Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive181

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <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)

Grammar challenge scuppers Conservapedia win!

"Wikipedia's Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites !" ^{— Unsigned, by: Matt oblong / talk / contribs}

Link^img. - π 23:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken

Is there any possibility of us being able to help him in any way? Now it's...arghhh, there's no way to describe it. Just help him. EddyP (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of painful to watch. Sort of like one of those particularly cringeworthy episodes of The Office (mostly the British one). Will Andy respond to Ken childish pleas? I'm guessing he won't. DickTurpis (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he'll keep ignoring Ken. Which is a pity, I'd love to see "Richard Dawkins is a Clown: The Musical", performed by the Schlafly Homeschoolers and produced by Ken DeMyer. It'd probably top Springtime for Hitler. Röstigraben (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they'd have a hard time topping Conservapedia: The musical. Clearly, RW is best of the public when it comes to musical theatre. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think even if we ignored Ken he'd still keep it up. Remember, this isn't just about us, the whole internet hangs in the balance of Ken's Google rankings. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, so how long until TK, who may be an idiot but at least realizes that having an autistic manchild wallpapering all of CP with his asinine ramblings does the project no good, memory holes the entire thing? If CP does want to be taken seriously they cannot allow such obvious childishness to be so apparent. At least Andy pretends he has some scientific basis for his stupidity. I'm sure even he cannot see Ken's latest obsession as anything but a liability. DickTurpis (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Ken wants CP to be the number one hit on a search engine beginning with Q for "Dawkins is a clown". ħuman 00:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy may have an ego the size of Russia and maintains a proliferation of crazy beliefs but even he probably realizes Ken is going off the deep end of the kiddie pool. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you forget. It's forbidden to acknowledge that Kendoll is anything other than 100% sane, because then Andy's "0 in mental health problems" stuff will have been a lie. Such liberal qualities as deceit are not in Andy's conserva-nature, therefore Ken must be totally on track with his obsessive screeds about Dawkins, atheists, homosexuals, etc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And in Andyland is TK's (inane) assertion that site owners are responsible for all content supportable? Nutty Roux (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, surely not "all content", but replying to a user suffering from, obviously, "something" on his talk page matters. ħuman 02:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

@Dick #1 Ken would be Gareth, right?

@Dick #2 You seem to misunderstand TK's intentions. He doesn't give a toss about whether Ken's inanity does the CP project any good. TK is there solely for his own perverse pleasure not to make CP a valid Christian conservative alternative to Wikipedia.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

oh please, oh please, oh please, let them do Richard "Pagliacci" Dawkins, the opera. tmtoulouse 07:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the greatest stuff I've seen from Ken in a long time, it's not only idiotic, it's embarassing. I would like to see Andy's facepalm when reading that - even he must think it's a completely retarded suggestion. Etc 10:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel genuinely bad for Ken. He's either the world's greatest parodist or a sexually repressed, fanatic insomniac. SJ ^Debaser 10:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond the point where he can mock him, he's clearly unhinged. Webbtje (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"autistic manchild" - Dick, you're not a Chris-Chan observer are you? 86.142.136.181 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Zap to the extreme! Barikada (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The final purge begins - Not WIGO worthy but hilarious

I was wondering how long it would take them to make me an "Unperson", the various star articles I have written over time are now being deleted by DouglasA as creations of a "Troublemaker/Troll/Liar: Vandal-siter, untrustworthy".[2], [3], [4], [5] Oddly enough I never interacted with DouglasA while there, so talk about a weird vendetta. More likely he believes they are "fake" based on their names, not realizing they are legitimate articles about legitimate star systems, yet again this is Conservapedia, so it may really be entirely petty. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Now they are all back, someone there is reading RW. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal, dude. JacobB, DouglasA, and TK are only trying to make their mark. In a cesspit in the backwaters of the internet. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No no no, Dougie is playing out his endgame by removing as much sensible and scientific stuff as he can. Unfortunately, whilst Terry Koeckritz IS a total prick, he is not as stupid as the rest of them, and has therefore restored your articles because he knows what Dougie is up to. As an aside, I owe you an apology/you need to thank me^{delete as applicable} for it was I that initiated this^img that lead to them questioning any hint of a more than 6000 year old universe and thus lead to your banishment/not wasting your time writing scientific stuff for a bunch of morons^{as before} and finding your true calling here at RW. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You were TrondE? Oh man, I remember how utterly annoyed I was too bout that whole situation, thinking "G'Dammit, I knew the creationist nutjobs would complain", LOL. That lead to the attempted compromise between JacobB and I over posting both YEC points of view and "Old Earth"/Secular points of view for articles. Should have known that wouldn't last. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If there was a trustworthy astronomy guy about, s/he would add some true data to all CP's astronomy articles, ie "Age: <6000 years. Size: <6000 lightyears" etc. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will never forget the insanity over the fiasco about having distances over 6,000 light years in that Andromeda article. I remember JacobB and another lacky systematically going back through every article I wrote removing any distance over 6,000 light years after I left. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a war going on among TK (the top dog) and JacobB+DouglasA (the upstarts that want to assert their new-found authority.) It's fun to watch, in a sick sort of way. The recent stuff about [6] was another case of this. TK needs to show that he holds all the power.

And, of course, TK, having an account here, can't allow something to be deleted for being the work of a "vandal site member" unless it's deleted by himself.

It's truly the endgame. Gauss (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooh! We just got another salvo^img from Jacob. Something about removing "anti-creation material".

And another one^img! Gauss (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

How is Hubble proving there are galaxies beyond the Milky Way "anti-Creationist material"??? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not asking the right question, likely because you're incorrectly assuming there's a good faith reason for JacobB to have done what he did. I hope I've helped. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And reverted by TK^img. It's on! Gauss (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight wars! JacobB oversights^img TK's reversion. I believe the last administrator to defy TK this directly was JessicaT. Gauss (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And JacobB takes his frustration out on an innocent bystander^img. Maybe all this is becoming WIGO-worthy after all. Gauss (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Innocent bystander? That's DeltaStar, who said he was that guy about a paragraph above. 03:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: BMcP, did you know that Wikiversity very much needs astronomy articles? here and/or here. Gauss (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity any good? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor thinks so.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is that back when Ed was claiming to be a music teacher? --Kels (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup! BTW he hasn't edited there since (28 August 2008). 14:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BMcP, Wikiversity is way better than conservapedia, if that answers your question. --Opcn (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucking precious that the dope is asking if he should apply for admin. He's SO much better suited to an echo chamber. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken and Bert

Ken to Bert: If you want more web traffic to your Korean Airlines Flight 007 article, create a very good Korean Air article.

Or perhaps: Korean Airlines Flight 007 and Dawkins, Korean Airlines Flight 007 and Atheism, Hitler piloting Korean Airlines Flight 007...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dare I suggest Korean Airlines Flight 007: The Musical?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the obvious Homosexuality and Korean Airlines Flight 007 (Ken's obsession gets first billing, natch), and Could James Bond have Saved Korean Airlines Flight 007?. ħuman 01:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Abortion agus Hitler, tá sé go maith

Thrilling to see this superb article^img get Hitlerised. Pure genius. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That was added by MaryAJ, whose only edits are on that very article. Clear parody. TK? Chop chop, that known vandal site member isn't going to ban itself now is it. 82.34.246.39 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Abortion in Ireland consists of no reported cases." "But several thousand residents of Ireland travel each year to other countries..." Come on chaps, this is almost butchery. Webbtje (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy of not revealing obvious parody? Why not just sign up to CP and revert it yourself, save TK the hassle of having to read it here and remove it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solving

Having trouble?

This struck me as particulalry funny....Aceⁱ⁹ 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And the problem is whether to buy toilet paper or just save McDonald's napkins? Nutty Roux (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutty, you fucker. Call me immediately. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Skype, you bastids. ħuman 07:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob's spilling over

Has he taken a page from Ken's playbook, or why is he creating dozens of articles related to the oil spill (all redirects to the original article)? This obsession stirs up some disturbing images. Röstigraben (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As one might expect, the article itself is also a complete fail. It doesn't at any point explain what happened, why, how and what is being done. It simply jumps straight into blame and goes from there. Anyone reading the article without foreknowledge would be completely bemused as exactly what the problem was. Worm^{(t | c)} 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical of Rob to have jumped on the racist and foreigner-bashing bandwagon. I've noticed several people on US TV doing the same thing, they explicitly blame the spill on British Petroleum when the company has been known as just BP since 2000 after their merger with Amoco (btw that's American Oil Company).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What I like is how the Obama Reaction section is devoted entirely to smearing Obama, without a single word on his actual reaction to anything. --Kels (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise the lead. The only "sections" with more than one sentence are completely devoted to Obama-bashing. Drill, baby, drill! ħuman 20:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you idiots understand anything? Obama supported the investigation of new off shore drilling, and then began moving forward on starting new lines in complete abandonment of the desires of his liberal base. Despite the fact that Obama didn't actually open any new areas to drilling (to my knowledge) and completely ignoring the fact that conservatives want to drill everywhere they can for oil, including my toilet, this is obviously Obama's fault because he's a dirty, foreign born, secret Muslim Sociofacistcommuinist dictator. QED. SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 21:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My favourite is the "Oil disastar" redirect. Screw all the other oil disasters... sorry, disastars, this one we can blame on Obama! Vulpius (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit. Rob's deceit reaches entirely new levels. "Paul Krugman said the spill is Obama's fault". Read the article, shitforbrains. He says just the opposite. Rob, you are a fucking retard. DickTurpis (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even realize that.... It's an easy mistake to make you know... I mean, the title of the article is "The Oil Spill is Obama's Fault." Just because the first line is "No, I haven’t lost my mind — that’s not what I believe. But you know that’s what the talk-show hosts will be saying soon, if they haven’t already started. The only question is what the story will be." What an idiot. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What? He's using a Greenpeace report as a reference? Those commie hippies getting in the way of capitalism? 62.56.65.189 (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised he's concerned with the animals at all. After all, kindness to animals is something Hitler would do. --Kels (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Rob can only read the title: short words, big letters... "Peter says, it's all Obama's fault and Jane says, it's all Obama's fault and Pat the dog says, it's all Obama's fault. Look Jane, see the oil spill. Look Peter, see the oil spill and see the crooked commie what done it. Yes Pat, bite the commie liberal." (Showing my age there...) The Real James Brown (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I ain't a kid (chronologically, at least), and I've never even seen a Dick and Jane book. I did read a lot of old B.C. cartoons making fun of them, though. --Kels (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm 34 and grew up with the British equivalent, the Peter and Jane Books. Doubt they were any better, although they did allow me to enjoy Comic Book Guy's T-shirt in the Simpsons.

C:DOS

C:DOS\RUN

RUN\DOS\RUN

Most amusing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Love the T-shirt slogan. One of my kids, who has some educational issues, is finally learning to read with Peter and Jane. There's life in the old (Pat the) dog yet.

On a different point, well done the person who compiled the WIGO with (1) all the times those CP gits cursed Obama for not drilling faster and (2) their stinking hypocrisy after the spill happened. Is this the level of poisonous stupidity to which American politics has sunk? It makes our lot seem reasonable and intelligent, even Mr Brown. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Compare us to liberal fairytales"

(Dunno if this has been posted before, I haven't been around this week...)

Just took a look at Conservapedia's JPatt's Twitter feed and found this gem:

“”Encyc Britannica LIBERAL. Wikipedia LIBERAL. www.Conservapedia.com CONSERVATIVE Compare us to liberal fairytales http://goo.gl/Y7v8 #sgp

And in case that shortener goes down, it's this article. It's really beyond me how CP sysops can take such an article and hold it up as a sort of "See how awesome we are?" poster. --Sid (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

They lack deeper reading comprehension. A person without a highly developed sense of irony would read what appears on the surface to be merely comparing a few paragraphs of text. JPatt is this kind of person. - π 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Something I just noticed about the Obama article: it claims Obama's birth name is Soetoro. Am I missing something or did Obama's mother not even meet her future husband, Lolo Soetoro, until her son was several years old already? I mean, really guys, put "AKA" if you must, but don't pretend at birth he was named after a guy her mother wouldn't even meet for years to come. DickTurpis (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor probably meant to write "official name," a bit of birther lingo. Incidentally, it's worth checking out the three sources that appear next to his name on the CP article. One of them has nothing to do with Obama's last name and is therefore utterly irrelevant, while the other two are bugfuck insane, even by birther standards. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Little Johnny Boy must gone to the same reading school as Andy. How he can interpret "one might discover for oneself how information can be slanted, for reading and writing, as this self-instructional guide reveals." as anything other than a swipe at CP defeats me. Still, I'm sure his 2000-odd (or is that merely 'strange') followers will be glad to learn how bad CO is. Are we sure he's not a parodist, when he does stuff like this? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen

Gentlemen at a certain liberal website. I see from your recent polling that your hero Richard Dawkins is being replaced by your new hero Nick Clegg. In honor of this new development, I am beginning the Conservapedia Nick Clegg Project! This has the potential to be ever bigger and further reaching than the Richard Dawkins Project, and will certainly be climbing the rankings on a certain search engine whos name beings with G! Among my articles:

• Nick Clegg and Liberalism
• Nick Clegg and Socialism
• Nick Clegg and Proportional Representation
• Nick Clegg and the EU
• Nick Clegg and the National Health Service
• Nick Clegg and atheism
• Nick Clegg and taxes
• Nick Clegg and tax increases
• Nick Clegg and homosexuality
• Nick Clegg and the homosexual agenda
• Nick Clegg and Gay Bowel Syndrome
• Nick Clegg and VAT
• Nick Clegg and Liberal Democrats
• Nick Clegg and Labor
• Nick Clegg and Conservatives
• Nick Clegg and SNP
• Nick Clegg and BNP
• Nick Clegg and abortion
• Nick Clegg and gun control
• Nick Clegg and evolution
• Nick Clegg and racism
• Nick Clegg and evolutionary racism
• Nick Clegg books
• Nick Clegg and Christianity
• Nick Clegg and Christian apologetics
• Nick Clegg and Communism
• Nick Clegg and Communistic Socialism
• Nick Clegg and Socialistic Communism
• Nick Clegg and National Socialism
• Nick Clegg and Socialistic Nationalism
• Nick Clegg and Socialist Nationalist Communism
• Nick Clegg and National Communistic Socialism
• Nick Clegg and Darwin
• Nick Clegg and Hitler
• Nick Clegg and Electoral Fraud
• Nick Clegg speeches
• Nick Clegg and Islam
• Nick Clegg and the Economy
• Nick Clegg and the looming worldwide depression
• Nick Clegg and Socialized Medicine
• Nick Clegg and the Large Hardon Collider
• Nick Clegg's refusal to debate David Cameron
• Nick Clegg's refusal to debate Dinesh D-Souza
• Conservative views of Nick Clegg
• Nick Clegg and Richard Dawkins
• Nick Clegg and PZ Myers
• Nick Clegg and Christopher Hitchens
• Nick Clegg and Che Guevara
• Is Nick Clegg an atheist?
• Nick Clegg and the media
• Nick Clegg and the unborn
• Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown
• Nick Clegg and Kermit the Frog
• Nick Clegg's birth certificate controversy
• Nick Clegg and the Arch-Deluxe
• Nick Clegg, Richard Dawkins, and Michael Moore
• Nick Clegg economic quotes
• Nick Clegg liberal quotes
• Nick Clegg evolution quotes
• Nick Clegg homosexuality quotes
• Nick Clegg and herpes
• Nick Clegg and genocide
• Nick Clegg and spandex
• Nick Clegg and abiogenesis
• Nick Clegg and Genesis (book)
• Nick Clegg and Genesis (band)
• Nick Clegg and The War of Jenkins' Ear
• Nick Clegg and the Bad Seeds
• Nick Clegg, evolution, abortion, genocide, homosexuality, baked beans, and abortion
• Nick Clegg and IRA
• Nick Clegg and DNA
• Nick Clegg and TBA
• Nick Clegg and Aspergers sufferers
• Nick Clegg and mental disability
• Nick Clegg and rheumatism

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Will Conservapedia prove to be Nick Clegg's Waterloo? Certain conservatives think Conservapedia will be the Waterloo of liberalism and liberals such as Nick Clegg. Watch Conservapedia and the Conservapedia Nick Clegg Project for further developments on Nick Clegg and other liberals! Olé olé Kendoll (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I lolled at * Nick Clegg and TBA. I thought that was clever. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work Ken! I love your projects! I am particularly looking forward to * Nick Clegg and Socialist Nationalist Communism. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling us we should be expecting developments in regard to upcoming developments from certain YouTube creators in regards to Nick Clegg and Nick Clegg's clown-like activities on Conservpedia and in regard to the internet? That's nice. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Props to Kendoll for bothering to think all that up and redlink. SJ ^Debaser 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentleken, I agree with your project, but you might want to rethink that "Waterloo" analogy. Clegg's a Brit, you know. Röstigraben (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The real Ken always says "ole!" three times. ħuman 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone else turn those into fake redlinks. I did it last time. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Clegg does speak French, though - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutty, what's the issue with all the RedLinks? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

They create empty redlinked articles - not ideal. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is that not ideal? I didn't understand the issue with redlinks for the Ken DeMyer Project and I still don't understand now. Is there a page or category of redlink articles somewhere that gets cluttered? That's the only problem I can see. Keegscee (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, there is. --Kels (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem then? (I'm not having a go, I just don't understand what the issue is - CP doesn't seem to have a problem with them) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That is because CP want such articles. We do not. Wisest cubic Hoover! 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We try to keep our Wanted Pages limited to pages we want, ie, topics that could be on-mission. An encyclopedia, whether real or pretend, will essentially want to cover everything. We've had some silly times where helpful people created pages we don't need because they were listed as "wanted" due to overzealous linking. ħuman 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

More Ken

Ken, having been met with deafening silence when he approached Andy over the Dawkins Is A Clown contest, is going at it again, apparently unaware that even Andy has no interest in his insane ramblings. My favorite bit is how he has identified the 5 major liberal issues: abortion, evolution, gun control, economics, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. I believe the Democratic Party in this country is in the process of changing their name to The Dawkins Party. Are they not? DickTurpis (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I consider myself a fairly raging liberal, and most of the time I don't give a damn about richard dawkins. The most I hear from him is from Ken himself. Maybe Ken is a closet Dawkins, like, Richard Dawkins has a split personality, and the other one is Ken. Or, like, Dawkins is Two-Face, from Batman? And for every decision he flips a coin. If it comes up shiny head, he goes off and writes about atheism and evolution in a positive light, and if it comes up scratchy head he logs into conservapedia and becomes Ken. X Stickman (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Of all the issues/things I care about in the world, Richard Dawkins isn't even on the radar. He may even be to atheism what PETA is to animal rights: a extremist who gives the entire group a bad name (I honestly don't know enough about him to know if this is true, but it seems close to the mark at times). I don't know why Ken seems to think Dawkins is the personification of atheism, and that somehow anything that hurts Dawkins disproves atheism. "Richard Dawkins didn't give much money to charity, therefore God exists" is not exactly logically sound, Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To put some actual thought into it (as in, more thought than my batman based theories above), there's a fairly common train of thought that runs in the more hardline religious world with regards to atheism. Many of them see atheism as another belief system that is comparable to religion, which means we need our own priests and our own popes and leaders and such. It's why you see Dawkins and PZ Myers (Dawkins especially, though) accused of leading atheists or whatever, rather than just being prominent atheists. I'm sure Andy himself has said something along those lines (I can't remember the exact wording but I'm sure I remember a rant from him about how liberals won't go against the word of dawkins because we all idolise him the same way catholics idolise the pope, or something). Ken seems to be the worse, though. Andy and the others may mention it in passing, but Ken seems to honestly believe that Dawkins is the lynchpin of the entire atheist movement, and if we all just realised that he's a clown, we'd become good christians. Why? He's Ken, I guess. He needs help. X Stickman (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is important in the New Atheism movement, especially as a spokesperson, and one of the people at the center of the whole Atheism-Theism debate. I suspect that Ken, who is obviously on the theism side, fancies himself as Dawkins natural rival and dreams of being just as much of a high profile figure, a Theist-creationist counterpart if you will. Sadly it is all delusions of grandeur. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The intertwining of liberalism with atheism is a fallacy in itself. Undoubtedly given the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, biblical literalist Christians would identify with modern day conservatism, given the Bible's instructions on certain issues. However, Ken, Andy, etc, unwittingly labour under the misapprehension that it works the other way round - all liberals are atheists, and all atheists are liberals, while it's obviously not true. SJ ^Debaser 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Next up, the Christopher Hitchens project! Webbtje (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

He's still on his "Dawkins is a clown" kick. I guess he just loves the word clown or something. X Stickman (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken is like Rob, he has trouble processing more than one thought in a day month. --Kels (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Using Linear Algebra To Analyze "Liberal style on Wikipedia "

In the application section of the CP article on 'linear algebra' Andy writes:

“” "An n x m matrix can be developed using observed incidents of liberal style in Wikipedia entries, and that data can then be simplified to draw conclusions about liberal style can mislead viewers. The n rows can represent different elements of liberal style, while the m columns can represent different types of entries on Wikipedia."

Arghh, is this guy a real person? /rhetorical--Night Jaguar (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit I know fuck all about matricies, but I'm pretty sure they don't work like that... ^sshole 15:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It is my conclusion that the one called Schlafly is not human, but is in fact a highly sophisticated android exquisitely programmed to make a complete tit of himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a powerful insight in the automated detection of liberal style. To a Wiki we associate a linear map $A_{W}:V_{\text{content}}\to V_{\text{liberal style}}$ as described. I would suggest a further generalization, that $V_{\text{liberal style}}$ is probably not finite-dimensional but rather some much larger Banach space, given the many forms of liberal deceit. CP is the unique wiki with the property that $A_{CP}$ is the zero operator, since no article has any liberal bias. $A_{WP}$ is surjective in that every form of liberal deceit is realized in some article or another. In fact the liberality of a wiki should be understood as some operator norm $\Vert A_{W}\Vert$ (though I suspect liberal deceit is an unbounded operator!) --MarkGall (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

At last, a use for Banach spaces. And there was me thinking they were just for pure mathematicians' wet dreams. Well there we are - CP has found a use for them. Put that in your grant proposal! The Real James Brown (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

James Brown, we at CP see liberal deceit for what it is: complete, and infinite (dimesional). Liberals can find no basis for their beliefs without resort to the axiom of choice, and they may have no Schauder basis at all. Conservatism in contrast is based on the most logical axiom of all, the Bible. Deny this and lose all credibility. --MarkGall (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Believing in the Bible means accepting that statements which appear utterly contradictory must all be true. Bit like quantum mechanics, really. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the Bible contradicts itself if you accept it you can prove any statment and its negation and go on a date with your friend's mom.--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful there, Jaguar. The Explosion Principle means that anything can be true. E.g. I could prove the statement that you have to go on a date with Andy's mum... Worrying afterthought: The Bible is almost completely self-contradictory (fact) and the Raving Right believes it's all literally true (fact, from their point of view), so the Explosion Principle applies and we all have to go on a date with Andy's mum. Next question: will she enjoy it? The Real James Brown (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only will she enjoy it, it can be shown that we will as well. Dwell on that.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that disproves the Explosion Principle. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

So speaks the creator of the liberal style bot. You still haven't told us about that. EddyP (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I really did write the thing (though I can't say I did terribly much debugging, but who cares really). I think it should be pretty good at spotting liberals insofar as cp:liberal style actually has anything to do with liberals. As for the scores I actually posted, it was surprisingly hard to choose all those constants to make Schlafly more conservative than Human. --MarkGall (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it; Andy's on a mathematical tear. He has now started adding "content", rather than just filling the linear algebra category with every phrase that pops into his head. He's still trying to make sense of the issue of eigenvectors and eigenvalues for real operators.

But I submit that he's overlooking the application of this to the "liberal style" matrix. Since the matrix has all its eigenvalues and eigenvectors (use the Hahn-Banach theorem and the axiom of choice as needed), that means that, for every type of liberal style, there must be an article that precisely describes and epitomizes it. Right? But doesn't the Gödel incompleteness theorem apply here? Isn't there a WP article that denies its own existence? I guess that means that the liberal style space and article space aren't Hilbert spaces after all, and the operator is unbounded.

But help is on the way! Andy has written an article on the spectral theorem, which I'm sure will take care of everything. After all, the article says that the spectral theorem can be used to .... it's in here somewhere .... wait for it .... ah, here it is: solve problems. In fact, it is "frequently used to solve problems". No wonder Mark has so much trouble with his style bot—he didn't use the spectral theorem. Gauss (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So does all this math activity by Andy mean he's gearing up to teach his Conservative Thinking and Math course? ħuman 21:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"So class, if we have one atheist and one liberal, what does that equal?" "Abortion!" "Very good. Now, if we have no classroom prayer and homosexual marriage, we end up with..." X Stickman (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as Andy is concerned, his brainpower is speed of light combined with the universal constant of conservatism (U) to the power of how much is going on in his life multiplied by the amount of time spent on his wiki:

Andy Schlafly = CUⁿt

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's just naughty, you silly boy. ħuman 08:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Blaming the oil spill on Obama

This really, really pisses me off. I know I should be desensitized to Andy's cognitive dissonance by now, but this one is just inexcusable. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, just remember that no one in real life really listens to Andy. Whatever he says carries virtually no weight. I tell myself that whenever I start to get angry. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a damn good point, and I will certainly keep that in mind. There is, however, one things that will always trouble me: the man is a teacher. (In our home state, no less!) I never thought I'd say it, but "think of the children." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I didn't think of that. Thanks. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why there should be standards and regulations to homeschooling. Especially the teacher must be fuckin' sane!--Thanatos (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What pisses you off about it exactly? I think that the way they're doing it is absurd (the cp:Gulf oil spill disaster is a joke) but it's fair enough to put some of the blame on Obama for inadequate response or the policy as a whole. I'm not sure you'd be right about the former - most of the response methods and the regulation were under Bush - but you (and CP) would certainly be right to blame Obama for his share in supporting domestic oil drilling. It's a stupid practice and actually less moral than foreign drilling since our regulations are so weak, and part of the overall oil dependency problem. Obama diverged from his base and the left on it.

That said, CP is insanely hypocritical on this. They've been advocating domestic drilling in every conceivable fashion and probably personally went to their backyards and fished around with a coat hanger, just in case.--^talk 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I do blame Obama for it. What annoys me is the hypocrisy - the Republicans have supported offshore drilling forever, but as soon as something goes wrong, in Andy's mind it was always Obama's idea, etc. Then, once everyone forgets about this disaster, Andy will go right back to supporting offshore drilling again. That kind of willful self-deception is very disturbing to me. Even worse, he teaches children American history a stone's throw away from my house. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd throw that stone right back, if I were you.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is classic doublethink. It is possible to know something is true while simulataneously knowing the opposite is true. That Orwell was a clever fella. --Damo^Hi 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what Obama did was a political play of being "for" off shore drilling, as a way to defuse the "drill baby drill" shit. Then there was an off shore drilling disaster, one mostly approved by Bush holdovers. If Obama has any blame in this, it's whether his admin. responds/responded in a timely fashion with whatever they could do. If it weren't for the environmental calamity, the whole thing would make me laugh. ħuman 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Obama received $77,051 from BP. I'm sure that'll really put him in debt to BP's corporate interests. Oh hang on, those donations are from BP employees. Not from the company. So what's that meant to prove?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And McCain received somewhere in the region of $30,000 - do we get to blame him as well? Worm^{(t | c)} 11:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is legitimate for somebody who opposed off shore drilling to blast Obama for supporting off shore drilling. Andy, on the other hand, is just a hypocritical liar who is going to hell. It is also legitimate for someone to say I was wrong for having had supported off shore drilling in the past because of the BP disaster. I may be in that latter category. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

A little bell was ringing whilst watching all the deletions going on. Needless to say, a little search and it turns out our friend Terry set the precedent - deleting genuine articles on April 15th, for the "Creation of Troublemaker/Troll/Liar" reason. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, those chaps really have it in for JessicaT. Still, it's wise to delete her stuff. There's a chance that decent Murkican children could be exposed to the yellow peril, and we know that's a gateway drug to COMMUNISM!!! --^{Ask me about our gyroscope} 10:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I see her pic is still there, altho, because Andy has never gotten round to fixing CP's problem with dealing with "&" you can't get to it. --PsyGremlinFale! 10:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TK is just being deceitful (again). If he or any of the sysops at CP had any sense of integrity or consistency they would delete all articles which had been written by banned users.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry made his intentions perfectly clear when he moved Bugler's creations "The Sixties" and "The Seventies" from essay to mainspace. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If any of them had any integrity, they'd delete the whole damn thing and start from scratch, and beg Andy to give up teaching while he's at it. --Kels (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your precedent set by Terry and raise you this precedent set exactly ten months earlier by Karajou. The mass destruction of butterflies came in the wake of this discussion and various related other object lessons in Conservapedia awesomeness. mb 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Superb; "I know what I'm talking about, I write original stuff, I share all you views (even the stupid anti-evolution ones!), but your template is shit" - Banhammer and mass-deletion! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Less (or fewer) is more

I know I bitch a lot about what I call "crappy wigos", but now that they aren't being piled up as fast, it also seems they are being written better, and are more interesting. ħuman 03:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish CP allowed newbies to hang around for more than one talk page comment. Andy is at his best when he's actually engaged in a conversation, but right now that's shut down pretty quickly. --^{Ask me about our antibacterial} 10:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn!

Andy is really losing his shit over this Supreme Court Pick isn't he? A little Jealous there Pussycat? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think he may have known her from Harvard? She was there until '86 and was supervisory editor of the Harvard Law Review. Bondurant (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

She's gay, isn't she? Maybe he's having a little tizzy because she wouldn't date him...? The Real James Brown (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

She's widely rumored to be gay, but it's never been confirmed. For that matter, I don't think it's been denied, either -- the "official" response has been essentially "it's none of your business."

Of course, there were lots of rumors about David Souter, too, but I think in his case, it's a matter of "he's married to The Law." (Now, that doesn't preclude an open relationship where The Law allows him to sleep with other women or men, but still...)

The "politically correct" response, if you will, is "it's none of your business", but my activist side says that gay rights cases are going to be coming before the Court increasingly, and it would be nice to have someone who's a little sympathetic. MDB (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your esteemed President was also supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review and the dates make it almost certain that Andy knew him at Harvard - i.e. Barry and Andy were editors of the HLR at the same time, so presumably they knew each other. So I'm sensing a trend here, in the sense of a guy whose career has gone into the basement (literally) spitting with jealousy at two of his classmates becoming hugely successful and influential. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Former World Treasure

So what is Andy's point in posting an unreal photo(? Looks like a model to me) of the World Trade Centre as Former World Treasure. Seems kind of odd to me.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Narr! It's a photo and for once it's PD! 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet the Hudson River has never seemed so blue. But I wasn't quibbling about the license, it's not the anniversary of 9/11 so what triggered Andy to usurp Joaquin's role as treasure poster boy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We should probably be grateful he didn't put up a picture of the Pentagon. Röstigraben (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=777518 [mosque thing] which TK has now posted. Bash them feelthy Musselmen TK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a really nicely laid out Main Page

Have you looked at the front page of Conservapedia? That's a really stunning piece of balance in design. Truly, it says "trustworthy encyclopedia" in every possible way - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We have some better versions preserved in our image library. Particularly after Ken

has been on an editing spree.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your liberal obsession with style over substance is showing. Open your mind and admit that Conservapedia's strength is in its content and awesome news items, source of innumerable WIGOs. Godspeed. Röstigraben (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 is worse than July 2009. Category:CP Main page does need filling out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The main page comes off as a battle between the sysops, jockeying for their pet causes to have top billing. This is especially true of Ken

who routinely (and haphazardly) shoves promotional bits about his pet projects.  Ever notice how the "featured article" of Ken

's pet project and personal fiefdom of Evolution is at the top, while Abortion, the "Article of the Year" is shoved below the "Conservapedia Richard Dawkins Project", and you have to scroll down significantly to even see it? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On pretty much every wiki, once the front page reaches a usable design, it tends to stay there unless and until someone comes up with something really convincingly good. Even RationalWiki. RW is a sort of forum/group-blog using a wiki engine, but at least it doesn't pretend it's something else - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Lily The Pink links this spectacular example. "Conservapedia has learned that ..." So is it a trustworthy encyclopedia, a blog, a newspaper, a forum or an abnormal psychology case file? - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to search a bit for that, I remembered one time when Ken went overboard on MainPageLeft. Really, that one should adorn WP's article on CP. Most CP screencaps here are diffs or one-offs but I created a category for just the mainpage to make it easier to find.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW You might like to look at this page as well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

*ahem* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I like how they didn't mention to coalition

Yes, conservative party is in power, in a coalition government though (with the liberal democrats). --Opcn (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn you beat me. ¬_¬ Jaxe (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's Andy's take on the coalition? I demand to hear it now! Now! ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.127.44.12 / talk / contribs}

Don't mention the LibDems!

Conservatives have come to power only with the help of.... dun dun durrrrr the LIBBBERELLL DEMOCRATZZZZ!?!?!?!?

Let's just ignore them, perhaps they will go away. Jaxe (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Open your mind...

... because I don't want to address^img the points you made^img. Sigh. Next step most probably: Read the most logical book ever written.... Always the same. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy's totally failed to notice a glaring grammatical error in FrankC's post, which obviously invalidates everything the close-minded FrankC wrote. --^{Ask me about our cadaver} 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy censors Kagan's religion heritage

This just kind of tickled me. Andy reverts edit about Kagan's Jewish heritage because Conservapedia doesn't emphasize racial identity (most likely because this woman was appointed by Obama, so she must be an atheist, so referring to her as "Jewish" must mean race, not religion). Andy then tells the casual user to edit more often, probably so Andy has something to revert. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume Andy will be applying that to the affirmative action president article. --^{Ask me about our beagle} 20:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

According to cp:Ronald Reagan, St. Ronnie is Irish and born in Illinois, but listing the fact that Kagan is Jewish and was born in New York is wikipedia-style liberalism in action. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia en Español

I maybe got too much of a kick out of this. I first giggled like a girl when I thought of how polite everyone was being in not responding with, "When you stop taking all of our lettuce-picking and slaughter house jobs you criminal!" Then I giggled like a girl trying to imagine the Spanish version of Conservapedia. I thought about who would write it, and how their comically bad command of English would translate with Spanish. ("Entonces Nancy Pelosi dijo que Mitch McConnell es un Polla Pequeño...") They were funny, these thoughts in my head. --Leotardo (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken was talking ages ago about getting CP (well, not the whole thing...just certain articles) into a random collection of languages. Like all his plans, nothing ever happened. --Kels (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken's first goal was to translate the atheism article into as many languages as possible. He supposedly had a lot of bilingual contacts ready to go, and there were people on CP offering to translate it into German and Chinese (yo). However, the ever-paranoid Andy shot the project down. Incidentally, his comments to me on his supposed Chinese contact were hilarious - he said that he couldn't find the guy because there were too many people over there with the same name. Ever classy. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

he said that he couldn't find the guy because there were too many people over there with the same name - "and when I tried to figure out who the guy was by their photos, they still all looked the same! Sorry guys - I believes what I sees, and I see liberal deceit all over it. Now I've just decided that 'love' is a conservative word so I need to go update moar examples to my incomprehensible bizarre theory...please have open minds and think of other projects." --Leotardo (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it was Ken

who said that, not Andy. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't somebody once post some articles in Cambodian? I think that got them all worried because they didn't know what it said and they were duly deleted. They haven't been able to root out all the parody in English so multiplying the opportunities that foreign languages might present would scare the shit out of them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TOR Blocked?

Odd, I had TOR turned on and then randomly went to CP only to get a 403. Has assfly found a .htaccess file for all TOR IPs? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. --Sigma 7 (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure by now they've blocked some chunks of TOR. Hell, they've been doing it for years. ħuman 05:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some exit nodes are blocked or are living in netblocks they've shitlisted. The vast majority of them work, however. Don Koecxote and Andy Panza tried to stamp out my bots for a couple of weeks last year by banhammering any IP address any of them was hailing from. I installed privoxy, the whole thing became a very large game of whack-a-mole, and they eventually just gave up. I seem to remember that roughly one in every hundred or so exit nodes had problems connecting. mb 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TK demands revolution, Andy trims

This is going a little too far, even for them.^{img— Unsigned, by: 68.147.139.21 / talk / contribs}

It's pretty much SOP for the right wing these days. Andy actually, as you say, trimmed TK's moron wings a bit there. ħuman 05:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• LOL - I love these! Conservapedia has a gift that nobody else has, not even Barack the magic negro: they can find the most random, no-name nobody who has a blog and turn their scribblings into "EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!" front-page news. Listen to what a jackass I am! I clearly don't realize that the source for this, Thomas Brewton, is clearly one of the pillars of modern intellectual thought and deserves top billing. Just read his own self-written stellar credentials:

Thomas E. Brewton, who maintains this blog, had the great good fortune in the middle 1950s at Louisiana State University to study under two of the 20th century’s great minds: Eric Voegelin in political science, and Walter Berns in Constitutional law. These two professors opened the door of education to a glimpse of Western civilization and of American political and social thought as they had been before socialism was unconstitutionally established as the official national religion of the United States in 1933.

Come on Thomas, stop puffing yourself up or you'll never get a Wikipedia biography with such shameless self-promotion! Walter Berns? The same Walter Berns who was called a 'racist' and left Cornell in an uproar? Not that that means anything - I got it from Wikipedia, and in typical Wikipedia fashion anything 'controversial' is watered down and re-worded so that you have no idea what, exactly, happened, just that something ZOMG! happened[7]. Anyway, end point that Wins the Morning: Asshat sources on Conservapedia are asshat. Le sigh. --Leotardo (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Taj

Taj has retired. So that's another useful contributor gone. Who's left? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal deceit class?

Wow, Andy is actually teaching a class^img on liberal deceit now. Making sure he inflicts his neurosis on as many people as possible? Perhaps have a class on why Conservatives are never wrong as well? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I never noticed the previous wording - "A conservative is a former liberal who ...". Does Andy really mean that every conservative starts out being a liberal and then changes; there are no naturally-born conservatives?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess they evolve *SNORT SNORT* Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there's some real gibberish in there. ħuman 10:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think hope it's just a metaphor. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How does the US higher education system work? Would a homeschooler trying to get in to college/university be looked upon favourably if they had a qualification in 'Liberal Deceit'? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's Liberty University, then yes! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nananana!

I just realised that there are certain pages on CP which I can still see and edit that are not visible to TK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhhh....what? Keegscee (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Team contest pages.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz vs RobS

The WIGO's not the best, but Terry's obviously responding to Rob's posts on here. Now is Terry saying that he is against offshore drilling? Surely not. It's amazing just how much of a u-turn they can make from "Drill baby, drill" and anti-environmental rhetoric if there's a chance of having a go at Obama. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Change it, then. To me, it looks like TK is going after Rob for being a member of a vandal site and playing with the bad boys - the enviromentalist bent is, of course, not genuine. Röstigraben (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anything to change it too; it's a good spot, but generally (IMHO) TK's trolling is not WIGO worthy. PS. You're right about Terry going after Rob, but why would he go after the man who's doing so much to save the good name of Terry Koeckritz? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know we should ignore TK, but this has the potential to turn into an interesting showdown. And I guess TK is simply jealous of Rob because he's no longer welcome on RW - screw whatever he's done for him. Röstigraben (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Historically Rob and TK don't get along. When TK was leaking info to RW from the SDG, I believe that he tried to frame Rob. EddyP (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TK = snooze city, like a broken record with this shit over and over and over. Stop WIGOing him already. Leave the crazy to people who don't treat Conservapedia like a big game. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They each have their own sort of insanity. TK is delusional and a pathological liar. RobS is simply a spewer of paranoid word salad. And they can both lick my firey balls. Phallus of Satan (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken tidbit

What possible purpose could this edit^img have? I know Ken's mind works in mysterious ways but this one is really out there. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To call attention to it, of course. Although I'm not sure why he would want to do that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bored? I do weird shit when I'm bored... Senator Harrison (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably SEO again. Cats is probably the number one search term at search engine starting with G. They could drastically increase their traffic with a quality article on cats. - π 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well you know what that means! Stand by for:

• Cats and Adolf Hitler
• Cats and atheism
• Cats and adoption
• Cats and bleeding
• Cats and Christianity
• Cats and communism
• Cats and contraception
• Cats and deception
• Cats and depression
• Cats and ethics
• Cats and eugenics
• Cats and evolution
• Cats and feminism
• Cats and financial incentives
• Cats and infertility
• Cats and mortality rates
• Cats and parental consent
• Cats and promiscuity
• Cats and rape
• Cats and regret
• Cats and the ancient world
• Cats and the Courts
• Cats and the Hippocratic Oath
• Cats and the media
• Cats and unwed mothers
• Cats and women's death

It can only be a matter of time, gentlemen! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Google's sooper seekrit algorithm can pick up on such efforts at linkbait (somehow, who knows how) and it has the opposite of the desired effect, hurting your Pagerank? Or do I just have no idea what I'm talking about, which I don't. --Leotardo (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The late humourist and former editor of Punch, Alan Coren, was of the opinion that there are three sure-fire ingredients which can make a book successful: Golf, Cats & Nazis. He therefore wrote a book called Golfing for Cats which featured a cover image of a cat playing golf with Nazi pin flags.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, Ken

is covertly letting us know he's a sock of CUR. Who knew that he was the most masterful parodist of all time? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Do you think Ken might have just discovered that book? Just wait until he discovers Kitler! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd, I thought I took part in that debate. Guess not... ħuman 18:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How many Shepard Fairey illustrations can CP use at once?

They are at four on the main page now. --Leotardo (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're just angry because these conservatives are so witty and original. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think last year there was once when there were 6 or 7 but I don't know if we have a cap of that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaaargh!

Ed's blogging movies about young girls again^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Captured and preserved for future generations to be vaguely unsettled by. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

David Cameron

CP's article on DC is apallingly written. "Cameron is/was/has ..." - oh well, about par for the course, I suppose.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And apparently he's "current Prime Minister of England". Cantabrigian (talk)

Anyone know why they list him as the 75th Prime Minister? Not only do we not really do the whole numbering thing in the UK, I'm not sure where the number 75 comes from. There have been 53 different Prime Ministers, some having more than one term of office (non-consecutive), but my count from the list at WP makes David Cameron the 76th PM, if it really matters. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there's some real gibberish in there. ħuman 10:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why, but recently I've become increasingly annoyed with people thinking "England" is interchangeable with the "United Kingdom." Maybe I'm becoming more nationalistic in my old age. The fact that CP cannot even get this basic fact right, under leadership of a man who claims superior knowledge in World History, let alone many other things, combined with the six edits since DC became Premier compared with the over 200 Wikipedia have had speaks volumes about how CP has failed miserably at trying to become an alternative to Wikipedia. And you'd think, with all that pesky liberal bias in Wikipedia, especially concerning the election of a Conservative PM, people would flock to Conservapedia to get the real facts, wouldn't ya? SJ ^Debaser 12:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from if you are British, but from an American perspective watching the CP folks--who demonstrate little understanding of the British system and electorate--try to pronounce 'The Truth' about the election and shoe-horn it into an American ideological paradigm has been delightful! I have to link to it again, but remember when they were proclaiming the "landslide" victory of the Tories they added landslide to list of 'Conservative words'. Thank you, Kendoll, for claiming a random word as "conservative" when your use of it showed that you didn't understand what was happening and completely misused it in both a connotative and denotative sense. --Leotardo (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's also very important that every paragraph in the DC article start with "Cameron..." lest ye forget who you are reading about. --Leotardo (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I presume the bits about 'noble blood' were added by parodists? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing Conservapedia would want to point out about someone they like in any case.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn, now they'll probably remove it... ħuman 18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to change the bit about him being PM of England but all servers I have access to have been TK'd (including BT and local government libraries). That leaves god-feerin' Murc'ns free to write whatever tripe they like about UK politicians. Anyway, Cameron is definitely not a conservative in the CP sense. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was changed this morning by a new account; but I would hesitate to suggest that it could be one of us.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OED Dig

Not worth a WIGO but the obvious dig at a UK institution, "Oxford Dictionary to Correct 99-Year-Old Mistake." falls a bit flat as US institution Webster's has almost the same mistake http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/siphon 82.23.208.15 (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If it were anyone else I'd say it's one of those "funny old world" type news articles, but I think the message from Conservapedia is that country of United Great England sucks, and that Andy is correct to exhort his followers to abandon books as a source of learning. --ConcernedResident ^{banana for the ladies} 16:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The error is only being corrected now that Conservatives are in power. There would never be any change if left up to the Liberals (whoever they are in the atheistic British system)! --Kels (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NO KELS. The error is only being corrected now that Conservapedia noticed it after it was corrected. SHEESH. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LAME. Now if Andy would have posted it, he would have put an actual dig in (e.g. "And it only took liberals 99 years to correct it!" or something). TK's blog entry is just a boring statement of fact. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Boring? I found it the most intersting thing on their main page.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It'd be an interesting nugget anywhere else. On CP, it's lacking that certain open-minded flair. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Brings up an interesting thought though - I wonder could Andy be convinced to start a Conservative Dictionary Project? He's already done a lot of the work with his Best New Conservative Words dreck, and he could "put the band back together" and tackle the conservatisation of the entire English language next? Wouldn't that be great? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That'd be great. The key is to get him to think he thought it up himself. ħuman 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because liberals fail at science don'chya know --Opcn (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

They already have Category:Dictionary, which is full of win. mb 11:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Research Assistance Requested

In reading some of Andy's older classics, I was inspired today to create a new article titled Schlafenfreude, which is a new term coined to describe Andy's delight in the misfortune of people who don't agree with his worldview. I'm trying to find some definitive examples of this, but keep coming up short even though I know I've seen this on multiple occasions. Examples that come to mind are tragedies involving liberal values, Hollywood values, atheistic nations, mass-murders in countries that were asking for it because they support gun control, etc. Any suggestions? --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the entire Heath Ledger dialog I and others were involved in with Andy. That skullfucker just sits around waiting for people who aren't like him to die, so he can be superior about them. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

CP:Hollywood values is a good place to start. Great project, BTW. Hopefully we'll dig out some good stuff for you. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not help you too much but is always great for a laugh, Andy's attempts to back up his "theory" are even better than his BoTP nonsense. Damo^Hi 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We already have Conservapedia:Cheap shots. - π 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And shouldn't it 1. be Schlaflenfreude, 2. be in the CP namespace, and 3. not redlinked? ħuman 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I thought that Schlafenfreude rolled off the tongue better than Schlaflenfreude, but now I'm not so sure. I'm having one of those indecisive nights. Or maybe not. I think.

2. Correct.

3. Correct again, and removed. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But it might still yet be a better name for the above-mentioned article? ħuman 07:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe when Ted Kennedy was dying Andy's attempts to hide his boner were quite transparent. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was disgusting. Almost as bad as us dancing on Falwell's grave! ħuman 07:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have no regrets about dancing a jig on Falwell's grave. He got to go to happy land, and in that regard many people were happy to see him take his freakshow to a plane of existence far removed from this world. --ConcernedResident ^{dwarf for the ladies} 10:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy bothering, a new feature of Ken

I hadn't really noticed that Ken's bothering of Andy on his Talk page really only started at the end of January - it's a new thing for our old buddy. Prior to this, Ken had never come around slobbering for attention from the boss. And of course Andy now has to put up with about six edits every time Ken tries to send him a lookatmeeeeeee message. His latest jumping up and down for attention is just brilliant, featuring a passing reference in a blog about a musician. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he's trying to get the attention of RW as well. Why else would he mention McMaster College?^img And he keeps on bringing up the Wayne Gretsky (sic) of creationism.^img

That's probably what he's doing. He obviously can't say, "Hey Trent! Look at this!!" on Andy's talk page, so this is the next best thing. That reminds me: it's been a while since we've seen a "gentlemen" post. The last one I remember was the one addressed to "Mrs. K" (Kels). If I'm remembering it correctly, it had something to do with homosexuality. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would LOVE some new GENTLEMEN's, they're always great fun and I'm bored right now. Ken-you must SURELY be able to tell us something about events regarding Richard Dawkins on the Internet? Got any Operations planned for your summer hols? Have you got the new Beano Summer Special yet? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything he writes comes down to his own closeted status. Every. Thing. Phallus of Satan (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

if Ken is RuyLopez on ASK then he is having a meltdown Hamster (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again this week? Ken, sit back and boil a couple of hot dogs already. Kisses, ħuman 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since January, you say? Maybe something really awkward happened between Ken and Andy at Conservapedia's Christmas staff party? Röstigraben (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Ken smoke? - David Gerard (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Ken

Why is your latest bleat on "Economic Conservatism Triumphant" on MainPageLeft? It's not a CP article, it should be amongst the other crap on MainPageRight.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because left is Ken's territory, that he leases space in to JM for his little world treasure thing. If Ken doesn't piss on it often enough, the other dogs might start to sniff round and take bits of his stamping ground for their own. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The World Treasure thing is what bothers me the most on the main page. I can't decide if it's because it reeks of nostalgia, or if it's because World Treasure is the only thing I don't find laughable on main. It completely sticks out. I wish they'd call it a "Conservative World Treasure". --Leotardo (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Karajou

<rant>Karajou,

We could not ask for a better example of why such a large number of people can't stand religion than yourself. A living person pours their heart out about their son's life, but I bet you didn't even read past the first paragraph before deleting it, did you? The fact that you can claim the moral high ground, to be "open minded" but shoot someone down so brutally proves that you're simply the worst kind of person there is. Yes, a few billion people, people like us here at RationalWiki may be uncouth. We may swear, we may drink and smoke, we may watch pornography, and we may fuck outside marriage. But when it boils down to real issues, most of us are happy enough to let fellow human beings get on with their own lives without forcing our own fucking belief systems down their throat. You didn't even have the courtesy to engage the person because you're so very aware of the fact that you'd be exposed for whatever it is that you are. You don't realise the effect your kind of dogma has on people. My best friend of over 10 years recently came out of the closet to me. To put this into perspective, he's been completely closeted about it for his whole life, and the thought that he was a homosexual had never so much as crossed my mind, nor that of our other closest friends. Do you know what my response to him was when he told me? "I don't give a shit if you're gay. You'll always be my best mate." (Before you get any ideas, "mate" means "friend" in Britain, not lover.) In my friend's own words, he has been to hell and back coming to terms with this, and it's homophobes like you that put people through that when you come out with absolute shite such as "homosexuality is a mental disorder." I've been considerably politer here than bog waste like you deserve, and in return I ask you once again in vain to please just think about the kind of things you're saying. The person you blocked was a real person with real issues, and a real son. So please, just think for a second how you would feel if you had a child who had suffered so mercilessly, say, at the hands of atheists, for being a Christian child, came to an atheist website and vented your feelings about it to the people who had made your son's life and yours hell. Then they block you with nothing but a "fuck off" in disguise. Just think.</rant> SJ ^Debaser 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Something like that is copy-pasta. As you know, impersonating a sysop is a blockable offense. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Christianity Defeated Paganism

A bit more of a provocative title then usual for their latest "World Treasures" picture.[1]^img --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is Christianity didn't defeat paganism so much as assimilated it (e.g, Easter, Christmas, gods becoming saints, etc.) . They're kinda like the Borg.

We are Christians

You will be converted.

We will add your holidays and traditions to our own.

Resistance is futile. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone read the paganism article? It is almost sane! How has it survived the insanity of Kendoll and JPatt or the parody that is TK? --BoredCPer (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I just spent some time at FSTDT looking for the comment I posted over a year ago.
Today it is a day of God's grace.
Lower your shields and surrender your ships.
Lay down your weapons for the Golgotha's sake and raise up your hands towards heaven surrendering to God.
He will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to his own.
He will have mercy on you.
Your culture will adapt to service Him.
Resistance is futile. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Great minds.... :D --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga by-election

Totnesmartin plans to step down from the Loya Jirga, as he will be moving soon and be unavailable for a time. If you're interested, you can go vote for his replacement. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is in TWIGO:CP because...?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy iz gud english spkr.

It's stuff like that that makes me think he is a parodist. Then I come to my senses and realize he is an idiot. Hell, he even made typos on the revisions to fix his original ones. Gotta love it when the WIGO's write themselves. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not even the fact that he makes typos that makes me laugh. Everyone makes typos or spells a word they don't use often wrong, or stuff. It's the fact that he immediately leaps on a typo when someone else makes one and uses it as evidence for him being better at whatever the topic is about than they are, or as a way to completely avoid the topic. "Hey Andy here is a list of reasons why you're wrong", "I see you have spelled 'the' as 'teh', please learn to spell correctly!" (ban) "Hah! I win again." X Stickman (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no grammar Nazi and I absolutely agree with you on his BS excuses for not debating somebody but come on... Making mistakes when commenting on other people's lack of skill in English, priceless. [8] Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone like to point out to Arsefly that there are non-English speaking immigrants in his heritage? And that he hasn't caught up with the English bit yet. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish Andy would stop talking about England. The's man's clearly never been to the place and knows absolutely nothing about the country. SJ ^Debaser 00:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If Andy were to stop talking about things he knows nothing about, Conservapedia would be a very quiet place. alt (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite get his point there anyway. It just sounds like a racist slur, as if it's an awful thing that there are foreigners in London. I guess where he lives they chase out the brown people with pitchforks and torches. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I'm most proud of about England is how multicultural we are. Especially in London. SJ ^Debaser 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The strangest part about Andy's typos isn't the volume but the type. Andy makes quite a few verb tense errors (there are examples cataloged here). Due to the high complexity of verb tenses in English, this is relatively common in non-native speakers but almost non-existent in native speakers. Even the handful of outright illiterate English-speaking people I've ever met still knew enough to use the right tenses. It's just instinctive if you've grown up with the language. On occasion, I've seen Andy slip up and use the perfect form when he should have used the simple form. This is something you see in non-native speakers who are almost (but not quite) proficient in English - they overcompensate and use the more complex form. I've never seen a native English speaker do that - at least not before Andy. I guess what I'm saying is that I might be more likely to take Andy seriously if he spoke and wrote English as well as the foreigners he's complaining about. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DISGUSTED

with Karajou and the treatment of that open letter on Talk:Homosexuality. Honestly, there must be something psychologically wrong with these people, seriously. rational ghey (send a message) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he could have said what he was really thinking, that her fag son (and herself) are going to burn in hell with Andy's brother. I have sympathy for the woman, but these guys have shown they are pretty mean, angry and petty--what's the point of always revealing the 'we know where you are' IP info aside from intimidation?--that I thought this was tame compared to how they usually vent their frustration that the world has changed around them and laughs at them. They're not even taken seriously by either the conservative or evangelical movements - if they were, you'd see far, far more editors than just the same cast of clowns. I wish they would learn that they are jokes, moderate, stop giving King powers to fools, become nicer and attract more bloggers, b/c it's boring that we are forced to have to ridicule the same five to ten people every day. It's un-Christian, their lack of concern for our needs. --Leotardo (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Still, I think they're so pagued by radicals they don't even realize how crazy they are. I'm part glad they're so crazy because they damage their own cause, but at the same time, it only attracts more radicalism, which is what worries me. rational ghey (send a message) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but they are so off-putting that they have trouble attracting a wider circle of their crazy brothers and sisters. How do we get them to Keep the Krazy, but Ditch the Douchiness so we can have more people to laugh at? If they can't diversify their jerks, even we will stop reading them - then who are they going to play showpony theatrics for? They need new blood. Really. --Leotardo (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however it is a wiki, so I'm sure we are bound to get another TK or fuhrer eventually, ya know? rational ghey (send a message) 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno - the place is so finely tuned to their particular strain of wingnut. They also approach all newcomers (and even minor dissenters) with absolute contempt; it's hard to see how they'll ever be anything than a vanity project of Andy and his small group of angry bloggers while they are running the show. When Jimmy Wales started to make unilateral deletions of pornographic images on Wikimedia Commons, 80% of the Wikimedia community (when I last saw, roughly 400 to 100) voted to strip him of his powers. Could you imagine anything like that at all on CP? That right there shows why WP is as big as it is, and CP is doomed to be a small group of mean angry Christians. --Leotardo (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Any "new blood" is immediately suspected as bad blood, thanks to TK. To fit in you have to follow Andy on every weird issue unquestioning, something which any other human in the world who knows how to operate a computer could not in his right mind do without appearing to be so over the top as be suspect as a parodist. SJ ^Debaser 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But it is not impossible. Who knows, they're BOUND to get bored of each other eventually. Or start stupid cat fights. Then hopefully they'll just block each other... Oh, it reminds me of V for Vandetta. rational ghey (send a message) 00:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at how they treated Phyte with the bird feeder. This person just wanted their opinions--maybe a college student--and Andy basically says a bunch of crazy stuff and tells the person to shut up, get to work, and upon inspection and approval of that work he'll maybe then talk a little more. Who sees that and wants to join? It's not even a conservative or liberal thing - it's a human thing. Humans don't want to be around humans like that, a truth they are likely very, very familiar with IRL. --Leotardo (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying there are other idiots who think the way they do and are bound to become one of them. rational ghey (send a message) 01:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘UPDATE:TK: "well that's nice but because I'm a stalker, I see you're from England and therefore you have no logic." (Added slightly diff version to wigo... check it outtt) rational ghey (send a message) 03:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see TK is now using the Phelps-word "enabler". Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair

Whilst the "letter" exposes the depth of homophobia on CP it is a little disingenuous in that it has been, as Terry Koeckritz points out, circulating on the web for some time. As such we cannot truly tell the intentions of the poster. It does look like they were trolled. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I did see that letter before, so that part is disingenuous. I don't understand why you say they got "trolled" though. This doesn't seem like trolling to me at all? --GTac (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They were trolled in as much as someone deliberately posted something to provoke an angry reaction. Someone writing anti-homophobic posts on CP is as provocative as EL with his "all abortionists are murdering scum" postings on RW. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

KackyPants' block reason was quite amusing, considering it was someone complaining about CP's bigotry: "Bigotry: And yes, you are a hate-filled bigot who sides with everything God is against". Sick fuck. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe she didn't write that. Now im part pissed. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupid WIGO

Can we just drop the related WIGO? It is indeed copy-pasted from this 10-year-old article; it recently popped up on reddit, which is probably where "SUnderwood" got it.

If I got a copypasting troll like this on my site, I'd kick 'em off with extreme prejudice as well. Trying to rake Conservapedia over the coals for eliminating lazy trolls is stupid. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if "SUnderwood" is someone here who is now ecstatic after getting a rise out of RW, on top of Conservapedia's reaction, in which case RW has been trolled just as much as CP.

In short, this is stupid, although I have to commend "SUnderwood" for shit-stirring so effectively. Fedhaji (Talk) 14:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Even if it is fake, karajoke's reaction is still worthy to be in WIGO I think. rational ghey (send a message) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I rescued the WIGO thinking exactly the same thing. I'm sure people will be happy with it now. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job. I like it better. "You christian sack of shit" hhaha... basically......... rational ghey (send a message) 23:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolution (again)

Once more TerryH completely fails in his understanding of evolution^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

saved from the MiniTru's revisions. CS Miller (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Impressive. It's not even wrong. --ConcernedResident ^{garbage bin for the ladies} 10:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. He's convinced me that I was wrong about evolution all these years. X Stickman (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What? Erm, I don't understand. Is he saying that if life started through natural causes (although the origin of life is nowt to do with evolution) then why didn't it start in loads of different places/forms? I've never heard that before, even from the most idiotic of creationists. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my reading too, and that "because the article shows that all life is derived from one event, then multiple abiogenesis events didn't occur. Therefore because life could (should) have arrived multiple times, abiogenesis didn't occur at all (the sky fairy did it). Therefore evolution is wrong." Since he is using evolution to disprove abiogenesis to disprove evolution, this is just so far from wrong it makes, well anything else seem sane. CS Miller (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

TerryH's parents should gotten their money back for sending him to Yale and wherever he went to medical school before he stopped practicing to become a cretinous religious zealot and Essex County Examiner. What a dimwit. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I lost faith in evolution when I asked a biologist to explain gravity and he was clueless! --ConcernedResident ^{ninja for the ladies} 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thing is: life might have started several times but evolution is why the one won out. Or probably t'other way about or something ... 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget evolution - he fails in a basic understanding of probability. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Asian Ladies

No words needed.^img Aceⁱ⁹ 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One "joke", two "ladies"? ħuman 07:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"picture obtained from photobucket, see License agreement"... linking to Photobucket's Terms of Use? ... ... ... *facepalm*... ... It never ceases to amaze me how deeply confused Conservapedians are about legal matters. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+F "6.1" --Opcn (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Photobucket licence is more or less "do what you like." This presumes, of course, the original uploader is in fact the copyright holder, which is more than a little iffy - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to have to ask; what is the "two girls, one cup" thing? (I have previously discovered what "tubgirl" was, so I am extremely wary of searching for any of these memes again) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically the same thing but in video form. Don't bother. Jaxe (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This compilation of reactions to 2g1c lets you see what people think of it without violating your own eyeballs... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that video, SR (yes, I was brave and trustworthy enough to click it!), it kind of confirms what I had guessed. I would be like the guy standing up in the first one... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I started my own scrapbook of classic Ken but it looks like he has made it easy for me. However, knowing our little Buffalo Christian Soldier he could delete it at a moment's notice. I rather suspect that he's doing it to get out attention because nobody at CP is paying him any bit of notice whatsoever.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I see this has been deleted for the time being.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It'll only be a matter of minutes before "Dawkins! Clown! Ole! Skewer! Ole!" is restored. Aceⁱ⁹ 10:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Spectrum WIGO

I'm kind of surprised to see so many answers to the question posed, and I do love Andy's "Build my website and play with my balls before I answer your questions" approach. Andy's Christianity is a vehicle for his extreme conservative views, and in that sense he could just as easily be a Muslim, but one would think he'd be more interested in sharing his astonishing conservative insights. Ha, "Conservatives are more skeptical than liberals"? Perhaps, but certainly not in the case of Mr "The earth was hand-made by some god less than 10,000 years ago and we all have to accept the free market principles of Jesus in order to be earn a mansion in Heaven? Wow, it's so true!" Schlafly. --ConcernedResident ^{chessboard for the ladies} 13:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

His last reply looks like it was straight from the assquote generator. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's classic "rhubarb rhubarb, red herring, rhubarb rhubarb" Godspeeding. Reckon it's too specific to add to Assquote generator? --ConcernedResident ^{mug for the ladies} 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So...TK doesn't like that Canada is a good place to live? Seems sort of random, but hey, the Stephen Harper Party of Canada is doing their best to make it less nice! --Kels (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part of this whole thing was the Andre Bauer-esque comparison of wild animals to poor people that TK undertook on Phyte's Talk page to say that if we give poor people anything, they'll shit all over us, just like they have shit all over Atheist Liberal Canada (which didn't have nearly the fiscal problems that the U.S. has suffered). The bird feeder analogy is a good example of Christian Charity. --Leotardo (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) TK screaming to the sky: "PULL YOURSELVES UP BY YOUR OWN BOOTSTRAPS, DAMN FREELOADING BIRDS!!!1!1"

My Bible must be broken. The version of Matthew 25:40 here doesn't read "Fuck it, let 'em die if they're not fit to look after themselves.".--ConcernedResident ^{egg for the ladies} 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it wrong; it was in Luke 150:2.5 where it read, "Offer the needy food, and when they take it get pissed off at them for wanting it, take it back, and kick 'em in the gonads and let them know how awful they are for needing food. Then return to the tranquility of when you didn't offer it to them and realize you are better than them because--hoohoo!--you have all the food and they have none! This same rule applies to birds." --Leotardo (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Luke knew his stuff. His insight is second only to Paul's Bag of Burning Dog Shit to the Corinthians. --ConcernedResident ^{potato masher for the ladies} 16:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In other news: I've scrapped my planned bird feeder purchase. Who knew what a Hitchcockian nightmare those things are! I mean, I live in New York so I don't know if I'd care if my neighbor's windowsill flowerbox garden below got shit-bombed, but it's the dive-bombing and pecking me I can't tolerate. I can't see why anyone buys a bird feeder given all that TK says he went through with his. --Leotardo (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tippi Hedren was on the radio here a couple of days ago talking about The Birds and said that the scene where she goes upstairs and is mobbed actually used live birds instead of the mechanical ones used with the children.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be surprised to learn that TK plagiarized the birdhouse ditty and even altered it to omit the very telling last sentence in an attempt to conceal what he'd done? Nutty Roux (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I assumed he did some stupid cut-n-paste job where it was in the form a limerick or one of those odd mass-forward e-mails where they press ENTER for dramatic effect, or whatever, because of the crazed use of capitalization. Do you know who else used to capitalize like that? Goebbels. But I took heart in imagining TK reading it and thinking that this just perfectly illustrated the irrefutable logic he feels - because it does! Even red-blooded Conservatives were disgusted by Andre Bauer's statements - so, if you need to see how warped of a wingnut Terry Koeckritz is even in his own community, he just gave you a handy example. TK's influence will never extend beyond Conservapedia, a project held in high disdain by other wingnuts. The only audience he has is us; the only attention our laughter. He is there for us to behold, our own little hothouse flower. --Leotardo (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When CP gets too boring TK will move on to somewhere else to play his sociopathic games. They didn't start with CP and they won't end there (barring unforseen accidents with public transport).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

SUnderwood Was (Probably) Not Real

Karajerk probably doesn't realize this and would have banned her anyway, but, considering the letter is a decade old, I doubt that was the real SUnderwood. (It's still a wonderful letter, though.) MDB (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, MDB, but, Kajajerk's response was real. I was going to WIGO it (but was EC'd to the punch!), introducing Ms Underwood as 'probable parodist', but I thought it WIGO worthy purely for the block message. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No matter what, calling someone a bigot because he or she dares to confront them with the very real consequences of their hate-mongering and just pleads for them to stop...that's probably the lowest I've seen out of CP yet. You're a sack of shit, Karajou, and if there were a god, it is you who would be an offense to him. Röstigraben (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hell, we all knew Karajou's views are basically those of the Nazis (perhaps minus the anti-Semetism, but perhaps not), so this is hardly surprising coming from him. What a sack of shit. DickTurpis (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd always though that Karajou had a bit more integrity than the other sacks of shit. But no he proves tnat he is just the same.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Karajou's always been about the worst of the lot. At least TK doesn't believe half of what he says, he's just trolling, but Karajou was always a loathsome sack of shit. DickTurpis (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia: Taking a religion of love and turning into a theatre of hate. Auld Nick (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case, you are absolutely correct to say this. OncomingStorm (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Christ, what an absolute fucunt. Deserves the name Kowardjou more than ever. Moron. Webbtje (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And to think he was seen fit to serve. I wonder what the sailors under him thought about him, or if he was this big of a self-serving egomaniac during his sailing days. I've met some pretty hard-leaning conservative minds in my service, but none that would stoop that low. -- CodyH (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the random article button

Isn't phishing a form of identity theft? --Opcn (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I guess information acquired through phishing could be used for identity theft, but more often it's just used for straightforward financial fraud. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense in context. Providing an array of information in a Facebook profile isn't phishing in any way. – Nick Heer 03:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What's best is just how badly that article is written. ħuman 04:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Recently" opened to non-college students. Do they even update articles that aren't about abortion and [insert noun here] anymore? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 11:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TK wants us to post this as an obvious WIGO (Cronkite)

This is way too easy^img. – Nick Heer 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TK hasn't taken CP seriously in months. Keegscee (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Every now and then I go through the WiGOs and vote down anything that TK does. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote down all TK wigos, and vote up all Andy wigos. The rest I ignore. ħuman 03:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, but this TK guy is a parodist right? Judging from the stuff I've read he seems less sincere than Colbert. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is there something wrong grammatically for the following sentence?

71% Of Voters Say United States More Positive Force in World Than U.N., Political Class Disagrees.^img

I am thinking something is not right in the sentence but I don't know what it is. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a sentence, it's a headline, so doesn't follow grammar rules. At Night jag, No, TK is just a sociopath who has latched his fangs onto CP where they think hate = love, or at least hate = one of us. ħuman 04:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TK is far too pussy to actually take someone on face to face so he is cunt from a far instead. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Ace talking about TK or MC? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No. ħuman 08:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Food safety regulation WIGO

Nice one, really catches out Andy's hypocrisy and cp:Double Standard. EddyP (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Milk that can explode your bowels and forced inspermination of married chattel - what a maahvelous shining City on a Hill! I don't think that's the land of milk and honey Jeebus had in mind but what do I know? --Leotardo (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Redlink: cp:Canadian Wheat Board.--Sigma 7 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A true sign of CP's demise?

Even the vandals and parodists cant be arsed anymore. Douglas and Jacob's editing has really dropped off, the CBP is stagnating (only TerryH seems to edit it anymore) and the only reason they garner more than two hundred edits a day is because of Ken's (and seemingly Rob's) habit of not using the preview button and because of a single vandal who manages to hit a load of pages which need reversion - that voiceofreason one caused over 80 edits. EddyP (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Anyone who was going to bother trying to get into CP as a parodist would've done it by now. Any latecomers (i.e. someone who started trying now) would probably be banned before they got started anyway. And all the ones who are still there are probably getting bored because it's old. Who's watching them? Just us and the guys at CP. The guys at CP are either parodists themselves or too dense (or focussed on their own pet projects) to notice any parody, and we've largely started ignoring the parodists in favour of documenting andy's own brand of crazy. I guess the only thing we have left to see is if the deep cover guys will get bored and just stop editing, or go out in a bang. X Stickman (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Look also at the drop-off in admin involvement. There has always been a trickle of people getting bored with teh Assfly and Terry Koeckritz's lies and idiocy and the latest is Taj. That just leaves a hard core of idiots and parodists. We're down to Andy, Terry Koeckritz, Kowardjou, JPratt, TerryH, Conservative, DouglasA and JacobB. Respectively: irretrievable idiot, sociopath only staying involved to make himself feel important, ex-swabbie staying in it to compensate for never having been promoted, moron and probable parodist, in it only to promote his fee-paying blog, blatantly in denial about his own attraction to men, parodist and parodist. Ladies and gentlemen: the face of conservatism today. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

While everything else you say is true and provable, the one we aren't sure of is whether Ken

's predilection for boiled hotdogs implies that he is a closeted homosexual. He might just be insane. ħuman 03:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not both! --УФББДЯЇДИ^{Bend Sinister} 05:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

W...what? X Stickman (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What X said, twice, with a thrown in. 18:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can only presume that he's making a jab about immigration prevention, complaining that though liberals are complaining about the new Arizona law, they don't complain about the Great Wall, which was similiarly designed the keep others out. EddyP (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to prove him wrong by criticizing the fuck out of that wall...

• It's not even a single structure
• Parts of it look like it's falling apart
• The bathrooms don't even have toilet paper
• It was very crowded

^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Must nip back to those old Ming Emperors & chastise them at once. 19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the GWoC was an anti-immigration measure, more anti-invasion. But the GWoC was built many many centuries ago so what would be the point of criticising it now when it's just a tourist attraction. Really, Andy is moving farther into la-la land with each passing day. Personally I love it; the more crazy CP becomes the better.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's have at those awful Romans too. Bastards tried to keep my people away from good jobs filing baths with milk in Bath. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deny the parallels between Mongol invasion and Mexican immigration and lose all credibility. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't some tongue-in-cheek thing perhaps it shows that Andy really does view illegal immigration as some sort of invading army that wants to loot and pillage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 19:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the anti-immigration loons do call it an invasion. ħuman 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Sometimes you guys are so freakin' hard on Andy! If you all had more open minds and stopped enabling each other, you'd realize the beauty of the truth that Fifth Century BC standards of human behavior are completely relevant to 2010. Isn't that what the whole Rewrite the Bible Project is all about anyways? God's peed. --Leotardo (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how true it is, but there's a line in the CP article on the wall that says the watchtowers were modified to "defend against aerial attack". That doesn't sound right to me, but then I had a mental image of a mongolian airforce attacking with hanggliders while chinese defenders held them off with rapid fire crossbows. X Stickman (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Walls are a great defence against bribery. Denying this is just liberal claptrap. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy has officially left the deep end and is now swimming over the marianas. 174.44.161.141 (talk)

Mystery:How can such a retarded, blinkered man exist? EddyP (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Sunday Insight comes early this week. Seriously though, this isn't his worst. Jesus's healing = faster than light travel is my personal favourite. Do we have a central list of Andy Insights, ranked by stupidity? Or are his insights generally scattered over RW's unending mission to document them all? ^{ONE / TALK} 20:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, that bit on defending against aerial attacks has been there for a long time. It was added back in April 2007. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there was a programme on BBC Radio 4 (translation into Yankee: Lib'rul Radio) a couple of weeks ago about the Great Wall of China, with several academics talking about the hideous way in which various emperors used forced labour to build the thing. I guess none of them (the academics) were Lib'ruls. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That was actually the point that I thought he was making - that liberals didn't condemn the Chinese for their use of forced labour - until the Arizona thing was mentioned.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Or that they need that kind of wall at all cost even if it means re-establishing slavery (haven't they heard of smuggling tunnels in the news?). And oh yes, the closest thing Mongols had for aerial attack back then is catapulting corpses into castles/city walls to start plagues. Not sure how such things work with such a walled fortification though. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My point was that people who know about China are perfectly ready to describe the shocking way in which it was built by forced labour - shocking to us now and to the builders' families 2,200 years ago. 90% of the people taken from their villages to build the wall died in the process, from hunger, cold, injuries or Huns. There's a poem of the Qin dynasty exhorting women to have daughters because if they have sons, they'll be taken away by the Emperor and killed while building his wall. I've never seen or heard the building of the Great Wall described without the misery of those who built it being discussed too. Summary: as usual, CP is talking total bollocks. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically the builders are mostly convicted fellows, but its mostly due to the code of law that is so steep that convicts almost everyone. But yeah, there is parallels in that and today's right wing thinking pattern. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia never fails to amaze me. It's in my bookmark list, right there just before Cracked.com, for whenever I want a quick laugh. Of course, they're not actually TRYING to make people laugh, but it's the result that matters, isn't it? ... Anyway, as anyone who has ever played a game of Civilization knows (although, of course, I strongly advise anyone against ever playing a videogame - they have the habit of turning people into serial killers, carjackers, liberals, and they also make you LEARN THINGS and USE YOUR BRAIN at times! The shame!) the Great Wall of China was not built to keep people OUT of the country, but to keep them IN; it was not, in fact, tall enough to make invaders stay out, but it was a great obstacle when the invading troops, laden with loot and presumably being run after by angry Chinese armies, tried to go back to Mongolia. --Maquissar (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When Qin Shi Huang Di ordered it to be built, he had two main purposes. One was to intimidate the Mongols, Manchus, Huns, etc who were supposed to be astonished at the political power of an Emperor who could order such a huge structure to be built (not walk through the many gaps - naughty Huns...) The other was to soak up the pool of able-bodied young men who might otherwise be tempted to go off fighting (hence looting) on behalf of local warlords opposed to Qin Shi Huang Di. I would add citations if I could be arsed. Listen to the programme I linked above, or read any of the many histories of China (apart from those written by 1960s Mao-worshippers). The Real James Brown (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to the Romans Hadrian's wall was a symbolic gesture, the terrain was already extremely defensible, the wall sent the message that the romans would not be invading any further. --Opcn (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, it was built by soldiers, who were not only volunteers but well-paid by the standards of the time. (Unlike the Chinese wall.) The Real James Brown (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

" the Great Wall of China was not built to keep people OUT of the country, but to keep them IN;" Learn that in a video game did ya? Because you sure didn't learn it from a fucking history book.

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I also read it from websites , but if it's not true I guess it will teach me to always verify everything I read on a proper academical text. --Maquissar (talk)

The Qin wall segments, of course, weren't built to defend against Mongols. I think the unpronounceable inhabitants of the Mongolian region might have been Huns, at the time. Broccoli (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Does he perhaps believe that the wall is similar in age and purpose to the Berlin Wall? Please, somebody tell me even Andy couldn't be that stupid...could he? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's the Arizona law/southern US border thing, i.e. if 'we' liberals are complaining about attempts to stop illegal immigration across there, then 'we' should also be, errrr - this is where it gets into AndyBrainLand - complaining about the fact that Chinese emperors built a wall to do the same thing, way back whenever. Or something. Andy, WTF? This is your brain on drugs. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Q: Why don't liberals criticize the Great Wall of China?

A: Because you're a moron, Andy. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that he might have been thinking -if that's the appropriate term - about the Israeli West bank wall. Andy really is the gift that keeps giving. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

closet crossdresser

Was that supposed to be an insult? I changed it to "parodist". ħuman 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an insult to be a closet crossdresser, but it would be an insult to be one and then spread a twisted worldview that harms others like you. It's not an insult to be a closet gay, but it's an insult to call George Rekers of NARTH one because the insult is that he's a hypocrite (and harming others who are like him). I found it a little disconcerting that NARTH was used as a source on the Homosexuality article. I'm fine with the WIGO change, though - I just thought it funny that a 37 year old Christian male would choose a drag queen name like 'Jinx McHue'. I could swear I met a Ms. Jinx McHugh in New Orleans in the 1990s.... --Leotardo (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy your argument. Especially since the wigo simply used the line with no links to why it could be sufferable. ħuman 03:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what argument you thought I was making, nor why my saying I was making it is something you don't "buy"; but it if it's "closet crossdressers are bad and therefore so is Jinx" then you'd be wrong since I don't hold that view. However, I'm as susceptible to inartful wording as anyone else, so I understand how you could have mis-read what I was trying to say. --Leotardo (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Yeah, it could have been read as that, so I simplified it by removing what was confusing me ;) ħuman 22:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

PS, maybe I should written "I don't follow your argument"? ħuman 22:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course we serve to remedy each others' overexcitement. Glad you don't mind my change. ħuman 03:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it's TK

Well, Terry Koeckritz is Terry Koeckritz of course..... But this was just so stupid I had to comment.... Terry Koeckritz ends his inane post with "Welcome to Socialized Education." This idiot does realize that America has had socialized education since around..... Oh, well...... Probably about 1820 right? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 09:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so it's boring. Epic troll trolling epic troll site is not interesting. PS, I think it was wigod and fell on its face already. Because no one really cares what some sociopath posts on CP any more. ħuman 09:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we could have a boycott on TK? You know, don't talk about or WIGO anything he does? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, yes we can. *hits snooze bar* Nutty Roux (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Boycotts on anything don't work. Just vote the fuckers down and maybe the Wigoers will learn. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but it won't stop people from talking about it here (no offense Chuck). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like hearing about TK's latest. I know he's just trolling and it's totally pathetic but that's what I like about it. I would be a little upset if he stopped as I would lose my daily entertainment. I say keep it up and keep posting about it. StarFish (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish we could just vote directly on mainpageright

It would make things much simpler. Can anyone write a skin we can view CP as a whole through that would allow voting on articles or diffs? Oh, yeah, it's called WIGO CP... ħuman 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Might have some fun with a web annotation tool. For example Shift Space. Could do some fun things with that (image swap). --Shagie (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken's klownish kerbloggler

That "Dawkins is a clown" blog is appalling badly written. ħuman 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Duh. It's by the same blogger whose name must never be mentioned who wrote all the previous short lived blogs that ken has pimped. Ken and Mariano are kindred spirits since each one is as crazy as the other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

i think this has been discussed like 10 times

but this tickles me pink. Of all the pictures on flickr, he chooses the one most obviously copyrighted. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So email the copyright holder. They might care. ħuman 04:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, do as human suggests. Only the copyright holder can do anything about it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's properly licensed as far as I can tell. Copyright just means that the person who granted the license had authority. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it licensed? All I can see is that it's copyrighted with all rights reserved. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's "Attribution" "Non commercial" "No derivative". So they're prolly OK. 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Government run healthcare = postal service

I'm a little confused by this on CP's news page: Really want government run health care? with a link to this article that mentions nothing at all about health care. I really don't understand the link - can anybody explain it to me? I mean, even faux news didn't make the leap from a dodgy mail man to health care, so how on earth did Schlafly? Bondurant (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that he's equating sloppy practices in one part of State-provided services (USPS) with another (Healthcare). Of course, the private sector never has sloppy practices, and if they were to occur, would be quick to stop them. CS Miller (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Just like the Gulf oil spill. Nothing sloppy there, and a quick cleanup. See the benefits of deregulation now? Good. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, we should pull a government oil spill to compare it(the Gulf oil spill) to. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, since Andy et al. will never notice the good things that the US government has done. Granted, it's a short list, but there are some important things up there, like the space program and public universities. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Internet
• The interstate highway system
• Rural elecrification
• National defense
• Vaccination programs

Just off the top of my head

MDB (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Welfare programs
• Public schools
• Public universities/ag schools
• Welfare programs

Nutty Roux (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, neither of those ed programs are federal, they are local and state affairs, repectively. ħuman 20:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Internet Has liberal bias
• The interstate highway system Full of potholes, costly to maintain
• Rural elecrification waste of taxpayer dollars
• National defense And now the liberals want to allow gays
• Vaccination programs Autism... and abortion for good measure
• Welfare programs Destroys personal responsibility and the motivation to work hard
• Public schools Teaches children to hate God and love everything God is against
• Public universities/ag schools See above
• Welfare programs See three above

Senator Harrison (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

one of the bad things about government-run postal services is someone going postal every so often. Perhaps government-run healthcare services will have someone going healthcare every so often. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about the highway system, vaccination, and the power grid. Most of the others, though, could be argued against: national defense is exorbitantly expensive, public schools are often sub-par, etc. (even though I don't agree with such counter-arguments). My point was that conservatives will never, ever mention the things that the government does that they can't even argue weakly against. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, but apart from the internet, national defence, public schools, vaccination programs, roads, welfare programs, rural electrification and public health, what has the US government ever done for us? X Stickman (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) had to be done

Brought peace! - π 09:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To where? Arkansas? ħuman 09:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a bit there in 1945. - π 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To cover the original point, comparing the Postal Service to government health care... the USPS is quasi-private, and receives almost no Federal funding. MDB (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been running what they used to call a "mail order business" for 23 years, and have yet to hear of a letter or package sent via USPS to me being lost. UPS, on the other hand... misdelivers packages to a similar address in the next town over and claims they delivered it to me (one of which I had to pay for twice). The drivers are good, but they have made more errors than the "government run" version. Also, when they destroy packages, they disclaim all responsibility. ħuman 04:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My last company has had a few goods damaged whilst in UPS's care. We joked about sending a package containing a GPS unit and accelerometers connected to a solid-state data logger, to see how the package was treated, but we never got around to it. CS Miller (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've only had one item sent to me via UPS. It didn't arrive. Phoned up and they said it had been delivered to the dept next door. They sent me a copy of the signature which was a forgery of the woman's signature who takes the post in that dept. Later I got a call from the driver saying "it's next door mate, I dropped it off there", and when I said it wasn't there and the signature was a forgery, he hung up, and the package magically appeared on my desk the next day. Presumably the drivers take interesting packages home, wait to see if anyone notices, and then open them and keep the contents a while later. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also remember that the USPS has to provide service to the entire country. Period. That's the law. They can't decide that a given area is too small or too isolated and just not deliver mail there. UPS and FedEx have that option. Plus, standard first class mail is dirt cheap. Forty four cents to get a letter or a greeting card or such anywhere in the country is amazingly inexpensive (and a great example of economies of scale.) Yeah, there's no guarantee it will arrive on a given schedule like UPS and FedEx offer, but USPS's express services that do compete with the other two are, well, competitive. And that's without a Federal subsidy. (I can't find the data, but I've heard that they do get some Federal money, but its for services they provide, like guaranteed absentee ballot delivery for service members.) MDB (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(facepalm)

I've only been following CP for a couple of months, so I know this is nothing new to you all, but this^img is just ridiculous. Nobody can possibly be this dense...seriously. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 21:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, is Rob trying to say NYT is a reliable source? I thought Conservapedia thought it was a liberal newspaper? Now I'm all confused..... LimpWrist (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To Rob, anything is a reliable source if it proves your point. But he is being ridiculously thick, to the point that I'm half convinced that he is joking. Even Rob must understand the classic Simpsons' joke: Roger Ebert said, "This movie is . . . good!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just assuming that no one will actually click on the link to the Krugman article? The fact that it's still there comes across to me as blatant parody. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 21:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But joking like that doesn't fit with Rob's personality, since he really does think it's Obama's fault, unless his whole anti-communism/liberalism shtick is parody (or at least just this part of it). Perhaps he's a closet communist? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but he HAS to know that citing Krugman's opinion piece in this way is clearly decietful. Joking or not, why would he set himself up like this? It has to be parody, right? I mean...come on. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 22:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup???^img . larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup, whitewash, what's in a word? --Kels (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rob is quite simply fucking retarded. End of story. DickTurpis (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The ironic part, of course, is that Rob's actions generally match the groups he hates. Pravda needed men like him, back in the day. --Kels (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm really embarrassed for my old friend RobS on this one. ħuman 03:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this not typical behaviour on his part? You might want to re-evaluate your friendship. --Kels (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you, Kels. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go quite so far as that, but I feel like the parts of what I enjoy about my special relationship with RobS are well within my ability to manage, emotionally. As I hope are his with me. The high point had to the the Dr. Zhivago clip escapade and hilarity, though. Get RobS off topic and onto having fun and he's quite the barrel of laughs. As was my old and dearly departed (gone but not dead, silly) friend Bohdan and his Butlers. ħuman 06:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not literally racist, Rob, just unsavory in your positions and not necessarily honest in promoting them. More an excuse to slip in a TMBG link. --Kels (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder whatever became of Bohdan? He was excellent value back in the day. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bohdan wasn't a ratvandal, was he? He did a bangup job on cp:Holodomor. Not necessarily honest? Sorry, I forgot, Obama inherited the Gulf oil spill from GW Bush. For the folks watching at home here's the Dr. Zhivago link. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Define "ratvandal". He edited here at the same time as CP, although he seemed to have more fun doing it than you do. Are you saying Obama "drill baby drill" caused BP's oil spill? Thanks for the pic link, I didn't realize you had switched user names and it was still there! ħuman 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A true ratvandal would probably plead the Fifth to the question, Are you now or have you ever been a member of Rationalwiki 1.0? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better song link for you then, Rob. Enjoy. --Kels (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I love how in the introduction of that "article" they immediately go into obama's actions and his presidency and his political positions while completely omitting palin's "drill baby drill" nonsense. rational ghey (send a message) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yah well Palin ain't president and the truth is Palin raised taxes on oil companies in Alaska, which is (a) a disincentive to production, and (b) a very un-Republican thing to do. So, it helps to become a little bit informed. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be a disincentive, might not be. Depends on how high they were before and how much they eat into profits. You're ignoring the GOP/right wing position which was chanting "drill baby drill" because you prefer to focus that laser-like attention span you have on ways to blame the "left" (which Obama isn't) for everything possible. ħuman 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the position, they more you drill, the more taxes the State of Alaska collects for politician's favorite programs and handouts. Check at some of these google results: [9]

• Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big ...Aug 10, 2008 ... Then last year, Palin introduced a graduated tax pegged to increased oil prices. The state Legislature modified her proposal to increase the ......
• Palin: Uninspiring Tax Policy Record | Cato @ Liberty
• Palin 'governed from the center,' went after big oil - USATODAY.com
• Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus ...www.bloomberg.com/

When have tax increases, particularly on business, ever been the cornerstone of a GOP candidate's rise in stature? Palin was a woman -- a counter to a black candidate and the woman the Democrats dumped, Hillary Clinton. But an examination of her limited record wasn't very flattering. Her national exposure came at Ted Stevens expense -- she represented an end to the cozy relationship between politicians and oil companies by making them work a little harder for government favors.

As an aside, like the Obama/Krugman grudge match, it's amazing the misreading of so much of this stuff you find at RW, probably cause you guys feed too much on MSM agitprop. nobs^{don't bother me} 05:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on man...just acknowledge that you're deliberately posting decietful information on a mainspace article at Andy's blog that further makes you all look like idiots in order to prove a point so we can all move on. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you guys convinced me. How's this:

• Fellow Nobel Lauarette Paul Krugman, who only last year wrote,"surveying current politics, I find myself missing Richard Nixon No, I haven’t lost my mind," [10] says he doesn't really believe the cp:Gulf oil spill disaster is Obama's fault. nobs^{don't bother me} 06:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that much better. Go with that. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)