets its wings. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone bring in Tweety on his ass- literally Sleuth (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"Conservative women, of course, are supposed to lie there and not enjoy it, even if they aren't in the mood. Mama Schlafly says so." Just lie back and think of EnglandReagan. MDB (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

TK trolling CP[edit]

Well, when he says such things as tossers in the U.K. better hurry out and buy their 50" LCD TV's before their dole payments are cut!img he must be trolling, a) the use of "tossers" (certainly not family friendly) and b) that the Torys would cut dole payments. Sure, if they wanted nationwide riots on their hands. 10 internets say the UK election becomes the new FBI. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee.img (capt in case the cons lose and it disappears) I'm nervous about the election mostly because I live in the UK and don't want a conservative government, but also because if the conservatives *do* win, Andy will be all crazy. Then again, if they don't, it'll be funny to watch how he reacts. I'm tense for many reasons! And yeah, TK seems to be even more over the top recently. Maybe it's because RW isn't paying as much attention to him as we were. X Stickman (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If the conservatives are kept out by a lib-lab coalition, hat'll be four years of ammo for Andy to whine about a Grand Liberal Conspracy. Hopefully he'll go even more up the creek than he has already. the temporary excursions away from reality may become permanent. I can't 'ardly wait. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As Mervyn King said, winning might just be a poisoned chalice (OK, he didn't use those words but that's the metaphor he was searching for). I think that this will also turn out be the case in the USA where Obama was landed with a timebomb which has not yet gone off. The problem is that most people are more concerned with instant gratification rather than a long term strategy.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


I love Andy's commentimg. I assume the point he's trying to make is that the librull Gardian is writing down the Teabaggers because they're conservative. What he's actually saying is that because they're conservative, they're bombing at the polls. Turning on your own now Andy? --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's up late. He's drunk and incoherent. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's ready for elections?[edit]

I for one can't wait to see what Andy has to say for himself in 12 hours or so when the polls close in the UK. --Opcn (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one am not taking anything for granted. With our first past the post system, concentrated Labour heartlands, tactical voting and so many undecided voters I guess we will see a lot of surprise results.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any chance Conservatives won't end up with a majority? FiveThirtyEight puts the tally at 312-204-103. Andy's gonna cream his pants when Conservatives win in the Land of Atheism. (talk)
That's still not a majority because of the other parties (UUP, DUP, SDLP, SNP, PC, etc). You need 326 for a majority of 2. See this page and this one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Sadly I hope the Conservatives win a majority in the UK. I say sadly because despite me wanting them to win, if they do, I have to listen to Andy's insufferable gloating as a result, even if he doesn't understand UK politics at all (which makes it all the worse). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Suspected. After re-looking at Nate Silver's chart, I realize there are a few small parties that grabbed bits here and there. I guess Conservatives would have to link up with a few smaller ones for a true majority. My knowledge of British politics is limited to my reading of Parliament in British Politics72.224.42.45 (talk)
The small parties are mostly regional - Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and the various Northern Irish parties. Of those the Irish ones are the most significant when working out how many seats a party needs to get a majority: Sinn Fein never take up their seats, and the DUP and Ulster Unionists would be presumed to support a Conservative minority government (formally in the case of the UU, who have an electoral pact with the Tories). It works out roughly that the Tories would need 318 seats for a de facto majority, though it looks likely that they'll try and claim the right to form a minority government even if they get less than that. Charles SubLunar (mr) 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Who cares? This is an American website. Let's keep the discussion to the greatest country in the world. Keegscee (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Those two things are not mutually inclusive.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Even with a small majority, the Conservatives would still be screwed, even with the votes of the DUP and UUP. The simple fact is that the Conservative Party has an even larger Awkward Squad than Labour does. Worse, from the Tories point of view, the Awkward Squad is well to the right of the leadership. If the right-wingers don't get the policies they want from Cameron & Co. we're going to see a repeat of the post-'92 Major government. Then Major was unable to get just about anything done, and was forced into going for a Vote of Confidence in his own government, solely to whip the party back into line.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe - and it's what I'll be telling myself repeatedly if the Tories do get in. But I'm not sure. There's a lot of new blood in the Parliamentary Party after the expenses scandals, and my understanding is that Cameron has been doing a lot of centralising of the selection processes, so MPs will owe a lot more to the leadership than they once did. Besides which, after 13 years in the wilderness I think the Tories might hold discipline, at least for a while. (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Cameron increased oversight of the selection process, but at a cost. In a lot of traditional Tory seats he managed to really piss off the local grassroots movement, and a lot of them ended up selecting MP candidates that suited their ideology. On top of that, all those seats that see Tory MPs standing down because of expense scandals ended up having Tory candidates of the exactly the same political ideology. So yeah, a lot of new Tory MPs, but unlike the new Labour MPs brought in under Blair in '97, a lot of these guys aren't necessarily going to see eye-to-eye with the leadership. If the Conservatives do get in I really don't see there being any honeymoon before the grassroots start demanding tax cuts, the return of section 28, the repeal of the hunting ban, the repeal of civil partnerships, the repeal of the Human Rights Act, etc. After that it won't take long for like-minded MPs to demand the same as a price for their loyalty. Hell, the only reason Blair didn't have this problem was because he had such a massive majority when he came to power. I seem to remember votes where 60+ Labour MPs voted against the government. If that happens to a Tory government with a small majority then they are well fucked.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Just how far to the right are the UK Conservatives then? If their Awkward Squad (love it) is anything like the Canadian Conservative Party's, that's pretty far off centre-right (crazy Christian conservatives spouting off whenever the PMO can't keep their mouths shut). PubliusTalk 15:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
They're very variable. Europe is one issue where some individual MPs differ a lot from the party leadership - plenty of Tories would like to see the UK a lot less involved with the EU, or even right out of it.
I doubt civil partnerships could be repealed though, because even if individuals were privately against them, surely it would be political suicide to say so.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be repealed either, but there is a large swathe of the Tory grassroots that don't like them and want them ended (look at that Tory candidate holding prayer sessions to cure teh gay out of people for example, and the Shadow Cabinet Minister Whatshisname saying that B&B owners should be able to discriminate against homosexuals. Actually, on the latter you had Daily Mail journalists agreeing with him, which gives a bloody good indication of where the Tory grassroots lie). Expect howls of outrage when civil partnerships are recognised in the tax system, and when a Conservative government recognises the partnerships as being equal to marriage for adoption, fostering, etc. (It already is, but that was put in by a Labour Government, but it would be a different matter for the Tory grassroots if a Conservative government actively endorses the idea).
"How far right" can the UK Conservative Party go? "Pray the gay out of them" far right. P-Foster (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and for those not in the know, section 28 meant that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." That was only repealed in 2003, 6 years after Labour got into power. There was an attempt to repeal it in 2000, but that attempt was defeated in the House of Lords by Tory peers.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm hearing some stories about Mrs Stroud - the "Abi" named in the Observer story is a friend of a friend. I won't say anything without a decent reference (cough), but there's quite the news story here and I can't wait for it to ooze forth, like maggots inconveniently bursting through the immaculate makeup job. Basically, it's as bad as any "ex-gay" stories elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

On the "how far right" thing, the Political Compass website shows how their current policies stack up, but there are a lot of Tories who are a lot further "right" than shown there. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to see what the results are like, but even if the Torys eek out the numbers they need (the Brits did invent Gerrymandering didn't they?)to form a government Andy will consider himself an expert on British politics and it will only lead to epic fails in the future. Life, she goes on. --Opcn (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird shit.[edit]

Resident parodist JacobB is trolling CP in a very obvious way. User creates a stubimg on Qin Shi Huang, basically stating his years of reign and that the Terracotta Army is part of his legacy. Jacob then reverts the edit, adding the weird template below, and stating that this article has been a lightening rod for users with shady intentions, and I don't trust any content; I will write this article myself shortly.)img.

Content Under Review

This article is under review and will be restored upon confirmation of contents.

The facts take 2 seconds 2 check on Google. Even travelchinaguide starts off: "As the first emperor of China, Emperor Qin Shi Huang (259 BC-210 BC) fascinates people when they talk about the Great Wall and the Terracotta Warriors and ..." so I dunno how long it's going to take Jacob to confirm them. If he's going to do this to every article Douglas isn't deleting, fun times lie ahead for CP... especially as nobody's going to lift a finger to stop them. Oh yes, and CChance has been given a 2 day holiday by TK, presumably for asking Jabob what the fuckimg he's up to. Whatever happened to MYOB? --PsyGremlinHable! 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly CChance was blocked for MYOB; what business of his is it how the site administration decides which articles to keep?
Seriously, though, it couldn't be much clearer that Jacob and TK (and Douglas) have destructive intentions towards the site. It's funny, though, how the self-styled director of security and counterintelligence, RobS, does nothing. EddyP (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, for Rob or any of them to stand up to TK, it would require them to grow a spine first. There's plenty of examples of Rob, Ed, Terry, Karajerk bitching about TK behind his back, calling him a liar,, untrustworthy, traitor, etc, but the minute he's back in the fold... silence. --PsyGremlin講話 19:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This exchange is also funny: -- Nx / talk 18:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Terry channelling an 8-year old again. --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It's just so creepy that they checkuser people as soon as they start accounts and then over and over again. And it's creepier that TK goes on to tell people about it with this "I can see your house..." kind of stuff. That place is a cesspit. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome, Terryimg. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just making sure[edit]

I see now, CP can not only block for infinity, but indefinitely too. Obviously, infinity just ain't enough. --PsyGremlinParlez! 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new, I'm afraid: even on wikipedia, you'll find used both, indefinitely and infinitely, for the same, not ending period of blocking. larronsicut fur in nocte 20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


In TK's ongoing sycophantic efforts to curry favour with Andy, the UK has been promoted from 'land of atheism' to 'Atheist troll capitol (sic) of the world'. --PsyGremlinTal! 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck.[edit]

I'm speechless. Bonus: this is the third or fourth time he (Ken) has deleted it in the past few hours; he's just begging for attention. Tetronian you're clueless 23:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The only things that page is missing are some stars, unicorns, and sparkles. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget some yellow moons and green clovers. Acei9 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You mean, something like THIS?--WJThomas (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken keeps deleting his shite so that our difflinks don't work. Thus, 'PLEASE CAPTURE TAG EVERTHING YOU LINK TO'. Thanks. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter because he just recreates everything. Acei9 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Extra bonus: Haha!!img Tetronian you're clueless 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ace, I know he recreates most things, but it still leaves the difflink returning an error. Yes, you can still find the article, but not the specific change that a CP-watcher was refering to. And he does memory-hole stuff too! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't do it to fuck with us, he does it because he thinks it somehow affects the google pagerank for that page.User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ole!Ole!Ole! --Opcn (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy love his gay brother John Schlafly?[edit]

As a ghey muhself, I find that Andy's brother John likes buttsecks to be incredibly entertaining for going off in my head of scenarios of Schlafly Christmases, Thanksgivings, etc. Does anyone have any interesting tidbits about the John-Andy relationship? I read somewhere that John has adopted his mom's views about himself, which just sounds so fucked up to me - ugh, the Schlafly Family Christmases must be awful. And I torture myself with what it must be like for any prospective boyfriends--who in their right mind?!--of John. (Him weeping after sex, prayer, more sex, more weeping). But anything of interest here worth repeating that I may have missed in the past - and I don't mind sinful gossip, neithers! --Leotardo (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave John Schlafly out of it? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am coming for you, Roux. Acei9 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sure A.S. has no problem w/ J.S. and his chosen lifestyle, or better put, can find a way to work through the contradictions between his anti-gay worldview and fraternal love. There's always a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude to fall back upon; if not that, I think A.S. can frame things in terms of not liking what J.S. does in the privacy of his own bedroom, but being able to live with it as long as J.S. doesn't use homosexuality as a subject position/protest identity from which to upset the political/social order. A lot--not all--but a lot of what Andy (not Ken, but Andy himself) writes that would fall under the rubric of "homophobic" has more to do with the so-called "homosexual agenda" and not the sexual act itself. That being said, he tolerates more strident anti-gay discourses on his wiki, and thus bears responsibility for those discourses; but, at the end of the day, people find ways to live with and work around all kinds of contradictions. What's more interesting to me is how YOU have reduced J.S. to nothing more than his sexuality in your framing of the question--and reduced homosexual identity to little more than a crude idea about a particular act by framing your question like a thirteen-year-old. P-Foster (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Phyllis responded to a radio caller on the topic with "I love all my children". ħumanUser talk:Human 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you have discounted the possibility that J.S. has a problem with A.S. Andy may be the least talented of P.S.'s children and it is he who has gotten (and squandered) a lot of media attention lately. --Opcn (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good point. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is an assumption that he is active in his homosexulaity, he may very well abstain for religious reasons (yes, you can be BOTH gay and devout Catholic). - π 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The idea that John might have a problem with Andy is unlikely, because when he came out he said he supports his mother's views on the gay issue. He's also remains an Eagle Forum warrior, so he's working against his own interests. Given that Andy thinks diseased homosexuals should be barred from hospitals but nobody else, I don't see much "love the sinner, hate the sin" thinking. --Leotardo (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy and the election[edit]

Please, please, please let there be a Labour/Liberal government come tomorrow. I want to see Andy's reaction. I really want to see it.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour and Lib/Dem would coalition, correct? Looks like they might end up needing just a little help from 4th, 5th, 6th parties or whatever to pull the needed seats to form a government. What's the threshold, around 320 seats? If only they could get Sinn Fein to swear allegiance to the British Throne! Brenda's not such a bad sort, after all. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy will declare a Conservative victory anyway. History shows a constant movement from the left to the right. Broccoli (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
...a LANDSLIDE victoryimg...only in Schlaflyland--a landslide minority government.P-Foster (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
He is going to cry foul if it end up a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition. Parliamentary democracies provide such entertaining results. - π 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Liberals lose = SUBVERT DEMOCRACY! Conservatives lose = OBAMA USED MIND CONTROL! Acei9 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The worst result for Andy would be a Liberal Conservative coalition. That is the only way he will lose. -- (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does he try to base his victory claim on the popular vote, of all things? The only reason why the Conservatives have any hope of forming the next government is because of the huge disproportionality between their seat and vote shares. Röstigraben (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
On votes, the "liberals" smashed the "conservatives". Matt 08:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering New Labour have been the most unpopular government in nearly thirty years, the Tories should've mopped the floor with them, which, despite what the all-knowingly, but thicker-than-shit Assfly thinks, they really didn't. And no, you can't blame Nick Clegg for coming along and ruining it, because the Libdems currently have polled a measly 51 seats. SJ Debaser 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
He's calling it a landslide because he doesn't understand the three party thing. For him, it's all black and white. The Tories got "a lot" more than Labour therefore it's a landslide victory for the Tories. End of. The fact that the Tories have got less than half of the seats and that the LibDems (liberals) and Labour (liberals) together got more seats than the Tories does not compute. The man's an idiot. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Taking 36% of the vote is a landslide? How to apply flood geology to the political landscape.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
BoN - O.M.FSM! Can you even imagine what would happen to the Assfly if he discovered that the UK was being governed by a "Conservative-Liberal coalition". I think his head would explode. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, he'd do the same claims for the Canadian election, without even knowing the current Conservative party of Canada did the same tactics (complete with the "unite the right" slogans.) And parties/coalitions is the whole point of these systems - if two smaller parties can block things from a larger party, then that prevents the single party from continuously forcing its through. --Sigma 7 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Displaying the flag"[edit]

Wearing the (US) flag on t shirts or bandannas is not "display", it's desecration. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is? Why? X Stickman (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
From the U.S. Flag Code: §176. Respect for flag
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.--ADtalkModerator 04:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I always thought that the flag code was referring to using an actual flag itself as clothing, not having an image of the flag on a t-shirt or whatever. PACODOGwoof, bitches 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That's true. Cutting up the flag for a toga is a Bad Thing. Wearing a t-shirt with a printed picture of a flag on it is just fine. Bluefish (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. ... No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. In 1923, "costume" still meant "clothing," I believe.--ADtalkModerator 05:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that seems relevant, even though it also seems like a first amendment violation to me (but what the hell do I know). Also, "no part of the flag" seems awfully vague, doesn't it? Does that mean "stars" are out then? PACODOGwoof, bitches 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Paco, google "us flag code". It isn't law, it's just a guide. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is law, actually. It's just not enforced and there are no associated penalties, because it would indeed be a violation of the first amendment (at least in most peoples' view).--ADtalkModerator 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
See also flag police. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting the CP itself violates the flag code.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between a flag and the image of a flag. I don't think anyone would seriously object to cutting a cake with an image of a flag on it, but this is far different than cutting an actual flag. Likewise CP's logo doesn't violate any code, as it's a computer generated image. The clothing in question wouldn't either, unless it's made from an actual flag. At least that's how I see it. Admittedly, it does become hazy what exactly is a flag, especially when you bring cloth material such as clothing and bandanas into it. DickTurpis (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Mmmmm. CP's own flag code pageimg says they violate it.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. We're still talking about an image, not a proper flag. Besides, their logo has only 9 stripes and 14 stars. They're not actually writing on a flag, they're putting text over it. Would a commercial featuring a waving American flag be in violation of the code if the text "4TH OF JULY SALE! 0% APR FINANCING" appeared across the screen? If you dropped a photo of the US Capitol on the ground would that be a violation because a flag appears in the picture? DickTurpis (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the CP article uses CP as an example of breaking the flag code.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Holy shit! I completely missed that. And it's been there about 2 years. Well, it'll be gone soon. DickTurpis (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The code refers only to a complete, distinct flag, not stylistic elements therein. As long as you don't use a rectangular piece of fabric that consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars alternating with rows of five stars, you're not using an American flag and you're not breaking the flag code. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
RTFS. The Flag Code doesn't apply outside the District of Columbia and only applies even then to tangible actual flags. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My impression is that it's national, but that the District of Columbia is the only place where where it's backed by a legal sanction.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If it looks like a US flag it's a US flag even if it doesn't conform exactly to 13 stripes/50 stars: The words “flag, standard, colors, or ensign”, as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America. [10] Random surfer (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC) (3rd post)
Interesting. How ridiculous. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyway. The code is not "enforced" as we know. However, in my opinion, it is not "patriotic" to violate it. Careless, maybe, ignorant, perhaps, but it's definitely not supportive of the country to violate their own rules on displays of the flag. Many on the right have sought to amend the constitution to make these rules enforceable (making flag burning as a protest a crime). What I would expect to see from "flag wavers" is proper respect for it as defined in the flag code. Hell, I follow it because I was taught it when young. I also burned a small flag back in the mid 90s when the movement to amend was strong for some reason. A couple of the kids in the Elvis Room (coffee shop) actually freaked out a bit like I was stabbing them. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Douglas, your mask is slipping[edit]

Even the best paraodists can't agree with Andy's stupidity all the time. EddyP (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the best parodists do exactly that. Broccoli (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No. When I was ETrundel, the idea was to agree with Andy all the time. But he's says such stupid things that you have to oppose him, for the sake of humanity. EddyP (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Look what happened to Trundel: suspected because he suggested that it might not be possible for an army of homeschoolers with shotguns to fight off a real army with tanks. Broccoli (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Where's that? Also, see where I argued against Andy here; he suggested that wikis such as 'Couponpedia' and 'Menupedia' posed a threat to Wikipedia. For the sake of your own sanity, you have to fight back. EddyP (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

12 hour Dawkins binge[edit]

Ken mainlines Richard Dawkins. Acei9 08:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The obsession is delicious. Must have something to do with this liberal affliction, right? Etc 09:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What he meant was....[edit]

I am sure what he meant was - "I spoke to the queen the other day....."img Acei9 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fairly recent power to call elections"?. I was under the impression that this power has been around for a long time, even if it is very rarely used. I am thinking of the Whitlam mess in Australia and the Canadian debacle in the 1920's (?). Or maybe the queen has different rules than her governor general representatives. --DamoHi 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that part of the Queen's Prerogative? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The monarch is, and always has been, the only person who can call an election. But she would only do it if asked to by her PM. Watching the pea-brained Andy and TK show on the British election has been a rare delight. Matt 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
TK is so full of shit it hurts. I can't speak for Brits, but if the Queen were to unilaterally call an election in Canada over a minority government, there wouldn't be a Canadian monarchy anymore. The monarch simply doesn't step in on her own accord unless it's a HUGE crisis. EDIT: And as Matt said, it's not a "new" power. Maybe new to Alfred the Great. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 11:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Same in the UK. And the one time it happened in Australia (courtesy the Governor-General) will be the last time it happens in Australia. Not even the Queen would have been that stupid - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The last time it happened in Canada was also the last time it happened here. --sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃısuɐɪɹɐssoʎ 11:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The Queen's powers are, in theory, limited only by the Parliament Acts, which only slightly restrict what she can do. By convention, although everything done by the British State is done in the Queen's name, the Queen has no power; she only does what she is advised to do. The Queen's Christmas message is the only speech she gives that isn't written for her. Having said that, she's been on the throne since 1951 and Brown's her eleventh PM, she, by all accounts, gives the PM some advise on what to advise her during their weekly meeting. The BBC has an report on what the Queen's role is. tl;dr - she waits until her impermanent impertinent PMs-in-waiting sort it out for themselves. CS Miller (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Did I say "impermanent"? I of course meant "impertinent". Although given her longevity, they might seem like short-lived gad-flies to her. CS Miller (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
TK doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just a bullshitter. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe a closet monarchist. Röstigraben (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Doubt it. He'll just bullshit to make any old stupid point. If the Queen invites GB to form the next government, he'll claim she's a communist. The man is almost as ignorant as his Master. (Hi TK!) Ajkgordon (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck liberal referendums that waste taxpayers' money! "The Queen signed a memorandum"...sure it wasn't a post-it note TK?


This looks set to be another BotP, with people handing Andy's ass to himimg over and over about it. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. That comment from JDixon is perfect. I think the reason that CP are the only people calling it a 'landslide', is because they were the only people who predicted a landslide. What is required is for Mick Dundee to knock on the Assfly's door and say "That's not a landslide, THIS was a landslide! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
These are indeed golden times. The man has developed denial to such an extent that, assuming woo merchants are correct in saying that mind can affect matter, the the bulk of the universe will surely be willed out of existence by Andy's incredibly concise and powerful insights. Andy, deny the existence of argon and cats or lose all credibility! --ConcernedresidentAsk me about our tree 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
CPalmer continues to walk the line between parody and reality. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Labour are heading for a landslide in the local government elections. With 101 of 164 councils declared, Labour have gained 7 councils and 190 councillors. I wonder if Andy's noticed? CS Miller (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Have CP even noticed that the Conservative Party have offered to deal with the Liberal Deomcrats? Or would noting such a fact cause a logic feedback loop of brain-melting proportions? WoD 07 may 2010

As I said elsewhere, if Andy bothers to address that point rather than just ignore it and block anyone/everyone that points it out, it would be along the lines of "liberals are turning into conservatives in the land of atheism." SJ Debaser 18:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Uh-oh. AmandaB's pointing out the bleedin' obvious that by American standards the Conservative party isn't conservative.img This could be interesting. By which I mean, typical Andy; "liberal denial, open your mind, Britain are atheists." SJ Debaser 18:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's been brought up a few times over there already. In their world, it really doesn't mean much, just as long as the "socialists" get their asses handed to them. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That's going to be the fun part of all of this - Andy is on record countless times as saying the Tories are liberals to a man and there's no true conservatives in the Conservative Party. Now we get to watch him proclaim them the best thing since sliced cheese. Tea and biccies all day while we watch him stagger into the shitstorm once again. Dumb as a post, that man. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's the smarmy arrogance that gets me. His brain is so small that his massive head, which probably shows up on the Ordinance Survey Map, must just be full of air. It's staggering how he can simply wash away all the shit he comes out with the second that something swings into his favour, instead coming out with a bunch of new shit, denying he ever said anything of the kind, and accusing other people of doing the same as he. SJ Debaser 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say what a joy it is to read CP's coverage of our election after a rather nervous day on this side of the pond. Highly amusing to see Schlafly tie himself in knots trying to find good news in what has been a bad day for the Raving Right - UKIP and BNP losing their deposits in most consituencies, Peter Robinson losing his seat, and the Tories - who are pretty liberal anyway - having to cut a deal with the even more liberal Liberals. He really is a very dumb brick (Andy, I mean, not Peter Robinson). The Real James Brown (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)