Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive190

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <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)

Some 3 AM thoughts on kenservative Ed poor

• (Given that the edit in question was by Ed, and not Ken)

3:04 now just found this so in Kendy-land all bad people are haz teh gay, and all evilutionists are haz teh nazi, so bad evilutionists like teh dawkinz and teh peezed are tah gay nazis so they should be butch, ultra-macho, but they aren't, so that is another failing on their part. Sorry for the lolcatz grammar, not looking forward to getting up in an hour and standing in the river all day with a net hoping for salmon to swim into it. -- You can has the Opcn (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? On what planet was homosexuality supported by the Nazi party?!?!? ^theist 11:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll say it, "do Nazis have machismo?" ^theist 11:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the pope shit in the woods? --Opcn (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody notice that this edit about butch Nazi homosexuals wasn't made by Ken, but rather... by Uncle Ed? Heck, this is a homosexuality article Ken hasn't even touched. What bizarro world is this? --Sid (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there something on CP a while back about some high-ranking Nazis actually secretly being gay, or was that in some other, equally deluded part of the internet that I'm getting confused with CP? 92.7.31.84 (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Answering myself here, but nope, it was a book by some dude named Scott Lively - The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. 92.7.31.84 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if someone already has captured that, but I feel its necessary preserve it for the ages^img Ricardo Altamirano ^Talk 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lively's book has been used as a reference in the Gay/Nazi articles, though those references are not really explicit. Right now, two references in cp:Homosexuals and the Holocaust and two references in cp:Homosexuality in Nazi Germany are basically that one book. They are a collection of praising reviews for the book, "The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party" (used in both CP articles - it's an article that defends and repeats the book's claims, explicitly using it as a source) and finally "Homosexuality and the Nazi Party" by Lively himself, which seems to be an excerpt or summary of the book. Ed has even been called out on using the book so often as a source. --Sid (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I really like how he compares himself to strider the ranger in that last edit. --Opcn (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember when Ed was trying to prove that it was possible for a Nazi to sodomise 100 boys per day. Ace^X-102 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask how he proposed to test that hypothesis. Röstigraben (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Opcn, I don't even know what to think of that diff, except to gag a bit. What are the chances that CP is now the world's biggest clearinghouse for salacious information random lies about homosexuality? ħuman 02:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Ed would know the difference between "swish" and "butch" homosexuals. And yes, while there were homosexuals in the Brown Shirts (Ernst Roehm for one), given what happened to them in the Night of the Long Knives, I'd hardly call it "supporting" homosexuality. Not to mention the pink triangle (or is that a myth). --PsyGremlinParla! 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Macho and butch Nazi homos sitting across the aisle from each other in the Bratwurstglockl. Stockings and negligees covered by pink vinyl raincoats on one side, assless leather chaps and leather vests on the other. Roehm and Hitler sipping cosmos. Good stuff. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Larron, I don't think it will work

This does very effectively show that he forced the fit^img but that doesn't really matter because he knows that he forced the fit^img he freely admits it^img What he doesn't understand is what is wrong with it --Opcn (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls excuse Opcn - I messed with your wp link. 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)It's been reverted now anyway (as any criticism of CP = 'trolling'), after being up for a mere 40 minutes. I hope someone reverts it back, as I'd love to see the Assfly bollocks himself in circles trying to defend his 'insight'. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Fly himself has re-reverted! Maybe JacobB is having an effect. EddyP (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just a try. It will take me a couple of days to answer to Aschlafly, I've to get to an unblocked computer while the public editing window is open at CP... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Point out to Andy how the "Conservapedia's Law" fails absolutely on the 50 and 25 year interval. It won't convince him, but I'd love to hear the rationalizations that would follow. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF does this mean: "Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century." Am I reading correctly that he doesn't understand what selection bias is? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that between KHamilton and JGHuston and CJHallock I raised just about every objection to the BNCW project that could be raised.--Opcn (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: 1. Andy crows that liberals cannot find fault with his findings. 2. A person (who MUST be liberal because he disagrees with Andy) posts a reasonable explanation of why Andy pulled his numbers out of his arse. 3. Said poster gets reverted and blocked for trolling. 4. Goto step 1. What a bunch of fucking numpties. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia attempts satire

http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_The_overwhelming_proof_and_evidence_for_evolution

They could at least make fun of the evidence that is there, I mean I know it's hard to make it seem like the evidence for evolution isn't evidence at all but they could at least try.

Poor effort, 0/10. Raging (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how he "just completed" it twice, a few days apart. --Opcn (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What an astonishingly ignorant prick. Someone sock up and edit in a list of transitional fossils, some basics on DNA sequencing, and maybe the Lenski experiment for good measure. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Errm. We've got a fair-few articles that are just tumbleweed, including Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax and of God's existence, List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence, and list of scientifically controlled double blind_studies which have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathy to name but three. CS Miller (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The tumbleweeds also appear in several other articles in certain sections, such as the "Fair and honest things done by TK" section in Conservapedia:TK. That makes it all the better; it just shows how Ken has no sense of original creativity whatsoever. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The older tumbleweeds with cricket sound was a bit more amusing as well, and in our context, they're at least bound to some form of reality. The wording used in titles is a bit lest solid (or those articles are tagged as challenge articles for anyone to write). If evidence is somehow discovered, it would probably be listed here. On the other hand, the titles used on Conservapedia could cause things to backfire (e.g. saying the tumbleweed is atheist art - it is, since it represents time slipping away and nothing happening), and prohibits people from saying that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deathwatch

Conservapedia now has fewer monthly contributors and fewer monthly article edits than they had before March 2007, i.e. before anybody outside of Andy's classroom had ever heard about them. They still have slightly more activity than back then if you count one-edit trollerers and main page blog posts. I'm tempted to change my mirror updates from weekly to daily because they're essentially free now. I'm also tempted to discontinue my mirror updates altogether because, really, who gives a fuck anymore. mb 09:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. I gave up my Google alert on Citizendium because their decline was so tedious and the only alerts were spammers reusing their text ... then they went all attacking zombie and are amusing now - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall saying that his encyclopedia was nearing completion, which would explain the low edits. In step with conservative values, they don't mess with perfection. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

nuther parody?

I've started dissecting their Easter island article at Conservapedia:Easter Island (incomplete - there are still some howlers I haven't pointed out yet), then I thought I might be exposing another parodist, then I read some more of their site and decided I can't tell the difference between the parodists and the nutcases. Have they started getting attacks from the right wing press for bringing conservatism into disrepute? WSC (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a parody. Like much of Conservapedia it's a poorly written hotch-potch of facts and conjecture which will probably just sit and fester in perpetuity unless it attracts the attention of new parodists. It does nothing to enhance CP but it wouldn't matter much if it was deleted. I don't think it even merits an analysis here, but don't let me be the one who rains on your parade.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There's been a little criticism of CP on the fringes of the right wing press, to the extent Whirled Nutz Daily counts. Other than that you'll NEVER see Conservapedia mentioned in real conservative sources like the CS Monitor, American Spectator, National Review, or the Weekly Standard because to do so would be to normalize what apparently even the Tea Party people think is fringe nonsense. To the extent anyone on CP even talks substantively about politics (not their typical rants, but thoughtful argument that's not merely by assertion) it's a real anomaly. Most of what you see is fallacy upon fallacy, arguments by assertion predicated on open lies or just absolutely nutters assumptions, Andy's insane rambling about "conservative words" and his anti-science screeds, Ken's YEC silliness, etc. No stranger from any political affiliation could possibly look at that website and think "I'm home." And since CP's bizarre fringe focuses aren't what makes real conservatives tick, who sadly really are a dying if not dead breed in this country, no mainstream intellectuals or even a poseur like Hannity or Beck would bother with CP. Nobody but people on the web with nothing better to do like us, the momentarily curious like PZ Myer's readers in the Machismo Thread, and fringe-dwellers like creationists would. It's sad being in the same boat as a scumbag like Philip Rayment, but we are to the extent we give or gave two shits about CP. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the history suggests that the article was a student's contribution. It certainly reads like it, due to the factual inaccuracies and the awkward writing. It hasn't been touched since March '08, when Joaquin Martinez added a wikilink; the last edit prior to that was in May '07. So no, it's not parody, just an artifact of a more innocent time in CP's history. Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

omg squee

richard dawkins supporters are teh cute!!

Am I the only one who has a slightly different definition of "Essay"? --Maquissar (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Moved to "Essay: Richard Dawkins' intellectually starving atheist supporters"^img with the redirect deleted.) Yes, Ken's recent "essays" really make one wonder. Then again, it's a refreshing break from his usual, uber-verbose style that led to the unreadable trio of monster articles (Homosexuality, Evolution, Atheism). And HOLY CRAP THAT CAT IS THE CUTEST THING EVER! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! --Sid (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I CAN HAZ HOMEZCHOOLIN'? --Maquissar (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If kitteh beleevz in relijin, he pray for cheezburger, and get none. If kitteh is non-beleevr, kitteh gets cheezburger himself. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies for an essay in Andy's homeskool class. Vulpius (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Your essay doesn't criticise Obama, minus 2. 48/50" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Kitteh does not look ravenous, kitteh looks cute. Surely Ceiling Kitteh will provide for kitteh? ħuman 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on it - that looks suspiciously like Basement Cat. 92.18.72.100 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

KITTEH KITTEH KITTEH!!! YAY! I wanna be a Richard Dawkin's fan now. You know, except that half of what he says turns out to be antagonistic crap, but I could still pick out the good stuff. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As they say, twice is tragedy and thrice is comedy...

So JacobB finally outs himself. What how many deep cover parodists does this make now? MexMax, Bugler... I know there have been more but I can't name them off the top of my head. - Tygrehart

See Conservapedia:Parodist. alt (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

These parodists revealing themselves have no effect at all on Andy, it seems. But can he really just ignore someone he made a sysop making such statements about him and the project? I don't see how he can make this mistake over and over again and never apologize for the damage that has been done to a project so many people have worked on. Is it just that he sees it as his project, so no-one but him should care? I know none of you are Andy, but I'm really at a loss as to what goes on in his mind whenever this happens.-- JArneal 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is we frequently mention which users are known parodists and RobS, TK and Ken all read RW but not one of them does a thing. And when Jacob came out Ken did nothing but restore his own stuff, he didn't even block Jacob. Say what you like about RW but it is obvious very few CP sysop care about the project outside of there pet projects. Ace^X-102 08:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB WIGO

"Long-term suspected parodist." Haven't we always known this account to belong to a parodist? Or do we have to keep "suspected" in there, as evidence was never made public? SJ ^Debaser 23:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there's little point in keeping it private now. I know BMcP says he's trying to get back in, but really if they let him back after all that, whatever proof anybody here has won't change their minds. So what was this evidence that people have had all along? HoorayForSodomy (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knew - even TK. Ace^X-102 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to like totally get with the programme! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence consisted of some very good cross-wiki sleuthing and some unlikely coincidences. EddyP (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

An email circulated in November last year with what Eddy correctly describes as cross-wiki sleuthing, which basically linked a few accounts together. SJ ^Debaser 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gambling Time

We should start a pool on who comes out of the closet next. My money's on Jpatt. Fedhaji (Talk) 09:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Aschlafly - reading his edits he's got to be a parodist. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DouglasA is the same vintage as JacobB and may even be the same person. After that it's DaniellePutito and TZoran, both even more obvious choices than DouglasA. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think TZoran overstepped the mark when he deleted larron's "diatribe" from the New Conservative Words talk page. So he may be a parodist, but then he may also be PCHS-NJROTC on WP who has been a staunch pro-CP editor tag-teaming with TK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that PCHS guy was DMorris on CP, though maybe he's Tzoran too. My money's on Douglas next though. --MarkGall (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see Tyler Zoran (he uses his full name in his sig) also has a Creationwiki acc. I dunno how active he is, cos I still get the "This Connection is Untrusted" message. So he might be the real deal, or going the extra mile to create bona fides. That said, I have 100 internets and a night with the llama of your choice, that Douglas will be next. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"may even be the same person" - I'm not at liberty to disclose details, but I have it on verrry good authority that Jacob is more than one person. The account has had different drivers, as it were, at different times. At least one other popular conservative sysop is an outright community sock. I would not bet a lot of money on TK not being involved in some casual sockuppery every now and then. mb 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB was a meat-puppet, yes. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Jacob was an account used by different users wouldn't the varying ip addresses arouse suspicion? Let's not pretend they don't checkuser anyone and everyone over there. DickTurpis (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they checkuser everything that moves at least once every two weeks, but not all IPs are static and not all people spend their entire life in the same town using the same provider. Also, proxies. mb 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I remind you of my Parody Pool - which does what it says on the tin! Also, my next bet was JacobB (as evidenced in my pool ;) - not that I can claim that as any major success but eh. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Problem Is...

That Andy is so completely wrapped up in his worldview that he is incapable of learning the lessons he should from parodists. A sane person would say, "hey, I've been repeatedly victimized by parodists. Perhaps I should re-think how I run this site." But Andy just considers it more evidence of liberal deceit and continues on till he gets fooled again. And again. And again. MDB (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance, clearly. He won't learn because that would require quite a major upheaval in the way he thinks; not a particularly likely memetic mutation, really. So in come the post hoc rationalisations that say he was right all along. People "coming out" isn't going to teach him, it's going to reinforce him. ^theist 07:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

CP's favourite parole officer...

... has taken things into his experienced hands! *LOL* larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing investigation? Looks like the ruse is working. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the discussion group...EddyP (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oooooo! He restored his user page! Gee, Geoff, that does a lot, considering he's still blocked. DickTurpis (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re. Fly on wall and ongoing investigation: Geo mostly means well - he's just somewhat impressionable and doesn't really fight back much when he's slapped around. Remember, when the Night of the Blunt Knives went down, it was he who came to the CP Column to justify the blocks, and he even said he'd look into the block reasons. But then TK slapped him around in the SDG, scolding him for even talking to RW people. The result? Geo returned to the CP Column, dishing out insults and leaving people hanging.

Re. Restoring: It seems he just doesn't realize he can look at the deleted revisions without restoring the entire thing. Or something. His second restore action restored fewer revisions than the first one, which strikes me as him working his way through the history. But who knows what he's really up to. --Sid (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please prove JacobB was a "known parodist"

Obviously you all knew he was, so prove it. 72.55.213.202 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who are saying he is a known parodist I'd imagine are personally aware of things like him having offered the account to the person who could guess the username and when nobody wanted it taking the account back to start his campaign of being a raging asshole to CP users all and sundry. There's other stuff, but I could really care less about JacobB anymore after telling TK about his status resulted in TK supporting him for admin. If these are the people running CP, we don't need parodists, and we sure as shit don't need people causing trouble over there. The admin there are awful to each other and the site suffers for their bad judgment and pettiness. I would have left them to themselves, but whatever. JacobB did what he did after CP admin were made aware of the situation. I've got nothing else to share. Suffice it to say that if you know you know, and if you don't nobody here's going out of their way to prove anything to you. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed it multiple times in the private Rationalwiki IRC channel and on our Google Groups group. It's invitation only, and there are no logs, however. If you weren't there, you wouldn't know. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And text messages, Skype, carrier pigeons, and shortwave. Just sayin'.

You can find the proof here

Just take a look at the What Is Going On at CP page. One WIGO calls JacobB the "Resident Parodist", another "our favourite parodist". One says "A parodist helps the parodist" after Jacob unbans ReligiousRight. Take a look at Conservapedia:Timeline. The article calls him "suspected known parodist". All these were written before he confessed. If you search the archives of this Talk page you'll find numerous occasions of people calling him a parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One can't prove that someone is a parodist, or prove that he isn't—it's a state of mind, and it's meaningless as an objective evaluation. Unless one puts in obvious parody, which I don't think Jacob ever did. People at RW often use the word "parodist" to mean "someone who behaves weirdly, or not in a manner consistent with the goals of CP." Jacob certainly satisfied that criterion.

On another matter, that was raised above: I have watched the math articles, especially Jacob's math articles, about as closely as anyone. The suspicion raised several paragraphs above, that Jacob had put in a lot of mathematical parody that needs to be reverted, is just not correct. It's too bad that he wrecked everything, but what he wrote on math was sensible. (Astronomy is another matter! Right, BMcP?) In fact, I exchanged private email with Andy (yes, I do that occasionally!) on this very point, assuring him that Jacob's math edits were fine. Andy thanked me, and said that only those last few edits were removed. SamHB (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was also a bit surprised by the claim to have inserted nonsense in the math articles (and I too sent Andy a note asking that they be spared deletion!). By no means did I scrutinize every math edit Jacob made, but the ones I did read seemed to be entirely sane -- I'd like to think that if he were systemically inserting nonsense I would've noticed. Maybe there are lies here and there but on the whole he did good stuff. The calculus lectures look fairly well thought-out, if a bit half-assedly executed. Perhaps one of the account's handlers, who was not the math editor, posted the resignation assuming there was more math disinformation than there really was, and now someone else is trying to get it back. Who knows. --MarkGall (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear BoN. I've seen through your clever little plan. You're hoping that somebody is going to put their hand up and say "Me!", which will allow you arseholes at CP to bleat about how RW is trying to destroy you. However, because we can spot the new editors acting exactly the way Andy wants people to act (i.e. kiss his ass at every opportunity and act like a small-minded bully to everybody else) it's fairly easy to spot the parodists. However, given that all the sysops do do is kiss Andy's ass and act like a close-minded bully to everybody else, it's impossible for you lot to identify him, because he's blended in so well. Bugler, RodWeathers and Jacob are prime examples. But then again, looking at the actions I've described, so are TK, Karajerk, Ed Poor, TZoran... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a point there Psy. Compare how those upstarts, just by using ingratiating, bully-boy tactics, managed to worm their way into positions of authority and power (OK, so some blew it at the last) while the likes of Iduan, HelpJazz, Brianco were hounded out despite their good work because they really weren't unpleasant enough. Then sysops like DanH, CPAdmin1 and PJR all left because of TK's bully-boy tactics. At one time CP was active with people who knew a bit about running a proper wiki. Andy, however, with his own loopy worldview poisoned by WormTongue's backdoor communications, has imprisoned himself and his coterie on an island which nobody can get to, and from which they yell puerile insults at the world passing them by. P.S. I think our BoN questioner is really RobS.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The arguments in the Astronomy articles was to me, more of a dedication to the YEC Cosmology, mixed with arrogance that often comes with fundamentalism, rather then parody. Later, after I left, all the purging from the astronomy articles of distances greater then 6,000 light years away to me was plain sucking-up to Andy in hopes of receiving his blessings. Yeah, parodists do this also, but so do fundamentalists, as their ideology is so heavily based in authoritarianism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. He was a "known parodist" for no tangible reasons you can cite. Perfect. 72.55.213.202 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your point Rob? We've given you plenty of info that illustrated he was a parodist. There's even an email from Terry quoted above in which he says he knows JacobB wasn't quite kosher. If by proof you want us to name names, that ain't going to happen, because we don't know. However, you're the self-proclaimed director of counter intelligence - you find it out. Or is this just CP's way of whinging about "RW are lying, just because they call somebody a parodist and we're too stupid to see it." Remember this - we called Bugler a parodist and were right; we called RodWeathers a parodist and were right, we called Jabob - ditto. The only one that was never called was Jess, because she wasn't, but was hounded out because in CP-logic a good and bad editor can't come from the same country. Oh yes, and her and Jallen kept calling TK on his bullshit. Which is why he ran to Ed, who ran to Andy bitching that TK was being badmouthed. Aw! Poor widdle TK. Except that gave TK (who is a parodist) an excuse to use her name to leak the ZB stuff. That's why his name appears on top of all the mails. Would you like to see the e-mail from him, where he gave me the link to to the download site, so I could put it on my blog? Now then Rob, who are we going to call next - and what will you do about it? --PsyGremlinTala! 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is seens as a parodist, as his behaviour parodies the typical behaviour of the worst bullies at Conservapedia:

• he committed the most obvious acts of plagiarism
• his use of the oversight tool is excessive and petty, thereby ridiculously orwellian: sysops aren't wrong
• Andy should take a look at which administrator enables the night editing mode - and for how long. I wouldn't be surprised if JacobB were one of the main users of this feature...

That said

• there isn't much wrong with his mathematical articles. He only runs into problem when he has to apply Andy's nuttier concepts (as avoiding the satanic imaginary numbers)
• As long as we have cp:Center - and cp:Axiom of Choice, how can there be parody?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob, please login before you post. We knew JacobB was a parodist as he was a communist plant sent from Obama's mosque and funded by British Petroleum. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Story of the Adulteress

What does this obsession say about Andy's home life? St Augustines thoughts are enlightening:

Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin." [1] ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.16.215 / talk / contribs}

St. Augustine was a badass muthafucka. He kinda hated actors, though, so I have mixed feelings... -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that outside the gospels the New Testament is not the word of Jesus but interpretations by followers, then if they also thought that it is Christian to forgive the sins of an adultress (not an adulterer mind you as they get away with it anyway) then the story is just as valid as anything else in the Bible no matter when it was added. Of course for conservative Biblical-literalists it is an aid to their own agenda to cast doubt on the liberal bits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I will grant Andy one thing... he's one of the few Biblical fundamentalist who will openly say "there's parts of the Bible I don't care for and I'm going to ignore them." Most other fundamentalists just gloss over the parts they dislike; Andy, at least, openly declares he doesn't believe in them. MDB (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it and the bolded quoted bit sums it up perfectly. Andy has probably told his wife all about how the story is a fake. Or she cheated on him. Or both. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Augustine never said that. It's a liberal addition to his sayings. X Stickman (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost had a brain aneurysm.

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Almost had a brain aneurysm.13:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's new play thing

I guess Ken

's new Satire of Atheism^img page provides his easily distracted mind with a new pet project of irrelevance. This particular projects though may much more suited to his abilities, since it requires minimal work as the page is simply a collection of links that Ken

no doubt collected over the years.  It sure beats the much higher levels of dedication and work his previously ambitious but now all but abandoned projects would require.  After all, who hears anything about the "Conservapedia Anti-abortion Project" anymore?  How about that "Conservapedia Anti-socialism Project", which has since been removed from the mainpage?  Even his Magnum Opus, the "Richard Dawkins Project" consists mostly of red links, with only the  MA-CHEESE-MO "essay" receiving any substantial attention, and that is mostly to advertise his lack of wikifu skills through the haphazard placement of images. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Satire. You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, hey! That mother fucker stole our tumbleweed! This is an outrage. He should only reimplement our ideas with low quality gifs stolen from the interwebs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For real lols read the Satire on Evolution section, just poorly drawn cartoons, Ken

being a crackpot on Flicker, and lame demotivational posters.  Also I thought CP doesn't link to pages with Offensive Language, or does Ken

not know where "Circle Jerk" comes from?

how is the Atheist Missionary cartoon a satire?--Opcn (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please guys, you are only encouraging the afflicted to make bigger a fool of himself. He obviously reads us and is probably wetting his pants with glee at the attention so spare a thought for his poor, aged mother who has to do his laundry.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lord man... GET. HELP!! ^theist 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue drawing attention to Ken

's antics, he is the only reason that place is even interesting now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm...Ken? What the hell is this? Röstigraben (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem with perfection or how to count words....

Lately, I became a little bit involved in the science of counting conservative words. Remember? Aschlafly announced:

PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY

We completed the perfect doubling by century for Best New Conservative Terms by adding this term invented in 1914: "Founding Fathers."

The reason for this announcement is the little table

Century	# New Conservative Terms	Most Prolific Periods
1600s	20	period following publication of KJV
1700s	40	Great Awaken., Am. Revol., Const. Conv.
1800s	80	1820s - political transition and conflict
1900s	160	1940s - WWII and postwar transition
2000s	13 (preliminary)

Only problem: Taking the list of conservative words and actually counting them, yields the following

century	1600s	1700s	1800s	1900s	2000s
words	20	40	81	150	14

(here a sortable list, do your own recount :-)

This shows the inherent selection bias par excellence: Aschlafly stopped the search for conservative words the moment he thought to have reached his goal.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mwahahaha I LOVE you, Larron. You are MADE OF AWESOME. mb 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just counted the words manually in the article, I got 151 :/ Larron clearly wins, now someone just has to rake through the old files and find out who jumped the word count and give them cudos.--Opcn (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ASSFLY SCREW-EDITED UP

Found it!^img It took me half an hour of sifting through the unsortable tables and copy pasting lists around, but he even mentioned fixing the count in the edit comment, and what he was setting it too, I don't think it could have been an oversighted parodist edit, its just Andy jumping the gun. --Opcn (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The proper count from your the list you linked to should be 15-28-57-113 (as a programmer, I let computers count for me...) Matched up against 15-28-56-124. So, while it certainly answers where the extra from 1800s comes from, and most of the difference for the 1900s... where did the one more than ten go to? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Later on it was two more than 10 (when the table said about 135) but to be honest I don't know, I think it was just people adding with out Andy catching up. I myself am a biologist and do lots and lots and lots of counting but little programing. --Opcn (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely Andy's attempt to prove this geometric conjecture can only be done if he locates every single "conservative" word between 1600 and the present and then does the analysis. Otherwise he must take a statistical approach with a random sample of words (as lArron did) without any preselection. I'm no mathematician but I'm deeply disappointed that we have yet to see the light of day for his "Crtitical thinking in math" course because if the foregoing is an example of it, then it would be loaded with lulz.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Opcn: Thanks and Kudos for finding this! (Could be the next page of which the history will be deleted :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Lily: indeed, until one of the bins for the centuries is exhausted, he can get any result he wants. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess for the future Andy he will find 10 words for the 1900s and then claim perfection again. Except that finding 10 words in the 1900s all at once would prove his selection bias, but I don't think Andy would ever notice or admit that he is actually doing this. Quazywabbit (talk)

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back!

The Arsepiecefly has just unblocked the JacobB account, "based on an open-minded review of evidence and on the positive recommendation of senior Sysops". Let's rock! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I drive for a few minutes? I've never driven a privileged account before! EddyP (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I advice against the use of Assfly in the wigos - should be more neutral (or more funny :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait whats his login? I want to "play" with his account lol. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's senior admins play-time at the moment! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not completely surprised by this. After all he stated he was innocent and someone hijacked his account. Of course we can't say if that is true entire since there is no real evidence either way. Either he is an innocent fundamentalist or a master parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

LMAO!!! Conservapedia is fucking hilarious. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No sign of any rights being restored. Maybe they will be, after a lengthy "investigation" - you know like the one Jinx went through. Still, full marks to him, for getting past Andy. Clearly the "senior admin" in question is TK, who recognises a kindred spirit. - Psy (tltli)

I guess that makes Andy a liberal? Röstigraben (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GO JACOB!!! raise hell for RW --Thunderstruck (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's gullibility, and then there's Andy Schlafly. How is it even possible to be that paranoid and that trusting at the same time? Colonel of Squirrels^{白山羊不山羊。商讨。} 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that he just doesn't want to show that he and his site are vulnerable to such shenanigans, in which he never learns from. As a result, he tries to convince himself that JacobB's account was really compromised, just like all the other things that he's convinced himself of. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Jacob's the one getting played here. True, he probably banned a few users who didn't deserve it (it's not like they would've survived TK very long anyway), and he may have made some other small-time mischief (but it's not like anyone will ever read most of those pages anyway). Really, the only actual damage I can remember him doing is chasing off BMcP. In return, CP got the entire Bible formatted for Wiki, a decent start on a calculus course, many hours of actual vandal-fighting, and other general improvements. And now he'll have to work even harder to get his rights back, with no room for screwing around. --MarkGall (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jake. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proving once again that the andy definition of Open-mind involves a labotomy --Opcn (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable! The guy openly shouted parodist (a year ago or so I think - it'll be in the archives), we talked about non-stop about it with many RW members acknowledging Jacob was a parodist, TK knew and Rob "Counterintellegence Kara Duhe Creme Machine" Smith reads here and must have known but then, bam, back he goes. What is wrong with these people? Ace^X-102 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Andy welcomed TK back, so it just proves how stupid he really is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. Ace^X-102 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Karajou and Jpatt will apologize for their nasty remarks. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Grudgingly, since (1) that's how they do everything, and (2) they're probably not stupid enough to buy Jacob's story. -- JArneal 09:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Being conservative means never having to say sorry. Still, given that they've kowtowed to TK and Andy has spoken, they won't do a thing to counteract Brother Leader. Still there no love lost between TK (and his little protege Geo.plrd) and the other sysops. Maybe to their face, but behind the scenes we have conversations like:

“”geo.plrd: Recommend Brian to Jimbo TK: lol. he's kinda nuts geo.plrd: ever met a serviceman who isn't slightly deranged? he and Ed would do a good job terminating people.

So who needs parodists when you have fellow sysops to cause dissent. No wonder TK wanted Jess out of the way. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your intelligence gathering puts Rob to shame (not that that's hard). Where do you get this stuff from? EddyP (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a good journalist never reveals his TK sources. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comedy and humour indeed

0 mental problems at Conservapedia. Ace^X-102 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Followed by blocking the guy, deleting his talk page, and then oversighting both actions (before Assfly unblocked). Ken is OBSESSED with that oversight feature 72.224.42.45 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Funnier still is Ken's deletion comment for the guy's userpage. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 21:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, thanks. That comment certainly hit the spot. I'm starting to wonder if Ken edits at Uncyclopedia and at some point confused the URLs? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy makes it go bye bye.^img Ace^X-102 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what was it then Ace? Please use capture tags as we know how liberally they use oversight. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to see that it has been captured. The whole page in fact. Ace^X-102 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, erm, ahem. Just fuck off! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that exchange really drives home the point that there is basically nobody left aside from the senior sysops. Somebody starts off with a seemingly innocent question and runs into... Karajou, Geo, TK and Ken. No wonder that it had to be oversighted - it's a Class A example of team bullying. --Sid (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck's the deal with Darthipedia anyway? I've just looked at it and it looks like any other sci-fi nerd fansite, no "pedophiles and homosexuals spreading leftist propaganda" from my brief look. Does anyone have a copy of the CP article? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Kenny, that's a special kind of stupid you've got going there. John Hinckly had machismo, because he stalked a woman and shot a president. Yeah! Great fucking role model, you moron. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the captures for all this? I can't find them anywhere. MDB (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There's only one broken link and the capture for it is in this thread, halfway down. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to find the word "Machismo" quite funny. When Ken started using it, it made me laugh. Now the word is boring and Ken has ruined another source of joy in my life. Thanks a lot, conservapedia. X Stickman (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Geo.plrd gets oversight

Here since he appears to be legitimate I have no idea how he came to power. --Opcn (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He was an early entrant for sysopship but has apparently withdrawn from regular editing despite being an active member of the ZB team. He largely confines himself to admin stuff as a "Mr. Reasonable" character. Unfortunately he is young and naive and ended up being manipulated by TK. Ultimately he proved himself compleletly ineffectual by acting as TK's "parole officer". He's probably the last of the original genuine, young, conservative, Christians that populated the site before the bitter old men took control.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"He's probably the last of the original genuine, young, conservative, Christians that populated the site before the bitter old men took control." Wait... so Geo was around BEFORE Aschlafly started the site? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy's bitterness wasn't apparent until after Obama got elected.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Too true. You can almost link the beginning of CP's tailspin into hardcore nuttiness as Obama began to do well in the Dem primaries. I still think that Andy lost out on the HLR Presidency to BHO and he's never forgiven (or rather, been allowed to forget by mummy) that some jumped-up affirmative action kid beat him. I can just see Momma Schlafly watching the inauguration and cackling, "See, if you'd been president of HLR instead of that person, we wouldn't have an affirmative action president today!" --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the kindest thing you can say about Geo is that he's TK's bitch through and through. He made this apparent during his tenure as TK's parole officer, where he flatly refused to take action after TK plagiarised the UCLA article. They have long conversations, bitching about the other CP sysops, where TK spins his web of lies around Geo - saying such things as he's in constant contact with Jimmy Wales and that he handpicked Diane Feinstein's staff. Like TK, Geo no longer contributes to CP, except to block editors. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Harvard Law Review election, did we ever determine if Andy was one of the many candidates the year Obama won? I recall someone did a bit of research on the subject, though I don't remember who. I'd definitely like to know, as I would be delighted if it turned out Obama beat Andy in an election. DickTurpis (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That was me. Closest I got was confirmation that the conservative candidates were asked to stand down, and support the guy who ran against Obama (Silverman, or Bernstein, or some such name) - Andy could well have been one of these - plus a comment a forum somewhere by somebody who'd been on the HLR with Andy and described him as 'a big prick.' Short of phoning the Oval office and asking your Prez if he remembers a dickwad called Schlafly, I think we've hit a brick wall in this investigation. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I recall that Trent was trying to do some non-creepy research into this, approaching some of the other Review members from that year, but I don't think he got very far. Except, as I recall, one person seeing CP and saying "wow, he wasn't that crazy back then..." or some such. ħuman 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fat Liberals and Skinny Conservatives

According to Andy, you can determine someone's politics by whether they're fat or thin.

Yep, that works for perfectly for comparing this commentator to this commentator. MDB (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Fly's sources, but I can only assume that the fat one was conservative because conservative states are plagued with obesity (and murder and divorce and general stupidity), therefore obesity must be a conservative trait. [2] [3] 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One fat candidate, one thin, Andy? Reminds me of the Finnish election of 1994, a notably controversial election due to other candidate being overweight. (This happened before I was eligible to vote, but I do remember this was a fairly important point in schoolyard political debates anyway, yes. Public schools are evil that way.) I don't know which candidate was more "conservative" than the other, but the point is this: the fat guy won. And later got the Nobel. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No! No! Is all teh lies, conservatives are slim, and svelte, and swish, and smooth... or I am thinking of Ed Poor's favourite kind of homosexual? --PsyGremlinTal! 15:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess morbidly obese Ed himself is a liberal after all. So am I a conservative? I'm getting confused. DickTurpis (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about former fattie me? Should I start going to Tea Party meetings after Weight Watchers? MDB (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And there was me thinking that thinness was an obsession of Hollywood or drug-snorting models.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was quite conservative when young, and put on quite a bit of liberalism in the last decade. ħuman 19:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And of course Andy's own Republican Governor in New Jersey, Chris Christie, is known for his wispy frame as this link shows. The weirdos at Conservapedia seem only to write patent nonsense to get RationalWiki's attention at this point. ho hum. --Leotardo (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember hearing about those ads. I was repulsed by them, and I immediately decided that, if I were in New Jersey, I'd vote for the fat guy just because I found the ads so despicable. MDB (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good news everybody! The conservatives won the Presidential election after all! --GTac (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So, who wants to be the first to whip out that map of obesity rate in the US states? Vulpius (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask, and ye shall receive. MDB (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

oh man, no one is going to do it? This is a great opportunity. TK, will you do this?

Given that liberals are more likely to be obese (because Andy has said so, of course) and conservative states are more affected by obesity, why are liberals in conservative states more likely to be obese than liberals in other states? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Would someone care to remind me, what is Obama's BMI?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this, 22.8, putting him on the low end of Presidential BMI stats. MDB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice

Anyone else anxiously waiting his response? I think he'll be a hard time working his way out of this one^img. Ricardo 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, "I'm open-minded about this". This is as close as you will ever get to Andy admitting he's wrong. Second, telling you you're wrong. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anonymous User" (I notice how you hide behind an alias), your denial of the obvious only destroys your credibility. I wasted time with your unsubstantial additions and you list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based, so regardless, I'm so confident that you're obviously clueless about "modern science". And you persist in denying the obvious truth that chivalry was and is an ideal for all to strive for. It is very effective in reducing and eliminating friction, insults, hard-feelings, and accidents, not to mention that it deters moral decay. You can whine all you want, but Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. If you're not getting at least a small piece of the $100 million that Al Gore is making for his deceit, then you're really being taken for a ride. Go back to Wikipedia, where censors delete conservative information daily.--aschlafly 03:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the Bible AND the Constitution have spelling errors, therefore I'm quite entitled to screw up my own wild assertions.^img --PsyGremlinParla! 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I loved how even though the growth was shown not to be geometric, the point is that the growth is geometric. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the sharks start to circle. Is Brother Leader at risk of being shown up yet again? Danny's pudenda invokes the ghost of 90/10 --PsyGremlinHable! 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, then, even though "no transitional fossils have been found", the point is that evolution is true. I'm sure Andy will welcome that logic. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird Andy logic part #35126. "roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature."^img Which makes the other 92% what exactly. Then more proof he massaged the figures to suit his needs: "our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate." So the words that I decided were "best" words based on god-knows-what criteria grew at a geometric rate. Does anybody else see the flaw in Andy's logic? --PsyGremlinTal! 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's non-existent? EddyP (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... Andy excels at stupidity. I fucking love it. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

HELL HAS JUST BROKEN OUT THEIR STORE OF MITTENS AND WOOLLY HATS!!!^img Who is this man, and what has he done with Schlafly? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can only imagine that's a lie in an attempt to show that he's bigger than he really is. Andy would never assume such a thing. I guarantee he manually counted them to verify. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, it's a genuine conversation, even if it's somewhat one-sided as far as logic and evidence are concerned. Still, my guess is Andy will ban and oversight as soon as he actually understands that this analysis pulls the rug out from under his pet project and shows his "law" as the fabrication it is. Röstigraben (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You're asking Andy to understand a concept more complex than Conservative = good, liberal = bad? Yeah, I think Hell can put their woolies away now. DickTurpis (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually also admits No longer a perfect doubling of "Conservative Terms" on the Main Page^img, now merely "A pattern of nearly perfect doubling". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The most amusing part: he'll try to reach a perfect doubling as soon as possible (the next layer could be 1-2-4-18 :-), thereby proving his selection bias clearly to everyone (except him). larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly is literally one of a kind. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

His defense that everyone makes mistakes and this is tantamount to a typo is particularly strange -- he seems to admit that he just doesn't care whether the claim is actually true or not. The Riemann reference is more appropriate than he realizes; Riemann's mistake was rather significant and certainly "undermines the value of Riemann's work". Klein (the bottle guy) wrote that as a result "the majority of mathematicians turned away from Riemann...". Luckily for Riemann, guys like Schwarz and Roch showed up a few years later and cleaned up the mess. The same seems unlikely to happen for Conservapedia's law. --MarkGall (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still enjoying the fact he compared his biased sampling created to force a particular conclusion based on nothing more then his say so as equivalent to the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that by Sunday night he'll have found ten more 2000s conwords. Hell, I'd even bet three of them get added when he gets home from church, plucked directly from the morning's sermon. ħuman 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, considering Segway, which to me is synonymous with failing to understand the market, is somehow a "conservative term". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can visualize it now, Andy sitting in church with a dictionary flipping through looking for dates. --Opcn (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's double standard brought to you by Andy "your-typo-three-posts-ago-invalidates-you-entire-argument" Schlafly. Kallium^talk 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's hyperactivity shown by not showing it

*tumbleweed*

Shown in the image to the right: CP's Recent Changes (of roughly ten minutes ago), showing the 50 last edits, Mainspace only... minus all of Ken's contribs (through a simple Greasemonkey script I whipped up ages ago). Ouch. And this isn't really the first time the RC looked like that in the past few days. --Sid (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Incidentally, how do you remove Ken from RC? DickTurpis (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Scary thing is, if you did that or the last week, it wouldn't be much different. Just Andy stroking his conservative words. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Share your script Siddy? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 13:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure our coders know better ways to do this, but this should do the trick. --Sid (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

<ken filter>

...

currently.parentNode.removeChild(currently);

...

Brilliant coding, Sid!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always wanted this for Brad Rayment. Thanks! 70.222.76.139 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

XPath is teh foreign. Can someone show me how I'd select nodes of both Phil and Brad in the following line?

check = document.evaluate("./a[@title='User:Philip J. Rayment']", currently, null, XPathResult.ANY_TYPE, null);

Thanks, 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just came back and am about to hit the shower, but you might have success with this:

check = document.evaluate("./a[@title='User:Philip J. Rayment'] | ./a[@title='User:OTHERUSER']", currently, null, XPathResult.ANY_TYPE, null);

But I have no definite idea if that'll do it! I just vaguely remember that the pipe character lets you select element X and element Y, so it might work? I may test it in an hour or so, after I showered and had some food. --Sid (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have worked. Thanks again, Sid. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help :) --Sid (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, Lily. ;) Like I said, I made this ages ago with no real intent to publish it. It's quite likely that there are much better solutions, but I whipped it up quickly and it runs, which was all I wanted. Besides, this odd bit was actually suggested by Dive Into Greasemonkey which had been the only good resource for user-scripting I had known at the time. I took it and didn't bother to try other ways like removing it directly because, hey, it ran. If it also runs well without the silly-looking code, that's of course awesome. --Sid (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get it to work and I desperately want to. Also how would you add multiple filters? I only want to see Aschlafly's and non-sysops' edits. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What have you done so far? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IT WORKS. I am well pleased. Conservapedia is slightly less stupid today. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 22:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does one paste these magical tricks in order to take advantage of them? (NOOB! -->) ħuman 02:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you already got Greasemonkey installed, the easiest way with the least manual fiddling would be to copypaste the code into a new text file, save said file as "KenFilter.user.js" and then open this file in Firefox (the ".user.js" part will prompt Greasemonkey to come to life). Alternatively, rightclick on the monkey head in the status bar, select "New User Script...", fill in the fields (name, namespace, include) according to the first few lines of the code, and then just copypaste the entire code into the editor window that's going to open. --Sid (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: Script was updated with two more include lines. --Sid (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That works great, cheers Sid! (I have no idea exactly how it does it, so I don't know what Lily was mocking, must be some 733T JS in-joke!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy's five step programme WIGO

Brilliant. Just brilliant. That is all. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-life anxiety?" I suspect that he's saying "stop worrying about getting pregnant." -Lardashe

In the words of Darkseid (and the ever-awesome Linkara): "Anti-life justifies my hate!" --Sid (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else notice how there are only four points in his five point plan? (5)????? (6) Profit! --20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice one of them says "Avoid Liberal Double Standards", does this mean "Conservative Double Standards" such as "Liberals are FAT" are ok?--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good catch there. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DISCLOSE act?

read this^img Now, are they upset that it failed? If they didn't want it to pass then how come they got mad at menendez not voting for it? I think this is an example of why it is stupid to look at the world through the political lense, you end up damning people if they do or if they don't. --Opcn (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? They're upset that Menendez voted for it. MDB (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reagan WIGO

Not only does it fly in the ace of cult of personality, but just yesterday Andy said Communists, for example, are notorious for grinding everything to a halt and demanding full worship of their current and prior leaders. Andy, are you turning shades of pink? 72.224.42.45 (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sick of having things fly in my face! Ace^X-102 10:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Andy also always bitching about how liberals put their leaders up on pedestals and worship them, or something? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the rules don't apply when discussing Saint Ronaldus Maximus. MDB (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this cult of personality around Jesus as well. Seriously, they worship him like he's a god or something. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that WIGO is rather weak, as I hardly see it as any sort of "Cult of Personality" to honor a president with a day in the state he made his career in. What president these days doesn't have a whole host of things named after them? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more of a contradiction of Andy's statement above about communists grinding everything (like school classes) to a halt demanding full worship of prior leaders 72.224.42.45 (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentleman Ken

It appears that ladies are not particularly impressed with Conservapedia. When Ken

goes to the beach woman kick sand in his face because it appears Ken

has no Machismo! Perhaps if Ken

wished to have less sand kicked in his face by ladies he 'd impress more ladies by debating Ace McWicked :) AceX-102 10:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Seriously, to quote the 11-year old girl from Kick-Ass, "what a fucking douche." OBTW, I loved your Ken impression with all the edits. HILARITY! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that ladies are particularly impressed with Perez Hilton. When Perez Hilton goes to the beach, women fawn all over him, because it appears that Perez has tons of Machismo! Perhaps if Perez wished to have less women fawn all over him... aw fuck... the joke broke. :( --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The ladies are particularly impressed with us. Must be all the roller-skates we have. - π 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexa reverses the male/female trend for RW. So we're in a state of attracting and repelling women at the same time. Dare I say it... QUANTUM MACHISMO! ^theist 12:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clearly an effect of the observer, so yes. - π 12:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like wp:Lalla Ward... can't say anything about Mrs. DeMeyer, though) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

HaywoodJ signs his death warrant^img. I can't believe he made it so long with such an obvious name. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. I don't expect Andy to be familiar with the Jablome clan, but surely one of the Señor Admins should be. DickTurpis (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please enlighten the dim. Who is Hayward Jablome? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been following Mr Jablome myself with incredulity that those guys are totally unfamiliar with that ancient chestnut. You should've hung in there, Haywood. Getting sysopship would have made for extreme lulz.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

From Snopes--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Erk... I just got it. groan --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else think that 'MA-CHEESE-MO' would be a really good name for a brand of jarred nacho cheese? 81.137.227.129 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoink. Sucker. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hayward only gets a week for "negative personal remarks". The plot thickens. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Tzoran is very clearly someone who's been watching Conservapedia long enough to know know that block reason. I wonder if he knows that he's not allowed to block for policy reasons other than foul names and vandalism? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 20:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is Ed doing? Being productive?

Liberal slander minus the liberal^img would be a decent start to an article on a subject badly needed by CP, I love how he talks about it being used to take down experts, CP's favorite use for slander. Then there is the cherry picking article, which is also the sort of thing that highlights CP's inadequacies. So why is uncle ed acting like a RW plant? --Opcn (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone's anxiously reading RW; did someone just make this article here?^img Ricardo 18:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously...^img Ricardo 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with Conservative

I guess I´m confused about this^img. Is that guy all right, in the head? Really? Ricardo 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that question is rhetorical. DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is now, based on reading his profile here. WOW. Ricardo 19:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

*clicks* What the... --Sid (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like he's turning all of his "satire" pictures into essays of their own...here's the next one. Edit: ah, so that's what the strange picture was for. Now it all makes...no, wait... Röstigraben (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part: Ken spamming the news with "Conservapedia just released its satirical article John Wayne vs. atheist Paul Kurtz. Does "the Duke" win? Click HERE to find out." With, of course, two links to the "essay". ħuman 02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sid's script is the best thing that ever happened to my CP habit. Don't know what you guys are talking about, don't want to. Enjoy poking fun at people with serious mental problems! 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the Conservapedia definition of an essay is so broad that it can classified as such by nothing more then nonsensical rhetorical questions done via image captions. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Ken

doesn't know what an "essay" is, or indeed what "satire" is; surely this must now be embarrassing even to the Assfly.  I would imagine that even if I were a rightwing christian, I wouldn't find that kind of crap conducive with an encyclopaedia. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that I can view logs for a page, but why does he keep deleting the page over and over? Ricardo 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows. It sometimes appears to have something to do with SEO. Other times it looks like he's literally just clicking buttons to see what they do. I honestly don't know. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fact Ken

is a liability toward what little credibility CP has left is best exampled by the fact Andy ignores every post Ken

leaves on his talk page. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken's so "with it" and "cool", I feel a fail-meme type 'essay' coming on. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't John Wayne a draft dodger? thats certainly showing those pesky atheists what backbone is. (no idea how to sign this) aMassiveGay (now i can sign it. kind of)

I think it's funnier that Ken

implies that Christians never get ousted from organizations they headed. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just becoming to painful to watch anymore. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at all of the above, I'm coming up with three hypotheses:

1. Ken

is actually a very long-term parodist that is finally getting tired and just pushing things to ever more ridiculous levels to see how far he can take it before the rest of them at CP notice.

1. Ken

has had his account hacked by a parodist - and nobody at CP has noticed yet.

1. Ken

has finally gone completely off the deep end and is now sitting comfortably in his own little fantasy world, and CP is his only conduit to anything that can even remotely be called reality.

Anyone got any evidence to suggest which one it is? 92.2.95.58 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The extreme frequency and duration of his sessions make 1 & 2 very unlikely. The logical conclusion is that we're making fun of someone with serious mental problems. The worst case scenario is that we're perpetuating or even exacerbating his condition. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's true. However, if we start thinking 'parodists' rather than 'a parodist', maybe that makes 1 or 2 a bit more likely. 92.2.95.58 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Making hundreds of menial edits in sessions lasting as long as 36 hours and deleting most of the work before anyone can see it does not seem at all like parody. He could be an extremely impressive script, but I highly doubt it. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken still fails the turing test. --Opcn (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken fails the fucking smoke test. Every time I plug him in, he fails to operate as designed. Oh, and one stop shopping. ħuman 02:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I find with the theory that Ken is mentally ill is that he really doesn't follow what your typical mentally-disadvantaged editor would do. I have seen several mentally-challenged people edit Wikipedia. When they do, they usually stick to editing one particular and defined topic (I remember one guy who was obsessed with fonts), and while they do add content and do indeed work on articles, they have absolutely no will to communicate, nor listen. For example, no matter how many times you tell them that what they add needs to be sourced, they will never reply, nor will they follow your advice. I guess Ken has some of those traits, but he is certainly communicative, a trait that other mentally-ill editors don't have. Maybe he just has some weird form of OCD; as Wikipedia states, a symptom of OCD is one's preoccupation with particular religious beliefs, which Ken certainly takes part in. He does do some odd habits: instead of opening and closing doors, he deleted and recreates pages, and of course, takes a plethora of edits to make the slightest change. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mental "illness" is not one particular disease, it may manifest itself in many ways. His constipated use of English certainly suggests that he is not particularly bright, his sentence construction reads like that of a nine-year old while his vocabulary shows him to be much older even though he has a restricted range. His continual references to medication, his mammoth editing sprees, his repetitive use of the same memes and his ridiculous 'enigma wrapped in a mystery' persona shows that he is far from normal, and not in a good way.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear gOD. Now he's punting his "Satires of atheism" as article of the week. And it only took him 12 edits. What happened to the committee that used to control the weekly article? Where's Jaoquin gone? Are they really happy to have Ken crapping all over their mainpage? I'm not sure which is more bizarre - the fact that Ken is playing like a kid with crayons on a newly painted wall, or that the others are cheering him on. "What a nice doggie you drawing, hey, Kennykins." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When the hell did Conservapedia turn to RationalWiki's form of humor? I mean, this is on the same scale as the wandalism that I keep getting reverted away from me. I THINK THE JOKE IS FUNNY... :( *hates on human* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not content with splashing his crap on MPL, now he's regurgitating it all over MPR again. Conservapedia did some research concerning Richard Dawkins main audience. One - you're missing an apostrophe, two - clicking on Alexa is hardly research. I'm seriously starting to think we're watching a manic-depressive in the midst of an non-medicated manic stage. Does anybody have a tame sysop to tap, just so you can ask them to check on Ken's health? --PsyGremlinFale! 09:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

get whomever was running JacobB to ask Ken if he is OK? Ace^X-102 10:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't think there is any committee for "Article of the Week" on CP. From what I can gather it is just something one of the sysops invented (possibly Ken

) in order to get front-page billing for their pet articles, while avoiding the required committee nomination route an "Article of the Month" and "Article of the Year" requires. It is how he got his "Featured Essay" on the mainpage, because until he created that category for his magnum opus MA-CHEESE-MO "essay", that concept didn't exist on CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the featured articles which was terminated by Andy in March, when he said "Let's change our featured article more frequently, and link it more often to subjects that are connected with current events." TK agreed and thus it was made law. Andy immediately lost interest in updating the featured article so often, which allowed Ken to sneak in and squeeze any remaining goodness from it. Sad really, especially as I wrote five flippin' featured articles. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article has been Ken

personal fiefdom, a.k.a the CP Evolution page for how long now?  I believe it has been this way since it lost the "Article of the Year" title after users realized it held that title well into 2010 and no new article had been elected.  Now the "Article of the Year" is Abortion, which is actually buried far enough, you have to scroll down the mainpage to find it, while Ken

can use the abandoned "Featured Article" to keep his Evolution page prominent. At this point, it doesn't seem that any of the other sysops nor Andy gives a damn. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I don't get. Looking at SDG and TZB, none of the sysops can stand Ken, surely at least one of them must be thinking 'what is this shit?' yet none of them say a word. Either Ken has Andy's backing, in which case the others are too craven to question Brother Leader, or they really don't give a shit about CP, other than their own areas. Which these days seems confined to bitching about Obama in the borked news. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the latter, the sysops really just care about their own fiefdoms within the kingdom of CP. It is a mix of paranoia and authoritarianism. They each have their own area of absolute control and they don't want to rock the boat too much, lest it draws attention to their own designs at the expense of the entire enterprise. They hate each other to some degree, just not enough to upset the balance of power. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read through ZB and also Andy's talk page. Ken regularly claims that a search for a specific term (which nobody would normally use) on search engines beginning with a G (Google), A (Alta Vista) or Y (Yahoo) puts Conservapedia in the top 10. Given Andy's impressive critical mathematical skills I think that he is mildly impressed and therefore tolerates Ken because he believes it ehances CP's exposure on the interweb.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor's Stupidity

What a fucking idiot.^img Ace^X-102 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor is about as close to actual evil as Conservapedia comes. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 02:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed recently made a request^img on Andy's talk page for him to review his work and to make sure he didn't misuse any of Andy's mum's statements (notice the plural) in the CP article Women in combat. Andy replied by saying that he looks forward to review his new entry. Based on Ed's message and Andy's response, I entered the article with the high expectation that I'd find a fairly long article (by Conservapedia's standards), but all I found was another one of Ed's typical entries (though I must applaud him for going above and beyond his average entry and including more than one sentence). Alas, he states that he placed multiple statements by Phyllis in the article, but he only placed one. I've gotta stop raising my expectations when looking at articles. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I just enjoyed the abject brown noising on Ed's part to Il Duce when asking him to review the article. "Mother of American Conservatism" indeed, I am sure Andy's ego surged with that statement. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, excuse me for looking into the future. I thought that was rational. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 16:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Asian Ladies

I know we already have several Ken sections above but this deserved special mention.^img Ace^X-102 03:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohh, so it's not just the Latino ladies that Dawkins is missing out on... ~SuperHamster Talk 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how well he does with the Polynesian community? Ace^X-102 03:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude that's been up for like forever. --Opcn (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't be, the history only goes back to 28/07/2010. Hence it's new </obvious> Ace^X-102 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly Ace, creation dates for Ken's articles are notoriously unreliable because he keeps deleting/resurrecting them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See my link above to "one stop shopping". All these lame "essays" are contained in one ridiculous "article". Ken is fucking weird. ħuman 03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you think Ken

would respond if Dawkins suddenly started shagging birds from all over the place, including Asia and Hispanic countries? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 06:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I willingly volunteer as a Hispanic lady, to "take one for the team". I'd totally take Dawkins over Ken

. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If he ever accuses PZ Myers of having some woman problem send him this picture. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, What The Fuck!^img Dude, get help! Ace^X-102 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an Asian lady, I must say that I find Richard Dawkins quite attractive. But then, us Asian ladies have a weak spot for all you round-eye gaijin ^_^. --TokyoRose 08:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Knowing what I do, that's almost as creepy as Uncle Ed :( EddyP (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one that feels that whole "More Yang then Yin" bit in his little article about Asian women and Dawkins a bit insulting and rather stereotyping? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't often read CP these days, but having read this, it's difficult to see how they can embarrass themselves further.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, mainstream Conservatism completely ignores them. They even used up any goodwill the Christian fundamentalist community as a whole had for them with that Conservative Bible Project, hell even WND dislikes them. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This should be "Conservapedia's Law": When World Net Daily and Rapture Ready thinks a conservative has gone off the deep end... they've probably been reading Conservapedia. MDB (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Ed Stub

Sigh^img. I'm sure he means "gender differences" but with creepy Uncle Ed, who knows. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he means sex differences. Or sexual dimorphism. For instance, men can button mash faster than women. No, I'm totally serious. Unfortunately, most differences are actually due to gender roles, where a person conforms to expectations of what makes a man or woman. Women generally multitask better than men, but this is more due to practice. If one compared a male chef, to a female receptionist, you're likely to find that the male chef is way more capable at multitasking than the woman. (Note: female multitasking takes a huge jump after becoming a mom. This fits neatly into the hypothesis that it's all about practice.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Momultitasking also fits neatly into ev. psych. as an adaptation to momliness, a switch flipped at motherhood to scatter the brain. Do you have any kind of experiemntal data to suggest multitasking is learned or just the thought experiment. I am weary to go along with thought experiments on the nature vs. nurture question because it's so difficult to divide out our own political and philosophical motives from the simulations we run. --Opcn (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem... do any of these people have evidence that momultitasking is an actual physiological change? Can it be induced via hormones? Is it experienced by adopting mothers? While you suggest that there is a switch flipped at motherhood to "scatter the brain"... dealing with a baby in the first place is a brain scattering event. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In a direct and more honest response: "No, I am not a scientific researcher, and thus have no evidence." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no evidence either, I was just offering a counterhypothesis to address your point. --Opcn (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I do get "gender" and "sex" confused. Is there a clear distinction somewhere online you can point me to? I was just looking for a shorter way to say "differences between male humans and female humans". Also I get the point about nature vs. nurture. It's hard to tell what we're born with, and what society gives us. Has anyone studied that? (Oh, right, the last time a prominent academic suggested that scientists examine that feminist shibboleth he got canned. I'm not holding my breath.)

Is there tolerance enough amidst all this rationality to address this question scientifically and objectively? --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here, let me help. --204.187.34.100 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, BoN, absolutely brilliant. Junggai (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

fed up with rights violation

After just now glancing at the main page, I decided that I was fed up with rights violations and emailed the copyright holder. I think what did it was that copyrighted material is featured on the main page and he makes an attempt to justify the use by a vague appeal to licensing. From the Flickr user's page: "All of the pictures are rights reserved, may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without written permission...My work does not belong to the public domain." [Emphasis his] 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Good on you. CP are absolutely terrible at nicking photos (and articles), and Ken falsely claiming that it's on a CC is even worse than the rest of them sticking "fair use" on everything. I hope you mentioned to the flickr guy just what an absurd context it is being used. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken didn't even bother to remove the "© 2008" from it. ħuman 17:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the photog says on his Flickr userpage, the license info associated with that particular image indicates it's licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license. The copyright only indicates that the photog owns the image and has the rights to control each of his copyrights, which included given Ken written permission in the form of that license to reuse the image for noncommercial purposes with attribution and without alteration. Ken's a real creepy weird dude, but he's not doing anything wrong with this picture as far as copyright goes. Aesthetics and fail-rhetoric are a nother matter. There are scads and scads of valuable images nicked by Conservapedia admin. If you want I'll forward you a python script for going through the Conservapedia API to see on just what a staggering scale the claims of fair use are objectively frivolous, to the extent their even made. Sadly, most copyright holders don't adequately police their images such that places like Conservapedia can rely on their image thieves being reined in. So, the moral of the story is stay froggy. Keep looking for stolen images and keep emailing copyright holders, but do be a little more careful with the facts. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's it mention how it's licensed on the Flickr page? Jdellaro (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in that Python script, if you're willing to send it my way. Ricardo 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I eat my words with a spoon. It appears I was looking at the wrong image and that the clown picture is indeed not licensed. I apologize, BoN. The individual license for Flickr pics is under the "Additional Information" header. Jdellaro, I'll email you after work Central Standard Time. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 18:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Were you saying you'll email me the script or email JDellaro about something else? I code a bit in python and always like new code, if you have it. Ricardo 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize for trying to keep me honest. Thanks for taking a look. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll email you the code if you contact me privately to get me our email address. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 19:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's often better to email the copyright holder through a link on their user page than post a vio on the picture page. In that way you can can interact with the photographer on a more personal level. Sometimes, despite their rights notice, they don't mind if it's been nicked and are happy in the knowledge that it's being used. Other times it depends on the who is using it, they might be fundy conservative Christians and support CP or they may be liberal anti-theists and be as mad as heck. In this particular case the fact that the guy has watermarked the image shows that he probably does care about it. Anyway, a personal email may elicit a response concerning the outcome.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone already posted on the copyright holder's photo page. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

where would cp be without plagiarism?

This VS this^img Googling a name to fill in a red link as the news becomes up maybe? Ricardo 00:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait is that ok because he did include a general reference to the page? I don't know the copyright rules very well here that much. Ricardo 00:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't okay, by both the standards of copyright law and Conservapedia itself. Unless I'm missing something (such as the work of a county department being automatically released into the public domain, which I doubt is the case, since the site explicitly states that the work is reserved), the content at that website is fully owned by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; to copy it to a website without permission is not allowed, even when it's attributed to the source. It's made worse by the fact that Conservapedia releases all of its content into the public domain. As a result, the copyrighted content has been copied to a site that states that the content is freely released for use by anyone for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, Conservapedia's Commandments themselves state that all contributed work should be original. So not only does TK violate the copyright terms of the work (unless he got some sort of permission from the copyright holder, in which he should mention that), but he also violates Conservapedia's Commandments themselves. Even if he didn't violate any copyright terms, he violated Conservapedia's Commandments. Of course, everybody knows that CP admins are exempt from their own rules. That's how their site works. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Report it to the copyright holder, Ricardo. They're the only ones who can do anything. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course Super is wrong again. I would have thought getting slapped down on WP, by Jimbo publicly would have been enough.....^{— Unsigned, by: 96.38.151.130 / talk / contribs}

Hi TK, how's it going? Would you be kind enough to explain why I'm wrong? Did I miss something important? Funny how you always say I'm wrong "again". Last time you did that, I was right. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I hope you're referring to yourself when you refer to being slapped down on WP by Jimbo. I can't tell whether you're talking about yourself or I, but it certainly wouldn't make any sense if you were referring to me. Jimbo never did a "slap down" on me. If anyone got a slap down, it would be you who was noted for uploading images to Conservapedia without properly attributing them. In that particular conversation, which I can only assume is the one that you are referring to (since that's the only conversation that we have in common on Jimbo's talk page), Jimbo never even said one word to me. Perhaps you would like to refresh your memory? ~SuperHamster Talk 02:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when does Sheriff Arapio give a shit about the law? He'll belligerently enforce the law against anyone, whom he doesn't like. This is the guy who made the inmates wear pink underwear, wear the old-style black and white stripes, and feeds each on less per day than he feeds his dog. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I reported it to the sherrif's department. I'll post back here if they get back to me. Ricardo 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Great Klepto (Terry Koeckritz) is almost incapable of being creative in any shape or form. Even when he finds a source he cannot read it and summarise it. Obviously he's either a complete dumbshit or just a lazy bastard - or both. Somehow he thinks that by referencing his source that exculpates his copy/pastes from copyright infingement. It's ironic that his AIM username is Exculpatory1.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That AIM ID predates Terrykins assuming the role as "conservative" wiki admin. I think it's from around the period that he was participating at a captivity fetish site and running his own creepy web board with a "don't get mad, get even" style section on destroying your online opponents. But yeah, Exculpatory1 is bullshit. He's unlikely to be forgiven for the suffering he's caused because he lacks any sense of personal accountability. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

TK's excuse for copying the content is most likely that it qualifies under fair use. However, even if this instance of using copyrighted content did fall under fair use, that doesn't relieve TK from the fact that he broke Conservapedia's own rules, and that he is posting copyrighted work on a website that states that it is in the public domain. Now, back to fair use: whether or not fair use would apply in this case is up for interpretation of the law (or in other words, we would only know whether or not it falls under fair use if MCSO decides to take TK to court), but if it were to be challenged, these three points that I'm about to make are ones that could be taken into account as to why it isn't fair use, and are the reasons why I myself, and solely myself, believe that the Conservapedia article on Arpaio does not fall qualify as a fair use work:

• Part of falling under fair use is taking into factor "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Quoting a sentence or two from a book in order to use it for writing a criticism of the book in a blogpost falls under fair use. Basically, the less someone uses, the better it is. However, the entire portion of the text from Arpaio's official biography has been copied. You can't max out any further than that.
• Another part of falling under fair use is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". In the situation regarding Arpaio, fair use would be claimed because the work is being used in a not-for-profit and educational manner. However, in this case, I would think it inappropriate. The work copied into the Conservapedia article is not as detrimentally needed as, for example, a teacher making 20 copies of Silverstein's "The Giving Tree" for her class to analyze during their lesson on Silverstein's style. In the latter example, there is no possibility that the class could max-out their learning and make the most of the lesson to learn about Silverstein's style of writing unless they had the whole poem to analyze. The instance regarding TK copying Arpaio's entire biography, however, is different; it is not "needed", as TK could easily write a new and probably even better biography for Arpaio. Basically what I'm saying is that TK could teach what Arpaio's biography says without copying it, while the teacher could not teach about Silverstein's writing style without providing a copied example for the students to analyze.
• Another factor as to whether or not a work falls under fair use is whether or not a work that utilizes copyrighted content from another work "supersedes" that work. Going deeper, what that means is that if a work uses another work in a way where the new work is somehow, in a sense, "better" than the original (and by better, that could mean being more comprehensive, more understandable, or anything that makes a work more effective than the original, thus making the original more obsolete), it does not qualify under fair use. For an example of a case that established this, check out Folsom v. Marsh. In this case, the defendant had used a little over 300 pages of another author's nearly 7000-page long biography to make his own 866 page-long biography. As a result, even though the new work was educational, it superseded the original biography, as it used some of its contents to create a new, shorter one. This could possibly be applied to the Conservapedia article on Arpaio, as even though the point of the article is to educate, the copied content is being used as part of a longer and more comprehensive biography, in a sense "superseding" the original.

But of course, once again, none of us can truly say if the work qualifies under fair use, and it obviously doesn't matter if it is never challenged by MCSO. But again, even if we leave the part about fair use aside, that doesn't relieve the other two problems for TK that copying the content faces, those being that the work is claimed to be in the public domain by Conservapedia when it isn't, and that TK violated Conservapedia's own Commandments. ~SuperHamster Talk 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy makes 'machismo' a conservative word

Seriously^img. Are they all just trolling at this point? Also, he writes:'a word never used favorably by feminists!'. Really? A word that means 'male chauvinism' in Spanish is isn't used favorable by feminists? --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally Ken

, after pestering Andy for attention for so long, gets his sweet, sweet release. Grats Ken!

Did I hear Andy giving Ken

an orgasm?  [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

After that handjob, yes.

Also I believe this reflects that Conservative Word Growth bit is complete bunk, now they are just grabbing whatever they can and slapping that "Conservative Word" label on it so Il Duce can again claim: "See! Perfect Geometric Growth! Deny this and lose all credibility!" --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, "never used favorably by feminists" is grounds for being a Good Conservative Word? I'd imagine "tri-state kill spree" "sodomized with a ten foot red-hot wrought iron curare tipped spear, with no lubricant!" are never used favorably by feminists, either, so would they be a conservative terms now? MDB (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As Sodomy is a negative term often associated with sex between gays, why haven't they claimed this as a conservative word yet? It even originates in the Bible! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too old a word. Andy's hypothesis starts with the publication of the KJV. MDB (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't its first appearance in English be the KJV though? Anyway, that's irrelevant for now, Andy needs ~10 words from the 20th century, and he needs them stat! ħuman 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

“”22And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, upon man, upon pantywaist, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field, throughout the land of Egypt. 23And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt. 24So there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous, such as there was none like it in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation 25And the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and beast; and the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of the field with much machismo.

These are the words of the lord. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Conservapedia project is furthering Ken's craziness by providing him an outlet and now Ken's weird obsession is aiding Andy's loony idea. It's like some sort of 'insanity cycle'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AddisonDM?

Where has he been for the last three weeks? --Opcn (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the vacation season. Him (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Two unrelated pics..

..which are worth a look, IMO:

Night editing and preventing account creation at Conservapedia: They just can't get it right. Sometimes, they simply forget to turn it off, again, and its invoking (outside 1:30 - 7:00) is rather aribtrary.

All pages at Conservapedia, aStorehouseOfKnowledge, Citizendium and RationalWiki, sorted for each wiki by rank - i.e., the number of page views. This allow the calculation of the wikiFactor - which is surprisingly small for Citizendium. The odd tail of Citizendium's graph is due to the automatic generated myriads of sub-pages for each article: currently there are ≈ 71,000 pages in namespace main, but only ≈ 21,000 pages represent articles. The other ≈ 50,000 pages are sub-pages to these articles, and often rarely viewed.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, as usual. However, CP articles suffer from tremendous clickbotting which seriously skews the pageview statistics.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The night editing graph is very indicative of the current state of affairs. Given that most new editors are blocked after one or two posts, the only people who do contribute to CP are the sysops and chosen few to whom Andy has granted editing rights. Thus, they don't even know when editing is on or not. Ditto account creation - it's reached the point where only vandals and parodists are signing up. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Jekyll and Mr. Poor

So Ed's been critical but okay here just now.

I guess then he got stuffed into the CP Maximum Fun Chamber and was turned into a Good Conservative again: It's not torture, liberals want America to lose the War of against Terror, where's their protest against torture elsewhere, and seriously, homosexual marriage isn't. PS: Liberals suck.^img --Sid (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have to keep in mind that Glorpus is fucking retarded. DickTurpis (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I love Ed's edit summary here. 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed. Go fuck yourself. Sincerely, ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed's a Wikipedian, in the sense that he's someone who devalues Wikipedia by his very presence. --Kels (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sid, Ed has been hypo-critical.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Poe's Law

Great idea ken!^img Ace^X-102 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. His interest in that new project sure lasted. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaker grills, speaker grill cloth, and headlight relays? Fuck, I've got that covered. Is Ken

intruding on my turf???  What the hell? Did Ken really type that??? ħuman 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the author, I shouldn't bother asking this, but: Is it just me, or does that page (beyond the definition) have absolutely nothing to do with Poe's law? Kallium^talk 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken is so amazingly efficient that he can get the boring on-topic stuff sorted out in a single paragraph, leaving lots of room to talk about and link to the things people really want to know - creationist debates, liberal superstition and machismo. Add to this his enormous stamina for marathon editing, and there's no stopping him. The defeat of atheism on the internets must be just around the corner now, once he's linked every page on CP to the machismo essay at the latest. Röstigraben (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how the Poe's law article has very little on Poe's law and just goes off on this unrelated tangent rant about atheists. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

wigo?

Why are there two different links to the same page on the Wigo? --Opcn (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps capture would have explained. When I logged on this morning it showed and edit-delete page/revert war between Ken

and Terry Koeckritz with (I think) ken restoring the page and tk immediately deleting it again. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Luckily clever trousers Ace saved it....Ace^X-102 09:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

I noticed that Schlafly reverted a comment by Conservative, but this is the diff: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=799626&oldid=799550^img. How? Senator Harrison (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

He oversighted it. It was probably very embarrassing. I believe Ken's comment came just before he put some shit on the front page, which Andy reverted. It inspired me to create this article: Conservapedia:Schlafly Trimming ^{ONE / TALK} 14:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw the comment before it got vaped. It was Ken crying to Andy about TK deleting his article that he'd "worked so hard on" and something about TK's "closet Darwinism." PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 15:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, to be a fly on the wall of TZB right now. In other news, I see CP's Poe's law has all the hallmarks of a Ken-turd. Long rambling passages, a totally unrelated picture and Ken-comment, and a hand space to link-spam all his machismo crap. Still, Andy evidently approves, so they're welcome to it. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That Poe's Law article makes me want to call Poe on it - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw wasn't there a whole thing (I think it was DeanS) who changed the blocking reasons and insisted there was "no parody on CP, only lies" or something like that. maybe they need to have a work in Ken's ear. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Making fun of the other side is a fallacy, except when I do it"^img. He put up that whole article and picked a fight with TK only to justify his clumsy attempts at satire and have yet another page link to it? Röstigraben (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Why do they put up with Ken? Can Ed tell us? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah and now, in true Ken style, he's protected it, thus preventing any sane editor from correcting it. Wait... what am I saying... sane editor on CP??? --PsyGremlin講話 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone left to protect it against? 20:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A fun email exchange:

Me to sysop1: "[W]hy do you let Ken do what he does on CP?"

SO1: "Conservative is zealous, but overall he does much more good than harm. I wish I could say as much for most of the crew at [RW]"

Me SO1: "What good has he done?"

silence ...

Sysop2 jumps in: "Please stop trying to manipulate and bait [SO1] You think that’s really fun? Really?"

Me to SO2: "I want to know why Ken is still around, so I've asked why Ken is still around, I think that is justified behavior. You may recall me asking you about it too."

SO2: "The answer is pretty obvious, it is the same reason you are still around RW, or anyone is still around any wiki……he does more good than harm, I suppose……"

Me to SO2: "Well what good has he done?"

More silence ...

--Opcn (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Opcn, how about building some hospitals rather than harassing CP sysops? Senator Harrison (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha Harrison FTW! Ace^X-102 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a CP Meme page? If so, the whole hospital thing should belong on it... --Sid (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Opcn: I'm tempted to ban you because a CP wiki editor suggested that you're as useful as Ken

... which even if only 1% correct, still means that you're completely an utterly a worthless piece of shit. Tell my why I shouldn't permaban you for being compared to Ken

. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A CP sysop being as much as 1% correct about something? I find that hard to believe. --Kels (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is irrefutable, Kels... CONSIDER YOURSELF LUCKY OPCN!!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know there's a similar WIGO, but...

...the stupidity just made me groan. Copypasted from Recent Changes, just flipped the chronological order so earlier entries come first:

• (Block log); 18:05 . . DanielPulido (Talk | contribs) blocked Gamma287 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (autoblock disabled) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
• (User creation log); 18:21 . . BrandonLyall (Talk | contribs) New user account
• (Block log); 18:29 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BrandonLyall (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Sock of blocked user: Same IP as "Gamma287")
• (Deletion log); 18:30 . . TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:BrandonLyall" (User/Talkpage of infinitely blocked user and/or vandal: content was: 'I am a sock of Gamma287' (and the only contributor was 'BrandonLyall'))

And there are still people who wonder why CP is attracting so few contributors? --Sid (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, while I was typing the above:

• (Block log); 18:35 . . TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked #68357 (Mistake, user was asked to recreate his account)
• (Block log); 18:34 . . TK (Talk | contribs) unblocked BrandonLyall (Talk | contribs) (Mistake, user was asked to recreate his account)

It really is hard to distinguish between TK just being a jerk and making honest mistakes. But the funniest part now is TK suggesting that the user should choose ANOTHER account to have his original account renamed to.^img Y'know, instead of simply OFFERING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE INSTEAD OF BANNING. --Sid (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Case in point re. "jerk vs. mistake": Why revert a pro-Jesus message^img in CP's Sandbox (while the sandbox itself has crap on it dating back^img to 2007)? --Sid (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Obvious parodist is obvious... that's why. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

unblocking many parodists it seems

just another example Ricardo 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, was User:Bugler a parodist? What does that word mean, anyway? --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

¿Ese era un chiste, no? Maybe you should read this site more? Ricardo 16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't TK be banning you for being a member of a Vandal Site, Ed? --204.187.34.100 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, is there proof that's really Ed? Senator Harrison (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That much stupid is hard to fake. --204.187.34.100 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

parodist? What does that word mean, anyway? One would hope that the author of the lines

Anyway, we are under no obligation to keep "users" around who don't quickly prove to be useful contributors. Too many parodists and troublemakers still plague us. I'd rather be safe than sorry - unless Mr. Schlafly tell me to stop being so "trigger happy".

would know what a parodist is.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Oh Lord, so much I'd like to say here. I'm torn between laughing hysterically and weeping because of the absolutely warped value system CP currently displays so blatantly. The question what "parodist" means is ultimately minor, and people will have different indicators to call someone this. I've actually been tempted to work on a "CP's Parodist Problem" essay, but with Jacob AND NOW BUGLER unblocked, it would take a different direction than what I had had in mind before, I guess. *sigh* So much to say, it's a pity that Ed will likely just be active for a day before vanishing for months again. --Sid (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to provide so much laughter. CP seems only able to laugh at Richard Dawkins. What a stodgy bunch they can be. If you want me to stay around more, you might try erasing some of the personal remarks on my talk page for me.

And to prove that it's really me, read this message to my doubting Thomas^img. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another example^img, in case you needed any help. Ricardo 17:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you can archive all that old stuff on your talk page. And can you resist the urge to pepper your comments with random red links? This isn't an encyclopedia. ħuman 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see one of the last remaining CP holdouts acknowledge us as your only audience. If Andy is playing to the crowd too, and that's the only reason I can think of for his endorsement of the ma-cheese-mo idiocy, I think we can declare CP officially life extinct as of this date. Anyone else want to sign the death certificate? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, all those thousands of page views are just bot-generated to lure us into complacency? --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We're laughing at you not with you. I've only been reading your drivel for a few months now but have referred hundreds of people to cp so they can laugh along with the rest of us at the utter stupid you display. No doubt assfly will be pleased that you are known on several football sites in the UK and elsewhere (no-one except you morons call football soccer - what you call football is rugby, named after the school). The only people who think you have any relevance or influence are assfly and his sycophants on cp. You're like the pub bore. Everyone knows you exist, everyone hears what you say and 'politely' listens - and then everyone disregards you until you leave the pub. Then we all start laughing. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

They're certainly not generated by people who think you're doing a bang up job of creating an encyclopaedia, that's for sure. Maybe you could ask the Arsefly nicely to release the data, I hear he's keen on that. I'd love to see the referrers log. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My favourite Bugler entry. The 9 (identical) photos of Hitler on CP's Obama article also had me laughing my ass off. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ed--your "link for Doubting Thomasses" doesn't work. Looks like it was deep-burned, and only RW's capture of it remains. Kind of says it all, really... --Gulik (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted FP that his sock in unblocked? I love for him to go back to editing as if nothing ever happened. DickTurpis (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Andy is gullible enough, but Bugler should try to convince him that he is not really a parodist and his account was merely hacked.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saying... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I love TK's hypocrisy when re-blocking Bugler: "User removed from the site after engaging in harassment of site's members" given that he was allowed to harass with TK's blessing, until he came out as a parodist, despite some people protesting. Just another day in la-la land. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Anne Rice

I see JPratt has weighed in and branded Anne Rice a liberal.^img However, bonus lulz for him leaving all the references to her faith in place.^img --PsyGremlin講話 10:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ms Rice seems to take the Gandhi line: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Him (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, this article (history + talk page) brings back some hilarious memories. Ed at his best. --Sid (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent resource for CP writers needing valuable feedback

I've been overlooking this page. Some of the ideas here are actually helpful, such as a few remarks twitting me for creating (and abandoning) stub articles. Thanks! --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't taken our advice to heart. You've yet to ban Ken

and nuke his "articles" from orbit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot write a decent response, so... here, this might help construe my current thoughts. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for feedback, Ed, then here is some: see somebody about that obsession you have with very young girls. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@Norseman: Looks like a typical liberal discovering that God has a sense of humor.

@Night Jaguar: I write about movies that my daughters might like. Since they are 15 and 14 now, expect more movie articles about teenage girls rather than preadolescents. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been humored since you began bullying editors contributors. In fact, I think you need a writing assignment as to why poor sarcasm leads to less lulz. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to put that in a quotebox and see how it pans out.

Ed Poor: expect more movie articles about teenage girls rather than preadolescents.

Yes, yes that was definitely a good decision. ^{ONE / TALK} 19:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys are so funny. *Yawn* Wake me up when the constructive criticism resumes. --Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally fail to believe that you would listen to any constructive criticism. You say that give you good advice about stubs? maybe you should begin to delete stub pages on CP then... constructive criticism is useless if you only pretend to follow it... Ricardo 19:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ed, you're the funny one. We've been doing this for more than three years now, and you expect us to now nicely sum up criticism on the fly? Here's constructive criticism: CP is beyond salvaging - burn it down and start from scratch.

I know this sounds just like all the other "Herp-a-derp, CP is ded!" comments, but I actually put a lot of thought into it. There are various factors contributing to it (TK, Ken, zero accountability, inconsistent rules, parodists, Andy's opinion being The Truth, etc.), and even if you managed to suddenly put a stopper on EVERYTHING (ban TK and stop listening to him behind the scenes, ban Ken, hold sysops accountable for their actions, make them obey the rules they enforce, kick out all parodists, convince Andy to focus more on encyclopedic content and less on hating liberals), the site is utterly broken by now. There is basically nobody around anymore (if you ignore the core sysops and, well, parodists), tons of "articles" are beyond useless, and the entire underlying set of rules and policies needs to be redesigned.

With 90/10, Writing Plans, "Liberal [noun]" articles, Jesus' healing powers disproving General Relativity, and God being unable to express his message properly because he lacked modern conservative words, nothing we say here will really help CP.

And even if we did, our criticism would invariably touch someone's pet projects, leading to a quick "Hahaha, Ed, why do you even talk to these cyber-terrorists?" before exactly nothing changes. But hey, if you want to hear such feedback, I'm sure we can think of something.

I'm truly sorry, Ed, but in my eyes, you're asking us "You give good feedback - how can we prevent the boat from sinking?" while everything under the Crow's Nest is already underwater. You need to move on from "How can we improve the project?" to "Where and how did things go wrong and what can we do to prevent it from happening again?" --Sid (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sid wins. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 21:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One constructive criticism. Where you say, "burn it down and start from scratch", that second step is really unnecessary. --Kels (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Me, I never cared that much about Ed Poor. The only constructive criticism I can think off:

- Stop randomly bullying authors you don't like with those useless demands for a "writing plan".

- And on the other hand, if you start a new article try to formulate for yourself at least some kind of idea on how you want it to look. That might prevent those completely half-assed stubs.

- Try not to be arrogant. Some people know more about certain topics, c'est la vie.

Oh, and the "You guys are so funny. *Yawn* Wake me up when the constructive criticism resumes". Act your age, please. I'd say something about opening your eyes to Andy's or Ken's behavior, but I think that would just fall on deaf ears since it would be too much like choosing your enemy's rationale against your comrades to you.. --GTac (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Expect more movie articles about teenage girls rather than preadolescents".-Ed Poor, 31 July, 2010.

I am not sure what I can say for constructive criticism. Sid is pretty much right, the site is ruined to the core, its original idealism and purpose had long ago been usurped. CP seems to simply run for the sake of running now. The sysops have so ingrained themselves into their particular niches of control they have been become an entrenched bureaucracy unwilling and perhaps unable to reform or change. In a way CP reflects the worst of big government: Corruption, avarice, power politics, a bureaucracy that ignores the law (rules), oppression (or regular users), authoritarianism, and paranoia. The community that CP was suppose to reach out to, conservative Christians, have been alienated by Andy's hubris. The final nail on the coffin being the Conservative Bible Project, usurping the one thing conservative and fundamentalist Christians never want to see usurped, the Bible. Now the site is nothing but the plaything of parodists, a joke that people on the left get to occasionally laugh at and use to smear conservatives, and conservatives ignore because it would serve as nothing but a millstone around their necks because the site has so far gone off the fringe. Start over. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The real users were the albatross around CP's neck, an occasional annoyance perhaps, but killing them ended the project. I still think it could be improved, but it would take a kind of dedication that no one with power has shown on CP. Looking at WP Ed seems to have done well early on, maybe if he took more of a leadership role and reigned in the ban hammering in addition to his stubs something positive would happen. --Opcn (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I just interrupt to say that this is my first time on television? Also, I do like that "Ed Poor" template. Nice work. Although, I guess, it could use a difflink? ħuman 09:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No I'm sorry Human, there isn't time, we have to go over to SirChuckB with his take on the situation: "basically, everything everyone else said. You also need to allow liberal editors.... look at WP, specifically the contentious articles.... The constant fighting between liberals and conservative, fans and haters, keeps the articles balanced. By banning everyone to the left of Andy (which is pretty much the entire planet except for Idi Amin (deceased) and a few hard core fascists) you've taken any chance for balance away. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, you made a typo. Idi Admin is very much alive.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

CP officially dead now

I know during quite time that TK and Rob come around here to try and bully people, but Ed? CP must be comatose. - π 06:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed Poor

Ah, Ed Poor. So nice to meet the back-stabber in person. Tell me, did you feel even a twinge of guilt when you ran squealing to Andy that JessicaT "wasn't pulling her weight?" Even after all the work she did on requests you made - such as the Japan-Korea treaties. Or was that the only excuse you could come up with at the time to cover TK's arse? Now I know you and TK are as thick as thrives, but to stoop so low? Even from you, that was unexpected. Also I would love your insights on the following:

• You find references to prostitutes "too lurid for your kids" in the Jack the Ripper^img article
• You object to Lara Croft's "bulging breasts and vulva", that only you can see in a tiny image of the game's cover
• You think a cartoon French maid is too sexy.

and yet:

• You add "rimming" to the Gay Bowel Disease (or whatever) article AND wikilink it!
• You create the bestiality article, after originally calling it "Sex with animals"
• You add a reference to bestiality as a form of fornications.
• You create the "hard-core pornography" redirect, as if searching for "pornography" alone isn't enough for your average CP visitor.

How on earth do you equate "prostitutes" being too lurid for your kids, when their own dad is writing about bestiality? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yawn, wake me up when Uncle Ed makes a constructive reply to this.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What can I say, I'm an eternal optimist. Maybe Ed will prove us wrong. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken goes stubbing

Ken just made ten stubs on seemingly random topics which - even more bizarrely - don't seem to show any possible connection to anything he's interested in obsessed with. They do seem to bear a slight relation though... company names and business concepts? Hmmm... I suspect there has been some behind-the-scenes talk. I suspect Ken has been brought into the principle's office. Perhaps the Sysops staged an intervention. I have a strong feeling Ken was told to generate some content that isn't his usual bollocks, and now he's trying to get his content:kencrap ratio up a bit to show he can control himself. Interesting times ahead in la-la land. ^{ONE / TALK} 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...

• 17:24, 31 July 2010 (hist) (diff) New! Warning shot ‎ (Created page with 'A warning shot, often called a shot across the bow (nautical term) is a harmless artillery shot or gunshot intended to call attention and demand some action. A warning shot is us…')

Yep, I think you're right on with your guess ;) --Sid (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This relates to him running squee squee to Andy about wanting to create articles for high value search terms. It's SEO cruft. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My theory is he has been reading modern "art of war" self-help style books, and has launched a "just war" against RW. Trying to make competing articles for RW hits, and other articles hinting at what he is doing, such as "warning shot." Keep in mind he did a "just war" article on ASK and he only goes there to say things to us. tmtoulouse 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't wait for CP:Project Blue Beam - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They're all gone^img already. Strange episode, my personal theory was that Ken had gotten into the white van speaker sales business. Röstigraben (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See my user page. See what I do for a living. Research. Ken is on a mission, and Andy, sanely for once, decided his blog was not a place he wanted actionable attacks on someone's livelihood hosted. ħuman 07:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the picture now. This is way more serious than I thought. Röstigraben (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)