Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive197

This is an archive page, last updated 17 September 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>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <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)

"It's time to move in for the kill."

The video that Ken links to uses incredibly gay music. Just sayin'. SJ ^Debaser 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should have linked here (still a little gay, actually). DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Ah, Ken, you never cease to disappoint. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to scrub my brain with bleach, after seeing Ken as links to "workout music" on his user page. Had an indellible image of him in spandex, that was not pretty. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Spandex, hm. I have it on good authority that Ken is a furry. mb 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ARGH!! Curse you! /runs off to find the bleach again. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

*shudder* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken is secure and comfortable in his sexuality because he knows for a fact that it's actually the atheists who are going to yiff in he... aw why am I going there. mb 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why indeed. As for that saying and associated cheetah graphic, he has been using those on his stats pages for a while now. I guess going in for the kill takes time. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he should have linked to this! Wrong cat, I know, but it's Ken we're talking about. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He should have linked to this cat. Генгис^unbelieving 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Or this one [4].... CS Miller (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kenny-baby lying through his teeth again.

Ok, ok, I know we're talking about Krazy Kenny and one of his essays here, but it's really funny to see him lying through his teeth. Although, he is quoting Uncommon Decent word-for-word, so maybe they are the lying sacks of shit. What am I on about?

• Ken sez: "It is a little known fact that William Jennings Bryan agreed to be interrogated by Clarence Darrow only if Bryan could in turn interrogate Darrow views of evolution. Darrow agreed, but then right after interrogating Bryan directed the judge to find Scopes guilty, thereby closing the evidence and thus preventing Bryan from interrogating Darrow"
• Reality sez: "it would have continued the following morning but for Judge Raulston's announcement that he considered the whole examination irrelevant to the case and his decision that it should be "expunged" from the record. Thus Bryan was denied the chance to cross-examine the defense lawyers in return."

So it wasn't Darrow, but the Judge, and Darrow didn't close the case at that point. Small matter, but as Stain Ronnie sais, "Facts are stubborn things.' Then again, if you're going to use Uncommon Decent as a source... --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Psy. You're not lying unless you're consciously and intentionally misrepresenting. Kennyboy doesn't have the conceptual awareness and intellectual sobriety to do that, certainly not as far as his crusade of the month is concerned. Some might suspect he doesn't have the reading comprehension. Or, some of the time, the brain chemistry. Go bark up some other tree. mb 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And, as expected, Ken just can't stay away from main page left.^img --PsyGremlin講話 18:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually an exact quote - Ken mucked it up (grammatically, basically). It says "...Darrow on Darrow's views...". PS, Ken is a nutball. ħuman 18:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic. "Here's a random photo. Now I'll give you two insults, only one of which has anything to do with the pic (probably by luck more than planning), after which you can listen to a song unrelated to any of it". Good work Ken, by your continued efforts you have driven more people towards atheism and liberalism than even Andy himself! --Kels (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, he removed the Scopes trial section. At least the song is good... ħuman 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

CP Account Creation

I seem to be having trouble creating an account on CP. Did I just go retard or is something up? Jorge _{as if my opinion counts} 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC) ...and the weirdness is gone. Is acct creation disabled if you try to log in from the same IP? Jorge _{might get around to it} 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, what IP address are you using? Генгис^unbelieving 16:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

check through an innocent address --85.76.183.153 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related, but Terry Koeckritz is leaving creepy, cryptic messages^img for the dead^img again. --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

He's speaking directly to Lyra. What an honor. I miss all my pleasant conversations with TK. He's a great guy and a real joy to have around. 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

CP's Schlafly generator

Ok, so who wrote the DanielPulido bot, that spews out Schlaflyisms^img so perfectly? Well done, that man! --PsyGremlinFale! 15:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The email from Terry said "LOL!!!" 17:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to advise whoever is running Daniel Pudenda to tone it down, or just to carry on like that because the Assfly is too stupid to realise he's being mocked. It's amazing you can be so obvious yet still get rights. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, Andy falls for it every time. Suck up to him, echo his thoughts, speak down to other editors - boom! Sysop. Bugler was the first true master, but everybody since then has flown safely under Andy's radar. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has studied milestones such as the Newt bot and the Postmodernism Generator: Daniel ist pretty impressive. It's not huge^img, but it's been done with an eye for detail. Also, it's pretty ballsy to call a bot like that Dan, of all things. mb 16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I get that Andy himself is falling hook line and sinker for these post blatent acts of parody, and that TK is letting them slip through his net for reasons which I don't fully understand, but what of the likes of RobS? Surely CP's resident Director of Counter-Intelligence should be picking up on this, and passing memos to Andy with the backing of other less gullible sysops like Ed Poor. RobS, I demand from you a comment on the parodist-like behaviour of DanielPulido. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall the details, but I believe there was a case, about a month ago, when someone (not Andy or TK, IIRC) bitched some newbie out (didn't ban, just bitched) for, how shall we put it politely, making edits that appeared to be simply aimed at pleasing the powers that be and echoing their sentiments. Someone like JPatt or one of his ilk. So echoing Andy flies under his radar, but not under everyone's. Gauss (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Andy impersonator.^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Meet 40-year-old Daniel Pulido. He works for a local trucking repair company." A must watch from YouTube in this convo. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The show Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator (III) aired in February 2006; the YouTube video was uploaded on 17 June 2009; the account DanielPulido was created on 1 August 2009. --Xyr (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I know... it's either Brilliant Parody, or Unfortunate Coincidence. And considering the Schlafly bot responses that the user posts, I must lean considerably toward the former. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A good example of how you just can't win on CP: (from SDG/Level_1/1fe97d30ffa1e973.html Re: User:JzG) Background: Rob says editor JzG is a "high level Wikipedia Administrator" and asks that nobody block him. Only on CP would such a request have to be made. Quoth TK: "So we will treat him in the same manner everyone else gets treated, up until they disrespect us, or ply us with platitudes." So disrespect them and you're out, be nice to them and you're out.

Bonus points for Terry Hurlbut (I still giggle at his name) throwing out the welcome mat: "Am I missing something? Why shouldn't we block him? Is he not guilty of the most serious breach of journalistic ethics of which he is capable? What sort of psy-op are you running with this man--and why won't you share any more than the below with us?"

So, fucked if you do, fucked if you don't and even then, their paranoia might get you first. Not to mention Ed disliking people "randomly updating articles all over the place." (TZB 740/beaad1fd396edf4d.html) And they wonder why the project is dying. Actually they don't... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The only way to not be banned on CP is to act like a complete jerk to anybody who is not above you and/or to worship Andy. The sysops see their own behavior as the "normal" baseline, and people who act accordingly will be rewarded. Anybody who acts like a sane and nice person is immediately suspect. --Sid (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor Schlafly

Its Prof. Schlafly now.^img Ace^X-102 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor "Shlafly" apparently. SJ ^Debaser 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this will subconsciously be a great conflict for Andy: we know he hates professors, but at the same time it would be an enormous boost to his ego to be called that. Decisions, decisions. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Parodist. ^gnostic 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, naturally. But Andy may not notice. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a Brit, that has to increase the probability of bannination. --MarkGall (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

... or a promotion. --MarkGall (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of WIGOing it. One of the few people to get Edit rights without actually working on a single article ever. --Sid (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I read "Where do we post our answers for the American Government Curse" for a moment. It seemed fitting. ħuman 02:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, "...the Writing course was cancelled..." Hmmm, we always wondered how Andy would handle grading "real" homework he had to read and comment on constructively. ħuman 02:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(Pedantry alert) I'd be willing to bet that the alleged "student" misspelled the word "canceled" on purpose. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel to know this student was someone you know well? 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even slightly surprised. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Andy fell for it^img. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the suspected "parodist"s parents' check cleared the bank. ħuman 03:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So the writing course did die a premature death (or was it aborted?). I wonder if Andy refunded the parents their $250. --PsyGremlinFale! 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't referring to everyoneall lecturers in a university/college as 'professor' common in the US? Also probably in some parts of Asia. Not British AFAIK. However have to agree [1]^img looks like a parodist although did they really pay money for this course? Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

At my Alma Matter, there was a "Professor" in our department that was the most favorite "Professor" there. However, since he did not have a Ph.D. he was not a "Professor" he was an "Associate Professor". Andy certainly isn't teaching college-level material anyways. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And so the indoctrination begins.

Andy might be in favour of classroom prayer, but it seems brainwashing is high on his agenda too [2]^img. Any bets on how many marks you'd receive for saying the Dems would win the Nov elections? --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Might wanna check that link, Psy. 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Link seems to work ok for me and Capturebot picked it up ok. And the history tells me you didn't change it Terry. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno what happened there. It was going to a non-existent page & the <capture> gave the same image. 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This image in fact 12:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

He moved the full stop. - π 12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so I was wrong (it has been known to happen! :) ). Sorry Terry, my bad. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, are the homework questions really that error-ridden and poorly written? Just, wow. ħuman 18:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what did you expect for $250? Quality education? Btw, are we sure for definite that that application thing Andy submitted for state funding has failed? I wonder if he's figured out why, or is it just the "liberal's fault" again. --PsyGremlinTal! 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the egregious errors aren't on the official homework page. The student must have copied an early draft. They are still full of stupid, of course. ħuman 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody check my math. The first question ("Superb analysis. Full credit.") lists the percentages as 40/20/20/10. That's only 90 percent, right? I counted it out on both my fingers and my toes. --98.204.160.254 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I also like this^img: "Score: 37/40, plus 3, for a total of 40. With improvement you'll be doing very well." So much for liberal grade inflation. --Benod (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My God! I live in the Third World, in a country whose education system is in shambles... where both the national and local governments -and society as a whole- pay constant lip service to "the importance of education", but don't move a finger to keep our schools from deteriorating even further (much less improve them). A country where teachers receive verbal orders from the Minister of Education to approve all students ("This year no student fails a course!") so that official statistics look good. I live in Education Hell. But what Schlafly is doing there would be laughed at in disbelief even by the abysmal standards of my local schools (and would force the poorly-paid school principal to disobey the Minister, fail Israel, and sack Andy). I have seen plenty of Conservapedia, but this is my first glimpse of Andy the "Educator"... hence the length and tone of this comment. --Xyr (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Texas? 17:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

lol --Xyr (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It was obvious that he'd fail to cover more than a tiny fraction of his original ambitions, but now he's running out of questions by week two already? Come on, Andy, you don't want to let down all those eager parodists. Röstigraben (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Homework answers

Ok, I know we're not supposed to pick on the kids, but if this^img is the kind of detail Andy expects from an answer, then the parents should demand a refund. "I believe the economy, government spending (which is related to the economy, but a bit different)" Jesus Christ! "but a bit different" It's fucking volumes different. Gah! Watching Andy teach is the anti-intellectual version of a Thailand sex holiday. It's still kids getting fucked. --PsyGremlinSprich! 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt any of them are real kids. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to the judge, senator. --GTac (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although at least that student appears to have tried to use (or claims to have) polling to answer the who will win thing which is more then student one or two appear to have done Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive class

If Andy is bragging about having 70-odd (or merely strange) students, one would think he'd have made more allowance for them. (correct linky in Jack's post) Especially given the "high demand." --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I being dense or have you pasted the wrong link? Jack Hughes (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this link. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Make your Fucking mind up, Andy

Wait a minute. Andy's claiming that people protesting against Tony Blair is "liberal censorship."^img This being the same Tony Blair, who led that horrible, nasty Socialist Labour party back in atheist Britian. One would think from how orgasmic you were at the Tories win (before they shacked up with those nasty Lib Dems) that you'd be at the front of any anti-Blair protest. Or does the fact that he was Bush's bitch make him ok in your book?

Oh yes, and something you can reverse with a click of a button^img isn't censorship. Is poor widdle Andy-Pandy feeling all sowwy for himself? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just love "Liberal censorship, British style!" Sounds so funny. SJ ^Debaser 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's not to mention that it happened in Ireland, not England, Scotland, Wales, or even N Ireland. SJ ^Debaser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PsyGremlin, that link was hysterical. He's so warped that he equates messing with his dying wiki blog with violent protests. --Leotardo (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

<pedant alert>Ireland is part of Britain. It is the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and NI. The islands are Britain, as in the British Isles.</pedant alert>Oldusgitus (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland is not part of Britain. Ireland and Britain are two separate islands. The British Isles is the name of the archipelago of islands, Britain being the biggest island with England, Scotland and Wales on it, Ireland being the smaller one with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom is the political Union between England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a totally separate state from the United Kingdom and has been since 1922 when it became the Irish Free State. And Dublin, where the book signing took place, is the capital of the Republic of Ireland, not affiliated with the UK at all. SJ ^Debaser 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to check up on all of this as well (as a fellow pedant) because I knew the "British Isles" refers to all of the islands in and around Great Britain (the island's name is Great Britain, not simply "Britain"). Thus, I suspected, that Andy was making a geological goof, the same as saying that someone in Japan represented European ideals. However, the term "British" has been divorced from geology and refers to the political body of the United Kingdom. Thus, all UK citizens are "British Citizens". This is also exemplified by the "British Islands" term used by the UK government for citizens from Jersey, the Isle of Mann, etc. Thus, the "British Islands" refers to all properties on islands that the UK controls, yes even North Ireland. All parties please reference: wp:Terminology of the British Isles. The WIGO as stated is the most accurate way to phrase the Andy fail. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Politically Eire is a seperate entity and Northern Ireland, or the occupied counties if you prefer, is part of the UK. However Ireland, the island, is part of the British Isles, and a such is part of Britain in the same way that France is part of Europe. As is Britain. And in the same way that the Isle of Man is part of both Britain and Europe. Tasmania is part of Australia, the fact it is a seperate island does not change the geological fact. I am not talking politically, I am talking geologically. The fact assfly would neither know nor appreciate the difference between the geological Britain and the political Britain doesn't mean he was not (completely unintentionally) correct in refering to Ireland as part of Britain. The Island chain.Oldusgitus (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely you're referring to Atheist geology here, which Andy wisely sees no need to pander to. --Kels (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The island chain is called "The British Isles" not "Britain". The major island of the archipelago is called "Great Britain", not simply "Britain". Thus, "British" as a term can only refer to the political identity of "The British Islands", a.k.a. the United Kingdom. Dublin where this event occurred is however squarely in the Republic of Ireland, and thus is in "Ireland" and would be "Irish". That Ireland the island is in "the British Isles" does not make it "British". That part of Ireland is recognized legally as in "The British Islands" does not make the Republic of Ireland British. The term "British" refers exclusively to the British Islands, not to the British Isles as a whole. If this is difficult for people to know or grasp, it's because it's tied up in hundreds of years of murky linguistic origins, and legality. The Venn Diagram located here explains this graphically.

All of this aside, ASchlafy is simply demonstrating the ignorance that most Americans have for the geography and political boundaries that actually exist in the world. And I don't think ASchlafy bothered for even 10 seconds to consider that perhaps the word "British" did not describe the people he were referring to. He probably thinks the events nonetheless also occurred in "England". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you really (or akjg either), I was just being EXTREMELY pedantic about this. The fact the modern meaning of Britain has come to mean the UK and the Southern (and some Northern) Irish, quite correctly, self-identify as non-British does not mean that in a warped and idiotic way assfly could be descibed as being correct. For entirely the wrong reason but then that's assfly for you isn't it?

You would only be being extremely pedantic if you were correct. The use of the word Britain or British, which is the word Aschlalfy uses, is not, in any sense, correct about a story happening in Dublin, the capital of Ireland. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ajkg got there before me, but he is correct, and you are wrong. ASchlafy is absolutely wrong in his post, and there is no way to describe his statement as anywhere near valid. Again, "British" only applies to the "British islands", which does not include the Republic of Ireland, but does include North Ireland. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What utter bollocks. The only modern meaning of Britain is as a short-form of the UK, as in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. British refers to something of the UK. Try telling an Irishman that his country is part of Britain and you'll get glassed. Britain is not the same as the British Isles. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also whilst Tony Blair may long ago have been a socialist<citation needed> he has never been a Liberal. WSC (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Just because all of the island of Ireland is part of the British Isles doesn't make all the people who live there British. AJK's "challenge" drifts in terminology, too. The thing to say to get yourself popped would be to call a citizen of Eire "British". And Blair may not have ever been a Liberal, but he's a liberal, right? Anyway, I suspect the whole reason Andy lurves him some Tony Blair now is the fact of Blair coming out as a Catholic after leaving office. Perhaps? ħuman 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way does my terminology drift? By the way, Éire is just the Irish word for Ireland, which is the state's name in English. That the name Ireland is sometimes used to mean the whole island, can be somewhat confusing but is normally evident when seen in context. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

When you said "tell an Irishman he is part of Britain". Substituting Britain for British shifts the meaning. And, yes, I drifted too and should have said Republic of Ireland, not Eire. ħuman 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah! Well no - on both counts. Britain is a common and accurate shortened name for the UK and is rarely used to describe the island of Great Britain. Strangely though Great Britain is often used to describe the UK, as in GB car stickers or the Olympic Team GB. And the "Republic of Ireland" is a non-name. It is not a formal name of the state, which is Ireland. (There's an old story about a refused extradition request because of that but I can't remember what it's called.) Pedant's paradise! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Éire an teideal oifigiúil atá ar an stát as Gaeilge (as Béarla, Ireland) – leis an gcur síos oifigiúil Poblacht na hÉireann, (Republic of Ireland as Béarla)."[5] (emphasis in original) I would expect the Irish Wikipedia to accurately indicate the official name of the Republic of Ireland. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Éire is also Irish for the island as well. "Ireland" is easily equivocated between the island itself and the republic. Again, the entire archipelago is a tangled mess of hideous terminology in the first place. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see it. An Irishman glassing you for calling him British. It would be so much easier if everyone just went back to the good old days of everything best being British with none of this independence nonsense. You all know it makes sense. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I also believe in the US annexing the entirety of Canada, Mexico, and all other nations in the Western hemisphere, so when you say "American" the nationality aligns correctly with the geography. ;) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of, and I forgot to add, Hawaiians may be Americans, but they don't live in America. So we have our own version of the linguistic entanglements here in the US, due to "America" being shorthand for "the US", and American for US Citizen. ħuman 22:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is something a lot of Mexicans, Brazilians and Argentinians would like to discuss with you, behind the bike shed. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair may be a Schlafly liberal (but then, who isn't?) but he's certainly not a liberal in British political terms. He is a man who went from the far-left (supporting CND etc) when it suited him, to selling off public assets to such an extent that even Thatcher was shocked. The only cause to which Bliar was ever devoted was himself. He is, was, and always will be a total, self-serving cunt. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"But then, who isn't?" Uh... Andy himself, and Phillis. I think that's the only safe call here. It's like "direct tax" defined in the US Constitution... we know it's limited to these two things because it's been explicitly stated to be those two things, and supposedly, it should encompass more, but we really can't say that anything is, because it's generally agreed that everything else isn't. I just had a stroke there from typing that out.

"He is, was, and always will be a total, self-serving cunt." Ah yes, and we come to the fundamental reason why both Andy and Bush like Blair. For them, it's like looking into a mirror, which is good, because they can't like anyone that isn't themselves. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget that lying, spineless, useless piece of cock-wipery that is the bliar is also a roman catholic convert who goes along with the divine inspiration explanation for some of his actions.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Andy made no mistake because egg-pelting is characteristic liberal British censorship^img. Also, liberals don't resign or convert, therefore Blair is a conservative! I say all right wingers prove they're really conservative by resigning. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So what does it make a person if they resign their post as a homeschool teacher and convert from Christianity to Wicca? My head asplode. 86.131.215.160 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberals don't convert! better not tell him about this list I found... Totnesmartin (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You forget, Andy has to defend Bush's Bitch, seeing as he joined in the "Coalition of the Willing" along with... let's see... Costa Rica, Lithuania, Rwanda, Tonga, Uzbekistan... thus expect any number of rationales by Blair was conservative and not the leader of a bunch of socialists... with very Thatcherite ideas, mind you. And as for converting to Catholicism after he left office, "Blair is deeply religious—the most openly devout political leader of Britain since William Ewart Gladstone more than 100 years ago."[6] So he was religious whilst in office. I guess that makes him ok in Andy's book. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Try telling an Irishman that his country is part of Britain and you'll get glassed. Britain is not the same as the British Isles. Well said. What idiot has been saying otherwise? I'm from the island of Ireland, across the sea is the island of Britain. Together we comprise the British isles (We don't like mentioning that. We just refer to ourselves as from 'north western Europe') When talking about Irish affair you do not say 'British' you say 'Irish'. Anyone who does so is painfully unaware of what goes on in the wider world and would be better off curling up into a corner and dying. respectfully. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"What idiot has been saying otherwise?" Go all the way back to the OP - Andrew Schlafly has. ħuman 20:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Context suggests to me that "glassing someone" refers to embedding a large glass object into their head. If this is the case, can RW afford a plane ticket to Ireland? Then we can just let nature run it's course... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A mate of mine saw the popular beat combo Bloc Party in Dublin, just after they'd finished their U.S. tour. The greeted the crowd with "It's great to be back in Britain!". Oh dear. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ho-hum

Ok, so it's more Terry Koeckritz bullshit, but in the absence of a Sunday insight, it'll have to do.
User RepublicanGentleman corrects the spelling of Stephen Hawking's name. TK reverts the edit.^img Then TK realises he's made a mistake and goes back to RepublicanGentleman's version,^img then he apologises and adds a wikilink.^img (!!!) 'Only then does he send the luckless editor packing. So yet another editor driven away by the TeaKake shuffle. --PsyGremlinTala! 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What a dick. JoeFerguson (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Srsly. What a douchenozzle.^img Oh, and I see LyleT finally got 86'ed.^img For what he gets called a liar from the King of Trolls and Liars is beyond me. Andy really needs to starting paying attention to this truly destructive person driving anyone and everyone away from his blog, especially when the students are around. 23:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Next user to be blocked: right here^img –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"I take it you saw the proposed changes page?" - Anybody fill me in what TK means by that? (It's from Nutty's Vietnam talk page link) --Sid (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's consistent with Ed Poor's distaste for people doing any substantial editing until they've proven themselves and that the "proposed changes page" is the article talkpage. Indeed "you most certainly are not at Wikipedia, Jake." 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...and Derek's question gets oversighted. Wonder why an old-timer was risking a MYOB ban backing up some concern troll in the first place. --MarkGall (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, TK clarifies^img: LyleT was blocked because RobbieG added the flying kitty^img to cp:Cat, and TK didn't like it^img. --MarkGall (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Alter of science" - illiterate prick. Генгис^unbelieving 02:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

His trolling is so obvious. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the alter of science bit? 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TK trolling Lyle's talk page^img after the affair of the flying chipmunks a few days back. --MarkGall (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Singularly unpleasant person. 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And *poof* the fairy godfather makes Lyle's page vanish. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me.

Seriously?^img

First Obama's a Muslim, now he's an atheist...WTF. Fox News and Conservapedia go great together. RascalJack (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They're both the same thing to fundies. Vulpius (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's Ken, not Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken has never been a fan of the "Obama is a Muslim!!!" vibe on CP. Even made a few posts in TZB about it. --Sid (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TK and Skype

Unless TK purposely added the Skype thing just for fun, it seems obviously he? must have the Skype plugin. So why's he denying it? Is he just incompetent (perhaps installed Skype and then uninstalled it and didn't realise the plugin was still there) or is he hiding it for some reason? Perhaps he uses it to communicate with liberals on the sly? Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Because then he'd have to admit he made a mistake and apologize? Because he's a pathological liar? -- Nx / talk 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?/Archive196#.28Revamped.29_Palin_WIGO -- Nx / talk 10:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking a bit more, I see there is some suggestion RWers have talked to TK on Skype before Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive195#Pakistan flood and Andy's idea of "order" again... although I'm not sure if that's serious or a joke. Perhaps he was traumatised by the experience and wiped Skype from his memory. It seems TK isn't the only person to be affected by this bug [3]^img, may be that's the real issue, he's been talking and more to Ken about 'personal matters' (if you get my drift) on Skype and doesn't want people to know? If anyone did talk to TK on Skype did you notice the stains? Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. One more^img from TK, who doesn't have the Firefox Skype plugin. Nosir. 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!! Thankfully, TK doesn't have that firefox skype extension. Otherwise, I'd have never known that the number for the US congressional switchboard was 1-877-SOB-U-SOB by googling that phone number he never inserted. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone just called TK's addition vandalism^img. Uh-oh. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer, of course: How dare you remove my skype highlighting?!?!?!?^img The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 01:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hell - he reverted Espelling's edit, then fixed it himself. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And then oversighted the whole thing so as not to embarrass himself. Or his skype highlighting. Lol. Oh TK, how you make me laugh! Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

More shameless plagiarism from the TrollKing

This^img stolen without attribution from here and any of the sources here. He even puts in someone else's reference as if he ever even looked at the article itself. It's nicely ironic that lies, arrogance, deceit, hypocrisy, stupidity, and whining are in the included list of "Liberal Characteristics and Traits." 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does he really believe that switching and removing words here and there is going to fool everyone? ~SuperHamster Talk

I suspect he doesn't care whether anyone's fooled because neither Schlafly nor any of the other admin over there have the sack to take him on. His task is nearly complete. 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Andy even checks his work for plagiarism (or anyone's work, for that matter, including his students'). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

He never did. But the thing is that he doesn't even listen when people actively alert him to it. He draws a conclusion first (which then becomes The Truth) and then disputes or just ignores anything that disagrees with The Truth. He made up his mind WAY back in 2007 that TK is indeed a trustworthy fellow, so no matter what happens, he knows that this is the truth, and everything else is either just a conspiracy against him or part of TK's cunning double-agent plan to fight liberals. You know, like people repeatedly showcasing his copypasting both on CP and RW... or TK leaking the entire SDG to the public... or the screenshots of diffs and AIM discussions... or the countless (T)WIGOs about his obvious lying... Yep, it's all good. After all, TK said so. --Sid (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And reposting those Bob And George links from a previous TK-related discussion since they're still damn fitting: "Totally trustworthy." and "Not even hiding it anymore." --Sid (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even worth a new thread. What happens to the person who calls the Skype-garbage^img TK added (no of course he doesn't have the Skype plugin, no) vandalism?^img 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned that in the relevant thread above (not that it really matters) - anyway, it seems that TK ignored it. Wise choice, for once - TK stirring up something would be fruitless at this point. Oh, and a user just re-created the article "List of Obama First Family Vacations"^img, and states in their edit summary "Replaced vandalized article", in reference to the original article being deleted (and guess who deleted it?). ~SuperHamster Talk 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I has been scooped. 02:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that half these new "users" TK blocks are merely socks of TK that he creates in order to justify his existence on CP. Also, have you noticed, that whenever there's a massive bot attack on CP, TK is nowhere to be seen. Strange for the guy who can leap out from behind a cursor and block and editor for sneezing, no? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 02:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah! That's exactly what I've been thinking! FJF (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to the links at the top of this post. None of them made sense in the context of the links. ħuman 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy Maths

Question what does 39 + 4 equal? Answer 44. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly out of step with the rest of his marking though. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, 40 + 20 + 20 + 10 = 100. And how can listing four made-up numbers be "superb analysis"? Cantabrigian (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What the hey, I've WIGOed it. My favourite bit is that students of the Assfly deem it acceptable to write drivel like "If, by some act of God, (Which, Ironically most liberals don't believe in) ..." in an assignment about government and economics. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cue dreadful puns along the lines of con-sum-ed, con-sum-ation, con-sum-ate... ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs}

From his vast class of 60 odd students, or however many he said he had, 4 homeworks seem rather a paltry haul. I guess the Assfly just isn't cut out for the internet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a clear as 2+2=4. Open your mind. Barikada (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

39 + 4 DOES equal 44, because that damn british, and therefore LIBERAL, Douglas Adams clearly invented the nummber 42 as a way to distract more people from god by thinking 42 is THE answer rather then GOD. If you opened your mind, you would know this --Thunderstruck (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the result is correct; the error is in the extra credits, which should be 5. Compare the 40+20+20+10 student. (By the way, there's no reason why that sum should equal 100 - there may well be other factors influencing the election. Maybe the student should have made that explicit by adding "Other: 10%". Of course the superb analysis still consists of pulling numbers out of thin air.) I'm more surprised by another inaccuracy: Last time I checked, there were two independents in the Senate. I haven't seen any of the pupils mention them, yet all answers regarding the Senate were rated "correct" or "good". 77.176.76.230 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The question #2 addresses those nasty so-called independents by stating: "Include the Independents in the Senate in the Democratic totals because they vote for the Democratic leadership." I can only repeat Barikada's remarks. --Xyr (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"There's no reason why that sum should equal 100" - well, apart from the instruction: Ponder how much "weight" or emphasis to give each consideration (with the totals adding up to 100%). There are no unknown factors! Cantabrigian (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading fail on my part concerning the independents. I'm so embarrassed. But the election factors are debatable: The student is asked to first list all the factors (adding up to 100%), but for question 1 he's only asked to list the top factors. 77.176.66.205 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it was a typo, not an addition error. Second, it wasn't even a typo in the final score but rather the number of extra credit points. Just spitting out "OMG!! He hit a wrong button!! AndyFAIL!!! Hahaha!" is pathetic. Make fun of the things he does that are actually idiotic. For example, he gave full credit for the final bonus question even though the answer had nothing to do with it: Q: What tactical change could one of the parties make? A: The economic stimulus could work. "Excellent point." Just throw in a reference about godless liberals and the rest doesn't matter. Kallium^talk 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Witchcraft

Do they seriously believe in witchcraft? Quote from a Conservapedia page on Harry Potter^img: "The books also present witches and wizards as being both normal people and abundant. This deceit causes children to likewise accept magic and witchcraft as normal, and they identify with the children in the books, again furthering their acceptance and witchcraft. The reality about magic - that witches are evil and, thankfully, not common - is not presented." Are they really this crazy? It reminds me of Jesus Camp, which might make it worthy of a poll. --BradT (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Smells like poe to me. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 21:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That TK guy and I think Jpatt have tried to make it sound like witchcraft is real and harmful by undoing to previous posts. Example of TK undoing.^img Note how he says "Personal opinion, not supported by any citations" when he changes it back to what it was. I think it's clear where he stands on witchcraft. I know it's a poe, but it's still quite funny. --BradT (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Might be a Poe, but a lot of the Religious Right actually do believe in such things. I do recall the hysteria when the Potter books really took off, and I doubt a lot of them were kidding. --Kels (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I think it's funny! TK pretty much did an undo and made it say that Harry Potter was harmful to children, taken seriously or not. I think TK (CP administrator) seriously believes in witchcraft. --BradT (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. He's a powerhungry troll. Reverting edits of the lowly unannointed at CP is part of his religion. 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

CP truly does attract the wackos doesn't it? Thanks for the info. What about Jpatt? I think I saw him undo the Harry Potter page to TK's last setup twice. Is he trolling too? I can't tell what the administrator's agendas are on this site (It's either supporting religious scripture or trolling). They and everything else on the CP site is complete poe to me! --BradT (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They each have fairly comprehensive pages, if somewhat outdated, here on RW. In short, JPatt's likely not a parodist, just an arch-Catholic of middling intelligence. Karajou's a hillbilly moron. TK's a parodist. Ken's... 02:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't bothered to double check but I believe the Old Testement mentions witches - and even prescribes stoning for them. Bad look Hermione. StarFish (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I have checked. It's here and it's not stoning. You can kill them anyway you like. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20) StarFish (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would go back to the original text to really understand that verse because witch may not be the best translation. Don't forget that the KJV was translated when witches were a hot topic. The meaning of witch might have been different in the Middle East two millennia earlier. Генгис^unbelieving 10:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Science has saved us again. Don't worry, the spells in Harry Potter don't work! Experiments have proved it. X Stickman (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether the comments in that article are serious or not, but some CP editors certainly have argued seriously that HP promotes real world Satanic witchcraft. See this debate (which I think has since been deleted from CP) in which StevenM, who I think is/was one of Andy's home-school students & apparently not a parodist, argued this point very earnestly. Fun times. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically Ed may be right

I'm a biologist, not a psychologist, but ev. psych does seem to be casting doubt on the disease model of mental illness in many cases, pointing out how it is often traits that are adaptive in different environments that lead to disharmony (and that a certain level of disharmony is to be expected, but that is more from the ev. theorists than the ev. psych people). The Irony part is that doubtlessly Ed feels that less disease and more sin is needed to explain the problem when the reality is that the problem with the disease model is that it is too closely based on the sin based medicine system of the past. --Opcn (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychology typically only recognizes a condition as "clinical" or a "disease" once it impairs or effects ones life or the lives of those around them. Simply being sad isn't a clinical condition. Being sad all the time is not a clinical condition. However, being so sad that you are unable to take care of yourself, most definitely is a clinical condition that requires medical intervention. Similarly, being an alcoholic doesn't automatically make it a problem. Once it is a problem, then you need the help to get out from it. In the same way, I suppose if we treated homosexuality along these lines, "come to us psychologists only if you're having issues with it," the APA wouldn't have a problem with reparative therapy.

However, it continues and remains to be that those practicing reparative therapy refuse to consider alternative treatments when the reparative therapy itself is not working. Forcing a patient into a specific course of treatment to the exclusion of all others as possibilities is the precise reason why reparative therapists have had ethics violations, and this thinking and pattern is so pervasive that the APA now asserts that any clinician practicing reparative therapy is violating ethical standards.

So, again, the problem with NARTH and reparative therapy is not actually in the actual theory, but in the practice... just like with any religion. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Zen reflection on Kabuki

Once it looked like this
Now only a stub remains^img
Concise, the site grows. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

*applauds* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Six thousand bytes

Reborn as seven hundred

Kotomi weeps.

^{(poetic, I'm NOT)} 17:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Haiku fail from the both of you... Occasionaluse (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Never claimed it was a Haiku. 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just clumsily putting together an almost-haiku stanza with no rhyme or reason. I get it. In that case, good job!!!

too proud

to see fail

you own

Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "We're concise!

And we're growing rapidly!"

Somewhere, logic cries.

-- Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A heavy rain falls:

Her name blackened by CP,

Truth weeps for the world.

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution found to

the "perpetual September":

block the whole planet.

--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

His frenzied keyboard
Misquotes Darwin and Einstein
Explaining nothing
The Real James Brown (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FUCK YOU, ED POOR!!! FUCK YOU!

Ed Poor, I've always suspected that you were a mindless, bigoted, piece of shit. But now you've finally gone on to show just what a pathetic cunt you really are.^img Oh, so the media scared Americans to death did they?? Maybe they had good cause to? Or are the 10 million AIDS sufferers in Africa all homosexuals and druggies??? Or don't they matter, because they're not Americans? You fucking mindless piece of human trash. I honestly hope AIDS strikes close to you, then you'll have to decide if they were gay or druggies. You fucking cunt. I spit on your grave. --PsyGremlin講話 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed is barely sentient enough to comprehend that. A total waste of perfectly good rage that was.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the source. Uncle Ed is just on his NARTH/Reparative Therapy trip again, trying to cure those poor gays from their unwanted condition. --Sid (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And I see from the APA WIGO that he's indeed on a NARTH binge again. Yes, NARTH is a reliable source to summarize APA. But notice how APA's position on NARTH is nowhere to be found in their NARTH article... hmmmmm... But then again, the American Psychological Association is just some small unscientific organization while NARTH is a much more reliable source, right? --Sid (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only when reading your comment, Sid, that I realised that 'APA' stood for the American Psychological Association. It's already WIGO'd that Ed started the APA article with a period, and that's all, but even the current entry^img is merely a sentence basically denigrating them, without actually saying who 'they' are. Encyclopedic entry, indeed. 92.6.218.173 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the "FUCK YOU!"'s in the header. It reminds me of Step Brothers when Will Ferrel is sitting at John C. Reilly's drum kit and shouting, "FUCK YOU, DALE! FUCK YOU!" Or John Travolta driving Uma Thurman around while she's OD'ing in Pulp Fiction, shouting into his phone, "fuck you, Lance, answer!"

Also, more to the point of the thread, yes, Ed Poo is despicable. SJ ^Debaser 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Ed is top of the list of people that I want to pay Ace to flatten. He is scum - even more so for probably not having a clue why his moronic statements would make me angry. I'm waiting for him to jump on the "beetroot and garlic can cure HIV" and "AIDS is not a syndrome" bandwagons. And I still spit on your grave, you cunt. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As a teenager in the Eighties, I must have not gotten this memo of being scared to death and possibly dropping dead at anytime from the media, unless of course it didn't happen. :P As for Ed, I cannot take anything seriously from a guy who worships some old Korean shister as some sort of savior/messiah of the human race. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources inform me that 95% of everyone ever associated with NARTH are, in fact, closeted homosexuals. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The ability to discount the suffering of "others" has always been a hallmark of religion and conservatism. Once it's "US" against "THEM", we can dehumanize anyone for any reason. By placing all HIV/AIDS sufferers into the "other" group [insert your own group at will], we needn't even think about them as people. Progressivism allows us to see the "others" as maybe just a little like "us", and allows the entry of human compassion. Shame on you Ed. Jimaginator (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not normally one to defend Ed because I've had private correspondence with him that shows just how much of an asshole he really is; but I have seen programs that showed just how insane the AIDS scare drove some people. If you can find it there was an Oprah show that was absolutely fascinating that was done in the 80's that was on the urban legends/discrimination surrounding people with AIDS. We've all heard this stuff, kids with AIDS not being allowed around other children, the whole "getting AIDS from the pool" thing. Perhaps this is what Ed is referring to? Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblocks. ...

Is this actually a /16? 02:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Er. Yes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How so? 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of blocks... 8 September 2010 (Block log) TK (Talk | contribs | block) (check) changed block settings for BenHur (Talk | contribs | block) (check) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Unused account with no edits for several months).

"Unused account"?? This user came on board August 2007 and made several hundred edits. His last edit was in November 2008. Why block him now? In other news, due to editing/account creation being mysteriously shut off at odd times, Andy has limited access to this function to a "security" group of 3 trusted Sysops now headed by... wait for it... TK. LOL! Fred4T (talk)

The Class B address space was from 128.0.0.0/16 - 192.255.0.0/16, however an individual Class A (usually a /8 address space) can be sliced up into further networks. For example, The Class A address range 94.0.0.0/8 can be sliced up into 255 subnetworks from 94.0.0.0/16 - 94.255.0.0/16 Update: To be more clear... he blocked any address within the range 94.0.0.0 and 94.0.255.255, so thus by plain definition, it must be a /16 I mean... it's a tautological statement. It's like asking "Is 2 actually a 2?" Corrected --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you getting at Nutster? Have we missed something here? It looks like a bog-standard Terry Koeckritz 64k block. That'll show'em! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

94.0.0.0/24 is a "class C", and is the range 94.0.0.0 to 94.0.0.255. 94.0.0.0/8 is the "class A", just to be clear. (Talking about classes is a bit 1990s too; they don't really exist any more either). MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 08:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call, corrected. As well, this is why I said "Class B was". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Nutty is confused by the three zeros. -- Nx / talk 08:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Nx. I was. Why isn't it effectively an /8 if you don't tell Mediawiki what the second octet is? 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You are telling MW what it is - in this case it just happens to be 0. It's no different to it being 74 or 1 or 193. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While CIDR avoids the traps pedants love, it seems /16s are indeed "beloved of TK" http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A94.&pattern=1&year=&month=-1 suggests that about 16/256 =1/16 of the 94. /8 range is blocked, if that's typical then 1/16 of the internet is blocked from editing.

Indeed, CIDR is the rule now, so talk of "class this" and "class that" is not helpful. All of 94.0.0.0/12 is used by "Sky Broadband", probably mostly for dynamic IP to homes. For non-British folk, Sky is the UK's commercial satellite TV broadcaster, run by one of the Murdochs and part owned by the Murdoch News Corp. Sky Broadband is an ISP focused on home users, bought wholesale and renamed because News Corp rightly fears that high speed Internet connectivity renders its TV companies like Sky almost as redundant as newspapers. So, in short, Conservapedia blocked tens of thousands of unrelated British people from contributing. The very definition of "overbroad" 82.69.171.91 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, strap me to a Dawkins, and roll me in the mud! What did you expect? They're british (sic) afterall. Jimaginator (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How will Andy deal with this?

Big conservative win: even Castro admits communism doesn't work. Only one problem...Castro's dead. Surely the Assfly will find some way to have his cake and eat it too. Can't wait to see what it is. DickTurpis (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My prediction: The real Castro would never admit he was wrong (being a dirty liberal commie athiest and all), so therefore it's obviously an imposter/body double, further proof of Castro's demise. Checkmate. JoeFerguson (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The problem is then he can't take the "even the biggest proponents of communism are fleeing it!" angle, which is actually the only story here. But, of course, he's already firmly committed himself to the Castro is dead angle. I suppose Castro will remain dead, but the impostor is carrying out Castro's posthumous wish to denounce communism as a failure. DickTurpis (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously some kind of commie ruse...Se7en^Eight 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CIA plot to discredit communism via a Haitian Vodou preistess. ? Hamster (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed spanks TK... twice

Once for being cruel to n00bs^img.

And once for posting^img a shit^img story on Mainpageright^img. Countdown to Terry Koeckritz revenge in 10... TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was perplexed also. Who were the liberals supposed to be? The trespassers or the law-enforcing gun owner? The students or the teacher? Everyone? I know Andy could figure it out, but it's still pretty odd. The Truth(TM) is that TK (with nothing to add to the project, but desperate to justify his existence) just throws up news stories. If he can't find one that bolsters the CP agenda, then whatever. He simply feels he needs to do something, and it actually works. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it was a public school teachers, & public school students, either or both are clearly at fault. Presumably this was supposed to be posted as an example of public school values. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ed, how dare you disagree with me in public?!?! Contact me behind the scenes, as is normal for a public wiki! Oh, and it's impossible to add a news item at a lower-than-top slot, duh!"^img Didn't even bother with the cutesy "Professor Poor" crap - Ed is so screwed. ;) --Sid (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, never thought id feel bad for ed, or ANY CP sysop. That TK is going crazy, a little more each day. How long before TK stages a Coup d'état and overthrows Assfly? ^{— Unsigned, by: Thunderstruck / talk / contribs}

That'll never happen - TK is a puppetmaster, pulling strings behind the scenes. He will manipulate useful people in private chats, and anybody who somehow shows how much of a fool he is will be trampled down. At this point, challenging Andy would be a step down - he has reached the point where he can openly (and repeatedly) troll the entire community without any ill effects, so why would he want to stop? --Sid (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Another great example of Playing the Victim when Queried. "If you had bothered to read the story link" indeed. Terry Koeckritz, you're a lying toerag. I suggest you pray for forgiveness next time you're on your knees. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Terry Koeckritz winning out here. Ed Poor is definitely higher-ranked than the Team Killer (he's a lot closer to Pope Andy). And honestly, TK isn't a "puppetmaster" - I don't even think he's that bright. The reason TK gets away with being an asshole isn't due to some genius manipulation, it's because Andy doesn't care about any part of the site other than what he's currently working on. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 23:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He isn't a genius puppetmaster, but he is a very experienced internet troll. Being the unpleasant lietenaunt on odd websites is evidently is main hobby. I hope he goes for Ed, but we won't get to watch very much of it - at least until the next discussion group leak. Broccoli (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Ed Poor "outranks" Terry Koeckritz -- Ed is harder working, better liked, and personally much closer to Andy, but TK is the one who can claim credit for making CP what it is today, and since Andy likes the status quo, he wants to let Terry Koeckritz think he is the genius. Anyway, one single loss for TK is a huge blow to his ego and his clout, while Ed has nothing big at stake unless he himself wants this to get bigger than it needs to be.--Centimeter_INCHES 02:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I like Centimeter's analysis because it explains why TK acts like such a little bitch and makes things worse when his shenanigans get called. 02:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TK is just a bully. Unfortunately (for him) bullies only succeed when they have the upper hand. In a one-to-one situation they can usually intimidate their target, that's why TK (Senior Admin) always want to take things behind the scenes. In a group situation, if TK is in the wrong, he is outnumbered so has to play the injured party. Really, the example of this are almost innumerable. Генгис^unbelieving 03:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Best analysis yet, which is regrettably true. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't last. Ed bends over^img and tries to relax^img. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor begs TK for his "indulgence". What does that even mean? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It means a guy with a 95 IQ is patronizing a guy with a 90 IQ. 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly an acknowledgement that TK is pope of CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's world class obsequiousness. Andy must have turkey slapped Ed after TK did some behind the scenes penile engorgement on Herr Schlafly.--Brendiggg (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed's contribs of that time are telling: "Yes, TK, I'm so terribly sorry^img for not asking you for permission, please forgive me! God what an effing asshole gonna kill the bas- OH GOOD, SOMEBODY DISLIKED MY NARTH QUOTE?^img DIE, DIE, DIE!^img Man, that felt good!" --Sid (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what happens. When Ed gets slapped about, he has a tantrum and throws all the toys out of the pram (or all the editors out of CP... in either case, shit and vomit are recurring features) ^{ONE / TALK} 18:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I love just what a pathetic hypocrite he is. He gets all Mabel and threatens handbags at dawn when somebody questions him in public and yet has no problem doing it himself.^img Of course, the second he's queried, it's back to "The reason I prefer email between Admins is to save embarrassment."^img Really, he is a wretched little excuse for a human being and despite his protests would probably enjoy getting spanked by Ed. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, please. I need attention....

TK's latest additions to Main Page Right seem to be designed to get our (or anyone's) attention. Not working out at the moment though so they get increasingly desperate. Remember the thing where Andy blabbed on pathetically about how Obama never danced therefore he must be a Muslim? So TK posts this^img along with a photo entitled Obama Dancing. A few edits later there is this gem which sounds like a Ken paranoia special when he's low on meds.^img StarFish (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We should have a round table discussion with these nutjobs and serve them croissants. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, TK's being an attention whore again. Ho-hum. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Essay: Richard Dawkins' lack of appeal to the Asian women audience

This is very strange, but I'm not sure if it is strange enough for WIGO. Thoughts? [7] Gooners (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very strange, but if we live blogged Ken

's every inanity, it'd be "WIGO Ken". He's too legitimately crazy to pick on. Install a copy a Greasemonkey, grab the User:Sid/KenFilter and forget about it. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No argument here, but it's nonsense like this that makes me wonder what it's like to be a good faith editor at CP. The whole site is nothing but stubs that haven't been edited in 2+ years and Ken's nonsense. If I saw behavior like that at any Wiki, they'd never see me again. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which neatly explains why CP has practically no longterm editors aside from admins and parodists. --Sid (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be just more bait to get you to click on a talk page which then redirects to one of his pet articles. Is there a way to list recent changes whilst filtering out one contributer entirely?

I also have wondered what it's like to be a good-faith editor at CP, between jerk-off spit-in-your-face admins who demand obedience to bizarre unfunny humor to a website that is far less concerned with being an encyclopedia than shaping reality to their liking. But isn't this why ASK was started? --Leotardo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. ASK is a good example...when you have good faith Christian conservative editors on CP, they...leave. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding right? ASK doesn't assume good-faith editing in anyone. If your views conflict with CMI, or the Bible, you're just outright wrong, and your changes are reverted. Meanwhile the Biblical literalists are allowed to plaster any literal shit that they want onto the pages that they want... And then PJR is just going to argue every god damn nitpicky point against you, and .... breathe, Eira... breathe... you do not want to destroy another harddrive by smashing your computer again. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz gchat???

Has anyone seen TK on gchat lately? I can't figure out if he's been avoiding it because of the rough patch CP has hit or if he blocked me. Terry, I miss you!!! Talk to me! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He hates you now. You're missing some gems from the Sooper Special Discussion Group. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves, more nao. 00:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Violations of ... something

Roger Schlafly namechecked on LessWrong. Two great tastes that ... - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

With a link to RW, no less. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage: All Obama All The Time

The only reason I go to Conservapedia anymore is to find out what the wingnut talking points are, but I may just stop altogether. It's so boring. How many ways can they write the same thing about Obama and Obamageddon over and over? Here's the word usage on the Mainpage right now:

1. Obama - used 36 times
2. Liberal - 24 times
3. Conservapedia - 23 naval gazings
4. Conservative - 22 times
5. Abortion - 9 times
6. Christian- 7 times
7. Atheist - 6 times
8. shockofgod - 3 times

Many of the words above are from their mainpage linkfarm, whereas most of the Obama usage is their mainpage content. Do wingnut conservatives care about anything else going on in the political world? --Leotardo (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page word cloud

"Does Andy care about anything else going on in the political world?" Fixed that for you. And the answer is no. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think all the extreme conservatives think about is their Christian beliefs getting into politics somehow. You can slap the word atheist or Muslim on anything they don't like and they'll applaud. Because they are also what I consider radical Americans, you can do the same with the word communism or communist. You can see this kind of stuff on Fox News.

1. Muslim - Over 37 times?
2. Communist - Over 17 times?

I just did a quick CTRL+F through the "Barack Hussein Obama" page to see how many times they use those words for my own curiosity. I don't know if the words are directly related to him or what he supports, but I still found it amusing to see the amount of times these words were used. --BradT 02:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wordle is quite good for this sort of thing. See image right. Генгис^unbelieving 05:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody uses the word "communist" as a self-descriptor in the U.S. these days, except for a few Leninist cranks, probably because they produce all their rhetoric by rote. Actual Reds call themselves "progressives" or "social-justice activists" or something similar. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For a split second there, I was glad to have your rabid paranoia back. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Between last night and this morning, "Obama" now appears 45 times on Main, up from 36. With their latest story about a WH dance series, Main is becoming more like People magazine devoted to the Obamas. --Leotardo (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama is now mentioned 49 times on Main, an increase of 13 in just a little over a day. Obama Derangement Syndrome. --Leotardo (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Islam project

Hopefully that'll get added to the main page, along with the other stillborn (aborted?) projects: anti-socialism; anti-abortion and Richard Dawkins. It's still funny to see CP having such lofty ideals, but with no editor base to support them and absolutely no inclination from any sysop (besides Krazy Kenny) to get off their butts and actually do something besides belittling, abusing and blocking the remaining few editors they have. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, aren't the people writing this "project" always bitching and moaning about being called racist?--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Even Ken lacks the wherewithal to get anything done over there. When he finally delivered the coup de grace to the anti-socialism project, there was only one article, created by me. Conservative hadn't done anything to it. Really, the amount of don't-give-a-shit over there is staggering. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 15:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a respected sock, starting a Conservapedia anti-moonie project to make Ed lose his shit might be fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the days where you debate whether a sysop was a cultist or not are long gone. It was fun watching Andy defend Dean, although he never did get round to explaining why God is actually a man living on an alien planet. Dean's tearful histrionics were fun to watch too. These days, Andy needs all the friends he can get, so he'll happily overlook the fact that Ed's Jesus is some fat bloke from Korea. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember these debates. Are there any extant links? DickTurpis (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Andy's Jesus is an anti-war, soft-on-crime, family-values-can-suck-my-ass, anti-religious conservatives, proto-feminist socialist revolutionary social progressive from Palestine. I think being fat and a gook is something Andy can magnamimously overlook under these circumstances. Rush is fat too, and being a chink is largely okay anyway unless it gets you one of those affirmative-action professor-values math prizes. mb 16:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Start reading from here. Screen cap here, in case the page should vanish. Also TZB 600/3ed67fd1c1e55f28.html. Bonus lulz for PJR basically saying "but, you're not a Christian..." --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I love watching one religious people attacking the beliefs of another religious people... they use such hilariously ironic arguments that I almost have to laugh! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Facebook and CP

"Facebook users 'are insecure, narcissistic and have low self-esteem.'" Conservapedia users are the opposite.^img

Extra funny since I remember (without actually checking Facebook for more)... let's see... TerryH, Jpatt, Ed Poor, Phyllis jr. and Geo.plrd having Facebook accounts. --Sid (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon checking Facebook even a little bit, I also see a certain "Brian Macdonald" from "Murfreesboro, Tennessee" (Hmmm...) and a "Richard Jensen", both of which just happen to be friends of Terry Hurlbut. Not going to give links because of the old anti-stalker rule, but let's just say that all of this was found by link-hopping, using a CP page as the starting point. --Sid (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I never actually gave much faith into the Daily Mail but glad to know that CP considers it as world class. Quazywabbit (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Andy Jr. and the golden boy AddisonDM. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I love what happens when you paint mental diarrhea with a broad brush. 21:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention on FB you can find a picture of John Patti taking his photo in the mirror with an iPhone. If that's not the textbook definition of narcissism... Junggai (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see the benefit of this bit because really, so many people are on Facebook that it renders the study meaningless (I'm sure they have some metric like "hours of use" but I'm not going to read a dumb article). With the simplistic line they use they have just insulted a huge portion of CP's visitors and potential contributors. Not that a punch in the face doesn't await them if they register, so perhaps it's more efficient to greet them with one? --Leotardo (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They took 100 people, gave them a psychological test followed by a survey on their Facebook use. In a nutshell, people who spent a lot of time on Facebook scored higher on the narcissism index. A more honest headline would be "Heavy Facebook users are more likely to be insecure, narcissistic and have low self-esteem," but I suppose that's not as punchy. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 23:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Science! It's a population study and so you can't even talk about "more likely to be". That would imply that if we intervened (made people use Facebook) it would change their personality, and this study can't predict that. People who eat a few vitamin pills are healthier than those who don't, but if we make people eat vitamin pills they don't get healthier, see? (Interestingly if we make them eat vegetables they do, but not much). Anyway, the study also uses surveys and self-reporting is unreliable in lots of interesting ways. It may be that narcissists tend to REPORT using Facebook a lot more than they really do. Science is hard, let's blame Obama. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There might be hope for Ed yet…

Just came across this.^img It's almost completely rational, bizarrely enough. Blue (pester) 03:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. ħuman 03:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And its complete. Se7en^Eight 03:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it mainly because of that final paragraph, which pretty much sums up my opinion of the whole thing. Blue (pester) 03:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Crumbs. Some respect, please, for Ed for making a rational case for standing up to the crazy maniac fringe. Good on you. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. If I read it right, is Ed saying he lives in a Moonie "church"? --Kels (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

my God ! who is he and whats he done with Ed ? Hamster (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pastor Jones

Has CP commented on the story yet? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and I don't think they will. They're not crazy enough to support it, and they can't possibly come out against it because that would mean agreeing with Obama. Röstigraben (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They could justify "agreeing with Obama" by using the "clock" reasoning ("even a broken clock is right twice a day"). You should brush up on your Schlafly playbook. --Composure1 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scenario 1: Andy applauds the guy. This would be based on his "Good Christian fighting the good fight! Muslims are bad! Just look at Obama!" stance, of course, Unfortunately, even he sees the looming question at the horizon: What if Muslims started burning Bibles? He won't endorse burning religious items since it's such an obviously retarded move when you're being protective of your own religion.

Scenario 2: Andy says that the guy is a moron. This would be based on the whole "Dude, WTH, you don't fucking burn holy books! What's next? Peeing against a Mosque? Taking a shit in a graveyard?" angle or the "Okay, this guy is really hurting our cause, and we should distance ourselves from him." one. This has the downside of admitting that a Christian fucked up - and Christians and conservatives can do no wrong by definition in Andyland. He'd have to cast him as an atheist or liberal (or at least RINO) first, and I doubt he will find a good starting point for that right away. Oh, and yeah, he'd end up agreeing with Obama.

Scenario 3: Pretend that this never happened. No downside, and anybody who asks about it will be directed to the generic "Our news section is different!" excuse.

Guess what he chooses. --Sid (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Scenario 4: Try to find some piece of evidence he's a Democrat, as they do with Fred Phelps. MDB (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Has Professor Assfly forgotten about his record-breaking class?

It's almost Friday, September 10th, and still no progress on lecture 2.^img And does anyone else find it ironic that he lets his students refer to him as "Professor"^img given the stink he gives about Obama having been a senior lecturer and not a tenure-track professor? Sounds like classic liberal deceit to me...Cobalt Eel (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And there was the stink about Professor Richard Dawkins not being a real professor. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 12:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. Prof. Schlafly apparently isn't getting his homework done. I guess I wasted $250! ħuman 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"(suggested questions are welcome) " Nice job, Professor! RascalJack (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy is clearly experimenting with his new take on education, "Best of the Public" Schooling. Not to be confusing with Best of the Public Schooling (there aren't any (public schools are all crap (it's liberals' fault (liberals)))). ^{ONE / TALK} 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this exactly what happened with the writing course? D'ya think these homskoll courses still exist, or are they now a total figment of his imagination now? I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't give the first lecture free, then no one signs up to actually pay for the class once they realise what it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's double checking his grammar and spelling. Isn't "politics is" a grammar mistake? Shouldn't it be "politics are" when plural? He keeps saying "politics is" and it's driving me nuts! --BradT (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Politics" functions as both a singular and plural noun. Both forms are acceptable. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Still no new edits to that "lecture". He must be working off-line, as most of his "students" appear to be doing. ħuman 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope the parents are paying lecture by lecture. Se7en^Eight 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Public masturbation

I gotta say I'm quite amused that Ken and TK are having their little masturbation session on Karajou's talk page. I wonder what triggered this, though... I mean, Ken just needed an excuse to spam his links on yet another page on CP, but I'm a bit puzzled by TK popping up there. Maybe he's all hissy again because I started off the Facebook section here, mentioning real names such as Terry Hurlbut or Brian Macdonald? I do remember him raising all Hell when I dared to mention "Terry Koeckritz" (quoted from the same LA Times article he loves to cite) on Wikipedia, complete with requests for banning and oversight...

Oh well, I don't mind. It's not my account that gets the "YOU HAVE A NEW MESSAGE ON YOUR TALK PAGE!" box every time one of those attention whores orgasms. Please, gentlemen, keep talking! :) --Sid (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Best of all, I can see Karajerk staring at his talkpage, with his head in his hands, muttering "Why me?" Terry must be bored, otherwise he would be doing what all the other sysops do to Ken's rambling TZB posts - ignore it. I need to find that TZB (or is it SDG) where they debate whether Ken is KDBuffalo and how they aren't going to put up with his trolling CP. --PsyGremlinTala! 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think poor Ken

is upset, he after all depends on folks from this website for his oh so all important webtraffic stats in regards to his "essays" because no one else reads them.  Now that is threatened and no one may look upon his "hard work" and what will Ken have then I ask! What will he possibly have then!? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Psy, check the SDG files: "User:Conservative again" (Level_1/bc71204...) is the main thread where people piece together the bulk of it. It's also where it becomes obvious that Ken pulled his International Man of Mystery act even on the other sysops. There are other Ken-related discussions, but this is where they sat together for the first time and seriously asked "...who IS 'Conservative'?" --Sid (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken says, "Certain people monitor the edits at CP FAR more than I do and I find their obsession quite amusing." Quite honestly, Ken barely monitors Conservapedia, if at all; the only thing he does is focus on his personal pages, and nothing more. Just as an example, when I think of reverting vandalism, Ken is certainly not the one who comes to mind - in the midst of a vandal attack, one can see TK, Andy, Karajou, Jpatt, etc. reverting vandalism and blocking, but as that is going on, Ken is adding more pictures of kitties and clowns in addition to deleting and recreating everything, totally unaware or just not caring of whatever is going on elsewhere. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Exactly. His content is just awful, and he goes off on bizarre tangents like the kitties, clowns, etc. He repeats phrases like "screechy monkeys" and spams other weirdos like shockofgod all over the site, because you know he shops his CP cred when he contacts him to say, 'Great video'. He's a terrible writer who repeats the same phrases, sometimes thrice in a sentence. His essays are random photos that often contradict the captions he writes. He's a public embarrassment who seems unpleasant even when interacting with his comrades. CP is logging around 100 edits a day, often Ken-Doll Crap and tangents like ConservaMath Medals. They'll never pick up new contributors when people realize it's such a nuthouse. I'm so glad we have image capture bot. --Leotardo (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see Ken has turned his wildly spinning eyes on Carl Sagan^img now. Needless to say, it reads about as well as shitting barbed wire feels good. Not to mention the layout, which looks like it was done by a 3-year-old, not a wiki admin with 4 years' experience. Oh wait, we're talking Ken here, so it was done by a 3-year-old. --PsyGremlinPrata! 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gawd, it appears that Ken spent the better part of Friday taking a tremendous shit all over the CP Carl Sagan page, turning a mediocre article into his abhorrent, poorly assembled, personal screed against atheists. I do find it rather humorous that considering the possibility or potential for alien life is somehow a "liberal trait". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You forget, the Bibbel doesn't mention ET, ergo ET can't exist. And you say he does, then you also eat babies, want no guns and censor classroom prayer. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

An update on the whole Ken & Terry wanking off on Karajou's talk page thing: Conservative just deleted the whole conversation^img. I think we may have another RW reader on CP! Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken

has been checking RW for years, just look at his RationalWiki account! --Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If they could do it without it being apparent, I wonder how many of CP's "sysops" would copy Sid's little script? 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The site is growing rapidly!

Ok, ok, so I'm tired and hung over, but looking at 50 most recent changes (as at some ungodly time in the am), we get:
3 new users
1 immediately blocked by TK
2 /16 range blocks by TK
1 file uploaded
1 file protected
1 post by a parodist (JacobB)
1 mainpage post by Andy
4 mainpage posts by TK
1 mainpage post by Jpatt
2 welcome msgs by TK
1 file comment by TK
32 various inane posts by Ken

Way to run an encyclopaedia a blog, gentlemen. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I laughed at "32 various inane posts by Ken". That man brings joy. He's on yet another editing spree. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he was. I don't think there is going to be much editing this morning. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on this, I decided to see how many substantive (i.e. mainspace) edits were being made over there. There were 50 mainspace edits between Sept. 10, 4:11 AM and Sept. 11, 10:47 AM (when I checked). That's fifty edits in 30 hours, less than two per hour. What's more, 43 of those edits were by Conservative.

At this point, CP is a zombie. It may be walking around, but that doesn't mean it's not dead. Colonel of Squirrels^{禁止不是法西斯} 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as I want to see Conservapedia shrivel up and die, you realistically can't expect much productivity on a website dominated by USAmericans when the date is at or near 11 September. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess Conservative's edits should be discarded when considering activity. Could someone make a graph of edits per day (without Conservative) over time? — Pietrow ☏ 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"I guess Conservative's edits should be discarded when considering activity." There we go, a realistic proposal to improve CP. --Kels (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Demyer - the early daze

Based on comments above, I've been having a look through the SDG stuff that Terry Koeckritz leaked and there are some wonderful comments made by the sysops of that time. Remember, Ken was excluded from the SDG, unlike TZB, where they all ignore him. One wonders what CP would be like today, if Andy actually had an ounce of managerial skill and took Ken in hand? (Ok, that's a mental image that will now require brain bleach.) Certainly, there'd be no the transitional animal the flying kitty and just maybe articles on Atheism et al that were readable, if nothing else.

• From Level_1/dce9269700651396.html - Good reversion on TK's part

Background - it would appear as if sometime around Oct 2007, Krazy Kenny was adding info that Fox News - probably then the main source of CP's borked news - was all part of some homosexual conspiracy. Needless to say, sysop eyebrows were raised and TK stepped in and reverted.

DanH: ...because we often rely it on it as a news source, a claim such as Conservative's that FOX News is part of a vast homosexual conspiracy definitely would undermine the rest of our research.

TK: He is a raving lunatic, Conservative is.

DanH: I know I'm complaining about him too much, but I find it hard to be a sysop on a site where one of the leading sysops is claiming that FOX News is a homosexual conspiracy. I just don't know how much more of this I can take.

As we all know, the final straw for Dan was Andy insisting that Obama was a Muslim.

Karajou: Sorry about saying this, Andy, but Conservative is going to have to be dealt with. I'm saying this for the sake of Conservapedia. He's got to come around to where he's a benefit for the site, and not a problem, or he has to be removed.

One of the few Karajou statements I can agree with. Too bad Andy ignored him.

RobS: Conservative represents a parochial, narrow focus agenda, we should be able to deal with that.

Well, 3 years later Rob, not only have you not dealt with it, it's turned CP into a laughing stock. Ok, an even bigger laughing stock.

DanH: The problem is that his "agenda" conflicts with ours to the point that it undermines us.

And where was Andy when all this was going on? Hiding his head in the sand, like he usually does when it comes to conflict resolution.

• From Level_1/bc71204f541c6e18.html - User:Conservative again

Where we first meet the International Man of Mystery (Sep 2007)

Karajou: Did Conservative ever at any time tell us where he's from? Did he ever make postings of any kind outside of Conservapedia or CreationWiki? Does anyone here know his real name?

I'm saying this because I'm still not convinced as to his honesty with regards to CP. Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well.

Karajou: ...there are two additional accusations here, one of which is just plain bad.

The first, and bad one, is that Conservative is the troll known as KDBuffalo. That has to be proven, and a simple way of doing so is to get the known IPs from KDBuffalo and matching that to Conservative. Only an exact match will do.

The second accusation, and possibly safe, is that Conservative is the individual named Ken DeMyer from Buffalo, New York, and the same Ken DeMyer who made those off-site columns in support of creation, but were marked with a lot of cut-and-paste quotations. If this is the case, we're dealing with a 45 year-old man instead of the 20 year-old we may have believed that Conservative is.

Now if Conservative is truly on our side, and we all hope and pray he is, he needs a talking to.

Hello? Andy?

TK: I don't like his cutting off all contributions to them, as if this were a Bible Wiki, with just one POV. It is understandable because that is what he is used to, and to be brutally frank, CP needs workers like him creating content, even if controversial in nature, to draw people to it!

Karajou: It is possible that providing a comfortable working environment here we can keep Conservative from becoming someone like KDBuffalo.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Fail on so many levels there, Karajou! And once again, not a single word from Brother Leader. See Andy, it's just a short step from bullshit SEO results to 125 flying kitty pictures. If only you'd slapped Ken around a little bit, you know, like you did to PJR. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A lovely trip back down memory lane!

I discovered a new word this morning: "kenspeckle". It's a real word - look it up. It means "conspicuous; easily seen or recognized", so for instance one might say "Ken's

various alter egos were deduced through his kenspeckle edits on forums and other wikis" or "Luckily, Sid has developed a way of removing Ken's

kenspeckle edits from the Recent Changes page." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice discovery. However, it is probably more applicable to Ken's postings under one of his IMoM nommes de guerre where he's instantly recognisable be it as Peter Moore, Ruy Lopez, David Jensen, kdbuffalo, etc., etc.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's even funnier when he outs himself, like posting as 'Peter Moore' then saying, "I wrote most of Conservapedia's article on Evolution..." Duh! --PsyGremlin講話 10:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, where do I find these SDG files TK leaked? Thanks! Se7en^Eight 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reasons I can honestly fathom as to why Andy keeps Ken around are: 1) He honestly believes Ken's wank about driving up Google Rankings. 2) Addressing the possibility that Ken has...issues flies in the face of his "Conservatives don't have mental problems" meme or 3) Andy is really just as bat-$#!+ crazy as Ken and if he admits Ken has a problem then it means he might as well. The first is (misguided) pragmatism, the second is pride, and the third...well, self-delusion. For the sake of Andy and his family I hope its the first two because honestly, both he and Ken seem to be getting worse. -Tygrehart

I gotta say, I do get a giggle out of DanH referring to what they do as "research". --Kels (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pavlov

Brilliant! Almost immediately after I recall the sysop's horror at Ken's "homosexuality conspiracy at Fox" rubbish, he runs out and creates the "Fox News and homosexuality" article AND trumpets^img it on MPL, although I see he says Andy allowed it. This being the same Andy who said that he liked some photo of Ken's, just before deleting it. Either times have changed on CP, or there is some robust debate going on behind the scenes. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder that Ken is unable to look at his rants through the eyes of an average joe. Here's a free hint to Ken: when normal people open up the article, they see the headline "Fox News and homosexuality", a few photographs of people who look like they're probably the homosexuals at Fox News, and words words words words words words words words words words. In short, people expect articles to have photographs and illustrations that fit the subject of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative's posting are just and insane as a parodist's would be! He's making it so actual conservatives will probably think that CP is a pathetic joke! --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 13:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TK doesn't care about cp and no one is left for kara to complain to because everyone else is gone. only Ed and Andy and Lil-Phyl and I don't think they are going to get too hot and bothered over it. --Opcn (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Homosexuality

With these new "Articles", has anyone ever counted how many pages are related to "Teh Gayz" on Conservapedia? They give them alot of attention, despite the fact that they hate them.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I had a brief and unscientific look at the subject the other day. As at 23/08 there were 180 pages in the "Homosexuality" category, opposed to 163 in "Religion" and 164 in "Christianity" In addition, CP's Homosexuality article is bigger than CP's entries for God and Jesus combined. --PsyGremlinPrata! 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An incomplete list is kept here at Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita. --Xyr (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken should create the "Conservapedia: Homosexuality Project". --Tlaloc (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should come up with a list of articles for Ken to make? At this rate, he can write (sic) them as fast as we can joke about them. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and Conservapedia Sysops"? He could write half of it and Terry Koeckritz could write the rest. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken could get TK to *ahem* fill him in, so to speak. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I ran a word count back when they were still mildly interesting in a vaguely morbid way; 2% of their article wordcount turned out to belong to screeds against teh gays. I think this percentage has increased since then but I can't be arsed to count again. mb 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never been sure whether hearing this sort of insanity is better or worse than being marginalized. I mean, while 100% of the coverage is negative, and a good deal is grossly insulting, The Gay Agenda sounds so powerful in their twisted little world. It's like I can just call up my fabulous friends in the shadowy LGBT conspiracy and they'll get the liberal media to drop one of their secret gay bombs on Andy's house tomorrow. Unlike the real world, where it took 34 years of gay rights movements just to legalize being gay in the first place. --Quantheory (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well keep in mind, its Conservapedia against EVERYONE else. They seem to have the "If your not with us, your against us" metality, and that even extends to at least half of all republicans (or RINO's). So the agenda technicly is more powerfull then CP. Thats not saying much though.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

History WIGO

It's over two hours since I added this WIGO and it's still making me depressed. Way back in the day, I actually thought CP might be some use. I always disagreed with it - I'm a filthy lie-bur-al to the point of having stood for the UK Liberal Democrats in the past - but I really do agree with Schlafly's original premise that there is a certain bias to Wikipedia and have argued that point once or twice. I thought the idea of a right-wing version of WP had some merit - at least in a "know what your enemies are thinking" kind of way.

Roll forward... and any vestige of credibility that CP might possibly have had has disappeared. It is now, unquestionably, a vicious, right-wing hate-blog determined to attack gays, Muslims, Democrats, and anything that doesn't sit four-square behind Andy's personal mindset. The edit I WIGOed really sums it all up. For someone who still claims his blog is an honest alternative to Wikipedia, I can't believe Schlafly doesn't see the irony in his change. Fuck America's history. Fuck the war of independence. Fuck the patriotism. Fuck all of it. What's more important is a bunch of small-minded bigots pissed off that their country is run by a black guy. CP can still be funny at times, but don't forget: Andy is teaching this shit to children. It's child abuse, pure and simple. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone, really. When CP started, I initially laughed, but then I actually got interested because I expected a wiki that shows the conservative POV of things. Instead, it very quickly drove into the "Everything liberals do is evil, everything evil is done by liberals!" territory... and then got worse.

In this case, it's really like you said: A milestone of American history has to step aside so that Andy can focus on his political interests. It's a total dick move that nobody with even the lightest bit of knowledge or interest in US History would pull off. Thank God that Andy doesn't actually teach American Histo-OH FUCK YOU! --Sid (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it too hard SP. Conservapedia has never been about really been about a being a conservative alternative to Wikipedia, not really anyway. Andy may tout it as such, and may actually believe it is, but the truth is CP is just his own sad way of showing he can be relevant to the conservative cause. I mean, let's face it. The man grew up in the shadow of Phyllis Schafly, a controversial but still to this day potent conservative pundit who's legacy is no doubt a hard act to follow, and don't think Andy didn't try. From him switching his career from engineering to law, to his aborted Representative aspirations, being legal council for the AAPS and finally being a home schooler and starting CP, every act screams of a desperate attempt to keep the Schafly political legacy alive.

Sadly he seems to have none of the acumen nor savvy that his mother demonstrated in her day and thus flounders as he jumps from one cause or snit fit to the next. This man wants to be taken seriously and yet supports quack organizations, picks loosing battles with reputable scientists and believes he can retranslate the bible? Phyllis may have been crackers, but at least she understood she needed at least the appearance playing nice with others to get her agenda realized. Andy on the other hand comes off as either as a self-grandizing egomaniac or a lost little boy crying out "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LOOK AT ME!!!" Sometimes pulling off both at the same time.

CP has never been about being factual, accurate, or even Conservative. Its been about Andy's ego and the fact that no matter how hard he tries he will never measure up to mommy. -Tygrehart

And to finally remove any vestiges of the notion that Conservapedia really is an encyclopedic resource, Andy has now taken to posting his Tea Bagger headlines in a <big> font. Just like a real tabloid newspaper!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That WIGO was a great find. There's no need to get depressed over Andy's antics though, because we're really the only ones who still care. His homeschooling business seems to be already over or at least in its last throes, note how he's apparently abandoned his much-heralded American Government course after its first week, and how there have been no edits by any of his pupils on the wiki. Any parent who'd be interested in sending their kids to a Schlafly class will invariably stumble upon a Conservapedia replete with flying kitties, incoherent rants, sysop bullies and obvious parody, and if that doesn't make them reconsider their choice of educator, Andy can't be a worse influence on these kids than their own parents would be anyway. CP's final curtain can't be too far away now (and it won't come a moment too soon), let's just be thankful that Andy's particular brand of conservatism didn't get any lasting traction because even the right wing is still a little bit too sane for it. Röstigraben (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I find it increasingly odd that they will block users for "inserting liberal bias" or "obvious parody", yet not revert any of the changes made by said user... it's like there's no intent on quality control... you know... flying kittehs being the biggest indicator of that... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I said here a long time ago that I thought CP had great potential; an old-fashioned, family-friendly, pro-American encyclopedia could have gone miles. Instead, mainly because of poor leadership, it's become a joke. The moral is, encyclopedias shouldn't be run by people who think they're always right. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. A family-friendly encyclopedia would have been a great resource for kids, especially home-schooled children, both for material for lessons and for learning computer skills - and indeed the social skills in an on-line environment that Schlafly so conspicuously lacks. Let's face it, there's quite a lot of stuff on Wikipedia you wouldn't necessarily want a 10-year-old to see. No, I'm not volunteering to set one up! But it would be a worthwhile project and could conceivably attract advertising money to pay the bills. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's several clear reasons just why CP has failed:

• First, it's rotted from the top down. Andy's ego doesn't allow him to be wrong, and he is quite prepared to sacrifice honesty, integrity and truth on the altar of him being right all the time. Add to that him being blinded beyond reason by the success of Obama and the writing was all the wall a long time ago.
• Bad management by bad managers. Andy has managed to surround himself with a core of yes men, who echo his every whim, whilst at the same time being completely ignored by him. None of them, Andy included, possess the people or management skills required to deal with an ever-changing group of subordinates. Given CP's target audience is primarily children of school-going age, every administrator on the site in spectacularly ill-equipped to deal with the vagrancies of teenagers.
• No spirit of nurturing. Once again, for an educational institution, CP shows a spectacular fail in this regard. All editors are viewed with suspicion and punishment is swift and brutal. There is no sense of "ok, you did this incorrectly, maybe try it like this and we'll see how it goes." It's basically, 'you made a mistake, thus expelled." In addition to this, there is no scope for advancement. Even though Andy talks about a "meritocracy," getting anywhere on CP involves agreeing with everything Andy says, never questioning and acting like a playground bully to anybody else that does dare question. Once parodists picked up on this, several were - and still are - promoted to positions of power. Being a sysop on CP is no longer seen as something to aim for, beause most right-thinking people would not want to be associated with that ilk.
• No "brains trust." The people who run CP are - to a man - intellectually incapable of acting as curators of an encyclopaedia. Anything they do not understand, must therefore be suspect. Take Ed and the maths entries as an example. He claims expertise and yet has virtually destroyed all of CP's math entries. Likewise, an edit that conflicts with any administrator's worldview, must be wrong and removed, along with it's author. The minute somebody with expertise showed up - PalMD, RJJensen, KateSorenson - they were attacked and belittled, until they too gave up on CP as a viable venture.
• No understanding of what an encyclopaedia is. They are vaults of collected knowledge. They are not places for original research, wild speculation, or drafting letters to individuals they do not like. An encyclopaedia is certainly not a political platform.
• Failure to engage target audience. One of the first things Andy should have done, is use his mother's contacts within the conservative establishment, to spread CP's name and possibly have respectable contributors and editors on board. Instead, he ended up with people like Ed, Karajou and of course TK. And now, nobody in the conservative movement will go near CP.
• Lack of focus. Andy's apparent ADD is legendary on CP. There are endless projects that's he's started and let slide, and even these have become more and more weird as time passes. Culminating the the CBP, where most of the "translation" was done by unqualified and unknown editors, with virtually no guidance or monitoring.
• No good publicity. Ever. Every time CP has been featured in the media, it's been for the wrong reasons. It started with Lewis Black, NPR mentioned the kangaroos drifting to Oz, LA Times wasn't that complimentary and it went downhill from there, culminating in Lenski, the CBP, the relativity nonsense. Once again, ensuring that conservatives would stay away in droves.

Anyway, that's my 2c worth. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a died in the wool 'liberal', on the libertarian left wing anarcho-syndicalist wing in fact, but I do think a conservative wiki would be good. If only to balance what wikipedia has become. I've tried correcting some articles on wp in the past on topics I know about and have been accused by people who disliked my edits as being a rapist and a paedophile for my troubles. I gave up quite frankly and rarely if ever visit wp anymore. A broadly right wing wiki could be a good balance imo but cp is not that, for all the reasons mentioned above. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that either you are open in which case you're looking to become Wikipedia II and will fail or you're closed in which case you end up with fights over ideological purity and will inevitably become a version of CP. Wikipedia works that way because it's the only way that works - or doesn't. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how I view the scenario - the reason why Wikipedia has become the ever-so-popular source for wide knowledge is because it runs on a system that actually works. Yes, it has its own downsides, and yes, it is indeed exposed to POV-pushing, inaccuracies, and so on and so forth - but overall, it just works in terms of actually being viewed as a source by a large group of people and actually serving as an encyclopedia. It's just like comparing systems of government - there are plenty of forms of government, but there is no perfect system - some are just better than others, and in this case, Wikipedia's system is better than Conservapedia's. Andy Schlafly keeps on referring to Wikipedia as a "mobocracy", and sure, there's merit to the argument, and the system is certainly exposed to "mobs" ruling over certain aspects of Wikipedia; but once again, you will never have a perfect system. Conservapedia runs on the opposite lane in comparison to Wikipedia: Wikipedia runs on consensus, while Conservapedia runs on whatever suits Andy's beliefs. Wikipedia runs on the idea that all editors are basically equal, in which admins are simply janitors who are given a few extra tools because they can be trusted with them, while Conservapedia runs on a merit system, in which those who suit Andy's needs are given "power", in which whatever they say, goes. I remember one time, there was a discussion on Conservapedia as to whether or not an article should be deleted. Practically everyone who contributed to the discussion argued that the article should be deleted, giving valid reasoning; in the end, though, a higher-merited editor came along and simply closed the discussion and called it as a keeper. That's not how it should work - it should be based on consensus and openness. It should not be a "mind your own business" scenario.

However, at the same time, I don't think that Conservapedia would really function under any system of wiki, in terms of falling in line with Andy's views. So I guess the conclusion is: If you are going to make a blatantly biased "encyclopedia", it's not going to work, no matter what. Unless you're Encyclopedia Dramatica. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't CP already reach "netlolz" level? Some people compare it with ED, 4chan, etc. And that would be pretty accurate, since CP, like ED and 4chan, are joke sites. Only problem is that CP senior editors and admins don't realize it's turned into a joke site.RascalJack (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In Regards To

We cannot, with current technology, write a script that a group of average human beings would mistake for a human being. Could we write a script that a group of average creationist forum regulars would mistake for Ken? Discuss. mb 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes. You've got a set of datasources which can be polled for information relating to various topics (gay sex, Dawkins, Hitler, evolution, etc). Paragraphs can be copied and pasted into CP with various typo-applying parsers, the typos being fixed randomly and intermittently. Search Flickr for an image containing any keyword from the most recent post, change its size a few times and viola. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting thought, if Ken made an untraceable sock on CP, how long would it take for it to get banned? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably within ten minutes, less if TK's online. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You're asking if we can write a script that would emulate Ken? Dude, tautology. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen! I will program your precious wedgie, enabling me to destroy RationalWiki on the internet. You should all be vitiating over Operation option, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.

Gentlemen at a rather liberal website,

It is time for you to realize that your comments in regards to the death of atheism on the internet are rather churlish. As pointed out by Popular Christian YouTuber Shockofgod, lesbianism and violence, I think you need to be reminded that you are being grossly deficient regarding Conservapedia's Alexa rankings once again in your article about Conservapedia. In fact, by the first quarter of the calendar year of 2013, it is likely Homosexuality will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)

Rest assured, Operation Antelopes is gathering steam!!! Ole! Ole! Ole!

Sincerely,

Conservative

You forgot the Ole! Ole! Ole! at the end. -Tygrehart

Kenquote ftw! I just saw it the second time, and the kitty turned into a monkey, disproving evolution on the internets! ole! Ole! OLE! ħuman 02:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fox News and homosexuality...on the main page??

(I know this was discussed above, but I think it deserves a separate heading.) I'm in shock - Andy actually let Ken do this^img to the main page?? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's crazy! Does Andy still care about his encyclopedia? Anyone with a sane mind knows this is going to drive normal conservatives away! --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Practically every link on MainPageRight goes to Fox, but MainPageLeft calls them liberal...oh dear, this is giving me quite a headache. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The key word in this discussion is "normal," which does not apply at CP.

Actually I love the way that RobS has taken over MPL. Ken has missed a trick by not pasting a complete article.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What led you to suspect the transitional species the spineless assfly has any say in what goes on the front page? Ken has pissed on main page left enough that the other poodles know it's his territory. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He said so in his edit summary. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You guys have it wrong, by pegging fox at the liberal end of the spectrum then conservapedia is giving themselves license to use the really far right crazy Whale.to stuff in order to bring ballance. --Opcn (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

10 internets...

...to the sock who first points this out to Assfly. (Though we all know what his response will be.) DickTurpis (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But abortion does cause breast cancer. Deny this and lose all credibility. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we face immediate banishment for being associated with some damn liberal vandel site --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's mentioned here means that the first sock to mention it may as well have been screaming "Ban me, TK, ban me!" Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or the first concerned legitimate conservative, blundering into the whole thing completely unawares. The WIGO talk is how we keep Conservapedia free of real contributors. mb 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice point, Bounty Mule! ħuman 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Limiting energy production is anti-life"

This^img conversation is sad and hilarious on multiple levels, showing how even a noble and (according to them) Christian/conservative thing (donating to charity and encouraging others to help) can be utterly stonewalled by Andy over something minor.

But... what is it with his "limiting energy" business?

Though hey, kudos to him for finding the missing link between global warming and abortions. --Sid (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To steal a joke from Roy Edroso, this is the stupidest thing Andy's ever written, and will remain so until he writes something else. --Kels (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's weird that Andy made the vague reference to "limiting energy" before he says he researched and learned of their "liberal position". Was he somehow trying to bait Jeff? Bluefish (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was one of his insights from a few months ago: "There's a correlation between energy use and the average lifespan, so reducing energy consumption will shorten our lives!" Röstigraben (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean within the context of the conversation: global warming didn't come up until Andy mentioned "limiting energy"... I don't quite understand his coyness. He could have said, "Oh, I've heard of them. They believe in global warming, damn liberals" and been done with it. Bluefish (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have problem picturing someone with both low self esteem and narcissism (perhaps due to my incorrect definition of the two), Can someone help? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review wp:Narcissistic personality disorder. It perhaps may explain. If you still have questions, ask again? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Narcissism implies that the individual views him/herself highly and thus have some degree of high esteem? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 08:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a Narcissist has to content with reality constantly bitch slapping them, and making it apparent that they are not the perfect individual that they think they are, or others simply not inundating them with the adoration, adulation, and/or admiration (narcissistic supply) that they feel is necessary. Thus, they are driven into a narcissistic rage in order to compensate, draw attention to themselves, and receive the praise that they believe that they deserve. Narcissism as a clinical disorder is actually defined by a need to have other people recognize their awesome, rather than just be self-sufficient. Thus, they have internally, a low self-esteem, because they require constant external recognition of their awesome. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor lulz

So in amongst Andy driving off editors with unsuitable names like Healthcare4all and Hayewoodjablowemi, he comes across "Ilovelibertarians" and decides he can stay, as long as he changes his name. Is Andy really that transparent? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy is so transparent light slips through him faster than through normal space-time. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Relativity Again

Just noticed this diff http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&curid=66412&diff=818304&oldid=807991^img from PhyllisS adding that Relativity is proven by the bible itself. So how will her dad take this? If it was from anyone else I would expect it to be removed and the person get banned for being liberal or a parodist. Quazywabbit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Daughter and brother. He must be ashamed to live in such a liberal family. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That'll be exciting. But I imagine Andy won't let this argument happen publicly, as he probably doesn't want to make either of them look bad.

Also: how the hell does her quote support relativity? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SHIT! She's already using Schlafly logic... SOMEONE HELP THIS WOMAN!!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The shit doesn't fall far from the bat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks like she's arguing (albeit nonsensically) for some kind of Galilean invariance/relativity -- surely even Andy wouldn't dispute that. --MarkGall (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the context of the passage, but how can "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" have something to do with bringing Christ down and bringing Christ up from the dead? For me the passage is talking about people who go to heaven and people who go to hell. I really think that Phylis is deliberately inserting parody into his daddy "encyclopedia". --Tlaloc (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Forget the physics, Phy is saying that there is no universal reference frame. Oh noes, where do our morals come from?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)