Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive193

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 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>, <192>, <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)

Just noting[edit]

I see that upstanding defender of free speech, Terry Hurlbucket, is out link spamming his own blogshite again. Maybe we should all vote it down on Google, after all, that seems to be a practice he approves of. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty much all he does now on CP? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't conservapedia tear into Obama when he told people not to go to vegas and blow their tax rebates or something like that? If we didn't wigo it the jacobB destroyed it when he whiped out the history on MPR. --Opcn (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian Cox[edit]

Ah lovely. Once again CP draws attention to itself for all the wrong reasons. Of course, Andy will crow that Cox can only employ liberal mockery and can't actually refute his bullshit. For Andy, any publicity is good publicity (even tho only liberals crave attention) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting "500 Internal Server Error" now. Guess CP is getting swamped. Expect 'account ceation' to be switched off in 5... 4... 3... --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Pleeeeease somebody point this out to Andy. I so want another Lenski affair (Douglas Moo appears not to have risen to the bait). Cox is a Brit too! Andy can tell this physicist how his people are weak at math!!! --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Cox is particularly annoyed by this in his capacity as author of the book Why E=mc2. He is also appalled by the abuses of theology - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if that CP page will now begin a journey in the outer rings of the media. I hope so, but I doubt it if CP keeps vomiting up 500 errors. ONE / TALK 16:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I begin to realise why they think all the media is so liberal. It makes a nice excuse as to why all the publicity they ever get is negative. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd love it if a Reliable Source picked up Andy's claim that Jesus healing that dude at a distance disproves relativity. :D --Sid (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of the best comments come from people who have just been exposed to CP for the first time:

I tried searching for "Muslin" to see if it redirected to Islam. It did.

holy fuck you're not kidding. ed: Hilariously, "Muslim" does not. It goes to cp:Muslim instead.

I'm reading the whole reddit thread and giggling like a motherfucker. ONE / TALK 18:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We all know why the "science" is appalling in the CP's Counterexample to Relativity article is bad, but how is the theology bad? This is all perfectly in line with the fundy view of the universe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it does have Andy declaring that Jesus didn't do any miracles. It was his way of getting out of the "Miracles override the normal laws of physics pretty much by definition, so what?" question. Not sure if this guy meant that, though. --Sid (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well that's true, Andy is more then willing to corrupt Christian teachings for his political ends, that is why we have the Conservative Bible Project. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I tweeted at him and suggested he write them and give them another Lenski affair, and he said he thinks it might be a good idea. Fingers are crossed! --Opcn (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
DAMMIT COX! Did he have to give them the publicity? At least he could add a link to the RW rebutal of the subject too. Perhaps even sock up and edit it too. That'd be quite cool. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I pointed him at it on Twitter (which is why I spent some time doing the dusting) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh god!
"This is where knowledge goes to die."
I lol'd so hard. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A different take on Ken's disgrace[edit]

Maybe he is rubbing it in our faces? Maybe he wants to show that he can shit all over CP and we can't. --Opcn (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe he is just insane. In any way, who cares? It's not like him, or Andy, or CP, will ever have any real influence on our lives. For us, this atheism vs theism, liberalism vs conservativism, evolutionism vs creationism stuff is just a game to pass time and release some stress. For Ken's sake, I hope it's a game for him as well, and that he doesn't REALLY think he's on a mission from God and that writing these "essays" on some little forgotten wiki will somehow further the creationist, theist, conservative cause. Because it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever even if they were thought-out, well-sourced, well-argumented quality essays. --Maquissar (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the cute little blurbsimg he keeps putting into mainpageleft and I'm kind of disappointed he always disappears them after just a few hours. You think Schmockfly is telling him to knock it off behind the scenes? mb 22:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I admit, the evolutionism vs creationism debate, or more specifically the Big Bang cosmology vs. Made by magic 6,000 years ago debate is of importance to me, because it does affect astronomical sciences. However, that being said, CP isn't part of either. They have no influence within the Creationist community, they are not referenced by any major creationist site, or church, and they certainly are not seen as any real opposition of any concern by mainstream science. Ken just makes things worse for them and pushes them further away from respectability among creationist groups and further into mocking territory for everyone else. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Andy also occasionally works against Creationist organizations, too. Remember how PJR went all "Andy, I really think we should fall in line with the CMI/etc. here and accept the result while questioning its importance..." about the Lenski Study while Andy went all "Noooo, give us the data! All the data! The study is flawed!" --Sid (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I worry about people wp:anchoring on CP --Opcn (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's kind of like worrying that the Marianas Trench is a bit too damp. --Gulik (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is a bit humid this time of year. Do not take Viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Suicide quote[edit]

Both the atheism and suicide and the suicide section of the atheism page have an image with the caption "Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning suicide rates: "this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations."" Zuckerman's quote seems to indicate that, if suicide is "the one indicator" that religious nations fare better in, for every other indicator the secular nations fared better. Now, I could be interpreting this totally incorrectly, in which case feel free to call me out on it. But in my limited search I wasn't able to find the full report by Zuckerman, so I was hoping someone could help out. Thedoctorisin (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ah, here we go.
It's good to know that a prominent CP source says in the same document they quote, "In sum, with the exception of suicide, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most unhealthy."
Thedoctorisin (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Bravo, top notch detective work. Ken will now rejigger the quote to mine what he wants out of it. Somebody quickly do a capture. --Opcn (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
However, you miss the point. Believing societies are better in the field of suicide rates! Deny this and lose all credibility. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try and reformulate this so I know what the person is saying. There are multiple indicators of health that were measured. Theistic societies had better (a.k.a. lower) suicide rates than atheistic societies. This is the only indicator where theistic societies had better results than the atheistic societies. Is this right? Honestly, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with suicide, when it is done for rational reasons. Sometimes, it just isn't better to trudge along. That being said, if you're considering suicide, I still recommend getting therapy! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's basically right. Over simplifying it, essentially a paper that said "secular societies are healthier than religious ones, except with suicide rates" was stripped of it's most prominent point. That being said, anyone wanna take a gamble and point this out to conservative?The Doctor is In (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
"All this has happened before, and all this will happen again." It's been done, he doesn't care. (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC) <-sorry, is Az, tethered through phone so even more unrecognizable than usual.
Just to be exactly is "organic" atheism identified in a country? It sounds like an excuse to exclude Russia or something. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 10:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Russia should be excluded because their atheism was forced onto them. --Opcn (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Not having ever looked into it, I thought that was hyperbole. I hereby demand that someone make a decent Russia article. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Your wish is my command.PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well played, sir. I also didn't realize Tatu was Russian, so I've learned more than from the indecent Russia article. However, editing my comment makes you a fascist; surrender your mop forthwith. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 14:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ha! You'll get my mop when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, you running dog imperialist you. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought: in an atheistic country, where suicide doesn't present a social stigma, there is less need to cover it up... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, look at Japan, which has a massive reported suicide rate, but there suicide doesn't carry the stigma it does in the West. May even be seen as an 'honourable way out.' But to play devil's advocate here, who is more likely to contemplate suicide. A pregnant atheist teen (FWOABT), who has the option of an abortion, or a pregnant Christian teen, who faces scorn and derision from family and community and who might well end up having to look after an unwanted baby, with an incomplete education? Maybe a harsh example, but just throwing it out there. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A statistic on its own can be meaningless without some context. First of all there is an assumption that suicide is bad; some people choose to take their own life rather than die a slow painful death from terminal illness - although many religious people insist that they should always take the latter option. Secondly, one should investigate the demographics to see which section of society is choosing suicide (in the US suicide is much more common amongst Caucasians than Hispanics or African-Americans). And thirdly, why pick just on suicide - surely murder is an equally valid criterion to judge the success or merit of a society and is something that the US does pretty poorly on compared to atheistic Europe. Overall I think that life expectancy in general is a good indicator, because it includes suicide, murder, social welfare and healthcare. Interstingly some developed countries with high suicide rates like Sweden & Japan also have much longer life-expectancy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


I just read all 212 comments and there was only one that was not critical or Andy or posted by someone who had already made a comment critical of Andy. They said

John 4:46-54 would actually endorse quantum physics, I should say.

another guy also said

I'm guessing young Schlafly got bullied in an intellectual debate by some athiest eggheads sometime when he was younger, now he's taking it out on Einstien.

Or something like that...

but that was after criticizing him. --Opcn (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy just has problems with Social Relativity, the same way he has a problem with Social Evolution. "But neither of those have to do with the scientific theories of Relativity, and Evolution" yeah, but they share words in common! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Andy was severely bullied by a gay, British, female, socialist, atheist physicist. That would explain A LOT. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
lol: ONE / TALK 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly and his ilk are proof positive that evolution is fact and that it's also somewhat of a two-steps-forward-one-step-back process.

For every Einstein and Hawking, there's a Schlafly.

I'm just so sad that all these CP virgins via Cox and TPM aren't getting to see CP with a flying kitty on the main page. Such a missed opportunity, Ken! Repost it! DogPMarmite Patrol 08:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A TPM commenter has mentioned that this snippet might work its way up to a mention on The Colbert Report. I can imagine that being quite likely... it'll probably wind up as a Tip of the Hat. Eyes peeled, people! ONE / TALK 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This truly awful woman and her dunderhead son are complete anomalies in that family.

Posted, I assume, by a lover of Schlafly beer. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When attention is paid to CP[edit]

Has there ever been a case of CP getting outside attention where it was not almost entirely negative? MDB (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just love that whenever CP does get any outside attention there are always comments of the form "I browsed Conservapedia for a few minutes. Are we sure this isn't a parody site?". --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The only person who can say for sure whether it's a parody site is Andy Schlafly. MDB (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Not really. There had been individual sites that had non-negative coverage of CP, but most positive mentions had been part of Ken's special deals ("I write a stunningly positive article about your organization and then protect it from others if you praise CP's evolution/atheism/homosexuality article!"), and the neutral-positive ones were careful to only describe CP's traffic or mission. And most of these were basically just lone voices in the wilderness - I have yet to see positive CP news catching on (again, except for astroturfing campaigns like Ken's spamming orgies or TerryH's praise in his articles).
This is not a surprise, of course: CP has basically stated "If you don't 100% agree with all of Andy's opinions, you're wrong!", which basically unites 99% of planet Earth against CP by default. --Sid (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC) The only one that casts CP in a vaguely positive light is the original LA Times article, AFAIK. Of course, for Andy, it's ALL good publicity. He's gradually building the crazy, until he gets on Saturday Night Live, where he'll reveal we've all been punk'd. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe Andy is trying to usher in a glorious new age in the history of mankind, when all people will finally find common ground in their opposition to Conservapedia. Its content is guaranteed to piss off almost everyone, regardless of country, faith, or even political stance. Now if only we can get him a spot at the next UN general assembly, world peace would be within reach. Röstigraben (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please update the TPM screenshot on WP??? (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Done did dat doggone ding. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of updating screencaps... needs MOAR pussy! --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis has a mop and bucket[edit]

I notice that li'l Phyll cleaned up some of Ken's droppings with her religious/suicide MPR item.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed how she tried to prevent daddy from looking extremely ridiculous by deleting his idiotic little table - but Andy would not only ignore her help and reinsert it, but asked the whole world to ridicule him: Talking Points Memo strikes out in trying to ridicule Conservapedia, so it makes a snide remark about the Bible too. TPM readers and writers, check out this table: Yah, check it out and have a laugh! larronsicut fur in nocte 09:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ken just moved it to the mainpage left. Phyllis is trying to clean up a tsunami of stupid with that mop and bucket. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New record[edit]

Run Ken Run

My failed career, my shipwrecked marriages, my consistent inability to get laid by anyone with any kind of alternative have made bitter and resentful of other people's happiness and peace of mind. I hate women, immigrants, intellectuals, and people with social intelligence. I hate homos and pennyless art fags for not bothering to want what I keep failing to get, humiliating me by avoiding the humiliations I keep barreling into myself. I hate the welfare state and the bleedinghearts behind it for not sneering at the luckless, humiliating me by reminding me that I lost, and for not believing that losing discredits you as a human being, humiliating me some more by pointing out the fight I lost was a pissing contest in the first place. I especially hate treehugging hippies for not caring the seventies are over, not caring about being cool, and openly admitting to being nervous and girly about stuff, humiliating me on all of the above levels at once.

The onset of middle age and the the constantly throbbing consciousness of how few options I have left that it has brought with it has tortured me into a state of nearly constant rage. I'm so angry at everything and everyone I'm essentially a gun nut without guns. If I were one foot shorter and sixty pounds more overweight I could spend Halloween dressed up as Eric S. Raymond. Pretty much the only fun I can still create for myself is picking on those even worse off, anonymously, in online forums.

In a totally unrelated note, except for a break of five hours yesterday morning and a break of two hours last night my close personal friend Conservative just spent 38 consecutive hours sitting at his computer contributing to everybody and their dog's favorite crank blog... 40 consecutive hoursimg if you ignore another break of about two hours and include the bunch of edits he made Sunday noon. I think this beats the infamous 30-hour spree from last July, which includes a four-hour break in the last quarter, in terms of both the time elapsed from start to finish and the time spent actually editing. While the cap shows only 297 edits, counting edits already memoryholed Ken made at least 393 contributions to the cause during his run. Keep up the good work, Ken, alienated losers on four continents sincerely appreciate what you're doing here. mb 10:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Great read. I think opperation afterburner must be kicking in. StarFish (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Dude seriously needs help. I once managed a 46 hour spell online on BBSs back in the days before the WWW, but at the end of it I was hallucinating and crashed out for about 24 hours solid, and I was a reasonably fit uni student. Ken might be flying, but the comedown could be nasty. Seriously guy, step away from the keyboard. Worm(t | c) 11:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's utterly bizarre. It's 40 hours of Ken adding a word here, a full stop there, deleting and recreating his pages and still displaying no clue about the difference between an essay and a gallery. Still, Andy is cheering him on, because apparently this is going to spell the end of atheism on the internet. (We might all die laughing). --PsyGremlinTal! 11:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Does this guy have a job, or is he just on the monthly tugboat? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I wondered about that with most of the active sysops: Don't they have a job and a family? It seems like some of them can't be working more than 10 hours a week. --GTac (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Not just that, was saying to Nutty - Andy hasn't taken a single day's holiday in 3 or 4 years. He is always online (ok, so am I, but I have sex life to maintain). It's as if him and wifey never eat out, never go to theatre/movies/opera and if they do go away, he's up half the night pecking away on his laptop. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll thank you never to put the words "sex", "eat out" and Andy and his wife in close proximity ever again. I now have to go scrub my mind out with bleach. Ew. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither has Andy ever acknowledged her existence or said a single nice thing about her or any other member of his family. He seems more than a little robotic, which makes me wonder if he gets as much ass as Gerard does. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I do actually remember Andy going on holiday a couple years back. He was gone for about 3 - 4 weeks and only checked in a few times. AceX-102 20:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For Ken the crowning achievement of it all[edit]

For Ken it is all worth it. Not only does his Love letter to Shock "Atheism is a clown and it did not know it" erm, "essay" have top billing, but also the new mainpage left feature: "Richard Dawkins vs. a Cat"img is now above such mainpage features like the "Article of the Year". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, fantastic. Incidentally, I've been keeping a keen eye on this google search to see how far and wide this flying kitty bullshit spreads. Since I checked a few days ago, there's been a youtube and a few random forum mentions, and also reddit has put up a link to it. It's picking up speed (possibly helped by the recent publicity CP has got from relativity) ONE / TALK 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Other then the people on this site though, I wonder how many people Google "Conservpedia" and "Flying Kitty", lol. I will give Ken credit though, he is using the opportunity presented by Reddit to get as much publicity as possible for his pet projects. In that regard he is the most ambitious and successful sysop.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, nobody will actually google it - I'm just using that search to find out what other sites have picked up on the craze. ONE / TALK 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...the fuck?[edit]

Am I the only one getting nothing but timeouts trying to connect? mb 15:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

They've hit big time mockery again with the conservapedo relativity stuff. The hamster that powers the server is struggling to cope. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but but but usually when they're overloaded they give meu a mix of timeouts, error messages in the 5xx range, and actual pages. I've been seeing absolutely nothing but timeouts for several hours now, a problem that at least some others do not seem to have. Since my last move two weeks ago all boxen I can run scripts from are in the same /24. Time to proxy up again? mb 15:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Pharyngulated (dunno if this has been mentioned already)[god I hate this phone] 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Am I right in thinking that Andy has never actually tried to court the conservative MSM? Even in the early days, before it became so batshit insane, nobody will touch it. Virtually all the media exposure has been negative. Did Andy never have the confidence, or courage of his convictions to approach Beck, or Coulter, or that chick with the 2 Ms; or Hannity, or WND, and say, 'Hey! Look I'm doing this conservative thing, and with your backing we can make it work." First time I heard about CP was on NPR, and even that was going 'Wait! All kangaroos come from 2, that swam to Australia?" --PsyGremlinParla! 15:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
His early press was all on the theme that "Wikipedia has a liberal bias". Wikipedians were very polite to him about this thing, some even offered to help with technical problems (like the site falling over the moment it was announced). Even then it was pretty apparent he was not quite in the same reality as many people - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I know WND discovered the Conservative Bible Project and was not happy about it. Mainstream conservatives are not going to cite CP because it is so utterly fringe with its Obama = Muslim foreigner conspiracy theories and its wanton pissing all over science. Religious conservative sites like WND repute it because Andy fucked with the Bible to serve his own political ends, and that is about the worst thing you can do in their eyes, especially if its the KJV. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think about it, when has Andy ever done much of anything to make Conservapedia work? All the early effort was by his homskollars copying and pasting from the junior encyclopedia of space or whatever. He hasn't the technical expertise to manage the server (I have the impression that more or less no one is managing it now, judging by the ever increasing list of things that are broken than nobody ever fixes) and he doesn't really write articles as such. His main contribution is to have hair brained ideas then turn them over to the parodist squad to flesh out. What's he doing with the "Conservative Bible" now, for example. Ooops. I guess he didn't think about what step two was. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The Conservative Bible Project is in the graveyard of half done dead projects right now along with the Conservapedia Anti-abortion Project, Conservapedia Anti-Socialism Project, and possibly the Richard Dawkins Project. I suppose right now the Bible and babies are not as important as clowns and cats in CP-land. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. mb 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, back in business thanks to new IP address. After concluding his fourty-hour edit spree at 4:52 in the morning, Ken took a break of five hours and forty-one minutes before going back to work at 10:33. The last time Ken took a break of more than six hours was Sunday morning: Template:KenBreaks
mb 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be sure[edit]

TK protected the Counterexamples to the Bible page so that only 'autoconfirmed' can edit it. What does that mean? Did I make a mistake in the WIGO? EddyP (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's basically right, unless it's something new they've brought in. Under Group rights it's listed as "Edit semi-protected pages (autoconfirmed)", but it's a red link and there's no list of members. So it either means that it's available only to editors who have made a certain number of edits and thus don't have the catha stuff everytime they post a link (i.e. sysops & Tiedup Borat), or Terry is being a disingenuous cunt, and not allowing any of the new editors to insert info in to the article, but making it seem as if he's 'protecting it', whilst actually cowering in the face of facts. Needs more ma-CHEESE-mo! --PsyGremlinParla! 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see resident parodist DouglasA has jumped it to ensure the silliness of Counterexamples to Relativityimg remains unsullied. How long until it too is protected? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
More importantly, how long until whoever is running DouglasA gets tired of it like JacobB did so we can test theory that it's impossible to get in trouble for fucking CP up as a sysop if you do it from a proxy. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Tired of it? That happened long ago. I've barely edited at CP in recent months. I mean, how can you top Ken? PubliusTalk 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like peons can still edit the article. Did TK make a mistake when protecting it? It's still open to all users. EddyP (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Methinks Ken's head just exploded[edit]

But…it…uh…what…who…Dawkins can't be right, but he's slagging off those evil, nasty, they're-all-terrorist, Muslins.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty I don't think Ken gives much of a hoot about muslims, but I might be wrong. Now, if Dawkins started slagging off homosexuals.... ONE / TALK 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In an amazing turn of events, Ken Demyer sides with the Taliban in denouncing Dawkins. This results in a temporal abnormality and end end of the universe as we know it. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if that would be brought up on RW. It has to be the greatest non sequitur ever. Dawkins: "It reminds me of the oppression of women" Response: "ISLAMOPHOBIC BASTARD!!! DON'T CRITICIZE OUR POOR TREATMENT OF WOMEN!!!". He merely states that it is against the UK's moral zeitgeist to force women to wear x, y or z (I do recommend the confrontation where someone accuses him of dressing women like whores and he says something like "our women are perfectly capable of dressing themselves, thank you"). But he also clearly states that a blanket ban on it (yes, the French bad is for all complete face-coverings, but I wonder how much of it is primarily motivated by the burka and then the "fairness" just tacked on?) wouldn't be fitting with the UK's tradition of freedom. These knee-jerkers need to perhaps, you know, read what the guy says before thinking "that man is more famous than me, if I angrily respond to him I can get my name in the papers!!" Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, the template can cope with apostrophes. How cool is that. Thanks to the dude responsible for the update. P.S. You can always spot the bloke who learnt most of his programming skills on a Speccy 48K, he's always impresssed with the way that templates can cope with punctuation. Come to that, spot the bloke who still owns a Speccy 48K. I so need a life……--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

An idle question....[edit]

Anybody got any idea how much it's likely to cost Andypandy to set up and run CP? I notice he doesn't ask for donations so I guess he's funding it himself. I know he's not short of a bob or two (BTW, that's English for 'he's loaded') but I was just idly curious as to how far his philanthropy, and his desire to give us all a good laugh, is likely to extend. Who knows, if things ever get that serious over there, we might have to have a whip round for him. (BTW, that's English for collecting some spare monrey for's not an invitation to join him in a sadomasochistic exercise.) Mick McT (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That all depends on the size of his ego. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Now, now, we all know that is exactly what you meant. Mind you I have to say horsewhipping Andy contains a certain charm, and I usually like my bottoms female…*nudge*, *nudge*, *wink*, *wink*, *my old man's a spanner…*, *etc*; *etc;*--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to freak out Jeeves: "Sex", "Whip", "Eat out", "Bottom", "Andy", "Missus". Did I miss anything? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"Rentboy", "Just helping with my luggage", "Teabagging", "Oedipus Complex".--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is more deserving of a heavy-duty gag and those leather mitten-type things, it's Andy. ONE / TALK 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what the cost is, but I imagine he deducts it on his taxes. Either that, or he has split the costs across his students. In either case, I'd consider it unethical. -Lardashe
Hrm. I think "imagine" is the operative word there. In any case, it probably costs him on the order of 200 to 250 dollah a month for the managed server he rents. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Mr Jeeves for answering my question and raising the whole tone of the discussion!Mick McT (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Have I mentioned recently my long standing theory as to why the Assfly called his kids Andrew and phyllis? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, good sir, I'm afraid you haven't. Please do remind us. mb 18:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I like where this thread is going :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
For comparison, RW costs about $100-150/mo for a server in Trent's house. CP buys service from a shitty, shitty hosting reseller who tried overcharging RW back in the day. Nothing wrong with a vanity project, but without proper system administration (and LAMP sysadmin is really not that hard) he's certainly paying more than he should for a wiki that no-one but sceptics reads - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That's over three grand a year for that turd pool. So over the entire life of CP so far, you could have bought a pretty damn good car or made a particular charity very, very happy. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget to consider potential benefits in this calculation. And I don't mean the "Your life gets better if you accept Conservative Values" bullshit, but rather the possibility that Andy is using CP (as a concept) to draw in more homeschooling customers (they do pay Andy some sort of fee, right?). He might hold it up as evidence that he's all hi-tech and more advanced than public schools or even other homeschool teachers. Who would you rather trust with the education of your child? Some random parent, anti-Christian public schools, or a lawyer who is spearheading a trustworthy online encyclopedia that doubles as an educational resource with all the benefits and none of the drawbacks of books and stuff? 3k per year - how much does one homeschooler pay Andy per year? How many people become his homeschool students because of the CP argument? CP costs money. So do other ad campaigns. --Sid (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is in the air tonight, but the BDSM theme continues over at Phyrungula, Phuryngula, that blog what I can't spell. Oh, Pharyngla, got it. I would say "whip crack-away, whip crack-away, whip crack-away" but I'll be damned if I start quoting Calamity Jane.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken will not stop![edit]

He wants to make all of these flying kitty related articles! [1] (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear god![edit]

Oh, the crazy

Has anybody looked at cp:Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty? lately? I'm not going to cap it, cos it might break capturebot. On top of flying cats, flying giant cats and a flying pig, we have a photo of somebody seeming to hurl a Beagle through the air (ooh! more symbolism!), then we have the flying kitty squadron (12 fk pics), the fk airforce (gawd knows how many flying kitties). This is not the work of a sane man. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The zoo is new to me, but I think the mega-spam of flying kitties has been WIGO'd and discussed before. Yes, Ken's completely losing it, and we're apparently the only ones who give a damn. --Sid (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, from what I've been told, it has apparently been raised behind the scenes, and it seems to have Andy's stamp of approval. So there's really nothing else we can do. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. This is clearly the work of a disturbed mind, it has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. so what possible merit does it have? Gah, the assfly is as much a nutter as Ken. The only reason I can possibly think of is that he can't admit that there aren't "0 in mental health problems" on CP, so he has to pretend that what ken is doing is hunky dory and won't get him the help he needs. What a fucking maggot. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Andy approves of this? Doesn't he realise that
  • Conservative is in need of medical help. If he can't afford his medication (I think it was Conservative who said this), then Andy should give Conservative some money towards the cost, out of Christian charity.
  • This is not what a Trustworthy Encyclopedia should have as an article.
CS Miller (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, over on ASK, Ruylopez, who had the same broken windmill on his user page as Conservative, has been blocked, apparently at his own request. Does any know if this is genuine, or has PJR taken the easy way out? CS Miller (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC he asked PJR to archive all his stuff, round about the whole stalking episode. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Feh, I wouldn't put it past him to just be lying to get rid of Ken. I've asked him to look in to getting him some help, and he's just ignored me. I'm sure some people with his email address have asked too. Another fucking credit to the species. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

is being a twat on the internet really evidence of mental illness? If so, I fear people who deal with mental health will soon be overwhelmed.--AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys expect Andy to do. Cutting him off from CP could very well be the worst possible thing for him. I'm sure Andy has shown great restraint in allowing him an outlet. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC 'letting it out' is a popular psychological misconception. Ken hasn't got better from using CP; he's got worse. EddyP (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"is being a twat on the internet really evidence of mental illness?" Most certainly not, it is just an indication that one is a twat on the Internet. Ken is probably some bored, unemployed creationist who through CP, has something to do that he believes gives him meaning and a sense of importance in a world where he is a nobody. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Andy is not responsible for Ken's state of mind, nor for dealing with it. Any more than if one of us went nuts, Trent would be under an ethical obligation to fix them. Claiming such is a fallacy I don't know the name of, but it goes something like: "X is evil. Therefore, everything they do is evil. Therefore, any bad thing in their vicinity is their fault. Therefore, this bad thing happening in their vicinity is further proof of their moral depravity." The last step involves coming up with spurious ethical rules that the proponent has never had cause to think of before. And this is actually a pattern. There is basically nothing Andy and the CP sysops can do either, even with perfect moral hindsight, and not doing it is not somehow evidence of the evil of CP sysops. You lot should be smarter than that. Don't do it. - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Erm. I rhink people with a working moral compass disagree. You see someone in need that nobody is helping, you help them. People who don't are pricks. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. However, he is not obliged to do anything in particular. Particularly not in a manner that would satisfy pontificating wankers taking this as evidence of evil. There's quite enough of substance to criticise the CP team for; claiming that not cutting off Ken is somehow obvious evidence of evil is just stupid. It's nothing of the sort - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If Andy saw Ken's editing as indicative of catastrophic mental ill health, then he would have a clear moral obligation to facilitate an intervention. He has Ken's phone number and likely his home address, too. The ease with which Andy could pass these details on to the authorities would make it inexcusable for him not to. Andy doesn't see Ken's editing as indicative of any such thing, however, so this is mostly moot. In other news, "evil" is next-to-useless as a moral concept. Have a nice day. --Robledo (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please, both you and David Gerard are making ridiculous arguments. You both are arguing obligation or the lack thereof. In reality, the issue is that Ken is nuts, has latched on to a flying cat gif to express it, and that it's an embarrassment to CP. There is no mental health obligation here on Schlafly's part. The obligation is to the goal of his site, and what he wants it to be, which is taken seriously. Ken is completely defeating that goal with his nutter/retarded 'essays'. Andy and the CP powers-that-be are only derelict because they have so few contributors, that they will sustain someone out of their mind for the simple reason they have few other contributors. That's odious. They aren't keeping him to give him an "outlet" or anything else - they are keeping him to avoid admitting an embarassment, and because few other people create content to the degree that Ken does. The shame is in the only possible reasons he is still given free reign, and by no means is it out of Christian charity of giving a sick person an "outlet". By the same token, they are under no obligation (moral, ethical or otherwise) to ensure he finds the help he needs. -- (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There's no "obligation", but DG is being a cold hearted motherfucker. Remember when, oh, shit, who was it here was losing it? trent ran his IP and made a call. that is the decent and right thing to do in my opinion. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying what I said. When Ken was clearly losing it just recently, I did consider he needed help and did say calling PJR was probably the least ineffective thing we could do. However, what's pissing me off here is the notion that the CP cabal are demonstrating evil in not doing some unimaginable thing; more so, for not doing some unimaginable thing that is clearly visible to this here peanut gallery. Claiming that makes ne a "cold hearted motherfucker" is a "think of the children!" argument. You can think better than that - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
DG makes a good point here. How do you know the folks at CP aren't doing something about it? Let's set aside all negative speculation for the moment. Problem is, right now it's all speculation. What real evidence do you have to go on? Only two facts are observable here : 1) there are no relevant posts on CP, 2) Ken is still editing as usual. Fact #1 proves nothing as public posts are not their only means of communication and it would a a "behind-the-scenes" topic anyway. Fact #2, that Ken is still editing, just means that Ken is still editing and they haven't cut him off cold turkey, which would probably damaging in itself. As for the rest of this discussion, to me it smacks of incredible arrogance to assume, based on someone's pattern of editing a wiki, however odd and unusual it might be (I fully grant that it very much is), that they suffer from significant mental disorders and if so are not receiving any kind of therapy or treatment. All you know of Ken is his internet presence. Perhaps he does have a real problem, perhaps he knows so and it is being addressed privately, but is proving very difficult. How can you possibly know whether or not this is the case? Just because he isn't institutionalized and his internet habits forcibly curtailed? The "rational" conclusion at present is that you have massively insufficient evidence on which to base such assumptions, and anything else is little more than baseless Andy-bashing. If you're going to criticize someone's (in)actions, they should actually be established first. You can rightly criticize Andy for his views and opinions on almost everything he posts on CP, so bash him for that. Make fun of his humiliation at Lenski's hands or in front of the court, but don't start acting like him and finding faults around every corner, when the corners themselves may or may not even exist. Kalliumtalk 01:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well put, Kallium. We simply don't know what is actually going enough to criticize it. But we still worry. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the game but, Jesus, the gif spam on that page made me burst out laughing. I haven't seen anything like that since I left Uncyclopedia. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Surely it can't be that long, did someone tamper with Capturebot's file? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thats the air force , I stopped counting at 25 x 2 but there is a shitload of kitties. animated gif too. (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Counter Examples relativity[edit]

Do we expect Andy to every reply to any of the new posts on cp:Talk:Counterexamples_to_Relativity? From what I can tell he is just going to avoid it and act as though he did not read them. Thoughts? Quazywabbit (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Heavens, no! That would be deceitful. He won't have to read any of the posts because TK will a) block editor for "trolling" or "inserting liberal multi-culturism"; b) delete; c) oversight. Which will mean that Andy is right and once again, those evil evilutionists have been sent packing. To abuse a quote, Andy is logged in to CP, all is fucked up on that domain. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
We seriously need a refutation page for their Counterexamples to Relativity page, as it's so replete with errors and most "counterexamples" have no citation or evidence to back up their assertions. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Like this one? Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity#The "Counterexamples" Page --ZooGuard (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh awesome, how did I miss that one?! Oh well, looks like every base is already covered. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This relativity stuff has really taken off! New references on the internet keep cropping up. I just found a few -- [2] and [3]. Maybe the rest of you already know about these, and many others. Anyway, we should gather them up and make a page of links to all that stuff. Or maybe someone already has.

On the actual CP front, I am monitoring the situation. A huge amount of parody / mockery going on, of course. But I think our articles are in good shape and have the situation pretty much under control. I will step in if more work is needed. Gauss (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

PZ Myers' post has been included in the WIGO. The story even reached the BAUT forum. [4] --ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Another site got a hold of the CP Counterexamples to Relativity article as well and did a point by point refutation[5] --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem with it is that they're not "right wing refutations of relativity", they're Andy Schlafly's refutations of relativity. You might just as well devote your blog to refuting the crazy guy that stands outside my local mall everyday with a placard. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
You are right, except it is still important to refute them only in that this particular crazy guy with the placard is actually teaching teenagers as a acceptable (in the eyes of the government) substitute for real educators. Beside the refutations are pretty spot on. However, yeah I wish he didn't use the broad brush of "right wing", I don't know anyone outside of CP and a few loons who think relativity is some sort of liberal plot to stop people from reading the Bible. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Do we know if RW's serious article on Andrew Schlafly has dissuaded any parents from hiring him as a teacher? Also, has his paranoia for 'liberal <insert noun>' made him frighten any off potential students? (I think I remember hearing something like this occurring, but I could be mistaken.) If so, I'd say this alone made everything worthwhile. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind on the second question. Just found Conservapedia:Disappointed homeschoolers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
That's the first time I've seen the Disappointed Homeskoolers page. Schlafly's not just thick as pigshit, he's really unpleasant with it. What did those well-meaning kids do to deserve that kind of behaviour from him? The Real James Brown (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for[edit]

Remember just a little while ago when I was bemoaning the fact that no one outside of CP cared about cp and how that made it less fun? Well now I can't load half the pages because the server is imploding. I suspect that the breadth and length of kens pile of crap is probably part of the problem.Opcn (talk)

Like Ken's new "Atheism and Marriageability" section. I am guessing, with the exception of Andy, not one of the CP goons are married. AceX-102 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure how closely that ties into my point, but I'll say some stuff about it. Ed is a Moonie, and marriage is very big for them, if you don't have someone they will pick someone for you, so I think he is hitched. Jinx was married. DeanS was married as well. Anyone know about Karajou? JacobB and DouglasAdams are both fiction. TK is a bachelor, Rob Smith is a bachelor, Kenservative is a confirmed bachelor, who's left? --Opcn (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Karajou is married, with a teenage son almost High School age. TerryH's wife died about a year and a half before DeanS wife died. FJF (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Ed mentioned his wife and kids occasionally. And TerryH was also married. --Sid (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgot JPatt, any thoughts on him? TerryH is a widower according to his facebook page. Geo just graduated highschool and has (or had recently) a really creepy mustache so I doubt he has a woman around, because any woman with eyesight and any notion to screw him would have made him cut it off. --Opcn (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Jpatt is married. Karajou? Probably has somebody going, 'Hello sailor!' in every port, and TK is far too narcissistic to share his love with anybody but himself. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz told me that he is divorced. 'Nuff said.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Color me surprised. mb 11:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Why would you believe anything that TK says? Terry Koeckritz is a proven liar. He has never been married and he's decidedly gay. He was quite open about his sexual orientation when he first joined the HotorNot community, he tried to solicit many young men there, was an active member of many gay internet communities, and his own board was originally established as a place for gay men to socialize before he turned it into a board to spew hate towards hotornot and it's moderators. FJF (talk)
JacobB has mentioned to me a few times in passing about having a girlfriend, not sure if that is still true or not (and that all depends on whether you believe he is genuine). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, BMcP surely meant that the single member of the JacobB team that he dealt with allegedly has a girlfriend. I currently do not. Another member of the team I'm aware of is engaged. It really matters very little when the persona is run like this. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 14:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, some of team JacobB were single and others had serious relationships. It is true. AceX-102 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


It's a bit tl;dr, but I skimmed through this and it would appear as if TK has been outed as a dishonest cunt on WP ("TK-CP, we did indeed have a short discussion regarding you archiving messages and changing them. A quick use of your browser's search function on your talk page's history would have revealed that. [6]) and has been given a bit of a smackdown. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Very tl;dr, but I get the point easily enough. I never knew he claimed Trent threatened him. Like Trent would do that? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I finally took the time to read it, and it's a perfect example of TK at work. Behind the scenes, he snarls and growls and makes threats and twists rules to suit his needs, then when it comes out in the open, he tries to be affable and polite and flutter his eyelids, whilst whining, "Look at me! I'm the victim here." Of course, without oversight to hide behind, people get to see just what a dishonest, despicable pus-filled bubo he is. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Typical shit-head TK whining about people not taking communications off-wiki. Been there, done that (BTDT) and it doesn't work. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
And Terry Koeckritz is blocked! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Er, well, "block" wouldn't be the correct term to use. More like blacklisted from using Twinkle, which is the program TK misused in reverting edits. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know. But "blocked" sounds better, and I enjoyed typing it. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
True, true...though the term "blacklisted" also has a special ring to it. It makes the subject that is blacklisted sound like it is some vile and nasty thing that is unwanted, such as links that are added to a spam blacklist. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well well well. Based on what dear Terry says about how personally close he and Jimbo Wales are I'm surprised Jimbo himself didn't jump out of a speeding Ferrari to stop this travesty of justice against poor put upon TK. But it's nice to see TK months of misbehavior on Wikipedia finally catch up with him. All he had to do was confine himself to being a douchebag on the CP talkpage rather than doing exactly what he accused us of by expanding his grudge against "vandal site admin" to his user talkpage by calling any and all edits by certain people (me, Super, and Human) vandalism. Kudos for making justice happen, Super. Now when TK reverts our edits to his talkpage he'll have to label them "tampering" and "vandalism" manually. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Maybe I'm having a dim day, but having seen Popeye the Koward in full swagger,img just what exactly is a counter example to the Bible anyway? The Torah? The Talmud/ The Bagavad Ghita? Qu'ran? Gilgamesh? Mithra? Tale of Genji? parzival? What are we looking for, an ancient story book that's made it to the modern day? It's about as stupid as Ken's "there no proof of atheism" crap. Still, no doubt, Karajou and Andy will go to bed and fondle each other themselves in the knowledge that thanks to their gutlessness, there are still no counterexamples to the Bible. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like TylerDG asked one question too manyimg and givenn that the swabbie has neither the brains, balls nor ma-cheese-mo to actually refute the statement, he acts in typical fashion. Hey, Brian - here's a clue. Next time a parodist comes out and you have no idea how he slipped past your defences, read this section again. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
While I'm on a roll, given that the quoted deleted counter examples have been "Proven" with a capitol P", don't you think it would be a better article to list the alledged counter examples and the "Proofs" that dispel them. Or is that too much hard work, sailor boy? Would it require you to think? Or is it that the Proofs exist only in your mind? Or that it's far more sexually gratifying to act like a playground bully (once again, how did JacobB get past you guys?) than actually put a reasonable counter argument together. You are a despicable little man, with a little mind, on a little blog. Enjoy what power you have, cunt. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Now I know I'm a godless atheist and as such have no credibilty but surely the point of the time frame BC is that it means BEFORE the birth of a fictional messiah, not shortly AFTER it? wtf? 6 BC shortly AFTER the birth of christ?imgOldusgitus (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's one of those "counterexamples to the Bible" that the godless are always on about, you see. In the gospel of Luke it says Jesus was born while Quirinius was governor of Syria, which didn't happen until 6 CE. However, in Matthew it says that Herod was King, and Herod snuffed it around 4 BCE. Now, to the godless mind, both these things can't be true at once. However, if you're guided by the Holy spirit you know that this little discrepancy can be solved by locating the birth of Jebus as close to Herod's death as possible and fudging the facts about Quirinius. Hallelujah, the Bible is the TRUTHTM! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Modern Biblical scholars concede the Usher & Lightfoot made a mistake, and place Jesus of Nazareth's birth at around 6 BCE. CS Miller (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Calling that "scholarship" is to blacken the name of scholars. Anyone worthy of the title would have to concede we have no reliable information about the time, place or circumstance of Jesus' birth or indeed how old he was when he died. One can speculate that he probably was born in Nazareth, but there is some debate as to whether Nazareth even existed as a village at the time. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Like the lack of any items which can be placed within 150 years of the BC-AD changover, when you had to buy a new fucking watch.Opcn (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Andru & Eddy Baby: Proof of link between Marx and Darwin[edit]

Don't bother reading the article, take it on faith...[7] Jimaginator (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick! Ken! Release the Marxwin! ONE / TALK 15:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins Nazi quote[edit]

Thats what he was saying? (RaymondP's edit). I thought he was saying that identifying the basis of our judgement of moral behavior was a dificult question. Some would like to say that the answer is easy and that the Bible tells us what is moral and what is not, but if not the Bible then where does it come from? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Yeah, shit point and shit WIGO. All Dawkins is saying is that morality ain't as easy as "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Everyone agrees Hitler was a bad, naughty man. But you if you're going to to have a moral code, then you need a little more than just a list of things that you find viscerally bad. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Which edit are you specifically referring to? The Doctor is In (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The one that was the subject of the wigo. But I'm sorry I got the editor wrong, it was JeremyA. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Yeah. Dawkins is just saying that finding a philosophical basis for objective morality is difficult, which holds even if you are a christian, which the knuckle heads at CP would know if they ever bothered to follow up on any christian philosophers. --Opcn (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

CP Links - in the news/blogs![edit]

For everyone's viewing pleasure, there's a few blogs/articles on CP lately:

Any more I missed? I love reading the comments sections. Now THAT'S best of the public. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good find there Sir. On the Emunah article, I'm assuming it's because CP touts the GOP pro-Israel line, especially where that raid on the relief flotilla is concerned. I'd say more a case of any port in a storm, than actual support. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
PZ did not link to them, but talked about them, didn't he? Also How about Twitter, Digg, and Reddit? --Opcn (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of those are even reliable sources... if anyone wants to go open that can of worms. --Shagie (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Now also on New Scientist, as pointed out by BON. DogPMarmite Patrol 23:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia on NewScientist?[edit]

Conservapedia's madness is now on!e=mc^2? not on Conservapedia They said I could not get it published. Yep.

Ken, do you even know what a fucking question is???[edit]

I see Ken's shitting all over the main page again,img with Andy's blessing. However, this really is a special example of just how stupid Ken is, and how useless the others are at holding him in check. We have "the upsetting question for atheists" is mentioned about 3 times and then when he comes to the punchline, he says, "Namely, unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology."

Now, last time I checked, a question ends with a "?" What you have there, Ken, is a statement, a wildly erroneous one at that. There is no proof or evidence for atheism, because it has no ideology other than God does not exist.

Still, you might be gibbering and drooling on your keyboard by now, but keep up the good work of making CP look utterly ridiculous, especially to first time visitors. /rant off --PsyGremlinFale! 15:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not even necessary to claim "there is no god" to be an atheist. All you need do is not claim "there is a god". Atheists are just failed theists. (But don't tell Ken that).Jaxe (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I like how he put see: Christian apologetics, right after having the preceding phrase wikilink to christian apologetics.
I think I found what the "question" is - it's in one of the clown picture captions. The question is: "What proof and evidence can you provide that proves that atheism is accurate and correct?" --Composure1 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ed's absence ...[edit]

... was commented upon somewhere earlier. Wonder if the missus has something to do with it: Feminism aims at returning society to an idealized primitive matriarchy, sez Ed on his WP page. (The link he gives (The Victorian Cult of the Child) doesn't seem relevant really) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

I suspect it's something daddy moon said. It sounds like too complex a thought for Ed to have evolved it himself. He's more of a "women shouldn't wear pants" kind of chap. Also, I think his absence is more to do with being bored with CP. After all, he came here to try and amuse himself. As an aside, next time people talk about how the Bible condemns women wearing men's clothes, remind them that the ancient Greeks thought the Persians were effeminate for wearing trousers. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that "Victorian Cult of the Child" link was a typo by Ed. It should have been an "N" instead of an "L". Signed by someone who was too lazy to log in. 14:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You know, I haven't looked at the above link, but just thinking about creepy Uncle Ed looking at 'the Victorian Cult of the Child' makes me uneasy. Hellfire Club and all that. As for Ed's absence, I can only assume he's teaching Moonie kids again. Hopefully not maths. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
To be the perpetual pedant, the Hellfire Club is actually about a century earlier than Victorian England. However, there was all that creepy obsession with young girls (e.g. Rev. Charles Dodgson) which we know to be right up Ed's street. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Karajerk's rant[edit]

Here.img It's sad actually to watch him dance all around the realisation that CP has failed, without ever latching onto that spark.

  • "More than 95% or Conservapedia is meant to be a general-interest encyclopedia, which means everybody coming in - including yourself - has that capability." Except night editing is on most of the time, and even general interest topics such as maths, are a mine field for editors. Try creating a Chinese article now after Wuhao (whatever?) came out. Multi-culturism. Blocked. Fail to demonise Dawkins? NAZI!
  • [People] are coming in because they are intolerant of conservatism, and they restrict themselves to either trying to force upon this site their opinions related to liberalism, atheism, socialism, religion, or science." Well, given that you try and shoehorn religion into EVERYTHING, you might expect people to react. And for that matter, where are the conservative hoards you're catering to Karajou? I can't see them coming to CP's rescue against the liberal swarm.
  • I'm guessing that at least 95% of the remaining 5% is Ken's blithering idiocy. Which you only have yourselves to blame for.
  • Still, it's fun to see you staring down new editors. Why didn't you do that when Andy reverted all your edits to the Obama article, claiming they "dumbed it down." Surely, you aren't so scared, so insecure that you wouldn't dare raise the matter with Brother Leader? People want to know. --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The persecution complex just shines through. EddyP (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Karajou's current Obama-stance is likely his personal compromise between what he thinks and The Truth (=Andy's opinion): "I'm not saying that I think he's a Muslim, but the lack of complete rebuttal of every single point speaks volumes... maybe..."
That being said, the problem of not having enough people to cover a wider range of articles has been brought up occasionally in the secret discussion groups, and I think Kara had confirmed that this is a problem that has to be fixed. What we see here is just the public "CP is a major success despite Evil Liberals trying to destroy us and our way of life!" face he has to put on.
Digging further, editing on CP is a lose/lose situation unless you're a parodist who emulates Andy/TK/etc.: If you try to fix the focus articles (Liberal [noun], Counterexamples, Ken's pet articles, etc.), you get banned. If you propose changes on talk pages, you will be ignored and banned (talk, talk, talk or 90/10). If you only edit random and innocent articles, your behavior will be regarded with suspicion (No one has a "right" to edit articles at random. That is a privilege earned after they gain our trust. - Ed Poor, TZB, 820/9b4...). All of this is the direct consequence of them trying to have complete editorial control of an open wiki - "you can write what you want, as long as it's what we want". --Sid (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Tried editing and creating articles on non-political subjects, and they are indeed a minefield. Everything is politicized there, Ceiling Cat help you especially if you write anything to do with science. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why exactly, but I fed the trollimg with a vague, impersonal rant of suggestions. Maybe I just miss philosophy class. And maybe he'll notice the astronomy bit and remember you fondly, BMcP. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well that's telling you. 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Oh cool, Kara unbanned me too. Guess I should respond when I get the chance, though it's dinnertime now... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
...Oh. I was going to say hi to TK on my talk page before I go, but apparently Tzoran IP-banned me for a day. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Truest template ever: "If you are here to [...] show us why we are wrong, [...] you have indeed come to the wrong place" --Sid (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What is interesting is that Karajou was the one actually helpful administrator on that site towards me. Never attacked any of my articles and went out of his way to approve my picture requests, even adding some of his own for my articles. Still I wonder if he does remember who I was at all. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken's not even trying anymore[edit]

I know he's been editing for something like 40 straight hours (must be good meth), but when you just copy paragraphs into new headings, that doesn't really count. Still, it's funny to watch him pottering away, as all the other sysops whistle and don't make eye contact. --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and then we get Feeding time at the atheist zooimg A baboon and a quote. The baboon is the clever one. I hope TrueFreeThinker is giving Ken good head, cos he's never had so many links in his life before.--PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I just find it impressive how much mileage he can get out of statistics that are entirely fabricated. How the fuck would anyone know what percentage of a website audience is male or female? It's absurd. More absurd from a company that has no direct access to any real data about the website's traffic. Though, to be fair to Ken, using second hand fabricated numbers is a step up from the Assfly who fabricates his own numbers as and when required. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Alexa and quantcast install spyware on peoples computers. Fun fact, he called out Sam Harris on not getting females to his site, but according to Alexa Sam gets more sexy female eyeballs than conservapedia does. --Opcn (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to ask about that Opcn, what is the ratio of male to female viewers to Conservapedia? If Conservapedia isn't receiving much female viewership does that mean Ken lacks MA-CHEESE-MO?
Of course he sites no studies when it comes to his idea that atheist men have problems meeting women. So guys, struggling with loneliness? I am sure Ken had many women, right? And of course Atheists are "quarrelsome" based on some dude (Vox Day's) opinion. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if Ken has ever been with a woman or if he thinks the wet spots and flavors and smells are icky. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Atheists are "socially challenged men"? Pot, kettle, black. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If Ken ever had sex, it'd be on CP within five minutes. <Zap Brannigan>Karajou! I have made it with a woman! Inform the dear leader.</Zap Brannigan> --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ken would have to pay a hooker to get close enough to find out that there was a wet spot. A minor correction, Sam Harris gets a higher proportion of female eyeballs than CP, getting more female eyeballs in terms of numbers is a small matter, even obscure porn sites do that one all the tie, because CP is stuck in the doldrums. --Opcn (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, quarrelsome socially challenged men. Now, what are the characteristics of the average internet user? Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Vox Day's sidebar links to CP's article on Atheism and Evolution (under ATHEIST DEMOTIVATORS), both of which are basically Ken's work. I guess the crazy creeps have to stick together. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I like that Ken is citing him citing anonymous, volunteered results from that terrible autism e-quiz. Also, that TFT post written by Ken? It sure seems like it, but I never look at that site, so I can't tell... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Night Jaguar, keep in mind that Vox Day 99.9% likely made a special deal with Ken: He links to Ken's pet articles and Ken writes a favorable article on CP (Historyimg and current versionimg). So it's less crazies sticking together and more crazies linkwhoring each other. --Sid (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, unlike ShockOfGod, and that "True Freethinker" fella, Vox Day isn't a complete nobody, so this will actually benefit CP on some level. I wonder if any asked Vox what he thinks of the "Conservative Bible Project", that usual kills religious folks support for the site. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like talking about him, but it hardly seems like it matters anymore... The only thing I've surmised from these marathon sessions is that he probably isn't actually going out and having gay sex. Kind of ruins is for me. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That wingnut reciprocal linking reminds me of a circle jerk. Who'd have thought it? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Although if he is having gay sex, at least that means he is meeting people and being social. Just saying :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More Ed-its[edit]

It's time for more family-friendly-and-not-creepy-at-all additions by Uncle Ed! -- JArneal 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to make a new section about Ed myself - must be Liberal Telepathy! Though my "Oh dear..." moment was about the return of his templates that include a random sentence and reference: Template:Promoting immoralityimg Though the overall theme is the same: Sex. --Sid (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I can never shake the feeling that Ed is raping children and the fear that I'm not doing enough to stop it. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
EC) Ed's got that protective thing running wild: he's just realised that his teen daughters are gonna be getting attractive to the opposite gender any time now & he's runnin' scared. Understandable in a way. 00:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He is dead wrong about "playboy philosophy", well I guess it is hedonistic. --Opcn (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If his daughters look anything like Ed, then they may not find themselves that attractive to the opposing gender, Poor mites. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
WTF??? Ken's insanity is one thing, but Ed Poor takes creepy to whole new level. Who on earth searches for 'adult child sex' on CP????? Besides Ed "Bad Touch" Poor? And for that matter, wouldn't a better redirect be to "paedophilia"? Given his fascination with under-age girls and bestiality, I think we're dealing with somebody far sicker than Ken here. If I lived in NY, I'd be passing this sort of stuff on to the authorities. The man has interests, which - even if only fantasy - are not what you'd want from somebody who by own admission seems to spend time in a position of authority with young children. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

An impossible task[edit]

Man, if I thought teaching PJR about Inflation Theory was hard, imagine trying to explain it to Karajou. AceX-102 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh how I hate that "something from nothing" argument that Creationists toss about when it comes to the Big Bang theory, as if the theory ever claims this. Yet again they often believe it to be an "explosion" as well, just because of the name. I wouldn't bother with Inflation Theory, they are not going to understand it and anyway they will just say "were you there?" or something equally as pathetic. Double kudos of fail for saying evolution somehow violates thermodynamics. I can't believe how many of the same old disproved creationist "arguments" are just repeated over and over.
Oddly enough Andy's "population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC" bull is just about as annoying to me (and easy to disprove). Alright, my little rant is over. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What, you mean that picking how much you want your population to grow and then extrapolating backwards from there and then using the figures you derive to "test" your hypothesis isn't science? But it worked so well for the best new conservative words, didn't it? If there weren't more people now than then how would Andy be able to make his theory fit? Check and Mate! --Opcn (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken dominates the mainpage with dribble[edit]

It seems Ken has gone even more overboard on the mainpage leftimg with his latest "essays" in his one man crusade against atheists where it is looking more and more like he is compensating for something missing in his own life. I wonder how Ken is doing with "marriageability"? More importantly, why don't the other sysops realize this only further damages CP's few flailing shreds of credibility. May as well drop the encyclopedia pretense and just call it Andy & Ken's blog. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We always wondered whether or not TK would destory CP from the inside out but we were on the wrong track. Ken is the one who'll bring it down. He is like a computer virus now and CP has become Ken's own play pen. AceX-102 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You have to wish poor old Ken well. If he ever recovers, he's got a fine career in motivational speaking ahead of him. "Listen up kids. After twenty years of denying to myself and everybody how attracted I was to other men, I was reduced to captioning pictures of baboons on an obscure website and telling myself I was destroying evolution. Thanks to my family, and most of all my life partner Derek, I overcame my fears. I'm here today to tell you how I became the happy and well rounded person you see before you..." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
To give Terry Koeckritz his due, he is the one who brought the site to its knees; Ken is merely applying the coup de grace TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ken is throwing his feces all over the place. AceX-102 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Bah. If you ask me, Schlafly himself is the one primarily responsible. Ken's and TK's antics are just a result of Andy's failure to be honest (both intellectually and otherwise). In fact, I would hardly grant them the honor of accelerating the deterioration. If not for either of them, someone just as power-hungry as TK would be in TK's place, and someone just as crazy as Ken would be in Ken's place.-- JArneal 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Power hunger is commonplace, but the level to which Terry Koeckritz has taken lying, duplicity, underhandedness, two-facedness and bullying is unprecedented. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, but I think plenty of people with a slight bit of intelligence, the perfect stage (CP), and the perfect audience (RW) would do the same thing. TK's just a troll who happened to find all of these. -- JArneal 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz is more than a simple troll. The element of sadism he brings to the whole process speaks of deeper intentions. The man is a total asshole. Nobody else could possibly be so obnoxious. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me, or would Andy & Ken make an excellent comedy duo with Andy as the straight man? Vulpius (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Atheist restaurant?img I'm starting to feel that either he meth, or what passes for his imagination, is starting to run out. Also fun for having the "Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution" link together with 2 satire links. I haven't seen Joaquin around lately. I wonder if this has been the final straw? Or CP's attitude towards Mexicans in general? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I must congratulate Ken for taking a leaf from Terry Koeckritz's "How to be an utter cunt" book. Vol 6. By redirecting all the talk pages to a locked article, he automatically removes the ability for people to comment on his drek.Which will have him crowing "Nobody has been able to refute my "Essay:Atheists eating breakfast whilst riding away from youtube posters on their motorbikes leaving their Asian ladies in the dust." So not only is he terminally dumb, but fundamentally dishonest too. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Looks like he uploaded a new photo for the Atheist Restaurant. Do these people look like godless libtards more than these people? --Leotardo (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Things are deleted and restored so fast there it's hard to keep up. Altho, seeing as the people in the restaurant pic were oriental, you could argue that by CP's (or Bugler's anyway) definition they were atheist. And gasp! Are those Xians ordering bullshit from the atheist menu drinking BEER??? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Abel and Cain[edit]

Has anyone else noticed how suddenly silence fell on this pageimg after it was pointed out that the "Adam and Eve had other children" theory, to which everyone subscribed, necessarily implies incest? --Maquissar (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the one are where the creation/evolution conflict has benefited theology. Since they view all diversity as shit breaking they can now say that incest is wrong because you likely share the same bad alleals and that, since Adam and Eve were themselves perfect, early incest was just fine.--Opcn (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, fundamentalist and Young Earth Creationists admit that Cain, Abel & Seth (the three named sons of Adam) married their sisters,[8][9], although they loath to call it what it is, incest. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Come now, incest is a bit strong.. It's just a couple siblings fucking to populate the planet. Don't do this "liberal rewrite" of the bible.. Now, Moses.. Well, more humans survived the flood, by god's grace, and that's just how that went down. Magic. Maybe they swam from Australia. Lot and his daughters? Just a fun night in the desert. Hey, what happens just outside of Sodom stays just outside of Sodom. Especially when that shit gets the fire and brimstone treatment. Quarufuneral director - You can't explain that! 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Puerile at best......[edit]

..but I was amused...AceX-102 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's not puerile. At least, not compared to Ken, upon noticing the little update to the article, deleting it and then redirecting it to another one of his valuable and insightful essays. And it won't be changed unless Ken or another admin decides to change it, as it is now protected. And we all know that nobody dares to touch Ken's stuff. What actually makes Conservapedia an encyclopedia (however bad of one it is) is now slowly beginning to merge with Ken's wacky world of essays. Soon there'll be nothing left except for things related to flying cats, zebras on bikes, creepy clowns, and mama using kitchen utensils. If Conservapedia wants to avoid total disintegration, they'd better hurry up and take care of Ken. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention all the talkpages redirect to the Atheism article. AceX-102 04:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Or to the evolution one. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
And if anyone follows the links and comments on the Atheism article asking why the talkpage redirects Ken will just demand they answer "the question" before TK bans them. Yes, CP is a hive of intellectualism and free speech. AceX-102 04:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel that WE are CP's main audience. What would happen if we ALL stopped visiting it and editing on it, and left the CP sysops alone with the occasional bona-fide CP user? Would they eventually get bored and quit? --Maquissar (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Its possible, but how would we get the message out to the masses? People come from far and wide because of CP's bat shit crazy reputation, where as RW has no such rep.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
They wouldn't get bored (their hubris is simply too great), but their precious pageviews would grind to a halt. Every time we do a boycott their traffic drops drastically. Tetronian you're clueless 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's do a boycott. I'm barely looking at it anyhow. It's just too depressing. At least back in the day Andy and the goons were pretending to discuss. Now it's just completely shut down. Blah blah blah. Nutty Rouxnever mind 12:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of a boycott and reading CP has become about as enjoyable as licking transistor batteries. That said, I wouldn't do it now, because of all the interest generated by the web discovering Andy's fear of relativity. Once that calms down, then I say boycott. Ditto for ASoK. It's only us and PJR contributing, and then only to talk pages. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought the consensus was that boycotts are ineffective and incredibly dull. I doubt many people will jump on board just to 'see what happens' (which is, more often than not, nothing). ONE / TALK 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, as I recall, the only effect I've ever seen from any of our boycotts was a dip in a graph about a month later that CP would never agree came from us in the first place. No visible change to their editing over there or anything like that, just folks here crowing about it (speaking of circle jerks). Besides which, isn't summer traditionally a slow period for web traffic anyway, which makes it a really odd time for a traffic based action? --Kels (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If that's true gentlelady Kels, seems like it would be a good time to test the proposition that a good amount of their traffic is from us. In any event, I'm not concerned about the effect on them but on us. That place is poison and I find every time I get drawn back into the habit of looking through the bars at the prisoners over there scratching nonsense on the walls in excreta to be a period of darkness in my life. I also hold the belief that we're but a tiny drop in the bucket of their viewership. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest a semi-boycott? Instead of offering the direct link to CP, we link only to the capture. We still give them hits, but not nearly as many as we would otherwise. Without the links, I very rarely look at CP on my own. -Lardashe
How can you boycott such great works of satire as the Atheist Restaurant!img After all he puts in such effort! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop it you. That shit's more awkward than a first kiss. I'm cringing. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Did we know he'd got a webshite? It ends with the paragraph:

The counter to the side is ticking off the number of people who have died since you opened this webpage. The vast majority of those people are entering Hell. Christ commanded his followers to share the Gospel with those who are perishing... who have you shared with today?

Sweet! 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Ah. Multi-coloured comic sans. Is there a law that requires people who write insane screeds to use it? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
At least it wasn't Papyrus. Green ink is hardly ever green these days, either - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I love how they put stuff like that out and then deny that it's all based on a terrible fear of death. --Kels (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Those counters are rather common on fundamentalist sites, I know Ray Comfort has one on his blog. In fact much of his site has been lifted from various more well know fundamentalist ones, except they have the courtesy to avoid Comic Sans, especially in every color of the rainbow. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Which sysops are even there any more?[edit]

When you get an oversighted link like the Karajou/Dawkins/Nazi WIGO, CP reports an error and suggests reporting the problem to an administrator. I thought doing so might amuse me for once, but by my reckoning less than a third of the administrator list is today an operative editor. The list contains 34 editors, but by my reckoning only 11 are still even vaguely active (please correct my numbers). And since a novice at the site wouldn't know who was relevant, and the list is simply alphabetical, they would probably choose to simply email the first person on the list, AddisonDM, who hasn't edited since January. Cool. What a shitheap. DogPMarmite Patrol 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Counting only those who have edited in the last couple days, I get Andy, Chip, DouglasA, Ed, Geo, Jpatt, Karajou, PhyllisS, RobS, TK, TerryH. So yeah, 11. As for which ones would actually care about what a lowly editor would have to say, well, that's another story.... It's funny how many of these I have never seen active, and I've been around CP since the middle of '08. WillN? DavidR? PhilipB? Tch.-- JArneal 22:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
some of those names! "Ymmotrojam"- I'd forgotten all about him. Not to mention Freedom777. 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I updated Conservapedia:Sysops#Conservapedia_Sysops. JArneal forgot Ken, and Geo.Plrd isn't exactly active.CentimeterINCHES 23:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oooooh that's embarrassing. That's what I get for having more than 5 CP-related tabs at once. -- JArneal 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone have a script handy that could update all the lists on Conservapedia:Sysops#Conservapedia_Sysops? A quick look at the log shows that sysop lite should include Tzoran and Benp, and ex-rights holders should include Wuhao, MarkGall, and Jinkas. I assume there are many more. Alternatively the lists could be removed from the page. Or just let be with a note that they're not exhaustive. --Benod (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

special rigths: Block, bot, bureaucrat, checkuser, edit, oversigh,t Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, sysop and Upload.

larronsicut fur in nocte 06:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great! Would it be too much more work to also include rights that users formerly held, but were revoked (e.g. Wuhao1911 at one point had block and edit, but now has nothing)? --Benod (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
yes, it would :-) This table was very easy to put up, as I could just look up cp:Special:ListUsers/Block etc. For the history, I have to check the logs - perhaps I'll do it, but I don't want to make any promises... larronsicut fur in nocte 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) -- done....
If you should happen to find yourself bored completely shitless at some point, do you think you could change the labels you use for former and soon-to-be-former editors to something lighter and friendlier? You are using the color black and words like "dead" and "comatose" as if having moved on from Conservapedia were a bad thing. I'm only saying this because drive-by nitpicking is what I do on the intertubez if I don't have any meaningful contributions to make. mb 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I used the preexisting Template:ual, created by Genghis in 2008 - it's mainly used for RationalWiki:Active users and Conservapedia:Active users. I don't think that I'll change anything about it... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Didn't realize this was a general-purpose table. mb 07:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of contacting admins[edit]

A little birdie tells me that if you contact an admin to request a blocking, they demand some proof of actual identification. The logic being that if they know who you are, you won't mess CP up. I'm not 100% sure this is true. Has anybody appealed a block and experienced this. Also, as CP has no disclaimer regarding age, would this be in contravention of COPPA? (Yes, I know I harp on about it, but when you have Uncle Ed blatantly asking for an editor's phone number on wiki, it's worth looking into. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, this is really just a good idea: let's all photocopy our drivers licenses and send them to Karajou and TerryKins so they can finally have some peace of mind. I'm sure they won't do anything with that privileged information because they're such models of conservative honesty. Right? Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Nutty, please lean a bit closer to your monitor, so I can slap some sense into you. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How many jokers in this pack?[edit]

American Government Fall 2010 enrollment increases to a new record of 52 students. 22:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Parents! Roll up! Enroll your children in a course taught by Andrew Schlafly who asks Homework questions like "Teaching more people how to read: that benefit one political side more than the other?". DogPMarmite Patrol 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to assfly (yes I know) one hell of a lot of people in the UK and the US probably can't see anything wrong with what he scribbled. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is probably a dumb question but I, somehow, haven't picked this up yet... Andy's classes.... are they actual physical classes that you can go and sit in a room and listen to him talk? Or are they online correspondence things? A mixture of both? Does everyone have to pay? X Stickman (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Believe they're a mixture: his homescholarz pay & attend in the local church basement, anyone else just does the online & prolly fails miserably on account of having brainz. 03:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Conversely, all the homskollarz pass (with honours!) because they're Andy's meal ticket. The parents like that, and send the kids back for more mental scarring edukashun, Andy-style. --Kels (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That's always worried me. Do parents see things like "Q: What do you admire about Christopher Columbus? A: His determination. C: Correct! 10/10! Will use as model answer!" and go "Well done, my child, baby Jebus and the angels are smiling because you're using your God-given talents to the best!" Scarily, I think the answer is yes. Because no sane parent would subject their child to Andy's education. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe homskollarz are his meal ticket. I'm sure Eagle pays "quite nicely" to have him on "retainer" as a "lawyer". Occasionaluse (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC a figure of R250 per student was bandied around. But that's only for the actually class students. We're not even sure they exist. They did pop up during the history lectures, but only to answer homework questions. They didn't contribute to CP, except for Addison. Given that the writing course and economics lectures seem to have dies a death half-way through, I'm not sure his classes even exist anymore. Besides I'm guessing he gets most of his money from those so-called doctors he represents. And he probably charged a fortune to screw up the recall thing. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC TeaKettle did say that he was banned from the classroom 'cause of his amorous intentions towards little Phyl. he couldn't have been banned if there wasn't one. 15:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
For a moment there, I thought TeaKettle referred to TK, which was a much too horrible thought to contemplate. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Er, [citation needed]. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you think I'm searchin' thru 193 archive pages, you've got another thunk ciming. 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I think I see the problem here. Susan just got her Kettles confused. It wasn't TeaKettle; it was KettleOfFish. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
True: Meant KettleTicket not TeaKettle. Sorry. 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

You know,I wonder....[edit]

....what would this person think if they discovered Ken had used their image to facilitate feces throwing at atheists? AceX-102 23:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's CC2 generic and it's credited on the image page so not much comeback. 23:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I know that but image finding your image on one of Kens droolings. I'd be fucking horrified. AceX-102 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've stuck a comment on the picture on Flickr. 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Haha nice. Might wanna direct her to the article itself in case she is unfamiliar with wikis..? Just saying.. AceX-102 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at this picture on her flickr. I gather she's a recovering cancer patient: not telling how I found it. 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The licensing of the image does not mean that it can be used, especially if it suggests an endorsement of something. From the CC page:

No endorsement allowed. CC BY, just like all CC licenses, also contains a “non-endorsement” clause. Specifically, this clause states that users may only use the credit required for the purpose of attribution, and may not assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship, or endorsement by you, without your separate, express prior written permission. In plain English, this means the user is not allowed to use attribution to make it appear that you in any way support or approve of their uses or adaptations of your work. So, for example, if a downstream user of your work is somehow implying that you are endorsing their derivative work, whether in advertising on a website or otherwise, that could constitute a violation of the license.

(If you want to have some fun about something related, go hunt up the lawsuit around Virgin using a CC image that a photographer took of another person and got into trouble at the lack of model release).

The other issue would be defamation (also read this). Not sure how much of an issue it is here or how it would be interpreted - a self portrait under CC license... but it exists out there. --Shagie (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shagie, I'll cop that to her. 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Reply(14 Aug):
  1. This is hilarious! I hope people link back from Conservapedia and see that this rolling pin-weilding Mama is a bleeding heart, left-wing nut agnostic.
  2. Thanks for the catch! Please note the tags I added. :-D I like having my CC pictures have ended up in some great places, and I can't tell you how much this amuses me.
Tags added: "'not conservative' 'conservapedia is a joke' 'atheist men are hot'"
15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast