Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive200

This is an archive page, last updated 6 October 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>, <199>, <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>

, (back)

Texas Textbooks are "Anti Christian"[edit]

CP and Fox "News" provide us with more bat shit insanity. Maybe its because the books don't automaticly say "Islam is bad, Christianity is good". --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As I'm understanding, that school board is in a lame-duck session, as they got voted out. I'm possibly just being mistaken though. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are actually quite correct. --Quantheory (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I remembered hearing it, but it was just so awesomely, wonderfully good news, that my skeptometer was pinned. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mackinac Bridge[edit]

Okay, is it just me, or did Ken somehow infect Andy with whatever disease causes your English to turn into shit? I actually had to check if Ken had written the current version^img of the article:

“”When construction on the Mackinac Bridge completed in 1957, it was the world's longest suspension bridge. When completed, the Mackinac Bridge was the longest suspension bridge in the world (now it is ranked number 3), and today it remains the longest suspension bridge in North and South America.

Seriously, Andy wrote this!^img Just... what? --Sid (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had similar brainfarts when writing while sleep-deprived, tired and/or drunk. You start rewriting one sentence and end up with several different forms if you fail to notice and delete the redundant parts...--ZooGuard (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No! Andy's finally bought into Ken's SEO tactics, but he can't bring himself to use - or be associated with - Ken's drivel. Mystery solved. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 20:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen at a rather Liberal website! With regards to the length of a certain bridge beginning with B I think you will find that the length of a certain bridge beginning with B is something that even liberals cannot deny!I can't do any more I just can't do it... TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What's really noticeable (on my screen) is that he can't even use the "clear" template - it's only been there for three years. 20:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Wikipedia ranks it at number 12. [2]Matt 21:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't phonics be the cause because it may read like "macinaw"? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Though that's for single spans and suspension bridges only.

^theist 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspenders bridges are soooo 1950s now that we started building those stayed-cable truss things. ħuman

01:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The caption currently reads: "Mackinac Bridge in a storm"....is it just me or does it look like a very nice day in that picture? Jammy (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The bridge is long enough that *some* part of it is in a storm *somewhere*. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the notion that there is a conservative and a liberal end of a bridge. Also, why didn't he add the picture to the bridge article page?

Генгис^marauding 07:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Or those totally cool stayed/suspended hybrid concepts like the proposed Gibraltar Bridge.

^theist 12:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a beauty! ħuman

18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally! I doubt they'll build it given the fear of Moroccan illegals. But it sure would be a tourist attraction. --Leotardo (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally[edit]

a conservative word I can agree with: spin-doctor.^img Nothing like somebody twisting the message to suit their own needs, right Andy? --PsyGremlinSprich! 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed that the word "liberal" isn't in the definition. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Hurlbut[edit]

Noticed the old blog is picking up a bunch of hits tonight. Turns out my musings about Terry Hurlbut (try say that name without giggling, especially with his goofy profile pic) and DiggPatriots have been linked to from the Topix forum on evolution. Good to see that plenty of people are finding out just what devious schmucks the higher-up at CP actually are. --PsyGremlinSermā! 21:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that TerryH and his DP fetish have done more for actual conservatism than conservapedia ever will, and with a fraction of the effort.--Opcn (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh gee. You know we have a "shameless self promotion" template for things like this, right? ħuman

01:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah! EddyP (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

He's a parodist![edit]

Ken again...sigh[edit]

I've officially changed my mind about Ken - I've gone from bewildered to pitiful. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Awwwwwww, wook at da widdle bunny wabbids! SJ ^Debaser 07:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Let us breed like bunnies! Go forth and multiply!--Brendiggg (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the idea of a "postscript" section, and the caption, were rather amusing. In an insane way. ħuman

08:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Yous all teh bunny ribbitses. Me on teh other handses are teh super cutsies guinea piggy. --PsyGremlinPraat! 08:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On another note, since when does a few pictures of bunnies count as an essay? Your standards are really slipping, Ken. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been doing that for quite a while, at least since the mah-cheese-mo era, IIRC. ħuman

21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it up Lance[edit]

Even if it was in the bibbel, if it's to do with the Axiom^img then nasty liberals put it there. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But wait!^img Andy admits Lance might have a point. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting, this is Andy. If he doesn't want something in an article, he'll continue to ask for more examples/cites/whatever, and deny the ones given are adequate, even if it was something like everyone in the entire world who has any knowledge of the subject whatsoever all checking and verifying as correct a webpage saying that what he doesn't want in the article is, in fact, correct, and giving a full, complete and detailed explanation of how and why it is correct. On the other hand, for something that he does want in the article, asking for any cites/examples/whatever at all is 'liberal deceit'. 92.0.16.101 (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor - Wha?[edit]

Okay, so Ed Poor read The Tipping Point and decided to make some stubs. Nothing new there, but why is he putting them^img in templates^img? I guess I could see him making that mistake once, but twice? And he's the CP computer guy? Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Make that three templates. Evidently, there's a reason he's doing this - anyone know why? Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, he claims to use the same quotes more than once. Riiiight.

19:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that myself. I guess it is progress by Ed's standards. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 19:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed should remember that even though MediaWiki supports transclusion, it is not the fabled Xanadu.

ListenerX^TalkerX 19:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wait until Ken figures this trick out! No more wear and tear on his C and V keys! ħuman

20:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That assumes Ken knows the cut and paste short cuts, he might still be using right-click. - π 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Ken. He might even use......MENUS! --Kels (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd that he makes them templates but then explicitly transcludes them as {{Template:Sticky puppets}}. Wiki markup #188, I'd have though you'd have sussed it by now.

Генгис^marauding 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the title "sticky puppets" typically creepy for Ed? ħuman

02:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Words with vowels in them are creepy coming from Ed. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I remember someone trying something like this on wikipedia. Can't remember if it was Ed. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Willma calling TK his "best friend?"[edit]

Because it seems as if his "best friend" has deleted and oversighted Wilma's pleas.^img And Wilma's not happy. He should know TK doesn't like being bossed around. (on CP, anyway). This will end in tears. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Best friend at CP" isn't really saying much. No one over there really likes anyone else. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But, But, Andy has to like someone... otherwise why all the promotions? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Homskool's out for summer.[edit]

I see the Assfly is taking another week off from actually writing his course materials. I guess that's another homskoll course abandoned. Kids, teacher needs your ritalin. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Teacher needs your ritalin, heh heh. I lolled. mb 00:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy have a case that he's working on?--Opcn (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's got to be a reason he abandoned the online version. How can he drop the paying in-person class after one week and one test? Refunded the money? ħuman

01:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something just isn't right. I know he's got money, but this is his job. Or perhaps he's considering taking his classes off of CP? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If I had to, I'd still bet that the class has merely been divorced from CP, but is till going on in the classroom. Even Andy should be able to see there is no upside to connecting his homeschooling career to Conservapedia. It gets him no more students except parodists, it doesn't add anything to his blog, and it just puts a public spotlight on what should not be a public endeavor. I'd be a bit surprised if any of these obvious facts penetrated the thick skull of Andy Schlafly, but it could happen. Agreeing with above, this is his job, and I can't see him refunding several thousand dollars without a compelling reason. Or maybe there never were enough students for a class, but I'd imagine he based his 50+ enrollment on something. DickTurpis (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to believe that he had realized that CP is basically just him, a few sysops, and parodists and thus discontinued the online versions of his lectures. But if the last few years taught me anything, it's that Andy almost never retreats from The Truth, and part of The Truth is basically that Conservapedia is a brilliant resource for studying and that wikis in general are the future of teaching. So I rather think that he's too obsessed with the current elections and the Tea Party to give a crap about the regular lectures. --Sid (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't he has lawyer cases to attend to or something? He is a lawyer too you know. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Only in the loosest sense of the word. He's qualified as one, but he's on wingnut welfare thanks to who mummy is. I don't think there's any evidence he conducts honest work for non-ideologically driven clients. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well he probably gets a retainer from the AAPS, but he must be doing something all day because he's not continually working on CP. From what we see of his online presence his homeskool classes only appear to be a couple of hours a week but reading between the lines of what the likes of Bethany and Sharon used to post, he was doing other instruction besides the online courses. Can his mother really be paying for everything, including putting the kids through college? He's got four siblings, would she be subsidising just one of them?

Генгис^marauding 07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

His wife is a doctor. ħuman

08:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But with what we know about Andy's views of the ladies, would he accept being financially supported by his wife?

Генгис^marauding 08:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You expect consistency from Andy? You poor, poor fool. Like most of the hard right, his positions are rock-solid...for other people. None of them apply to things that benefit him, you know. --Kels (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of things, he has a pretty nice house. Lovely panelling in the study/library, so I imagine he gets quite a bit from being a lawyer. What I don't get is why he's postponing the homeschooling course - surely the kids have to come first? EddyP (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my pet theory is that he gives the first lecture free. You know, the drug dealer business model. It's possible that he just got no repeat business. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That freak has a wife? Damn... I bet she's ugly as fuck.Dinko (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not cool, man. --Kels (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dinko, stop being a dick. EddyP (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is she? We know she qualified as a doctor but so far as I am aware, and I've only been around here for 12 months or so admitedly, no-one has found out if she practices or is even registered with any body to do so. I've a degree in applied physics but I work as a code monkey for a travel company. I have the qualifications but I am in no way a practicising physicist. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was motivated to go see if I could find out just how much the Assfly's wingnut welfare cheque was for. As near as I can tell, he gets about 65K per annum from AAPS. Not bad for basically no work, eh? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I brought up his wife's profession/qualifications. This thread has turned creepily close to stalkerish. JMHO. ħuman

18:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In a surprisingly non-stalkerish turn of evens I learned that his wife never went into practice. The contact location for conservapedia is a law firm, Andy might be gainfully employed as well as being on retainer. Additionally I think he does some work for Eagle Forum, I see his name come up there every once in a while too. Just goes to show that even a raging incompetent can make good money with the right name. I'll bet he got some money from recall Menendez too, where he argued that the people should be given a chance to take back a vote, basically the opposite of the Murkowski thing. --Opcn (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is unrelated. The building consists mainly of virtual offices. It's just a fancy PO box from which the assfly can get his mail and calls forwarded, and not have to put his home address up on the web. Check out who else "lives" on the same floor of the building. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that it was building, but rather the fact that it was with a law firm. It wasn't schlafly co at XYZ plaza but Schalfly, associate at Dunder, miffling, Wurnam, and Hogg legals something or other at XYZ Plaza. --Opcn (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of work-from-homes sharing secretarial and reception services to save a few dimes? ħuman

02:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There still has to be work for that to be worth while. He makes 65K/Y from AAPS and lets say 25K from homeschooling (which is fucking ridiculous) and I've seen the google maps of his house (someone searched his campaign contributions) and it's big and in a nice area. He has to be doing something to afford that, and with his wife not practicing I'll bet its something that pays well. It's possible that the Eagle Forum is kinda like a family piggy bank ... but I don't know enough about ti to say how possible. --Opcn (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

His wife not practicing does not mean she isn't also making some decent money in a non-GP way. But yeah, I suspect the EF is the family piggy bank to an extent. Thus emasculating Andy on a daily basis. ħuman

06:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding a bit stalkerish, does the EF publish accounts? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. But if any of the various Schlaflys are making bank from EF, it isn't at all obvious to me how. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to find the EF financial disclosure documents? I would like to take a look at them. --Opcn (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have Eagle Forum article? Let's chase it at that talk page? ħuman

08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Andy mark students 5 and 7's homework before writing the next assignment anyway? Did these kids really pay for this level of service? Nil Einne (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The on-line students are all jokes, and Andy finally figured this out (well except for the two he really pissed off). The in-person ones pay $250/course. ħuman

08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another one for the article matrix[edit]

Liberal desperation. Gee, I wonder if this was dreamed up to defend Christine O'Donnell? Well, what do you know^img? Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 14:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It mildly amuses me that CP's broken "news" is actually comment on an opinion piece in an online news magazine filtered through the clarifying strata of two wingnutty blogs to the point that what he is actually mocking has no relationship at all to what was in the original text. Trustworthy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

“”Conservative desperation is an attempt to embarrass any position, candidate, value, or person which is so flawed or pathetic that it is embarrassing to the conservative side.

Example of conservative desperation: Conservapedia.

There. (The point is why are so many concepts on CP actually fit into madlibs/templates?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I love the smell of toasted assfly on a Sunday morning... ħuman

21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This reads like something written by a 12-year -old. I mean it's basically "Jimmy Smith says his model plane's got a bigger wingspan than mine, but mine is just about as big and my engine is faster and more better and anyway no-one likes Jimmy Smith 'cos he farted during school prayers and my Mom says I oughtn't to hang out with him and Sherry Mansling says he's one of those fags anyway even though he kissed Jessica Dipwick at the Prom". DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DogP you fucking idiot, you couldn't be more wrong ... 12 year olds don't go to the prom... :P --Opcn (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in your town, maybe... ħuman

08:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ...[edit]

... but he's really gone over the top here^img he must be a parodist. 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just losing his mind, he might end up like Ken in the future. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) What I find amusing about the whole idea of Biblical scientific foreknowledge is it hinges on the belief that everything espoused by today's science is correct. What if someone comes along and disproves, say, the very principle Andy discusses in Susan's link? Then the Bible will be wrong. But of course there are ways to weasel out of that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

He also apparently has no idea what the HUP is... ħuman

01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Or anything about wave/particle duality (next edit)... ħuman

01:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Combining this observation with the one above makes me want to track all his edits today. Surely it was a classic asSflyunday? There must be more. ħuman

01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahaha!!^img Oh, that's just perfect. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fuck! Doesn't he have some sort of science/engineering tertiary qualification? Both the Heisenberg thing and the wave/particle thing make absolutely.no.sense.whatsoever. I find it very difficult to understand how even a buffoon like Andy could write something so excruciatingly stupid. --Horace (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop PLEASE! OH GOD!^img Ace ^Drumcode 02:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make any fucking sense! Why would the big bang create light everywhere? There has to be something to emit the light first and what does light have to do with the background radiation? Ace ^Drumcode 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't even any light to speak of for what, 300,000 years? the universe was too hot for light to travel, it was just a plasma. Then finally it cooled enough for photons to travel uninhibited (ie, atoms formed). This is what we see with the CBR - a picture of when the universe cooled enough for blackbody radiation to emanate unimpeded. ħuman

08:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is the 'Jesus walked on water was early proof of wave-particle duality. Mine as well add a section to 'CP:Lightning' that says Zeus reigning down lightning bolts with some humans surviving their impact was evidence of grounding electricity. --Leotardo (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy knows plenty about quantum mechanics, and he cleverly demonstrates it every day with entries like these. They exist in a superposition of sheer humor and utter nonsensicalness. Which state they collapse into is dependent upon the viewer. He's very clever that way. Kallium ^talk 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So Jesus was in a wave state, gravity didn't apply to him and he as able to walk on water? The man has gone even more insane.

And where is getting that waves aren't subject to gravity? How does he explain gravitational lensing of EM waves? --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By not believing in general relativity. You don't have to explain something if you pretend it doesn't happen. --Quantheory (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously though, they do sort of believe in lensing, but I'm sure they don't think that hard about any of this. --Quantheory (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I though Schlafly used the regularity of the CBR to argue against a big bang, is he now using irregularity to argue against it? Also, are the ripples caused by the spinning magnetic field or some unknown force? Schlafly lists no references and I am a biology person so I don't know these things intuitively. --Opcn (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather confused about what Andy is arguing here because it seems to be that the Bible confirms scientific views of the universe rather than God created it out of nothingness. But then I shouldn't expect consistency from an idiot. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. — John Stuart Mill

Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Schlafly lists no references" - Say no more, for the win. ħuman 08:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah but I don't just want to win I also want to learn the truth. I guess that makes me unique. @Lily The definition of a conservative has changed over time. --Opcn (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You aren't going to ever learn any "truth" at CP. Really. Did you think you would? ħuman

08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

to be fair I did ask here and not at conservapedia. --Opcn (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If only there was a way we could get Andy to condense all his knowledge into a paper and submit it to PNAS. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All andy's knowledge could be condensed onto this: "." 11:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think that is slightly verbose for the task in hand.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'In the news' on MPR reaches desperate measures[edit]

Okay, so what happens when you have so few contributors you even having trouble updating your main blog page? Make Google searches a news item. Surprise it's more of Ken's quality contributions. lol - does this dude ever leave the house? All his contributions are weblinks, Google searches, youtube videos and wingnut news sources. Really, a person who has some IRL human contact wouldn't edit for 36 hours straight and regurgitate web shit. Very, very sad, but also amusing since even the other sysops seem embarrassed by him. --Leotardo (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That made no sense. ħuman

07:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Made sense to me (though a missing comma almost tripped me up) ^{ONE / TALK} 10:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is relevant[edit]

Moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar by [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Says it all really[edit]

Ken, listen to me^img, listen to me (with the ususal 6 edits to get it correct). Are you listening to me? Ed Yep, listening^img but ignoring you because you're batshit. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Front page graphs[edit]

I'm not a member of this website but I just think someone should mention the graphs on the front page of Conservapedia. The axes on the first graph are adjusted to give the illusion that the unemployment rate has soared in a matter of 3 weeks. If you take a look at the approximate increase in unemployment, there is about a 0.7% increase in this time period. The axes on the second graph are similarly set to make a roughly 6.5% increase in initial claims seem much larger than in reality. The largest spike in the second graph is very likely due to initial claims to census workers making initial claims, yet there is not mention of this. It seems to me like a dubious act of deception. Thanks for anyone who takes a look at this. ^{— Unsigned, by: 65.190.132.19 / talk / contribs}

That's just RobS lying via crappy graphics. ħuman

02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We missed this one[edit]

I see, CP has turned on George W now. TK lists a borked news item,^img claiming that 52% of candidates say being compared to George W is a bad thing. With no added outrage by CP. Then again, it does say Reagan was best, so maybe that mollified them.

But it is far more important to worship at the Regan Personality Cult than to worry about the RINO Bush. - π 12:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any RINO charges when Bush was still in office.

Генгис^marauding 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives are no more consistent than the rest of us. --Opcn (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was about to give you a 'Megadittos' Opcn, but liberals are faaar more consistent with their ideological principles and outlook than today's Conservatives, whose own fellow travelers cite 'epistemological closure' and 'Conservative Cultists'. So, conservatives are far more inconsistent today than they were twenty years ago. --Leotardo (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly conservative, I joined Conservapedia as a conservative planning to contribute, I just couldn't figure out how to say it. Yes the average moderate liberal is more consistent than conservapedia, but the average conservative is more consistent than the good folks at huffington post or the 9/11 truthers, both very left leaning (or left heavy) crowds. I will agree that the conservative movement seems to be drifting away from consistency, all while Andy jabbers on about how it is because it is working its way towards the logically consistent whole.--Opcn (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Every link I've followed from here to HuffPo I have found embarrassingly counter-intellectual. And 9/11 truthers? Come on. Give me single payer health care, retirement, child care and schools, then we can talk about where the "center" might be. ħuman

08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can dissociate your self from the Truthers then I get to dissociate myself from the Birthers. I don't see why we have to pass what you want before we can have a discussion, can you expand on that? I didn't ever use the word "center". --Opcn (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can. They are loonies. Did I associate you with the birthers? Did anyone? Or are you referring the "painting with a broad brush" that can occur in both directions? ħuman

19:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Conservatives are painted as birthers, when the broad brush comes out. --Opcn (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As with the JS Mill quote, it's really the other way round. Birthers tend to be conservatives rather than all conservatives being birthers. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Biblical innovations[edit]

As crazy as he is, I think I want to give Andy some credit for his new form of Biblical interpretation. I mean, I think he is the first person in the world to look at the Bible and link passages to modern physics (e.g. "quantum wine", "wave/particle Jesus", multiplying of loaves and fishes, uncertainty principle etc.) The Bible has obviously been studied and analyzed in all sorts of crazy ways, so I think it's actually difficult to discover a whole new branch of Biblical analysis. --Composure1 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he heard Deepak Chopra abuse quantum mechanics for New Age spirtuality and decided that the fundies needed to close the quantum bullshit gap? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

He is hugely progressive when it comes to Biblical analysis, I must say. His liberal (hooray for words with multiple meanings!) interpretations of the text allow him to see things nobody else can (mostly because they aren't there). Rodlen (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that not everyone can see that "waves can take many different forms", apparently even the form of Jesus? (I actually think it should be the other way around - Jesus can take on the form of whatever he wants: waves, particles, a wafer, wine etc.) --Composure1 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"he is the first person in the world to look at the Bible and link passages to modern physics" Yes, he is the first to make up some completely incoherent shit about physics using the Bible... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the wave/particle thing in Jesus walking on water as meaning that the water waves can solidify thereby making it possible to walk on them without sinking. Am I reading this too simply compared with all you physicists? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It maybe isn't obvious to people who never got that far in their study of physics, but ignoring the Bible stuff, his physics is just wrong. Laughably wrong. Not "Tucson is the capital of Arizona" but more like "Swansea is a large active volcano in Manhattan" level wrong. So it really doesn't matter if he found examples in the Bible that agree exactly with his ideas, because those ideas are wrong. Uncertainty is a far more strange phenomenon than Andy has credited for example. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Brits get it[edit]

Wasn't sure this is WIGO-worthy, but thought it was worth commenting on. JPatt's latest MPR item is a reference to at item on the Telegraph website. An item posted by .. Nile Gardiner. Now I'm not familiar with the guy, but it doesn't take a genius to see where his opinions tend to fall, he is director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom (which makes me chuckle just to type, and is apparently dedicated to advancing the vision and ideals of Lady Thatcher) and has written Nick Clegg is the first major party leader to run for Prime Minister on an anti-British ticket. He is filled with a self-loathing for his nation and its institutions. Nice unbiased commentary then. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I like Jpatt's edit comment. The Tea Party is now more powerful than President Obama. Shit, who gave the teabaggers the launch codes??? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Jpatt, I happened to find him on Facebook and was surprised to learn that, contrary to his intelligence and writing ability, he is not 14. DickTurpis (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he sells second hand biblical X-ray machines. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There's the same "Masterpieces of the week" every week.[edit]

Do they ever change the Old Masterpieces of the week? Perhaps they assume Conservatives aren't very interested in art, after all art is for effete Liberal Europeans. Perhaps they assume Conservatives won’t notice. I'm not Jesus (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you see, the 'Masterpiece' is the domain of CP's resident artiste and number 1 copyright thief, Joaquin Martinez. However, he doesn't edit much lately (possibly because he's Mexican and unless he's deaf, blind and dumb, he can't have failed to pick up CP's "you scummy Chicanos stay on that side of the wall, y'hear?" vibe) and seeing as no other sysop gives a shit about doing anything on CP besides blocking editors, it'll remain unchanged, until Joaquin returns, or TK deletes it from MPL. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is TK still a sysop here? ~~I'm a sysop here!!! Yippee!!!~~ I thought I was because I could capture, it seems everyone can. I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Jesus

Joaquin Martinez still seems to regularly edit, but he is far less political then the rest of them so he doesn't garish much notice. They probably want him around as their token minority so they can claim it isn't just Anglo-Saxon white, upper middle class, Christians over fifty who are the only editors. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Jo is a Mexican still living in Mexico. He's a Catholic and a social conservative but I wouldn't be surprised if he's fiscally on the left of centre rather than the rabid me-first selfishnessness of Andy and his tea-bagging cronies. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaydar[edit]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but this^img beauty by Poor Ed is awesome. Do you think Ken

has a fully functional gaydar for dating purposes? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti Colonialism[edit]

This may not be a problem, but the CP page uses the word "doctrine" and not "delusion". That said, I can see why it would indeed be seen as a delusion on CP, but I thought I should bring this up. Imarcuson (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

D'Souza treats it as a delusion of sorts in the linked article.

ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Shove this in Andy's face, someone, please[edit]

Already over at WIGO World, someone might want to get this survey result in front of Andy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahahahahahhaha. That is all. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Anonymous User" (recreate your account with your real first name and last initial), you say only that you "might be wrong." You apparently won't concede that the theory of evolution might be wrong. I've responded to your concerns and answered your questions and you claim that faith isn't an uniquely Christian concept, so it's obvious to me you're not here to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: accept that childbirth helps resist genocide. Liberals don't like it, but Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. By the way, if you have influence with other wikis you might persuade them to abandon their burdensome "copyleft" or gdfl licensing requirements. --Andy Schlafly 12:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That actually makes sense, because I'm guessing not many atheists reject religion, without have a good look at what it's teachings are, ect, etc. Unlike the religious, who either know next to nothing about it, or twist the little bit they do know to suit their needs. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I noted that Jews and Mormons came in second and third (and close enough I'd suspect it's a statistical tie.) I'd suspect Judaism's strong scholarly tradition, plus the fact Jews are often the minority religion in larger countries, accounts for their strong showing. Perhaps Mormons do well because of their missionary training? MDB (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

<sweeping generalisation alert> I would venture to suggest that in general atheists tend to come from the better educated end of the spectrum and so they tend to get their information from sources other than faux news and wing nut daily. We are also I reckon more likely to listen to the various stories instead of shutting out those we disagree with on dogmatic grounds. </sweeping generalisation off> Oldusgitus (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem for this survey from CP's POV is that it covers all religions. Why should a God-fearing conservachristian know anything about those other beliefs?. It looks too much like multculturalism from their corner.

Генгис^marauding 12:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Except Americans don't know jack about Christianity, either. MDB (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is an excellent article. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else get the "Ads by Google" at the bottom of the LA Times article to be for the "Fastest Growing Religion?" And "The Only Major Religion To Emerge in 20th Century." Yes, folks, Scientology has latched onto an article about clueless religious people. Bondurant (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm guessing not many atheists reject religion, without have a good look at what it's teachings are" Sometimes it's more the other way around. If you're not a complete fanatic, religious education is an extremely effective deconversion tool. Someone who was convinced that their faith would become stronger instead ends up walking away. Those who don't, either become much more flexible about interpretation, or else become Phelps-type loons. --Quantheory (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly been my experience that many atheists are actually ex-[insert religious denomination here], and have become an atheist because they made a really detailed examination of the claims of what was then their religion, and something they uncovered by doing this led them to begin asking questions that their priest/imam/rabbi/whatever couldn't answer to their satisfaction. As such, it makes perfect sense, to me, that atheists would actually know more about religion than most religious folk. It also helps explain why it was that the Catholic Church used to be so against translating the Bible into English, except for certain excerpts authorised by them, and held doing so as a crime punishable by death, and was so infuriated by John Wycliffe doing so, back in the 1380s, that, even though they didn't get around to it until he had been dead for 44 years, they still felt the need to have his bones dug up, burned, and the ashes thrown into a nearby river. 92.2.178.230 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy would make the following arguments: 1) The survey was done by liberals and has liberal bias 2) Where is the raw data?! Those liberals must have twisted the data to fit their preconceived notions of what the results should be. 3) Why should anyone know anything about heathen non-Christian religions? 4) People get answers about the Bible wrong because they're reading Bible translations that have a liberal bias - they should read the CBP translation instead! --Composure1 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Too verbose for one go. More like "This claim is illogical, and the study was obviously done by liberals with an axe to grind. Take it to Wikipedia where such distortions are welcome." Kallium ^talk 04:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Or vaped followed by permaban. Actually, permaban either way. Kallium ^talk 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, why don't we get the questions and ask Andy on CP? His answers to the questions would not subject to liberal bias, and it constitute as raw data. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy and Ron/Rand Paul's quack pseudomedical org[edit]

This has probably already been posted, but I haven't been around so much lately. Here's a great article on the AAPS. Corry (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Andy got namechecked on page 6. I like that they point out that the AMA is 100 times bigger than the quack group. ħuman

04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The AAPS website is having an online poll about whether Obamacare should be repealed - just saying. I already voted.

Генгис^marauding 07:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The AAPS... because legitimate medical societies include flashing police/fire lights on their home page.

Dear sweet FSM, the AAPS is to the AMA what CP is to WP. The AAPS is a far right wing political group masquerading as a medical society; CP is a far right wing blog masquerading as an encyclopedia. MDB (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And an American flag. You always gotta have a flag.

Генгис^marauding 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know of a way to find out who AAPS members are? I want to make sure no doctor I ever see is associated with them. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A faster method might be to ask your doctor what professional associations they are a member of. --Opcn (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob Smith, dumb ass[edit]

He makes a whole section about Hamas "endorsing" Obama on the BHO article, but I seriously doubt he'll put anything about Al-Qaeda endorsing McCain. Hypocrite much, Rob? It's so juvenile to ever include these dumb endorsements on any article, as if they mean anything. Conservative cultist, indeed. --Leotardo (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Obama article is pretty much the Flagship of Fail of CP. Easily the worst article on the site if you exclude essays and "insights" (like "Liberal [noun]" and stuff whatever else Andy pulled out of his ass), and one of the few times that I've seen several sysops disagreeing with Andy's views behind closed doors (TZB). So it's no wonder that Rob loves it - the article might as well have "NO SHOT TOO CHEAP, NO ACCUSATION TOO BIZARRE!" in <big>³ and blinking at the top. --Sid (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is William F. Buckley, Jr. when you need him?

ListenerX^TalkerX 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

How old is Rob? Is he a teen - anybody know? He seems earnest, and "bright for his age" who will hopefully grow up. --Leotardo (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In his 50's at least, far as I know. Possibly older. He's sorta the opposite of "bright for his age", although he is a prodigy in that sense. --Kels (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's almost a prerequisite for a CP sysop to be a bitter, grumpy, old (or advanced middle-aged), misogynistic, selfish man with a personality defect and a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The nice thing about that article is that they stick a "Here be Idyuts" tag right at the start of the article. As soon as anybody with a modicum of sense reads "aka Barry Soetoro" (at least they finally changed it from "birth name Barry Soetoro") they know they can move on to more intelligent sites. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the info box alongside. Religion: "Described in this entry." Wonderful! It's articles like this that do more harm to CP than any number of parodists. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's astonishing how awful their high-profile articles are, isn't it? Forget the veracity of the information in the Obama article and just look at the formatting. Why is the information on his life and career pre-Presidency underneath the Presidency section? Isn't it conventional to put that stuff in chronological order? Also, why are there separate headings for "Further Reading," "Sources" and "External Links"? They all look the same to me. This is what ultimately doomed CP - no one over there gives a shit. No editing, no proofreading, just throw more crap on the pile. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not bothered to read it, but take a look at the clinton article, it looks like a real article --Opcn (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill or Hillary? Or Chelsea, for that matter? ħuman

01:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill, but it looks like rob did recently twist some sentences to make it seem like St. Ronnie is responsible for clintons successes. --Opcn (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I need new glasses - I read that as clitoris successes. Cantabrigian (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Ironically, GWHB was partly responsible for Clinton's economic success, by signing the "read my lips, now I raise taxes" bill to balance the budget. Oh, but that was so so so long ago and so many fairy miles away. Since then GWB and the neocon cabal completely destroyed this country's economy. Motherfuckers. ħuman

08:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't GWHB say "Read my lips. No new taxes"? As far as I remember he didn't introduce any new taxes, he just upped the rates of the old ones.

Генгис^marauding 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what he campaigned on, and what he did, indeed. Heresy to the "no taxes" crowd, of course. Part of it was left to Clinton to allow to happen, which he did, and it resulted in a strong, solid boom and a soft (as far as I could tell) recession that was mostly the dot-com crash (leaving Amazon, eBay, etc. standing; the survivors providing a model for how to use the web and the losers for how not to), people weren't losing their houses in the post-Clinton recession. ħuman

19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

THis section isn't finished; we have to complete the development of Obama's tiexs to Hamas and cap it off with Obama's support to the Mohammed Atta memorial built at ground zero by the guy on the Obama State Department payroll who refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. It's a work in progress. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that the royal "we" or have you began to hallucinate the presence of right wing sympathizers on CP? Or maybe you mean Ed will watch? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet that Rob likes it when Ed watches.--Opcn (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall there being some close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. Ah yes, here we go. I take it the GWB and GHWB articles are also a work in progress? Bondurant (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you, Michael Moore, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all entitled your opinion. America, what country! nobs^{don't bother me} 18:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hey Rob, is the Mohammed Atta memorial mosque the same one funded by Fox News' second largest shareholder? You could say that conservatives are financing the MAMM. Mwah ha hah, all part of our plan. Mwah ha haha... --Leotardo (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rob 'liar liar pants on fire' Smith isn't it time you spent more time on cp correcting the article on GW Bush to point out his proven links to the Bin Laden family and big oil instead of spending it here trying to peddle unverifable gossip as fact? I realise fact's and your mind are so divorced that they are like Elizabeth Taylor and her 8 husbands but surely some seep through into the dim depths of your ignorance.Oldusgitus (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Second American Gov. lecture is done![edit]

Andy somehow managed to finally finish his second lecture. although I noticed his advertised count of class attendance has gone down significantly. Anyway, get out your study Bibles and pocket constitutions and get crackin on the homework. --Composure1 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One hell of a shoddy job, he just copied large parts of his previous lecture and didn't even bother to update the information:

"The Republican-controlled House voted to override President Clinton’s veto of the ban on partial-birth abortion, but the Senate lacked the 2/3rd majority required. It was not until President Bush was elected in 2000 and the Republicans captured the Senate in 2002 that now it appears this bill will be enacted into law. With Bush agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in Congress to enact it." Not to mention that wasn't even up-to-date in 2007, as the respective law was passed in 2003. He's not even trying to keep up appearances any more. Röstigraben (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And he has 2 full days to complete lecture 3 [1]^img it seems Oldusgitus (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And how many times does that whore have to link Constitution??? ħuman

07:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There are an almost inordinate amount of wikilinks in that lecture. It all stems from one the early CP contests when Andy decided to give a point for every link added but forgot to specify any wiki-standards. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it stems entirely from that. Think about how often Andy wikilinks things in even his talk page posts - particularly "liberal" and anything liberal-related. The guy's just a doofus. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Badly worded, full of mistakes and sloppy proof-reading (Two examples of presidents who because of vote-splitting) Who what? Plus I see Andy can't resist going "Me! Me! Me!" (Do you support a power by the people to recall congressmen?), lists 9 powers of Congress, asks for the six major (probably name only, no explanation needed) without defining major powers in material, has a dig at Steven Colbert, asks about gerrymandering, which isn't mentioned in the notes and worryingly seems to be saying that politics shouldn't be fair. Still, I guess it's as good as you're going to get for $250. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the "dig at Steven Colbert" actually comes from one of his students! From this suggested question --Composure1 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So, ideologically leading questions, outdatedness and complete failure to teach and wikilink aside, how long was it between lecture one and lecture two? Even with 'a week off' it still seems a bit slack from someone who advertises himself as a teacher. -- Iscariot (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Events[edit]

So conservapedia finally gets some acknowledgment from conservative news sources. Note this charming piece of bullshit from Karajou -

“”That's a major difference between Conservapedia and Wikipedia that anyone could see immediately: we will not tolerate a liar on the site.

—Karajou

TK - "this page is "empty". Ace ^Drumcode 19:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A liar is a person who denies conservative facts. CP obviously will not tolerate such persons. Case dismissed. --151.81.196.127 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

At precisely Sep 28, 2010 @ 06:50 PM Karajou blows a fuse. --Horace (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, did Karajou believe that email was "serious"??? No wonder so many of his 'toons are so lame! ħuman

02:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was astounded at first, but all it does is show, once again, why Conservapedia, in it entirety, is lame (and not just Karajou's lovely masterpieces). Karajou believing that the email was legit just shows that Conservapedia is composed of people that believe and/or want others to believe that all liberals are murdering hooligans that hang pictures of Hitler and Mao in their bedrooms. But perhaps Karajou does have the two brain cells required to identify the email as a fake, and he's just taking advantage of other peoples' stupidity by stating that it's real to persuade them to follow The Truth. Alas, all I've got is an American flag and some posters of *gasp* liberal, brainwashing anti-intellectual video games on my wall. And a spider. A big one at that...I'd better get rid of it. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hell, he might have made that email up. Or copied it from somewhere... ħuman

04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm not a million miles out when I guess that thicko-thug JPatt (have you seen his FB picture?) was the author of this little gem:

WIKI = "Far left LOONS"

Sep 27, 2010 @ 09:40 PM

Conservative 2010, Dayton, OHIO U.S.A.

Also I like that JPatt uses the CP logo as the favicon for his company webshite (get some professional help John, it's crap).

Генгис^marauding 07:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I love it. The article casts CP in a favourable light, but Brian still has to go stomping around, basically yelling, "Yes, we're pro-conservative, but the place is run by a bunch of aggressive pricks." On the subject of Conservative, I see Kenneth Demyer has raised his head. I wonder what "homosexualism" is though. Another shining example of the brain-power behind CP. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One just knows that they've been working each other up with a sysop circle-jerk in the ZB. But the Ken post is an obvious parody; nowadays he'd never use his real name.

Генгис^marauding 11:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even before getting to the sig it is obvious parody. Ken only abuses "in regards to" on his CP articles. ħuman

20:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice the CP sysops have gone very quiet over there in defending CP. Must be hard to defend the undefendable without ban hammers and oversight. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, two things strike me here:

A conservative organisation writes a piece praising CP (almost certainly due the the author having never actually read the Assfly's blog) yet Kowardjerk still steams in on the offensive and makes a fool of himself.
As soon as evidence of the insanity of CP is presented, they all make a hasty retreat. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I found that OTT letter so funny I laughed out loud! --Leotardo (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whale juices[edit]

Andy's list of inorganic stuff which survived inside the stomach of a whale:

"a functioning laptop accessing Conservapedia (just kidding about this last item)"

Do you think that any normal editor who added that would still be around? Also the list of stuff is largely of plastic or inorganic origin so it's hardly surprising that they survived. Генгис^marauding 08:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel like I could add "just kidding" to every entry on Best New Conservative Words. Etc 11:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The obvious question for Andy is "would you be willing to spend a few days in the belly of a whale?" Tell you what, Andy, on the off chance you're reading this... I'll give $500 to your favorite charity if you will spend 12 hours inside the belly of a whale. You have to make the arrangements with the whale. It's also your responsibility to provide the laptop so you can liveblog the experience. MDB (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"it's hardly surprising that they survived." Oh sure, you say that now. Kallium ^talk 11:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought, that apart from sperm whales, whales had really teeny tiny throats, so even swallowing a laptop would be out of the question. another definition of 'sperm whales' - any girl in Cardiff. Also, I don't see much organic material in Andy's list. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"a functioning laptop accessing Conservapedia (just kidding about this last item)" - Another outrageous thigh slapper from Andy! I'm so glad Jesus invented humour...Now look at the idea put forth in the previous sentence, Andy. You are much funnier when you aren't trying to be funny.--Brendiggg (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed. That is a genuine funny, actually!

^theist 12:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought! That may be the best joke by Andy I've seen thus far (with the exception of CP, of course). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I dunno if I'd call a laptop connected to CP "functioning", exactly... --Kels (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Psy, I think it's mainly baleen whales that have really small throats (but big mouths) because they sieve krill through the baleen plates, other carnivorous whales have smaller mouths so that they can snap shut, so they probably don't have big throats either. Whatever, the notion that a human could breathe and survive inside a marine creature for three days is bullshit.

Генгис^marauding 12:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It was a question on QI a while back, but other pages suggest the biggest thing a blue whale can swallow is a grapefruit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The most deceitful thing about this is that he wrote the scientists were "astonished" to find inorganic matter that doesn't break down. I've seen in stories that they are "surprised" at the amount of garbage--further evidence of how much humans are polluting the oceans--but not that they were "astonished" to find anything but algae. It was the amount that surprised them. Scientists have been fretting about the Pacific Ocean garbage gyre, and finding plastics in fish, for awhile. Maybe Jonah was Plasticman? --Leotardo (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing on that list even close to organic would be the sweatpants, which would still be almost certainly 50% polyester, which, while technically "organic", is there precisely because of its durability. ħuman 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A challenge to Andy[edit]

I think it's time Andy puts his theory to the test. We can even do away with the whale. All he has to do, is fill an empty drum, say waist deep, with a liquid made up to match the pH of the inside of a whale's stomach. Then all he needs to do, is sit in that for three days - hell, he can even keep the lid off, so he can breathe easily and have light. I'm willing to sponsor the cost of the drum and chemicals. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Better question: Continuous flow (we maintain the pH of the tank) or batch? IMO if somehow he can pee sufficient amounts in there it might help. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuous, basically (ha!), but only as much as the whale's stomach would self-regulate its pH. ħuman

20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have another challenge for Andy. Now, since you've got such a raging hard-on for this "Biblical Scientific foreknowledge" bullshit, why don't you use it to make an actual scientific prediction, instead of make ludicrous connections in hindsight? Instead of this "someone in the Bible was uncertain, so they predicted the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" or "something fell in the Bible, predicting the law of gravity" or "Jesus and John the Baptist were related, predicting the theory of relativity" (OK, maybe not the last one, but only because you don't believe in relativity) why don't you use a passage in the Bible to actually make a new scientific discovery, rather than hanging on to the coattails of actual science? Maybe you can start with Revelation? There are a lot of predictions there. DickTurpis (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some amusing ideas there. May I suggest the "Fall of Man" predicting gravity?

Генгис^marauding 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From the Theist Perspective[edit]

Now, I don't talk about my religious beliefs on here, but you all realize I'm certainly no Biblical literalist. I don't even think much about the story of Jonah, and I pretty much consider it a myth.

But let's say it was a true story. Andy actually takes away from the religious implications by saying "see, a human could survive inside a whale!" Part of the point of the story is that Jonah survived because God was watching out for him. Andy is, inadvertantly, arguing for God's non-existence. MDB (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least he's consistent, after all he's used quantum mechanics to discount the miracle of the water into wine, some other maths to explain the loaves and fishes. Still, it's funny watching him go goddidn'tdoit without realising. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, MDB. Trying to use sloppy scientific "proof" takes away from the supernatural aspect that keeps spiritual belief afloat. --Leotardo (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad I am not the only one who notices that. All these (poor) attempts at scientific, naturalistic justifications as explanations of the miracles of the Bible on Andy's part is almost tantamount to admitting supernatural events don't happen at all. Instead he reduces the Bible to a collection of ancient stories about some very unusual natural occurrences. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

we're not the only ones saying this Totnesmartin (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Templeton Prize, "one of the world's most prestigious religion prizes"... unless your name is Andrew Schlafly, of course. Maybe he should offer the ConservaReligi Medal to go with the ConservaMath medal? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The whole attempt at "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" is completely missing the point of the bible. With all instances of laser-guided disasters due to sin, rapid healing of injuries and crippling sickness, and transformation of water into wine, you cannot convert miracles into science without removing God from the equation. Not that they believe in God. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Classic article continues to be shit, but now is, like, really really shit[edit]

It's been a while since I've either edited or read the CP Obama article. If you haven't visited in a while I recommend you do so. How shit an article it is can barely be described in words. It is shit in so many ways it thoroughly beggars belief. It's Article Shitness Quotient is Astonishingly High, and easily exceeds 130. It would be literally impossible for anyone to read this article and not say to themselves, "You know what? This article is completely shit". When shit articles were thought of, no-one ever conceived that an article this shit could ever be concocted. I don't think any of them have ever, ever actually read the fucking article - they just use it as a dumping ground for any BHO attack they can think up, cutting and pasting slurs into the shit article closer and closer to the top, so now you just read some recent news event about BHO before....oh.....ggaaaaaaaaa. Anyway, it's really shit. That is all. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 11:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a real pile of shit, and it gets shittier by the day. Good job, Rob. Good job, Ken. Corry (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who needs parodists when they are doing so well on their own?

Генгис^marauding 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@DogP: you mentioned "Article Shitness Quotient". Mind elaborate on it with more details? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And the chief complaint of the Human Events article mocked above is how biased the political articles are. I guess whoever wrote it never actually looked too closely at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Scarborough will look through the comments, as well as the links provided (not to mention Karajerk's bluster) and wonder if maybe suggesting CP as an alternative was a good idea. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the Article Shitness Quotient is roughly equal to the proof of alcohol you'd have to drink before the article starts to look good. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DogP, you're clueless. The Obama article contains a staggeringly high level of conservative insight - something sadly lacking from your rant above, which is typical of liberals. I have an errand to run, but I want you to everyone know that the best of the public produces far greater achievements than the liberal experts of Wikipedia, as they have continue to do so here. Godspeed.--

Kriss Akabusi ^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The day Rob and Ken are the best the public have to offer.... *shudder* --PsyGremlinTala! 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a mish-mash of personal pet conspiracy theories and anti-Obama screeds. I doubt anyone there has attempted to organize the article into a coherent format, instead the sysops just haphazardly shove in any additional "information" they feel will discredit the man here and there. All that is missing is a Hitler mustache on the presidential portrait image they have in the article. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the only thing that page needs is MOAR HITLER...sorry. Actually, there may well be Obama/Hitler images in there someone - they have many, many pages on Obama and I, for one, have only seen a tiny fraction of them. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 19:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was permabanned for trying to organize it, more than once, I did manage to sorta organize the counterexamples articles once, so that's nice. --Opcn (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the "article is shit" opinion, I should point out that a few sysops (of both past and present) were fairly unhappy with it in the past (and judging by the way it has developed, I'd be genuinely surprised if they were happy now). Don't expect MOAR HITLER in there; Ken was the most unhappy with the "Obama the Magic Mindcontrol Muslim" conspiracy theory in TZB, so I don't expect him to make things worse by inserting his trademark attention-whoring images. And I think Karajou actually tried to turn the article into something less crappy - only to be reverted by Andy. You'd have to dig through the article history to see his version, I forgot when this happened or what his version looked like. --Sid (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't expect MOAR HITLER in there. The only person ever given the Hitler treatment is Darwin. Who is quite possibly the person living or dead that they hate most, Obama being only #2 (I wonder who #3 is). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy booted out Karajou's version in Feb last year - here Worm^{(t | c)} 08:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy blocked me for a day for removing something from the first line. Muslim, maybe? I cannae remember. I was working on the Danish Writing Group project at the time, I suspect. ħuman 08:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup - Muslim Worm^{(t | c)} 09:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, Terry Koeckritz vaped the diff. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure which diff got oversighted, but here^img is the/a version by Karajou, and here^img is the version after Andy reverted him (with the lovely edit summary "restoring traditional placement; any massive rearrangement that dumbs down the entry needs more discussion before considering it").

And I have to say that I find it very amusing that A Certain Senior Administrator will instantly oversight normal edits from a key article just because we link to them. DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE! --Sid (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the ID of the edit Worm links to, I suspect that we're talking about the same event, and A Certain Senior Administrator merely oversighted the last of Kara's edits during that revamp while I link to the last version A Certain Senior Administrator sloppily left standing. --Sid (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's wonderful the lengths ~~they go~~ TK goes to to portray a "we're all happy here" façade to the people who actually look at recent changes, i.e. us. Not surprising to see the little lick-spittle crawling up Andy's ass, by removing anything even vaguely harming to Brother Leader. Ah, Terry, Terry. If only Andy would listen to your constant bleating about having flagged revisions installed. Just think, then no edits ever need be made to CP ever again. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh Terry Koeckritz, you lying piece of shit, you know that the data you oversight is still in the database, right? That if you ever try anything, any DBA can extract all the shit you've oversighted? What's funniest, though, is that you now seem to spend more time watching RW than RW spends watching you. You really are our puppet, you cheating scumbag. Dance, little man. DANCE for us! TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the oversight facility actually removes data from the database completely, designed for removing things that are in breach of the law. Of course, over in lalaland, the oversight facility is used rather...liberally. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno which they're using but whatever, the data's still in the database: " The Oversight extension adds a user class that allows revisions to be permanently hidden from all users. Note that the revisions can only be restored by a developer." or Deleted revisions and events will still appear in the page history and logs, but parts of their content will be inaccessible to the public. A group of oversight users can also be created that has power to make these parts inaccessible to sysops as well 13:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - it's still there. You could go into the database and delete it directly, but oversight doesn't do that. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! It would take someone who knew their stuff and CP have got rid of anyone with the skillz. I imagine Andy would Eff the Db quite nicely if he tried. 13:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken DeMyer: Dawkins does not know about you[edit]

I went to Dawkins's lecture tonight at Cooper Union, and during the mingle talked to him a bit. I don't know his work well, and since I have no scientific background and subscribe to his point of view, it was a little intimidating. So this was the exchange:

Me: Thank you for coming to New York...uh...thank you for your books and your work...uh...um...your great.

Dawkins: It's great to be here. Thanks for showing up.\

Me: Yes...your work is great. It's so great to see you here in New York.

Dawkins: Thank you, it's a pleasure.

Me: Not as much as it is for us! Um...say, do you know about a site named Conservapedia that has an obsession with you?

Dawkins: <quizzical look> No

Me: There's a site named Conservapedia and one of their editors has this obsessive--obsessive--fixation on you that he's created a "Richard Dawkins Projecdt" about you, and it's all about your sexual appeal to latin and asian women.

Dawkins: Sorry? <quizzical look with smile>

Me: No, seriously, they feature it on their front page, this website--and I'm in the Wiki World--this website Conservapedia. They have a massive link far about you on their main page.

Dawkins: I'm sorry, I don't know it...

Me: Oh, it's so bizarre, they write articles about you and your appeal to latin or asian women. It's a site obsessed with you. I'm serious! [at this point, i start feeling lame since he had no idea about Ken's bizareness, Conservapedia or anything I was internally referencing) and I realized my nerd interests (following CP stupidity) actually doesn't translate to reality)

Dawkins: Oh my, that's quite funny. Really? My...I'm sorry, what?

Me: Your appeal to asian and latin women. They also target PZ Myers. It's weird...anyway...I'm so glad you came to New York.

On my honor, this was a real interaction. Sorry folks, I respect his work but I can't come up with any evolutionary biology question so this was the best I can do, but it's pure and true just for RW. --Leotardo (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You did the best you could, under the circumstances. Thank you for the report. ħuman

06:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What I liked about the interaction is that it nullified (to me) any hope Ken thinks he's 'getting to Dawkins'. In other words, why would Ken ever write about Dawkins' sexual appeal to whomever if he wasn't hoping to bug Dawkins about it himself? Like, would a bro in Iowa searching for God care if Latinas find Dawkins sexually appealing? No, we all know this and that this is Ken's bizarre trip and that's why we find it funny. But really, you confront how real the basis for our humor is versus Ken's fantasy when you bring it up with Dawkins himself and he looks at you like he has no idea what you are talking about. For that, it was worth it. So Ken: if you've ever wondered I can tell you that Dawkins has no idea you nor CP exist, and he is unlikely to invest any time to give the whole idea any thing but a hearty chuckle. Does not know you exist, Ken. lol. loser. --Leotardo (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd that Dawkins didn't know about Conservapedia, didn't he give it a name check with the Lenski affair in his latest book? (Haven't got round to reading it yet.)

Генгис^marauding 08:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering about that. I imagine it's one of two things. 1) He did the research for the book and a lot of it has failed to stick in his memory - can you remember everything you read a year ago? 2) Leotardo scared the hell out of him and he was trying to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the latter. Seriously, he probably thought Leo was Ken, and was terrified by what might ensue if he let Ken interrogate him regarding his appeal to Asian ladies. ħuman

08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A pity you didn't mention the claim that he lacked machismo, I'm sure he'd have had a chuckle at that. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We've really got to get someone to convince Dawkins to wear a t-shirt saying "MUCHO MACHISMO" and then take a photo for the site. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Letardo. That's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

it's all about your sexual appeal to latin and asian women.

I'm trying to imagine his look of bafflement, surprise and confusion at that moment. I'm in the kitchen with my wife at the moment who wants to know what I'm laughing about. But where would you even start explaining such a thing?--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 11:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, really, you hit it Bob, and everyone else. Have you ever tried to ask a person to their face, "are you aware this insane/stupid/idiotic thing exists about you?" I agree, an "Ole! Ole! Ole!" might have been warranted. Dawkins was super elegant. There were people outside of Cooper Union handing out Ray Comfort versions of The Origin of Species and I asked if he would sign it, and without batting an eye he said he would never sign something so outrageous nor would he ever sign his name to Darwin's work (all said very graciously). When he gave his lecture he talked about how stunted was the Creationist's demand for a "transitional animal" and all I could think of was the flying kitty (*damn* you Ken!). Ugh. I've said enough. I've said too much. --Leotardo (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually very envious.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've met him too, and he's a classy guy. Passionate, but very dignified. He signed my copy of The Ancestor's Tale. But of course, that was about three years ago. - Lardashe

It's useful to sometimes say out loud these things that are normally just typed about. The absurdity becomes even more stark than when you just read it on a screen. Corry (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it odd that Dawkins didn't know Conservapedia when I referenced it, even if he was aware of the Lenski affair. I'm sure he is aware of Christine O'Donnell right now, but in a few years if you just threw her name out you'd probably have to say, "You know, that witchcraft anti-masturbation lady who ran for the Senate from Delaware" to jog his memory. We are talking about a little-noticed blog full of nonsense written by a few Conservative cultists who are eschewed by the opinion-makers in their own movement. I don't think he was worried that I was Ken DeMyer. I simply don't look creepy enough, and I actually get out of the house. --Leotardo (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I speak under correction here, but when Dawkins wrote about la affaire de Lenski, he mentioned Schlafly by name, but I'm not sure if Conservapedia was actually mentioned? --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It was:

Andrew Schlafly, creationist editor of ‘Conservapedia’, the notoriously misleading imitation of Wikipedia, wrote to Dr Lenski demanding access to his original data, presumably implying that there was some doubt as to their veracity.... The whole matter was trenchantly summed up by the celebrated scientific blogwit PZ Myers, in a passage beginning, ‘Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapedia, and boy, does he ever outclass them.’

Maybe if you mentioned the Lenski affair he would have remembered. Also, I'm sure Dawkins meant it in a nice way, but 'scientific blogwit' sounds like an insult. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, and he may have been thinking most about how perplexing the whole asian/latina thing was--it was really awkward to try to explain--since it was the first he had heard of it. But he was totally amused by it. Ugh - I just thought if Ken starts barking about Dawkins now knowing about his buffoonery, he will think I was Ken last night! Can't you just see it now: "Conservapedia has learned Richard Dawkins knows about his lack of appeal to..." Fuck you Ken if you make him think I'm you. Plus, he would then think you're a homo (which, haha, you are!) --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken is in New York, if he ever went out into the sunlight he probably would have some and handed out Ray Comfort books. --Opcn (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We should try to get Richard Dawkins to add a footnote to the next edition of The Greatest Show on Earth. In the part where he mentions the Lenski affair it will add that Conservapedia has a 'Richard Dawkins Project' detailing his lack of appeal to hispanic/asian women. He may go for it. He wanted to keep the typo 'Large Hardon Collider' in his book. :p --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. ħuman

04:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Facts[edit]

The recent wigo about Jpatt's edit comment - "we don't add fact tags here" - made me wonder: why does CP have a fact tag at all? And then I wondered, what other articles have been defiled by this insidious template? So I had a look, and here's a brief subset - some expected, some amusing - of

Subjects on which Conservapedia is startlingly deficient in facts:

Islam
Taliban
Dodo
Women
Religion
Mexican History
Chimpanzee
Separation of church and state
Mel Gibson
Definition of evolution
September 11, 2001 attacks
Western Civilization
Petroleum (what is this awful british term)
Intellectual dishonesty
Dinosaur
Emotion
Religion of Barack Hussein Obama
Homosexuals and the Holocaust
Prayer phobia
Gay disease

and finally,

Logic

Sounds about right. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I did the same when I saw JPatt's edit comment. The dates on them are mostly 2007 and many by RWers. 13:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They might as well take a leaf from Geo.plrd, when he deleted the "stub" template because it was "stupid."

That was always one of the lose-lose situations on CP. If you added a fact tag, you were wrong, because you were too lazy to look up a supporting cite. However, if a sysop disagreed with something you said, the onus was on you to provide supporting evidence. Karajerk and "Bad Touch" Poor are masters of this kind of double tap bullshit. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually petroleum is not just a British word, there is the American Petroleum Institute which most people would be familiar with as an oil density rating (API) and many scientists are classified as petroleum geologists. Petrol instead of gas(oline) is the Britishism you were probably thinking of.

Генгис^marauding 14:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They lack Gay Disease facts? I call bullshit. Ken's magnum opus is his massive collection of weird homophobic rants and conspiracy theories. Corry (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Milestone[edit]

In September 2010, Conservapedia reached an important milestone: for the first time since the week that never was, the number of active editors ((Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days) - dropped below the number of 50, and is staying at mid-forties for the last two weeks. Congrats to comrade Terry Koeckritz, who made this possible!

But an even more impressive milestone is coming up: for the first time since the first days of the project, the number of users who have made a comment in the last 28 days could drop below 100: it is teetering this line since a couple of days, and there is no reason why not to achieve this goal over the next couple of days: night-editing is switched on and off irregularly, and the few editors who were able to create an account during are quickly discouraged...

(And on a personal side: the angst of bots is there again: they prevent IPs from viewing their site, a bad habit I thought they had overcome...) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the number of editors who have edited in the last 28 days is still above 100, it sure doesn't seem like it. But larron's graphs don't lie! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But it is still overly flattering to them to say that they have 40-odd active editors, most of these will have been blocked after only a couple of edits. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This site is growing rapidly! Deny this and lose all credibility. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing if you analyse the 100 names, less than 10 have made any substantial contributions to CP. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Or even been allowed to contribute.

Генгис^marauding 15:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If I had a little more time on my hands, I'd figure out exactly which insight drives spikes in Api-active-editors-compl-Conservapedia.png. I bet each one can be correlated to a specific topic started by Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit sad to think of how much time we spend on CP. The NPV of this activity has to be very low ... :( sad panda--Opcn (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Computer virus link to Bible[edit]

I dare someone add on to Andy's "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" article and say that the Bible predicted a virus that attacked Iranian nuclear facilities [based on this http://www.cnbc.com/id/39435594]. --Composure1 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we expecting them to count coincidences and self-fullfilling schemes (as in someone read the bible and therefore they name it that way)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you think the alleged biblical prophecies got there in the first place?

18:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought some of them are simply vague enough to be interpreted as anything, rather than "I predict this, and then I'll make it so". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And we only have the prophecies that could be matched to a later event in some way. How many failed prophecies were left out? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fools, it's just the Satanic, Atheist Conspiracy to make us think that Iran won't devour our children, force us to worship Obama and become a socialist hellhole, thus fulfilling the end of the world prophecy!</sarcasm>HKJGN (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Prevented from viewing CP or is it down?[edit]

I'm getting a 500 internal server error when trying to view CP from here--anyone else having the same problem? DarkStar (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. If you reload often enough, you will sometimes get a page to show, though. Then again, you're not really missing much since the only activity is TK and Rob masturbating on the main page. --Sid (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Looks to me like CONservapedia has a problem. I get the same error. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Intermittently, yes. Persevere (why?) and you'll get thru'. I think the error when you're viewing blocked is 403 - someone'll correct that if I'm wrong. 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Error code list for information

I think the bat shit has finaly caused ther server to crash. So, who had September 2010 in the pool? --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem. I hope they get it fixed, I just sent some friends some links. If it's not fixed then they'll miss out on the giggles. -- Iscariot (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the Ides of September! 8GGH FFDA UU7D PK9B MM0S HHX2 86ZZ 77GH 51NB. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent... --Sid (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice Quote[edit]

CP gets a mention here: It is always telling that the folks who scream the loudest about us trying to extend tolerance to all people are the ones who use tolerance as the basis for their discrimination. They want us to tolerate their bigotry so others can’t have tolerance or full civil rights under the law. Conservapedia to a "T" 23:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I'm graciously chalking this one up to stupidity[edit]

Rob cries: "Do you make under $8375 ($16,750 married)? The Pelosi/Reid Congress plans on raising your tax rates by 50%, higher than the planned increase on the Rich!" and cites this page.

According to his cite, tax rates are:

2010: 10% on income between $0 and $8,375
2009: 10% on the income between $0 and $8,350, 15% on income between $8,351 and $8,375
2008: 10% on income between $0 and $8,025, 15% on income between $8,026 and $8,375
2007: 10% on income between $0 and $7,825, 15% on income between $7,825 and $8,375

I know I'm using liberal math here, but it seems like those people are paying less than they did before Obama. Rob, please explain what the fuck you're on about... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well lemme sea, 10 to 15 constitues a 50% (or 'fitty' percent) increase, whereas Obama's rich donors only get a 10% increase (36 to 39.6 percent). Seems the little guy gets raped by the Democrats -- no vaseline. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob is physically incapable of honesty. Ace ^Drumcode 22:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you fucking dense, Rob? There's no change according to these numbers. Junggai (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

All the Dems gotta do is do nothin, and poo' folks taxes increase 50%. Just a plain, simple fact. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How does that statement not hold true for the Republicans as well? DickTurpis (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As a non-US citizen I am not sure but doesn't that make it GWB's fault? Ace ^Drumcode 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Should Obama not be expected to "Keep G.W.Bush's promise" to end his tax cuts after 10 years?

yeah.. I'm failing to see the logic here, not to mention that stating "raising taxes by 50%" is kind of an alarming statement when its 50% of a small percentage. that is a form of bloated statistic. i would be more concerned if taxes actually RAISED to 50% (or 50% on top of 10%). And the mud over the tax cuts has to do with republicans planning to defeat the bill to extend them, so if anything the GOP plans on using our taxes as a loaded gun to favor them.HKJGN (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought Obama was going to just roll back the tax cuts for people making more than 250K. Did that idea die? --Opcn (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, Rob? Let me simplify this as much as I possibly can: In 2007, a person making exactly $8375 would pay $865 in taxes. As of this year, that same person would pay $837.50 in taxes. Simple enough? Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 01:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else here ever tried to live on that kind of income? (Keep in mind that these people pay a net of 15.2% in FICA - employee plus employer - on every dollar after $400. People over ~$100k pay no more past that point) I think people in this income range should pay either no taxes, or a "nominal" amount, like 1-2% or so. ħuman

01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about the US tax system. Do you have to pay tax on every dollar earned? Do you not get any tax-free allowance before the tax bands kick in? We need to earn more than about $10K before they start deducting income tax. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The '50%' increase thing makes no sense whatsoever. None. All that is happened is that they have moved the threshold for the lower tax rate from $8,350 to $8,375 - a whole $25. This happens every year, and in fact this is the smallest rise in the threshold for the figures available there - back to 2005. The limit used to go up by about $300 a year, this time it's only gone up $25. Doofus. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Lily, while technically we pay tax on every dollar of income, there is a "standard deduction" for oneself and each dependent (but it's only a couple grand or so), and a handful of useful deductions for those who've made it into the middle class (like home mortgage interest). But, yeah, the poor pay tax on all their money, unlike the rich. ħuman

19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt has to be a parodist[edit]

Yes, on the 'family friendly trusworthy' encyclopaedia let's hold up Vincent Gallo as a model conservative. You know, the guy who thought getting blown by his ex on camera was art and put a curse on a film critic that rightfully pointed out his film was crap.

Conservative celebrities, putting hexes on people who disagree with them and releasing pornography as art since the founding of CP. - Iscariot (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I rented that movie, after 5 minutes I gave up, searched for the scene, watched that and sent it back to netflix. --Opcn (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt is one of the few people there who is not a parodist. He is simply very, very stupid. Like front-runner-for-the-next-biggest-idiot-at-CP stupid. Hmmmmm. This makes me think, who do we know is not a parodist at CP? I think we can agree on Andy, Ken, Karajou, Joaquin, Rob, Ed, amd Jpatt. Am I missing anyone? DickTurpis (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lil-Phyl, Roger, and Addison were not parodists, though they do not contribute much these days. --Opcn (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm talking about the regulars. Addison's been gone almost as long as Bethany and Sharon. Rog just shows up every few months a couple times a month to contradict Andy, and lil Phyl hardly does anything at all. DickTurpis (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For her own good, I'm glad she doesn't do anything more. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lil' Phyl has to be a closet liberal, given all the nonsense she's tried to stop. I wonder why avid reader Terry Koeckritz hasn't removed a pornographer from the list of good, honest conservative celebrities, could it be because he's a boss parodist and is happy to let such material stand? -- Iscariot (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

She is conservative, she just isn't nuts. Even with how much crazy runs in Rogers veins an objective observer would be forced to admit that he is better than Andy, why can't lil-phil be better still?--Opcn (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Public schools[edit]

So incited by the above, I went to see if I could load CP. Sadly, I could. After giggling at the main page, I hit "recent changes" and saw Andy was editing the headered article. So I went to choke on my vomit and read it. I won't quote one obviously disastrous fail sentence here, since that might get it fixed. But under the "after 1962" list of "much less impressive list of celebrities and others" is the entry "S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant". I am now more disgusted than usual by the sewer of hate that is CP. ħuman 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Although, I gotta add, I learned that Laura Bush (yes, that one!) came out in favor of gay marriage and abortion in May of 2010! How did we get scooped?! ħuman

02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I love that someone put Sara Palin on the unimpressive list. The astronaut that had the other astronaut stalk him went to my highschool. --Opcn (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We have one of those astro-museum things named for Christa McAuliffe here in NH, honoring the first civilian almost to make it to space. Geddit? Pissed me off that they couldn't even spell her name correctly. Of course, she was an atheistic liberal public school teacher... ħuman

05:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That whole "after 1962" list is hilarious as it contains people such as the following: Pat Tillman, who conservatives see as a hero; Bill Clinton, who only managed to get elect to the presidency of the United States.. twice; four different Metal of Honor recipients (is CP anti-military now?); Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, one of the most successful companies in America (CP anti-Capitalist too?); and speaking of astronauts, also Mae C. Jemison and Ellen Ochoa, the first African-American & Hispanic woman in space respectively. Yeah that is quite the unimpressive list there. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Annnnd just now Terry Koeckritz removes all astronauts and Medal of Honor recipients from the list^img. I see he reads this WIGO CP talk page page regularly. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This move is either uncharacteristically ballsy or (more likely) plain stupid - the "much less impressive"^img part was inserted by the hallowed leader himself. Countdown to revert and oversight commencing...Röstigraben (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I suspect most of the "heroes" listed above were added by parodists. The pre-62 list is all supposed to be magnificent successes, whereas the post-62 all conspicuous losers. It's an old example of Andy cherry-picking "data" to make some ridiculous point. ħuman

19:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Most likely true, but at least at that point it was a more honest list and not such a fragrantly biased sampling in their attempt to prove a point (which they know is false). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice typo. I presume you mean flagrantly biased. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

TK's removal of astronauts and ~~Metal~~ Medal of Honor winners is absolutely gross stupidity as it actually compounds the cherry picking of the list and making CP look like an even bigger bunch of deceitful pricks. Often I am disappointed when stuff is highlighted here and then gets removed, but this is exemplifies the flipside of that. It's wonderful when they walk right into a fool's mate trap. Great work TK, now what are you going to do? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, unlike Ken

, I never attempt to claim any sort of superiority in grammar, especially while going through 50 consecutive edits in an attempt to hide my own grammar mistakes while ripping on others. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Epic Fail[edit]

This... http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=821015&oldid=820979^img

Hey, at least this time it isn't some picture from Flickr and a stupid nonsensical caption under it.....RascalJack (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, so they are using modern science to "disprove Darwin"? F'ing morons. ħuman

03:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's Ken, give him some credit at least, like I said above. If this was written by a normal person, I would feel sorry for them; but this is Ken, the creator of...well, you know.RascalJack (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Of all the things that could go into the toucans bill being so large using it as a radiator is just about the least remarkable one from the creationists perspective. Just goes to show that they don't even understand their own concept of "Microevolution" either. --Opcn (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Until Joule/Mayer's work on The Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, the prevailing thought was that heat was particles that were released during fire or cutting, the paper was published in 1845. Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. It's not surprising that Darwin didn't consider the toucan's beak being used to radiate excess heat, as the concept was fairly new. Wein's black-body law was devised in 1893, and the photon itself was discovered in 1900. It's not surprising that some of Darwin's reasoning for animal's features is wrong; our understanding of science has vastly grown in the 150 years since Origin. These do not invalidate his work. CS Miller (talk) 09:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear Joule and Julius Robert von Mayer worked separately, not together. The old idea was the caloric theory, and was replaced by the kinetic theory. CS Miller (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"What’s more, toucans can even do it in their sleep!" - should I be astonished that thermal regulation is not a conscious faculty? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's not surprising that some of Darwin's reasoning for animal's features is wrong; our understanding of science has vastly grown in the 150 years since Origin. These do not invalidate his work." That response covers about 99% of antievolution arguments: evolution = Darwin, so if anything Darwin ever said ever = wrong, then all of evolutionary biology = wrong. Let's just ignore that the book was written before all of modern biology and is only referenced now purely out of historical curiosity, not as current scientific literature (I'm talking to you, Jonathan!). Kallium ^talk 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Therein lies their failing: they rely on a (Bronze age/Iron age/James 1) old book as infallible (pax Andy's rewrite) and assume that we ("evolutionists) likewise think our oldest book is similarly infallible. 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If Darwin said anything wrong, all evolution is bunk, but if any one thing in the bible actually exists (eg. the Red Sea, Jerusalem, etc.) then all the stories, miracles, and deities within it must also be True. Anything that isn't real is either misinterpreted or Liberal Bias^®. It sure is easier when you define "right" as being "what I want it to be". Kallium ^talk 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always held the view that creationists fall into two groups. The first group, which is most of them, are completely unaware of vast swathes of modern science, are too stupid to grasp it and/or automatically reject it as it conflicts with their religious view, and thus are easy marks for the second group, who knowingly misrepresent science to advance their own creationist views as 'facts'. Thus, this second group would maintain that Darwin's work is still the sum total of the understanding of evolution, even in modern times, as it's easier to try to refute or throw doubt on just that, rather than vast swathes of several major fields of modern science. 92.18.21.218 (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, the ignorant and the willfully ignorant... ħuman

21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Good ole Sailor Boy[edit]

"tow the party line:"^img. An easy typo but it shows how much they're monitoring each other's posts - not at all. How long would that have lasted here? 09:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Our Pedant Club would have fixed it in jiffy. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably the result of ignorance of the origin of the phrase rather than just a typo. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was allowing him the benefit of the doubt when I wrote above. we can't be seen to be picking on the bloody ignorant after all. 10:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While it wouldn't last long in an article, I have to say that I think I've seen more use of "tow" than "toe" in discussions here. ħuman

18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I humbly concur with that observation. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy's a nearly complete ignoramus, attracted as they are in droves to Conservapedia because it rewards merit so handsomely, but tow for toe is a very common error.

22:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, people are attacted to Conservapedia in droves. That's what I see too. Hateboy (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No Comment[edit]

Hat tip to Huw for pointing out this troll 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello big boy! Nice to see you're obsessing over us again. Must be a slow day, when the only editors left to block are those we mention. How about blocking DouglasA next? You must know he's a parodist, no? Or Jacob? Oh yes, and Jallen hasn't edited in ages maybe Andy should strip her rights and make you a 'crat. --PsyGremlinPrata! 11:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did, his contributions were obviously not legit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised Andy hasn't made TK a bureaucrat yet, considering that TK has effectively been controlling the site since mid-2007. --Sid (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by giving TK the right to open and close editing and account creation, Andy's probably given TK about the most power he can have. Andy seems clueless about how and when CP is open for editing and new accounts, so TK can basically shut it down. Still, it would be fun to see him made a 'crat, and watch him demote Andy et al and block them, leaving him running the kingdom. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that as site owner Andy can never be locked out unless he gives someone else his master password. As for TK becoming a 'crat there's probably not much more damage he could do that he hasn't already done. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What did I do? Lol. ħuman

18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tisane is totally not a troll, he is however serving 2 years in northern neck regional jail in Warsaw VA for violating the terms of his release after serving 18 months in a federal mental hospital for sending a letter to then Attorney General John Ashcroft declairing his intent to assassinate George Bush. --Opcn (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw! Poor widdle Tewwykins[edit]

is feeling all sowwy for hisself.^img Here's a little help Terry - mocking and derision do not equal hate. You're all too pathetic to hate. But too pig stupid to feel sorry for. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that I could hate Terry (and Karajou), the rest of them, Andy included, are just risible. I think he's the one most deserving of real emotion - being a despicable person. 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you hate him because he's a two-faced, lying, disingenuous, scummy piece of shit - not because he alleges to be a conservative Christian heterosexual. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pick any two from three? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think everybody hates Terry Koeckritz, but I have to hate ASchlafy too for his blinkered pig-ignorance and the way he shovels his bullshit down the throats of children. Terry Hurlbut is close too, for being an apprentice Terry Koeckritz in the lying stakes (Digg Patriots and using CP to generate revenue for his blog). The rest of them are fairly pitiful creatures. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing is the rest of them Schlafly, Hurlbut, Ken & even Kara, at least believe in what they say, TerryK has so many faces I'd be surprised if he even knows himself what he thinks. (badly put, but you get the gist of it) 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Terry's a bit like a dodecahedron but even on CP you can see that nobody "likes" him. They may appreciate his efforts in blocking the perceived "enemy" but you never get any sense that they like him. Of course thinking about this a bit more, I don't think that any of them like any of the others. They're just a bunch of misanthropes who happen to be in the same boat and can see that it make smore sense not to tread on each other's toes. Ultimately there is no "community" at CP. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenny attacks non-theist knowledge of religion by showing he doesn't know about his religion[edit]

There is little rant by^img Ken

over the Pew Forum survey showing non-theists in America being the most knowledgeable about religion.  After ranting about how "Atheists and agnostics" knowledge is shallow and ironically talking about supposed spelling errors, he shows that he isn't as informed about his own religion as he likes to present:

"However, the ultimate test of religious competency for atheists will be when they stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and not some religious trivial pursuit game designed by pollsters"

The "Judgment Seat of Christ" is according to Christian theology where the saved go to have determined what rewards will be given or lost depending on their faithfulness and obedience. In short Ken

is ironically saying all atheists and agnostics will be in heaven, because he is mixing the "Judgment Seat of Christ" with the "Great White Throne Judgment".  The latter in Christian theology being where the all the unbelievers go, get marked as guilty, and tossed into Hell.  Thanks for proving the point of the Pew research findings Ken! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken's Freudian slip

The only spelling error that I noticed (TL:DR) was the singular atheist instead of atheists. And that criticism comes from the man who typed "homoschooling". That said, Little Miss Pedant has noticed a lot of people here who type "athiest" and it was that which I exepcted to see in Ken's ref. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have only just really taken in BMcP's post. That's an excellent bit of info. I'll store that away for future use but you need to make a WIGO out of that. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Ken is the last person on this planet who should mock people for typos. But I do find his post enlightening since it basically says that you don't have to know shit about The Literal Word Of God to be a Good Christian. The only way I can see this working is if you make up your own rules and messages and then just project them into the Bible. Which nicely explains Andy's Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge article, the CBP, the "The Bible contains anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-capital-punishment, anti-gay messages" movement, and whatever else I might've missed. --Sid (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the case for most of the fundy bigots who profess to be Christians. Use all the OT hate and revenge quotes while ignoring Jesus's 'love your neighbour' and 'turn the other cheek'. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's always been the case with the fundy bigots: they pick the bits out of the Bible that reinforce their own beliefs, such as quoting Leviticus to justify hating on gays, but then ignoring all the other bizarre shit the Bible says about everything else. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My aethiest knowledge may be a mile wide and a quarter inch deep, but that's better than Ken's own 6 feet wide and 3/8ths of an inch deep. --Opcn (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit, I'm only four inches. Then again, most women don't like it that wide. ba-zing

Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get the idea of Bible supporting Guns, when guns or even gunpowder aren't invented back then. Another piece of biblical scientific/technological foreknowledge? And how does one become athier? As in if someone is the athiest, he has to be athier than someone else, right?)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that chronological snobbery to assume they didn't have things that weren't invented until later (according to atheist history). After all, they needed to defend their pre-deluge chimera labs somehow. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You probably start by being athy and keep being so until you get really good at it. Hateboy (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken

has a response^img for you. Do you reckon he and Terry Koeckritz actually spend more time reading RW than CP nowadays? -- Iscariot (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's so cute. Now get a room. ħuman

02:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And oh so quickly he's been bitchslapped via email and hidden the evidence. -- Iscariot (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you blame them, Iscariot? Reading CP is an awful chore, given how terrible most of the content is (especially articles beginning with A, E and H). RW by contrast is a blast. --Kels (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a fair point. In related news Ken

has had a panic attack and recreated the page to prove his ma-CHEESE-mo. Apparently TeaKake is incapable of bitchslapping him enough. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that just made my week. It's cool Ken

, if you need any other theological assistance you can always AIM me, I think Terry Koeckritz still has it, feel free also to continue reading RW for factual corrections. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

for fun^img: No one but Ken

contributed to Atheism and debate^img - who else starts a sentence In regards to athiesm [sic] and debate...? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The opening line to the article is Klassic Ken:

In respect to atheism and debate, although atheists claim there are reasonable arguments for atheism, the quality of atheist debate has been quite poor from the proponents of atheism.

^{ONE / TALK} 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's like GCSE English student writing an essay and not quite having the actual knowledge or ability to get an A, but is going to give blagging it a damn good try...

^theist 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

CP on Rick Sanchez's Firing[edit]

JPatt and teh Assfly point out that Rick Sanchez was fired by CNN after criticizing Jon Stewart^img. They, of course, leave out the fact that Sanchez also claimed Jews control the media. MDB (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's even in the seventh paragraph of the article they link to:

"I'm telling you that everyone who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?" Sanchez said, adding a sarcastic "yeah."

Don't expect CP sysops to read beyond the intro paragraph of stuff they cite. --Sid (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Heck, half the time they don't make it past the title. --Kels (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the contrast with the Helen Thomas thing... They were out for blood then... Guess they really don't mind you insulting Jews, just leave Israel out of it. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Smith - you lying sack of shit[edit]

So, I tracked down your little 'Obamaville' clip. And guess what I found? That's right, the Obamaville sign, wasn't made by the homeless, and wasn't even donated by the person who made the sign. No, some good conservative Christian spent good money making a sign, instead of, you know, maybe using that money to help the homeless. Instead of a stupid stunt that has once again back fired on conservatives. Just another example of Christian charity I guess.

At least know I know why your Obamaville article doesn't actually talk about Obamavilles. You prick.

Oh yes, and now the banner you so proudly display has been replaced with one saying "Please provide fire wood, propane and canned food." Also, why isn't this thoughtful conservative making his name known? Could he be ducking and running now that it's all gone wrong.

Come on over Rob, I can't wait to hear you reply on this. --PsyGremlinHable! 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

mmm...canned wood.. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful, it might be the stick up Rob's butt. --Kels (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when has Herbert ("Rugged Individualist") Hoover been a subscriber to Keynesian economics?

ListenerX^TalkerX 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've known the man personally for several years through one of the Christian ministries I'm involved with. I have no basis to doubt his word. He told me about the Obamaville incident after spending about six months in Colorado Springs. He & I do not see eye-to-eye on politics, is a rabid Bushhater, but he was extremely upset by Obama's betrayal of hope. (Back in 2008 he said in his Southern drawl, "Obama can't fuck it up anymore than all the other crackers already have.") Maybe I can make him available for an interview with you guys, but I haven/t seen him now in a few months.

Oh, and as the story goes, the Obama EPA responded to the banner by claiming the homeless camp lacked adaquate sanitation and threatened to remove them if they didn't install port-a-potties. Real compassion, huh? nobs^{don't bother me} 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"as the story goes" - links Rob, or it didn't happen. And when did the EPA become a charity organisation anyway, they probably did as much as they could within their jurisdiction. Also, how about in your Obamaville "article" actually listing the locations of some of them, how long they've been there, how many people live in them. You know, actually have the article - and citations - actually refer to the subject matter. You don't, because you can't. But the need to smear that uppity negro in the White House, is more pressing than the truth with the rabid right. Isn't it Rob? How long has the informal settlement referred to been in existence? All as result of Obama's stimulus package? And on who's watch did the fuck up occur that necessitated the stimulus package. Also your friend's quote seems more an indictment of politics in general, rather than Obama. However, I for one, would love an interview with the guy, just to find out why he sees it better to spend money on a stupid banner, than actually helping people. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the fairness of the Obamaville thing, according to the link above he does donate money, food etc to the homeless. It's not clear how much money he gives and how much the sign cost but I would question whether you can fault him solely for spending money on the sign. I don't think many here are living a life of poverty having given all their money to the homeless. Many of us do spend money on luxuries for ourselves, quite a few also spend money (in a variety of ways) on political causes they hold dear etc. There's surely no requirement for him to give all his money to the homeless to be entitled to have a say. A more relevant point is whether it's fair for him to use the homeless as part of what he's doing, particularly as it seems unlikely they'll be willing to tell someone who's helping them to piss off if they don't agree. As I've said, there are also issues of whether to say Obama has some blame for the current situation etc, but that doesn't seem related to where he spends his money issue at all. Incidentally, was there ever really any doubt the sign was made by a professional? It clearly looks like a professional sign to me. P.S. I don't know the whole story here since I'm lazy to look in to the history. It's not IMHO particularly relevant since what RS has done wrong or right, it's not really relevant to the point. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're beating up a straw man, Nil. No one's calling this man a hypocrite because he hasn't given away all his worldly possessions. He is taking criticism for using money he could have donated to make a cynical point. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My point though is the money is largely irrelevant. I don't see any reason why spending your money on a sign is in itself somehow intrinsicly worse then spending your money on a big screen TV, or a Xbox360 or whatever. To each their own. If someone's luxury is signs, well that's up to them. I don't really see it as my place to dictate to people what their luxuries of life should be provided they aren't harming other people. In fact I'm not sure whether it's fair to call it a 'luxury' either. If someone chooses to spend their money to buy campaigns ads for Obama or Palin or whatever, well again that's their choice. Perhaps the reason they're doing it is because they think it will improve the lives of Haitans. In such a case, you can argue whether it would have been better for them to donate their money to a charity helping Haitans and I don't see anything wrong with that but it's an ultimately likely impossible to prove either way which would have been better and in any case, even if donating would have been more effective, it was still their money so I find it difficult to criticise them for choosing to spend it in a way they presumably thought more effective. And at worse, what it means is the money spend shouldn't be regarded as noble or a good thing, but I don't see any reason to say the expenditure of money in itself was worse then someone spending money on luxuries. (Now their belief that their expenditure of money was a noble thing is a different matter and I see criticism of that belief as a resonable and valid issue.) The same as this sign, even more so since if we believe the story they had already been helping out. Now as I've said you may criticise this particular sign on other merits, e.g. argue it's missing the point, taking advantage of homeless people, and in fact I think these and others do have merit. But these issues are largely distinct from the issue of the money. In other words IMHO the issue to concentrate on is whether this sign is fair, not on whether it was acceptable for someone to spend their money on what you can regard as a luxury or a political contribution/advertisment or whatever you want. Sure this person (did the story establish it's a man? I forget) could have donated the money. Or he/she could have spent it on a an PS3. Or a prostitute (except thats illegal in most of the US, ooops). Or in an expensive bottle of wine. Or a day of pampering. Or a domain name, hosting etc for a website. Or an advertisement for whatever politician he/she supports. Or a campaign contribution to said politician. Donating the money to charity would arguably be the most noble. But few people donate all their money to charity. For the other things it's IMHO somewhat difficult and pointless anyway to try and argue one is somehow worse then the other purely from the view of the baseline (similarly to analysing the sign situation, if you for example analyse each situation you may argue what they've done their is wrong, e.g. the prostitute situtation if the prostitute was likely close to a sex slave). Most of us each day spend money on things which aren't really necessary for our lives. I'm sure we'll generally be rather pissed off if someone tells us every time we do so 'why are you wasting money on chocolate bars or whatever when you should be donating it to help out other people'. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's where you're wrong. If he had spent the money on himself, nobody would have cared. However, he chose to spend $x to score a cheap shot, using the homeless, who had been there since before Obama. He was quite willing to spend money to exploit them, but not to spend money to help them. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well firstly, as I've said several times, according to the story he/she has spent money to help those people. Now I don't know that the part is definitely true, as I've said before but I don't see any reason to think it's definitely false. Anyway more importantly, as I said earlier that's entirely the point. The criticism here should be of whether he/she's taking advantage of other people and whether the his/her point is fair and other things like that. NOT on spending money on it. There's no reason why him/her spending money on his/her favourite luxury, if that luxury happens to be signs is intrisctly wrong or bad. Or for that matter as I've also said on the plenty of other political causes many people to spend (IMHO usually waste) their money on. And in a similar vein, if the costs for the sign were almost negiliable, e.g. they used discarded paint, discarded wood and other stuff like that and did it totally themselves (I actually did wonder if the sign painter was the person who donated it since he seemed to know a lot about the person who donated the sign) is it someone okay for them to take advantage of other people and to mislead because they aren't spending money? No of course not. In fact this case is IMHO barely better then the case we have. In other words, as I've said all along the issue here isn't the money but the other things involved. The person can spend their money on the luxuries they want, they can spend their money to promote their politicial views/candidates (I'm not actually a strong supporter of people spending unlimited money on promoting political candidates but I'm not completely opposed to some private money for political causes, look up the Exclusive Breathen scandal in NZ and you may see where I'm coming from) its up to them. The spending money is not a problem. When they mislead, or if they take advantage of other people or whatever thats the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ From what I can gather we actually don't know if this person has also spent money on helping the homeless who were abandoned by bush and the republican/conservative right and subsequently have been let down by Obama whilst he tries to sort out the mess that bush left the US economy in. What we DO know is that Rob Smith was and is lying in his cp piece about this.Oldusgitus (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story: Three homeless guys at a homeless campsite in Colorado Springs pooled thier resources, $30 each, to have the Obamaville sign painted. Total cost was $90. The sign than was posted on a fence outside the homeless campsite along a freeway exit. The guy who told me the story (who goes by the street name Donald Duck) was one of the initial investors. Donald Duck is a diehard Southern Democrat, hate Republicans, hated Geo. Bush, and voted for Obama cause he thought Obama would do something to create jobs and infrastructure development. Last winter, while in the frezing Colorado winter, these guys started having second thoughts about Obama & cp:Obamunism. Hence the sign. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That particular encampment predates the Obama administration, but fuck it... you've got an agenda to push. It wouldn't be so bad if you admitted that is was extremely biased and out-of-context propaganda. Not so much on CP, but here. Even if it's by omission, you're still a lying sack of shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story: I don't believe you, Rob. The news story clearly indicates that both signs were designed by a professional (Spencer Swann of Colorado Canyon Signs) and paid for by one anonymous individual who was not homeless. I suppose you could argue that Swann is lying, but as you have a history of being...creative with the truth, I'm disinclined to take your word for it.

Also: Both you and Swann are wrong about the stimulus, which included $1.5 billion to the HUD for programs to help the homeless. You can argue that it's not enough, you can argue that the HUD is ineffective in fighting homelessness, but you can't argue that Obama did nothing. Well, you can't honestly argue that, anyway. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

All I know is what I was told. And I have no resaon to doubt the veracity of my source. And yes, the encampment did predate Obama, however, as the story goes, the homeless camp was growing in the winter of 2009, and the new residents were many who activiely did support & vote for Obama, and were dissappointed at the abject failure of the Stimulus and neglect of the promises made and HOPE engendered by Obamunism. One person carrying in the $90 to the sign maker does not negate the veracity that the source of funds were three homeless individials within the camp. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean he didn't instantly solve an enormous and complex global problem despite the outright opposition of the entire GOP, to say nothing of the Teabagging nutters? Hanging's too good for him. --Kels (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, even with the filibusterproof Dems still couldn't railroad thier schemes to destroy the lives of our children. Now three weeks before the election, Dems have to explain to working families, struggling to feed thier children on $7.25 an hour, why they are raising taxes on poor working class scum from 10% to 15%, a 50% increase. Even the rich aren't getting raped like this. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Rob, Obama's plan would leave the lower tax rates as they are now, increasing only the higher ones. Nice try, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Duh, dudn't the Congress hav to vote onit? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, moron, Congress does have to vote on it. If the Republicans don't filibuster, then it will be passed. If they do, I suppose you'll blame the Democrats anyway because your brain is wired wrong and you can't grasp simple concepts. DickTurpis (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia now accepts hearsay and third-hand unverified statements as fact? Or only when they serve your need to bash Obama? I know Andy cites a dinner conversation with a dead judge, but a wino? Really Rob? And once again, I'll ask the question: Where in your Obamaville article does it say how many Obamavilles there are, where are they located and how many people live in them? You can't answer them, because they don't exist outside of your mind. Deny it, and lose all credibility. Oops, too that for that I guess. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hearsay my butt, it's straightforward reporting based on first person interview. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rob - hearsay (or is it "common knowledge, just like the New Ordeal?). It's an unverified "conversation that you had" and the only proof I have is you telling me. That's hearsay. And it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Also, encyclopaedias don't "report" - maybe you're getting mixed up with WND, or maybe you're finally admitting that CP is just another right-wing hate blog? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's got to be great to be that intellectually dishonest and think you're fooling everyone. As soon as they take down the "Bushville" sign and hang up "Obamaville" it's time to get fired up and talk about this elephant which has magically appeared in the conservative periphery. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor point here, I find the heading of this section redundant. It's sort of like saying "Pacific Ocean, you sizeable body of water near Asia!" DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, " based on first person interview" You interviewed congress first person? --Opcn (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow! Bushville. Who knew they existed, right?

When will we see an article on these Rob? --PsyGremlinTala! 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)