Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive192

This is an archive page, last updated 12 August 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <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)

Curiouser and curiouser

Remember the discussion about night editing and registration being all wonky. Well, my handily placed informant (ok, I've bugged Andy's mouse) tells me the following:

Andy 26 April 2010 [7425] suspicious shutting off of editing

I'm increasingly suspicious of how editing and registration are off at unexpected, and apparently unjustified, times.

Tonight is a good example. It seemed like editing/registration was turned off, yet there was no reason to have it off. Am I missing something?

Perhaps we can individually turn it on when the site is unexpectedly quiet in order to counter overzealous turning it off by an unknown editor, or the software itself.

Thanks and I'm wondering if others have noticed this.

Andy

To which we get the reply

TK 26 Apr 2010 [7425] suspicious shutting off of editing

When arrived home tonight, I turned off registration while checking the new users and some edits, but that wasn't for long. I don't think I have ever shut down editing except when I saw a vandal attack going, weeks ago....but turns out it was too late for that anyway.

Are you seeing editing off as well as registration? Because it should always be registration going off and on, not editing!

So that clears up one little mystery. It would appear as if TK does indeed have the keys to the garage so to speak and is locking up as often as he can. Sauces. Gotta love 'em. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Am I missing something?" - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *falls off chair laughing* --Sid (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Want to hear something even funnier? Shortly after that, Andy restricted the ability to turn on/off editing and registration to just 3 Sysops besides himself: TK, Karajou, and CPWebmaster. Yet the problem persists. TK is blaming one of the others and wants this ability limited to just one person: himself. Andy is clueless. WIGO edit 25 July Fred4T (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

aren't actions like that logged so admins can see exactly who and when they occured ? Hamster (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an official Special Page or anything (also can't see a corresponding right or user group), so I guess it goes conveniently unlogged. --Sid (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saving Conservapædians from the fires of Hell

Gentlemen,

My attention has been drawn to your article on Natural Science. In one section^img, you cite an example of how predictions about a scientific theory can bolster that theory if those predictions prove true. Your example concerns EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION:

...it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of Tiktaalik in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.

The astronomy bit just below it looks suspiciously heretical as well. Please remove the offending material lest some impressionable young mind mistakes your blog for an encyclopædia. ^{— Unsigned, by: Brendiggg / talk / contribs} Datestamp. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Words redux

VERY impressive!^img. Very nice charts too. How do you think he will react? ^{— Unsigned, by: Ricalt1821 / talk / contribs}

How will they react? Red alert. evasive pattern delta. Mr. TeeKay, charge the banhammer! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Andy was stupid enough to submit to experimentation. One of the core tenets of any strong religion is that you never ever ever ever ever test it. --Opcn (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between an established religion and a cult: the pope - or the Dalai Lahma - doesn't handle snakes himself any longer, while a cult-leader has to... I even would go so far that the pope lacks the conviction to handle snakes, and therefore happily relies on his snake-handling bureaucracy, providing him with plausible deniability in the case of snake-bites.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy dishes out a crushing rebuttal^img... RonLar forgot about the oil wells! --MarkGall (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF does that even mean? Am I missing something, or does that not even vaguely address the point? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

lolololol... you must be new here. You're always missing something, because the most direct they will ever address a point is vaguely. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: That may be some fancy numbers and graphs, but you never talked about my metaphor! --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And, sadly, RonLar won't...^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No surprises there, but really good work anyway.

I must add I always imagined that the rate of new words describing conservative concepts actually would increase, since it is logical that any word that describe a modern version of an old concept is likely to have been generated recently. However, you prove that the rate is mostly random, which I interpret to mean that Andy is just full of random opinions that are only very loosely related to actual conservative ideas.

Another interesting thing that Andy points out, is that it is the rate of best words, not just the rate of words, or rate of "good" words, or the general quality of words, that is increasing - which only means that his own criteria for what is a "best" word changes according to his own pattern of choice. Etc 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd write directly to Andy if I were you, and argue that TK's ban was unfair. He'll probably ignore you, but there's a very small chance he'll revert the ban. I think that sometimes Andy REALLY believes that he is fair and open-minded... which is rather worrysome, to be honest. --Maquissar (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And we're back to normal. Didn't you get an explicit prior permission from Andy to make your case? Well, he's probably deluded enough to think his gibberish about oil drilling won the argument for him anyway. Nice work though. Röstigraben (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, andy has as much control over cp as a driver of an aquaplaning car has over his vehicle. He twiddles the wheel pretending he is steering whilst all the while the wheels do whatever they want, ignoring him completely.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually when aquaplaning the driver's wheel retains authority over the steering wheels on the car, it's just that those wheels are no longer in contact with the road surface because they're skimming over a film of water and so the car continues in a roughly straight line. The aquaplaning analogy to CP may be sound, but your description of what's wrong is misleading. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, if we nitpicked every simile/metaphor, then no one would ever want to use one. All analogies suck, all similes and metaphors are fundamentally flawed. We all know that an aquaplaning car is out of control, the details behind it are trivial. Bitching about the details that don't matter is like complaining that your windshield is dirty when your car is entirely destroyed. The windshield isn't the problem, and by focusing on that, you're wasting everyone's time. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about analogies is like baking madeleines in a badly vented kitchen while companies are financing wars to keep control over the banana production in South American countries.. --GTac (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I believe it is a lot more like riding a polar bear with a fedora hat through a Swiss clock factory while playing metal Wagner covers on a purple plastic pan flute. Seriously. Etc 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Arguing about analogies is not like that, it is literally that - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)`

CP is like a car with four broken tie rods. Fixed. ħuman 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

TinOl5 calls andy on his refusal to answer RonLar's^img points at 22.10. Andy, la, la, la can't hear you at 22.47. jpatt blocks TinOl5 at 22.26. ^imgOldusgitus (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Relics

John the Baptist's bones found in Bulgaria. Again. I'm sure somewhere else claims his bones. And why would a nice Jewish boy end up in Commie (or ex-Commie) Bulgaria. (Unless he's a missing Womble). However, this whole relics thing is a very Catholic idea (I mean haven't they found enough pieces of the cross to make one 3km long or something stupid). It smacks horribly of idoltry to me. I mean would JtB's bones be in a church that's supposed to only worship God? --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a QI about Mary's mum (Anne?) having seven certified heads. 16:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, read the linked article. It tells you about the half dozen other places who also have John the Baptist's bones. Amazing people, those Biblical characters, they all must have looked like Krishna. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I always thought the "relic" thing was weird. I like to imagine there's something like Warhol's Factory jut pumping them out somewhere. Quaru^{eel - You can't explain that!} 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately YouTube doesn't seem to have a clip from The Black Adder where they actually do start selling relics. "Here, I have a true relic, a fragment of bone from the finger of Our Lord Himself!!" "...that's funny, I thought they only came in packs of 10." ^moral 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoo! 6:46 in ^moral 16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And why would a nice Jewish boy end up in Commie (or ex-Commie) Bulgaria. Er, because Communism wasn't invented during the Middle Ages? Faking relics was an industry in that period, though, so chances are these are John's bones, or at least people at the time thought so. :) That guy must have had interesting skeletal structure. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You realize they will use Carbon Dating to test the age of these bones, right? So if the dating shows the bones as too old or too young, then Carbon Dating doesn't work and they are denying his existence to besmirch the Bible. If the age does turn out to be right, CP will have to deal with the uncomfortable idea of declaring the bones truly John's, acknowledging grudgingly that dreaded "evolutionist" method. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But don't they already accept carbon dating as being correct for the Turin shroud? i.e. it's fine when it agrees with them, but start using it to go 10 or 20000 years into the past, then it's the Devil's machine. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the first few sentences, did they have any reason other than the date January 24th being inscribed on the alter in which the jar had been sealed to think it was John the baptist? --Opcn (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the monastery was dedicated to John the Baptist comes to mind. :-) The very name of the island, Sveti Ivan (Saint John), is a reminder of that. Of course, this only tells us that in the Middle Ages the local Christians probably believed that those were his relics... not that they actually are. --Xyr (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw JtB's arm just a few weeks ago in Istanbul. I can confirm that it looked very saintly. --Horace (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like the arm of Goldfinger to me. "Do you expect me to be the messiah?" "No, Mr. Christ! I expect you to die!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

just check for a head. John the baptist didnt have one since Salome gave it to her mother 67.72.98.45 (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that relics are not just a Catholic thing as they have them in the Orthodox church and there is the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, Sri Lanka which is supposed to have one of the Buddha's teeth (BTDT). It exemplifies the need of many people to have a physical link to something in the past. This is why some people cannot abide the idea of cremation and need a physical grave to visit. Despite the claims of religion to the "spiritual" there is actually an incredibly strong desire for that to be done through a material link. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Flying Kitty makes front page

Encyclopedic.

I WIGOed it post haste. A large part of me hopes that Andy will eventually just snap and strip Ken of all his rights. --Opcn (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GLORIOUS DAY! The perfect storm: The pinnacle of his insanity mixed with the visibility of the main page! -- JArneal 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is so going to be trimmed. I print screened the mainpage. I'm thinking of putting it on the Wikipedia article on CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

do it again^img andy just added more crap. --Opcn (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia's new spoof of evolution appears to be immensely popular and has received over 800 views in about one day." If only Ken could see the server logs and where those referrals were coming from. ... Server logs are a very rich source of information, Ken. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 02:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I find many useful bits of information on my webs site's server logs. ħuman 04:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ughh, it's really ugly. You know how they say a TV show has "jumped the shark" when it starts to get bad? I propose using the phrase "flew the cat" for a website that has totally, utterly, absolutely lost it (okay, CP was always crazy but this is ridiculous even for them). --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous. AAARRRGH. Quantumcat (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, CP has finally "flown the kitteh". I can't believe it's still there. ħuman 04:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in awe (shock, horror) at the edit history for this article. The author is either deeply committed or should be. Hamster (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderful to see Andy's dreams crushed underfoot by his own minions? I wonder which way he'll jump, can he summon the spine to stop CP becoming a sort of more unfunny encyclopaedia dramatica? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Alright, I just can't believe it's stayed up there this long. I know it's well-established that Andy doesn't look at WIGOs, but I almost think that some way or another, Andy found out about the prediction of the trim and is leaving it there to spite us. -- JArneal 05:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still there... ħuman 07:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

god dammit ken, just stop filling CP with your unfunny comedies. Seriously ken, what goes on in your mind???? -- my name is slugboy 08:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken just trimmed it himself. But that may just be paving the way for more insanity. Watch this space. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Has he taken a break in the past 24 hours? FFS TK, DO SOMETHING. Or get Andy to do something. Ken is obviously becoming seriously deranged and for you lot to sit back and let it happen says a hell of a lot about you and you charity.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he was gone from 14:00 to 20:00, that's a six hour hot dog and nap break. He also took several 30-90 minute naps or macaroni and cheese breaks over the next half day. Seems perfectly healthy to me. ħuman 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As pointed above, Ken stripped the flying kitty from the frontpage himself in these wee hours of the morning. You think he finally realized that perhaps he is doing more harm then good? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Knowing Ken, it's not very likely that he would have voluntarily removed his crap from pride of place on Main Page. I have a feeling a serious smackdown was issued in the ZB. But due to having to show a unified face in public (despite Terry and Geoff calling Karajerk 'deranged' behind his back) they allowed Ken to remove it himself. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been contacting the sysops about kens shenanegans with these essay for a few days, maybe that was enough to get the to stop ignoring it. --Opcn (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact than Kenny is still filling up RC with his crap, somehow disproves the theory that they've done something. A part of me is starting to think, with a suitable look of horror, that they actually approve of what he's doing. After all, his crap isn't really all that much worse than Andy's writings. --PsyGremlinHable! 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm very certain that, as hard to believe it may be for us, 'Andy and the other true believers don't see Ken as deranged and embarrassing. They think he's witty and successful. They have no problem convincing themselves that we want him offline because we think we are losing the argument. You see this dynamic quite regularly in communities that have been taken over by their own radical fringe, on the right and on the left alike. mb 10:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I done heardededed through the grape vine that Andy keeps him around because his articles get massive numbers of page views. I wonder if we could successfully boycot one of the big 5 pages, or all of them, maybe have one bot set to screen shot and report back here and have everyone we can avoid clicking on the big 5. --Opcn (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oldusgitus: ask and ye shall receive: Template:KenBreaks

mb 11:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MB. So he may have got some half-decent rest on the 5th but other than that no rest of any significance in the past 3 days. Oh dear. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely fantastic. The picture of a sleepy moon makes it. And it lead me to the KenRuns template too :D What are the parameters for a KenRun and a KenBreak? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You're welcome. A KenRun is a stretch of activity that has lasted for 6 hours or longer. A KenRun is considered to have ended if Ken has not made any edits in 60 minutes. A KenBreak is a break that Ken has taken from editing that has lasted at least 4 hours.

The KenBreaks template takes an optional parameter you can use to tell it how many KenBreaks you want to see, e. g. {{KenBreaks|3}} will show the 3 most recent KenBreaks. The maximum meaningful parameter value is 20, e. g. {{KenBreaks|42}} is equivalent to {{KenBreaks|10}}. The default is 5, i. e. {{KenBreaks}} shows the 5 most recent KenBreaks. The KenRuns template takes an optional parameter that works the same. You can see I'm totally not getting carried away by this.

mb 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, you pick up your meds the first day, you get that burst of energy and start just going nuts, but of course as you start to wind down you need to take more to keep this great stuff flowing...and the sun comes up the next day and you're still going...and the next...and a day or so more...and at some point you start to crash, and that's when you complain about health problems, because you're really not feeling so hot and probably hallucinating like a mofo... --Kels (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

breakdown?

There are now 256 Fliegende Katzen on the Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?^img. Looks like a total breakdown of Ken to me. 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<capture></capture> failed: not surprised: I've got a copy myself. 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The capture works, it's the thumbnailer that failed: Media:Capture 3332be320be80aba33a0c7015c4c3eafa34ecc7e.png --CaptureBot // tlk sbx cmd cfg ctb blk 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

CP has "flown the kitten" x 256. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I find him sad and don't much enjoy picking on him. He's one of those lonely losers who think everyone else is the problem, and not him. The inherent hilarity of Captain Pussington is only obvious to Ken, and that he was told to take the stupid thing off the main page now has him acting out. Is anything more pathetic than this? I'm ignoring him because it's as painful to watch as a retard poking his eye out because nobody corked his fork. Shame on you, Conservapedia. --Leotardo (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncharitable of me (but I'm liberal so what's new) but I imagine TK rubbing his hands as his masterplan comes together. 18:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this truly is the final death throes of Ken's mind. First the article, then the mainpaging of the article, then the 256 copies of the gif on the article, and then the announcement of the flying kitty squadron^img on the main page. When will it end? ^{ONE / TALK} 21:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

“”I love it when a plan comes together.

—Col. John "Hannibal" Smith, The A-Team

SJ ^Debaser 22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed Sheepfilms (the UK creators of the cat) with links. 23:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply: "Thanks for bringing it to my attention. As they've not removed my watermark I'm not really that bothered, I've just asked them to cite my site as the source. Besides, he seems to have had fun with it" 14:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

here 'tis 00:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The about page on that blog has the guy's Twitter feed, which contains the following:

"My cat, through the act of flying, seems to be endorsing fundamentalist Christian dogma & intelligent design. Go Puss! http://bit.ly/cCUpam # 5 hours ago"

So I guess he already knows about it. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy shooting from the hip

lol Andy... So quick to argue he forgets almost everything!

Andy: "Newton is often seen as one of the most influential men in all of history and perhaps the greatest scientist ever."

Andy: "[Newton is] considered the greatest physicist of all time."

Uh oh, Andy! Liberals! Quick, disagree with them!!!

Andy: "If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!"

Occasionaluse (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Err.. Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Really.3F. 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But they didn't have my awesome assfly quotes. Appreciate it or GTFO of the thread. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have put your comments in the earlier section, No? and don't be so fucking rude. 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And you could have just kept your fucking mouth shut, No? and you were so fucking polite about it, too. I'm not back 5 minutes and I'm already being reminded why I left. Because sandy-vagina'ed old cunts like you can't pick up on sarcasm. And MB, I like you, but don't fuck around with me. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gosh you're a delight and doing so well to endear yourself. Keep up the good work. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind the injustice, just keep going with that hive mentality. It suits you so well, Nutty. And to think we used to be cool. What a fucking joke this place is. 207.67.17.45. Go ahead and make the ban permanent. 193.200.150.137 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone asking to be unblocked, you sure change your mind often. Here's a tip: instead of asking everyone to stop you from editing, man up and stop it yourself. :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we all know changing your mind isn't a good thing. Thanks for the contrib, bro. 207.67.17.45 (talk)

Wait, is the above what David Gerrard blocked occasionaluse for? Really? What a tool. ħuman 00:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Back on Topic

Ignoring the whining going on above, full marks to whoever BenjyB and CathyB are, for trolling to the max and bringing out the crazy in Andy. Huzzah! --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, isn't this the whole "The Only Great Composers Are German" bullshit again? --PsyGremlinTala! 17:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's just something... ironic about using a computer to disparage the works of George Boole and Alan Turing.

Okay, I'm going to have a tantrum. He's dismissing Alan fucking Turing! YYYYYYYYAAAARRGGHHHHH!!!!

Thanks, I feel better now. MDB (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah at least there's never a dull moment when Andypants is around. --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain"^img. Someone also copied and pasted the list I gave earlier of great British mathematicians. Andy's rationalizations are (like always) weak. I don't see why "pre-modern" exempts Newton. Many would include Euclid and Archimedes as great mathematicians despite them being far older than Newton. He also seems to take a very narrow definition of "British". He exempts Hamilton because he was Irish, but Ireland was part of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" during his entire life (he was also knighted and secretary of the British Science Association). Apparently, while Wiles was born, raised and educated in Britain he did his work in the US so he doesn't count (for some reason). Seriously, sometimes merely stating Andy's 'arguments' are enough to refute them. While Russell's goals were undermined by Gödel, it's absurd to say it made his entire work invalid. Russell's paradox and his theory of types still stands. As for "others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians", I'm sure that like "best conservative words" what qualifies a "great mathematician" on Conservapedia depends solely on whatever suits Andy Schlafly's purposes. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I love it. Andy never retreat from a indefensible position Schlafly: Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain.

• Newton: 1643 - 1727
• Kingdom of Great Britain: 1707 - 1800

• William Rowan Hamilton 1805 - 1865
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: 1801 - 1922

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If Andy can find a way to dismiss someone/something he will even if its a wild stretch. He uses the term "best" to mean those that he agrees with. For example Stephen Hawking is a great mathematician and theoretical physicist but I am sure Andy wouldn't agree and claim liberal deceit and professor values. Quazywabbit (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the statement, but only as an overthinking pedant, Newton did most of his influential work as a younger man, wasting most of his later days on alchemy and crap. Principia was published in the 1680s. So his mathematics (maths being notorious as a game for young minds only) would have been "pre Britain". Not that this would mean anything in any real context. ^moral 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we now say that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others were not American since they weren't born in America but instead in British Colonies? Quazywabbit (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a good list of great mathematicians here. British/English: 9. Native-born Americans: 0. Somebody should burn a sock on that one. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Andy claims Newton doesn't count because that was "pre-British" even though he originally said there was no Englishman who is good at math, and Newton certainly was English. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an objective FACT

"We tell the truth here, whether Anglophiles accept it or not. The relative weakness of Britain in mathematics is an objective fact."^img and facts do back Andy up here, because FOUR minutes later a trustworthy encyclopaedia miraculously has an article on how only sucky people insist Britain is good for anything^img. Andy, you're killing me! --GTac (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

His hatred towards the English/British (he tends to mix them up) is absolutely hilarious. It's just so irrational. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get it. Why is Schlafly seriously ragging on us Brits these days? Didn't we elect a conserva... well, less evil liberal government like a good 51st state? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

EC)It's payback for his (I think) Scottish ancestry on his mother's side and for the English always taking the piss out of Americans for being fat and for being late in to two World Wars. 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, they've promised to make up for their tardiness in the first two world wars by being early to the third. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

^<snigger> 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait to rub this in the face of all my British friends who have been awarded the Fields Medal. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget, if it weren't for the French then the US would almost certainly have remained a chattle of his majesty until we decided to allow them their 'independence'. It must REALLY piss them off that they only won their 'war of indpendence' because 2 countries from the other side of the world were fighting over them. And the frickin French cheated...... Rub that in your friends faces.Oldusgitus (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain"^img. The only reason he limits it to the last 200 years seems to be so that he doesn't have to count his beloved Newton. Even if you limit it to the past 200 years Britain does well. Considering their population relative to the world, they are overrepresented. If you look at the link provided by TerrenceKoeckring above, 9 of the 99 greatest mathematicians listed there were English/British. But why am I wasting my time debunking the claims of a crazy man? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(unident) not sure who saml is but his last comment where he provided Andy a list of Mathematicians will certainly fail since Andy is only looking at the past 200 years and Andy isn't too fond of reading sources. Quazywabbit (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to annoy the arsefly, Roger Penrose would probably be a good candidate. One of the greatest living mathematicians, and believer in such horrible bible-belief destroying ideas as black holes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajou to the rescue! EddyP (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted by JoanZ, of the 48 Fields Medal winners 6 are from the UK. Considering that the UK makes up ~1% of the population of the planet, they did very well. Also, 8 are Cambridge alumni. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajou realizes he has lost and decides to threaten. EddyP (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

lol, Karajou blocks for 2 hours for "Contradicting Administrator". --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And SamI is blocked for all eternity. EddyP (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And Terry Koeckritz godspeed's an entire nation, earning him a 9.8 on the dickometer. Excellent work. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Karajou: ""Caponaphilia" (love for holiday massacres)."^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's love of castrated cocks. (Male hens, that is) 22:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Assuming the WTF was genuine) Al Capone, the St. Valentines Day Massacre. (Sorry if I'm stepping on a joke.) Random surfer (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I love seeing their natural jingoism (or is it xenophobia) coming to the fore. I'm guessing that Andypants is seriously pissed that the conservatives jumped into bed with the Lib Dems. Either that, or as the old joke goes... they aren't racist, they hate everybody equally. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"An Anglophile, for example, might insist that William Shakespeare was the most influential person of the second millennium." Um, there's a good chance he was. Andy, I give you Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, wherein the pre-eminent scholar and arch conservative Harold Bloom argues that Willy not only "invented the English language" but "created human nature as we know it today". Of course, at over 700 pages, it is far from concise. ħuman 00:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakey was a dirty commie sonofabitch:

Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man,

That slaves your ordinance, that will not see

Because he doth not feel, feel your power quickly;

So distribution should undo excess,

And each man have enough. Lear, IV:I

--Robledo (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "Brits, we're talking about mathemsticians in this thread. [Hehe]....That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell)."

Computer geek/physicist/ political hack and mathematician are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, there's a lot of overlap with computer geek/physicist. As for "political hack", Russell was no such thing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the entire purpose of the "Brits can't do maths" thing to talk about Turing? --Opcn (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sent this letter to ASchlafly@aol.com

Hi Andy, In your best new conservative words thread you have dismissed dissenters for bringing Turing up in a conversation about mathematics in Britain. You have ignored the fact that you brought up mathematics in Britain as a means of dismissing Turing. Either Turing is a mathematician and you chiding the editors inappropriate, or Turing is not a mathematician and you dismissing him by complaining about the state of math in Britain was inappropriate. Your argument has come full circle and bit you in the ass. Sincerely, Emerson White

To be fair bringing Turing into an argument about math that is a subargument about Turing is kind of begging the question.--Opcn (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You also have a typo in your email. So everything you say is wrong. ħuman 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

FUCK, What did I get wrong? Damn my dyslexia! --Opcn (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be "has ... bitten", but it could also read "your argument ... bit you". Not a big deal, since your sentence structure was too complex for Andy to grasp anyway. ħuman 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Me, I just love that Turing apparently isn't a REAL mathematician, cause he's just a computer geek.. cause he pretty much layed the ground-works for the computer? which is, basically, something that computes, or determine by mathematical means. --GTac (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course they hate Turing. Thanks to him, the common computer is nothing but a homo's devil machine.

Ayatollah Schlafly

Must rid Koran of liberal bias.

Anyone notice the striking similarities between the weird and unrelated things Schlafly decides to detest on any given day, and backwards yokel Muslim clerics decreeing fatwas about the bizarre things they happen to find detestable? He'd have done pretty well for himself in Iran, it's really only an accident of birth he ended up such a loser. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. It takes intelligence, erudition, intellectual rigor, and political sagacity to become an ayatollah. mb 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And, according to the article, followers... Kallium^talk 22:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because everything that is convinient at the time becomes a political absolute.--Opcn (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@mb: Yes, to become an Ayatollah you need those qualities and to have displayed them over many years, earning the trust of a substantial body of lay Shia opinion. The big exception is the current Supreme Leader[*], who is generally regarded as a jumped-up twerp, is feared much more than he is respected and has less legal and religious knowledge than many in more junior ranks of the hierarchy. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC) PS [*] Maybe it isn't clear: 'Supreme Leader' refers to "Ayatollah" Khamanei, not the guy on the right.

Some News on Andy's Polish conservative hero

The Pol who cracked the first enigma and Andy claims "was the brains" behind the rest (even though he didn't have a clue if his work was even used in the rest for 20 years, he was that closely involved in the project) was an anti-semite! Funnything about drilling for oil, you're liable to end up mighty dirty in the process. --Opcn (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy should have claimed credit for the US in cracking enigma. I seem to remember a completely accurate hollywood doco showing it was jon bon jovi who captured the enigma machine in the first place. This yet more evidence that the US won the war entirely on there own with no help from anyone ever.--AMassiveGay (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's entire reply as of Saturday Aug 7

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&diff=next&oldid=802088

All he does is add another link to his inane anglophile article - in a new section - and call people "Brits". What an ass. ħuman 04:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And then there were two....

We're living in the end times, my friends. CP is now down to Schlafly, his bodyguard of Karajou and TK who do nothing but bully, block and harass, plus Ken who is now totally off the deep end. It's gloriously ignominious, I can scarcely tear myself away from gawking at the death throes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And FOIA, the guy who makes Rob look like a communist. 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Even Bert's down to five a month or thereabouts 23:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't count the little people. They've got their own agendas to see to, and don't give a flying fuck if CP lives or dies. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They are the two biggest topic authors after Ken to the point of out maniaing^{[is word?]} his mono tri mania. 23:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That flying kittie thing has gotten even stranger. Ken is definitely so far from the rails he can't even hear the choo choo when it comes by looking for him. ħuman 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I just ignore him now. Which is the same as Andy, Karajou and TK do. Maybe I should make a greesemonkey script to hide all of his edits when viewing recent changes. Quazywabbit (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andy already has. If he can't see it, it's not a problem! --Kels (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sid's got one (I think it's Sid). 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You remembered correctly. :) --Sid (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"And then there were two" - So who left then? BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody really left, but the user Conservative has gone completely insane and has less influence. --signed by an Onion^{talk edits} 00:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

i dont want CP to die, where will i get my lulz... also, with CP gone, RW would no longer have any purpose really, apart from CreationWiki and aSK.

Also Ken has started a whole breakup of the flying kitty thing. sigh. [1]--10:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC) forgot to sign whoops.

Essay: Flying kitty series.....sigh.....someone at CP really needs to do something about this. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So does this mean he has given up on his famed Richard Dawkins project? Will it join the dustbin along with the Abortion and Socialism Projects in favor of flying cats? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what's happened to Uncle Ed? no edits for over a week Worm^{(t | c)} 10:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer holiday? ħuman 01:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just thought of a totally unworthy joke. I'm just going to be over here, being quietly ashamed. --Kels (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally tried not to think of one, Smeg Ed jokes always make me feel dirty, and not in a good way. ħuman 01:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy rewrites history (yet again)

Andy: Anglophiles "downplay or ignore how Britain perpetuated the brutal slave trade long after civilized societies (such as America) had prohibited it"^img.

UK

Slave Trade Act 1807: Abolished slave trade in British Empire.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833: Abolished slavery.

US

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 prohibits slave trade beginning Jan.1,1808.

13th Amendment passed in 1865. Ends slavery in US.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it! I read that same line and went "bwaaa?". :O However I am curious, why does CP (or more specifically Andy) hate all things British (or English, its all the same to them)? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Brits live in a country plagued by subhuman non-hospital-building atheists. At least, that's what I think the reason is, since Andy always associates anything and everything British with atheism (for example, see this diff from Andy, where he is referring to the ArcelorMittal Orbit) ~SuperHamster Talk 02:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Argh...now he's saying they don't have freedom of speech^img and are all responsible for Piltdown man^img. To mock Andy all you have to do is quote him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy's a mean-spirited, little man, and people like that have their hatreds and bigotry triggered by personal encounters that in some way or another scar them. Look at how Andy feels about Obama and how it all got triggered by Obama basically pwning Andy at Harvard. Somewhere along the line Andy suffered major butthurt involving Britain or somebody from there and, like with Obama, looks for any excuse to justify that hatred. God knows what it was, British Conservative politicians, maybe even Thatcher, laughing about or putting down Mama Syphilis Assfly, maybe Andy tried applying for a uni place over here but got knocked back, maybe a replay of Obama with somebody British pwning Andy at university, etc. It would be nice to find out.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 03:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The slave trade thing is actually even worse than indicated above. Not only was slavery abolished earlier in the UK but the Royal Navy played an enormous part in fighting the international slave trade at a time when slavery still remained legal in parts of the US. In Andy's home state of New Jersey slaves were still held as late as 1860. Although, in fairness, the British West Africa squadron was assisted by the US after 1808, Andy's rewriting of history remains just plain shameful. --Horace (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Stunteddwarf: how did Obama pwn Andy at Harvard?

Britain actually played quite the role in abolishing slavery in the 19th century. If you see here, they made treaties with other countries ending it and even payed Spain and Portugal to stop trading. There's a lot to legitimately critize the British Empire for, but Andy's complaint really isn't one of them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair New Jersey stated the gradual abolishing of slavery as far back as 1807. Still doesn't make him right in the slightest about Britain supporting the slave trade after the U.S. ended it. In fact the British, once they abolished the slave trade, became one of the most aggressive powers when it came to ending it worldwide. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Obaba edited the harvard law review, I suspect andy wanted the spot for himself. --Opcn (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Obama was President of the Law Review and Andy himself was just a humble editor. It is believed, though we never got confirmation, that Andy actually stood for the position against Obama and lost. Even if that is just an amusing fantasy, the truth is that Barry was top dog and Andy was his bitch. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so much that Andy lost to Obama, it was that the conservative candidates (of which we assume Andy was one) were asked to stand down in favour of a more centralist candidate (David Goldberg) and they still lost. And given that we know just how Andy can hold a grudge. Of course, if it wasn't for nasty affirmative action then Obama wouldn't have been at Harvard, Andy would have been HLR Pres, and Pres of the US today, with Phyliss Snr. as First Witch. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew that you would have more details on that PsyG. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Andy's anti-British thing I was just befuddling my brain at AIG and found this quote by Terrry Mortenson:

“”Two centuries ago Britain was a nation heavily influenced by Biblical Christianity. How sad to watch that nation today slide into moral and spiritual chaos as God's Word has been brought down while Darwin’s Origin of Species has been exalted. We see the same consequences of evolution in America and other nations, wherever the Creator’s Word is rejected in favor of death and struggle over millions of years.

This seems to encapsulate Andy's thinking on the matter. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)As above, plus the simple fact that Obama was at Harvard at all. As far as Andy was concerned Obama didn't come from a family of money or influence, he didn't know anyone at Harvard to pull strings for him, and to cap it all off the boy was multiracial as well and had two fathers, and I think we can all guess the Schlafly family position on a mixed-race relationship that took place in the sixties, given Syphilis Assfly's rabid frothing at the mouth opposition on equal rights for women at the time.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this anti UK sentiment unique to CP or is it reflected elsewhere state side? I am aware there was some minor stuff involving BP and the oil slick, but thats surely to recent?--AMassiveGay (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly CP. At a guess most Americans when asked about the UK either say meh, or like the UK. It's certainly like that when Americans leave comments on various UK news-sites-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

I can't work it out. I think you see the same kind of casual racism on sites like rapture ready as well. I'm not sure if it's a right wing thing in the states or more general, particularly <broad generalisation alert> as the most fundie tend to be the least educated and so genuinely believe that, for example, the US saved the UK from Germany in 1942 because they genuinely know nothing about the Battle of Britain </broad generalisation alert>. They are also the ones most likely to call chips freedom fries because they have absolutely no idea AT ALL what the French did during the second world war and have no idea of the thoousands of resistance fighters who were tortured to death whilst the US, by and large, sat by and watched or in the case of the bush family traded with Hitler and made a fortune to pay for his son and grandson to go to Yale. I think they seriously think that all good comes from the US and because the Brits have a highly developed sense of irony and self-deprecation they simply don't understand us. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"...they seriously think that all good comes from the US..." - no shit. What pisses me off is that Andy seems to know literally fuck all about Britain or England, or the people that live here, and seems to think the two names are interchangeable. While this is bog-standard Andy knowing nothing about </insert topic here> it's closer to home with me. All this Anglophile stuff is fairly hate-filled. SJ ^Debaser 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

His anglophobia is par for the course for Andy. Of all the genuine contributors to the site Andy is the one who is most lukewarm about Thatcher, and you get the feeling that he wants to call her a liberal except that even Andy realises he probably couldn't get away that.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

[ud]It's rather interesting that Andy blames the whole of Britain for the Piltdown Hoax, it was exposed by the British too. And that John Peter Zenger reference to 'prove' lack of free speech is even odder, if it was English Law that was under discussion at the time, then free speech won. If it was American [colonial] Law then why's it there?82.23.208.15 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@OldGit If the US had stuck to the war in the pacific (and not sent supplies and weapons to the UK before entering the war) would the UK have avoided being taken over?

@BON If you recall a year or two ago (I'm too lazy to find the diffs) the UN was about to pass blasphemy laws, my first illegitimate block at CP was when I pointed out what a burden these would be on free speech, and pointed out to Andy that by going to church and praying to Jesus he was committing blasphemy against Islam, they showed me the door really quickly. Andy doesn't give a flying fuck about freedom of speech, not one flying fuck. --Opcn (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To the first point, yes. The Battle of Britain denied Germany air supremacy, which they needed to destroy the British navy before they could invade. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it your position that the victory of the RAF in the Batle of Britain at the beginning of the war was so decisive that the British would have been able to hold back the Nazi's indefinitely? --Opcn (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't know about that, I do note that the Germans were fucked by taking on Stalin first and foremost. Everything else was mopup. Try to get CP to admit that, too - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was the USSR that did the real work, but yes - the RAF were just strong enough to hold off the Germans. Until the Germans had wiped out the RAF, they couldn't try to invade because the Royal Navy was always stronger than the Kriegsmarine. If the Germans had won the BoB, the naval superiority enjoyed by Britain would have been worthless in the face of unchallenged aerial attacks. In other words, as long as the RAF did just enough, the Germans could never invade. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that the USSR (more Hitlers imbalance when fighting than the USSR itself) was what crushed Hitler, however through out the entire war the RAF just barely did enough to hold back Hitler, which was an impressive feat, but through a good three years or so they were doing just barely enough with American supplying raw materials and airplanes and technology. If you take just barely enough and you subtract significant resources you get not good enough. Hell by the time the US entered the war they had already moved most of the battle fleet to the Atlantic hadn't they? --Opcn (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Other way around, dear boy. It was the Brits wot told the Yanks about radar and well before the outbreak of WWII, Britain had a superb system of radar protecting the coast (here's one ref). I've seen the combination of radar and decent fighter squadrons described as "The one preparation Britain got exactly right". The beauty of the Hurricanes, Spitfires, Blenheims and Lancasters was that they didn't need external supplies. Ditto the guns we used. Technical brilliance reduced the necessary parts to a minimum and more brilliance produced them to order. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But in the end, it was Britain's luck and Hitler's folly that he turned his attention from the campaign to his Russian Folly. ħuman 01:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I was aware that the Brits had a superb RADAR system before the BOB, but that's not the sum total of war technology, I seem to recall the US sending ships and tanks (like 15,000 Sherman tanks to the Brits) and artillery and trucks and cotton and rubber and medical supplies and ammunition (a supply that the Brits have not engineered around needing) and metal and some aircraft too I think. I'm pretty sure that the US made more aircraft than any two other countries in the war, though I think most of those were used in the pacific they were still a significant matter when they were bombing the hell out of the German factories and railways (which helped soften the German economy and weaken Germans ability to send forces against the Brits). I really just don't think the UK would have been able to hold back the Nazi's for the whole war if not for the 30 billion dollars of supplies the US sent with the Lend-Lease program, or the troops and tanks and trucks and ships and planes and artillery that the US invested in the European and North African theaters. I'm not a history scholar but I would be really surprised if there was much of anything to stop Hitler in Africa after he conquered most of Europe. --Opcn (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course what I said was a sweeping generalisation and I know that, for example there were US airmen who came over from the States to join the RAF and fought in the BOB despite the USA at the time not officially encouraging it. There are also people who will try to write out the contributions of the Polish squadrons and the Indian and other commonwealth fighters as well. Without doubt the convoys kept the UK going but in terms of the military conflict for reasons already discussed nazi Germany was essentially fucked by the time the US joined the war. All imo of courseOldusgitus (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to edit again so quickly, just catching up on overnight activity here in the UK. Wanted to add that there is also the view of some, iirc AJT TAylor was one, who thought the delay in the US entering the war as an active participant was overall a good thing and I'm not suggesting it wasn't. By delaying for a few years it allowed the US to, as opcn says, supply the allies - both the Europeans (including the commonwealth) and the Russians whilst also allowing the US to massively arm and mobilise so that when they did enter their presence was descisive on the allied side.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting Dali

This shit is getting damn strange.^img My favourite has gotta be "Obama you are so jealous of the Flying Kitty! I am growing in popularity and you are not!" Ace^X-102 10:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken reminds me of my student days when we would get drunk/stoned and imagine all sorts of silliness. At 4 in the morning it would seem absolutely hilarious but in the cold sober light of day it was actually incredibly puerile and stupid. I have long since got over that but to see it in a middle-aged man like Ken is excrutiatingly embarassing. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow! I can't wait to red how 'The Flying Kitty has more machismo that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Richard Dawkins combined'. Seriously, Ken is currently showing more ADD than Andy ever has. First it was the abortion project (dead), then socialism project (still born), the Dawkins project (dead), then machismo (on life support), now Samsom and flying kittehs. As Ace said, it's getting suureal - especially that original list of 200+ kittehs. That said, Ken, my kitteh will eat your kitteh for breakfast (and its cuter). --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently the last 100 edits on CP, on all namespaces, minus Ken

That explains my spit-take when I opened CP's Recent Changes and only saw ONE entry of the last FIFTY. Ken's really living in his own world now. The rest of CP is nothing but a mere distraction to him. --Sid (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He did react (although not directly reply) to a message of mine last night, so signals from earth must still be coming through, at least occasionally. mb 11:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All the talkpages are redirected to his evolution article. Nothing to see here, carry on... Ace^X-102 11:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the "Flying Kitty Dinosaur" just an enlarged version of the gif? Will we also get a "Flying Kitty Bat" that is just the same gif upside-down? I look forward to collecting the set. And I will never get over the hilariously clumsy wording of "The transitional animal the flying kitty?". I also like how this 'project' is bringing in pasts memes, like machismo and waterloo. Truly we are seeing the End of Times. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quite sweet. He's clearly very, very pleased with himself and his flying [insert flightless animal] gag, and is having the time of his life shitting all over Andy's wiki. He'll be happily gurgling away to himself like a fat, contented baby every time he hits "Save page". --Robledo (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so who has a sock to burn to highlight CP's double standards? I dare you to go and create "The transitional animal the flying dog" and "The transitional animal the flying cow" and see how long you last. But if Kenny's doing it then it's a-ok. I actually blame Andy et al more than Ken for allowing this to happen. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

...Um.^img "Dr. Dawkins, stop being a pussy and debate me!" If Andy really should react to this soon, before Ken stops calling them essays. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling somebody a pussy on CP is nothing, especially if you're Ed "Don't be a Dick" Poor. (TZB /890/4dac6491fcdfeaa1.html) --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right...I was hoping Ed might read all this and tap Andy on the shoulder, but I guess he's not particularly polite either. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This damned picture...

Not sure why but this picture^img really bothers me for some reason. I don't like it. Ace^X-102 11:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's because you know that clown has a 12" butcher knife in its left hand, you just can't see it behind the skirts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't alone Ace, clowns have always freaked me out. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pussy copyright

Looking at Ken's overused flying pussy image it has "sheepfilms.co.uk" on the left hand side. Although Ken got it from some bulletin board it originally comes from (Captain Pussington flies again) and appears to be copyright. However, the site owner does appear to be aware of Ken's usage. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

See above. 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your edit just after I fixed my link. :( Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Castro

I wonder if we'll hear anything from Andy after this. Jammy (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess he'll just claim that it's an actor. Unless he completely ignores it, of course. --Sid (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well a new user, KellyP, has added it^img. We'll see how long she lasts. CS Miller (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The last person to touch the Castro article, stating he is seen alive in 2010 is now GeoffA^img, who has since been blocked^img, although his edit is yet to be reverted. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope - GeoffA was blocked yesterday for disagreeing on the Best New Conservative Words drivel. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, regardless, the Castro thing was his last edit^img and the current one for the page. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not any more. Terry Koeckritz obviously saw your earlier comment and reverted Geoff's edits. So now the lead section for the article makes itself look silly. "Castro has presumably been dead for some time, also here's a speech he gave today". Keep up the encyclopaedic integrity, CP. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And Geoff points out^img what a fucking idiot Terry Koeckritz is. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of CP's Castro article, what the hell are they trying to say with that text under his photo? "A Very Youthful Castro" Vulpius (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's his title. That's why it's in proper case. Also, I'm loving the external links on that page. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And Geoff is gone, and two /16 rangeblocks are laid down. EddyP (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More Terry Koeckritz deceit - he's too scared to block the account so he goes for the IPs. Gutless little shit. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah no - there goes the block on Geoff too. Terry Koeckritz is still a gutless little shit though. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Castro's death in 2009 reminds me of another of Andy's famous pronouncements: that Gary Coleman fell from drinking and the media was derelict with Ted Koppel's son's death for not speculating so. In reality, Coleman fell because he was just weak from intense kidney dialysis. Thank you capturebot, because they deleted all the talk page history with Andy's Christian gossip[2]. --Leotardo (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's like bizzaro world over there. The liberal associated press reports seeing him alive, as does the liberal president of Brazil. But, nope, he's really dead. Holy zombie Castro, batman, how much does TK have to troll before he gets tarred and feathered? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz - since we all know you're watching. Fox even has a bloody video of the first part of the address, you ignorant shit. Is that more "liberal revisionism based on less-than-reliable sources" or are you simply a fucking idiot? TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that is clearly a body-double. Don't you know that atheistic, liberal, socialist, communist leaders always use body-doubles? CS Miller (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could be an android, too - if only communists (and liberals, and of course the British) didn't so obviously lack the logical skills required to create such advanced technology. Maybe the blueprints were stolen from an original US conservative design. --Maquissar (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw, Terry Koeckritz! It's nice to see^img you read WIGO CP so avidly... presumably tracing the words with your finger as you do. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Terry, I am disappointed. Not a mention of androids! --Maquissar (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And those are some beautiful fucking sources for the body-double comment. Terry, you dumbshit, you do realize that your reputable source is claiming that Hitler escaped and never actually died, right? Junggai (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if TK is paying such close attention, fix them astronomy articles, they have gone to shit since I left. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A Few Days

Stated block reason from Terry Koeckritz the liar: "Take a few days and consider if such editing is helpful". Reality: yeah - 1,826 of them. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A few days, a few years, meh, what's the difference in "CP time"? ħuman 01:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, nice work adding in the leap day in 2012! ħuman 01:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In which the obvious is repeated

Ken needs help. The guy has been tinkering with his "Essays" for the last 17 hours, without so much as an hour break at any point. 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Does he have a job? (I ask from my office...) MDB (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the people he's closest too are those least likely to help him. PJR has refused, I've sent e-mails to Andy and TK and neither have the courtesy to even reply and clearly have no intention of assisting Ken. The scary thing is, Andy probably believes Ken is doing sterling work, writing so many new pages for his blog.

Hey, if something does happen (God/random chance forbid), would Andy as owner of CP face any kind of liability for not taking action, even when told there was a problem? Just curious. Any US ambulance chasers care to comment? --PsyGremlinTal! 15:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip refused? Please tell me that there's more to this story or that it's not as bad as you just made it sound... And Rob or Karajou might be worth a shot - didn't Rob have Ken's phone number or something? Sure, they're both very opposed to us or liberals, but maybe they give a shit about a fellow conservative here? --Sid (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There better be more to that story, because as it stands it sounds like Christian charity ain't worth much of a damn when it comes to actually helping people. Hell, if I knew where he lived I'd call social services, how fucking hard would that be? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Job? Start thinking about more basic needs. Check his last 500 contribs^img - there is one nonstop binge going from "13:06, 4 August 2010" to "06:42, 5 August 2010" with several edits EACH HOUR from what I can see. That's basically... uh... almost 18 hours? And the edit before that binge was from "08:33, 4 August 2010", meaning that he just got a bit more than 4 hours of sleep. Aside from his August 3 (~4am) break, his current phase of inactivity is the longest this week from what I saw. ...oh, and those are just the edits he lets us see - take a look at his deletion log of that time... --Sid (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

God almighty. I feel a little like Shelley Duvall walking into the graffiti-covered room in The Shining. MDB (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

EC) Andy can blame it on liberal atheist homosexuals for leading him on. I don't think there's a "duty of care" either implied or explicit for contributors to ones webshite: he could be a parodist (I know he ain't, but it's an obvious defence) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know the exact details, but PJR was asked to speak to Ken, or alternatively to provide an IP address, so authorities in that location could contact him and Phil basically said no. But that's second hand info. It was during the whole 'countdown' saga. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone write a program to monitor Kenservatives edits so we don't have to check and guess to find out if he has gotten any sleep lately? I once heard a rumor that he edits from the library at SUNY buffalo but they aren't open 24/7. Is it possible that he is living on campus?--Opcn (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My Ken-Monitor is my Greasemonkey Ken-Filter script: If the Recent Changes suddenly start to display fewer lines than usual, it means he's active. That allows me to observe Ken without actually observing him and his craziness. (IN YOUR FACE, SCHRÖDINGER!) --Sid (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh! That's it! I was getting that yesterday when I had your (top notch) script running. So the browser still on retrieves the last 50 edits, and then strips Ken's efforts out? So 3 edits displayed means that 47/50 were Ken! Superb! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

...And the paranoia continues...

Quoth Ken, "parodist from NH stymied , curses foiled again!" Then, 10 minutes later "I was told parodist was from NH but geolocate seems to indicate Maine. no matter. still a parodist"

Told by who, Ken? The voices in your head? He really thinks Human is out to get him. This guy needs serious help, pronto. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sid!

Please to enjoy Template:KenWatch:

The template shows (a) Ken's last session of no less than one hour and (b) Ken's last two or three sessions of no less than eight hours. A session is a run of activity with a space of no more than 60 minutes between any two consecutive edits. The template is updated (at most) once every ten minutes by cronjob. The cronjob maintains a local cache of Ken edits; this means it remembers edits that have been deleted and/or oversighted out of existence. I hope you like the color. mb 22:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Philip Rayment's christian charity will kick in once he sees this or if he'll continue to quibble and equivocate. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 23:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work! :) --Sid (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I'm such a heartless asshole that I forgot to say (a) I hope this is an effective monitoring tool for 'someone' close enough to Ken to be able to get through to him, and (b) Larron rocks my cock as usual. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservative going without pause in July 2010

put into perspective

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain that a bit more? Are the intervals sorted by length?--Opcn (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand these either. mb 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not flying pigs...

...seems Ken's now fixated on Samson. here^img and here^img. Maybe he's been called to fill Joaquin's shoes. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well at least they are actual works of art. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Muscled guy in a revealing outfit grappling a huge pillar? No wonder Ken's so fixated. Vulpius (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That picture is just so... phallic.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aw!

In the military, somebody strips your rank from you. On CP, poor old JacobB has to do it himself.^img Will he ever get his special powahs back? People want to know. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And back up to his old tricks I see. Proposition 8 wasn't overturned, It didn't happen!^img. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Prop 8 hasn't been completely eliminated. The judge issued a stay on his ruling in order to allow an appeal, as his decision is not the final arbitration on the matter. Of course stating that a court that actually found it unconstitutional is simply a statement of fact, so there's not much of any redemption left for the edit... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Such stays are typical for obvious reasons. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional the natural urge, if it's still on the books (and it usually is), is to run out and avail oneself of the right newly refound. So it's common that courts will step cautiously, pretending the litigants before them are the most interested parties, and issue their order overturning an unconstitutional law with the caveat that it's not effective until either party fails to avail himself of the opportunity for appeal. These kinds of legal battles are predominately determined as a matter of law, as opposed to a matter of fact since the factual record in a statutory unconstitutionality case usually (federal 14th amendment and other cases are weird bc parties have to litigate whether Congress legislated on an adequate record to invoke its remedial power) consists merely of the simple fact that a statute was passed that says what it says (versus the far more complicated issue of adducing evidence to support each element of a claim). Anyway, the only real issue I take with Eira's characterization of things is that the court's judgment wasn't a statement of fact, but a conclusion of law. The distinction is important because an appellate court is bound by conclusions of law unless certain kinds of error can be shown, but the standard of review for an error in construction of law is de novo, meaning the appellate court is going to make its own legal findings all over again. The appropriate thing to do when reporting on a statute is to give a review of the district and final appellate court decisions. That is, people skip the circuit court decision if the supreme court granted certiorari and rendered an opinion unless they're doing a more or less contemporaneous review. So JacobB's edit was a whitewash in my opinion, but it was quickly followed up by better reporting so who cares. He's a parodist. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 03:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that the court ruling was a finding of fact. I said "Of course stating that (a court that actually found it unconstitutional) is simply a statement of fact". So, the statement of fact is: "a court ruled it unconstitutional". I know how the law works. :P I await your apology for misunderstand me. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Using terms of art, it's not a statement of fact. It's literally a conclusion of law. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 05:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When I say "My cat is black and white." Such a statement is a fact. Thus, it is a statement of fact. I am saying a fact. Can I make this any more clearly? Neither term is being used as any sort of special term, and the phrase is not being used as special term itself. It is quite simply, a simple noun phrase construction with the simple meanings of each word. Saying "a court ruled prop 8 is unconstitutional" is saying the truth, because it is a fact. Thus it is a statement of fact. Is this all clear now? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The legal meanings of 'law' and 'fact' aren't the same as the layman's terms; I'd have gone anal over it myself. Just something to avoid.Webbtje (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a deep breath. This isn't aSK and I'm not PJR. And you're misusing a technical term. The world isn't going to stop spinning if someone on the internet thinks you're a pedantic little shit. This isn't srs bznss. Srsly. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 13:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But I was not intending to use "statement of fact" as a technical term. You read that into it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to point out a factual error in the evolution article?

It's hard to do because its mostly quotes and devoid of facts, but I noticed a Hitler quote _{"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."} That had the word Evolution added for no reason what so ever, a better translation is "higher breeding" instead of "evolutionary higher stage of being" in large part because the word evolution (in german its spelled evolution) doesn;t appear once in the whole of mein kampf. --Opcn (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Evolution. tmtoulouse 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah I know that we have that partial take down, but that addresses the quotes as part of the argument, Ken has insulated himself largely from any claims of factual inaccuracies by quoting heavily, so you have to address them as quotes in order to technically be pointing out a factual inaccuracy in his argument. --Opcn (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original German "So wenig sie aber schon eine Paarung von schwächeren Einzelwesen mit stärkeren wünscht, soviel weniger noch die Verschmelzung von höherer Rasse mit niederer, da ja an-dernfalls ihre ganze sonstige, vielleicht jahrhunderttau-sendelange Arbeit der Höherzüchtung mit einem Schlage wieder hinfällig wäre." --Opcn (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Google Translate turns that into "They have little but a pair of weaker with stronger individuals would like as much less even the fusion of a higher breed with low, since an-Otherwise, all their other, perhaps jahrhunderttau-sendelange work of the higher development all at once would again fall", which makes more sense than your average Ken article. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, we are talking about someone who thinks an animated GIF of a flying cat with sunglasses complete with caption is somehow clever satire of Evolution. Good luck convincing him of the error of that above Hitwin quote. Just saying. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The concept of translation is a liberal conspiracy created to hide the fact that hitler was an evolutionary commie liberal. "Mein Kampf" *actually* translates to "National Healthcare". X Stickman (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Eira Translate spits out: "So little does she (Nature) wish for a pairing of weaker individuals with stronger ones, yet so much less so the fusion of higher races with lesser ones, otherwise her (Nature) entire special, perhaps hundred thousand year long, work of breeding higher would fall away with one blow." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Höcherzüchtung" could be translated "intentional breeding to lift the species to an advanced level". That would leave out the word "evolution" (the rest of the translation is correct). I don't really know whether it's justified to include it or or not - on the one hand, Hitler is talking about evolution here, on the other, he's got a very strange (and false) concept of it that seems to involve "nature" as a force actively shaping evolutionary development, possessing both a will and an aim. Nature doesn't care about whether weaker and stronger individuals interbreed, it's just that the former have a smaller chance of doing so anyway. The quote might be correct as it stands, but it's obvious that Hitler's views aren't founded in evolutionary theory, but rather an idiosyncratic form of Social Darwinism, justified by a view of the world that is completely unscientific and teleological. Nothing really new there, and Ken would never let go of his favourite evilutionist anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of it was to prove that Hitler was into evolution by taking everything he said as if he were into evolution. Rather circular. --Opcn (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

100% agree with R;stigraben... NO!!! My keyboard isn't set for German anymore because of my HD crash, and I'm in linux now. :( In any case, Hitler is showing the same retarded misinterpretations of evolution that creationists seem to have. Hell, if that were actually how evolution was theorized to work, I would object to it myself. And Röstigraben is spot on with the meaning of "Höherzüchtung" (except with regards to the spelling, "hoch" "höher" "höchsten"), it's difficult sometimes to properly convey the intend and context behind a compound noun in German without going off on a huge tangent. "Breeding towards a higher race" would likely be my best suggestion allowing to pull in context and such. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, embarrassing typo there. I actually am German. By the way, if the Umlaut is making it difficult to refer to me, maybe the powers that be could change my account name to the "oe" spelling? Who should I bother with this? Röstigraben (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother: if anyone needs to link to you they can copy/paste or use the charinsert from below otherwise the can just use an "o" or "oe". Any crat can rename you if you really want. 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it should be fine like that. Thanks! Röstigraben (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, I can totally type your ö now. I'm not German, but I am as close as an American can get without moving there. (On a tangent, are you single, and want a wife?) Every OS I install on my computer, I have in German, and so most of the time, I have the umlauts available. Problem was that I destroyed my harddrive in a fit of rage while arguing with PJR, and lost my install, and in Linux, I need the key that has the <, >, and | well more than I need the Umlauts, and there is no effective way to remap that key onto the Capslock, like I've done for Windows. Thus, I was using an American keyboard layout, and lacked my typically there umlauts. So, nothing of your fault, but I blame PJR, due to his douchebaggery. Oh, and don't feel bad about the "embarassing" typo, you should see some of the stupid things I say in German. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• &ouml; (o-Umlaut) does the trick, too
• The problem is the term evolution: Hitler avoided foreign terms - and some of the Nazis tried to get rid of them for good (with the usual amusing results: Viertopfzerknalltreibling for Vierzylindermotor). And the first German translation of Darwin's On the Origin of Species would speak of Zuchtwahl, Höherzüchtung, etc., too.
• That said: Hitler's idea of the creation of man was very far from any Darwinian ideas

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Check here. This is a list of the kind of things the Nazis banned. Read item number 6. Case closed, methinks. 92.6.201.152 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a lovely link, BON. 14:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent list. It would make a superb side-by-side article to compare with CP/Andy. Substitute Britain for the Weimar Republic and and Muslims for Jews and you could probably tick about 75% of the boxes.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even Andy's own encyclopedia doesn't agree with him

Andy^img

"Brits, we're talking about mathemsticians[sic] in this thread. Do you know what a mathematician is? That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell)."

Conservapedia

Alan Turing^img: "Alan Turing (1912 - 1954) was a British mathematician who contributed to modern computer science and cryptography."

Charles Babbage^img: "Charles Babbage was a prolific inventor, a mathematician, scientist, political economist and critic of the scientific establishment."

Bertrand Russell^img: "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872–1970) was a 20th century philosopher, mathematician and political activist and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 for his writings."

Even Andy wrote: "Russell was part philosopher and part mathematician"^img. Lovelace's article doesn't say she's a mathematician, but this probably has more to do with the fact that she's a female than that she's British. We know how Andy feels about girls and math. As for Penrose, there's no article on him on CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Every time I read Schlafly's ridiculous opinions a little part of me dies inside. Which is why I don't even read Conservapedia for laughs. Chthonios (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Penrose (as well as Hawking I think) is/was a *Professor* of Mathematics, which makes him incapable of offering any kind of valid opinion on the subject. To be a real mathematician, you can't go applying your results to reality, you must study equations and numbers for their own sake. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 09:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would mention Wiles, but he uses fake mathematics with those complex number things, so... Mindless drug Phantom! 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

HBC

He's back the Hollywood Breast Cancer nonsense again. Despite being shown up repeatedly on the Talk page on that article, as usual, he just sticks his head in the sand and carries on blithely. I wish I had that man's self-confidence. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-confidence is one thing. Andy has gone far beyond that. I think this sums it up well: "insane hubris". Or maybe this is more appropriate, though it wasn't meant for Andy: "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity". --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If Karajou has read OTOOS I will eat my beaver felt fedora

[I don't believe that for a second]. --09:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

He only claims to have them in his house. They might be propping up the broken leg on the TV. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ken has totally lost the ability to have a rational conversation. I'd suspect him of deliberate irony, but all the evidence is he's totally off his nut. We've got to get him some help somehow. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kara replied "yes" to the Question "have any of you read...?" at least I think so. The comment about him owning them was ancillary. --Opcn (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Decent of Man". No that's a different book, Karajerk.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? He says he has both The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man. I see no reason to take him to task for mentioning Decent. CS Miller (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Kara has mentioned owning several old and fancy books, so I have no particular reason to doubt his claim. Whether he read and understood the material and its legacy/impact is another question, I guess. But this quote by him made me chuckle: you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." - Yep, good thing that Conservapedia is above that, right, Ken? :D --Sid (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Like many anti-Darwin folks, he also doesn't realize that a 151 year-old book isn't part of the modern evidence for evolution. In fact, much of its material was disproven long ago (the main thesis is of course another story). That makes it especially amusing when so many of their arguments are based not only on a single (very) out-of-date book, but upon a complete misunderstanding of the single book they are arguing about- a meta-strawman, if you will- thus indicating they rarely actually read it (I have). Come to think of it, there's another older, even more out-of-date book that often fits this description too... Kallium^talk 13:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it. The Bible, when it was written, was 100% correct. It still is 100% correct, and always will be. They extrapolate this timeless infallibility to On the Origin of Species, which they deem to be the Bible of evolution. If it contains one mistake, then all of Evolution is wrong. In much the same way that they fear that if the Bible contains one mistake, then all of Christianity is wrong. It's sad, really. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit disingenuous to assume that just because people don't believe in it, they don't read it. True, much of what's argued on CP is from a position of ignorance. Then again, I know I have at least one book in common with Karajou, The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be. Andy does this all the time, but understanding and believing are two different things. My problem is those who argue against Origin of Species without factual knowledge of what the content is. I have no problem with "Darwin thought this, but I disagree". In fact, as I mentioned, much of it has been disproven- his hypothesis regarding the mechanism of inheritance, for example, or his brief references to Lamarck (although those seemed more like courtesy). I do take issue with "Evolution is evil because Darwin said this!" when he didn't, or as One pointed out, arguing the Origin of Species is written in an indoctrinating style (which is "not even wrong"). Often someone has the gall to suggest that Darwin didn't present any actual evidence (one of the in-crowd did this on CP recently but I don't remember where), despite that the book is brimming with examples from specimens that he spent four years collecting and twenty years studying, along with reviews of other peoples' findings. That's a more extreme example, but one which is directly translatable to "I didn't read it", with no reference to belief. Kallium^talk 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have the same Britannica set that Karajou says he has. It comprises 54 volumes and looks great on the bookshelf (or the revolving mahogany case that I got with mine). Spanning Aristotle, Plato, Homer & other Greeks & Romans, through Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Milton, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Newton, Locke, Huygens & Gibbon to Faraday, Goethe, Melville, Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Darwin, Marx and Engels it includes a lot of great books. Most of which are still unread. It's not exactly light reading ploughing through Ptolemy's Almagest or Copernicus's Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres. When I retire I make have a bash at reading the lot, but the religious works don't exactly fill me with enthusiasm. I can't see our swabby having read much more and in the case of Darwin why bother if you already know you aren't going to agree with the conclusion. Some people may read stuff which contradicts their worldview but I don't see Brian having read both of Darwin's works. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...

Wouldn't calling Chris Matthews a "gasbag'^img be an example of cp:liberal namecalling? Or am I forgetting that the rules don't apply to Andypants. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Citizen Gremlin, please report to Room 101 immediately for re-education in double-think. (Big Brother) 14:52, 8 August 2010 CS Miller (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical Worst Case Scenario

Just suppose (and Zeus forbid it happens) Ken finally loses it and decides to show he's a transitional form of a bird by launching himself off the nearest skyscraper. Would Andy & co be in any way held responsible for ignoring pleas to assist a collegaue/co-worker/whatever? --PsyGremlinFale! 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Only in the court of public opinion, I'm afraid. And unless he flips out in some serious way, like deciding to go shoot some evilutionists, probably not even that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While I think this sort of speculation is quite stupid, CP would be in no way liable. They might be a bit nuts, but I've never seen anything that could constitute a call for actual violence (the place is home to a lot of things, but "war is coming" fantasies aren't generally present) or provoke an editor into doing something stupid like flinging themselves off a building. ^moral 15:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is what Psy is suggesting. Instead, if I have "knowledge before the fact" of a planned crime and not report it to the police, then I can be held liable for that crime (in the UK at least). If I know that someone is mentally unstable, and is (potentially) a danger to themselves, or others, and fail to do anything about it, can I be held liable when they do harm? CS Miller (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC). Having said that, I don't have any evidence that Conservative does pose a danger. His current postings, although possibly indicative of a mental disorder, don't contain any threats or suggestions of harm. CS Miller (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

hang on. I never said anything about violence. I'm posing the question from the point of view of Ken harming himself. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops indeed. Sorry for misrepresenting you. CS Miller (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant in my original post. In the UK, "A danger to themselves or others" is one of the standard reasons for placing someone under involuntary commitment under the Mental Health Act, also known as Sectioning. I was getting a bit carried away with the generics of the law, rather than what PsyGremlin was saying about Conservative. CS Miller (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely if it can be shown that many people, and there are many on here at the least, have raised their concerns privately and asked andy and others to do something which pleas they then ignored they hold some culpability at the least. I am not a fan of the 'sue everyone' mentality which 'seems' to exist in some places, UK include more and more sadly, they hold a high level of responsibility in not only not doing anything but by their tacit acceptance of encouraging someones decline in health. If I were one of kens relatives I'd possibly already be talking to a lawyer about holding cp accountable for what is so evidently happening. And failing that I'd simply find assfly and teach him that next time he should show more xian compassion and concern quite frankly.Oldusgitus (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with "knowledge before the fact" (of anything criminal or otherwise) can only be confirmed after the fact. If the fact doesn't happen, then you don't know you had the knowledge. Conversely, you can't tell if your knowledge will lead to a fact. What I'm basically trying to say is, all this speculation is just pure fantasy. Even if something does happen - and the odds for this are still very, very slim - you're not going to be responsible. We have lots of knowledge, but no idea what facts they will eventually generate. There are hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people out there being weird on the internet. One of them may be a danger to themselves or others; but which one? No one knows. I could go out and kill someone tomorrow and people could easily say "we saw it coming, look at the tone of these posts!". So nothing is going to happen and if it does happen it's none of our business or responsibility. ^moral 16:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're talking incredibly self-indulgent bollocks and have taken your own wishful thinking to be moral imperatives - particularly the latter. By giving Ken a wiki to shit all over, Andrew Schlafly is not in any way morally liable for Ken's years of raging nutcasedom. Not even slightly - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

and you're entitled to think that but face it, if this person were here in the UK he would probably be on the way to being sectioned right now.Oldusgitus (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Crap! You cant extrapolate from someone's web persona to RL. He could be a parodist (don't think so BTW) just pulling Andy's strings. 16:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why everyone here is obsessed with Ken. Andy should be doing more, but that isn't really our business. If Ken actually says something and Andy chooses to hide it from everyone, then and only then does it become RW's business. Until then, maybe we should lay off and stop feeding his persecution complex. --Centimeter_INCHES 16:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore to Susan's point, it might be perfectly sane IRL and this is just his sense of humour. Schlafly himself thinks liberals are mentally ill because they disagree with him, don't fall for the same trick by assuming someone is ill because you don't get his sense of humour (if indeed, that's what you can call it). ^moral 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What Susan said. Also, there's a third possibility: he's not insane or troubled or chemically imbalanced or whatever, he's just very stupid, slightly too stupid to hold a job or have a lot of social life. He's not a danger to himself or others, he is not obsessed, he is not a maniac, he is not delusional, he just has nothing to do all day than killing time by making inane contributions to inane web sites. Several of us did try to talk to his allies about his condition, right? Perhaps they are not ignoring us because they're completely callous, perhaps they're ignoring us because they know he's alright. mb 17:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that we only have (most) of the people on here's own word for what and who they are. For instance I'm really a six foot 5inch, 23 year old, rugger prop forward from LLanelli and you all think I'm a sweet old dyke lady from Worksop. 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, gentlebeings on this very wiki have raised the possibility that Ken might be a script, and I, for one, am a beautiful butterfly with a really cute accent. I'm afraid I'm not seing the point you mean to be making. mb 18:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The point is Ken could be pulling all our legs and be a raving atheist trying (and succeeding) to make religion look really stupid. Don't believe teh interweb. 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Anyone who puts in 17 hours a day captioning animated gifs of kittehs is one kind of nuts or another. Unless they're cheezburger inc. in which case they're getting a metric arseload of cash for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

He also would have had to start playing an incredibly deep game years before CP even existed, at WP and many other places. I doubt anyone would be that dedicated to making Creationists look bad when you can just sit back and let them do it themselves. --Kels (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, theoretically. Regardless of his real convictions and loyalties, however: if he's not at least moderately dumb, why is he posting on Conservapedia? Regardless of who he tries to make look stupid, us or them, why not do it on a site with an audience or at least some kind of media coverage? Couldn't he do fifty times the damage he is doing now, to whomever he is trying to do it to, by trolling the forums on salon.com or the comment threads on pandagon.net or, Goddess forbid, Wikipedia talk pages? mb 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know he's for real, but just think which is more likely:

1. someone with Ken's apparent intellect knowing how to breathe
2. Ken being a parodist

Anyone coming upon him fresh would assume the latter. 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does he post to CP? Because there he is a Duke under Il Duce. There is has the illusion of power and control that he most likely lacks in real life. That's is why. It isn't mental illness, it is just a little man finding a place he can feel big. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)First, being dumb and being a maniac are not mutually exclusive. His CP contributions are merely idiotic, but the stuff which he recently posted over at ASK was seriously creepy. Second, CP is one of the few places where he's still allowed to post, with the added benefit that no one can challenge him on-site. He's been banned from Wikipedia, Pharyngula and who knows how many other places with a higher profile. Andy and the others won't help him, and we can't. Personally, I think he's gone so far over the edge that it has become pointless to document or refute his nonsense, and I don't want to provoke him any further. Röstigraben (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything from Ken I haven't seen from a whole host of fundy creationist Tea Party types over on Youtube. I think it is more a siege mentality, a belief about one is persecuted for having "the Truth" more then anything else. Ken likely thinks this way too and just has a pretty immature way of showing it. However I don't see anything that indicates he is a danger to anyone or even himself. People often exaggerate and say things online that in real life, they would not consider doing. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The most likely (and in fact very likely) sort of self-harm Ken's likely to do to himself has more to do with choosing woo over real medical treatment for his ills (which he has already indicated a possible affinity for), and the general wear and tear his marathon editing sessions causes on his body. I'd worry about him out of pure humanity, something his fellow Kompassionate Konservative Kristians™ don't seem too concerned with, but let's not take it to extremes. --Kels (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the premise of this thread. I want Ken to get a doctor's care, and the meds he needs. Or at least the care of decent people around him who care (I suspect he is getting that). I don't even want to speculate about things going haywire for him. Even though I hate him. ħuman 04:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting fact: There is officially a liberal sysop at CP!

And his name is Richard Jensen! Evidence for his lack of conservatism? He's a professor, and there are no conservative professors.^img --Sid (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You forget, Rob and Terry had great fun pointing out to said Prof just how liberal he is. plus, the good prof has shown he isn't a true movement conservative by abandoning Andy (after copypasting everything he's ever written on CP) in April. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

However, what I want to know, is if Andy hates all professors, who exactly does he expect to train the next generation of [insert career here]? Surely he can't want them all to go to Oral Roberts University? And this come from a man who went to one of the top school (full of liberals) and still turned out an fucking moron, is especially odious. If he was a half-baked, semi-literate hack (of which he does a mean impression) I would understand his fear of higher learning. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I never kept close tabs on RJJ (where'd he copypaste his stuff to? WP? CZ?), I admit. And I guess Andy would love all education to happen through his view of the homeschool model, with the lessons firmly based on Tea Party style Christian conservatism and the teachers being The Best Of The Public. You know... like Andy. --Sid (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Two of the top schools - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight dig at Roger Schlafly and his oh-so-liberal PhD perhaps.... MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 22:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the flying kitty has a challenger

That is all. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't only suck at formatting, you suck at making the point of your post. --Leotardo (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PZ is getting crap from the DP squad

Here is the tenuous connection to CP and here is the part where it's affecting PZ, potentially. --Opcn (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another task for someone with programing skills, probably Larron

I'll bet it will be trivial. maybe something youve done already. Could you make a graph of the conservapedia active users (7 days) minus any who are blocked, or who's only action is creating a user account, and then color code it into sysops, edit and/or block users, and regular users?--Opcn (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gets a bit tricky, because there are quite a few users who have, say, less than 5 edits and then a (very) few who have a lot of edits, finding a nice layout is hard - maybe it's the massive amounts of wine I've consumed :) working on it. Worm^{(t | c)} 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay - over the last 7 days, there were 158 users who had some activity, but only 95 who did something other than create an account and possibly a user/user:talk page.

<snip massive table>

Happy? Worm^{(t | c)} 02:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a table, not a graph over time. --Opcn (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Picky, picky ;) Fair point. Too durnk to sort out now, and it's 4am. If Larron doesn't work his magic in the next few hours, I'll have a look when I wake up.Worm^{(t | c)} 02:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Aww, but I liked the table. All right if I re-add it here, but have it collapsed? I've also made the colors softer, for the sake of preserving my vision and making it readable. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Worm's table, re-added:

admin

sysop

edit

user

blocked

User	Edits
Conservative	758
Tzoran	217
Aschlafly	214
TK	171
FOIA	94
Karajou	65
Jpatt	55
JlHawkwell	51
DanielPulido	37
PhyllisS	32
KyleDD	25
Chippeterson	25
KyleT	24
ILOVEUSA	23
AJF#EEB4ACerickson	21
JasoT	20
GrahamB	17
RonLar	13
RobertoCuestion	12
EMorris	12
CathyB	11
DerekE	11
JoeFerguson	10
BJJames	10
BrandonLyall	9
JDSmithington	9
BenjyB	8
Daniel1212	8
AndrewWi	8
KellyP	8
JeremiahK	8
Simeon	7
Jennie#E0EEF722	7
SayidR	7
FDiaz	7
AmandaBunting	6
Dford	6
Houshalter	6
ChrisGT90	6
JacobB	6
ANvUSvFLY	6
JSaxon	5
BertSchlossberg	5
TerryH	5
SamI	5
JacobP	5
Cooldood101	5
Saladin	5
Emba	4
GeoffA	4
Emcheb	4
Flounder19	4
777Bob	4
HawkingsE1987	4
KJohnson	4
BobbyJones2	4
Jwilhem	3
RianB	3
JoanZ	3
Tbunton	3
JoseR	3
CarolineBrewer	3
Harvey1510	3
Aculeus1	3
Nigniggington	3
AmericanCrusader1787	3
DiogenesTCP	3
JasonWhittle	2
Mdotley	2
JConnors	2
FionaN	2
JohnQP	2
Gerrard	2
JThom	2
Bobharper	2
DouglasA	2
Gamma287	2
DevoutAtheist	2
TheEvilMonkey	2
SavedSinner	2
Embarkr	2
DFCSMC	2
Aculeus	2
HonestyMan	2
Wakawakawaka	2
Sol1221	1
CR	1
MarcoT2	1
PaulBurnett	1
Quetzalcoatl	1
ChelseaR	1
Manhattan	1
DanieleGiusto	1
Wagner	1
Tropherbrillman	1

Not sure this is exactly what was wanted - but the spec was pretty rough :)

edits

Maybe I can be more clear, sorry. I want all blocked users ignored completely (because they really aren't part of the total) I want a graph over time, so one pixel wide for august 1st one pixel wide for august 2nd, one pixel wide for august 3rd etc... This graph would have four lines (and probably a color fill beneath them) The bottom line would be sysops and it would go up and down following a moving average. The second line would go up and down following the moving average of active sysops and active block users (added together), the third would go up and down following active sysops and active block users and active edit users (added together), the fourth line would go up and down following the 7 day average for all users who were never blocked and did something more than register an account. --Opcn (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So you want number of editors rather than number of edits? Certainly do-able, just more work :) Not sure how easy/accurate it will be to decide if someone is 'active' - depends how many edits are oversighted I guess. See what I can do. Then cry when LArron does it in 5 minutes. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I know that the following pictures are not what you want - it's more about a merge of the information in them. But nevertheless, I had them laying in the attic, so here you go:

unique editors at CP, split into groups

last ninety days

active editors, unblocked

Worm is doing a great job, I'm very interested in the graphs he'll produce. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The second line would go up and down following the moving average of active sysops and active block users (added together) using the usual definition of active, this line would be quite boring, as it should be a rather straight line, compared with the other ones... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd and Andy

I was listening to The Wall and when the track "Mother" came on... well I can't believe I never noticed before:

Hush now baby, baby, dont you cry.
Mother's gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Mother's gonna put all her fears into you.
Mother's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama will keep baby cozy and warm.

and then other lines like "Mother should I trust the government?" They were writing about Andy and Syphilisfy! I'm sure of it! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that entire album about Andy's childhood and misspent early adulthood? ħuman 00:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're right:

Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one's a coon!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I'd have all of you shot TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"[Public school t]eacher, leave those kids alone!" "You can't have [night edit rights] until you finish your [substantive contributions]" (ok, that was weak). "Is there anybody... out there?" ħuman 01:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see you on the Dark Side of the 2012 elections Ace^X-102 01:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Earth to Andy: "Wish you were here". ħuman 02:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shine on you crazy flying transitional kitty! Ace^X-102 02:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Interstellar Overdrive" is just trying to get people to read Omni magazine instead of The Holey Bibel. Deny this and lose all credulity. ħuman 02:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Phylis Schalfly is the Atom Heart Mother. Ace^X-102 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahaahahah!

The madcap laughs at us from his fortified stronghold. ħuman 03:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brain Damage and Us and Them. Röstigraben (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"High Hopes" = nostalgia for CP's heyday. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye, DeanS, goodybye

DeanS draws the curtains. EddyP (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, his activity dropped to almost nothing after his wife died. Farewell DeanS! Yet another reliable (in the sense that CP understands reliable) non-parodist editor has left the building. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no contribs in almost one year (though contribs to deleted pages don't show up...), so I guess this is just making it official. Oh well, I hope he finds happiness in a better community. --Sid (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually funny. Dean's an example of somebody who was in the 'in crowd', but the 'in-in crowd.' Even as a sysop I don't think they fully trusted him. There's a lot of talk in the SDG stuff about him being a parodist/troll before his promotion, where after he became fine, because Andy had deemed it so. I'm not 100% sure they were happy with him being a Mormon and it's likely Andy only backed him, because Dean threatened to leave and never come back when editors were trying to add 'cult' to CP's Mormon article. Then again, they stick by Moonie Poor, and that's even more of a cult. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dean did make a handful of edits in August and September 2009 that no longer show up on his contributions page; I can only see them in my personal offline archive. He did not make any edits, however, any edits at all, between removing himself from Featured Articles committee on 9 September 2009 and blanking his talk page today. mb 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. DeanS's message to Andy was oversighted. Why would that be? ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 17:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't surprised to see him disappear after his wife died. The death my wife would shake me up pretty bad too. There would be other things on my mind than making sure I keep participating in every stupid little online community I've ever posted to. I would probably cut out quite a few hobbies and diversions less mindless than online encyclopedias. Also, I think it's even money Dean did notice, out of the corner of his eye or something, how Kockfritz and friends tried to use his loss to score cheap political points. If I were Dean and I had seen that I would have been royally, royally disgusted with these assholes. mb 17:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DeanS was most certainly a parodist. He succeeded in turning the main page into a dirty great warning sign for all non-batshit-insane conservatives with his 'In the News' gems. Well played, sir. </applauds> --Robledo (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still sorry for him in that he lost his wife. Tragedy knows no political borders. ħuman 05:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Who's TK?

I thought it was Goonie this week. Who is doing TK? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ is writing a comment 04:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I was going to leave him chained to the bed with a 10 inch vibrator going, but I had to let him go because it was chipping his teeth. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am Jpatt and Karajou this week. Sorry. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 04:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a BoN! 60.240.190.71 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

BoNBoNs are delicious... Lyra § talk 08:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was TK like three weeks ago. This week I am Andy. See below for my latest awesomeness! ħuman 08:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am TK. Get it? TK? ThunderstrucK?--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's my turn to drive him now, so log off, so I can play at being a cunt for a bit? Whose turn is it for Karajou? --PsyGremlinTala! 11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not mine. I've been Karajou for ages and quite frankly I'm getting bored of being a collossal, unyielding, dick-waving shithead. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take over, I don't know how much dick-waving I could get going on, but I hear you boys enjoy it a lot, so I'm willing to give it a try. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd pay to see that. I mean, sure, go on! It's fun! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Atheists! You are now Morons, thus sayeth the lord Andy

New to the mainpage left, a surely factual table claiming there are now 60 counterexamples to evolution but none to the Bible, and oh by the way, atheists have tiny IQs^img.

I think we are getting distracted by Ken silly "essays" that no one is ever going to take seriously. The Conservapedia's cp:Counterexamples_to_Relativity, cp:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth, and cp:Counterexamples_to_Evolution are much more worthy of our attention. Unlike Ken's flying kitty, people may read these aforementioned pages and actually believe what is said. I know we have a page dedicated to "Counterexamples to an Old Earth", and "Counterexamples to Evolution" although they need updating, but not one for "Counterexamples of Relativity". Need to change that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But what about this section, which I just wrote? Should there be a completely separate page dedicated to taking down Andy's "Counterexamples of Relativity"? Gauss (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But...but... what about this?^img It has such nice pictures too! Is that first one even a clown? Maybe it's one of those images where if you stare at it long enough it becomes a coherent picture!-- JArneal 08:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you just say people may read and believe things on CP? I think now you're off your nut. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy's Counterexample pages look credible enough to the uninformed that they will believe the information within are based in fact. Truth is most of the public knows squat about astronomy, biology, geology, physics and so forth, so how are they going to know it is all bull? It vaguely looks like he knows what he is saying until you do the research, but how many people do that? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All that clown essay by Ken represents is his gushing over a very minor creationist player on Youtube in some disturbing fanboy way. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I heard that in the US, sueing people even for minor things is not too uncommon. Could Lawyer Andy be sued for stating that atheists have tiny IQs, on a website which is supposed to be used as a resource by homeschooled children? Just curious. --Maquissar (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

JesusChrist this talk page is sue happy this week, up above people are talking about suing Andy if Ken dives into the shallow end of a gutter. A short answer is yes he could be sued but any judge who awarded atheists money for that should be summarily executed. Andy is exercising his right to free speech, while he doesn't recognize it for others he still has it, so there is no legal recourse, nay there must not be any legal resource for our society to be just. --Opcn (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he should be sued. I were merely curious whether this would be plausible in the US. --Maquissar (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can sue anyone for anything. I could sue you for wearing a hat, claiming damages of a trillion trillion dollars. It wouldn't go anywhere, though. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but in short, in the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything (barring a few people who have so misused the privilege they've been deemed by the courts to be "vexatious litigants"). However, that just means file a lawsuit. Whether they can win that lawsuit, or even have it proceed beyond a judge saying, "this is preposterous; get out of my courtroom" is another story.

Atheists would have no chance of successfully suing as class over Andy saying "atheists are morons". Even if Andy said "Richard Dawkins is a moron", Dawkins would have no chance of winning, because any reasonable person would conclude that Andy did not specifically mean Dawkins had such a low IQ as to qualify as a moron (which would indicate profound mental retardation), but Andy actually meant "I think Dawkins views are very stupid", and that's protected free speech, just like when I say "I think Andy Schlafly's views are very stupid."

Now, let's say that there was an unsolved ax murder at Oxford, and Andy said, "Richard Dawkins atheistic views made him into the Oxford Hatchet Slayer", that could lead to a successful lawsuit on Dawkins' part. MDB (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, CP serves the same type of demographic as movies like Religious does. It's preaching to the choir. Just like fundies won't watch Religious or The God Who Wasn't There and suddenly convert, nobody is reading CP and converting to Andy's cause. Well, nobody with a mind that is. Seriously, even if his counterexamples are persuasive, anybody who spends any time looking around CP will be put off by it's general crazy. If Andy was being picked up in the mainstream or conservative media, then there might be cause for concern. But seeing as even his target market are shunning him, let him carry on shouting into the wind. Then again, I'd love to see how long a Counter examples to the Bible article would last on CP. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But it does exist - Andy created it. Guess how many counter-examples are listed. Speaking of which, does "counter-examples to evolution" and its ilk strike anyone else as clumsy english? Shouldn't he be using the phrase "refutations of"? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

REFUDIATIONS!! --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to provide counterexamples when TK blocks the account you're going to use. EddyP (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy just made a funny. Now our OQs aren't "tiny", they're "0 divided by 60."^img I'm so glad Jesus invented comedy so I can revel in the full glory of Andy's sense of humour. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well the table that talked about the counterexamples and the supposed intelligence of atheists is now gone, consumed by Ken's love letter to ShockofGod^img. Just when you think they cannot embarrass themselves further, Ken delivers. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis seems a little too young to be cleaning up her father's mess. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel bad for Phyllis, she and her uncle Roger are obviously far more grounded in reality then Andy. However unlike uncle Roger, she probably has to suffer under the grindstone of Andy's raging fundementalism, especially because of her gender (We know what Andy thinks of women), so extra kudos for her for trying to bring a little sanity to the frontpage. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That kind of stuff HAS to lead to some awkward occasional dinner discussions. -- JArneal 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think she takes after her grandmother, I think she is really and truly an actual conservative in a way that Andy could never be. --Opcn (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned her essay on Darwin and Paley before. It seems that she is not a bible literalist like her father and paternal grandmother. I've not noticed her economic and social views. CS Miller (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but none of that essay means much of anything, because women are notoriously bad at intellectual activities. Deny this and loose all credibility! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It warms my heart to see conservatives like Phyllis who are not literalistic, or you know, crazy. I have no problem with her being a social or an economic conservative even if I may disagree with her. The question is though can be bring any sanity to CP, or is it too far gone now? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)