Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive189

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 July 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>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <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)

The name's Bond...[edit]

I see Popeye has made a stub for Ian Flemming. Here's today's question: in the Conservapedian universe, is James Bond liberal, or conservative? On the conservative side, he has a defensive weapon of gun, he fights commies; on the liberal side, he fornicates (although contraception doesn't appear to be used), he drink, he smokes. --PsyGremlin講話 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the oxymoron: fornicating with numerous women, drinking and smoking undoubtedly add to ma-cheese-mo, but at the same time ma-cheese-mo is a conservative-only trait. However, I drink a lot and smoke occasionally and fornicate with lots of women but I understandably lack ma-chesse-mo for a variety of complex reasons. So where do we go from here? SJ Debaser 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Bond may fight commies, but he also fights good hardworking businessmen whose only crime was slightly overly aggressive capitalism. Plus, he's a Brit, and they're all liberal atheists. And in the new movies, he reports to a woman, and that gets into the whole 'women in the military' thing. MDB (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And she wears pants! Clearly an atheist, liberal, commie plant. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And if Bond were a real conservative man with ma-cheese-mo, he would have slapped her silly after this exchange:
Bond: I thought 'M' was just a randomly assigned letter. I had no idea it stood for...
M: Utter one more syllable and I will have you killed.
(Okay, I just love that bit and I wanted to quote it.) MDB (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's obviously Mary or Margaret or something. *BANG, BRAIN SPLATTERS ON KEYBOARD* SJ Debaser 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP, in Judi Dench's case it's Barbara Mawdsley. I note that in Fleming's WP bio it says he was a great bibliophile and "He concentrated on science and technology, e.g. On the Origin of Species, but also included other significant works ranging from Mein Kampf to Scouting for Boys." Obviously a paedophile evolutionary racist then.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember QI mentioning something about Fleming having odd opinions on homosexuality, like claiming that "homosexuals can't whistle", or something to that effect. Maybe that makes him conservative. X Stickman (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
A lot of Flemming's "facts" were of very dubious quality. As someone who read them voraciously when I was fourteen back in '67 I went through quite a bit of life believing nonsense I picked up from the Bond books.
Incidentally I re-read one of the Bond books and he drinks in excess of a bottle of spirits a day and chain smokes so that makes him a seriously unfit alcoholic. Flemming saw this as a Good Thing. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack, that's called machismo! I'm off to the offie to get twenty Lamberts and a bottle of Paddy... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
He's English, so minus several points for socialism. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not Phlegming or Flemming, it's Fleming! </pedantry>  Lily Inspirate me. 12:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not this guy either. MDB (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Teabagger stuff[edit]

I was going to write one thing, but looking at the teabagger stuff on CP, there's so much funny on there:

  • Still no mention about Mark Williams' expulsion. We await info about the NAACP's insidious, Marxist plot to undermine an upstanding member of the teabaggers.
  • The Feb 27th tea parties - Georgia (300-400), Illinois (apprx 300), Colorado (100), Texas ("tried to create a modern day tea party" whatever the hell that means), Washington ("made some noise outside the Senate.) Boys, those aren't protests, those are company picnics.
  • Conservative template - "leaders and thinkers" include Orwell, Palin and Thomas. A socialist, a moron and a sex-offender. Good role models. Not to mention Andy packing all his really special crazy at the bottom: New Words, CBP, BotP, Parables and his "educational" courses. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Here are a bunch of sequential comments from a friend who's just been introduced to CP via moi's blog:

So what the heck is "CP" anyways?

You're shitting me... Luddites with a WIKI? That's gotta be... OK hang on let me go see for myself...

Oh boy the crazies are out there en masse and in force on CP alright. Are they seriously thinking that cession is a viable option in this day and age for any of the 51 states? And I do notice that it seems to be a lot of the Middle America land-locked and isolated states calling for this new "Tea Party". WTF have they lost their minds? Do they realise what it would take to support their own people from a food basis? Never you mind running an economy.

OK this shit is WHACK! Great fun reading how mind-bent the so called conservative movement is? What did they conserve on actually? Reading? Study? The 20th century? The 19th Century in some select places?

*sniff* From innocent to convert in 4 easy steps. Truly a thing of beauty to behold. Just sent him to read their Obama "article" - hope it doesn't tip him over the edge. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing he'll think that you're bullshitting him, and he'll dismiss CP as a parody along the lines of Landover Baptist and the Catholic Church. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
51 states? Did I fall asleep only to discover Puerto Rico is suddenly a state? :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Where have you been BMc? The liberals have made Kenya the 51st state, thus Obama can now release his true birth certificate and still be president. Nice deceit. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was US.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No silly, that was just liberal propaganda by a really awesome band, whose name escapes me. Altho Propaganda was also an awesome band. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought it would be Israel. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New Conservative Word[edit]

—Anyone have a disposable sock to add "refudiate " as a best new conservative word, circa 2010? It was coined by Sarah Palin, who's apparently proud of it despite the mockery it brought on. She's even lightheartedly comparing herself to Shakespeare "because he coined new words too", so this gets Best Of The Public bonus points as well. --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to make a quip about making "boonus" a Best New Liberal Word, a sort of combination of "boon" and "bonus", but I see you fixed the typo too quickly. DickTurpis (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The CP brass will be on alert now that you've mentioned it here. However it shouldn't be too hard to sneak it in, provided it's 'suggested' to Andy first. If Andy replies and approves of the suggestion before TK can oversight it, the word will soon gain its highly prized, much sought-after membership to the exclusive club of conservative words. ONE / TALK 13:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I don't see what the fuss is about. "Refudiate" is a perfectly cromulent word. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The main reason Andy would reject it is that each new word added in the 21st century requires much scrambling to preserve his precious pattern. Not that it takes much effort to declare older words to be conservative, but Andy's never been big on the follow-through. Notice how many CBP edits he's made now that the NT is done and all that's left is the grunt work on the OT? --DinsdaleP (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, doesn't he need a lot of 21st century words to keep up his precious geometric growth? It seems that's one area in which he really needs to pick up the pace. DickTurpis (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
True that. 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That bloody woman has a bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism according to WP. What do they hand out degrees for over there? Being able to tie your shoe laces? (although I'd check after she'd done that) 14:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

How about charlatan (1618)---that would toss off their newest layer entirely (or dollar from the 1500's) (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Freedom, an obviously conservative word from before the 12th century would f that doubling pattern and have Andy's head spinning trying to fill in intervening centuries! (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Genuine (1639), Marriage (14th century)--which the Homosexuals are trying to pervert(!!!), liberty (14th century), opportunity (14th century) (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec x 3!) You're forgetting Andypants's handy escape clause - English before the KJV doesn't count, because a language isn't a language until it's got a Bibble in it's language. Or until jesus tells a joke in that language. or something. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. He doesn't need that many words for the first decade of this century, there are nine more decades to come, each one more conservative than the previous one..
  2. I'd like to get some input for this Conservapedia Talk:Best New Conservative Words#Draft for a 3rd letter

Thanks, larronsicut fur in nocte 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of someone squeezing in Diesel as a lovely conservative word? Reckon Andy would quite happily accept that one.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

*giggles at your sig.* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. What giibberish is this?[edit]

Wow.img AceX-102 03:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken talking to himself again? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
He really ought to get a job so he can afford the meds. 04:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I suppose he's going to give the Dawkins treatment to every high-profile atheist, huh? Well, it'll keep him busy, I guess. I am surprised that he held up Myers' refusal to debate Vox Day as a mark against him. Years ago, I got into an Internet slap fight with Mr. The Voice of God, and let me tell you: There is not enough money in the world to persuade me to go back into that fetid tangle of misogyny that he calls a weblog and do it again. Frankly, that's a mark of intelligence in my book (and this is coming from someone who doesn't particularly like Myers). Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
For a minute I was stunned by the semi-clarity of the writing; had Ken taken the time to articulate his thoughts and edit them into reasonably comprehensible sentences prior to clicking the [Save page] button? No, it was just a copy/paste from  Lily Inspirate me. 08:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And there it was - gone. Just like magic. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No way Kenservative is going to research Dennet and Hitchens and Harris and Jacoby. If he looks that broadly he is going to have to find enough about the differences between them, in order to distinguish them, and if he learns that he may go in to deep. It's not anal sex if you've got half an inch of cock neck that doesn't get brown, is it? --Opcn (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That "Intellectual Slothfulness" gibberish is now part of the main PZMyers page on CPimg. With Ken doingimg his bestimg to advertise it. I love how the "Article of the Week" section appears on the main page only once every other month or so. Also, what exactly is a "Village Atheist"? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what really leaps out at me from that? How that article completely misses the point. Most (if not all) atheists reject the existence of any god or gods for much the same reason most people reject the existence of fairies or unicorns - the complete lack of solid evidence they actually exist. That article wants atheists to provide absolute proof of the nonexistence of any possible god or gods, which, apart from anything else, is actually impossible, due to how many different ideas people have about what form these gods take. (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fuckwit at an ultra-right-wing blog[edit]

People who rabbit on about "intellectual slothfulness" should at least know that it's "an Eagle Forum" and not "a Eagle Forum." I look forward to your 20 edits correcting this. --PsyGremlinSprich! 07:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Faith healing WIGO[edit]

This is no surprise. Andy has long endorsed the power-of-prayer, I think he even suggested it as a cure for poverty.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the passengers on Titanic would've been fine if they had just prayed hard enough. Vulpius (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to find Andy's "prayer instead of charity" remark but find that all of his talk page history prior to 15 December 2009 has been memory-holed.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I was aiming for more of a "who would have thought the sky would be up" sort of thing, but as per usual I am full of wigophail. --Opcn (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, my bad that I didn't recognise the sarcasm.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I was actually going to add something along the lines of "Oh, wait, everybody would..." to the WIGO yesterday, but then I figured that Opcn was going for that sarcastic style. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I read it too literally as I make a distinction between faith healing and prayer. Not that I believe in either except through the placebo effect.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unintentional lulz[edit]

Had to laugh at the "Conservative quote" on the main page

I see Ken, who is completely isolated from reality, posted it. Anybody else thingk he's describing Mr Harvard law School himself. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If so then perhaps Ken can still be redeemed as a parodist - as opposed to his current image which would suggest that sanity in Ken's world is an increasingly small dot on the horizon. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 14:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny, but I saw the same quote in the Grauniad just a couple of days ago. Is Ken a closet Guardian reader?  Lily Inspirate me. 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
An educated idiot is an idiot all the same.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the biggest mistakes Bugler made, and, to be fair, he didn't make many, was to quote often from the Guardian. Although this flew straight over the CP sysops head had Bugler been real there is no way he would have read the Grauniad. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
He only bought it for the puzzles. His main source would have been the Torygraph? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, Mail readers are closest to Andy's worldview.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thankfully most Mail readers are too busy documenting the transgressions of their foreign neighbours in painful detail in order to send a totally non-racist letter of complaint to the civic authorities and the Mail. Were this not the case, and there were more of them, the streets would be overrun by an army of middle-aged nutters who would really like things to be the way the used to be - i.e. like living in a Fred Bassett comic. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor LisaM[edit]

She never stood a chance against Karajou, who lobbed yet another one of his answer-or-die questionsimg at another unsuspecting (or perhaps suspecting) user. Alas, Karajou has invoked liberal trick number 5, in which he inserts a liberal conservative assumption into his question "Why do you continue to side with those people who lie to the American public, cheat on the American public, steal from the American public, and hate the American public?" I think it would be safe to say that a large amount, if not a majority of all American leaders (both on the right and left) have been involved in some kind of lying, cheating, stealing, and hating of the American public, in some sort of combination of the four, yet Karajou acts as if his glorious conservative leaders that he supports are never responsible for such a thing. This is shown when he tosses the arguments against certain conservative leaders by LisaM away by dodging any explanation of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner, and rather just says that liberals hate Bush because he removed Clinton from office (as if Clinton was somehow running again, and it was Bush who stopped the maniac from being elected Excellent arguing, Karajou! LisaM was later rewarded with a block to last all of eternity, courtesy of Karajou, but TK kindly reduced the block to three days, mentioning how on Conservapedia, arguments aren't based on how well or reasoned the argument is, but rather, how much one has contributed to Andy's project. Ahh, it never gets old. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too. She's done a good job of refudiating [sic] their "Obama relaxes too much" argument. And Karajou's question is just hilarious, because it's followed by TK telling LisaM to open her mind. Karajou's "question" (only in the grammatical sense, since there are far more assumptions than inquisitive statements in the phrasing) is perhaps the perfect example of a closed mind. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Classic Karajou. So desperate to give orders. I can only imagine the shit he had to put up with on that boat. (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what? I'm wondering where in the world Obama said that people should never eat ice cream. I believe Sesame Street now features Cookie Monster singing something along the lines of "cookie is for sometimes", in which he now advocates balanced diets and says that eating junk food isn't bad, as long as it is in limited amounts. Perhaps that show would interest and educate Karajou about healthy eating and what the Obamas are actually advocating. As for close-mindedness, well, you just can't get rid of liberal conservative hypocrisy, can you? ~SuperHamster Talk 20:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Capturing the whole lovely affairimg for good measure. It was nice to see someone allowed to get half a dozen posts in before the infinite ban. Oh, and for the record, I got the impression from Karajou's speech that "mission accomplished" meant "we scared Saddam", and thus anyone who thinks it was inaccurate or melodramatic is just being liberal. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Every time I read anything Karajou writes I think to myself "Man, we must have a very disciplined military." If Karajou did spend years in the navy (which I doubt; I think he made the whole thing up) that means he spent years around heavily armed people, and not one of them once shot him in the head. I don't think I'd be able to restrain myself in similar circumstances. DickTurpis (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Somebody need to explain to Kajagoogoo that playing with one's submarine in a tin bath does not qualify as military service in the navy. For that matter neither does hanging around the docks and offering your services (offering to help a tired naval officer with his load, that kind of thing).--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I love how there are two degrees of separation between parody and everything else on CP[edit]

It seems like every news story I can click on one link, then click on another (sometimes it takes a third) and get unobscured parody. This time I got one that was positively ridiculous. wriotten by a blocked parodist, and signed off on (with minor edits) by Ed and of all people RJJ. --Opcn (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard "pantywaist" on the radio today. I took me ten minutes to get my head back out of Kenland. Beginning with "G". Oh shit, it's still not gone! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes! though I found two more that were two away in the news. It's like a treasure hunt! --Opcn (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope I'm not overstepping my welcome[edit]

Here are the pages from The greatest show on Earth: the evidence for evolution by Richard Dawkins dealing with the Lenski affair. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is a review. Is I doing it rong? Webbtje (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I got it. --Opcn (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this work for you?--Opcn (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting a short paragraph-length excerpt (I think? It says it's from Emerson White?). Do I have to have a Kindle or something? Bloody technology.Webbtje (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, it's not anything to do with having a google account is it? I'm only getting the review as well and no pages. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not signed in to Google and I can see it. Maybe it has to do with the region you're in? The Amazon/Kindle link gives me an excerpt, too, but it's simply the juicy start of what's in the Google link (which just goes on a bit to highlight just how very outclassed Lawyer Schlafly was when dealing with Scientist Lenski). --Sid (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I am Emerson White. I'll see about putting the rest up later, I guess Amazon keep the shared quotes pretty short. --Opcn (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use?[edit]

"... on to make the telling point that his best data are stored in the form of frozen bacterial cultures, which anybody could, in principle, examine to verify his conclusions. He would be happy to send samples to any bacteriologist qualified to handle them, pointing out that in unqualified hands they might be quite dangerous. Lenski listed these qualifications in merciless detail, and one can almost hear the relish with which he did so, knowing full well that Schlafly – a lawyer, if you please, not a scientist at all – would hardly be able to spell his way through the words, let alone qualify as a bacteriologist competent to carry out advanced and safe laboratory procedures, followed by statistical analysis of the results. The whole matter was trenchantly summed up by the celebrated scientific blogwit PZ Myers, in a passage beginning, ‘Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapedia, and boy, does he ever outclass them.’"

Der, die, das...[edit]

If you want to bend him, it should be

  • we do not disagree with Dem Führer.

But you can also leave it at

  • we do not disagree with Der Führer.

On the other hand - according to the famous song - he was one ball away from being

  • Das Führer

larronsicut fur in nocte 09:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Der, but I'm wondering if "Ze" would be funnier. Junggai (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I liked die. It made me wonder whether he/she/it was Hispanic, and what he/she/it thought of Richard Dawkins. Ole! Gauss (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the double meaning of "die", counting English. (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Best of the Pubic (Again!)[edit]

I know I'm risking IQ points by trying to figure out Andy's logic, but if he defines the BotP as being better than experts, how can he say that a highly trained athleteimg competing in an individual (as opposed to team) event, counts as best of the public? By definition then, every athlete from every country who won gold, is best of the public. I notice Jesse Owens doesn't get a nod (or is he 3/5ths BotP?). That's like saying Don Bradman was born in Dingos Armpit, but went on to average 99.96 in Test, making him the best of the public. It's insane... but what else do we expect from Andy Pandy? --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Try not to think about it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Bob Beamon, obscure longjumper who only won 22 of 23 meets he competed in that year, member of the All-American track and field team, breaker of multiple local and state track records, ranked second in the long jump in the US in 1965, and who received a track and field college scholarship. The guy who was the favorite to win the Gold in the 1968 Olympics. Pretty obscure all right. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ed to add, from the live commentary at the time of the jump: "Bob Beamon of the United States, the man most feared by every competitor in this competition; erratic but incredibly talented... Oh! It's an enormous one!"--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


I came across this in a link from one of the wigo story links: "Well, it may (but most likely won’t) surprise you to know that Ofcom forbids British journalists from arguing for a particular point of view when reporting the news. This makes no sense whatsoever." First, Glen Beck isnt a reporter or journalist, and second, just wow, no wonder us news is so crap — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Wait. Does that rule include journalists who write for' The Sun'? It also doesn't seem to stop Kay Burley from acting out a bit: Also, is this discussion not on the wrong page? --Danfly (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ofcom = nothing to do with journalists: it's the regulatory body for UK communications industries. Journalists can say what the EFF they like as long as their editor/proprietor/governors let him/her but remember our stoopid libel laws. Respondent is prolly thinking of the balance required of the BEEB specially round election times. 10:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

I thought it sounded a bit absurd alright. Thanks for explaining it Susan. --Danfly (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Best Conservative Words[edit]

FYI - I wrote this mail...

Dear Andy,

first of all: Thank you for your answer. I was a little bit disappointed that you couldn't find merit in my challenge. Therefore, I try to state my points more clearly in the two parts of this email.

Part 1 shows that your process of finding new conservative words suffers from selection bias.

Part 2 is a proposal (a challenge, if you prefer) to perform an unbiased test

Part 1 (selection bias)[edit]

The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.

What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct:


For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:

15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265

2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?

That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...

Part 2 (an unbiased test)[edit]

If you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The attached text file 500feasiblewords.txt contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found.

If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.

Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:

CenturyNumber of Words


Di… Eb…

PS: You assumed that conservative terms could have arisen on higher rates just after or during religious awakenings. Your data doesn't confirm this (see second attached file

The list of words can be found here. And this is the second file.

larronsicut fur in nocte 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


"a kind of affirmative action for newer words..." Ooooh, right in the crotch! Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I have to question why you're giving this guy the time of day, I have to congratulate you in actually putting work in rather than just lying back and "lolling" everywhere about it. It shows the kind of thing RW seems to have lacked in recent years. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur. A brilliant effort. Sadly, it's going to be sent to somebody whose most adult response will be either "too long, didn't read" or "lalalalalala I can't hear you." Maybe consider forwarding it to PZ or somebody? It needs to get out there. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice work LA, top stuff. However, as has been said, the Assfly will skim it and tell you to open your mind. Or just ignore it completely. I also echo Armond's sentiments that this kind of methodical take-down of nonsense is exactly what RW is all about. Keep up the good work. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The main reason to look again into the best new conservative words was Andy's remarkable statement

Liberals doubt our observed doubling per century for these words, yet every layer reproves the remarkable growth pattern. Still looking for 6 more. Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Well, liberals can disprove this pattern, even if Andy choses to ignore the evidence.
larronsicut fur in nocte 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it looks as though someone is bringing this up. Lets see what happens to MarcoT2img. It'll be a demonstration of the inadvisability of taking Andy up on his offer to refute him on the talkpage. Smackdown, block and oversight in 5... 4... 3... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That's nice! MarcoT2 is spot-on. Won't do him any good... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently their policy is, for the time being, to ignore him. I would have expected the usual cryptical answer which means nothing at all, and which ends with "open your mind", at the very least! --Maquissar (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually that is a policy I have seen before and it looks like they are doing it again. Act as though they missed the comment, wait a few days and then archive the page. If it isn't that its Assfly saying "You protest too much, open your mind and help build my wiki." Quazywabbit (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, all is quite on a couple of fronts at CP: hereimg and hereimg are examples for Andy waiting to see another user archived into oblivion (preferably - I think - with JacobB's selective archiving trick). larronsicut fur in nocte 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
They're just a bunch of cowards, from an intellectual point of view. I once thought that they honestly believed in what they said, but I'm no longer sure of their good faith. It must be clear to them as well that many of the techniques they use to make or defend a point are deceitful, biased and disgraceful. What do you think? Who's intellectually honest and who isn't, among the conservapedians? --Maquissar (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a pic of the distribution of the date of creation of English words (does anyone else know such pics?) So, I used the method described above to get my own charts:

all words with dates
words after 1500
"conservative" words

These pics should give quite a good impression of the distribution I was looking for. Needless to say that the A. Schlafly's pattern doesn't fit well into the overall scheme. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks finally for the decade by decade (and year by year?) graph in your letter, I've wanted to see that one for a while. It, of course, shows no such pattern like the one Andy claims. It only shows he knows more relatively modern words. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • not year-by-year, but a 10-year-moving average
  • for direct comparison, I added a pic above
  • Andy hasn't answered yet...
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Help re;Ken[edit]

Having just seen Ken nominating his two fave macho menimg for article of the month (yawn) - a choice that he will vote on, I considered for a moment appr--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)oaching his fellow sysops with a plea that for the sake of CP they stop him.

Problem is - who to approach? TK wants CP to look ridiculous, so he's no good. Andy couldn't make a managerial decision if his life ended on it. Ken's too old to gain Ed's interest. Karajerk would call me a bigot - his new fave word it seems. TerryH looks too creepy to approach - not without mace and a chastity belt, anyway. Jacob and Douglas told me over beers last night that they wouldn't help, because they want the same thing Terry does. So, does this mean that CP is beyond help? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried Freedom777 or CollegeRepublican?  Lily Inspirate me. 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we should get help for Andy first.img - π 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
WTF? 1. Those aren't the original lyrics and 2. they don't scan with any of the melody I can remember. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
They match up to the lyrics used in a 1974 performance. Why rely upon memory, when there is the internet? I still think he's bat-shit crazy for thinking the song is about liberals... seriously, wtf? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Lil Phyl? Even if she agrees with some or most of her father's ridiculousness in private, there's no way a 19 or 20 year old girl wouldn't find it deeply deeply humiliating for it to be arrogantly paraded around out there for all to see or for her dad to be the captain of that particular coterie of nitwits. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Just like "Article of the Week" and "Featured Article", the idea of "Article of the Month" is an inconsistent joke. After all what is the current "Article of the Month"? Even the regularly maintained "Article of the Year" is currently vanquished to the bottom of the featured article section due to the continuous jockeying for top billing among Il Duce's inner circle. Unlike "Article of the Week" which is simply some ad hoc idea that is occasionally remembered when useful, and has no nomination process behind it, "Article of the Month" still holds the pretense of importance and pays lip service to that meritocracy claim Andy likes to tout, thus poor Kenny can't just abuse it flagrantly, as much as he wishes he could. At least Kenny is taking advantage of a "feature" the other sysops have elected to ignore. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of abusing something fragrantly. It could be violently waving lavendar at something, or perhaps hurling bottles of oil of wotsit at someone. DogPMarmite Patrol 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is going to do it that way, it is Ken. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, he's off again. Just grabbing the pantywaist articleimg before it disappears again. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Every reference link on there is to the same no-name blog, is that person a personal buddy of Kenny's? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's his old pal Mariano. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ken does it himselfimg complete with misleading edit summary!--Opcn (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Moon and all the evidence for God/YEC[edit]

I love Andy's recent arguments on that talkpage because they highlight how YECists will twist EVERYTHING into an argument for God/YEC:

Really, really love it. Perfection? Evidence for God! Imperfection? Evidence for God! --Sid (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He's also been carrying on about the fact that the universe should be ordered and simple, whilst previously claiming decay rates differ and the speed of light wasn't constant. Never a dull moment when Andy's on song. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Andy: "If I hold this sandwich about here (holds sandwich), it looks about the same size as that double-decker bus over there". (Squints across street,zooms sandwich in and out). "My God! I'm eating a sandwich as big as a bus! Heaven help me! Agh!". (Chokes). Yes, I'm LOVING that conversation. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Notice that he offers no cited papers in his claims that the Moon's orbit is unstable in such a way it couldn't orbit for billions of years, nor that decay rates were even shown to be different, nor the speed of light anything other then the constant 300,000 km/s. However as he is der Führer with magical insights, if he says it is true, then it must be true in the wacky world of CP where science is the enemy of it doesn't conform to the "most logical book ever written"™ --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that 186,000 miles/s? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, it is 186,000 miles a second, 300,000 kilometers a second, I got my miles and kilometers mixed O_o --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Bonzer! That's right up there with "Autumn foliage disproves evolution"! (I think the WIGO could be better though) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I am always amazed about the moon stuff; like if it were in a different place God wouldn't exist. Sterile error 20:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Saturn's rings disprove evolution because people find them pretty!!11" Surprised they haven't said that yet. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A friend showed me Saturn's rings once (amateur astronomer). They were pretty. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A friend showed me Uranus once, I was not impressed. --Opcn (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I have a nice anus. Sorry if it wasn't to your taste. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
EC) I'm just pleased that there's more lulz on my favourite CP talk page - it's been a bit dead for a couple of years. 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Speaking of Saturn's rings, I will be out in the deep country in the middle of next month checking out Saturn in the evening hours after twilight. Saturn, Mars, and Venus are all in the relatively same place in the sky right now, and mid-August, the crescent moon will be there with them. It will be cool for just astronomy geek types. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Why would anyone make the mistake of being honest?img--Opcn (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That guy needs to open his mind! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Block reason sweepstakes, folks. 5 internets gets you in. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what they say, he will be blocked for exactly what the commandments say is okay. --Opcn (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ten internets says "Talk, talk, talk", "90/10 rule", "Incessant liberal chatter", or some variant thereof. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
With that stray "i" at the end of his name he is just begging for a "please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial". DickTurpis (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Inserting liberal multiculturalism" is my bet. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Or "Poor quality edits"--Opcn (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
90/10 or reverting the edits of THE FOUNDER. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Liberal trolling/lack of machimso" --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's already been guessed, but I go for "90/10" violation. It's what they got me on. They just throw it out when they have no other good reason. Also, I had the nerve to suggest that Andy wasn't perfect. *SHOCK AND HORROR!* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

NAACP stuff[edit]

Did anyone else notice how TK's revision was more about how Obama acted impulsively and less about how the source they quoted (and is still up in the feed) used dishonest editing to make it look like the NAACP was supporting racism. --Opcn (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

TK's not an honest reporter. Move on. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 22:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Since it came out so quickly that this whole thing was maliciously edited, the entire right is jumping on the bandwagon with "this was wrong", but adding "why did the White House let themselves get punked like this? Pff... noobs." I actually had someone argue with me that the racism claim was from a totally discredited source, and I was like, "I wouldn't have known that." I tried to stick up for them, saying, "damn right they should have acted, and did act. That's what you get from people who take racism seriously. Not like the Tea Party Express." Meh... I'm just so upset that they spin everything so they can have their cake and eat it at the same time, oh wait, no one of those is my cake, THEY FOOLED ME!!! *tears and gnashing of teeth* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 09:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what's gone wrong with cp?[edit]

They world has stopped interacting with them. Its just CP sitting in a room occasionally complaining about how much Obama sucks. --Opcn (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Been that way for a while now. Every once in a while the tendrils of CP snake outwards, only to be severed by the reality of <insert witty reason here>. Like the Lenski dialog and recent letter sent to the Moo guy, for instance. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The novelty has worn off, and there's not much fun in trying to interact when blocking occurs at the slightest sign of dissent. Its best days are long gone, but we can still hope that one day Andy will go Jim Jones on us. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of which, has there been any updates on Douglas Moo yet? It would be funny if Moo just outright ignored Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think he will. Lenski likes little limelight now and then. Moo probably spends his days poring over Latin, Greek, and Aramaic. Since Andy can't write clear English, why would Moo bother? I'd bet he simply deleted the email one paragraph into reading it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's stopped being about conservapedia, or crazy conservatism as a whole, and has become a sort of in-depth study of crazy people. It's kind of upsetting in a way, watching Ken flounder around the site and seeing Andy himself get more and more..... bizarre. The only reason I still keep track of it is because I really want to know how Andy will end it. Sooner or later it's going to dawn on even him that it's simply not cost effective to keep it going, at least in it's current state. X Stickman (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what would be hilarious? If we can get Lenski to reply to the Moo letter. He can scold Andy for wasting experts' time and tell him that rewording the KJV is nothing to be proud of. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be fucking awesome. Imagine the indignant "MYOB" outrage that would result if Lenski, that bastard, replied to a letter from Andy that wasn't even sent to him. ONE / TALK 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They world has stopped interacting with them. Well, the world can't interact with them, as they again forgot to turn off the night-editing-mode for the last nine hours... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Tumbleweed gif.[edit]

Noticed <capture> won't capture the animation. Any way around that? AceX-102 23:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's a PNG. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a gif. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean, the capture is a png. nevermind. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh well. Funny as hell though. Seen the awful drawings on his user-page? AceX-102 23:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Jesus, it's like a museum of the worst animated gifs from the 90s school of web design. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My favourite is the picture of the guy lost at sea but anchored to a cross. AceX-102 23:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The "but where sin abounded" picture with Jesus on the cross is pretty good. The crazy perspectives make it seem as if MC Escher killed Jesus. Look at how the woman is holding the base of the cross. The impossible perspectives will make your head hurt. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The "proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct" Shockofgod video is prosh. That guy's really really special. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Whats funny about this is that our tumbleweed articles work because of their basic simplicity. You open it up and there is the animation. Ken won't be able to keep his hands off the article, he is all ready adding crap to it, and picked a terrible animation for it. tmtoulouse 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The animation isn't too bad if Ken could refrain from scaling it up way beyond its native size. Thirteen edits so far for an article of around 30 words. Not bad for Ken. I wonder what percentage of Andy's drive is occupied by Ken "preview, whut?" DeMyer's edits? Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh my. Ken says that there aren't any great works of art on atheism, but when you look at Ken's perception of what is good art based upon his recent uploads, it makes you think who really is lacking in the creativity department... ~SuperHamster Talk 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My prediction is he won't be able to help himself, the page will soon be filled with dead bulls. tmtoulouse 00:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On a different level it works, the harsh desert shows us that there is no sky wizard looking out for our best interests. The tumbleweed is a plant brought over from Eurasia, and shows that the distribution of species followed a more complex pattern than "everything everywhere" like you would get in a flood. --Opcn (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

HEY KEN!!!! Try this. You can add the caption "An atheist being hit by the facts of Conservapedias Atheism, Homosexuality and Evolution articles". AceX-102 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that guy is lucky that it was a baby bull. Of course, then again, big-ass bulls with lots of mah-cheese-mo can't maneuver that adroitly. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I always knew he was bad when it came to lowering that amount of edits it takes to adjust something minor, but this is ridiculous. I'm going to cover his monstrously large list of edits to his userpage, one by one, just for the hell of it and so that both we and Ken can admire his great work:

  • Adds the section "Great works of art on atheism". Consists only of a bunch of blank lines, and a random period.
  • Adds additional blank lines to the section.
  • Adds even more blank lines again, along with another random period.
  • Adds even more blank lines again.
  • Blanked the section, for whatever reason.
  • Re-adds a bunch of spaces and this time just one period, in which he removed less than a minute ago.
  • Replaces the random period with a pointless template that has no effect.
  • Completely blanks the section, for the second time.
  • Removes the section header itself.
  • Re-adds the section in a new location (still blank).
  • Adds an additional section titled "Great and inspiring art by atheist on atheism" (basically the same thing), this one containing a tumbleweed animation aligned to the center. At this point, he has two sections for exactly the same thing: one blank, one not.
  • Adjusts the position of the animation to the right.
  • Removes the adjustment parameter altogether.
  • Re-adds the original adjustment parameter, re-aligning it to the center. Took three edits just to get back to the original alignment.
  • Adds a new section titled "Proof and evidence that atheism is valid" right below the last one, with this one's content consisting of a second tumbleweed animation.
  • Places a link to Essay: Proof and evidence that atheism is true at the bottom of his userpage.
  • Completely removes the two sections consisting of the animations. Note that he still has the completely blank section on his userpage.
  • Re-adds the sections that he had just removed to the bottom, replacing the link to the previously-mentioned essay.
  • Reduces the size of a tumbleweed animation; however, it doesn't work. Proof that he doesn't preview before saving.
  • Undos his mistake.
  • Increases the size of the second animation to 700px, making it look horrendous, since its original size is very small.

There. It took Ken only 21 edits to add three sections, one of which is blank, and two of which contain nothing but two animations, one of which looks very ugly. He never fails to amuse the audience. Olé! Olé! Olé! ~SuperHamster Talk 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I gotta a static screen capture (windows-S), open OneNote, copy, paste into Windows Picture Manager.) Is there a copyright for that? Sterile error 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank the universe, god, FSM, whatever you believe for Ken otherwise CP would be utterly boring in addition to its irrelevance. Ken brings the entertainment! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh,noes! Apparently Atheist holidays filled with goodwill, charitableness, and good cheer requires boring old tumbleweed. Sterile error 02:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to think of a Christian holiday of goodwill, charitableness, and good cheer that wasn't a ripoff of a pagan celebration and/or (like Christmas tress) looked down upon in the Bible. I guess tumbleweeds for them! Except mine will be colored like the autumn leaves that disprove evolution! BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually something interesting going on here. This casting of atheism as not inspiring art or holidays shows the mental mind set of these people. They really can't understand something as being an absence of a belief. Why would atheism inspire anything? It is not "something", its a rejecting of stupid ideas. There are tons of secular art and holidays, which are pretty much atheist because they are secular. It's a weird mindset. tmtoulouse 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just weird, it's stupid. As Thunderf00t nicely put in a video of his, you don't identify someone for what they don't believe in, but rather, for what they do believe in. We could just as well pin Ken for not celebrating any jolly-good and caring holidays that relate to his non-believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Care Bears, Magical Flying Hippos, Mooing Llamas, or any of the other infinite things that he doesn't believe in (at least, I hope that he doesn't believe in...who knows?) ~SuperHamster Talk 02:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that convinces me. I'll now believe in Greek god-ism for today. Sterile error 02:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried listening to Shockofgod's call to the Atheist Experience - which no doubt spurred Ken on, and it is unlistenable. How do you provide proof of what you believe that is defined by a lack of proof? AceX-102 06:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ken's fail is compunded by the fact the original gif is 160 px wide and doesn't look too bad, but using his amazing wiki-fu he has upscaled it to 700px wide to make it look awful. Ken doesn't have the subtlety to present small images as for hi, bigger is always better. Ken, you're a moron.  Lily Inspirate me. 06:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
lol SuperHamster that micro-edit coverage is fantastic. Thanks for taking the effort to do that. You should add that to our article on him as an example of his work. ONE / TALK 07:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's new SEO attempts[edit]

I am obviously late to this party again, but this seems to me to an attempt to replicate our tumbleweed articles that got us Slashdotted when they were posted on social networking sites. - π 08:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I;m sure it will do the same for him when it gets posted on mychurch. </sarcasm> --Opcn (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

More TK plagiarism[edit]

Shocking, right? Compare: TK creates page, place he plagiarized from. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 01:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you've got such a weak article base such as Conservapedia's, one is always in a rush to create new articles to link to as the news stories roll in...notice how Andy often updates articles whenever they are linked to from their news section, just so they don't look as bad as the average entry. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, in another corner of the wiki: "I'm telling you one last time: do not copy and post copyrighted content from another website onto this site."img --Sid (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The commandments on that site only apply to lesser men than Karajoo and TrollKing. Admin are free to copy gov't sources withou attribution. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 12:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The question atheists fear most[edit]

I was hoping for a truly difficult and deep question that may challenge my views on religion and deities when I first heard of this premise. Imagine my surprise and disappointment in the question atheists fear mostimg when it turned out to be a fundamentally flawed logical fallacy. In am saddened, I thought would be genuinely forced into thinking about, defending, maybe even changing my views because the title promised some intellectually deep question that actually challenge my non-theism. Alas, it is not to be, but what can we expect, it is Ken, at least he entertains. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick answer - because there is no evidence for god. AceX-102 06:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't be arsed watching half an hour of that slow talking moron friend of Ken's, what was his question? - π 08:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What proof or evidence is there that atheism is true. AceX-102 08:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, how routine. Asking to find positive evidence for the absence of an object. - π 08:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a dragon in my garage.--Opcn (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh shit, I can't find any evidence you don't, I should give over a day of my week wearing a silly robe and offering bits of bread to your dragon. - π 08:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My "The Question Atheists Fear Most" question is: "Why don't we find a crocoduck?" Seriously, I have nightmares about meeting up with people stupid enough to ask me this question. There are not enough facepalms in the world to do justice to house stupid this question is, and you're going to ask me this? Seriously. Most of the questions I "fear" from theists are simple retarded questions that demand my pedantic nature to correct the misinterpretations of reality that they expose. I seriously don't want to waste my time on you, WHY ARE YOU SO RETARDED?! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a grain of truth in "The Question Atheists Fear Most" - when I hear it I immediately think "Oh no, not another idiot who will refuse to listen to the answers and misunderstands the question he is asking". I fear the question in the same way that I fear that the mumbling nutter who gets on the bus is going to sit next to me. And if Jesus invented comedy then "Shockofgod calls into Atheist Radio show - Hilarious!" proves that he made an appalling job of it.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow. You know... you'd think that if I were to click on something entitled "Essay: The question atheists fear most" I'd actually see what the question was. Not a bunch of link-spamming links to sad, basement dwelling trolls, which I am not going to click on. Once again, epic fail from Ken. It's actually sad to see the man spiralling out of control like this. Even sadder to see Andy et al letting him go mad. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To my disgust, I clicked on one of Ken's StupidOldGodbotherer links. I managed to listen to 5mins of it, but it is so dumb I couldn't bear any more. I get so frustrated at this "give me evidence for the lack of _______" shit, I had some guy yesterday triumphantly declaring that "you can't prove there's no such thing as ghosts, therefore I'm right to say there are." It all frustrates me so much that they don't get the simple issues that:
  • You can't prove a negative
  • The burden of proof lies with the person making the statement
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
As for that YT imbecile using the phrase "the humanist religion of atheism", arrgghhhhh! — Unsigned, by: DeltaStar / talk / contribs 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I just came to post a similar thing after listening to all 20 minutes. Completely pathetic, but what I like most is that the running captions keep a running commentary as if Shockofgod is totally pwning them. Junggai (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That Shockofgod show and chat is a joke. If you bring an objection they will simply talk over you and place you on mute so you cannot reply in a proper fashion. Objecting in the chat often just gets you kicked. His channel is worse, offer any sort of objection or refutation that makes it difficult for him and you are banned, your comment expunged like it never happened. This way he can claim total victory through strict censorship. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That was fun, Ken. SofG's call was in deed hilarious. But perhaps not in the way you or he think... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary Claims[edit]

The problem with the "extraordinary claims" argument in this case is that both sides consider the other side's claim to be extraordinary. Just as the atheist finds the theists claims of the existence of a god to be extraordinary, the theist finds the non-existence of god to be extraordinary. Even in a debate that is likely to change few minds, that's a non-productive debating strategy. MDB (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be honest about this, no debate between atheists and committed believers is liable to be productive.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, it's not really a problem if you think about it for more than a few seconds. Since it's logically impossible to prove a negative, "extraordinary claims" only refers to the contention that something exists. Junggai (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Atheism makes no claims. Things like evolution and the big bang are extraordinary claims but they also have the extraordinary evidence to support them. Jaxe (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not buying that MDB, your theism seems to have blinded you there. "There is a magic man (with a beard) in the sky who created everything (6000 years ago) and listens to my thoughts" = an extraordinary claim. "No there's not" = NOT an extraordinary claim. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You're missing my point. I'm saying it's a non-productive argument because you can't convince a theist (at least one willing to engage in debate with an atheist) that the existence of a deity is an extraordinary claim. To such a theist, the non-existence of a deity is the extraordinary claim.
Now, I have no problem myself with admitting that I believe something extraordinary. But I'm not going around debating the existence of God. (This is probably the closest to it I'd come, in fact. I don't even view myself as qualified to debate it. I'll leave that to the theologians.) But if someone is sure enough in their beliefs to be willing to engage in a reasonably intellectual debate about the existence or non-existence of god, then they will find the idea of the non-existence of god to be beyond their comprehension. MDB (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Atheism doesn't claim the non-existence of gods. Individual atheists may claim that, but that doesn't come from their atheism. In my experience it's pretty rare anyone makes that claim. Jaxe (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Kenny[edit]

"Instead of being a ra-ra for AronRa, why not be a man and provide proof and evidence? Is it because you can't?" Literally. He can't. Your buddy Karajou blocked him for all time on ideological grounds before grunting out a series of non-sequitors. Retard. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, having the moniker of "EvilSocialist" on CP, you're walking around with a giant bulls-eye. I am impressed they bothered to comment rather then just instaban, but more humor for us I suppose. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's still creepy that Ken crows about how someone can't respond because they're permabanned. That's literally the reason nobody will ever be able to put up the myriad rebuttals of his cheap brand of creationism on CP. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
What with all this night-edit crap during the day, even supporters can't offer useful input. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
How many more of these you gonna make Ken? AceX-102 21:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh man, that image is awful. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kens's the kind of person who hears a joke and purposely sets about telling it to everyone he can as many times as he can. EddyP (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I bet he is also the sort of person that, when watching a funny movie, turns to make sure you are laughing as well and goes "Wait, watch! This bit is funny! Wait....wait, yeah the next bit is hilarious!". I hate those people. AceX-102 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize profusely... no one ever told me that this was rude, or annoying. I thought I was being helpful. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Palin got it from Andy![edit]

But luckily she didn't need a penicillin jab.
It seems that as far back as 2008, Brother Leader was making shit up creating new conservative words. For your viewing pleasure and general merriment, I present Conservaphobia!img Funny how it hasn't made it onto Andy's list of best new words though. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PsyGremlin. After I added the section below, it clicked that you were probably writing about the same thing. Duh. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Great New Conservative Word[edit]

Refudiate. Invented by the great Sarah Palin herself, a modern Shakespeare. Go on, I dare you to burn a sock. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And I see it's already been on this page (right at the top at the time of writing). The news has taken 4 days to cross the Atlantic. Must spend more time reading RW and less doing what I'm paid to do. Still, Palin comparing herself to Shakespeare is worth a second look. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New Theory[edit]

This just came to me. Conservapedia is simply an online Stanford Prison Experiment. DickTurpis (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But... but... that would imply there's some sort of intelligence behind it all. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kind of makes sense, though, don't it? On paper Andy it intelligent; online he is an idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
ooh I dunno, what I've seen of him in the flesh doesn't inspire confidence either. Maybe it's Mama S who's behind it all. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How to spot an atheist[edit]

Ken! Ken! Take note. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheist warning.jpg
Is this a parody or not? DickTurpis (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Shame about the spelling mistake (declairs).  Lily Inspirate me. 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Is dem de ones wid de cream? --PsyGremlinTal! 15:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No no, it's what happens when you suck the cream out of one. The baker enclairs them, and you declair them. I do love though how the picture has a bunch of radically obvious signs... like the explicit message on the shirt. Yet the picture makes no reference at all to it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No homosexual mind control[edit]

Ed Poor says there's no homosexual mind controlimg. There goes my evil homosexual agendaplans to use ESP to make the hot guy in HR sleep with me... MDB (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, you've already got your gaydar... how many flippin superpowers do you want? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kryptonian levels, preferably. MDB (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
But but but the AAPS says Obama does mind control [1]. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
But it isn't _gay_ mind control, it's black mind control. All glory to the Obama. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Ed Poor a moonie? I think his denial of the existance of "mind control" techniques probably stems from accusations made against his cult.

Good thing you finally caught that Ed! Who's the parodist who said two years ago that all that mind control nonsense was "basically true"?img Burndall (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Burndall! Awesome, indeed. BIG wigo-worthy if written well. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For a brief moment, there was hope...[edit]

  • 20:02, 23 July 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Conservative/main page posts" ‎ (Archiving of User/Talk Pages of Editor Who Resigned: content was: '#REDIRECT User:Conservative/My favorite main page posts' (and the only contributor was 'Conservative'))

But alas, he likely just picked the wrong deletion reason from the menu. =( --Sid (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


Another stunning addition. Arthur Ashe (who was at the time a veteran pro tennis star) unexpectedly winning over Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon in 1975 earns Ashe a chance at BOTP. Why do I feel like Andy is trolling us? (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're playing at Wimbledon, aren't you pretty much required to a professional, and thus not the BotP? If Ashe has been some guy knocking around a few tennis balls at the local court, and Conners had walked by and said, "hey, pal, you look pretty good, let's play a few games", and Ashe trounced Conners, then there might be a point. But... MDB (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To get into Wimbledon, you have to be internationally ranked, which determines your seeding. Ashe was seeded 6th in 1975. Ranked the #1 tennis player in the world in 1968, sponsored by Head, Adidas, Catalina, American Airlines, Coca Cola and Phillip Morris, best of the public in 1975. I fucking love Andy. (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess winning the US Open and Australian Open already don't disqualify you for BOTP. Next up, the 1992-1993 Chicago Bulls who upset the regular-season best Phoenix Suns for their third straight title (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, is he talking about Arthur Ashe the Affirmative Action Tennis Pro? DickTurpis (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arthur Ashe = BOTP thing supports my theory that Andy is secretly a homosexual atheist communist pot-head who's producing a completely ridiculous web-site with the goal of discrediting the conservative movement. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ken's edits make much more sense in that light (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And what about Borg - I mean it's too cold and dark in Sweden to play tennis, yet he won Wimbledon 12 zillion times. It's wonderfully potty - any individual who rises to the top of his field is BotP - which holds if anybody can partake in that sport. I'd hardly classify Schumaker as BotP, given that so few can actually race F1.
Arthur Ashe was seeded 6 the year he won Wimbledon. But you don't need to be internationally ranked, you can get in on a wildcard sometimes.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You can get in as a wildcard if your international ranking isn't high enough, but I'd seriously doubt that you could get in without one altogether. (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
So is Andy saying that any underdog is ipso facto not an expert? DickTurpis (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Either that or we have our first affirmative action BOTP. I just want to know, why 1975? Why not '69? or '68? or '65? The world may never know... (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It's much the same as his "a band who was a one-hit wonder is a botp than a band with a string of hits" lunacy. So Golden Earing = cool, Beatles = Blerg. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
You can get into Wimbledon as a wild card without an international ranking if you're interesting enough. This usually applies to minor British players although Goran Ivanišević won as a wildcard entry in 2001. However, as that was towards the end of his career rather then the beginning it was hardly BotP.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
As your source says, "The committee may admit a player without a high enough ranking as a wild card". To me, this implies that all participants are internationally ranked. Maybe the committee can admit a player without a rank altogether, but I don't think that ever has (or will) happen. (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well they let in juniors if they've done well enough but not internationally ranked.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of how good a player is, they can only be admitted into Wimbledon if they are allowed to by the experts. So, where does the BotP come into play in any case? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Err, aside from getting to the finals of the Aussie grand slam in 66 and 67, winning the US open in 68 and the Aussie Open in 70, quarters in the French Open in 70 and 71, finals in the Aussie Open in 71 and the US open in 72, and being a top ranked player for a decade before winning Wimbledon, Ashe was just a regular guy. eh denied a South African visa and doesnt afraid of anything. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To whoever's running TZoran - keep up the good work the more you stroke Andy's ego, the crazier he becomes. (btw wasn't Borat's brother/sister/prostitute wife called Zoran? --PsyGremlinFale! 15:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Was Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards BotP? He challenged the experts on the prevailing theory that you have to be reaonably good to compete at the olympics and they expelled him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
My favourite BOTP candidate is Maurice Flitcroft. The worst golfer ever to enter the Open golf championship.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(unident) So BoTP came up because of the idea that you did not need to be have a degree or go to a university to be knowledgeable about a subject. The latest addition of Arthur Ashe doesn't seem to fit this in the least for the fact that he went to school on a Tennis scholarship and then went into Tennis as a career and then a years later went on to win Wimbledon. But then again this is Andy's World Quazywabbit (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For Andy the BOTP is anyone who he can stick the label on in order to make it seem like the notion he pulled straight from his ass in front of the largest audience he will ever have is true. Look at the page structure, he leads with his quotation from colbert, which shows he is trying to fit an idea to a quote, not support an idea. --Opcn (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendly Service[edit]

Dear Administrators of another site,

there are a couple of signs which could hint you to the fact that you indeed forgot to switch off night-edit mode:

  • from 7h until 17h30 only members of the groups administrators and edit have edited your site
  • new editors create accounts, but don't comment: that's highly unusual, as the instigation to make an account is generally the wish to edit something...


  • only members of the groups administrators and (to a lesser extant) edit can be trusted to add valid (i.e., pleasing) content
  • new editors are most probably parodists, leftists, or general antischlaflyists, so the best policy is to delay their comments as long as possible

For a short guide how to work with your night edit mode, have a look here.

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The best part is that TK and Karajou are without a doubt furiously masturbating about this in their current Secret Discussion Group: "Ha, watch how those liberals whine about how they can't edit!" --Sid (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Was night-edit mode ever disabled today? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that I can tell. My reporter friend tried to edit on an account he created but couldn't. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 02:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

wow, after ~30 hours, the curfew is lifted (automatically, I presume). How long will it last? larronsicut fur in nocte 11:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

...until 9:34, 24 July 2010 (EST) larronsicut fur in nocte

edits at CP

To monitor the night-editing-mode implies to ping Conservapedia repeatedly (e.g., every 5 minutes) - and I don't do that in general. A crude indicator for the night-editing mode is given by the actual edits. (Un)fortunately, the number of editors isn't big enough to get a complete picture - you can't expect an common editor without editing right to repeat constantly his tries to get his comment through at Conservapedia - most will give up sooner or later. Yesterday, the only period during which common editors posted their comments was 01:15 - 01:30, 23 July, 2010, indicating that most of the time night-editing mode was switched on. The right picture shows this morning, night-mode wasn't activated for less than three hours. No common editor jumped to the occasion... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Tumbleweed[edit]

Anyone eles think Ken Doll's "Proof of Atheism" "Essays" are blatent rip-off's of RationalWiki? Think about it, how much tumbleweed do we HAVE on this site? --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A few, they are hugely popular for a few days after they get linked, on Facebook, or Digg, or Slashdot. That is why he is doing it, he thinks he will capture one of those surges we have from time to time. - π 01:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, i still hold the belief that THEY are watching US watch THEM. Maybe THEY have parodists here like WE have parodists THERE. --Thunderstruck (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
They try but stand out like limp dicks in a crowd of men with mucho machismo. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
They read us all the time, that is how they find spelling errors. - π 02:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes Ken, thanks for the proof and evidence that atheism is true, just wind and tumble weed, no God, no magic, no supernatural. Well done! Auld Nick (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken makes Pharyngula![edit]

PZ comments on the "Article of the Week" and Ken finishes 1st in a three-way race for crazy. — Unsigned, by: Night Jaguar / talk / contribs

Sweet. That oughtta put Ken over the top in regards to destroying atheism on the moon, according to a search engine beginning with K. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Dr. Myers connected the dots that Ken = Peter Moore from his spamlist. The very cretin he referred to, just not by name. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Other than at the top of this article. - π 11:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In other words, it's funny, but I wish Dr. Myers wouldn't feed the troll. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's probably my fault, I sent PZ a heads up. --Opcn (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The mention of Lubos Motl was interesting. Motl is an accomplished physicist, author of standard textbooks and a raging asshole from hell. It's like he thought that was the secret of Newton's success. We could do with some sort of article on him, though I don't know what - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, a Motl article is an interesting idea. He's more of an asshole than a crank, though he does have some strange ideas about global warming and a couple other things. If there ever is such an article, someone's already compiled some of Lubos' greatest hits. --MarkGall (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The war on Smolin/PI is because they dast besmirch the name of String Theory. Article - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New block excuse[edit]

This is not even possible. MediaWiki won't let you create accounts that look like IP addresses without some fancy unicode and CP doesn't allow IP editing. - π 11:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you surprised? Andy might as well rename his site "Bannapedia"--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen TK use that block reason on numerous occasions and was always bemused by the seeming implausibility of someone pulling that off. Is there some kind of little known exploit that someone's using? I've never seen the IP edits that got any one of these users blocked in the first place so I'm not necessarily inclined to alter my belief that the simpler answer is that TK's just not an honest person. So, yeah. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just tried to create an account there and found my IP is already blocked. I suppose its possible that my IP had previously been assigned to someone who vandalised CP in the past, but I think its more likely they've got some sneaky spyware that blocks the IPs of anyone who goes there from here. I don't suppose there's some techy way round that to prevent CP knowing which of their visitors come from RationalWiki? WSC (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If you ever IP edited here there's a possibility one of the parodists at CP culled your IP for rangeblocking. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
And additionally they just have blanket blocks of entire ip ranges of many isp's from which there has been 'vandalism' in the past. I already know that all ip's from the provider I use from my home are blocked. I've not tried from work as I can't be arsed tbh. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to overestimate the technical ineptitude of the management of CP (see the bot-activity, and the guard-dog-incidents). If mediawiki doesn't provide a fool-proof feature, it cannot be done
larronsicut fur in nocte 18:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In theory they could trawl their logs to look at the HTTP Referer (sic) in the headers, which'd enable one to generate a list of IP addresses who arrived at CP by clicking on a link here. However, LArron hit the nail on the head above. alt (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't edited as an IP here. And the only place where I have any IP edits has had no edits from my current IP address, either by me or by whoever had that IP address before me. So it could be a range block against my IP provider, they certainly wouldn't get many edits they like from the city I live in, even the conservatives I know would be offended at the way CP makes conservatives look like inbred redneck nutters. But if they are blocking IPs coming from here using the HTTP referer, is there anyway we can avoid them having that information? Apart that is from obvious ones like using one connection to go here and another to go there. WSC (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of ways. You can find an open proxy server which strips out the relevant bit of header (which is sort of what you suggested). You can use a service like If you're using Firefox, you could use a plugin such as No Referrer. which appears to allow one to specifically hide referrer info coming from or going to sites of your choice. But really, the odds that anyone at CP actually knows how to correctly set up something based on this sort of thing are very slim. It's far more likely that you've just been caught up in TK's attempt to rangeblock the entire world. alt (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I've worked out from that list that I'm blocked. WSC (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


I have no problem with incompetent teachers being fired,img but I wonder how long Schlafly would last if his teaching methods were subject to scrutiny? --PsyGremlinHable! 15:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ANDY: What was World War II?
STUDENT: A war. It took place in the world. Hitler was evil and a darwinist.
ANDY: Excellent answer. Will use as model! --Maquissar (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


I love how the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia's recent changes file is 2 hoursimg of Ken editing "Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?" And they wonder why Beck and Coulter shun them. --PsyGremlinParlez! 23:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "hispanic" supposed to be capitalized? And that is one weird article. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Tranq. Shot. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is. He got it right throughout much of the article actually. And GOAT ALL MIGHTYThe Goat be Praised. that page is a big steaming pile of 3rd grader ad hominem. Not that I would say we're better (we certainly curse at at least a 5th grade level) but at least we don't claim superior moral high ground... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Guard Dog (historical)[edit]

There are assorted scattered references to Guard Dog, but no actual article. Can someone who was around at the time please write one? - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It really should be honored by an article. But for the meantime, have a look here. larronsicut fur in nocte 19:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I started a little article. Enjoy! larronsicut fur in nocte 22:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
one of the cabalThere is no cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves[2].
should have a copy of the prog lying around somewhere. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
well, it isn't hard to retro-engineer the program from its output:
  • it downloaded the cp:Special:RecentChanges page repeatedly (once a minute? every five minutes?)
  • a user who made to many entries in to short a time was flagged (or autobanned)
  • a user who blanked a page was flagged/autobanned
larronsicut fur in nocte 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Guard Dog discussion from earlier this year, for the record. Includes a few words on what it does, ie a bit of reverse engineering. I kept my copies of the program and the documentation it came with, fwiw, and I'd be happy to share if anybody thinks they have use for them. mb 07:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Eira, EddyP, David Gerard, Radioactive Afikomen, Psygremlin and Sid for the concerted effort ( though I don't understand RA's point I so hate how RW constantly links to "favorite" articles that are blatantly off-mission. Keep the link-whoring to talk pages and the funspace, please.) larronsicut fur in nocte 00:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait.. what did I do? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

dear mb, perhaps you can add some of the stuff to Conservapedia:Guard dog? larronsicut fur in nocte 09:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there is anything left for me to add. I first heard of Conservapedia about two months after the dog got taken behind the barn. I never saw it in action. I couldn't run it if I wanted to. All I really did was run strings(1) on a file on a drive. mb 17:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy, Michelle, and Perfection[edit]

Checking on Andy before bed, he seems to be very excitedimg about the latest Tea Party stunt. The lop-sidedness of the page is dizzying, and I imagine TK is upset at the suspension of his blogroll.
Meanwhile, it's nice to see him ironically admittingimg that he created the ratio in Best Conservative Words: "We completed the perfect doubling by century". ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it TK, that redlink is definitely helping the presentationimg. - π 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I thnk it's funny that Andy just added that tea-bagger stuff to the main page rather than recreating a Mainpageright. It obviously showed his excitement. I bet Mrs. S ended up with a good annual rogering for that.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember what happened to WIGO:CP and TWIGO:CP? He can't restore it. (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There wouldn't be that many edits given that it has been deleted a few times. - π 09:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes there would. All the deleted edits still count when you try to restore. That's why they always restore by copy pasting, except this time they don't have a copy. (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I didn't mean restoring the deleted stuff, I meant just creating a new template to lodge his latest titillating news.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see TK has managed to upload a new MPR, but without Andy's 'Michelle' addition. C'mon TK make sure Andy's ring is polished.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken - where are these churches that don't believe in the Bible of which you speak?[edit]

"Creationist high school students are going to wear “Question evolution” t-shirts to their high schools and Bible believing churches are going to encourage them to do so."[3]

Ken, I demand you explain what that sentence means? DogPMarmite Patrol 08:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Churches that don't agree with Ken's narrow religious dogma = don't believe in the bible. I suspect he is saying Catholics and Episcopals are not Christians without actually vocalising it least Andy takes his soapbox away. - π 09:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it's just like aSK's "biblical worldview". Because if you don't believe that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and then designed every living being Himself, you're not "Bible believing". --Sid (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically it's Ken having problems with constructing a sentence in English, not that some churches don't believe in the bible.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically what Pir said. It's simple persecution, quite a recurring theme. It's the "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality so any church of any description that doesn't enforce biblical literalism isn't a "real" church and is one of The Others, tantamount to being one of those pesky, immoral atheist types. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the parlance of a fundy A "bible believing church" is one that believes the bible to be the litteral word of God, especially if it is the KJV and only the KJV. --Opcn (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You surely meant the Conservapedia Bible, right? Because everybody knows the KJV also has its shortcomings which led to the need to translate it into Conservative English, leading to The Actual Word Of God Since God Lacked The Proper Words To Express His Message Back Then. ;) --Sid (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: Uni Tarian. DickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Would it be possible for someone to create a pie chart showing CBP edits by user? It'd be interesting to see what proportion of edits were made by JacobB and DouglasA. EddyP (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:


Contributors to the Conservapedia Bible Project, i.e., to the pages cp:Mark 1-8 (Translated),cp:Mark 9-16 (Translated),cp:Matthew 1-9 (Translated),cp:Matthew 10-19 (Translated),cp:Matthew 20-28 (Translated),cp:Luke 1-8 (Translated),cp:Luke 9-16 (Translated),cp:Luke 17-24 (Translated),cp:John 1-7 (Translated),cp:John 8-13 (Translated),cp:John 15-21 (Translated),cp:Acts 1-9 (Translated),cp:Acts 10-19 (Translated),cp:Acts 20-28 (Translated),cp:Romans 1-8 (Translated),cp:Romans 9-16 (Translated),cp:1 Corinthians 1-8 (Translated),cp:1 Corinthians 9-16 (Translated),cp:Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Translated). With greetings from cp:User:JacobB to prof Douglas Moo...

larronsicut fur in nocte 11:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you remove single edit editors who's edits were immediately reverted and the revert? Also wasn't JacobB setting up the tables? That would account for the large number of bytes he put down. - π 11:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • don't know
  • certainly
larronsicut fur in nocte 12:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
LArron, as always you're brilliant. If Andy ever publishes it, I wonder what he'll say about the contributors? At least 20% of the edits are parodists. More like 30% counting unsures.EddyP (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the trouble with parodists: a good one is better than a true believer. A True Believer might have doubts and reservations about some of the twaddle; a parodist knows it's all garbage and does the best (s)he can to promote it and drive it to its extremes.12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Surely if they have doubts they're not, by definition, a True Believer? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You left out ECC! --Opcn (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I left out quite a bit - I updated the pic to a more complete version larronsicut fur in nocte 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Limey superiority over Yanks[edit]

The UK's GCHQ uses its technology to locate Al-Qaeda & Taliban for the Americans. Have you no national pride, TK?  Lily Inspirate me. 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean "atheistic socialist technology"? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

anyone who uses words like "limey" or "yank" is automatically an asshole.

Ed Science[edit]

Fun stuff on the main talk page in regards to the "Complaint about lack of liberal activity" section. "Uncle Ed" shows he doesn't understand anything about evolution at all but pretends to when he presents obvious inaccuracies as factsimg. Bizarre notions such as dinosaurs appearing 800 million years ago, and carbon dating used to date fossils that old. One would only say thing like this if they knew next to nothing about radiometric dating, evolution, paleontology, or biology in general but hopes the audience doesn't either. He also has some strange views on what he believes people think evolution means in general. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he's bitter that he wasn't chosen by daddy moon to go get a million doctorates and disprove teh evilution. Doggone it, he's at least as smart as Jonathan Wells is. Never mind, Ed. Perving at teen movies is just as worthy an occupation as working at the discovery institute. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That long post by DerekE was almost as strange, in my opinion. He's a rather good parodist, isn't he? The length of the paragraph, the frequent links, the solid block of unorganized text jumping from subject to subject, the common quotation marks framing liberal strawman arguments... True art.-- JArneal 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's a question for the great Ed Poor/Tony Sideaway debate: if wp:Extraterrestrial life exists and is not crank science, are space aliens entitled to thier own facts? or are facts as we know them only the POV of the human species? Stephen Hawking hints at this [4] as he implies space aliens may feel a right to plunder the earthlings resources. nobsdon't bother me 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rob! You beat those commies at British Petroleum yet? Your question is moot; the bible doesn't mention 'extraterrestrial life' ergo there ain't any. Fact. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not suggesting such a thing as universal truth, are you? nobsdon't bother me 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
RobSmith AceX-102 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
What on earth are you whittering on about Rob? π is π no matter what planet you're from, as is the age of the universe, and the rates of radioactive decay. When these unfortunately facts conflict with a fairy-story-book-based alternative reality in which CP resides, we are treated to the kind of twaddle Unka' Ed posted on that talkpage. How's the creepy soft porn going anyway Rob? RobSmith DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(I still find the name "Nobs" hilarious). X Stickman (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The Stephen Hawking quote doesnt appear to have anything to do with 'facts', it just says that an alien race might feel free to plunder our resources - what has that got to do with POV, facts truth or whatever? Its just an extrapolation of the way human beings have acted towards other human beings historically.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
All replicators act that way historically. --Opcn (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
So, would WP's article on extraterrestiral life, citing Stephen Hawking's musings, fall within RW's purpose of "analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement and crank ideas?" (I notice RW dropped the "and people involved," probably trying to hold 501(c)3 status. If that's so, why do slanderous discussions continue on these pages about Ed, Ken or A Schlafly?) nobsdon't bother me 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Slander, eh? As is not-so-uncommonly stated by Conservapedians themselves, I would worry about what you and your "cohorts" are doing at your own website. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting updated on the Foundation, bylaws, and discussion surrounding the motivations of these activities. Seems you miss the point, why has the phrase, "and people involved" been edited out of RW's mission statements, yet the focus here remains more a forum designed to slander people than refute crank ideas? (Note: users thinking of running for Trustee need to begin thinking about monitoring thier behavior and examine the record of past conduct). nobsdon't bother me 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not welcome here if you're going to make the same kinds of sideways legal threats Terry made until he just came right out and said he was going to sue Trent. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 20:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
And, in any case, he's wrong. RW, more or less by definition, cannot slander anyone, owing to the definition of slander being defamation through speech. The term you're groping for is "libel"-- or, more broadly, "defamation". I'd like to see you successfully prosecute a libel suit, though. (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
the focus here remains more a forum designed to slander people - Wow, how can a CP admin say that of someone else with a straight face? RobSmith -- AceX-102 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Rob: I know - I simply felt like, out of fairness, giving the same reply that may be and has been in the past given to users who have bring up more "technical" problems of legal nature on Conservapedia. Here's another possibility of a reply that may be given: See if you can learn out to spell "their". ~SuperHamster Talk 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
What do imaginings about extraterrestrials have anything to do with universal constants such as radioactive decay rates? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Stalin. That's what. Vulpius (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RW mission statement and Rob[edit]

To address Rob: The change was made in 2008 for brevity and copy editing [5]. The word "people" can be assumed to still implicitly be apart of the mission statement and that is not changing.

Your concern about 501(c)(3) status is not black and white. I think there is an interesting legal question about whether or not material on a wiki run by a foundation can be used to void 501(c)(3) status. However, even if we are not interesting in being the test case non-profit does not equal 501(c)(3). We have multiple options, including not seeking tax exemption status and just paying corporate tax on our donations. Or seeking 501(c)(4) status. All of which is to say that our criticism and parody of individuals in the anti-science, anti-rational movements will not be phased or altered merely because of a legal restructuring of site management. tmtoulouse 21:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought RW was canadian --Opcn (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The server is in Canada because that is where I am living currently. However, I am a US citizen, with an intent to return to NM so that is where I will be incorporating. tmtoulouse 00:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of the tax exemption thing, I'd be amazed if there are ever enough donations to make a serious difference (assuming the corporate tax rate is fairly low). I assume though that there'll be the possibility of claiming back VAT on toys and stuff for the foundation, and hopefully that will outweigh having to pay tax on donations. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, no, we don't make enough to worry about exempt status. Exemption comes into play when examining other potential sources of support such as private, educational or outreach grants. One of the next steps is finding ways to make RW solvent without a constant need for me to funnel funds into it. tmtoulouse 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Hopefully with the foundation business there can be some kind of clear indicator as to how much cash the foundation has, and the costs of running it, which'll make it easier for us to know how much needs to go in there. The death of a rich relative might help, but not many of mine fit that bill (except for the dead part). Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

tmt, Thank you for the direct and timely response. I suppose my question is best described as one about transparency and disclosure. Do candidates for Trustee understand at this point in time the RW non-profit Foundation may never come into existence? nobsdon't bother me 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything may or may not happen. Perhaps my plane will crash on the way home, or I Jesus will appear to me on the road to the PRC asking why I persecute him and I will have a change of heart. However, there is a 95 percent chance that within the next 10 days the non-profit will be fully up and running. tmtoulouse 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"or I Jesus will appear to me on the road". It's nice to see the Christ come back to Earth to do something useful for a change. Sorry about the killing you thing. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Too bad he doesn't show up on film or I would get pictures. Or wait, is that vampires? I get them mixed up. tmtoulouse 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So, what is it? is it to be a non-profit or will the entity seek to be treated as a for-profit entity as you stated above? will revenue defer costs or is it a sham corporation never intended to produce profit and created solely to claim bogus deductions and protection from personal liability? do candidates running for office to manage this entity understand this is an undecided question? are liability issues being disclosed to candidates? etc. etc. nobsdon't bother me 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why a sham? "To solely to claim bogus deductions and protection from personal liability"...isn't that the textbook definition of a corporation? DickTurpis (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A for-profit entity must produce profit in two out of 5 years (for Schedule F filers, 2 out of 7). With losses (i.e. costs & deductions outsriping revenue) 3 years running, you then have to generate profit the remaining two years. What is the busines plan of the for-profit RW Foundation to produce profit? nobsdon't bother me 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your mixing up non-profit/for-profit, and tax exempt/non-exempt. A non-profit can be a 501(c)(3), but there are many other avenues that a non-profit can take. The foundation will be non-profit, the only open question is what kind of relationship the foundation will have with the IRS. Three main options:

  • 501(c)(3)-The Foundation is tax exempt and donations are tax deductible. However, this might impose limitations on the things the wiki can say about individuals running for office. Emphasize might.
  • 501(c)(4)-The Foundation is tax exempt but donations are not tax deductible. The only limitation on political activities, speech and lobbying is that it can not be the primary activity of the foundation.
  • No tax exempt status-The Foundation pays corporate tax on donations, and donations are not tax deductible. There are no practical limitations on political activities, speech or lobbying.

No one is running for the trustee positions yet, and won't be for at least 4 months. There is a small incorporating board, consisting of me, user:Human and user:Armondikov who are overseeing the creation of the foundation, the transition from sole proprietorship, and the establishment of by laws and election procedures and protocols for the full board. tmtoulouse 21:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The No tax exempt status (or for-profit) status would be either a C corp or S corp (the idea of an LLC was discarded, I presume). This entails shareholders. If some Board members also were shareholders, there may be disclosure requirements, at least to non-shareholder board members. nobsdon't bother me 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That's just not true. I don't know how to state this any clearer, a corporation can be non-profit without apply for tax exemption status. Non-profit is a state level designation that is completely separate from the IRS classification of exempt or non-exempt. tmtoulouse 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Can you provide a link to IRS or elsewhere giving more information? and I assume you're saying the corp files Form 1120 or 1120S. I've been vaguely familiar with tax law for nearly four decades and can't say I've heard of a non-profit S corp. nobsdon't bother me 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If we elected to not file for tax exemption we would file a form 990-PF [6]. Take note that the income level of RW isn't even high enough to require reporting at all. tmtoulouse 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Addendum, PF was the wrong designate, form 990, and 990-N would be what we file. It is hard to keep all the letters memorized. tmtoulouse 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, will review. 990's are a peculiar animal I've never read any IRS instructions or publications about. But I do know if you don't have an independent CPA prepare the return, you may recieve swift and strict scrutiny from the IRS. nobsdon't bother me 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
*RANDOM TANGENT!* Woah, you're thinking about heading back to New Mexico? I'm totally thinking about heading back there as well myself, in Albuquerque (like there is really anywhere else, am I right?) Let me know if you could use any real-world help or what not if it comes back to NM. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep good old Albuquerque. For now I am never back for longer than a week or two, but I only have a year or so left up here in Canada. After that I have to decide what to do and most of my family, friends, general support network is back in NM. If I could find a good post-doc position back home I would likely take which would mean RW moving there as well. tmtoulouse 09:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, since a corporation has to have a mailing address in the state, at the very least I might be able to offer that. Keep me apprised, and I'll be able to assist in any meatspace activities required... should I move back. (Right now, I'm in Seattle, unemployed, and living in a dead-end relationship as a house"wife". My family is back in NM. Just about all of my good friends are here, but really, they can only offer so much help.) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we can all get together at Kelly's Brew Pub for a Corona. [7] nobsdon't bother me 16:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Corona? Really? They have microbrews there. Imperial stout is good, Amber is my favorite, though the IPA is nice as well. Stay the hell away from their lagers and pilsners. tmtoulouse 17:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Marble Brewery [8] the bestest in town. nobsdon't bother me 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am happily willing to meet up for a brew anywhere in Albuquerque. However, note that I have always been clear and upfront that I am a completely broke poor person. So, either I'll just sit there and hang out, or someone else would have to pay for anything I get. (Better, if you have a job for me, I could then pay for my own stuff!) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Just so happens robsjobs is an entrepenuerial enterprize in the works (a job search service for computer illiterates) looking for work. Fortunately, with the job market forecasted to not return until the year 2013, we have much lead time in the planning & development phase. nobsdon't bother me 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I can't work at Microsoft due to legal issues, and that's about 90% of the job offers I get here. Seriously, it sucks a ton to have to answer every other recruiter with "I think I'm a perfect match for this offer, but I cannot take any work from Microsoft." --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me know if you do move back to Albuquerque, there are things that have to be done in-person and at the moment that will just involve me storing them all up and trying to get them done during holiday vacations. If you are back and willing I am sure there is a few things you could speed along greatly. But in the mean time I think I have a plan that should work. tmtoulouse 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, permanently no firm decision yet, but I'll definitely be back in NM in mid-August for a visit. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual out of the closet[edit]

There goes 3% of their edits. - π 06:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is JacobB not discussed? Are you not proud of yourselves? -- (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was going to post here eventually. I've been busy capturing several pages and edits of his. Mustn't let it all get lost from history from the wrath of deletion and oversights. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure Jacob is one of us. Well, he was a former user named User:Zelmerszoetrop. AceX-102 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Could be this guy User:Zoetrope but anyway, it proves what we knew all along. Jacob = obvious parodist. AceX-102 04:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I find it to be quite humorous how it takes them all so long to undo the damage Jacob has done. His damage is still present, even on the main page (which, for whatever reason, Andy didn't restore mainpageright, and instead just removed the template and re-did the layout organization). ~SuperHamster Talk 05:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth me uploading screenshots of Jacob's talk page and his archives to RationalWiki since they're being deleted as we speak, just for the sake of having them available? ~SuperHamster Talk 05:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what's the rumpus? Have a lot of his edits been oversighted? I see he blocked TK, what else did he do? Was there a Parthian? And yes, by all means save and upload what you can. DickTurpis (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd offer a summary of what he did here, but I already offered a small briefing on his article. He basically announced that he was leaving and that Conservapedia sucks on his userpage (along with throwing a few lines at TK), then proceeded to delete several pages and issue several blocks. Then Andy came and revoked all his rights, along with blocking him. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That's awesome. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)--
I had hoped he would make a push to the right as his exit strategy. --Opcn (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
What does the section title have to do with Jacob? Did he say something about being gay? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
He could have at least unblocked my account he blocked 6 months ago. Dick.Senator Harrison (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled onto Conservapedia right in the middle of the whole affair and happened to keep the "Recent Changes" page left open in a tab before they started the burn. I've got my own print-screen of the tab, comments and all, but by the time I thought about using RW's capture most of the goodies had already been removed. Looking at the file upload, I gather I need to make another 10 edits before I get upload pivs? Aslate (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's actually 20 edits to be able to upload images. Note that all his blocks and deletions can be viewed in his log; they may be hidden from the recent changes, but they're there. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For the love of god someone with some wikifu please wigo this --Opcn (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When Douglas Adams quits I really hope that he waits until 4 in the morning, screenshots himself for us, and does it by unblocking everyone he can.--Opcn (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh goody. Maybe now Terry and John will stop spreading scurrilous rumours about dear, sweet, innocent, angelic Kotomi. --PsyGremlinTala! 05:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

{ud} I have to laugh at Karajerk's indignation as he deletes Jacob's user page. "You've really, REALLY, proved beyond all doubt what we've been saying about liberals all along." What point is that Koward? That my kissing Andy's ass and acting like a playground bully you get welcomed into the inner sanctum of CP, despite everybody yelling "PARODIST!" How does the saying go? "Fool me once..." --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Karajou: All you did, JacobB, was to prove our point. You've really, REALLY, proved beyond all doubt what we've been saying about liberals all along I think you missed the point Karajou - what happened here was proving the point about TK and CP. JacobB was a known parodist but, being a little lickspittle, no one cared. AceX-102 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, Karajou, TK knew JacobB was a parodist and Jacob advertised the fact here, on RW. AceX-102 06:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote TK:

The latest news on Jacob is the RW Admin "<name withheld>" contacted me, and he is in possession of emails from me and Andy sent to JacobB. Nothing really confidential, or damaging, but still shows he was playing footsie for some reason. <name withheld> claims he was Rat user who has blanked his pages, and at one time offered to sell his blocking account. Who knows if this is true. So long as his edits and behavior at CP are good, I don't know if we should do anything.....

(TZB 1/3/2010 "JacobB - the next Sysop?") So despite all that, you still promoted him. --PsyGremlinParlez! 06:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They were told Bugler was a parodist before hand, that let TK back in despite reservations, Andy is too pig-headed to listen to anyone else. Why aren't you blogging about this? - π 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Erg... because I've been awake for 36 hours and need a far more ordered brain before waxing lyrical on the whole shenanigan. --PsyGremlinParlez! 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't you sleeping then? - π 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Because I've been a naughty happy shiny boy and sleep is out of the question for a few hours yet. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
the funniest thing about this was Ken's response. He didn't block Jacob nor restore any of the deleted items except for his Machismo essays. Again, this just shows the real concerns of the CP admins. None of them give a fuck. AceX-102 06:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
JacobB was the guy who made my life miserable on that site before I gave up on the whole thing. I admit I feel rather vindicated now this has all come out. :) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the math course is off? What a pity! So, we have to wait for cp:Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Mathematics Lectures... Was "JacobB" member of the current Conservapedia:Zeuglodon Blues? larronsicut fur in nocte 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Given their raging paranoia, I doubt any newcomers will be welcomed that far in again, after Philip and Tim came out as filthy liberals. Despite you-know-who leaking their private conversations left, right and centre, of course. By implication, the means that there's probably exactly the same members in TZB as in the even-more-soopah-seekrit cp-fab-five group. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Mainpage is still fucked. Nice work Z. AceX-102 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No Andy is in the middle of "improving" it. Instead of sandboxing it he is doing it live, but it is late so he has gone to bed. He has left it looking like shit as he has removed the "better" stuff and left the mental diarrhea is Ken's contributions to the left hand side. - π 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just a great story to wake up to on a rainy Sunday morning. I look forward to hours of wasted time reading more paranoid gibberish from the pack of unevolved chimps over there. DogPMarmite Patrol 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated TZB archive please! EddyP (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh, Mainpageright is still nuked. Not sure whether to congratulate Jacob on trolling (by deleting it) or TK on trolling even harder (by not restoring it) there. And yes, I'd love to go through a new SDG/TZB archive! Even though it should be less fun than those since the "voices of reason" are gone by now, so it'd be a full echo chamber with little actual discussion. --Sid (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit to add: When I wrote the above, I hadn't thought of the database concerns addressed in the section below. --Sid (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC)As fun as it is to watch some of them scramble around with post hoc justifications (he proved their point about liberals? But didn't clearly prove everyone elses point about gullibility?) it is a bit sad that yet another one has turned out to be fake and they're again looking at this site as if it was "our" fault. It's starting to get quite tiresome. There is a sizeable (and increasing) part of RW that wants to have nothing more to do with Conservapedia other than to treat it as another source of "income", on par with WND or the Daily Mail or whatever. I have to urge anyone who considers themselves to be an RW user - as opposed to a CP parodist who also has an RW account - to cease any parody or vandalism (although I'm pretty sure very few, if any, people do it any more) and let them tear themselves apart. There are no points left to be made. We get it. Andy is not going to learn to be suspect of people who kiss his ass constantly. TK is not going to go anywhere. CP is just going to dry up and be a forgotten dreg of the internet pretty soon, it's already in its death thralls, enjoy it by all means, but I think distant observation and a quiet "we told you so" is better than the sad life of living behind proxies and fake names and personalities and the degree of piss-headed victimisation you need to have in order to fit in there. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put Ard. That's the most lucid post I've read in this thread. This is not to rubbish the work of parodists. Parodists are funny, but watching the genuine nutjobs stew in their own juices is much funnier.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but you ignore the fact that biggest parodist of all is still there. Hi, Terry Koeckritz. Wave.gif  Lily Inspirate me. 13:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A bit late to the party, but yeah, even the most dedicated parodist couldn't match the genuine insanity that Andy and Ken produce on a regular basis. So Jacob managed to sneak some misinformation into their math articles and probably the CBP as well, big deal. CP's credibility has already been thoroughly destroyed, and nobody will use it as a reference source for either (or any) topic anyway. The only effect all this hard work will have will be a minor inconvenience for Andy, whose poor judgement has been exposed once again, but he'll never learn and just go on to promote the next suck-up that comes along. Also, any parodist who wants to get that far will have to emulate the leading bigots and engage in some pretty dickish behaviour of his own. Bullying new editors who might be acting in good faith in order to score points on CP isn't right, even if they're naive for giving CP a try and would get into trouble with some other sysop sooner or later anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: what's going on with mainpageright? Why can't they simply undelete it? On another note, why did it suddenly become sane? The first 2 news stories were actually *gasp* news stories, not contrived attacks on liberals. What is going on? DickTurpis (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I gathered, the undeletion issue is tied to how MediaWiki handles this in terms of database operations. Deleting and undeleting very large (in terms of edit count) pages tends to grind the entire system to a screeching halt. Somebody here once deleted WIGO/TWIGO, and restoring it took a good while (and some backstage mojo by our big guns). Other notable cases from Wikipedia (a site that has more resources than RW or CP, which illustrates just how bad this problem is): "Don't delete the main page" and Ed Poor making the news for deleting VfD (complete with note of the database shock). At the moment, Wikipedia even has a special user right for this called "bigdelete" ("delete pages with over 5,000 revisions") which is reserved to Stewards only. On CP, Mainpageright has been edited several times each day for a long time, so... --Sid (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. Seems it would be worth it to them, though. I mean, it's not like there's enough going on over there that things coming to a halt for a while would disrupt anything other than Ken's tweaking of his Dawkins/Machismo essay. But it's their call. DickTurpis (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The mainpage being half blank is actually a great improvement. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, Andy and Ken noticed the appalling lack of mildly amusing idiocy on mainpageright and ameliorated the situation. Seriously, how can a company - let alone an oil company - be liberal? Röstigraben (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that in AndyLand, everything good is conservative, everything conservative is good, and everything that's not conservative is liberal. Now... would you call BP and its handling of its catastrophe "good"? No? Then you got your answer. ;) --Sid (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EZ edit button[edit]

What even happened over there? Their logs only show some articles and templates getting restored, but not whatever it is JacobB did. No deletions, no blocks, no parting shot, nothing. Does anyone have better screenshots, etc? Since I do see the restorations but not the deletions it's obvious Andy Schlafly manually oversighted the logs. I didn't know they could do that. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They're still there... Block Log and Delete Log --Sid (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB claims innocence[edit]

Emailed JacobB since I still had his email address from our correspondence and he claims that his account was hijacked. He stated he and TK discussed it at length on how this supposed miscarriage of justice occurred (IP hijacking he claims). He then stated there is little he can do until the investigation is over, but he has little to clear his name. The question being, is he being honest or just trying to play parodist still? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oof. It's of course possible that he victim to phishing or something and that somebody took over his account. I honestly doubt it, but it's technically possible. If the whole "I was TK's pawn" angle is true, it's of course also possible that Andy is finally starting to see the light (unlikely) and is now breathing down TK's neck (unlikely), forcing TK to engage in damage control by declaring the entire thing a hack attack. Or it's simply Jacob yanking CP's chain some more by making them ask themselves "...what if we were wrong...?". I dunno. But I'm fairly sure that Andy won't buy any hacker story unless TK personally vouches for it - and if he does, it'll say a lot about the big picture. --Sid (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see the weakness in your argument. "ask themselves '...what if we were wrong...?'". When exactly has Andy ever asked himself that question? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If Jacob planned it well - e.g. used a different IP for the betrayal - then he could get unblocked. But I doubt that he would receive his rights back. — Unsigned, by: EddyP / talk / contribs
I ain't buying it. But I will say this, it is odd that no one one this site has come forward as JacobB. I really doubt a parodist that heavily into his role and so completely emersed in the CP universe couldn't at least have a passing association with RW, or be a regular reader. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect anyone to own up to being JacobB. People may do their own thing at CP, but it's not really done to go bragging about it here.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
More confessing than bragging, I'd think. Bugler fessed up pretty quickly as I recall. They usually have a story to tell, and I'd like to hear it. DickTurpis (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Some people don't want it known who they were, or still are on CP. The reasons go a bit deeper than just wanting bragging rights. JacobB may have been a parodist, or may not. His account could have been compromised. If so, it could have been hijacked by TK for his own nefarious purposes. Questions for Jacob: did you at any point in time during the past year, ever "share" a password to anything with TK, for the purpose of "testing" or "verifying" something? Did you ever get a suspicious email purportedly from CPWebmaster or Andy or another sysop at CP asking for account information? Did you verify it actually came from that person? Are CP passwords encrypted in the database in a way that someone with the abilities can extract them? TK is going to use this to push his own agenda. What he wants is what he's always wanted: more power. Bureaucrat status. The ability to make and de-sysop other admins. Access to the database. Flagged revisions that only he can approve. TK's been working a long time towards these goals. He's been moving slowly ever closer to Andy, increasing his trust and dependency on him. He's been cultivating the other admins friendship and trust, while working behind the scenes to discredit them. He's been creating "situations" to cast doubt on other admins. How soon Andy et al forget how he opened the first private CP sysop discussion group to the public after he was removed from CP, exposing the CP Sysops private information... yet they still trust him? Even after they became aware that he created several RW accounts, including E.Wig, and NightTrain, (and more) and made his own private insider groups and a board to plan how to take down CP. He's also passed along many messages and IM conversations from CP admins and their "private" sysop groups to RW members, and so much more that isn't generally known and can't be told at this time. Andy, you were clued in long ago to what TK is and what his plan is, and chose to ignore it. You could have removed him from a position of power and trust long ago. Now it is too late. So tell me, has anything strange been happening at CP? Has TK taken over corresponding with blocked users so that you never have to be "bothered" by them or even see emails from them? Are messages from your private Z.Blues and cp-fab-five sysop groups "somehow" still being leaked? Is editing strangely disabled at times and no one can figure out who is doing this? Does TK attempt to cast suspicion on other admins? Have you increased TK's "abilities" while decreasing other admin's yet the problems persist? Your wiki is almost dead. TK will soon drive the final nails in the coffin of what was once Conservapedia. All that will be left to say is, see now? it was TK. Told you so. Fred4T (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"and so much more that isn't generally known and can't be told at this time." Funneeze. (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)