Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive199

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 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>, <197>, <198>, <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)

Blatant Sexism[edit] I know tht Andy has high expections for his male students, but I never knew he was this sexist. Hoo-boy.RascalJack (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

blabant? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
expections? -- (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
That's your idea of blatant sexism from Schlafly, is it? Quoting Scalia? This is the guy who wrote that "hissy fits" are "typically female in nature." You might not want to dig too deep here, the depths of Andy's misogyny could give you an aneurysm. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 20:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I can't believe Scalia as a Supreme Court Justice would distort fact that far. Especially legal fact. One can certainly say, "Reading the US Constitution, I see no prohibition of sex discrimination. However, the US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, against my objections, that such a prohibition does exists." I hate people who throw out inconvenient US legal history to support their own legal interpretation... worse when the guy is sitting in a position where correcting his vote will require either a constitutional amendment, or a new lawsuit, which will fail all the way up to the Supreme Court, before it even has a chance of being ruled in favor of. Like people talking about activist judges... hey, activist judges brought you ALL OF THE TORTS YOU CAN SUE FOR IN COURT... we just later actually wrote them down. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You've missed something here. Look at the source, and even Scalia says: "Although gender bias "shouldn't exist," he said, the idea that it is constitutionally forbidden is "a modern invention."" - (my emphasis) so even the champion of right-wing judicial thought is left of ASchlafly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy probably thinks that boys are the ones who are discriminated against because they've got 9 rules while the girls only have 7. At least they're allowed to swear. --Kels (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Pfff... I should have known I was missing something, because I only read the CP version of the quote, not the real thing. Fucking quote miners making me look bad. Scalia looks significantly more sane in your version of events. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Purposely mispeling words for the lulz of it-and also to reflect on Andy's spelling skills. And going even deeper in CP history, well, looking at the entry on feminism, I guess he's one of those people that think women should be slaves to men.RascalJack (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy.img --Sid (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
"Offer to purchase tickets or meals for girls, and develop a work ethic to provide money for that" Dude, I milk that shit for everything it's worth! lol. Nah, honestly, it's fucked up... but women still are the "gatekeeper to sex", because there is far more demand than there is supply. Thusly, men will spend more to obtain some of the limited supply. But this sort of a rule just leads to lazy self-absorbed girls... like me. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what Andy's reaction would be if it were pointed out to him that the concept of 'chivalry' actually stems from how it was held that knights from Arabic countries should behave in the 5th or 6th century, as such actions and behaviour was seen as key in Islamic life? (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
He would simply claim that it's liberal deceit... you're forgetting that ASchlafy can readily throw out pretty much any evidence that he doesn't like. That there is good reason to believe such evidence is just a bigger indicator of the conspiracy to hide it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That "andy" template is borkish. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"" (you're not credible, liberal), not much is "clear to" a determined atheist. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and you deny that liberals get a thrill out of deceit for its own sake alone, so my confidence is over three standard deviations away from the mean that you're another liberal enemy of conservative principles. Your atheistic worldview has led you to deny that being conservative stops moral decay. Nobody seriously doubts that elitism is an attitude, not a credential. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful.--Andy Schlafly 23:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how it is borked, but I welcome fixing of it... it's just hella easier to type {{andy}} rather than type out "Andy Schlafly" or "ASchlafly", or "Schlaflfy ... bleh, see what I mean? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was leaving behind a carriage return and a space, putting the rest of your text in a box
like this
But I edited it to put the noinclude right up against the last character and it seems to have worked. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"This is so pathetic"[edit]

Quoth Andyimg on 19 September 2010. If only it hadn't been saidimg two days ago by Terry Koeckritz. Yet more proof that even CP sysops don't read the main page. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Andy's version is pettier. Tetronian you're clueless 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Was about to say the same. Andy even felt the need to mock Wackowski's name. Really, his gloating and taunting has gone out of control these days/weeks. --Sid (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC) --Sid (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You know, we could do an up-to-date parody of the CP main page (up-to-date - I know there's already a dated parody version somewhere). In this case the story could be:
This is so pathetic A candidate elected by the so-called "serious" "Grand Old Party" recently said that unemployment benefits are "unconstitutional in many ways". We rational thinkers cannot understand how people so ignorant of our brave country's constitution can get so close to major political office.
SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Why not just update the old one? - π 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I thought it was supposed to highlight "typical" CP stories rather than current ones. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A little local perspective for you[edit]

Lisa Actually has a good chance of winning even as a write in. Lisa was only ever a weak republican to begin with, and had the conservatives not fetishized rino hunts they would be grateful she didn't just pull an Arlen Specter and go Dem. She is in fact their best hope of beating McAdams. Miller is nuts, (and by nuts I mean principled) and, had anyone known anything about his policy before hand, he would have never won the primary. The primary was handed to him by virtue of the amazing wedge issue on underage abortion (parental signed permission slip or court order required) that fell in his court with Lisa being prolife, but even with the Tea party and no one realizing how disastrous he would be for the Alaskan economy (Alaska is actually doing pretty well economically, even with BP eating shit [BP is huge in Alaska] we've been doing alright) and the fact that he looks like a goon (greased hair and a leather jacket) he only managed to barely squeak past. If Lisa pulls a Lieberman It'll be proof that she who the state wants, and if Lisa splits the vote and hands it to McAdams that too will be alright from her perspective because I'll bet that she would vote for him before she voted for a man who called her a whore (did I mention that he's a bit of a goon?)

All that having been said I don't think Miller would be a terrible guy. Unlike the tea party he actually has plans for dealing with the problem. He knows that voting out the opposition isn't going to magically fix all of our problems and that he can't miraculously rest on the Laffer curve in order to pay for everything by slashing revenues. He is well educated with a law degree from Yale and a masters in economics and a gulf war one (the popular gulf war) vet. From what I've seen of him I'm sure he would kick Andy right in the ass. What I can't figure out is what Miller and Palin have in common outside of an (R) by their names and pro-life stances.

--Opcn (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fired anchor[edit]

I can sort of see the point to Andy's borked news story. But surely news organisations have a political bias, and for a front man to go against that, would be insubordination? Especially as WJLA does appear to be a liberal station. That said, Andy's outrage at somebody being fired for being "too conservative" is ironic coming from the man who's driven away everybody except his goons for being "too liberal." --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that it's right to be on the right. Being liberal is an outrageous slight. --Opcn (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that Andy has a point. First, Conservapedia has made hay out of the whole JournoList BS, and in their non-quote-mined part of their CP:JournoList article, they write, "It appears to some that journalists put liberalism before journalistic integrity, further weakening any credibility they may have had with the American people." At the University of Indiana's School of Journalism, they parse it this way in an unrelated, though relevant, case:

Journalists are, by profession, civic and political activists. They bring matters of importance to public attention and frame the public debate. The question is not whether journalists should be allowed to participate in public political activity, but whether or not they should be allowed to exert influence in public arenas beyond the one they already control. Because of the potential for exploitation, the answer has to be "no."[....] Journalists cannot drop professional affiliation when it is convenient for them or for their cause. People who wish to work on behalf of a particular cause should work in public relations or advocacy groups, not for the news media. Journalists should confine their public voices to their own professional arena.

But the guy was fired for yelling at his boss--who knows what was said--but he could just as rightly been fired for what he did. --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, Dodgy Roger?[edit]

Good to see that Roger can still pop up again and remind us that he's as batshit insane as Andy.img I'm sure Galileo would have something to say about the Church "promoting" science. Not to mention this is the same church that said washing off God's dirt was a sin. True, they might have built universities like Oxford and Cambridge[citation needed] but for centuries those only taught church doctrine. The Dark Ages were dark for a very good reason. Even da Vinci wrote in mirror style, to hide his ideas from the Church. Do we have an article on this anywhere? --PsyGremlinHable! 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn - the first thing that pops into my mind when someone puts together "Catholic" and "history" together is, in fact, the dark ages. Of course, that can only be because the public school that I am attending is brainwashing me with their nasty, liberal views - in fact, we're learning about the dark ages right now. Popping those buboes ain't a good idea, nor is whipping oneself on the back going to prevent any disease. ~SuperHamster Talk 11:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Just had a look at his blogs. My god, the stupid is strong in that one. First, in Dark Buzz he carries on about how Galileo was wrong, and as for Singular Values. To quote "I think that the Mohammedans were responsible for the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Christian Europeans had to take these measures, or they would have been overrun by Mohammedan invaders." Epic European history fail there, Roger. Sheesh, I'm starting to think Andy might be the clever one. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I used to subscribe to Singular Values for a laugh, and had fun with posting comments (like these) every now and then, but eventually the crazy drove me away. If you only read CP, it's easy to think of Roger as the sensible one, because he usually talks sense about relativity, black holes, and so on. In fact, in almost all areas he's just as stupid and ill-informed as Andy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I like how the only tick boxes you have to rate his articles are "funny," "interesting," and "cool." Ever the modest one is our Roger. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"Insipid," "smarmy," "revolting," "flaccid." Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to butt in here. I'm surprised that people who normally have no problem with shades of gray can be so lacking in nuance when it comes to this issue. There have been times when religious and academic leaders have been at odds, and they have not. Taking one modern conflict (Fundamentalist Protestants in the USA versus Everybody) and extrapolating it backwards for all time shows a dire need for some perspective.
Christians killed the Academy, that is true, and it's a pretty big blot on Christian history. But to blame them for the Dark Ages?? The Dark Ages were a large-scale political and economic collapse in which the Roman civic order was replaced by a warrior aristocracy who cared not at all for urban life or learning. During that era the monasteries were the only ones who preserved learning and literacy, including the Classics.
Even Galileo, the great science-religion morality play of our time, was much more complex than it's presented today. Many of the religious leaders involved were squarely on the side of keeping an open scientific debate. When a few zealous Dominicans raised hell about Galileo's heliocentrism, the Church brass made him promise to present it as a hypothesis rather than an out-and-out proven fact. Which it was, at that point. It always takes years of research and debate for radical new models to be accepted; so it was for the Big Bang Theory (first posed, of course, by a Catholic priest) and so it was with heliocentrism.
Now, I of course believe that religious leaders shouldn't be allowed to do even that, but the fact is that Galileo certainly wasn't trampled under the Church's holy boots for saying something that contradicted the literal words of the Bible. No Christian thinker then (and no thinking Christian today) takes all that cosmology literally; St. Augustine himself argued for a sort of primitive evolution.
Galileo got stomped eventually, of course. His personal friend, the Pope, turned against him, and it had everything to do with power politics and nothing to do with biblical literalism. Galileo's patron was the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the Grand Duke's patron was the King of Spain, and the King was the Pope's big rival. The Dominicans' earlier objections provided a convenient excuse. Again, it's definitely a Bad Thing for religious leaders to play politics like that, but the story does not support the "Teh Ev0l Christians Hate teh Science" trope.
Have religious leaders opposed science? Yes. Have they supported it and enlivened it? Yes. Have political, economic, military, and all other leaders done various things in the past to both advance and hinder scientific progress? Yes, yes, yes. History is complicated. One-dimensional narratives - whether YEC or not - very rarely give you the full story. Bluefish (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at that list that Psygremlin pointed out at the top. Roger has, as one of his 'General Denials' that 'NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World'. However, he also lists, as a 'Specific truth that history books deny or distort' that, 'Rhode Island was the only state to separate church and state, and as a result it became the biggest importer of slaves.' Leaving aside the fact that even his own source for that fails to give evidence of a causal link between the separation of Church and state and slavery, nor does it actually even claim such a link exists, Rhode Island, going by more reputable sources, was part of the slave trade, and a big one - as part of the triangular trade that Roger has already said didn't exist. So, if there was no triangular trade, Rhode Island could not have been a big part of the slave trade. (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For some of Dodge Rodge's best insanity, the debate on the Trail of Tearsimg where Rodge doesn't like the forced starvation march of Native Americans being called "immoral." --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's some classic Roger weirdness. "I don't think that it is true that depictions of Mohammed are prohibited, or that anyone is offended by such depictions." All in the context of a Muslin fella coming on to explain the prohibition. To a man, Roger is a quintessential cockgobbler, the kind of guy who would have gotten his ass kicked twice daily if his mother had the courage to send him to any public school I attended. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm having fun with him over there at the moment. As for the Church promoting science, he's pointed me to wp:Science in the Middle Ages, instead of quoting examples, which doesn't seem to have much mention of the Church. Still, at least it wasn't a CP link. --PsyGremlin講話 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, he's cringeworthy. This will be about as satisfying as trying to have a discussion with Rayment, unless your goal is just to make a record of what a boob Roger is. But good luck with whatever you're doing. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm compensating. Tonight is supposed to be punishment night, but my Dominatrix has the night off. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently listening to a lecture series about the History of Science, and it talks about the end of the schools started by the Greeks about 500CE (Could have dates fouled up). Strangely enough, it was the Catholic Church that wanted to supress them, and even stranger, the Dark Ages start around the same time. Coincidence? Hmm. Jimaginator (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a section on one of Arthur C. Clarke's books (I'm almost certain it's him but I can't remember which) which states that the biggest disaster for global civilization was that Charles Martel won the battle of Tours. It suggests that if the Muslims had won, the centuries of Catholic oppression wouldn't have happened and we'd have skipped the Dark Ages, meaning we'd be centuries ahead of where we are now. Can anybody suggest which book it might be in? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Was it The Fountains of Paradise? Broccoli (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. I can't find my copy at the moment :/ –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was indeed from The Fountains of Paradise:
Almost all the Alternative History computer simulations suggested that the Battle of Tours (A.D. 732) was one of the crucial disasters of mankind. Had Charles Martel been defeated, Islam might have resolved the internal differences that were tearing it apart and gone on to conquer Europe. Thus centuries of Christian barbarism might have been avoided, the Industrial Revolution would have started almost a thousand years earlier, and by now we would have reached the nearer stars instead of merely the farther planets….
I'm wondering if that passage inspired this demotivational poster. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! That's exactly the bit I remembered. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can't help think it's at least partly true. And I love that poster. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The whole idea seems fallacious to me. It seems to be that the dark ages - whatever their cause - delayed scientific advancement. Is this really a problem, a missed opportunity? Only in two respects - one being that millions of people lived out miserable lives that could have been avoided if the modern age occurred earlier, and the other being that we have a responsibility to the existence of our species to advance as quickly as possible so as to protect ourselves from certain threats (such as a major earth impact).
But equally, if we had advanced to the modern age a thousand years earlier, the planet might now look like a barren wasteland, either ruined by the environmental destruction and climatic intervention we see today, or ruined by a war in a nuclear age that played out with very very different politics.
And finally, I'm pretty certain that if the dark ages didn't occur, I simply would never have existed to enjoy my jetpack and weekend holidays to saturn. ONE / TALK 09:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Scrolling up here and at the SB, it strikes me that perhaps pibot's settings could be sped up a bit, half (or more) of both pages is almost always dead threads. What do ye think? Actually they both seem to be set to 48 hours. Wow, we pile "stuff" up fast here! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think 48hrs is enough, after all, there's 2 old threads - Time to die and New Conservapedians, that sprang back into life today. Then again, considering fuck-all is happening at CP, we sure do have lots to say about it. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked both SB and here before saving, and was shocked that both were only 2 days. I can't see shortening that, hence the about-turn in my comment. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the reason nobody's been saying much about CP. What is going on at CP? Nothing! The old glory days of Lenski must have been great... Fawlty (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It was a wonderful time, when brave and noble users (some of them real!) roamed the lands battling the conservative ogres. A time of homeskollars, a time of parodists, a time of legitimate users, a time....before TK. EddyP (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Lenski! Ah now I remember the FBI - those were the days! 22:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
PJR and I discussing whether inserting content into a wiki constituted vandalism, TK trying to bin the discussion because everybody involved basically said that Andy was talking out of his arse, and then TK getting shafted dans derrière and being forced to watch as the page was restored so the discussion could continue, fully in public. Good ol' days.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Linkies please, Stunted! That's sounds like it's worth a read! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
With Capture tags - now that TK rules unopposed, those links will be disappeared the moment they appear here. --Sid (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Have to laugh at TwistedKnickers. "Oh Noes! Librulls are calling O'Donnell a witch! The horror!"img But imagine if she'd been a Dem... And in other TK news, why is he referring to the Dems as the Liberal Party?img Doesn't he realise that by capitalising it, he's referring to a totally different party? Oh wait, what am I saying, it's Tk... --PsyGremlin Tal! 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(Fixed your sig) Didn't you know? "The Democratic Party in the United States is now often referred to as "The Liberal Party"."img It pays off to be able to rewrite reality on the fly. :) --Sid (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
FFS. That guy must be so lonely stomping around an empty house when the party he really wants to be at is over here. Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Shame, poor TK - he's sent all his little friends home and now he's got nobody to play with. I guess all he's got left is to doodle on the walls, until mummy comes home and spanks him. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No new WIGOs in three and a half days?[edit]

I only look at WIGO CP every couple of days, but when I checked this morning it was the same as the last time I looked. Has the place really become that stagnant we can't even get a slightly amusing joke out of it? - π 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it, I'll try to find something to WIGO. Unfortunately it just seems to be Ken's million-edits-per-ramble and Terry Koeckritz's trolling... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, sorry. Nothing's going on. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Eira found something, I do enjoy it when CPers try their hand at foreign politics. - π 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I once felt tempted to WIGO something, but even that was just TK trolling in some way. It's really just Ken's obsessions (I presume - I still filter), TK's blatant trolling, and Andy orgasming about the Tea Party. Plus a few minor gems. --Sid (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Fuck it, I've WIGOed a Terry Koeckritz. At least it shows the modus operani of CP. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I improved it and then voted it down. Pst... TK's a troll. Is boring! Sí! Nutty Rouxnever mind 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Every time I think to WIGO it just seems like the same ol' shit. Like this dumbassery about the Fort Bliss shooting where TK says Obama should be doing more to protect citizens because some insane guy shot two at an army base. Like *everything* comes down to Obama. And if the army can't protect itself against a lone gunman, how is Obama going to...ah, never mind, not worth the keystrokes nor a WIGO. --Leotardo (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Obama, he could save a basket of drowning puppies by swimming to them in a raging river and they would still spin it as a negative on the CP mainpage. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The corollary to this of course, is Saint Ronnie delivering a speech from an Austrian basement, whilst punching a kitten in the face. And it would still be the greatest conservative insight evah! --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I've wondered what would happen if Obama held a surprise news conference and said, "I have had a personal religious awakening, and I am now one hundred percent opposed to any and all abortions, and will devote the remainder of my time in office to seeing the Roe v. Wade is overturned, and that a Federal ban on abortion enacted." While I suspect the likely CP response would be to claim he was doing it for political reasons, I wouldn't be really surprised if Andy declared himself to be pro-choice. MDB (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on...the obvious is that he'd be "Pro-Life In Name Only". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A PLINO? --Leotardo (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed "Gimme back Lohan" Poor[edit]

Lovely.img AceX-102 02:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't she a bit old for him? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
lol@human --Leotardo (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do I keep thinking of this? --Shagie (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Because you're at least two Friedberg/Seltzer films behind in your pop-culture reference points. (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what Andy would make of Ed lusting after a bimbo who is the very embodiment of cp:Hollywood values? If he chose Anna Paquin, at least I could credit him with some taste. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Paquin pre-True Blood is a good choice, but I bet Dakota Fanning ala I Am Sam moves him more. --Leotardo (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken fail[edit]

One thing I miss with the greasemonkey app, is Ken's insanity. Such as his contacting UK Xiansimg about his Dawkins gibberish. Good luck with that Ken - TK's blocked most of the UK already. Also, using a pub sign and a drum to advertise his work? --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I read that as "Goat of Arms"! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if this means he's back to spamming forums? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt he ever stopped. Though I guess this diff simply translates to "I sent mails to bloggers, begging them to link to my newest pet article(s) in exchange for articles that are full of praise." Just keep an eye on what mainspace articles he creates/edits (aside from the usual suspects), and you'll know exactly who replied. --Sid (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, that is how "True Freethinker" and ShockOfGod have their articles or videos constantly hyped, even though they are nobodies in the blogosphere or Youtube. Heck Shock has his own category on CP thanks to Ken. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it funny - it's one of my favorite things about him, how he thinks his sitting at a computer quote-mining is really changing the world. It's what every 14 year old who edits Wikipedia thinks. But whereas Wikipedia gets serious consideration on blogs and in the media, nobody in the media nor on blogs writes about Conservapedia except with ridicule. They go ignored by Conservative sites, or are also ridiculed by them (Eric Erickson was prescient in 2007: " is destined to fail miserably to expand outside the clutches of a few conservative cultists.) So I think it's a very endearing quality that Ken thinks he's so influential given that, generally, in order to sea change humanity you have to be taken seriously. --Leotardo (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Good find. That comment mirrors almost exactly the situation on CP now - nothing left but Andy and the Fab Five. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Only from RedState did I learn about DailyKos's dKosopedia, which is even more moribund that CP! RW became what dKosopedia hoped to be. --Leotardo (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't bother to hit random page at all yet, but that article on CDSs on the main page is pretty well done. It would fit in well here, if it was on-mission. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, I definitely wouldn't say that RationalWiki became what dKosopedia wanted to be. While both RW and dKos have articles that may share the same ideology, dKosopedia is far more focused on being an actual encyclopedia, unlike RationalWiki, where much of the work effort is directed into socializing in some sort of fashion, whether it be analyzing others, poking fun at them, or talking about pot brownies, all of which not only appear on talk pages, but even in the articles themselves. The reason I think RationalWiki is at all successful is because its goal is not to be an encyclopedia, but rather, it serves as a social place to analyse and criticize others, and that it allows for people to openly communicate. It's what makes the place interesting, fun, and worth coming to - if RW's goal was to be a legitimate source of information in the sense that people would chose RationalWiki as a source of info over Wikipedia, it'd be treated as the same piece of shit that Conservapedia is. Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and dKosopedia are trying to drive down the same street in terms of what type of source they are - RationalWiki, on the other hand, is in a different lane. It isn't trying to be the same type of source that Wikipedia is, unlike CP and dKos, who would love to replace Wikipedia's fame. That's why they're failing.
And pah, the statement that all the fourteen year olds that edit Wikipedia think that they are changing the world in some noticeable way on an individual level is simply silly in the extreme. They're not all loonies. What makes their age suddenly make the view of themselves editing Wikipedia suddenly so different than that of a 60 year old? ~SuperHamster Talk 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Whenever I remove a superfluous comma from WP and then insert it where needed on RW, I feel like I have changed the world twice over. Ole! Ole! Ole! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
lol. That was a good post, hamster, but I think you took what I wrote a little too literally. It's not obvious, but I was more talking about a vibrant community working on a project than content similarity, though I probably meant that too without studying the articles of dKos (at all). But that was a good analysis. As for the kids on Wikipedia, as a long-time editor of that site, I find the sense of grandiosity and self-importance to be far higher in the younger people than in the older, though there are exceptions - again, I wouldn't take my generalization too literally. --Leotardo (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Out from under the bridge[edit]

I think it's time. We should unmask ourselves. We can't just keep sitting around on CP wanking each other off. DouglasA, TZoran, DerekE, Willminator, JacobB, and even all the smaller parts we play. Let's do it all at once. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should pick someone who's not involved to which each CP parodist copies a confession email to TZB recipients from the email account and IP address associated with CP. A few weeks later those emails and any replies are posted. Blammo. Then we purge CP from the mainspace and stop talking about parodists. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
s'Funny that. I know the impartial, non-RW affiliated place to publish them. (ok, I lied about the impartial. and the affiliation.) --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, they should go here - I'd sure upvote that WIGO. Tetronian you're clueless 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a shit if members of this site sock and troll on CP, but this is not the place to brag about it. It's idiocy like that that makes people point at us and claim "SEE? RATIONALWIKI ORGANIZED IT! IT WAS A RATIONALWIKI ATTACK ON US!". If you want to masturbate in public about how you sucked Andy's cock, please do it elsewhere. --Sid (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, interesting take. But really, why would anyone--joking or not--even care at this point about doing anything to 'show up' CP on CP? They look ridiculous on their own, that talking about doing parody or vandalism is like talking about punching Sarah Palin's Down's Syndrome baby in the face. --Leotardo (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sid, but I am curious to see who here really is a parodist. That's one of the reasons why I can't wait for CP to shut down. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that JacobB is in fact two or three people... AceDrumcode 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to die?[edit]

Given the plethora of comments in the above section regarding Conservapedia being boring, is it about time to remove it from the front page, or at least drop its priority down a notch? Perhaps begin the process of merging WIGO:CP with the not-quite-yet defunct WIGO:ASK and opening the WIGO for a wider range of topics. Scarlet A.pngmoral 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd keep WIGOCP - it probably still brings us a lot of traffic. Agree with moving off the mainpage, however. Most of CP's traffic comes via here, and if we cut that avenue off at main page level, then the site will stagnate even further. I think RW has grown to the point were we can stand on our own two feet, without the ever more wobbly crutch of CP. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If we got rid of it how would we know that Ed Poor turns his IRL trivial frustrations into magical encyclopedia articles like CP:Command locations, which will be an encyclopedic guide to, "like, finding the print preview in Excel." --Leotardo (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say don't kill all of it just yet, but a gradual phase-out is fine by me. Tetronian you're clueless 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not time yet, but it is time to start planning. Also, don't forget that Andy is a huge attention whore, so don't expect him to go down without a fight. We could see some of the best insights yet in the death throes. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be silly. The day you stop featuring CP is the day this site begins its own long, slow death. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, as evidenced by the editing statistics, this site's vitality is by no means dependent upon Conservapedia's existence and nuttery. Maybe when it first started, but not now. --Leotardo (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly some people who are only here for the Conservalulz but I would guess that most people that have been here for a long time stay for the community and would divert their focus to other topics.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The main page needs a redesign anyway, ever since we removed AOTW the right side looks short. Cue HCM. -- Nx / talk 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Defense submits Exhibit A, a page entitled "What is going on at CP?", where votes frequently go into three figures. Defense submits Exhibit B, a page entitles "What is going on in the world?", where votes rarely make it into two figures. Defense rests. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A disinterested bystander writes: You seriously think you'll get much traffic when Conservapedia folds? Most of the articles on the site are as badly written as much of Cp and rather a lot of the more vociferous editors could do with reading the links at (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We already do get a lot of traffic that's not CP related. -- Nx / talk 23:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
True, but we seen what happens when we cut off the CP feed. A lot of our regulars, and our new users, find RW via CP. Sure, some are just here for the WIGO and think RW is all about CP, but some settle in and become valued mainspace contributors. I say leave it alone for now, and if someone wants to start yet another boycott, I will once again honor my promise to Kels to oppose it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
At least drop its priority in the order the WIGOs are presented. That would be my first suggestion. Although WIGO:CP's votes go high, those aren't in line with the edit counts and the remaining three have been steadily climbing on average, from just a couple when they were introduced to +/- 15-20 quite often. Still an order of magnitude below the top rated CP comments, but not far off the more mundane CP comments. Someone with a bit more time and with willingness to do a proper analysis might be able to find out, but I'm pretty sure CP related activity here is now a minority pastime. Scarlet A.pngmoral 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Eventually (and perhaps soon) CP will either die or stop being funny to watch - why pre-empt that by killing of the CP parts of RW first, rather than letting them die along with CP itself? If it's true that RW can't survive without WIGOCP, then I'd rather the death of CP itself be blamed for that, than administrators here be blamed for it. ONE / TALK 09:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Per LArron's statistics below and 1's comment above I don't think we should remove WIGOCP from the main page right now, but I do think RW could definitely survive without it, this it what it would look like. --Onion Hi! :) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no :-)

article views Aug 1, 2010 - Sep 15, 2010
Main Page 102273
Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? 85817
Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP? 73757
Poe's Law 39791
RationalWiki:Saloon bar 23178
RationalWiki:What is going on in the world? 19279
RationalWiki:What is going on in the clogosphere? 16933
RationalWiki:Smileys 15525
RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere? 15236
Lenski affair 10975
MediaWiki:Common.css 8825
Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia 8032
MediaWiki:Monobook.css 6687
Banana fallacy 5750
Project Blue Beam 5652
Conservapedia:Conservapedian mathematics 4576
Andrew Schlafly 4538
Citizendium 4381
RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK? 3998
RationalWiki:Contents 3574
RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard/notices 3428
RationalWiki:Copyrights 3388
Category:Articles needing expansion 3379
Vaccine hysteria 3345
Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity 3244
article views Jul 15, 2010 - Sep 15, 2010
Main Page 581047
Homosexuality in Nazi Germany 260263
Mammary glands 135627
Homosexual fantasies 115601
Counterexamples to Relativity 114898
Gay 60473
Ex-homosexuals 46818
Barack Hussein Obama 44927
Gay bowel syndrome 44383
Gay bathhouses 41080
Gay disease 40667
Gay pride 40661
Gay Christian Movement Watch 40594
Gay Bomb 40405
Atheism 39236
Evolution 39069
Homosexuality 35682
Theory of relativity 28849
Jesus Christ 27488
MediaWiki:Common.css 24497
Liberal 23428
Ted Haggard 21700
MediaWiki:Conserv.css 21624
Gay heroism 18803
Gay cupid 18720

larronsicut fur in nocte 16:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this with Conservapedia and homosexuality? Is there a gay click bot? larronsicut fur in nocte 08:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, CP is clickbot central. Another explanation this that Ken is discovering teh buttseks in various men's loos destroying teh buttseks on the innertubes. I'm more worried about the 15,000 people viewing our smilies page. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 08:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's because it is loaded every time someone who has activated one of the smiley gadgets edits a page. -- Nx / talk 08:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn I just loaded it one more time for nothing, thanks Nx. - π 08:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice work LArron! How does one obtain such figures automatically? For instance if you wanted to watch how much traffic CP:Counterexamples to Relativity was getting after it was mention at New Scientist? Is it possible to strip those figures out easily so you can see it was getting X amount of views per day/hour/whatever before it was mentioned, then Y per whatever afterwards? Do you do this through a script looking at the HTML, or something straight from MediaWiki? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I check CP's database every couple of weeks: it's to much effort to do so on a daily basis: I don't know of a way to get past numbers of views, I can get only the current ones... Of course, for a couple of pages, article could be monitored - using queries like
and Ken does so for his pet articles (though I doubt that he automatized the process in any way...)
larronsicut fur in nocte 05:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have a plethora of CP page view data. Originally (from about Aug 2007) I just logged the top 100 pages but later (Jan 2008) logged the top 5000. So I have pretty good idea which pages have been click botted. As the total page view count mounts up any click botting has to be done on an increasingly greater scale to have any real impact so I will probably stop at the end of the year. I've always meant to do an article on CP's page views to show how they've been manipulated. Clickbots have undoubtedly played a part but I have some circumstantial evidence that in the early days Ken may have even manually refreshed his own pages in an attempt to up the stats. As for the gay thing, at one point in 2007, 9 of the top 10 most viewed pages at CP were homosexual-related and this created a short-lived stir in the blogosphere. I can only assume that some people are still trying to resucitate that meme. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New Conservapedians[edit]

Andy seems to have lost interest in getting new members for his project: over the last 48 hours, account creation was enabled only for two short periods of time (Sep 18, 2010 21:30 - Sep 19, 2010 1:30 and Sep 19, 2010 5:30 - Sep 10, 2010 6:00). A couple of individuals created a new account during these times:

  1. 05:53, 19 September 2010 KevinSch (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  2. 05:47, 19 September 2010 BritdaveW (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  3. 00:45, 19 September 2010 NotManyUsers (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  4. 22:43, 18 September 2010 IPleaseu (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  5. 22:36, 18 September 2010 Reasonandlogic (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  6. 22:11, 18 September 2010 KenPrescott (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
  7. 21:59, 18 September 2010 Peace3 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

and all but one were quickly blocked by Karajou and TK...

  1. 06:00, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked KevinSch (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye.)
  2. 05:59, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked BritdaveW (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye.)
  3. 00:47, 19 September 2010 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked NotManyUsers (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name: but many, many page views)
  4. 00:38, 19 September 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Peace3 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  5. 22:45, 18 September 2010 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked Reasonandlogic (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Sock of blocked user)
  6. 22:44, 18 September 2010 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked IPleaseu (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Sock of blocked user)

So, who of you is cp:User:KenPrescott? larronsicut fur in nocte 14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now, if I admitted to it, I'd get blocked. SJ Debaser 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not if you give them your Facebook, Wikipedia and 4chan IDs and Ed poor your bra size. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
...and then he still blocks you if it doesn't end in "A". mb 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Jpratt hits back at 'NotManyUsers' with "but many, many page views" - Conservapedia: the clickbots' favourite site! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha implicitly taking credit for a big enough site to draw that many viewers is precious. PZ Myers generates more original content than all of CP does on any given day. The site is growing vapidly! Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Creepy Uncle Ed has always been creatively stupid but Mr. X-Ray is just plain dense.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CP Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) : 41

RW Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days): 169

larronsicut fur in nocte 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They've got 41 active vandals? I'm amazed there's that many. --Gulik (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I think actual editing numbers are Andy, Ken, Ed, TK, Rob, JPatt, TZoran and that new Indian bloke. TerryH has been quiet lately. Does this mean we're unofficially 20 times bigger than CP? Officially, I guess it's 4x. And considering Terry keeps saying we're all socks of the 10 original founders, we must be busy little beavers. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nightmode-2010-09-18.png larronsicut fur in nocte 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a VERY interesting graph. Mostly because there is no unshaded green area, meaning that at least this weekend, there was no time when users were able to sign on and edit. Or in other words, when users signed on, they found themselves instantly locked out of even editing their own user page to say hello. I can see it now:
User: "Hey, there's a typo/glaring mistake/complete lie on CP! Let's fix it!"
CP: "Only registered users may edit!"
User: "Huh, fine then." *registers* "Now let's fix it!"
CP: "Only registered users with additional rights may edit!"
User: "...uh..."
CP: "Nobody knows when users without those rights may edit again. Maybe in five minutes, maybe in five hours..."
User: "Yeah, nevermind. I'll just-"
User: "...yeah, sure, whatever."
Yep, that's how you make a community grow! --Sid (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I wish we knew the date Andy handed the keys to registration/night editing over to TK. Would be wonderful to see a before and after scenario. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if we look at the data over the past six months we can try and guess? When TK opens the SDG again we can check to see who was closest. EddyP (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the logs 30th of November 2008. However he may have only worked out what they do and how to use them recently. - π 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sep 20 Sep 22
CP Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) : 41 34
RW Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days): 169 164

Less than 40? Terry Koeckritz is starving them! Only in the week that never was, the number of active users was lower! larronsicut fur in nocte 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, account creation is open and so far CP is 0 for 2, including Andy blocking somebody for "possibly" being a sock. Paranoia, gotta love it. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Willminator's delusions.[edit]

Not WIGO worthy, but Willminator'simg delusions are fun to read. "You can be anonymous if you wish, but please state the news / newspaper organization or network you work for and whether you are a news anchor, a reporter, or a journalist." This assumes various things:

  • Registration is turned on.
  • The users are allowed to create an "anonymous" username.
  • There are hordes of media folks just itching to log on to CP and express heir faith. --PsyGremlin講話 06:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I was about to mock him for failing at creating a sub-page in his user space, but now I see that it was moved there by Senior Administrator TK. And focusing on the page itself, it gets worse than just your three assumptions: Even if reporters are reading Conservapedia (*snerk*), what are the odds that they will find their way to some nobody's user page? --Sid (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It just reminds me of the fantasy that all too many Christians have that they are somehow oppressed or persecuted against, and have to hold their beliefs in secret from the evil secularists who control everything, you know, in a nation where you have to proclaim loudly your fidelity to Christianity to get elected to any office. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Christianity is a de facto requirement, but I don't believe a creationist will ever be elected prez from now on. Baby steps. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably not, but a Presidential candidate (cough cough Sarah Palin) can be a raging creationist. That's scary enough. Tetronian you're clueless 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


For your entertainment:

XXXXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> to

Q: Is there anyone in the media (including Fox News) who takes an uncompromising Biblical stance in a 6 literal day, recent creation?

A: No, even Fox journos have the odd gray cell between their ears

News organization: RationalWiki

Position: Anchor

Faith: The ultimate ludicrousness of Conservapedia

== Willminator's delusions. ==

Not WIGO worthy, but Willminator's delusions are fun to read. "You can be anonymous if you wish, but please state the news / newspaper organization or network you work for and whether you are a news anchor, a reporter, or a journalist." This assumes various things:

  • Registration is turned on.
  • The users are allowed to create an "anonymous" username.
  • There are hordes of media folks just itching to log on to CP and express their faith.

William L <> to XXXXXXXXXX <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

First all, how did you find my email address? I erased it yesterday from the article. Did you check the history or something? Anyway, I know that there are some who work in the media like Mike Huckabee, Ben Stein, and Melanie Phillips who don't believe in evolution, but I don't know if there's anyone who goes a step further than that. By the way, my question wasn't directed to atheist and / or evolutionist news anchors like you, but I'm glad you emailed me anyway. However, you forgot to tell me the name of the news organization you're anchor of (ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, RN, ESPN, etc.) Are you an anchor for local or national news? Where and when can I watch you?
Take care...

Edit: I see now that you're a troll and a time-waster. I'm going to report you to Conservapedia and about the new Rationalwiki article you've created.

By the way, if you'r an atheist, what proof and evidence can atheism give that proves atheism is 100% accurate and correct?

16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

$20 of internet says the first time through "Will" wrote "I'm going to report you to the FBI", but then decided to tone it down. The Shock quote is a dead giveaway. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a sad day indeed when the sysops are so crazy, the parodists have to resort to antics like this to get noticed. I mean, quoting Ken? C'mon! --PsyGremlin講話 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what the background vetting that got Williminator's foot in the door looked like. Considering the tremendous unlikelihood that a legitimate editor could turn up at CP with the urge to express ideas like this, I'm guessing it involved a lot of winks and nudges. Cheers William L! I look forward to watching your skills increase and your work proceed unabated. Godspeed! Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the silly git on about. He's getting as bad as Terry at remembering lies. "how did you find my email address? I erased it yesterday from the article." Well, sonny boy, looking at the most recent edit to your crapimg it would appear as if you added your e-mail address. So it wasn't that hard to find. Twat. --PsyGremlinParla! 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
"I'm going to report you to Conservapedia..." Oh NOES! What will you do now! LOLOLOLOL --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello troll and anchor of nothing. Just to let you know, liberalism is a death cult that you should get out of. You support the abortion / death of unborn innocent children. You want global warming to kill us all because you lie about its evidence of which there's 0 evidence. In order for evolution to work, one animal must evolve a little better than the rest. What must happen to the rest of them to make this thing work? They got to die or else the new and improved gene is swamped back to the gene code and becomes once again like any ordinary gene. The question is so simple but profound. Did man bring death into the world like the Bible says or did death bring man into the world like evolution says? You support population control. You want for this country to have a weak natural defense. You want terrorists to kill American people by not supporting the Iraq / Afghanistan wars. The greatest atrocities and genocides ever done in history were and are even still done by liberals. Hey, you even want this country to die. I can go on and on forever. No wonder polls show that liberals are more likely to commit suicide than conservatives. It's time for you to turn your life around. Get out of that death cult you are in. Convert to conservatism and Christianity. Leave the dogma of liberalism / atheism. I'll pray for you so that God can change your heart, and so that He can become the love of your life. You'll always be on our mind. Conservapedia will work to change you. We are here to help people struggling in the shackles liberalism. However, I'll still have to report your trolling and time wasting on me to Conservapedia for a start. That's my message for you today and Conservapedia approves this message. God bless you.

P:S: Are you male of female? I ask because of your name.


NO! please don't report me to Conservapædia. Please, anything but that! What makes you think that I care about the United States of America?
If there's 0[sic] evidence of Global Warming then how is it going to kill us?
Whether you like it or not evolution is fact - nature red in tooth and claw!

Death has been in the world since the first predator cell ate the first prey cell

The Bible is a story book written by primitive men to try to explain what they didn't understand and by ruling classes to subjugate the rest.

If the West hadn't started it there would probably be no need for Iraq/Afghanistan (there's more on that but I can't be bothered to write to the brainwashed)

Genocides! Ghenghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin - LIBERALS?????

quote: "Conservapædia will work to change you. " NEWS: Co]nservapædia isn't working for anything! (Except for the humour of watching the inmates in the asylum)


Jayne (The clue's in the name)

18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

NO! please don't report me to Conservapædia. Please, anything but that! (The clue's in the name) 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

There's also this, which I think is hysterical. Tetronian you're clueless 17:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, dear Jesus! The boy writes worse than Ken and JPatt together. Don't they teach paragraphs in home school? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 18:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A love letterimg from a decrepit old man to an old crone. 9Nothign wrong with old crones - Granny Weatherwax is an old crone, and she rocks. As does Susan, of course.) --PsyGremlinZungumza! 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jayne, you should know that "Terry Koeckritz"" is a sad single man in his 60's from (surprise!) the south of the USA living in his mother's basement. He wastes his time blocking people with one hand while shakily masturbating with the other. He has a deep, personal interest in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and loves to complain that people are being horrid to him. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, the link to the Jayne thing above is gone on CP, but I like how the pillars of no name-calling nor gossip shone through in TK's edit. --Leotardo (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jayne Cobb might take violent exception to you saying it's a girl's name. Tracey Smith would probably complain meekly. CS Miller (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
And as for Marion Morrison... well, say no more! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 20:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Or Shirley Crabtree, but that was a fairly common boy's name where he grew up. CS Miller (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming, as would appear to be the case, that Willie isn't Wiki savvy, he's probably wondering how TK knows about "Jayne". This way lies paranoia! 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

More hee!img 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I've sent him a link to Conservapedia:TK. He might read it and take note. (Hi Terry, How's it hangin'? Takes one old crone to know another. And: leave my pussy out of it!) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
ooh! "contact them and let me know please."; "I need help with that section"; "please tell me the states that had joined with Arizona". He is such a dead man - nobody dares make demandsimg on Terry's valuable time! --PsyGremlinSprich! 06:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we sure that Terry is short for Terrence and not Teresa?  Lily Inspirate me. 07:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Desperate times...[edit]

... call for desperate measures, especially where Rob is concerned.

So desperate is he that he uploads pictures of how poor people live, while complaining that Obama is responsible for 10%img on the US's poor. Of course, Rob was clever, he linked directly to the WP pictures, so you couldn't see the evidence.

So what is Rob using to prove how poor the US is? Would you believe a Manila shanty town and a homeless dwelling in another Spanish-speaking country. ]

Journalistic integrity at its very best, Rob. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservative checklist for government: 1. Stay out of our lives. 2. But fix the economy. 3. Don't spend any money doing so. And they wonder why we refer to people like Rob as highly unintelligent. DickTurpis (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I resent that comment. I have never referred to Rob as "highly unintelligent" - "Fucking stupid" - now you're talking. 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I had a fort a lot like that emergente one when I was a kid. Well, I didn't own it, we were using materials from local construction or destruction. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link for Rob (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse him with facts, he's a man on a mission! To paraphrase Goldwater, "lying in the name of insanity is utterly required". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Rob has almost completely taken over MPL. Ken must be most jealous.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
At least is does give CP some semblance of credibility to newcomers. Until they start to read it, of course. But at least the first thing they're going to see isn't flying kitties and cheetahs screwing atheism on the internet. Actually, MPL is now longer than MPR, which is saying something. And borked news appears to be spilling onto MPL now. Must be hard to find things to do, when you've no editors to block. --PsyGremlinSermā! 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Challenge to Rob[edit]

Hey Rob! Come on over and sit down. I'd like to bend your ear a bit. You see you wrote cp:Obamaville, which opens up with "An Obamaville is a tent city created by homeless people" and then you promptly go on to talk about everything else from Coolidge, to Obamunism, to god knows what else.

But you never mention "Obamaville" again??!! What's up with that? Don't you think an article should have some sort of relation to its heading?

Anyway, here's the challenge: Publish photos taken from actual Obamavilles that are actually springing up all over America. And don't try and cheat and upload Manilla slums again. Come on Rob, you're Minister of Propaganda, as well as Director of Counter Surveillance (which leaves you open to a horrible Godwin, by the way), I'm sure it's well within your means to provide the evidence. Even if writing a story that has anything to do with its title isn't. --PsyGremlinParlez! 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at that article I see that Obama is both a socialist and a fascist now. I believe that CP's other stories claim that he's also a Muslim. Which makes him a socialist, fascist Muslim. But I could have sworn that was a suggestion that he was an atheist as well. Perhaps I should read more CP to understand.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Here you go,img Bob, from CP's main page to your eyes. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, he's everything isn't he! Can you find one where he's a communist?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bloody hell, bend over and I'll fan you! :) Nothing specific, but in the Obama article, there is a reference to "Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes calls Obama a 'radical communist'," as well as Rob's screed on "The influence of Maoist thought." --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I come to the CP experts for advice! I'm just trying to think of what other epithets they could slur him with.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, let your commie agitprop run wild on your vandal site, but don't involve me in it. Sure, Obama's economic policies have been a boon to America. Stalin tried the same thing and murdered 100 million people, and now you deny the existence of Manilla slums created by the same socialistic policies. Obamunism has already plunged millions of people into poverty and will enslave millions more, supported by the Marxist garbage you constantly spout. RobSmith (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah PsyGremlin, don't involve Rob in your commie agitprop. Rob has better things to spend his time doing, such as pinning coloured strings on his bedroom wall between screenshots of CP userpages, and gently rocking in the corner. ONE / TALK 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I hadn't realised somebody had created a NRob quote generator. Nice one. Mind you, you also need to include a section that involves a quote from somebody else that is deliberately clipped so that it appears to say the opposite of what the quoter wanted to say. It's the only way to capture Nob-rot's true levels of deceit.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I speet on your agitprop! My lord and Master decreed no such thing exists!. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob is crazy, but he's probably not as viciously stupid as we like to think. He's just using some pretty absurd propaganda. I'm sure Rob brushed off and ignored Bushvilles just fine. Just those crazy leftists and their propaganda. Well, guess what, Rob? Never mind, you probably wouldn't get it because you're so god damn viciously stupid...wait... fuck it. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you have it backwards: Robbie's not crazy, just viciously goddamn stupid.--WJThomas (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Law terms = vandalism?[edit]

CPalmerimg hasn't been paying attention. 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Guess who does as he's told! 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Good thing CP is practically overflowing with good-faith editors...[edit]

...otherwise, banning someone for five years just because he is "possibly a sock of a blocked user" would be really, really stupid... --Sid (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupid compared to what? Didn't all their intellect taken by god in his "intelligent design" process? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk page weirdness[edit]

Maybe someone can explain this to me: An editor leaves a comment on the talk page for Greatest Conservative Songs, explaining why "Happiness is a Warm Gun" isn't a conservative song. Andy deletes the comment. The editor leaves another comment on the talk page, and Andy deletes it again...and then proceeds to remove "Happiness is a Warm Gun" from the list. While I've certainly seen strange and petty behavior from Lord Schlafly, this case doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Baffled me too, No idea what that was all about. 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
He probably just doesn't like the Beatles. I seriously doubt that any music that Andy doesn't like will be on the list. Tetronian you're clueless 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of the greatest conservative songs, I found it funny that "Gimme back my bullets" made the list. It's a song about bullets on the billboard charts, not real bullets. The song has nothing to do with gun rights or ownership. Just a little funny. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Andy seems to think it's possible for a song to be conservative despite the songwriter's actual intent. The actual meaning is secondary to Andy's interpretation. Colonel of Squirrels你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Reminds of the '50 greatest conservative songs of all time' where they put Bodies by the Pistols at number 8. Anyone who knows anything about John Lydon and the Pistols and more particularly about the very sad (but true) story behind the song knows it is anything but conservative.20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage is becoming totally bloggified[edit]

Not that it's a big surprise, but Mainpageleft and Mainpageright are becoming indistinguishable from each other, despite Mainleft still saying "Today's Featured Articles". Those "featured articles" include CP stats, a bit about pro-life school events, and then news items about Lisa Murkowski and DADT. It's good to see them confront that with so few contributors, and time-wasting essays and tom-foolery, that they can only make Mainpage a cheap, poorly-written imitation of the Drudge Report. Other "Featured articles" are a message to Richard Dawkins (who must find it amusing how obsessed Ken is with him, a tacit recognition that he's effective or why bother), bible verses and their link farm that rarely changes. The one article of the week is Obamaville, an article that has not one example of an Obamaville nor any evidence the term is in usage anywhere but on CP. lol. --Leotardo (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I love that MPR gets filled with utter shit so quickly these days that they had to designate space at the top of MPL to give more 'important' news stories a little longer air-time. It started with just one top story and yesterday it hit three stories. Before long it'll just be another MPR, replete with the same old garbage and Obama pictures, perhaps with a featured article tacked on the bottom. ONE / TALK 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ken should create a Mainpagemiddle and make it his baby. Go on Ken, you know CP needs a Mainpagemiddle. Think of all the new content you could plug, right there on the main page! ONE / TALK 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with that is Ken would require wiki formatting skills, something he has demonstrated that he possesses none of. Does he even know how to make a table? - π 23:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This has really been one of my pet criticisms of how CP is run. There is no control or consensus over what goes on the MainPage. It's just a free for all where any one of the Fab Few throws in his pet interests. At the start Justine tried to impose some sense on the Popular Articles section and for a while we had a committee deliberating over the featured article (or whatever it was called) but even then Joaquin would often over-ride the others with his latest scrap-book page. Dean kept some control over the archiving MPR but basically nobody cares once their own puff has moved down a couple of notches. That's why the MainPage is often so ridiculously long on either/both sides. It's basically Andy's own fault for not setting any sort of standards for the housekeeping side which Ed Poor so belittles. CP was always destined to fail once it decied that it would organise things differently from WP because nobody really knew what was expected, so it all turned into a horrible mess. Andy didn't like a hierarchical category structure as he thought it would confuse his home-schoolers and article titles were originally set as camel-case which made it more difficult to wiki-link. Essays, debates and lecture courses were mingled with mainspace articles rather than having their own namespaces and there are still the redundant usergroups from the team contests. Finally anyone who wanted to actually create encyclopedic articles has either been banned or forced out so it's no wonder that we now have spaghetti-blogging. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 20:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The biggest fact is that Andy can't manage to save his life, and the other sysops, as has been mentioned, don't give a fuck about CP, outside their own tiny spheres of interest and blocking editors. Hell, I remember myself and Addision fixing every move request on the list. Only nod from Andy was congratulating me on a "good block." Likewise, with removing {{fact}} tags. Despite frequent pleas for help, not one of them moved a muscle to help. In fact, Terry just said that it was something like "a trick by liberals to keep us busy" and "housekeeping is not in our remit," or some such bullshit. It's not even a case of too many cooks, it's too many delivery boys, slumped behind the wheels of their trucks and the kitchen standing empty. --PsyGremlinTala! 20:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Basically, too many wannabe chiefs and not enough subservient injuns. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The mainpage has gone from being run on the principles of anarchy to the twisted thoughts of insanity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a bunch of schoolkids, all jostling for position. "Read me!" "No, read me!" "Pick me! Pick me!" --PsyGremlinParla! 22:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm just hoping we get more of Ken's god-awful writing where he repeats the same phrase three or four times. Think "screechy monkeys" or, my personal favorite, this mess where he creates two separate "featured articles" about the same thing, repeating ad nauseum that atheists are "quarrelsome" and "socially challenged/deficient" while daring Richard Dawkins to...haha...quarrel with a socially deficient man who spends 36 hours writing nonsense instead of engaging with the world. sweet the irony. This is also the example of why I read them for the laughs. --Leotardo (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


WillS just got night editing, which it looks like he wasn't likely all that desperate to do since last editing on May 23, or 2 days after signing up. Homeskuller, right? Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even better, user:Davidkon gets rights on 2 Sept, with even fewer edits to his name. Altho he might be a student. --PsyGremlinSprich! 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Psy, guess what? Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm... it's only 3 months to Xmas? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The broken Bicycle[edit]

I don't get it?img How is this a conservative parable? AceDrumcode 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I can explain - it's actually more of an allegory than a parable. You see, all the pedestrians are the poor folk who like to get subprime mortgages. The bicycle messenger is a hard working businessman, who gives out loans. Now, one day, one of the poor folk couldn't pay back their mortgage, and thus tripped the bicycle messenger. The businessman is still ok and rich, but his business has been ruined. So all the other poor folk have to contribute money to get his business up and running again. --Composure1 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That is pure brilliance! Tetronian you're clueless 03:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh come on, it was of course This super hero what saved the day.Oldusgitus (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It should have ended with "And then I made the liberal cyclist pay for my shoe repairs." AceDrumcode 03:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Round these parts it'd more likely have been that the messenger approached the lights at red and cycled across the footpath, causing mayhem and much fist shaking before flicking the finger and going on his (or commonly her) way. 03:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
"The bicycle crashed, destroying it beyond repair." Schlafly lies. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
True, if it was that frail, it shouldn't have been in use on the road anyhow. 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Pah, around these parts, bicyclists have no rights. I was ridin' down the street one day, and a man who was driving in the opposite lane wanted to turn into the perpendicular street that I was next to. He proceeded to almost hit me, honk, give me the "I'm watching you" sign, and yell "Watch where you're going!" And if I did get hit, it could very possibly be my fault; the cops in my town have nothing better to do. My friend was walking around downtown the other day, and a cop came up to him, asked him what he was doing, and then asked if he had any money on him - because to enjoy the downtown area of our city, complete with a small park, one must always be shopping. Dictator.gif Oh...and my city ain't run by liberals, that's for sure. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad, around my parts if a cop (especially a Metro cop) asks if you have money, it's because he's expecting you to give it to him. --PsyGremlinTala! 07:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Restore Steven Baldwin. --Opcn (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Is that a common Americanism to use the term "bicyclist" as opposed to the less clunky "cyclist"?  Lily Inspirate me. 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Given Schlafly's raging hard-on for the superior "conciseness" of American English, someone ought to burn a sock and point that out to him. When Terry Koeckritz's not online, of course. ONE / TALK 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a second. He bumps somebody's foot, falls off and totals his bike? What the fuck was it made of - balsa wood? --PsyGremlinParla! 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he was just going really really, really fast. ONE / TALK 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Approaching an intersection? Oh wait! That makes it the perfect Andy parable - blunder forward as fast as possible, ignoring obstacles in your path. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"And that pedestrian's name, was Albert Einstein." Good find Ace! Conservative parables is my favorite CP article, and this is again a brilliant addition. It's not really a parable, it doesn't make any sense if you put any thought into it, it just has this vague sense that maybe justice has been served. --GTac (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Justice? By making everybody pay, except the guy who caused the accident? Oh wait... he's talking about Enron. --PsyGremlinTal! 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely this is socialism, wherein everyone helps the man buy some more balsawood for a new bike rather than the guy who broke it? EddyP (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. It's saying that conservatives are willing to donate to people who are not the cause of their own misfortune. It also implies that they are willing to pay for those willing to get back to work, but I don't think Andy intended that. -Lardashe
What Andy doesn't realize is that the cyclist was me. For years my sole source of income has been getting in bicycle "accidents" with this trick breakaway cycle which comes apart in several places when I throw a lever. I can usually con at least 6 or 7 people out of $20 each when people feel guilty about my "destroyed" bicycle. I can usually do at least 3 or 4 accidents a day, and have yet to be called out on it. It's amazing how few people are suspicious of a bicycle that gets totaled merely by falling over at a decent speed. I guess Americans just don't use them much these days. Anyway, good parable. DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a pretty good grift. Let me know if you should need a wing man. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't really sound conservative to me at all, except everyone giving their money were being charitable. That's assuming all the people were conservative and not atheists or something. Also, how does one run over and crash by hitting someone's foot, when the handlebars would pretty much dictate a collision? In any case, if it were bad enough to wreck a bike, the person's foot would also be mangled. But, as good conservative folk, they would leave the person there on the sidewalk all crippled and moaning in pain (not to mention the cyclist would have flown quite a distance, seeing as how his bike is destroyed so he'd have broken limbs). Leaves you asking more questions after reading it than before. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy got some of the details wrong. For instance, running over a foot will almost certainly entail the pedal hitting the guy's leg, potentially doing significant harm. That's a lawsuit right there so it's best to smash into something swerving to avoid an unobservant pedestrian (of which there are plenty). That also makes you seem like more of a hero for doing yourself harm in an effort to avoid harming others. Women are particularly good in this role, as it makes your swerve seem somehow chivalrous, and plays on people's sexism as people are more likely to blame the woman for not knowing how to cross a street without causing an accident. Pay dirt. DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Conservapedia. Another day, another fail. And in other news, it would appear as if "Professor" Schlafly had forgotten all about his "Course on the Unborn Child"img And still no sign of the AmGovt course, after it's "week's break." --PsyGremlinTal! 13:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe for minor lulz, we can revise the parable (if you can even call it that) to reflect Conservapedia's actual version of it. For example, the pedestrian was obviously a homeless liberal atheist homosexual bent on causing chaos, the donators prayed in a circle and money magically fell from the sky to help Andy buy a new bike the poor cyclist down on his luck. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn, Psy, I'd forgotten all about Andy's horrifically misguided class on the unborn! Well, we all knew that was going to go the way of Critical Thinking in Math, but I am wondering what the deal with American Government is. I still suspect it's happening in the classroom and not online, but I'm not sure. Anyone care to ask Andy? DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The only good think about that piece on nonsensical shite is that it presents an excellent opportunity to use the rather splendid phrase "Christ on a bike". So, Jesus H Christ on a bike, what the fuck is that shit? It's bollocks on so many levels. All have been pointed out, but how on earth does hitting someone's foot result in a totally unharmed cyclist, but a bike that is smashed beyond repair? The Assfly isn't even trying any more. Top work above the the Enron & bail-out comparisons though. PS. Only the truly deranged use the phrase "bicyclist". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair (!?) to Andy, I would presume that riding over someone's foot wouldn't actually cause the damage but would make the rider lose control and then run into something which caused the damage, although unless the cyclist was going dangerously fast it would have to be a pretty cheap bike to do any damage. The worst I can imagine is a bent front wheel unless the bike then plunged off an enormous cliff or was driven over by a truck. The story is so preposterous that it shows that Andy probably hasn't ridden a bike since he had one with three or four wheels, which is probably why he refers to the rider as a bicyclist. Of course if you ride a bike you'd know that it's almost impossible to ride over someone's foot unless they had stuck their leg out at a ridiculous angle. Bikes have handlebars and you would hit someone's body at the same time as you could run over the foot and end up with quite a different incident. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I ride a road bike daily, someone would need to wear a huge fuckall boot in order to make you loose control. I occasionally get forced to run a curb by a stupid fucking pedestrian and unless I go at an angle greater than 60 deg my wheel goes right up and I have plenty of control. Even at about ten miles an hour getting rejected from the curb just mean I pull a foot out from the basket on the pedal and put it on the curb to avoid eating shit. Really unless this guy is hauling ass I can't imagine his bike going out further than his body. Now had the pedestrian kicked out his back tire... --Opcn (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
He might have been one of those hipster assholes riding a fixed gear with cleats. This story is a pleasure to have read - it's reassuring to know that the proles will immediately kick in $20 each to get the messenger back on track so he doesn't inconvenience the lawyers and corporate bigwigs he serves. Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The idea of totaling a fixed gear bike beyond repair is even more fun. Basically, the guy bent the frame, which, in all likelihood, didn't happen. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The other thing that doesn't make sense (to me, at least) is that the corner is crowded, and the pedestrian is only going slightly into the street. To me, that means putting maybe one foot down onto the roadway. Even assuming that, somehow, the pedestrian did not see the cyclist and the cyclist did not see the pedestrian, this means that the cyclist must have been cycling only a few inches from the curb in order to run over the pedestrian's foot. If he's that close, he's in danger of clipping the guy with his handlebars, anyway, and, indeed, if the corner's crowded, clipping all the other folk on the edge of the pavemant, so he was kinda stupid for cycling that close to the pavement. So the lesson in that parable, to me, is that if you do a stupid thing, which results in your own property being destroyed, and quite possibly causing injury to someone else, you're still the victim, and thus should feel free to take advantage of equally stupid people offering you compensation for your own stupidity. (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the pedestrian was this guy.--WJThomas (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I keep thinking about how it would even be possible to "total" a bicycle, short of the abovementioned truck driving over it. The term applies more to cars, where if the cost of repairing damage is higher than the street value of the vehicle, it is "totalled". Even that doesn't make it "unrepairable". What are you gonna break on a bike anyway? A bent wheel or damaged quick-release, bent brake lever, scuffed pedal? A bike simply is too light to do itself any real damage - not enough kinetic energy. Andy is an idiot and a liar. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We're totally over-analysing this. The correct way to view this is: Andy said it, ergo it's true. --PsyGremlin講話 21:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this twunt of a bicyclist have had his own insurance instead of relying on the charidee of others? (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember which 'article' it was in, but I remember Andy equating reducing energy consumption with being "anti-life". So by not driving a massive 4x4 (AmE: SUV) the bi-cyclist is a MURDERER! Cantabrigian (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got it!The Cyclist represents the banks, He isn't doing any actual work but he is helping the real workers (the lawyers and business executives) to get their work done, and he is vital. In order to serve man kind more completely he took a bit of a risk getting close to the curb and it was the actions of one stupid pedestrian who took too much realestate that toppled the bankcyclist and because the bankcyclist was doing so much and going so fast it ended in ruin, ruin that could not be gotten past except that all ov the other pedestrians pitched in to bail him out. Those weren't twenty dollar bills they were miniature TARPs. --Opcn (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One Word for each CP Sysop[edit]

The thought just occurred to me that you could probably describe each active CP sysop with just one word, and it would define them closely enough that dedicated CP-watchers could guess the sysop from the word. So here goes. See how many you guess from my one word descriptions, and maybe make some suggestions:

Inadequate Karajou
Liar TK
Obsessive Conservative
Solipsistic Andy
Conniving TerryH
Creepy Ed Poor
Stupid JPatt

Yes, I know the last one could be any, but this sysop deserves it more than any, I think. Select the text in the black boxes to reveal the answers! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! 7 for 7! And I didn't peek. Honest! Altho I had to Google "Solipsistic". --PsyGremlinSprich! 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Full marks for me too. The trouble is, some of them are so accurate, it cuts down the chances for the others. Remarkable quite how well one words sums up each person. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
When you look at the pool of talent that's left running the place, is it any wonder the place is in a complete shambles? --PsyGremlinPrata! 23:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
3 out of the 4 I tried. Liar, Obsessive and Creepy are obvious; Stupid is a fucking trap. mb 00:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Argh, only 5 out of 7. Mixed up stupid and inadequate. Tetronian you're clueless 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the best critique comes from their fellow traveler Eric Erickson at, who calls them Conservative Cultists. That was in 2007, and a perfect description. If Jim DeMint told CP Sysops to drink arsenic-laced lemonade they'd all be dead by now. --Leotardo (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seven sysops... seven words... hmmm.... hmmm.... it's just like with the seven deadly sins! I wonder if we could also match up each actual deadly sin with a sysop. --Composure1 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a toughy...Ed could be either "Sloth" or "Lust", Andy's got a lot of "Pride" going on, "Wrath" could be TeeKay or Karajou, hmmm...--WJThomas (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Redo quiz with the seven deadlies! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The 7 Deadly Sins Version[edit]

Lust Ed Poor
Gluttony Conservative
Greed TK
Laziness RobS
Wrath Karajou
Envy Jpatt
Pride Andy

This was a bit harder, you might have to think out the box for some of them. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I cheated, you nailed it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You all missed out RobS, for whom of course the perfect word is "Paranoid". ONE / TALK 08:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Damn, yes. Paranoid would have been perfect. I only got 4/7 on the deadly sins: I had the unpromoted swabbie as Envy, for instance. This is fun! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I would have though Ed Poor or Karajou for laziness, and Andy for envy. TK for wrath? They all apply to multiple sysops. EddyP (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't even try this time. I would have guessed Lust but none of the others. Mr Decker is right, Envy could be the Karajerk, but it could also be Andy. Laziness could also be Andy, and of course Ed, and arguably Ken on some level. I guess we'd need better sins for this. mb 10:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I got three right (though I didn't spend much time/brainpower on my guesses since I hadn't had my caffeine yet). Interestingly, I had Envy and Pride exactly switched. --Sid (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's what made this so hard, each sin probably applies to more than one sysop - to explain the logic I used: Lust that should be obvious; Gluttony - as in a glutton for punishment; Greed - he wants all the power; Laziness - this was a hard one, went with repeating the same stuff over and over; Wrath - should be easy, Mr Angry; Envy - wants to be Greed, but isn't; Pride - always comes before a fall. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol, your explanation makes it even funnier! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I heard the news today, oh boy...[edit]

Not worthy of a WIGO, but apparently the standards for what qualify as "In the News" includes getting a post deleted at one of the greatest repositories of inanity on the internet. MDB (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha hilarious. How does Ken know what the question was about... unless he posted it?! Which he is quite apt to do, given his penchant for wasting time on networking sites. And now, having been spurned by Yahoo Answers, he is whinging about it on CP. Does he have a known alias on the site? ONE / TALK 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well from reading his post, he says "deleted a question relating to 'Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women'", so it was clearly him linkspamming Yahoo and either they're wise to his bullshit, or took one look at it and went, "Whoa! This is too crazy for us." Like you said, when Yahoo Answers starts rejecting your stuff... hoo boy. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo! Answers is community moderated -- basically, a question gets deleted when enough people flag it. I think there's also a factor with some users being more trusted than others. In other words, Yahoo! itself had nothing to do with it, beyond developing the moderation system. MDB (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
RationalWiki has recently learned that notorious socially-challenged man Ken DeMyer is significantly less appealing to users of Yahoo! Answers with regards to a question about Atheism appearing to be significantly less appealing to women. A question in regards to atheism and marriageability was deleted on a certain website beginning with "Y" VIDEO Stay tuned for further developments with regards to Ken DeMyer's asshattery on the internet! ONE / TALK 13:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It's kinda funny how Ken basically shouts on the main page "Hey, I tried to game the search engine system by spamming links to my pet articles on Yahoo Answers and utterly failed at it!". Seriously, when your spam campaign fails, don't make it worse by bragging about it. *shakes head* --Sid (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No, no, it's win-win for Ken: if it works, he gets another opportunity to link-spam his "essays," and if he fails, he gets another chance to call various internet organizations liberal and atheistic. Tetronian you're clueless 16:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's also a win-win for us, really: If he succeeds, he will make more people check out Conservapedia, thus sabotaging the image of Republicans. If he fails, he'll just masturbate on the mainpage, making it yet a bit more stupid. --Sid (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah. Funny how both Ken and RW consider the same thing winning because of our different perspectives. Tetronian you're clueless 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
What's more worrying is not the link-spamming so much, but the fact that Andy et al are allowing Ken to use Ken's garbage to linkspam. I mean, surely Andy can't be going, "Ah! The transitional animal the flying kitty squadron is just the thing that will bring converts flocking to our door." True, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but when your editor base is 6 sysops and a couple of parodists, surely there are better articles you can get Ken to link spam? --PsyGremlin講話 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No, there aren't. Andy's editor base, as you yourself point out, is six sysops, five of whom don't actually write anything, and a couple of parodists. Any article by anyone not Ken is almost certainly parody. mb 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When I read these last few comments, I was suddenly reminded of the Star Trek Next Gen episode Remember Me. Basically, crewmembers keep disappearing from the Enterprise, and nobody thinks anything is out of the ordinary except the doctor. Eventually, just Captain Picard and Dr. Crusher are left, and she says to him "It's all perfectly logical to you, isn't it? The two of us roaming about the galaxy in the flagship of the Federation. No crew at all." He replies "We've never needed a crew before."
We now have life imitating art. Just a few days ago there was an entire page of recent changes with nothing except Kendrivel, then a while after that, an entire page with only edits by sysops. Even Andy's attempt to strongarm his homskollarz into helping out on CP for extra credit hasn't worked. One can only assume he's sat at home thinking to himself how orderly and perfect his blog has become. Of course, at the end of the Trek episode everything turned out to be from a bubble universe collapsing. All in all, a perfect metaphor for CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you're right! What a perfect description of CP. Fawlty (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Conservative Gentleman at Andy's blog[edit]

In regards to your rant, which I skimmed, it's clear that you are 95% in support of girls baking cookies and being raped by their husbands, as advocated by Saint Phyliss herself. Don't worry, some more suckling at Andy's teat and you'll get to 100%.

As for the why? Well, it's because you make it so fucking easy, that's why. As evidenced by your little hissy fit (been taking lessons from Terry, I see).

"don't even try to mess with me because you'll regret it ok." Red flag, bull - need I say more?

love and kisses. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

He's unbelievable:

Incidentally, I note your interest on CP in immigration. Where does it say: "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", I wonder*. Hypocrisy, thy name is republican.


Jayne (still not my real name)


Ad hominems and strawmen are all you can do against me now??? BTW, I have a lot of other interests too and there are a bunch of places in NYC.

16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Actually, it seem to be in NJ. CS Miller (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The state boundary is looped around the statue It's an exclave of NY in NJ. 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
From your WP link:"The historical developments which led to this construction created the rare situation of an exclave of one state, New York, being situated in another, New Jersey." 16:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Nope, it's New York, as evidenced by this wonderful comment by Andypants: The Statute (sic) of Liberty, located entirely within the territorial waters of New Jersey, but on an island that is part of New York.img Wait??? I'm quoting Andy to make a point??? Oh dear Jesus! Kill me now! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The WP article also says Liberty Island is located completely within the boundaries of Jersey City, New Jersey, but its built portions and docks fall under the jurisdiction of the City of New York, of which they wholly are part, which is basically the same (depending on what you mean by built portions, is that the statue and its plinth?). Ok, I mis-read the WP article when I skimmed it. Mea Culpa. CS Miller (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I recall being told in public school (in NJ) that Liberty Island was in NJ. Typical liberal public school teacher lying to me. Tetronian you're clueless 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I smell Poe. Either way, Terry's going to fuck him over now, because he's engaging with the cyber terrorists. /sarcasm Maybe we should call the FBI, because he totally like wandalised our wiki. /sarcasm off --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't think poe so. He's got several months of reasonable (by CP standards) contribs back to May. 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Where's this stuff coming from? Where's the weird threat at the top of the thread? Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
User talk:‎‎ deleted this page. 17:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Dear Andru MacStupid: The 'Statute' of Liberty is something you have never read - The United States Constitution. Cheers. Jimaginator (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S: From now on, any email I receive from you I'll email it to TK. I'm going to do that with your previous emails. I will also put all your emails to my profile to mock you and you can't do nothing about that.

Well, that brings me out in a cold sweat. The thought of Terry reading my emails! 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

What a little wanker. So much for being able to stand up for himself. Still, I'm sure Terry will be upstanding for him. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Truly a thing of beauty[edit]

I'll say one thing about Terry Koeckritz - he never fails to rise to the occasion. Will comes running to him for solace and all Terry does is ratchet up the paranoia several notches.img Ah, so convincing Terry, if only you weren't an agnostic...
And then - it must be my birthday - he once again spouts the idiotic lieimg about "just a handful with dozens of user names each." You keep believing that, each of us has 10 socks, just so we can outnumber the dying CP. He doesn't even have to try and think up new shit anymore.
Right now, Tewwy-wewwy I could hug you, but I'd probably catch something. --PsyGremlinSprich! 22:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You should be more worried about giving him a hard-on. Well... as close as he can get to one these days. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm partly to blame: I sent:

Thanks for your email, Wilhemina,

Well, that brings me out in a cold sweat. The thought of a little man in a little city in a nowhere state reading my emails! Oh, don't mock me please, the thought of being mocked by an American infant fills me with dread.

Did you actually read our article about him (click here)? The man's a worm, lower than the belly of a snake.



in reply to the previous email 4 times from 4 different email addys. 22:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
email 4 times from 4 different email addys Well, he's certainly got the right level of paranoia for CP. This boy could go far. --PsyGremlinSermā! 22:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for boring y'all with this crap but the latest from Willhemina struck me as amusing:

Do you know in what city and in what state I live? How can you make those assumptions about where I live? I doubt some of the things in that TK article are true, especially since that article was created by a troll. Even if they're true, that doesn't answer his points and success. At the end, the article is all composed of ad hominems and straw men. No substance...TK is my best friend from Conservapedia and he's the one who has helped me out the most in my articles. Every email you send to me from now on, as I said previously, I'll foward it to TK and others. By the end of this week I hope to get a response. I think you want trouble seeing that you like to troll around. Why did you send me the same email 4 times? Are you really being serious? One day I'm going to sue you. When I become a politician, I'm going to use my power to destroy you and you'll regret ever messing with me. In fact, I'll find out exactly where you live and you'll have to face my wrath. By the way, is Theresa your real name? Take care...

With best friends like that, who needs enemies? 21:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Out of curiosity, how old would one guess lil Willie is? Based on his writing, I'm going with somewhere around 12. DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. He's either:
  • 12, in which case, you don't want Terry as a "best friend."
  • trolling his nipples off over there
  • seriously batshit insane, in which case he'll be a sysop before the year is out.

I mean, really. "When I become a politician, I'm going to use my power to destroy you" Which goes to show that wanting to be a politician should automatically exclude you from becoming a politician. --PsyGremlinParlez! 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Terry Koeckritz[edit]

Just so you know, you fucked up your stupid Newark schools news item. The Newark you wikilinked to is the British Newark-upon-Trent. Idiot. Oh, and Newark isn't on the A1 (lol), it's on the A5. You're welcome. ONE / TALK 12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Newark is on the A1 (or rather just off it, since the by-pass was built). The A5 runs from London to Holyhead (or vice-versa), nowhere near Newark. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Shhh. I was playing puppetmaster. ONE / TALK 12:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, is Newark really spending $22k per pupil per year? That's a lot! ħumanUser talk:Human 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Not compared to everywhere else in NJ. Plus, only half of them graduate. Tetronian you're clueless 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
JPatt's comment about prayer never working is a pricless piece of self-parody. And I'm glad that somebody has cleared up the Newark issue because I've been looking for a Newark all round the A5 and come up with nothing. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andy[edit]

Fuck you, Andy. Newark is one of the poorest neighborhoods in NJ, and the school system is atrocious. Governor Christie is slashing as much school funding as he can reach, and the quality of our public schools is suffering as a result. Newark was already bad, and I can't even imagine what the students and teachers there have to suffer through now. You really think Bibles and classroom prayer are what they need? You really do need to step outside and see how the people in your own fucking backyard live every once and a while. </tasteless rant> Tetronian you're clueless 13:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea that Andy's idea of charity, is something akin to his idea of chivalry - completely the opposite to what the rest of the world thinks. We already know from his parable that he wouldn't spare a dime, so a guy could buy some smokes, so that rules out giving anything to pan-handlers - "they'll just spend it on booze." Andy would probably chop his own legs off before spending a day helping in a shelter, or soup kitchen, or Habitat for Humanity. Then there was that debate with PJR a few years ago, when Andy defended his position that all the desperate, hungry and downtrodden needed was Andy's prayer, not his money. No, Andy's charity stops at dropping a dollar in the collection plate on a Sunday and then feeling all smug for the rest of the week. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside, while I was looking for the screencap above, the archives are an amazing place. Acres and acres of red-linked user names lie there like Flanders' poppies. Especially going back to 2008 - the only blue names are the Fab Five just about. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
QFT. The Flanders' Poppies analogy is brilliant. EddyP (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Anchorage spends something like $20K/student --Opcn (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Andy should go to some of the poorest schools armed with some bibles and teach them properly? How about some of the schools in south central LA? Also, as he wouldn't want any kind of gun control, all the pupils should be allowed to bring a mostly defensive weapon of gun into his classroom. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Newark non-sequitur[edit]

If only the entire debacle had been about a town named about Newport instead-"Our shopping centre is quite new, big leeks will inspire you". Watch and enjoy. DogPMarmite Patrol 11:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New breast cancer link discovered![edit]

I wonder when they will cover this on CP! --GTac (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see it now: "But, darling, it's good for you...!" --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 06:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
And it doesn't lead to the need for an abortion. Everybody wins! Cantabrigian (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, so do I believe Snopes or do I believe RW? Hard choice here Oldusgitus (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Shhhh! Don't go and blow the best opportunity I... er... I mean a friend of mine is ever going to have to get head. :) --PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Psy, if I weren't single and middle-aged I'd be using at every chance I got. If I can't have it why should the rest of you???Oldusgitus (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I, for one, believe Dr. Lictepeen over Snopes any day.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It might be an interesting hoax to write up, actually. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz *must* be a parodist[edit]

Besides the funny typo that calls Andrew Cuomo "Cumo", this proves TK is a parodistimg. Why else would TK add a completely made-up line like, "The liberals have not thrown their worst mud yet....saying that Paladino once saw a newspaper photo of George W. Bush [huh?] and clubs baby seals for fun in his spare time...." WTF?! Also, that Quinnipac poll he cites was itself disputed by Paladino's campaign. Nice work, TK - gross lies and old inaccurate news (a new poll has since come out). We couldn't do it better ourselves. --Leotardo (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What you need to take into account, is that TK is writing for our benefit these days. There are no editors left anymore for him to bully, and even masturbating over his block log gets tedious after a few years. Now he makes up bullshit and masturbates to the combined sounds of us going, "WTF?" and Andy's silence. (ok, technically one sound, but I was trying to illustrate a point.) --PsyGremlinFale! 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that TK is a parodist in the way that we normally refer to them, but he certainly isn't working in the best interests of The Project. Many of you enjoy computer games and TK has made CP his own virtual-reality, role-playing, sadistic shoot 'em up. Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Psy and Genghis' impressions are right on. Now that there are so few left to toy with on Conservapedia without the final coup de grâce of unseating Andy or otherwise delivering CP's death blow, Terry's gotta reach his tentacles out to places where people will pay attention to him, even if all he gets is negative attention. My suggestion is to stop giving him what he thrives on, if for no other reason than when he gets emboldened enough to reach out to us it's sometimes in the context of him hurting people. We're just reinforcing his bad behavior. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want to talk about him, that's fine, but I wouldn't prescribe that for the rest of us based upon your assumption that he is just dancing for RationalWiki. They *do* get hits on that Mainpage that aren't RW click-throughs. The "Stop talking about [insert CP regular here]" meme is getting old. --Leotardo (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Leotardo. It's true that we feed TK and the rest sometimes, but I find it interesting what they do. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Having some fun with conservapedia[edit]

Not sure where to post this, but what do you all say we teach Andy a desperately unlearned lesson of the true laws of cyberspace. He is a rich man, he really enjoys and is used to getting his way, everything he wants, something for nothing. Other people have worked hard to keep his rotten faggot-ass alive, but in the ultimate hypocritical irony, degenerates like him bend the rules of their precious Bible and cock-sucking idealogy when it suits them, such as condemning science for the crimes of its inherent blasphemy yet using computer and internet technology to continue imposing their garbage.

He wants people to edit his site for free, to promote an extreme greed-revolving ideology. If he was a man with honor, he would honor his beliefs and properly pay his editors compensation, in accordance with the rules of the capitalist free market.

He also runs a public website and allows his shit to get out there for free. So I suggest we all get together and give him a taste of his own stale piss, and DOS his site, or any kind of flooding/automated viewing mechanism. Lets see all his money drained to pay for all the massive bandwidth costs we are so generous enough to give him and push his site's Alexa ranking way up ;)

What do you all say? Its nothing illegal. All we are doing is accessing his webpages, and doing it a lot, quite often. He will be so pleased with how immersed thousands of people are with his big wiki :)

Lets show this motherfucker that retards like him will not survive in the computer age.--Dinko (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do that kind of stuff, go to 4chan or ED. RW is not the place to organise vandalism and the like (and frowns upon it). EddyP (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you just being a pussy, or suggesting it is wiser to let him continue making a genuine idiot out of himself, which he is more than capable of accomplishing almost indeifinitely?Dinko (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Now that CP is no longer a lol factory, I wouldn't mind it being systematically destroyed from the outside. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
What Eddy is saying is that RW is not a vandal site and does not co-ordinate any attacks. Schlafly & co are doing quite well enough on their own to drag CP further into the mire without our assistance. 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
When a guy goes from Harvard to teaching a bunch of kids in a dingy church basement, I think there's a pretty high chance that he hasn't always gotten his way. Vulpius (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
But once again, that is not something we engage in, or encourage. As has been said, 4chan or ED are the best place to look. In fact, Anon have already targeted CP on several occasions. Either way, even a DDoS attacking is minimal compared to the damage Andy is inflicting on his own blog. It's an old creature, and now it's blind and deaf and can only make a high-pitched whining sound. Let it die in peace, ok? --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I understand. I just wanted to make Andy flip out again and watch the idiot commit more FBI incidents. I would go to 4chan and ED but ew, I shudder at the thought of joining any kind of fight with those freaks. Does anyone have any information about the previous DOS attacks? How did it all go down? Did Andy call the FBI? LOL. I would have to disagree about RW not condoning vandalism as you guys often self-admittedly troll CP, but oh well. Good work on the site and please keep us posted on all the comedy happenings on CP. Even if you dedicate all your free time to obsessing over Andy and his site, you are still ten thousand times more respesctable and productive than that nasty piece of assfly shit is.Dinko (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Oh that's a bit harsh to say we spend all our spare obsessing over Andy, sometimes we obsess over TK, or even - if we want a holiday - a Whorehouse of Knowledge. All I can for certain re the FBI, is somebody did a FOIA request, and there's no record of them receiving a complaint from Andy. about anything. Ever. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally Andy causes his own DOS attacks, by writing something so unforgivably stupid that a popular blogger picks up on it and crowds come to gawk. EddyP (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should reconsider our position on the promotion and organization of vandalism on RW against CP. We don't have to explicitly condone it, but we don't have to explicitly decry it either. Or we could make a case for both, let the mob choose sides and co-exist. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree there. Sure, back in the day, people here might have condoned wandalism - if rearranging a few electrons can be called wandalism. But that was back when RW existed only because of CP - and look at how that's come back to burn us. The only notable publication CP has ever had, lists us a vandal site, which still gets thrown in our faces by a certain fucktard. Now we are so much more than that, we are bigger in terms of numbers than CP, our focus is shifting. The last thing we need is to get involved with shits and giggles vandalism, that will only harm our reputation. leave it to Anon, they do a good job when they put their minds to it. --PsyGremlinPraat! 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
lol don't worry it wasn't an insult in the least, anyone doing their part in running over assfly is doing humankind a favor, and has my respect. But, are you telling me that Andy lied about phoning the FBI? I'm not sure if this makes him less of a douche or a bigger one. What a fucking poser! God knows how someone with such mental problems was able to become a practicing attorney and get that many cookies... it scares me that he tried to run for president.Dinko (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You lost me at using "faggot-ass" and "cock-sucking" as insults. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO, "fag" is a perfectly acceptable insult but "faggot" is pushing it (zing?!). Nothing wrong with "cock-sucking", though. It's gender neutral enough. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
GRR that was directed towards Andy, not you guys! You filthy politically-correct librulls!!Dinko (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I don't think Human thought it was directed at you, he was just using his presumption of your homophobia as a cause to dismiss your arguments. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see, RW does not condone vandalism at all, but it doesn't really condemn it either. Certain RW members have posed as people who buy into the bullshit spouted on CP and posted parody, but the only thing that the RW community, as a whole, has really done is remark on how much of that parody remains seemingly undetected and also how much is then implicitly or even explicitly approved by Andy, et al. Indeed, one of the most obvious and successful parodists currently on CP is actually one of the very few, if not only person to actually be banned at RW for any appreciable length of time (who isn't a drive-by vandal or spambot, that is), yet is a self-styled 'senior admin', who is arguably only second to Andy himself, over at CP. The more obvious vandalism, such as blanking pages, or replacing it with gibberish, is seen as completely pointless by most, if not all, of the RW community. So, frankly, dunno about Human, but I am dismissing Dinko's argument that RW condones vandalism because it's...erm...wrong. (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually we do condemn wandalism. Attacking a site makes us look like the bad guys, and we've strived to knock this "vandal site" reputation on the head for a while now. It doesn't help when morons who use terms like "faggot" and "cock sucker" come here and try and organise attacks. Why don't you fuck off to 4chan where your notable lack of braincells will be welcomed with open arms? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but collaberating with a site known for sick fucks who download child porn kinda makes my stomach turn. I'd sooner kiss Schlafly's ass...Dinko (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of RationalWiki, I condone and encourage your vandalism. Let us know if there is anything we can do to help. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
All vandalism does is feed their persecution complex and gives them the impression that what they does makes a difference in the world, and worse, that their beliefs are irrefutable, otherwise "evil liberulz!!" wouldn't be vandalizing. What really hurts them is the fact that no more new legitimate editors ever join, and remaining normal editors just slowly leave or are banned, that they are ignored by conservatives in general, and mocked by the rest, that they are shown not to matter. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism is fairly boring, no? Not to mention a waste of time. AceDrumcode 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism is boring, and it is also a very weak argument against what you're vandalising. I want RW to offer strong arguments against all that's irrational, not just CP. Vandalism is similar to ad hominem arguments: it makes the target of the vandalism look more respectable than the vandal. That's not the way for RW to go. Fawlty (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent)What exactly would a DOS attack? Seriously, Andy's persecution complex is as bad as it is going to get and there aren't really any regular readers who would be affected enough to move back to WP, and the Homeskollers will get their daily load of bullshit from Andy in person at his classes. Plus, coordinating anything that malicious would crush our reputation and might drive some far more intelligent people off the site. We have a lawyer, a doctor, even a professional pottery maker :). No need to scare these fine folkses away with 4chanism!--— cm2 — 00:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's much better to refute their BS then to do something so juvenile like wandalism, more satisfying too, besides it's easy! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Why bother? CP is dying anyway, and vandalism isn't a particularly good way to point out how dumb it is (not to mention the persecution complex). I don't know Dinko, but his whole first post sounds like "I'm an aggressive asshole who likes to push around people I don't like." The fact that he's targeting another asshole doesn't really make it endearing to me. For that matter, I wonder why Occasionaluse is speaking, all by his lonesome, "On behalf of RationalWiki". Is there even a "behalf of RationalWiki" outside of clumsy mob consensus? --Quantheory (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I get most of the points put forth here and decided to delay any planned attack on CP for now. About Andy's persecution complex, that is exactly my point. Why not induce the moron to continue making a paranoid idiot out of himself? It works for us. Its a win-win situation since 90% of his userbase are trolls, and every single one of his "loyal" users are trolls, but if we unleash masses of shit-tanks to bomb his site, then he will be even funnier with his liberal conspiracy theories. Hez a vary funni man, u no like a komedian when hee all whiny and paranoid, kno'imsayin? So yeah, if any of you are still interested in having fun with his site sometime, let me know a place where we can keep in contact, like email IM or whatever. Note that I cant do anything for this month as my bandwidth already reached a quota, and the last thing I need is my ISP starting to intercept my traffic when i've gone over the monthly limit in an attempt to find out why i'm using up so much... just so theyll find out i'm DOSing someones site.Dinko (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "No" don't you understand? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "if any of you are still interested" such as Occasionaluse and another one i mightve missed, did you not pick up?Dinko (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, on behalf of RationalWiki - I'm going to pull the "trustee" thing here for hopefully the first and last time - you're welcome to do this on your own time, with your own equipment. If you're scared of your ISP shutting you down because of it, that's your problem. We might even be open to you bragging about it here via WIGO, but expect it to get yawned off the page pretty quick. But RW, as it is now a standalone institution, will not support or condone it officially or unofficially. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok -1 points to you for having the same attention span as the average dumbass on CP. Im not scared nor worried about my ISP shutting me down nor will that ever happen. I said "I have reached my bandwidth" quota meaning I have no available bandwidth for this month, meaning my ISP starts logging peoples connections once they go over the 90 GB limit to try and find out the cause for this excessive use, meaning they will look through my shit, meaning NOW they will know why i'm continuing to go over the limit, meaning I dont wanna deal with any potential problems, and i'd much rather use the couple gigs I have left for more viable purposes, such as browsing webpages. Understand?Dinko (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I must say that compared to most organisations, it's impressive that this conversation has got this far. Such an act would actively and knowingly bring the RWF into disrepute, something that I doubt any website would even entertain thinking about entertaining. Thus is the double-edged sword of free speech. Scarlet A.pngmoral 12:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Anybody else feel reminded of that episode where "Night Train" (for those who are late to the party: TK) tried to recruit RWians for his little anti-CP war? Yeah, thought so. Dinko, GTFO. RW is not the place you seek, so stop using it to bait others into your scheme. --Sid (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What are you saying? That i'm an undercover CP agent? I assure you i'm not, though I respect your realistic concerns.Dinko (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't around for the NightTrain thing, but yeah, this looks a lot like concern trolling. Either way, I suggest ignoring further suggestions or requests of this nature. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The thought had crossed my mind also... but I'm just going to assume we're dealing with a heavily moronic n00b rather than some double agent. As above, if people want to do it, it can be on their own time with their own resources. I'll be looking into defamation laws just in case anyone wants to create an "RationalWiki" branded "attack" of any kind. Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Heavily moronic n00b? Now that is some uncalled-for shit coming from an idiot with a 10-year-old's attention span that I had to articulately clarify his miscomprehension that I was afraid that my ISP would shut me down. Case in point, this tells a lot, and now im officially afraid of recruiting idiots who "accidentally overloaded their own modem that they had to reset their router" because they apparently had the same attention span as you and forgot to configure their modem and uncheck all the flood detectors, in a noobish attempt to "hack" someone. Farewell.Dinko (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if it might not be Willminator, but then again Occam's Hanlon's Razor teaches us not to attribute to malice that which is adaquately explained by stupidity. EddyP (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Nah, little Wilma would have to wash his mouth out with carbolic soap, after typing all those potty words. Not to mention what he'd have to wash if T.... no, never mind. --PsyGremlinHable! 18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it amusing that with whatever they have been doing, Dinko has basically DOSed themself? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)