Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive184

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 7 June 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:
<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <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)


Given that CP's sysops' attitude towards templates is 'Only ve kan kreate such tinks. You ze uzer are ze troll undil ve sez odervize und you kan not be trustink with making of ze templates' I'm surprised to see new user RBLibertarian pop up, creates a whole bunch of user boxesimg... and Terry's only action is to protect one of them. Rob! Rob! Something looks fishy, unpack your COINTEL kit and join the dots. You'll find a deep-cover parodist on the end. Or Terry, but they're the same thing really. --PsyGremlinPraat! 18:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Please check our guides...templates need approval. Sorry, just too much vandalism here to do otherwise...we have been under constant attack from a liberal vandal site for several years." LOL. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was on another wiki with RB and he is a real conservative, it was mentioned on this WIGO a while back, someone copypasting conservapedia articles into a libertarian wiki, that was him. He accused us of censoring him when we reverted his creationist screeds, I'm sure he is in for a surprise as soon as he says somethin that isn't Andycannon. --Opcn (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

RobS WIGO[edit]

This is my first attempt at a WIGO. Did I do it right? Does it make sense? PACODOGwoof, bitches 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well done, although part of me is starting to wonder if Rob is making these mistakes on purpose and so we should ignore him. I mean not even Rob is so incompetent to make these mistakes over and over again. --DamoHi 03:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you were wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility. [3] nobsdon't bother me 04:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) if anyone was wondering who was responsible. PACODOGwoof, bitches 04:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed your link at the end there. Heh Heh, I guess you've won this round. PACODOGwoof, bitches 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Last week? Rob is trolling RW using CP as a platform. Acei9 06:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And I totally fell for it. God I hate those guys.PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I am only speculating. Acei9 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I know. I still freakin hate those guys. But he must be trolling. The deceit is so blatantly obvious. PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, good work. We really should catalogue all this deceitful cites that Rob uses (unless he is just trolling us, in which case we shouldn't (or maybe we should?)) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Who is "Obasma" anyway? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll be honest, him trolling here lately is way funnier than him being tiresome at WP and harassing people. --Kels (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That's why he & I are such bosom buddies. We even share a bed! He sleeps on top of it and I hide under it... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Awful blood red top[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:WIGO buttons/banner feedback.

timestamp for pibot. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Awful bright blue top[edit]

This discussion was moved to Forum:WIGO buttons/banner feedback.

timestamp for pibot. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain me this...[edit]

I know I'm horribly late with this but, taking CP's usual stance into consideration, what the hell is Darwin doing in Gallery of British Heroes?

Also: John, Paul and George but no Ringo? Unfair. — Unsigned, by: Vulpius / talk / contribs

Not that unfair. I note that the evil librul Stephen Hawking is there too, with his stupid theories (which are just theories) that the earth is older than 6,000 years. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(John Lennon was once asked in an interview 'Is Ringo the best drummer in the world?' John Lennon replied 'Ringo isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles') 14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Ringo, BOTP.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there are many musicians and actors who would make humorous excellent BOTP examples. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't Cromwell in the GoBH? I liked that guy, eh kills monarch and dosen't afraid of anything. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As of now, Lennon seems to not be there. Everyone knows he was a commie from New York anyway... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Diana, British hero(ine)? Don't make me fucking laugh. Webbtje (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
EdwardS had removed a few of them, prior to Ken blocking him for "lack of machismo". Oddly enough C.S. Lewis remains. I'm reading Mere Christianity at the moment, and so far he's coming across as being pretty liberal - going so far as to argue that a truly Christian society would very much resemble a socialist state. Ken, finish Edward's work by purging that liberal hack from the list! --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy goes to court redux[edit]

The archive has the full thing up now here if you can get it to work...I can't at that link but this worked. tmtoulouse 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's much more impressive to watch Menendez'z's'es attorney give his presentation, and to compare that to Andy's presentation. Menendez'es's' guy is all, like, 'case law case law Supreme Court decision, and if you reject that, then case law, case law, and precedent' and Andy is all like 'George Washington's letter is like, him writing in his diary, OK?'.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the tone and quality of discussion is such a contrast across the board. tmtoulouse 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I missed the start of Andy's bit, it's even more farcical now that i've seen the whole thing. Anyone know when we expect to hear a result? Aslate (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
What struck me was how different the justices acted with each attorney. With Menendez's attorney, you could tell which justices opposed his case or wanted to avoid making a ruling. Those very same justices were dead silent during Andy's back-and-forth with Albin. Speaking of Albin, it was nice to see that he was pretty aggressive and skeptical with both lawyers, but Andy's tortured logic almost made him blow a gasket. Junggai (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are 2-3 judges ready to rule against the recall right now, a couple more that seem to be debating on the judicial restrain back and forth, and one judge that seems pretty set on the judicial restraint argument. tmtoulouse 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Said senator's term is up in 2012. Coincidence? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What did Menendez "do wrong" anyway? Vote for health care reform? By the way, last night I emailed both my senators, one an incumbent (up for de-election this year, yay!) from 2004, the other part of the first Blue Wave in 2006. The latter's site autoconfirmed my email with Godspeed, and (form letter but on-topic) replied today. The former GOP hack has not yet contacted me. Previously, it took his office two months to reply to message I sent them. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also in high-quality stereo sound! Yay! But I agree with the above - Menendez' (please use your real first name and last initial) lawyer does what I would expect in an appeals court - argue the precedents and cases. Andy just waves his hands and tries to make bad analogies. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You know when you're watching an embarrassing moment and it's hilarious? This is not one of those times. You know when you're watching someone embarrass themselves and it's uncomfortable to watch? This is one of those times. Andy got smacked down by that panel. – Nick Heer 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Google provides me with:

  • Sex and Censorability
  • Sense and Censorability...

larronsicut fur in nocte 22:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet there is no hope of getting some more details on the algorithm to quantify censorability. tmtoulouse 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The steady creation of neologisms, combined with the distortion of already existing terms, leaves us with no choice but to start a "Conservapedian to English Dictionary" project. Who's up for it? --Maquissar (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know who this EdwardS guyimg is, but he's my hero now. --Maquissar (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You and Andy bothimg. Dude can't even tell when he's being mocked. It's kind of sad, really. P-Foster (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I rate most of our articles about a .027. DogPMarmite Patrol 01:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
wow, just wow. --Opcn (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I love his bit about the internet being almost impossible to censor. The sheer obliviousness required for him to be able to say that and be him is simply astounding. It's like Stalin singing the praises of freedom and thinking that he means it. Kaalis (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty fantastic, if colleges are censored because of no accountability, does that mean that the internet is hard to censor because of all of the accountability? --Opcn (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
He's just pulling the numbers out of his ass again, but does he really think that Atheism and Homosexuality are harder to censore than Christianity? Especially since he expects movements with lower censorability to thrive, that would run counter to his predictions about the inevitable comeback of Christianity and the final victory of Conservatism. Röstigraben (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that it would be the KOD for anyone to ask him to clarify the situation. --Opcn (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition to be INCREDIBLY entertaining, I think Andy can also serve as a great example of what not to do. This is just classic Cargo cult science. The idea has a superficial resemble to science. There's a definition and an attempt at quantification. However, scientists aren't interested in making up definitions willy-nilly. A definition is only useful if it furthers an explanatory theory. Of course there's nothing of the sort going on here. As for quantification, it's clear to anyone above the age of 10 that the numbers are just being pulled out of Andy's ass. The only difference between "censorability" and other examples of pseudoscience is that they're usually not this absurd. /putting more thought into silly idea than it deserves

Note: I've recently read Andy being compared to flat-earther Wilbur Glenn Voliva. After reading the latter's biography I have say, the comparison is apt. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User: I want to play too! How do I calculate scores? Andy: Just make shit up! Priceless. --Ireon (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's the least subtle parody ever. Bringing up classroom prayer, wiki-linking to everything, and using the phrase "amazing insights". It's like someone ran a Markov chain on Schalfly's posts and just decided to talk back to him with the results. Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I really liked the "Some concepts, like math, are solid like rocks and practically immune to censorship." No one would attempt to censor math, would they? I would check that assertion mathematically, but it would require complex numbers. And maybe even the axiom of choice. Gauss (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, NJ, the Assfly really does sound like a parallel to that flat earther! (Also, top marks to the WP editor who wrote "his predictions that the end would come in 1923, 1927, 1930, and 1935 were incorrect." - Superb!) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone supplied him with a neat little equation, which is now supposed to retroactively justify the scores he made up. If you look at the index values, Andy seems to think that half of all "occurences" of Christianity, whatever those may be (Church services? Prayers?) are being censored. Sure. Röstigraben (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's just ASTONISHING how fucking stupid Andy gets when he invents his bullshit quotients. It's like he says the Moon is made of cheese, and then all subsequent arguments can only be about whether it's Rebluchon, Cotswold, Humboldt Fog or Grano Padano. This person is a fucking moron, clearly lacking in even the slightest abilities in critical thinking. How he can ever had a university education and ended up this fucking stupid is beyond me. That this man is allowed bother the Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey annoys the hell out of me. That this man, with his fucking idiotic fucking indices of made-up horseshit is allowed near children, let alone be allowed to be in the business of educating them, is horrifying. What's next Andy? How about a Love Quotient? Or a Best Colour Index? DogPMarmite Patrol 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think one of the most astonishing things about Andy is his apparent complete inability to distinguish the objective and the subjective. He honestly thinks that you can quantify the Best of the Public with mathematical certainty, and it is actually equivalent to 2+2=4. I'll admit you can probably invent some subjective criteria and place people on some approximate scale which will correspond with BotP as defined by Andy Schlafly, but to compare that with a mathematical certainty everyone can agree on shows an ignorance beyond what anyone woth Andy's education should possess. And he does this repeatedly. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The guy was probably always deluded, but I think that now that he has a site where parodists and loyalists feed his ego and any harsh criticism is quelled he's become worse. One can take solace in the fact that he does great harm to his cause. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Logically, the best colour is taupe. Deny this and lose all credibility. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone really needs to write Conservapedia:Deny this and lose all credibility for our category Schlaflyisms. DickTurpis (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
@SR, Andy actually wrote:
On beauty, the subject was God's creation and Philip was adamant that its beauty (specifically autumn foliage) is in the eye's the beholder. It isn't; it's objectively beautiful, and it is a liberal/atheistic position to deny it.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Had my last sock not died at the hands of the supreme court curfuffle I would do it, but someone needs to burn a sock in order to put liberal Vandal wiki's up on that list as 1.0 censorable. --Opcn (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone should suggest he come up with a Beauty Index. DogPMarmite Patrol 20:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how the page has had a formula which would provide results of the form "nn%" for days now, but the table still presents the "ratings" in the form 0.nn. Delightful. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken outdoes himself[edit]

I was going to WIGO thisimg but I can't work out how to make it funnier than it already is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh man. The more of Ken's shit I read the more I feel bad for making fun of him, because he just seems like he is literally mentally retarded. If I had a spare sock I would just delete that from Andy's talk page with a comment like "remove inane rambling". I imagine Andy would welcome it, as it's something he can't diplomatically do himself, and I'd love to see TK or someone revert, thereby tacitly endorsing it. DickTurpis (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
He's obviously not well. Making fun of him doesn't feel right to me and I think it really is best to follow CP's lead and try your best to ignore him. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I've WIGOed it anyway - may the voters decide. SR - you were right, there's nothing that could be done to make it any funnier, so I've just copied and pasted. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the capture bot got it just in time, it's already removed and oversighted. His frothing is starting to worry me now too though. I just checked the CP Richard Dawkins project and the red links he added to be created.. --GTac (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no way of seeing who deleted and oversighted it, right? Was it Ken himself, or did someone else try to put an end to the embarrassment? DickTurpis (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As of now it's still on the Dawkins talkpageimg. DickTurpis (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that the end result always remains, I'd say Ken is in the habit of deleting intermediate edits now. How much easier would it be to use preview, Ken? PubliusTalk 17:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't even notice it's still on Andy's talkpage, and only older edits were oversighted. My bad. Glad it's still there. Let's see Andy's reply (I think I know exactly what it will be). DickTurpis (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You're expecting Andy to reply? --Kels (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. DickTurpis (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Tough situation there, Andy. What is more embarassing - having a loon like Ken roam free, spamming Hitler pictures and leaving his turds all over the Main Page and RC, or admitting that there probably is such a thing as too much conservative fervour? Röstigraben (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy, as always, will remain silent on the topic. He doesn't even have enough MACHISMO (we really need a template for that word) to stand up to Ken on his own damn blog, which, I believe, puts his MACHISMO into the negative. DickTurpis (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It is obvious that Ken is just doing this to get a rise out of us. Could we please stop giving him what he wants? Keegscee (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a symbiotic relationship. We give Ken the attention he craves, he gives us a good laugh. Meanwhile, CP loses what little credibility it has. Win/win/win. DickTurpis (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Eh, it makes him happy so I see no real harm in it. If we ignored it, he'd just escalate anyway, so in a strange sense we're actually being helpful. --Kels (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that he was going to charge Dawkins for a debate genuinely caused me a coffee onto keyboard moment. If he can keep me laughing that much I'll highlight anything he wants me to. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I would pay $50 to see Richard Dawkins in a debate against Ken, just for sheer entertainment value. If we have a whip-round, I'm sure between us we could stump up the cash to make sure that this event happens. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we can all acknowledge that we all have a great fondness for Ken and whatever madness or sense of humour he has. Without Ken, CP would be a grey concrete bunker behind lines of tank traps with those little slot windows and Andy and TK inside pointing their guns made of dowel rods out from under their Nazi coal bucket helmets. With Ken around, it's like this mad caravan/airship thing that goes "Ker-boinka-boinka-boinka-wheeeee" and gets a new coat of paint every ten five minutes. And each wheel is a different size, and one of them is square. And Ken is like Mrs. Slocombe up in the pilot/driver's seat, with his pink hair and pussy that needs stroking, yelling in Spanish at the passing ladies and wearing a pink teeshirt that says "MACHEES-MO" in big letters on it. C'mon, we love Ken. DogPMarmite Patrol 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that is without a doubt the best description of Ken's Conservapedia I've ever heard. DickTurpis (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And let's not forget the soundtrack to Dr. DeMyer's Fantabulous Upwardly Mobile Conservatraption: [4]. DickTurpis (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference which Ken gets in spades at CP. So he would much rather post his Gentlemen/Ole!³ shoutouts and be fulfilled by our mockery.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have come not to mock, but to worship at the altar of a man with comedy genius. And btw Dick, that music is PERFECT! Fantastic! DogPMarmite Patrol 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Rather cliché, I admit, but this is Ken we're talking about. DickTurpis (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that the title track from "Richard Dawkins is a Clown"? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It occurs to me that if we forked this page and added "What is going on with Ken DeMyer" it would halve its size... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have considered a "WIGO Ken" before. The way he's going, it'd well be justified. But what colour would the header be? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
OH come ON now, that's the easiest question of the day! Pink, of course! BTW, have you all signed up for Ken's video channel yet? I know I have. DogPMarmite Patrol 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the shape or color of the WIGO_KEN header. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to take that tone with me Neveruse, I slave and slave here for your elucidation and all you have is insults. Fuck all of you, you fucking fucks. DogPMarmite Patrol 21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
DoggedPersistence, your signature is ugly. Change it post-haste! Or I will change it for you. DickTurpis (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ken debating Richard Dawkins. I never thought I would see an idea so ridiculous it would make the Lenski Affair seem reasonable by comparison. - π 00:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should contact Dawkins and ask him about it. I would be willing to chip in to pay any fees either of them want to charge, and I'm fairly sure we could raise the money here. It would be worth it. X Stickman (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The fees are a bit of a red herring. Ken is saying he will charge Dawkins only $50, down from his usual $10,000. However, I doubt Ken has ever seen that much money in his life. Dawkins is the high profile retired professor that commands high fees ($10,000 an hour for Dawkins would be cheap). When Dawkins doesn't accept, Ken will go on about how little machismo he has because he won't front up 50 bucks. - π 01:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just joking (mostly). As I understand it Dawkins charges a large fee to debate creationists because he's fed up dealing with their shit (I can't even remember where I've read that, though) and I assumed Ken's "fee" was in reference to that. To be honest I just wanted to see how Ken would react to the idea that this is *really* going down and Dawkins is ready and willing to do this thing. Either Ken has really gone completely mad/egotistical or he's just posturing and showboating (which is still kinda crazy but in a less delusional way). He must know that Dawkins wouldn't respond to that kind of thing, and that he probably wouldn't even hear of it. So the look on Ken's face when he got an email from Dawkins saying "It's on, yo" would be priceless. X Stickman (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Some one will have to fly, sail, or swim the Atlantic Ocean. Oh, wait, there's the internet... ħumanUser talk:Human 07:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK, Dawkins refuses to debate creationists on principle, no matter how much they'd offer him. But Ken must be rather highly skilled if he charges 50 bucks per hour. His 15-hour-editing sprees must be getting costly for Andy. Röstigraben (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
So Ken wants fifty bucks from Dawkins. Anybody remember Andy demanding a down payment to publicly debate Ames? Hilarious. Also, Ken needs to lay off this Hispanic ladies/machismo, Asian ladies/kung fu shit. It's really weird, but I can't help but want to see what stereotype he digs up next. Corry (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile on health care...[edit]

We keep saying ken should get help, but does he have health insurance that covers the price tag of it? Besides, does health insurance packages exists to cover all the checkups such that he might be aware of the problem (I am sure if he has such insurance package he would go for physical checkup as often as the policy permits)? (perhaps we should ask him to see if he can afford checkups) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe he said on ASK he was self-medicating because his insurance wouldn't cover whatever his illness was at the time. A lot of people chimed in to tell him to avoid pseudo-science, but unfortunately I didn't get the impression he was convinced. — Pietrow 09:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes he demand references. Although give his normal reference what would actually want is a page of quote by people. - π 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
What does he think he has? And yes, I can see him being a Muchasen's case study.... Ravenhull (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If I were to guess, I'd say Asperger's at the very least, plus something else that interferes with sleep and such. That could be a lot of things, although bipolar would go a long way to explaining his editing marathons. --Kels (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sleep deprivation/insomnia is almost always a sign of some kind of stress or menttal de-/re-pression. Therefore, we cannot rule out that Ken is a homosexual. This psychological tidbit brought to you by...Professor SJ Debaser 14:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall somewhere that it was his teeth giving him gyp. Probably his fault for blowing a vibrator. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat amusing[edit]

Nothing worth a WiGO or anything, but there's something gently absurd about the "item (item)" wording here that makes me laugh. Aside from the general idiocy of the comment itself, of course. --Kels (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading it right, or is Andy suggesting God created light before creating stars? Or just that when he (god, not Andy) created the universe, he made sure light was everywhere, even allowing for expansion. Damn, now that's a magicman I could sacrifice my first born to. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
That's how it reads to me. And he's even saying it's more logical that way around. How he can come up with crap like that on such a regular basis is truly one of the great mysteries of our time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy certainly is a very special individual. oh sorry, I meant thpethial. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
When God created the beautiful autumn foliage, he also, obviously created the light reflected off them first. A few microseconds before the actual leaves, that's perfectly logical. Etc 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It's actually a fairly common YEC argument. The stars are actually the distance we perceive them as, but since that means we wouldn't be able to see them if the universe is 6-10,000 years old, they just claim that god created the light en route. Andy's just screwed around with the argument for some reason and made it even sillier. X Stickman (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
So Andy's argument is that the stars are there to make it pretty for us? --Opcn (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Andy though believes the universe is only some 12,000 light years in diameter, that is why distances of greater then 6,000 light years get purged from astronomy articles. BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
God didn't make the stars until Noah needed them for nighttime navigation. The Moon was His first try, but he got the math wrong. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Crazy Rob and the oil spill[edit]

I can see how Rob/BoN carefully crafted the CP news item to insinuate that it's Obama's fault without explicitly saying so. It's a terribly dishonest thing to do, but that's Rob. I say the wigo is every bit as correct as Rob's news item and should stay. Let the mob sort it out on the arrow things. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DS's edit took care of it quite nicely. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Rob's dishonesty (or stupidity?) stands on it's own two feet, there's no need to enhance it by stating what Rob implied, although didn't explicitly say. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Does Rob live in Salt Lake City btw? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob lives in a bunker in an undisclosed location, where the Commies can't find him. --Kels (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Or rather, does RobS live in Canon City?  Lily Inspirate me. 14:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what he wants you to think. --Kels (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh, I have it as here CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
So that information... *puts on shades* isn't canon? Barikada (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Cue baba o'reilly. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC);
Actually me & Trent are damn near next door neighbours; I was gunna invite him down here for a cup of expresso and attempt to resolve out differences a few weeks ago. nobsdon't bother me 00:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Gawd, I hate it when people spell espresso "expresso". Also when people spell our "out", but that's just a typo, not ignorance. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Also also, why can't you lern to spel out "neighbors"??? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It's the British spelling. nobsdon't bother me 03:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I no, but yo're not! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen who idolize Richard Dawkins, there is a video I think you need to see[edit]

Gentlemen who idolize Richard Dawkins, there is a video I think you need to see. It shows Richard Dawkins latest debate, and I think you will agree that he does not do very well, and that he most certainly lacks machismo! Do you think spanish ladies find Richard Dawkins appealing? I think not after watching this video. Enjoy. Kendoll (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That was funny. - π 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sweet Odin that was odd. How exactly did we survive the 80s? --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bull fighting[edit]

We've all seen Ken's bull fighting pictures relating to the "fight" between atheism and creationism, but does anybody understand the analogy?

I guess that atheism is represented by the pansy guy strutting around in pink overalls and a cape, fighting an brutally unfair game against the raging, unstoppable, mindless animal, which represents creationism.

Or is it the other way around? I don't really know how to compare any conflict to bullfighting without making both sides look bad. Etc 17:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've put more thought into this than Ken. Seriously, though, I think atheists and creationists are both supposed to be matadors, and the bull is truth or something like that. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought the matador was Ken & atheism/homosexuality/evolution/etc was the defeated bull? 17:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Ken is whichever one wins and looks awesome and gets all the money and girls and maybe a pony and a night with that yummy Ricky Martin and atheism/homosexuality/evolution is whichever one loses and looks all yucky. --Kels (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You're looking for complex analogy where there is none. Ken just likes violent imagery, especially involving animals suffering (bulls slaughtered, gazelles run down by cheetahs, roadkill pictures, shoes thrown at cats, etc.), and will use it at any flimsy excuse. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken isn't consistent in which way round the metaphor is meant to be, he just uses whatever picture he wants to make an inconsequential silly point.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
But he posts so many of them, he must have thought something about it at some point in time? Perhaps it is the unfairness of the whole game that repels me, something that Ken apparently can't perceive. Etc 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, you've missed it. Ken thinks of the Matador as the creationists, and the bull as evolution. He sees evolutionists as being bullies and charging around rampaging. The Creationist/matador lets the bull live for a while, cunningly distracting him (Gish gallop, Quote mines, Non-sequiters, all forms of misdirection, though Ken may not be thinking of them) and this toying has allowed the evolutionists to think that they are winning, when in fact (or rather in fiction) the creationists have the big sword and are about to deliver the death blow now that they have worn the bull down a bit. Then there will be celebration and oral sex for Ken!--Opcn (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That actually makes more sense; creationism is the guy with a sword, backed by a whole army of guys in pink leotards, who picks a meaningless fight against a defenseless, innocent animal. I guess then that atheism, on the other hand, is more like David, equipped with merely a slingshot, trying to take down Goliath. Yes, that analogy works perfectly for me. Etc 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to think of the matador as Ken, the staff and crowd as creationists, and the bull as a straw man. They make a huge deal of "defeating" the thing when it's in a pen surrounded by soldiers and never did anything in the first place. As for atheists et al...I dunno, maybe they can be Portugal or something. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, Portugal, haha. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Ken likes to think of the matador as Ken, and the bull is Richard Dawkins. DogPMarmite Patrol 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Socialism Project - Summary[edit]

If you don't want to wade through this mess, allow me to summarize:

I, Ken, am going to make a bunch of articles about what I think socialism is, and I also want to make a page that ANNOUNCES I'm going to make all these articles. I'll probably need to get a ton of meth so I can continue making 40-hour editting sprees... Oh! I almost forgot, here's a picture of Hitler, so you know I'm talking about something bad.
Encouraging signs: What's that? One other person in the world might write a sentence or two every month? Fuck yeah, we've got momentum!!! Here's a picture of a train, so you know I'm serious about how far this thing'll go.
1) If you're Ed, don't bother. You're too stupid even for me."please try to make the articles or essays at least 500 words in length rather than making stubs."
2) No, seriously, Ed, don't bother."Please cite your sources for articles via footnotes"
3) You, either, TK."it is important that the articles be original and not created by merely cutting and pasting content"
Additional bad-thing related articles needed: Make sure to relate it to HITLER!!! Hmm... can we relate it to Dawkins? Better hold off on that... for now.
Additional good-thing related articles needed: We'll need Definition of capitalism, for sure. We'll probably also need Mother Theresa and Capitalism.
That's not enough good-thing: need MOAR!
Spread the news: Tell all your friends a tweaked out lunatic is writing about how much he hates what he thinks is socialism on a backwater blog on the dustiest part of the interwebs! Are you a member of Facebook, Myspace, MyChurch, or MyCthulhu?He links to "", calls it a social networking site... ? Tell all your friends so they know to unfriend you! Also, I bet ShockOfGod will make something about this - which NEVER happens, so I thought I'd better announce it.

User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, your summary was legitimately helpful, is now when I start the slow clap? --Opcn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A start...img P-Foster (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
F...U...C...K...I...N...G......H...E...L...L...!...!...!..! (Excellent FC) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Did Ken just make a funny? Wonders never cease... Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently that was too crazy for Ken, he removed them =( HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"Do socialists have machismo"? I should've probably expected this meme to pop up in any of Ken's projects from now on, but this actually made me laugh out loud. Ever heard of the Spanish Civil War, Ken? Röstigraben (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I literally lawled. This hasn't happened to me since, uh, yesterday, when I clicked on that open letter wigo thing. Are you reading this, Trent? Moments like these are why I donated. mb 21:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I just found this on Conservapedia and was about to add it and then I had an edit conflict. You beat me to it. ;-; Protoman (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I told Ken that his next octopus was ssupposed to be on a theme beginning with "T" in order to finish his acronym of H-A-*-E. But then he gave us Richard Dawkins and Socialism. If only Xenophobia held some interest for him... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Xenophobia is not a conservative word. In fact there are no conservative words that start with X... I saw a definitive list once. Bluefish (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, I learn new things on CP every day. Did you know that "Obama recently created massive federal government debt?" Forget about the 200+ years of government debt and that Reagan guy whose policies led to an explosion of debt, Obama personally created the entire concept. SirChuckBWhatever happened to Skip It? 08:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

TK and BP[edit]

Terry Koeckritz has renamed the company "British Petroleum". [5] ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They even refer to it as that on BBC News Ohmy.gif 01:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Really? Then I stand de-smugged :(. Surprised they make that error, since Fox got it right. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I only remember it's not called that because a family member worked there. Besides, TK's News-o-Rama isn't meant to be accurate; it's meant to sound conservative! (Though the wistful blogging about Obama's family life seems a bit out of place, as such.) ~ Kupochama[1][2] 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You'd think they use the BBC's mistake in going after the "liberal" news source in "atheistic" Britain. BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
BP Hasn't been called "British Petroleum" since the merger with Amoco in 1998. P-Foster (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that was the first thing I learned when the gusher hit the news. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to make this point for weeks. I've not heard the BBC use British Petroleum but perhaps there was an individual lapse. However, it was very noticeable on US news reports (talking heads) that they were trying to somehow blame it on foreigners.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
There is that, but it's also one of those cases where something's called that for so long that no-one cares that the marketers have changed it to officially be the initials. c.f. International Business Machines, British Medical Journal, Lucky Goldstar - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, colloquially but "news" organisations usually try very hard to keep up with the times. Like learning how to pronounce funny foreign peoples' names reasonably correctly (like "Sotomayor"). ħumanUser talk:Human 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that the Daily Mail at the very least referred to it as a British company so that they could then make a big thing about Obama blaming a British company for the problem, inciting "how dare he, Britain is flawless" comments on the article. I assume the idea behind TK's edit is to shift the blame away from America. X Stickman (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Isn't TK doing it all wrong then? It's obvious that BP stands for "Barack Petroleum". Vulpius (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Editing on it has dropped off massively. Andy's ADHD has kicked in, Jacob and Douglas have received their rights and don't need to indulge Andy's stupidity anymore. The traffic it generated is gone. Time for a new trick Andy? EddyP (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

CBP the motion picture? It'll be Wallstreet without the liberal bias and with moar guns!! --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, they have the Socialism Project now! I'm really looking forward to see how it will evolve ;) --Maquissar (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I anticipate an explosion in images of Hitler, and Ken having to avoid leaving the house in case an unexpected boner rips his trouser leg clean off and flings him head over heels. God, we're so lucky to have him around on a site that is otherwise circling the drain in a very dull way. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
They finished rephrasing translating the New Testament, right? Well, it's hardly surprising they're not delving into the old. It's a lot longer and more boring, and there are so many parts they'd have to stretch their new translation well beyond breaking point in order to not make them seem horrible. Like all Christians, they prefer to ignore the parts of the Bible that are horrifying, disturbing, on contrary to what they believe. To translate such passages is to demonstrate a level of endorsement of such passages that they have never had to do before. Anyway, it's better to accomplish something, pretend it's all you ever set out to do, and rest on your laurels. Good for you, Andy. You translated something from a slightly dated version of English into a more modern version, changing as you saw fit along the way. Maybe you can translate some Shakespeare next. DickTurpis (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
"To be, or not to be" is more evidence of a cult of death among liberals. I propose we rewrite it as "To be is the logical, conservative thing to do." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid to check - did they get around to the Song of Solomon? "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies." Song of Solomon 4:5. --Shagie (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
They have translated but two lines of the Song of Solomon, thus far. Someone should dive right in. DickTurpis (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The part I find most hilarious about the CBP is that the KJV verses are put right beside the Conservative Bible. While archaic, the KJV does have some gravitas. The CB reads like a Dan Brown novel.
Some of the books were posted somewhere as pdfs when they were "finished" (complete with typos). ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for Psalms (which they haven't even started, natch). It's a shame that the length is scaring them off, because I'm sure that whatever those artless hacks would do to the poetry in Psalms would be comedy gold. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Believer or not the KJV, like Shakespeare, is ingrained in our culture. You start messing with the words and you ruin it.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes think that the CBP is a good way to pick out the sincere (woefully confused, but sincere) Christians from the parodists--the sincere ones are the ones who have stayed well away from rewriting the Bible and focused on other areas. --Phentari (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. They've had a few dedicated people in the past, but I think they drifted off on realising that Andy is like a lawnmower repair man who one day announced that he was going to build a particle accelerator out of wood and chewing gum. My favourite was that one who used to ask serious questions about translations of Greek works, and of course Andy would have to either ignore her questions or just nod and hope he was right. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I could have been dedicated person, giving at least a marginal amount of attention to that site as the Wikipedia sister projects - despite it being purely redundant. That was before I noticed the total insanity going on beyond a simple pressing of conservative views - on that site, JClarke was shot down by friendly fire, and they even managed to politicize uncontroversial topics such as math and radon gas. Even for political topics, they're paranoid as shown by placing classroom prayer being 100% censorable (it isn't - see private schooling). Might as well throw a snowball into hell - at least you can predict when the snowball melts. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Just a thought, can we move this page to "Conservapedia:What is going on?" I was thinking "at CP" at the end sounds a bit redundant. rational homohey 01:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We could, but we won't. It is a legacy thing. Once something has been a certain way for a long time, it gets left that way. - π 03:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do I smell vodka...and wheat grass? Acei9 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Pi: They fixed the Y2K problem, although it isn't done until the damages almost kick in.
So if someone can describe the damages other than 6 bytes of title on the page and the talkpage (not counting the extra bytes that shows up due to the redirect) I would gladly support the idea. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Page header formatting in Common.css (though it's not necessary to keep that there), autowigo gadget, Pibot/WIGObot (whichever does the archiving), a bunch of double redirects. That's off the top of my head. -- Nx / talk 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and the edit notices. -- Nx / talk 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And Capturebot, of course. -- Nx / talk 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that this page is three years old this Thursday. That is like 100 in internet years. Changing it now is like pissing on the history of this wiki. - π 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, what strain would moving such a massive page put on the database? Is it a matter of individually changing tens of thousands of edits to point to different pages, or is it simpler than that? Harmonic time Phantom! 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the only thing that needs updating is the category links table and use watchlists. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)And being pedantic, the title of the page is just "What is going on at CP?". That's semi-orthogonal to the fact that the page also resides in the Conservapedia namespace, IMHO. alt (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Have I pointed out that this pages older than the accounts commenting on it? - π 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"It's been like that for a long time" is never a terribly compelling reason by itself for not changing something, though. alt (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What everyone really means is "we like it this way, now bugger off!" Tetronian you're clueless 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What Alt said is the real answer. The time argument does have some strength, too, since this isn't some backwater article on the site that someone just noticed might be misnamed. We've all been looking at it for 3 years with nary a peep about the namespace/article name repetition. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Wouldn't moving this page also have the potential to break my Wiki by creating an enormous workload for the server? Conservative Punk (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not worse than when Human edits his sig. See my reply above. -- Nx / talk 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's why I don't edit my sig... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest RobS Wigo[edit]

No disrespect to the poster, nothing wrong with the Wigo. But I get the feeling Rob is just trolling us. He is lying swine no doubt but I can't take him seriously. Acei9 10:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. I heard the same sentiment elsewhere on the interwebs. Every stick is a good one to beat Obama with. — Pietrow 10:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh, he is so obviously full of shit. Acei9 10:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, he is full of shit, but the interesting thing to me (the creator of the WIGO) was that the article he linked to carried the headline only that Obama was skipping out on Arlington, amid controversy. Then it says only in the next paragraph he was going to a different cemetery, and finally at the end says that GHW Bush never went at all to Arlington, and Reagan once opted to spend a weekend at the ranch instead. Junggai (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob is not trolling. TK is trolling. Robbie just has an IQ in the single digits.--WJThomas (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be useful, or at least interesting, too, just fyi.--WJThomas (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bbbbbuttt it doesn't matter, the damage is done. I keep an ear close to the ground. This headline originated days ago when I overheard several vets -- across the partisan divide -- complain about Obama's decision not to honor the vets. Nevermind the fact Memorial Day is not the day to honor vets, rather fallen vets. Vets have thier own holiday in November. I didn't correct them, I just observed the boiling sentiment toward a Commander in Chief even among vets who are Democrats that voted for Obama. Soooo, you guys just pretend your sophisticated and know the truth, etc. This is the real world, Obama and Company, and you idiots just don't have clue about political realities. nobsdon't bother me 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's just that we idiots know how to read the sources you provide for your claims, which just so happen to contradict the narrative you're inventing. (See Paul Krugman, "The Oil Spill is Obama's Fault.") Junggai (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Even Snopes has taken this one on. I imagine it's a fairly common one. X Stickman (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So because some actual veterans believe the right-wing nonsense about Obama not honouring them, repeating the lie is justified. Got it. Röstigraben (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's things like this that convince me that Rob would be far more happy as a Soviet-style propagandist than a "historian". --Kels (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
'Obama's decision not to honor the vets' - about spin. He is honoring them, just not at Arlington. He is, at least, making a speech and visiting a national cemetery - though several other presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush) have chosen not to on occasion. C'est la vie. Worm(t | c) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Rob has the reading skills of a 7 year old, and can't handle complex sentences with more than, say, 6 words. DickTurpis (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys again are missing the point. I heard Democrat Veterans on Friday discussing with Conservative Republican Veterans how Obama decided to show a lack of respect toward Veterans by not laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, etc etc; much discussion ensued about how Vietnam Vets, Vietnam Era Vets, and now Iraqi & Afghan Vets don't get the respect they deserve for the sacrifices they make. And it was exemplified by the Commander in Chief's behaviour, etc etc. And Democratic Veterans were among the first to complain. The fact they didn't understand Memorial Day is not their Day, but rather Dead Veterans Day, you can blame the public schools. Most amazing is, that Obama & advisers, and you guys too, think somehow facts support your case; whereas the reality is veterans who vote are highly offended by your attitudes. And many of these voted for Obama. nobsdon't bother me 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The facts do support our case. If veterans are offended about Obama's imaginary behaviour, that just means they've come to believe the lies they're being told, it doesn't magically turn these lies into facts. Röstigraben (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So you hear that vets are upset he's not attending Arlington - OK, we'll take that anecdote as true. Have you heard if vets in Chicago are upset he's attending at their national cemetery? And do you think that Presidents should spread the love around and not be so Beltway-centric? DogPMarmite Patrol 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a fig leaf, everyone understand. So he interrupted a weekend of basketball & barbecue for a photo op to cover his ass. [6] The people "dying" in the Gulf (James Carville and Jerrold Nadler's word) see it, too. nobsdon't bother me 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Rob, you've been quoted in the media. For some reason they have your name down as "Colin" however.,17524/ DickTurpis (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob - could you please answer the questions I asked instead of just repeating your position. We're not going to learn anything if you just keep banging the same nail over and over. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Be reasonable. How is Rob answering questions going to smear Obama? Priorities, man! --Kels (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Come election day, it's the little things that add up. The impressions given. As Obama & the Democrat's poll numbers slide in coming months, think back to this here.
wp:Peggy Noonan nails it (Peggy Noonan, remember? she's the one who actually ended the Cold War by saying, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall." You will recall, Reagan was just a stooge, idiot, and mouthpiece reading the 3x5 cards in front of him that Peggy Noonan wrote). She says,
[Obama] is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They’re in one reality, he’s in another. [7] nobsdon't bother me 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob - here's a new item that brings a little balance to the story. "I don't think him being at one of the largest veterans cemeteries in the country is an issue", as one vet puts it, although the disagreement is clear. The other thing is that what many seem to be complaining about is that he should be 'observing protocol', but there is no protocol for this event, instead simply habit. It's another Fox News storm in a teacup, IMHO, and yet another example of the fact that US Presidents can do no right, political affiliation be damned. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that a candidate would have the gall to say "Obama skipped praising the troops at Arlington National Cemetery" (which, by the way, was very Reagan-esque) - and then be criticized for neglecting to mention that he went to Chicago to honor the troops there?--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A candidate doesn't have to say it -- how many millions of veterans (and active duty personal) have already made up their minds? Just scroll down to day 39 -41 here cause the people affected by Obama's approval of BP's rig are watching, too. nobsdon't bother me 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
They seem to have a big issue with the President eating, whether in swanky style or at a jes' folks diner. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to criticize Obama for it, then have the standards to criticize Reagan for it too. Go make an edit to Reagan's Conservapedia article and talk about how he disgraced the troops four out of the eight years he was in office by skipping the Arlington National Cemetery memorial (once only so he could be on his ranch!) - see the snopes links above for my cite--Danielfolsom (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That link made absolutely no sense. Are you trying to say that Obama should go to Louisiana to have another look at the oil spill instead of visiting a veteran's cemetary? Röstigraben (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Rob, I know it's against your nature, but try to link to something halfway intelligent to make your point, not some website that seems to argue that Obama should personally stop the oil leak and not do anything else until he accomplishes this. DickTurpis (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait, so many people are misunderstanding the issue thanks to some intentional misrepresentation by the media, and this is therefore Obama's fault? The logic of that just blew me away. X Stickman (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC) No, I'm saying Obama should continue his festive holiday weekend in Chicago while residents & businesses in the Gulf are destroyed because of his ineptitude and service personal remain in harms way in Afghanistan only to look forward to being spit upon by Obama-types when they come home. nobsdon't bother me 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so you're saying that Obama should Aquaman his way down to the sea floor and superstrength the oil spill closed, perhaps calling in some of his fish friends to help him apologise to all the local wildlife while he's at it? He's the president. He doesn't personally oversee the cleanup operation, the same way he doesn't personally conduct battles in the middle east on horseback. X Stickman (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What's with those ludicrous photos?! Total nonsense - "Obama goes to gym and is basketball fit" is hardly news, every POTUS jogs, bikes or gyms it. If they don't, they're criticised for being lazy and fat (cf Clinton). Again, Rob, can you answer the question I asked you, or are you going to continue with your usual Straw Man activities? DogPMarmite Patrol 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Look what Noonan says,
Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn’t like about the Bush administration, everything it didn’t like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, ... The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush’s incompetence and conservatives’ failure to “believe in government.” But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent....What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama’s standing with Democrats. They don’t love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president’s Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations....The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration...nobsdon't bother me 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you share this view, then you, as a conservative who knows that the government can never be competent in providing disaster relief, should be the last person to accuse Obama of failure. Really, Rob, you've got a knack for providing citations that contradict you. Röstigraben (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's amusing watching pro-oil drilling, anti-federal government types try to spin this. Suddenly oil is bad, and the government needs to get more involved in business. Do conservatives stand for anything, or flip-flop on every issue as soon as its convenient? Tell me, robby-boy, what would a good president do? I assume it goes without saying that he'd go to Arlington each and every memorial day, like all true patriotic presidents do (the only example, apparently, is Bill Clinton) but what would St. Ronnie do about the gulf spill. "Fix it" I assume? DickTurpis (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Obama is little more than a trash-talker; Obama took money from big oil polluters & bailout recipients. After taking money, Obama approved rigs without the proper permits required by law. People died. Whole industries--and the jobs that go with them-- were destroyed. The Gulf of Mexico will be uninhabitable for any form of life -plant or animal- for the rest of my lifetime. And this is only an initial assessment of FACTS that cannot be hidden. nobsdon't bother me 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, you're an impossibly bad debater as you simply flop about choosing a new topic to argue every time. Are you upset that Obama is not attending Arlington, or is it because he hasn't fixed the oil spill? Focus on one point please. And, again, do you think it is appropriate for a President to visit other national vet cemetaries? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my response got lost in EC. Now, at least Clinton had enough sense to never miss Arlington. Reagan's loyalty to Vets, or the United States for that matter, was never in question. I knew Reagan, Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. nobsdon't bother me 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I bet you didn't spend nearly as much time on top of Nancy Reagan as TK did, though. --Kels (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice of you to admit there is a double standard for Democrats and Republicans. Anyway, lets see what else Noonan says, since she's obviously the most brilliant person ever: "If you’re drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does." True. Whose job is it to have a plan for this eventuality, the company's or the federal governments? If it's BP, shut the fuck up about saying this is Obama's fault. If it's the government, then why didn't we have a plan before Obama? We've been drilling offshore for decades, if there's an oversight here you can't blame it all on the guys whose been in office just over a year. But you're right, of course, as you always are, it's all Obama's fault, because if they had done an environmental impact study that platform never would have exploded, right? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Q.Whose job is it to have a plan?
A. Per The Washington Post, [8] "The Interior Department exempted BP's calamitous Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year, according to government documents, after three reviews of the area concluded that a massive oil spill was unlikely. The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009.
Obama admitted as much at last weeks press conference: "Where I was wrong was in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." [9]
11 people are now dead the Gulf permanently disfigured. nobsdon't bother me 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. I'm sick of trying to talk to a fucking retard who can't get his pea-sized brain to focus on a topic for more than 5 nanoseconds. Are you really, honestly this stupid or is it some childish act? DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Do you think that US politics is too Beltway-centric, and that it might be a good idea to honor the entire nation and visit other national vet cemeteries on Memorial Day? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
What I think might not matter (for example, living Veterans being upset about a perceived slight on day that is not even intended to honor living veterans) but perceptions are everything. And Veterans, on a bi-partisan basis, feel disrespected and dishonoured by their Commander in Chief -- in wartime. nobsdon't bother me 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the article I linked to above, it seems that's not the case - there are plenty of veterans who have no problem with it. And I'm pretty sure the relatives of deceased veterans of lIlinois are pretty happy about being acknowledged for once. Perhaps it's time for the US President to begin visiting each of the National Vet Cemeteries around the country on Memorial Day? If that were to be national policy or habit, that could well be perceived as a Good Thing, no? DogPMarmite Patrol 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
"What I think might not matter" Got it in one! --Kels (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a big enough deal both FOX & CNN carry stories on it. [10][11] Impressions are everything, and damage like this is hard to undo. Lame excuses only make it tiresome & worse. This was a bigtime fuckup. Obamazombies would do best to forget it, not talk about it, and not try to justify it. 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan" Thank god for that. DickTurpis (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubt Obama is also responsible for the rainstorm that cut short his speechifying at that Illinois cemetery - he probably got the NOAA to organize it so he could ditch and get some cocktails with Michelle instead. Either that or he's a girly pantywaist who doesn't like to get wet. Stay tuned for this news from the TeaBaggers. DogPMarmite Patrol 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Since "Banwatch" is dead[edit]

Anyone want to take odds on how much longer cp:User:EMorris is going to be around for? I imagine he'll be TKOed within 12 edits. DickTurpis (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


I see Ken has linked to a video about the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. You know Ken, getting good at something by doing it for 10,000 hours is commendable, but not all at once! --Kels (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris would have lasted at least 15 seconds cause he's Christian? Come on now, he HAS to be a parodist. No one can be THAT moronic. I'm kind of relieved, actually. --Maquissar (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Kels, Ken drooledimg back at you! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
That article on the Olympics is funny. You read the article, which was written a week before the Olympics finished, crapping on about how Canada doesn't own the medal table, but when you click the link Canada is on top after the final medal count. - π 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Pathetic, Ken. The best you can do to insult someone is make fun of their country? That's just lame. Tetronian you're clueless 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Come now, Canadians are perfectly happy to be insulted by Americans. We know the truth, and seeing them flail is amusing. (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not only were we on top of the medal standings, we set a record for a single country getting gold at the Winter Olympics, which is no mean feat given that we'd never won gold at a Winter Olympics held on home soil until then. --Kels (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do I feel that Kels just knocked me over with her cojones? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever happened to all those drooling 'Oh Canada' Mainpageright shoutouts we used to get when one of Ken's pet articles was on the firts page of an obscure Google Canada search term?  Lily Inspirate me. 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus it is dying[edit]

I open recent changes and the first few edits:

  • (Block log); 19:26 . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aeryn (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (broken arrow!
  • (diff) (hist) . . Valencia‎; 19:26 . . (+575) . . BishoiH (Talk | contribs) (expanded)
  • (Block log); 19:25 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked ChrisG90 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled, e-mail blocked) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (Block log); 19:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Goldhawk (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (e-mail blocked) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • (Block log); 19:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked (Talk) with an expiry time of 6 months (account creation disabled, autoblock disabled) (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker: Shaw Communications, Calgary, Canada. )
  • (User creation log); 19:20 . . Aeryn (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (User creation log); 19:17 . . ChrisG90 (Talk | contribs) New user account
  • (diff) (hist) . . User:Conservative‎; 19:05 . . (-9) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Comedy and Humor: )
  • (diff) (hist) . . User:Conservative‎; 18:59 . . (+8) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs) (→Comedy and Humor: )
  • (User creation log); 18:58 . . Goldhawk (Talk | contribs) New user account

Why don't they just turn user creation off permanently if they are just going to block everyone as they sign up? - π 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, Andy's ego. Turning off account creation means admitting that he can't beat Wikipedia at their own game. We and everyone else with three brain cells or more knows he can't, but he'll never admit it. --Kels (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken's shoutingimg at usimg fromimg Andy's talk pageimg. Hi Ken, hope you're well. Personally I don't want Conservapedia to die, I enjoy reading the stuff you guys post on it. All the best, SJ Debaser 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but Ken thinks Conservapedia is him alone, and the others (including Andy) are mere assistants. --Kels (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New editor, block him, block him, block him! - π 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at that insolence TK, taking the Lord's name in vain. You should block him for breaking the Second Commandment. - π 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Andy won't need to pull the plug any time soon. Remember the shitty host Siteground rightfully derided as useless in rationalWiki:History? And Siteground is actually a pissweak reseller of Singlehop? Guess who Conservapedia is hosted with. $10/month, or $2.00 special this weekend!! - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If CP is still on SG, they aren't paying $10/month, more like $100. For the same reason we had to move: any site there that generates any reasonable traffic gets their rates jacked up. Andy either bit the bullet (most likely) or moved to another host. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
CP is definitely on SG - go to its IP in a browser. And SG appears, from traceroute, to be a mere reseller of Singlehop. Huh, this implies we should boycott them for a month to save Andy some cash ... - David Gerard (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Or another clickbot campaign to run up his bill. ;) I have never thought they achieved much. Except waste the participants bandwidth as well in the process, that is why I have never participated, I don't think it is worth the cost to me. - π 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
So he's paying $100-plus US per month. No to boycott, they never did anything. I promised Kels to always say that, since she was right. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Love how Ken's even sticking vids in his blocks now (see first entry in pi's screed above) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
At this point CP is his playground. I'm just itching for DouglasA or JacobB or even TK to tell him to knock it off. Tetronian you're clueless 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken likes his new word[edit]

17:48, 31 May 2010 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Yourmother (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)

Nick Heer 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly hope his mother lacks machismo. Tetronian you're clueless 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Ken would be happy if all women were a bit more macho, if you know what I mean. --Kels (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do Italian men grow mustaches? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Without moustaches they'd be unable to speak Italian. Family Guy: Speaking Italian --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Open source conservatism[edit]

Not worth a WIGO, but this stuff reminded me of the awesome success of the "America Speaking Out" website. I guess in five years or so, Andy will be talking about "twitter conservatives" to show off how he's still keeping up with the latest trends. Röstigraben (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone should tell him that open source == communism -- Nx / talk 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Although Bill Gates is a dirty atheist and helps poor people, so... Harmonic time Phantom! 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are retching, over and over again. I'd add Eric S. Raymond, but considering what a nutcase he's turned into, I have no idea how he'd respond. MDB (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Did Andy 'Nobody is Conservative Unless They Agree with my Insane Ideas, Godspeed' Schlafly just say Conservative values are "decentralized"? The man doesn't ever stop to think does he. YorickIs Joe Biden Eva Braun?
The line about OSCs "rejecting controls on discourse" is even better. Almost sounds like Andy's been reading Foucault and Lukes lately. Röstigraben (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Stallman would be annoyed by the suggestion that he would be into open source and would patiently spend the next half an hour talking our ear off about the importance of free software and how that merely sometimes coincides with "open source" etc zzzzzzzzzzz. So his name should probably be taken out of the WIGO. ESR came up with the application of the term "open source" to software, but wouldn't be much on Andy's theocratic tendencies - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I really liked the line about "rejecting controls on discourse" too, from a man with more control on the discourse in his sphere of influence than mainland china, it was very lol inducing, I'd like to see it woven into the wigo by someone more crafty than I. --Opcn (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A reminder for Conservapedians: Al Gore fucked up by misusing the term "open source"... in 1999. He learned the lesson, as incredible as it may seem. How embarrassing it is for conservatives to commit the exact same mistake over 10 years later? Oh, and how does the US administration actually use "open source" today? By actually using and contributing to open source projects. Certainly not trying to fish sympathy with random buzzwords. No. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget that it's the NSA who developed most of SELinux. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Block Reason[edit]

I really hope "Lacks Machismo"img becomes a drop-down block reason. Acei9 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ole!img Ole!img P-Foster (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I see Ken is only editing CP for our amusement now. Does that mean that Ken is a clown? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We have now reached the point were all the major contributors are editing purely for us to pay attention to them. It really is all over for Andy's project isn't it? - π 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest it's time for another week's, or month's, boycott. Let's see what happens. - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a boycott will make any difference anymore. Acei9 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Boycott's are usually very boring, but so is what is going on at the moment. I would say yes, but I have to concede to Ace that there is nothing left to boycott. - π 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There have been numerous times in the last few years when we've speculated that Andy's project is close to an end, but it always continues to blunder on. I think as long as the Conservapedia Gang remain editing intermittently, Andy will continue to keep the site running.
Given Ken's increased... uh... enthusiasm in recent days, has anyone before exercised the possibility that he may be the best, most devoted parodist ever? Or have I in my endless n00biness stumbled upon a secret bigger than that of the Arc of the Covenant? SJ Debaser 23:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a history longer than that of CP. Acei9 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a long history of trolling rationalist and liberal friendly theology message boards. He like CP because he controls the discussion their and can use it as a platform for taunting this rationalist and liberal friendly theology site. - π 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(EC)The site will keep running as long as Andy pays the bills, the question is whether they have finally reached the point were they have smothered the life out of it and are now editing in a way that is little more than trolling us by proxy meaning we are more important to them than their own project. - π 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was about to say. He's the Ruy Lopez who sockpuppeted furiously at Wikipedia for years; the present Ken has definitely gone off the deep end in coherence and mental acuity. All the RWers who say he must be mentally ill now? He is. He used to be an obsessive troll, but he's way worse now. - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say they need a week or two of having not even us look at them. Do you think anyone there is a server log obsessive? - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken is keeping an eye on usimg however he should note that we are talking about the amount of active editors and NOT views. As far as editing goes - CP is dead. Acei9 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Again another edit for us. Stop proving my point Ken. - π 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the "certainly maybe". Way to take a stand there. (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is part of Ken's greater attempt never to be wrong, by never saying anything. He makes vague prediction about something that might happen in the future. A lot like that trend forecaster he is in love with. If you read his "articles" they are quotes strung together with a topic sentence that contains the word regards too many times. He is right in that there is no factual in accuracies in his articles, as I am sure those are true quotations. However he manages to string them together into something that emerges overall so misguide that it not even wrong. - π 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A message to Ken[edit]

I know this won't make it through your skull but no one is editing CP. You might think your "Anti-..." projects are "gaining traction" but how many people do you have working on them? How many edits per day? And, if Andy stopped paying for it, how long do you think CP would last? Acei9 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave him alone Ace, he's having fun. All the best Ken! SJ Debaser 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you notice that Andy replied to someone else and just ignored Ken. - π 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Man, how would Ken react if something happened to Andy (or his finances) and he turned out the lights? His whole world would come crashing down! --Kels (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Of late (well, the last week) Ken has actually been the main focus of WIGO CP, mainly because of his retarded machismo/Dawkins so-called "projects," if they can so be called. SJ Debaser 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken has a wee dig at Trent.."Canadians didn't do so well at the Winter Olympics!img Hence conservapedia is great!" Acei9 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Trent: 5 published paper. Ken: 1 shitty essay about Richard Dawkin's machismo on a wiki-blog. Which one is the underachiever? - π 00:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Plus for the one millionth time Ken, Trent is not Canadian. - π 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I am, but I'm rather proud to not have machismo. (I'm also not into sports) --Kels (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the shout-out was to Kels. Either way, it's funny. Hi Ken! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense in any case, since Canada set the world record for gold medals, a metric most countries other than the US uses for success. --Kels (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would still wager a bet that you have more machismo and are better at sport than Ken. - π 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have massive amounts of machismo. And, Ken, it takes more machismo to face the world on its own terms without a magic man in the sky to fall back on and make you feel warm inside. Acei9 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Christ[edit]

The Cliché police,img a subsection of Obama's personal guard are gonna come take Terry Koeckritz away. PS, does he really think being a social outcast, who is automatically considered an amoral, drug fueled sex maniac is easier than trusting the invisible man in the sky fix all your problems? SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 07:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't they also believe that there's such overwhelming evidence for Christianity that it takes a deliberate effort not to believe? Barikada (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Easier to not believe? No, believing is easy, what is very difficult is having to come to terms that what is believed may indeed not be true and letting that comforting belief go, no matter how much evidence stands against it. Trust me I know firsthand of that difficulty and the lingering doubts, it be so much easier to simply believe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that every time Terry Koeckritz mentions Jesus Christ, or Christian themes in general, it sounds so awkward and fake? Way more than his usual stuff, too. --Kels (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably because he does it purely for brownie points rather then from sincere theology. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So I was reading a book and I came across this, who does it remind you of?[edit]

_____ has been called a paranoiac; at all events, his view of the world is highly personal. Even where he is discussing theoretical matters like 'the state',[...], etc., he seldom persues any logic inherent in the subject matter. He makes the most extraordinary allegations without so much as an attempt to prove them. Often there is no visible connection between one paragraph and the next. the logic is purely psychological; _____ is fighting his persecuters, magnifying his person, creating a dream-world in which he can be an important figure . In more concrete passages he is combating political adversaries in his own movement, but even here the continuity is mystifying, because he never tells us whom he is arguing against, but sets up every political expedient as a universal principle.

Emphasis, Elipsis, and "_____" were mine for effect. It would be unfair and fallacious to compare Andy to this person, but wow that sounds like Andy to me. Lest you think the passage is referring to someone too recent I'm fairly sure it was written in the 1920's. --Opcn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a Hitafly picture here? --DamoHi 10:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Damn, I wasn't covert enough, well that's 2:30 in the AM for you I guess.--Opcn (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You gave it away when you said (1) it was written in the 20's and (2) that it would be unfair to compare Andy to this person. --DamoHi 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, that's probably a pretty good description of most irrational ideologues. I actually thought it was supposed to remind us of Rob. DickTurpis (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And there I was thinking it was Ken. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How do we do a Hitservative? Do we have Hitler on one half and gay Hitler on the other? --Opcn (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy is like the reincarnation of flat earther Wilbur Glenn Voliva. By karma, the guy got stuck with being Phyllis' spawn. Someone really needs to write a book about Conservapedia (if it hasn't been done already). After reading this I think I've got the perfect subtitle: Live-Blogging A Descent Into Madness. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be Schitler, since Andy comes first in it...? Antler? Schladolf? Andolf? Something like that? Barikada (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Who the fuck would buy a book about conservapedia? Maybe a book about how irresponsible extremists play fast and loose with the truth could touch on conservapedia, but like time cube no one is watching so no one cares, conservapedia is miles from Gladwells "tipping point", shit he was on Colbert and still languishes in obscurity. --Opcn (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's alive, Rob[edit]

The number of active editors at Conservapedia reaches a new height - not seen since March 2010 This sentence is just for you, Rob: it's true, but it's not right!

Conservapedia RationalWiki
active editors last 90 days
active editors
editors May 2010: commoners vs. sysops
number of edits vs. account creation
active editors last 90 days
active editors
editors May 2010: commoners vs. sysops
number of edits vs. account creation

Indeed, there was a greater - and more diverse - number of editors commenting in May 2010 than in April 2010: the overall interest in Conservapedia seems to be rising again, though the influx of Colbert's fans is missing. Nevertheless, the previous month was the May with the least comments and the smallest number of individual editors in the history of Conservapedia:

2010 2009 2008 2007
edits 7896 9286 13706 33664
editors 417 495 824 939

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting tidbit: it's the first month in which RJJensen didn't make a single edit (since he joint in Sep 2008)! larronsicut fur in nocte 10:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It must be the result of RationalWiki trolls organizing vandal attacks against Conservapedia on Wikipedia.[12] -- Nx / talk 10:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the upswing is a result of the continuing transition into Machismapedia. ¡Olé!--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly vandals. While the 28-day active stat has increased greatly, the 7-day active stat hasn't changed much, sugggesting that users are editing once and then no more (probably blocked). EddyP (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked Active Editors Blocked Active Editors

Only half of them get blocked. At the moment there are many editors making just one or two drive-by comments ... larronsicut fur in nocte 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For RW, most regulars are sysops. Could you please do a "commoners and sysops vs. bureaucrats" chart? - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Two things. One, where is Ken on those charts? He had to have made WAY more edits than anyone else and yet I don't see his name anywhere. And two, I think the reason why there are more editors is because account creation has been enabled more often. For the last few months, account creation has been disabled for the majority of the time. That is all. Keegscee (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well spotted! I apologize - Ken was left out because of a connection failure: Though he often deletes his own entries, he's still one of the top contributors. I'll correct the pics. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Larron beat me to publishing again, thieving bastard, but since we're the sciencey wiki we're all in favor of documented reproducibility, right? My software agrees Conservapedia has shown signs of rebounding this last month: more article edits, more edits in general, more users, more new users, drastically more new users who did not end up koeckritzed in spite of making edits, more of everything basically. It's been their strongest month since January in terms of edits and since December in terms of people making them. mb 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, TK disappoints me a little when I look at the range blocks... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Kenservative have the Machismo to post this debate a top main page left?[edit]

A certain Gentlemen would like to know if Ken will be making any attempt to publicize this upcoming debate in regards to everything. It is being competed in by one former friend of conservapedia who may or may not wear obscenely large head phones and it is being co-moderated by another who may or may not ride a motorcycle in a state Starting with the Letter "C" in regards to wear palmtrees grow. --Opcn (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Machismo. Acei9 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I predict that this "debate" will be awful. There is no proposal to defend, just "Creationism". It will very quickly descend into insults and purile name calling. Especially since the moderator is Shock of God. --DamoHi 09:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that DonExodus would agree to this little freak show. Any idea why he agreed to this? --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No doubt he was concerned that a certain Gentleman on a certain website beginning with C would question the level of his machismo should he refuse. --DamoHi 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The debate is doomed to fail because the topic is too broad. Nephy insisted the debate be about the existence of God, creation (that is the creation of the universe and everything within), and evolution. I see nothing productive coming from this "debate" but I do expect the fundies to claim victory no matter what. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from NephilimFree's pro-creation, evolution-is-bullshit stance, he has always come across to me as a genuinely polite man in the face of all the crap he receives. I messaged him once wishing him well when he said he was having a shit time of things and even though I'd recently made a video taking the piss out of him he responded kindly, albeit in a highly extended preachy manner with about 4 pages worth of Bible quotes and "proof" of God's existence. That said, he will be no exception to the endless line of creationists who declare victory after debates. SJ Debaser 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Any good will I had towards Nephy ended when he announced he would automatically delete the comments of and ban any "evolutionist" or "atheist" (really any secular commenter) from commenting on his videos, claiming they are not even worth his time. Mind you this was before his sudden desire to debate. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
When you are that wrong, you eventually have to stop being polite. --Opcn (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now the entire event is front page Conservapedia news[1]img complete with MA-CHEESE-MO references and delusions of grandeur that the "debate" will somehow be important in the annals of history (or the Internet).

This might get good.[edit]

Moar trolling on WP.

While the section seems pretty mundane and nothing from the usual on the CP talk page there, TK's dived in. Just one of those feelings. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, I think that TK's right reallyOMG smileysm2.svg. They're entitled to use whatever criteria for editorship they want - even if that means no editors. 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He's right, but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Someone comments that he was banned for a username, one of us tells him to register with his first name and last initial, and Rob goes apeshit over coordination of vandal attacks. Of course, reading comprehension is not one of Robs strong suits. DickTurpis (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that he's wrong in one point: Wikipedia is the logical standard by which anyone should judge wiki policies elsewhere - you don't have to follow wikipedia's lead, but you will always measured against it - it's the biggest player around. larronsicut fur in nocte 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia's policies and modes are geared to what their project is - making an encyclopedia. While some policies would be good ideas almost anywhere, others are not transferable. Also, Wikipedia is not the "first wiki" by a long shot (arguing with someone at the collapsed WP talk box here). It's just the biggest, and, I suppose the only one many people are familiar with. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a mistake to get conflate technology with it's use. We may use the same technology, but we should no more feel bound by WP conventions than an engineer should be expected to adopt the writing conventions used by authors of fiction, justbecsuse they both use the same text editor to do their work. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And more to the point, while it's true that CP can use whatever standard they like to block users, their blocking is often counter to their own stated policies, which themselves are generally only enforced against those they want to block for other (or no) reasons. And, of course, Terry is always wrong, in general.--WJThomas (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Them blocking users for reasons out side of or counter to their policies is exactly as bad as sock puppeting to get around the blocks. To the extent that they have the right to do with their site what they please I have the right to do with my computer what I please. --Opcn (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, "ArgueCat" is, I believe, a qualitatively different sort of name than "Child Molester". (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hell even if someone's name is "Child Molester" that's not reasonable grounds to ban them from any job. Reasonable grounds to give their parents a "worst parenting ever" award, though. X Stickman (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
But what good parent doesn't want their kids to carry on the family business? --Kels (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It might get into trouble if you get into the schoolkid teaching trade ("Mom, my teacher is Child Molester" vs "Mom, my teacher is a child molester" vs "Mom, My teacher's name is Child Molester"). Quick, someone apply a social security number with that name and test the theory out. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy is so ashamed of Ken[edit]

After Ken wrote on Andy talk page that he will charge more to Richard Dawkins in order to debate with him, Andy decided to blank the whole page. New slate! --Tlaloc (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the machismo that will be had on that brave new page (actual bravery not included)! --Kels (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm amazed Ken's still a syop, given his lack of machismo. Suppose he'd probably top himself if he was removed. Webbtje (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Conservative is just pathetic. His writing is painful to read. Dwain (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And he does'nt understand. He already spammed Andy new talk page. I wonder for how long Andy will tolerate him.--Tlaloc (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that he'll tolerate him indefinitely so long as Ken doesn't disagree with Pope Andy. The Ed Poor Rule confirms that Andy has great tolerance for incompetence just so long as the bearer of a blunt intellect agrees with Andy's view of how things work. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion: Andy does not have the machismo to smack Ken. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Forget smacking Ken - Andy doesn't have the machismo to debate Ken! Ken, time to skewer (not literally, you understand) some sacred cows! Olé! Olé! Olé! DogPMarmite Patrol 03:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If Karajou was any smaller, he'd disappear[edit]

Things like this say a lot about Karajou, I think. I imagine this hearkens back to his days on the deck as a lowly ensign, dreaming that one day he could bark the orders. What's funnier is that he knows it's meaningless, yet he still wants to issue orders. What a small man he must be. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand that with every user blocked, Karajou gets bigger and bigger 'till he bursts and has to start all over again. EddyP (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And yet, he didnt block that really really obvious new parodist that he replied to there. (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Andy impersonator? I thought that was funny too. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he's an old friend from around here. EddyP (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
ReligiousRight's been given his last rites. Heh... clever. Also, I like how the whole, "First name, last initial" rule didn't apply to that gentleman. SJ Debaser 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Annnnd unbanned.[2]img Apparently he is just crazy enough to fit right in, at least enough to endear himself to JacobB. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's more than likely he just has a tiny dick. SJ Debaser 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This led me to read the CP borken news column. Almost every item has grammatical errors. There are duplicate entries (OMG immigrant crime spree in Washington!) and three snide jabs at the Gores. Now I must go throw up and take a shower. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's big thing for next week[edit]

I'm watching 'Genius of Britain,' it's really good. Richard Dawkins was explaining the Enigma machine, and put the message, "Heil Hitler" through it. He said, "Heil Hitler." aloud. I bet money that Conservapedia will cut that clip and have it on the front page within the week..... — Unsigned, by: Overlord / talk / contribs

This should just go on Conservapedia talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP? So I'll copy it there and delete this forum. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) - copied this all from the soon-to-be-deleted forum with the same name as the header.

Andy's SCNJ Saga[edit]

When should we expect a decision on that? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare=Giant Meteor![edit]

Only in Andy's blinkered view could this be a viable argument: — Unsigned, by: Franklin / talk / contribs

Fuck me, the guy is insane. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought his insanity is beyond what words can express. Guess there is still hope. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What are you guy's talking about? It seems Andy's only point is that the knowledge of something happening in the future can affect something today. Is this really that far fetched? Sure you can argue that what he says will happen won't happen but this seems rather tame for Andy. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 01:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Netharian's right. Andy isn't comparing the magnitude of the effects to each other, just pointing out that knowledge of a future event - like a meteor or healthcare overhaul - can cause panic today - like among those in the asteroid's path, or those who invest in HMOs. Now if he'd said "I'd rather be hit with an asteroid than have healthcare overhaul," well, then we could make fun of him. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is still there, because it is not exactly a valid comparison. what attitude a normal human being havs for what he/she plans to do before the meteor hits is drastically different than the attitude a patient or a doctor may have on what they plan to do before the healthcare act has an effect. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder by what measure he thinks the MA healthcare bill has failed. Everything I've read has been that it's been surprisingly sucessful and popular. -Lardashe

Ken, machismo, again...[edit]

A few hours after Ken bans someone for adding "Do socialists have machismo" to the new socialism project, he writes a redlink for the exact same article as part of the "Does X have machismoimg series....P-Foster (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just weird. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I’m just an effeminate quiche-eating limp-wristed Nancy-boy, but I was under the impression that “machismo” wasn’t necessarily a positive characteristic. In fact, I thought that it sort of connotated sexism and violence. But, like I said, perhaps I’m not the most accurate source, what with the quiche-eating or whatever. The electrocutioner (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You say that as if it was a bad thing. Gmb (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ken does realize John Wayne was an actor, right? --Kels (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
And might have been... (gasp) homosexual? Or is that just ugly rainbow propaganda? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Really, John Wayne Marion was gay? Acei9 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. It might just be a pride fantasy. Searching the WP article for "homo" yields a "no" beep at the second "o". Also a three year affair with Marlene Dietrich would seem to indicate a preference for the Ladies. Wives and chilluns don't count, they are common among prominent homosexuals, but hobbies, well, they speak large. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Also he wore a hairpiece. And it was a a very machistic hairpiece. Speaking of machismo, watching that utube of one of Ken's lovers reading bits of the RD/machismo article made me fall off my chair. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hollywood values, in any case, if the string of mistresses has anything to say about it. --Kels (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, just out of curiosity: I am not a native anglophone, so I'm looking for feedback from native speakers: is it linguistically correct to argue whether someone HAS machismo or not? Normally, this is a form that I find associated with diseases ("He has AIDS", "She has herpes") but not with other adjectives (e.g., "Andy's brother is gay" and not "Andy's brother has gayness", "Conservapedia is sexist" rather than "Conservapedia has sexism" and so on.) So, is my non-anglophone ear correct in considering this a very awkward form to put it? --Maquissar (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess someone has machismo in the same way someone has charisma. Personality trait is something you can have. If you were using the adjective form you would say is, e,g. so-and-so is charismatic (so-and-so is machismoic?). - π 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Usually macho is used as the adjective. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As Machismo is a spanish word, I guess you'd need to use the spanish adjective, which is "machista", or the noun, "macho" (literally, "male"). Perhaps you are right, some personality traits can be "had" (although you wouldn't say that someone HAS generosity, or kindliness, or evilness)... --Maquissar (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll also note that in Spanish machismo means 'sexism' or 'male chauvinism', which makes Ken's diatribes about Hispanic women not seeing much machismo in Dawkins funny. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one imagining Ken dancing around his bedroom, singing Sinita's So Macho in to a hairbrush? Don't worry Ken, one day the right hunk of a guy will put an end to your longing. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Machismo is the ism of macho. Macho means manliness. Machismo is male chauvinism like has been said. So they're pretty different concepts. I'm sure Dawkins is happy that years of cultivating a lack of male chauvinism finally paid off with the Latino ladies noticing all his hard work. As for Asian ladies and Dawkin's lack of yin, I have to think that word also has some special ad hoc meaning to which we haven't been made privy by Ken. I laugh out loud every time Kenny boy hammers home just how incurious, self righteous, and stubborn he is with shit like this. Beautiful. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I find it somewhat inconceivable that Ken is going nuts over machismo when the Wikipedia says (of Machismo) "[it] may be seen as the product of runaway evolution". Co-inkydinks? I think not. MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

@ConcernedResident: as soon as I pictured Ken singing into a hairbrush, for some reason I jumped to him tucking it back and dancing in a mirror - "Would you do me? I'd do me. I'd do me so hard." Maybe it's just that Ken gives off that level of creepy, or maybe I'm just weird. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with the weird thing. I suspect that mental image is enough to scare a man straight, or make the animal kingdom seem like a good place to look for love. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't it be both?--Opcn (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Say what you will about Ken, but he's consistently managed to crack me up in the last few days. Röstigraben (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, CP still lacks an actual machismo article. (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it time?[edit]

With at least two people actively campaigning (Ken "Machismo" DeMyer and Rob "Obama's to Blame" Smith) is it time for another biggest idiot at CP contest? Ed's been too quiet recently, I don't think he's running. For once the field looks pretty open. DickTurpis (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Obvious winner is Ken, there's not contest. Wait for more stupidity. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 02:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
See, that's what I thought with the initial contest! Hell, I practically designed it as a coronation for him, but then he places a distant third behind Ed and Assfly. No, it ain't over until the obese lesbian sings. There are no pre-ordained winners. DickTurpis (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Diana Damrau is not a lesbian. Trust me. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought we officially retired Ed from the running, naming him CP's biggest idiot emeritus? The idea was that his idiocy was so great he deserved continued recognition, but that the young upstarts should be allowed a shot at the title now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Term limits, eh? Sounds like a good, logical, conservative idea to me. DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we do the whole round of awards again? It's been what, at least six months? Or are they supposed to be annual? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Problem is we have so little to choose from now. Rob is here more than CP, TK is just an ass, Ed Poor never shows his face....literally its Jpatt, Andy and Ken. Hell even JacobB is a parodist and/or ass. Acei9 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
True that. Do any of the homskollars edit there any more, by the way? Is Andy even doing his child abuse for hire routine any more? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How about my idea of extending the awards to cover the entire clogosphere? There are many other idiots out there, and they deserve recognition! MARCVS ANTONIVS 09:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats a good idea dude, posted to the forums. Acei9 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious banter[edit]

What's thisimg about? Seems rather ominous... are Jacob's days numbered? ONE / TALK 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusing how TK uses the equivalent of our "Hi Jinx" template. All I could do was try to come up with anagrams for chocolate malt. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A TK vs JacobB/DouglasA battle would be quite epic. Alternatively, it could be a plot to get rid of Jinx once and for all. TK has already tried and failed once. EddyP (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I see TK's use of a Jinx hi Jinx! as a put down to ensure Jinx knows his place in the packing order, a little smirk over sysop status or lack of it. Pettiness personified. Bob Soles (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel sorry for Jinx, he tries so hard to prove his loyalty to Andyism, he so desperately wants in their elite little clubhouse but they just won't let him in. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
All that would happen if TK got into a bit of argy-bargy with Douggie and Jakes, is that he'd run to the soopah-soopah seekrit chat room where he gets put in a cage and given a forced enema he hangs out with Andy, Ed, Karajou and maybe Rob - the other sysops aren't worthy. There he'd gripe and snivel like the cur he is, until Andy de-sysopped them. He might need Ed to help stick the knife in. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Jacob and Douglas could probably quite easily make a 'look at my bible translation work' appeal. And other than Ed, I think the rest of the sysops would be glad to be rid of TK. And maybe Jacob or Doug are in the the Zeuglodon (I want more sauces dammit!) EddyP (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but you forget that Terry and Ed are senior sysops and what they say goes. I have a classic soopah seekrit example of Andy agreeing to defrock somebody, then asking, "What reason should I give?" As for the CBP, Andy's ADD has already kicked in and he's forgotten all about the CBP. Especially as it didn't bring the conservative whores hoards swarming to CP's front door.--PsyGremlinTal! 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Jesus. ShockofGod has made an, David Lyncesque, arthouse film. His own video about a posting about a video the he made himself about machismo which he had previously commented on replete with subliminal, stobe effect. Creepy. Acei9 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Everytime that guy says "ma-cheese-mo" my skin crawls. It's like nails on a chalkboard. SJ Debaser 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Christ on an Easter stick, that video was utterly incompetent. Basically he reads Ken's borken news post three times. And, dude, ever proof your work before uploading? Changing the refresh rate so it doesn't conflict with your crappy cam might help. Mah-cheese-homo indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why bother filming your computer screen in the first place? He could've just done a voice-over to a screencap... --Sid (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Because that way you wouldn't get the oh-so-necessary pointing-at-the-sentences-with-a-pen editorial technique. SJ Debaser 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise there'd be no flickering screen strobe to wear down your resistance. Acei9 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A screencap would still, um, be on his computer screen. What I like is how much he lurves and kisses Ken. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't bring myself to watch this retard for more than about a minute. (He doesn't get on the highway at the end of this one, does he?) I do love how this is turning into another one of those "ShockofGod makes a video, CP mentions the video in their news section, SoG makes a video about his mention on CP, CP mentions the video mentioning CP, SoG makes a video showing CP mentioning his video about CP" mobius strips. I hope this one goes a good dozen cycles. DickTurpis (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In layman terms, it is a Circle Jerk. I wonder if that makes them feel they have more MA-CHEESE-MO? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They're just making it TASTEE FOR THE LAYDEEZ!!! --Kels (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Does Matt Berry do the voice of the volcano? DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have rather the OP link be a Rick Roll. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That edit war up there^[edit]

You know, the one with the archive about the Cumbria thing? Why don't we move the damn discussion to forums or something? DickTurpis (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, or even moving it to Neveruse's talk page since he wants it to keep going so much. --Kels (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we do that then? I can understand people wanting it off this page, but archiving a thread that's potentially active strikes me as a Schlaflyesque "this discussion is over! And it's over because I say it's over" response. DickTurpis (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be sensible, though. Scarlet A.pngsshole 19:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Neveruse and Bondurant can discuss it on their talk pages. I see no need to copy the whole thing to a forum thread. -- Nx / talk 19:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's never any need for a forum. If someone wants to put it there, well, no one's forcing anyone else to partake. DickTurpis (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU CALLING "SENSIBLE"???? YOU WANNA TAKE THIS OUTSIDE?!?!?!?!? DickTurpis (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Move to forums, not my talk page. I don't want to drag it on, I just don't want fascism from dumb bitches and bossy pricks. (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want to drag it on, then moving it to the forum would be pointless. It's in the archive, and noone is being censored. And stop with the insults please. -- Nx / talk 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I want a natural end to an active thread, not a forced one based on personal preference. It will only bother you if you let it. (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The main contributer at this point (Neveruse) says he's not interested in continuing it. So unless someone else wants to carry on, is there any reason not to archive it, other than some vague "natural end" bullshit? --Kels (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why don't I move it to a forum, and if no one wants to add anything, it will sit there forever. No harm. I don't know if anyone wants to continue it or not, but I see no reason why the option shouldn't be there, and archives generally are not edited, right? DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Do it, then. As Ultimate High Commissioner of RationalWiki (self-appointed, just now), I give you permission. --Kels (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I thought I was the Ultimate High Commissioner of RationalWiki (God-appointed, at birth). DickTurpis (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't have enough MACHISMO to be Ultimate High Commissioner of RationalWiki, peasant! --Kels (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There. Moved to Forum:Unnecessarily long and controversial thread about the Cumbria rampage and questions as to Andy's silence on the topic‎, which no one will probably ever edit again, but at least it gets everyone to shut up, right? DickTurpis (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In b4 Human gets into the good Scotch and undoes it. --Kels (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's completely pointless IMHO, and it won't make the troll shut up obviously, but whatever. -- Nx / talk 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You just leave Human to me. I have the prescription for dealing with him... DickTurpis (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Something tells me your "prescription" involves drinking all the good Scotch before he can get to it. --Kels (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be just the prescription, if I felt up for a 6 hour drive to New Hampshire. Perhaps if I drink all of my good scotch first...hmmmm....something tells me that wouldn't work, but would be nice to try. DickTurpis (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Fuck all y'all. I'm sticking with my Wild Turkey 101. Junggai (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Note Ed's denouncing of plagiarism hereimg, and the reply (which points to RW!) here. - Cuckoo (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Ed. --Sid (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's also interesting that user #188 didn't mention Wikipedia... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ed, you may be a senior editor at Conservapedia but we are not bullied by your credentials! Please either contribute substantially or go back to writing your obviously original gossip stubs. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope none none of the more respectable members of the wiki were involved in that RW whoring that went on that comment board... I mean, yes, CP is a house of plagiarism but was it necessary to string it out that far? I assume the anon comments are our usual trolls or possibly CP editors venting anonymously (though I wish they'd have the decency to put it under their handles if it was them). Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just what's the point of this?[edit]

Check out this image upload from TK.

George Washington or John Adams (I can't tell which) crying, a flock of sheep entering Congress, Obama laughing, and Biden, Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton wearing Israeli flag pins (well, Hillary has an Israeli flag earring.)

And it's attached to an "In the News" piece about an FTC proposal to "reinvent journalism".

In short, WTF? MDB (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You should check out some of Dees' work. The guy's a lunatic conspiracy theorist (he seems to susbscribe to literally every conspiracy theory), but a hilarious one. ONE / TALK 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I did. I'm still not seeing the image's connection to anything at CP. In fact, it seems to go against CP's usual "Israel hurrah!" philosophy. MDB (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And neither can I, since it's been deleted. Dang. Whodathunkit? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the image at the original site. MDB Oh, and One's above post is right... the artist's site is a serious collection of conspiracy lunacy, including the always charming idea of Holocaust denial. (Excuse me.... "questioning'" the Holocaust. Because we all know the people who ask "Did six million really die?" are jsut seeking an honest debate.) MDB (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This one is pretty nice. Notice the cup with the "Fluoride Springs" label. I guess he's worried about the commies tampering with our precious fluids. Corry (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Awww, he's trying so hard[edit]

Did you notice that Ken is now sending us little messages in his contribs? It seems a shame for his audience not to at least acknowledge his effort. Can you believe he's still going on about grassroots and flying fortresses, what is it, more than a year since his little operations failed to materialise? I guess he's totally given up on defeating atheism on the internets, and now is entirely dedicated to amusing atheists on the internets. In regards to this development, Jeeves was quoted as saying "Good job, kendoll." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. Did he delete it already? Damn, Jeeves, this is what capturebot is for. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
He's been making irrelevant edits to the B-17 Flying Fortress and Grassroots articles. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
When has he ever done anything that seriously threatened atheists (or anyone else) on the internet? Far as I know, he's always been a source of amusement, or at worst pity. I mean seriously, he made a section called "Atheism Quotes" in an article composed entirely of quotes! How funny is that? --Kels (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but he wasn't consciously playing to the audience before. He actually seemed to be trying, in his own impotent way. Now he's parodying his former self. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ken, I see that Conservapedia lacks machismoimg. You know what to do. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

y JPatt tambien[edit]

Looks like JPatt has plenty of machismo, he has those hispanic ladies on the brain. MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Was that some veiled insult or does he not speak a lick of spanish? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak a lick of spanish, but I still know that's the wrong gender. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Machismo Catagory[edit]

It keeps getting stranger and stranger, Ken now has a MA-CHEESE-MO Categoryimg on Conservapedia. Thus far, no surprise, the only link is that Essay of his about Dawkins. He tries so hard. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Internet: Keeping raving lunatics off of street corners since the 70's. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Good ole Ken. I love how he can take a completely subjective concept such as macheeeeeeeesmo and stick it on whatever the hell he wants. SJ Debaser 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Should try this (Unfortunately it's shareware & I'm not sending $5. 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I downloaded that font years ago. I get all my fun fonts from Didn't know I had to send someone $5. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from his strange obsession with the concept, the funniest thing as far as I'm concerned is that he has failed to comprehend its meaning. Virtually all the definitions for it use the phrase "excessive" masculinity or the like. Ken, that's not supposed to be a good thing. Jammy (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is jealous... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ken, you'd be so much happier if you just embraced who you are! HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Or if he embraced someone with MACHISMO! --Kels (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no actual article on machismo either. (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)