Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive201

This is an archive page, last updated 13 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>, <200>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Hello again

Hey everyone, hope all is well. Apologies if this was mentioned at the time, but was going through some older CP pages and found a great little exchange. A user posts a wordy, but good response to a question about socialism and communism and forgets to sign. TK not only deletes, but oversights the point and a nasty little note.^img Apparently, it's too hard to check history pages to see who posted what.... But the user comes back, reinserts their original post and then adds an unsigned tag^img to TK's post, making him look really stupid. Not that it's hard. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dememoryhole, Justin Caise. CS Miller (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

TK has failed at reading diffs for years now. ħuman 05:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I laughed so hard that I pooped a kidney when Tisane did that. It's a shame they drove him away, he seems to know his metawiki stuff. --Opcn (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, your kidney popped out of my computer's cupholder. "It is not my job to go to the pages history to see who is saying what, and typically I will delete such unsigned posts and block the user." How the fuck do you know who to block if you don't go to the page's history, numbnuts? ħuman 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Terry "Quick, Hide My Stupidity" Koeckritz got in his memory holing before capturebot. It's always good to do your own screencap beforehand because evreyone knows what a dishonest scumbag TK is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I viewed the pages at home; but only added the capture tags from work. I might have the pages still open on my home computer, and probably have them in browser's cache. However it will be about a day at least before I can rescue them. CS Miller (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz, this was your lucky day. I'd closed the browser windows, and the pages seem to have expired from the cache. CS Miller (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Man... That time off is screwing with my head, I didn't even think to add the captures and such.... Sadly for old TK, the internets is an amazing place. I was able to pull up a non-oversighted version via cache.... I don't think it's particuallary important, but it's fun. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 22:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This? [3] Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good find Nil. Screen capped version here. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuckknuckle

One "k" or two? Seriously. I seek enlightenment. Firefox' spellchequer seems to think two ks is fine. ħuman 07:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a compound word it has got to be two. --Horace (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But what's this got to do with CP? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Touché! ^{ONE / TALK} 14:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It just plain looks better with two k's. Being that one k is silent it makes it funnier. Aphoxema (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually... I count three. --79.31.31.68 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, good point... ħuman 21:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy making shit up again.

So now linguists suddenly agree languages don't have a common ancestor.^img I must have missed that meeting. Must be so nice to have your own blog where you can say whatever you like, without providing sources. Clearly Andy has never heard of Proto-Indo-European. Or Latin being the base of the Romance languages. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he's trying to say. There are languages isolate such as Basque, which have no known ancestor. The WP article language family implies that there are 18 ancestral languages, and they are isolated from each other. Even if there was not ONE universal ancestor, that doesn't mean languages split and evolve. In biology abiogenesis is separate from evolution, and there is no reason why two abiogensis events could not occur at the same time in two different locations (apart from how unlikely abiogenesis is). CS Miller (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"there was no common ancestor of all language families, therefore all languages came about independently." Even, I suppose, languages whose origins can be traced historically, like Afrikaans, Romanian or Icelandic. Andy, you really are a numbnuts. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem? Andy writes, "The theory of evolution suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel." As I'm reading it that's completely correct (aside from the obvious nonsense about evolution, and Genesis). He never says that all languages came about independently, just that there are language families with no common ancestor (e.g. Indo-European and Na-Dene). And monogenesis was indeed a fairly widely held belief, though perhaps he overstates its historical prevalence. --MarkGall (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I see now that he posted this crap in the evolution article too. But it sounds more like poor wording to me than Andy actually not believing Indo-European languages are related... --MarkGall (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a YEC, Schlafly couldn't accept one single original language because that would surely have been a lot longer than 6000 years ago. Indeed, I'd say the trouble with finding a common linguistic ancestor would be that this ancestor would be so old it would be barely recognisable as a language! ^sshole 14:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well surely Adam and Eve spoke English? And all those other languages were created in Babel.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam and Eve spoke the language of the serpent, in order for the serpent to communicate with them. There are no known changes in languages of the serpent recorded in the Bible. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolution never claims that all human languages have a common origin, neither does linguistics. There is no reason to ever assume that there would be, and the idea of several basal isolated mother-tongues developing for early humans make perfect sense. Ironically, according to the Bible and YEC history, all of humanity did have a common single language until Babel, and who is to say that language isn't common to all the languages that came out of Babel?

Also notice he has no references to cite that show scientists claimed for a century that all languages have a common ancestor, he is simply lying.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For additional hilarity, the CP Language article has since become a target for parodists^img. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely lying -- the idea the all languages have a common ancestor ("proto-World", "proto-Human") has been around for a long time and it still has a few supporters today (though I don't think it has ever been a majority opinion). Joseph Greenberg (who did a lot of work on linguistic typology) endorsed this view. Some people have even tried to work out its vocabulary. There's also a strange paper by Murray Gell-mann of all people claiming that proto-world must have had SOV word order. --MarkGall (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well like you said, it was a minority-view and of course the idea that not all languages have the same original proto-language certainly doesn't show Bible Scientific Foreknowledge in any way or put any doubt on Evolution, in fact I cannot see how it could. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, of course not. I don't mean to argue -- proto-world is just one of those crazy ideas that's probably wrong but still fun to think about, so I figured I might as well point it out here. --MarkGall (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, the basic point is that it's a total strawman to claim that the belief in a common origin for languages was a product of evolutionary thinking. I think it's totally hilarious, by the way, that Amanda Bunting's edit will probably be allowed to stand. Junggai (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it will, since when did they ever care about factual science? It doesn't matter if it was written by an obvious parodist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'm not a linguist, but surely language doesn't just spring from fricking nowhere like the creationist orchard, right? If you accept common descent for biology, then language has to follow that sort of track slightly, right? Otherwise you're proposing that the the homo genus appeared and diversified and then a magic fairy waved a wand and language appeared, with no relation at all to the grunts and calls that came before it. Anyway, I might just head off and read WP on the subject. ^sshole 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're surely right, but on the other hand human language is fundamentally different from animal grunts and calls. Those don't have anything resembling a grammar with the capacity to generate anything like sentences, they're just repeated utterances from some finite set and with some fixed meaning. So what exactly is the difference, and where is it coming from biologically (did it require some sort of brain evolution?). Chomsky-Hauser-Fitch argued in "The Faculty of Language ..." that the basic new property of human language is a capacity for recursion. Pinker-Jackendoff say this is crap, though I don't remember what exactly they're proposing. There are a lot of other strange theories about origins of language too, but Wiki could tell you more about that than I can. I don't really know much about this either, maybe someone here actually has a clue... --MarkGall (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not a linguist, but I've read enough about the history of linguistics to know that the first search for common ancestor languages predates Darwin by several decades at least, when certain Sanskrit scholars were compelled by that language's many similarities with Ancient Greek to search for an answer. Proto-Indo-European was the resultant theoretical language. The overweening search for "the origin of language" might have been influenced by Darwin's work, but by 1860 it was already a forbidden discussion in the linguistic societies of both London and Paris for being hopelessly speculative. So much for Andy's "widespread evolutionary/atheistic belief lasting from the 1860's to 1960's.

As for the question if accepting common descent in biology makes such a model for the development of languages plausible, it's probably not that simple. For sure, the capability of language was an evolved trait in humans, but between that point and the development of linguistic complexity we can only speculate. Did languages spring up right away after the capability was evolved, or did the capability lie dormant for tens of thousands of years? How quickly did languages become complex after that point? These are questions we can never answer. AFAIK, we can't even really be sure whether the Neandrathals had language. What's for sure though is that languages don't evolve complexity. Modern German is not necessarily more complex than Old Norse. If anything, it's the other way around. Junggai (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A little evolutionary biologmixed with memetics for you for you. Since language is a thin memetic layer built on a deeper genetic structure the memetic layer can shift profoundly while still holding on to its deeper genetic universal structure and not hold onto the vestiges of its former self. The genetic backup copy of gramatical concepts of communication in humans means that the memetic body of a language could in principle start from scratch if say for instance you had a village that was all deafened by some pathogen or fluke of genetic luck and then had hearing children. --Opcn (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Predictions

Do we have a list of all the predictions Andy has made along with the eventual result? The two that spring to mind are when he predicted the Tories would win with a landslide in the UK General Election (they didn't), and that a woman would win the Fields medal (nope). Now he's predicted that the Democrats will lose control of Congress (they won't lose the Senate and might just hold on to the House). Can anybody remember any others, and is it worth creating an article / section somewhere? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Last presidential election should be a no-brainer, I think, though I'm too lazy to dig for links. --Sid (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We might need a Nostrandymus article.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Androdamus make predictions about the imminent demise of Wikipedia? Auld Nick (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lily, are you referring to Nostradamus or is it some other dude? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lily and Nick are both proposing mashups of Nostradamus and Andy Schlafly's name for a CP namespace article on Andy's various and sundry predictions. ħuman 01:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he say that WP would be dead within 5 years, or that CP would be bigger than WP within 5 years? --PsyGremlinSprich! 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Was Andy one of the ones who was saying Obama (or was it Hillary?) was going to lose because he was an affirmative action president and whenever Americans have voted on affirmative action they've voted against it? Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy finally also picked up the "Atheists more knowledgeable" article...

And manages to fail even more spectacularly than Ken (IMHO):

Andy says:^img

67% recognize that public school teachers cannot read to class from the Bible. The clueless L.A. Times claims this answer is wrong, but fails to recognize how liberals who run schools will punish recognition of God.

Article says:

The question that elicited the most correct responses concerned whether public school teachers are allowed to lead their classes in prayer. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents correctly said no. However, 67% also said that such teachers are not permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature, something the law clearly allows.

*sigh* Andy really doesn't comprehend that the Bible can be read in any mode other than "ACCEPT THE WORD OF GOD OR DIE IN HELLFIRE!", does he? --Sid (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

He cannot understand the different between reading the Bible as literature, which is 100% legal and is done, and preaching to the class from the Bible as TEH TRUTH!™, imposing your religion on a captive audience, which is illegal in public schools. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to be of the belief that if you read the Bible and understand it, then you'd of course be struck by how right the whole thing is and have no choice but to convert to Christianity on the spot. Which probably ties in to his belief that any atheist who says they've read the Bible is lying, because if they'd read it they wouldn't be atheists any more now, would they? Checkmate! --Kels (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, Andy is yet again struggling with language and grammar as he attempts to convey the idea that the newspaper is "clueless" because it considers those answers wrong based solely on the action's legality, while not taking into acount the real situation (which the poll respondents knew): the existence of a de facto ban on Bible-reading enforced by liberal peer-pressure and tyrannical liberal control of public institutions. According to Andy, although they have the right to read the Bible in class, public school teachers don't dare to do so for fear of liberal retribution; according to Andy, that is the de facto situation poll respondents were aware of (regardless of their knowledge of what the law is).--Xyr (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, you guys are right: he appears to perceive all Bible-reading as "recognition of God". I had to re-read it several times before realizing that someone could actually think like that.--Xyr (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first analysis is likely right, though. He seems to aim at the "It's not the wrong answer because of liberal censorship" issue (but then his "can't read the Bible without preaching" thing comes in). But his fail starts earlier than "unable to put his ideas in proper words": The question is explicitly about the legal situation (see Q50 on page 13 of this PDF):

According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to, (READ FIRST ITEM, RANDOMIZE a-c), or not? And is a public school teacher permitted to (NEXT ITEM), or not?

a. lead a class in prayer

b. read from the Bible as an example of literature

c. offer a class comparing the world's religions

So yeah, answering "No" is indeed the wrong answer, regardless of what you think will happen if you dare read from the Bible as an example of early literature. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

lol Thank you for the details, Sid; I had only read the newspaper article.--Xyr (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's been four months since the last "clueless" sighting! Slim pickens the last couple years... ħuman 22:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No surprises there - there's no one to say it to anymore. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ħuman 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, while the measly handful in 2009 were directed at other editors, all four so far this year are referring to off-wiki people or things. ħuman 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

How accurate is this^img? It seems like a fairly sane edit, and I am tempted to port it over here, copyright be damned. ħuman 04:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be reffed to here. And damn, that capturesnot is fast! ħuman 04:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, CP is dealing with our Rummel-quoting friend of a few months ago. ħuman 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FOIA Jr. there is one of the last good faith editors at CP. He's also added some 4,000 words to the "Bias in Wikipedia" section - see here. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 14:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't call them "Conspiracy Theories", he does make some good points there. I wouldn't use Wikipedia for such controversial subjects as a source. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Government fail 2010

The third lecture is finally up. Well, parts of it. Anyway, the last two paragraphs are rather strange for Andy: he not only argues that the Iranian hostage crisis wasn't Carter's fault, but concedes that the state of the US economy may at least in part be beyond Obama's control, when CP has relentlessly bashed him for failing to turn it around. Hell, half of the main page is exclusively dedicated to unemployment statistics and "Obamunism/Obamageddon" news bites. I'm wondering if this is another cut-and-paste job using material from way back when Andy wasn't a rabid ideologue? Röstigraben (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked the endless repetition of He He He he He he He he.... ħuman 09:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The entire lecture is moderate and reasonable, if a bit awkwardly written. Credit where credit is due. — Pietrow ☏ 10:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Awkward" is kind. Sexist is also applicable. ħuman 10:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also a crap "lecture", at best good for ten minutes. ħuman 10:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It reads like it was written by someone with limited attention span who hasn't set up a framework for their project. Something that I would expect from a 14 year old homescholar for instance.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Like all his "lectures" it reads like a stream of consciousness - he doesn't outline or plan - just starts somewhere and goes wherever it leads. 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is cringeworthy on so many levels.

And Human, if you want to pad out this two minute "lecture" in order to make it last ten minutes, you need to intersperse it with eight minutes of Andy's giggles. Think about this. Think about the psychological damage in just thinking about this. Think of the children.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it sexist? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Human is referring to the extensive use of 'he' when it comes to the President. It's the reason I thought of from reading it and if you look carefully at the above discussion it was actually referred to earlier Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. ħuman 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is he ever going to mark poor student 5 and 7 homework for lecture one? Or did they miss some deadline even though I don't see any on the page and he doesn't seem to care about deadlines given that he said lecture three would be out by the end of September. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually a very deterring article to his entire argument about president Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing ends up wiped from CP in the next couple days.HKJGN (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 at CP

What a record-breaking month!

CP
RW
CZ

• At the last day, Conservapedia reached the milestone a wrote about above: exactly 100 editors had made comments at CP over the last four weeks!
• In fact, in September 2010, only 109 editors left a comment, the lowest number since January 2007!
• The number of edits (< 4,400) is the lowest since February 2007 - the time before the first press articles on Andy's project...
• more than 80% of these edits were made by only ten editors - this seems to be a record, too!

So, congratulations all around...

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. What percentage of edits where made by notKen? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the pie chart, then perform a subtraction. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, stupid me. Hah, that means the regulars make 75% of all nonKen edits. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

When Ed makes up more than 5% of your edits then you really know that you've had a poor month. (No pun intended.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see how many of TK's 12.4% aren't to MPL, talk pages or blocking editors. The wiki is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another telling statistic is that only 13 editors made 50 or more edits the entire month (the usual suspects plus 5 others), while 43 did at RW. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the data for Citizendium: Numbers of contributing editors are up because of the whole statute voting thingie... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy - the perpetual Aunt Sally

It's hilarious how Andy lets himself be duped by people pandering to his vanity. Although TK is the biggest perpetrator of this tactic we have seen how he has been conned into foolhardy escapades like the Lenski, PNAs and Moo letters. Now someone has persuaded him that Bible quotes should come from the Conservapedia Bible Project. The Emperor's clothes are getting increasingly transparent and substanceless.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant. Then again, I suppose somebody has to use it. Can't let all that work by the Best of Parodists Pubic go to waste. Btw, how's their translation of Song of Solomon coming along? Or is that project also dead now? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this actually marks quite a milestone. It's one thing to try and rewrite the Bible, it's another to successfully implement and use this "translation", elevating it to the status of One True Version. ^sshole 14:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Who was the person who stroked Andy's ego enough for him to make the switch? It's only a matter of time until every Bibble ref on CP is a CBP ref. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting there's a commandment along those lines in the pipeline. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It was TeacherEd^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another one to whom the "real name and initial' doesn't apply. Hmmm... a teacher... from New York... called Ed. Now, where have I heard those before? Lol, I first heard of Conservapedia when I learned about its amazing project to create a new translation of the Bible^img Yeah, he's legit. --PsyGremlinTala! 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

From his contributions list^img, it would appear that "TeacherEd" is the only one still contributing to the CBP, I smell parody. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, either he's real or he's aiming^img for the "Most thorough non-asshole parodist" award of the year. Entertaining either way, though. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

For the Song of Salomon, it was me who started "translating" it, but TK blocked my IP for a completely different reason, so I'll never going to finish it. I did "translated" the whole book of Jonah though, and its have been there for more than 3 months (although it is more stupid than funny, I was not a good parodist). Its obvious that Andy dont really care about his bible project any more. --Tlaloc (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the bible project what ever happened to DeniseM? What she just trolling and gave up? Did her discussions and work in the world history pages make her realise she was wasting her time? Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

She gave up after more of Andy's "I-know-more-than-you-la-la-la-la-la-can't-hear-you-go-bake-some-cookies" drivel. The man is incapable of setting aside his ego in favour of sound advice. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken being sane?

Is it just me, or is he mostly making sense in his edits here^img and prior? Seriously. ħuman 04:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Never thought he'd be one to turn traitor to Conservatism (Andy style). It won't last, of course. --Kels (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Who killed Kenny and replaced him with a real person? 04:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Terry Koeckritz in this matter. Especially given the last US neutron bombs were dismantled in 2003....

That man's as up-to-date as Andy's lectures. -- Iscariot (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like something I would have written ... wow --Opcn (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It not only make sense, but also was coherent and thoughtful. Huh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He must have found his meds. 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's beautiful that Terry says: Yes, but your logic goes haywire here. But only when Ken gets perfectly lucid.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, Ken's political right-leanings do not stretch beyond his extreme SOCIAL conservatism. I know that I've seen him before bash the Republican party (and not in a "they're not conservative enough" way) and maybe even the war in general. Ken doesn't toe the party line outside of stuff like evolution and atheism, so he simply doesn't talk about that stuff very often. -- JArneal 07:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, these posts are also remarkably well written compared to his usual crap - no "regards" and no pointless repetition of key words. Oh, and it's nice to see that TK is always willing to jump in and make up for a temporary drop in insanity by suggesting that the US should nuke the Middle East. Röstigraben (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing his idea of a "well-placed" bomb is right on Mecca. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember the stopped clock principle. Blue (is useful) 08:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's impossible for Ken to be a parodist. But seriously, my eyebrows went up and my mouth opened. I was seriously impressed. Dare I say the man gained a little bit of respect from me? At least until his next "Homosexuality and ________" article. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Agree with me!^img Or are you a dirty liberal? Answer me now, for I am Terry Koeckritz!" -- Iscariot (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I especially like the highlighting of "feelings" to show contempt for the concept. --Kels (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, Worm your honor.

The crown will plainly show

The prisoner who now stands before you

Was caught red-handed showing feelings

Showing feelings of an almost human nature;

This will not do.

Hang on a sec, he's actually saying that killing the majority of the population of Iraq and Afghanistan (60m) and having the remainder turn against the US is an acceptable trade-off? Trade off against what? Am I reading that right? If so, TK, stop being a prick. There are children reading this medieval bile. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Onanation

I saw Jpatt playing with File:Onenation.jpg and assumed it was a typo. </snigger> I suppose it is rather self-pleasuring. 05:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing^img is full of bitterness. " ... the liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" - don't I recall a certain New Jersey homeschool teacher taking a load to a rally by bus? and Really well sourced: "... includes finding non-union or jobless people that get a minimum wage payment to attend and inflate their perceived attendance numbers." 05:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

While all of the current active sysops have unpleasant characteristics, JPatt is just plain nasty. I know I shouldn't judge someone by their looks but in his FB profile he looks like a typical racist thug. All his CP edits and Twitter feeds are largely raw bile.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the last line, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama as a typical "community organiser" rallied the left *spit* to attend". ^{ONE / TALK} 08:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing from the usual bile by Jpratt that the march was a bigger success than Becks'? Lol, found this gem "Beck has estimated that 500,000 people came to his gathering; but according to one count commissioned by CBS News, 87,000 people attended the event." Looks like Glen took Andy's maths class.--PsyGremlinSiarad! 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservative maths explains how five loaves and two little fishes feeds 5000.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In true Jpratt style, that entry reads like it was written by a 12-year-old. Neither paragraphs, nor commas in sight. (I'm sure if you ask Human, he'll lend you some from WP) Awful sentence construction: "Every conceivable liberal..." followed by "Every socialist organization..." followed by "Every group of the left..." - it's as bad as Ken's "in regards to."

"A typical Democrat event organizing...' what does that even mean? English, motherfucker, do you speak it? It's just another example of the high standards CP sets for its contributors, not to mention the example its administrators set for others. Also - "liberals in true astroturf fashion made their way by buses" (astroturf???) versus "people from all over America made the journey to the Lincoln Memorial" How? On foot? Or in true conservative fashion - each one in their own gas-guzzling SUV, complete with gun rack? It's a bitter little rant, written by a bitter little man and the kindest thing I can say about it, is that it belongs in essay space. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Psy, were you wondering what astroturf refers to? ħuman 21:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

@Lily, I must confess that I was tempted to call you out on the "looks like a racist" comment, but having done the appropriate search and seen the ten possible matches, it really doesn't take much effort to pick out the CP admin from his photo alone, does it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god.... That article is painful, but I must admit, I loved this little gem "Every socialist organization the left supports was in attendance; Teamsters, SEIU, NAACP, Huffington Post, LaRaza, Center for American Progress, Planned Parenthood, Code Pink, Al Sharpton, Organizing for America and fittingly the Young Communist League." Who knew Al Sharpton was an organization? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Al Sharpton may not qualify as an organization, but his hair does. MDB (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We really will have to stop doing their proofreading for them 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Giggle

Karajou makes a funny: "It it any wonder that Conservapedia exists, to counter the lying that continues to come from the liberal left?" What - with lies from... er... a half-dozen poorly educated, bitter, middle-aged, ultra right-wing, fundamentalist men? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, I am sure that is how they really view themselves, some kind of counter-force to "the liberals". It help explains why the mainpage right, current affairs, and political articles receive virtually all the focus to the detriment of everything else (outside Ken

's weird pet projects). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My english skill decays so fast I can no longer comprehend it properly — what exactly is meant by "It it any wonder that..." ? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Typo of "is it" --Opcn (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is still there. C®ackeЯ

Still there. How many hours does that make? --PsyGremlinParla! 07:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

MPR scrolls so fast no one fixes it unless "we" do. It's still there. ħuman 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Still there. Way to run a blog, fellas. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gettysburg?

Karajou is having a frothy^img over the "under God" being removed from the Gettysburg address. He cites World Nutty Delusions, but a Google search would indicate that besides WND, it's only the rabid right blogs (parkersburgwvteaparty, www.patriotupdate.com, etc) covering it.
Massive cover up by the liberal media, or more conservative lies and crap being spouted? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Only nutters are "reporting" it because it's a total non-issue. Obama paraphrases Gettysburg address, leaves out part irrelevant to his point, film at 11. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they also complained about him cutting creator from the DOI when he said that all men are created equal, and proceeded to get the gist across while removing redundancy. --Opcn (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Nobel Prize Season...

... and Terry Koeckritz starts it off with a bang by pointing out that Robert Edwards, the winner of the medicine prize, is an atheist.

Note his religious beliefs or lack thereof are not mentioned in either the article cited or his Wikipedia article.

For what it's worth, the prize was for developing in vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies"). My nephew is a result of IVF, so thank you, Doctor Edwards. MDB (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's plainly demonstrative of the CP attitude to everything that Dr Edwards' religious attitudes (or lack thereof) is worthy of mention in a news story about his medical achievements. My niece is a result of IVF too, so three cheers for Dr. E. :) Worm^{(t | c)} 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Logic 101; If the winner isn't a white christian male, they didn't deserve to win. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a TK news item about the Nobel Prize, it's surprisingly neutral. Guess we have to wait for Andy to deliver the "Liberal award! [Random conservative doctor] was left in the dust because of his belief in God! Conspiracy! Censorship!" rant. --Sid (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering the Catholic Church, at least, opposes IVF, conservative outrage is now doubt forthcoming. MDB (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but he's British! I think we can be 95% certain on his attitude towards school prayer... ^sshole 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That explains why there are so many multiple births with IVF. The British can't count! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could edit the CP main page. This news item is just screaming to end with "He developed the technique together with Patrick Steptoe, who died in 1988 and went straight to hell with all the babies he and his liberal colleague aborted." Carlaugust (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be allowed!

Ken has cited Wikipedia^img to support his position. TK, you know what you must do. EddyP (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm liking Ken more and more (starting from not at all that doesn't mean a lot though) 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally Ken does make sense. In the ZB, he used to stand up for PJR. Of course, being Ken, everybody ignored him. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's perfect non-contradictory logic

Andy says about the Theory of Relativity: "Here^img is a list of 32 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect."

On a related note, you can't^img just throw out a theory because of one anomoly!

Rationalwiki, I love you. Hugs and kisses for everyone! Carlaugust (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a really nice find. Good old patented AndyLogic™. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gets worse the more you look at it: It hasn't happened (in modern times), and if it did happen, it's just human error, meaning that it didn't happen. It's the Obama issue all over again: "But where is the real birth certificate, Mrs Calment? The one that proves that you cannot be more than 120 years old?" --Sid (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, from a certain, literal point of view he is consistent: he is not rejecting relativity because of "merely one anomaly", he rejects if because of 32...--ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example that's more to the point: "If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails." Replace "evolution" with "Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge" and enjoy. =P --Sid (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Straight from Andy's mouth^img, things from the Bible don't count as observations.Carlaugust (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The "if any one" argument is a potential minefield for young-Earth creationists because the reverse must also hold. I don't think that AIG or CMI would use that line of argument (although they do persist with the Bible contains no contradictions). Of course a buffoon like Andy Schlalfly is only setting himself up for further ridicule. I can only gawp at the idiocy of a man who has undergone so much education.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lanch has worked Andy into an unwinnable position, time for TK to ban him. --Opcn (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In reference to Carl's link: I was going to make a list of potential things Andy could say in response to the Biblical figures that lived longer than 120 yrs. Never in my wildest dreams did I think using the Bible wouldn't be a sufficient counterexample. How can anyone doubt that this man is mentally ill, not funny crazy, but actually seriously ill. This is the guy who uses Bible stories as if they had the same mathematical rigour as a Fields Medal winner. No brain can handle the dissonance necessary without severe damage. I'm pretty sure Andy's brain is simply going to realize it has no purpose in life and say, "Fuck it!", and leave. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Selective Foreknowledge

Yes Andy^img, you're completely right. Unless you actually read the Bible and then tell me the age of people like Noah, Adam and Methuselah. Shit, if you actually read it then you can see that according to your 'trusted source' Cain and Enoch haven't died yet. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Even CP's own article on Methuselah states "Living to be 969 years old, he died within a few weeks of the Great Flood, in 1656 AM.". So either Andy's foreknowledge is wrong, or the Bible is. He'll have to fix that obviously Liberal insertion in the CBP. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

From the CP page on Enoch: "Most other people at that time were living for 900 years or more." Honestly, Andy, I realize that even you don't care anymore, but it would be nice if the parts of your blog were at least coherent. Colonel of Squirrels^{你有两头母牛。他们是删掉了。} 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 6:3, where it mentions no more then 120 years also in the next verse talks about giants. The rest of that chapter is God talking to Noah, who by the time of the end of the chapter is getting on some 600 years, and according to Bible lore, lives to be 950.

Others in that pre-flood world of Genesis 6 or before who specifically surpassed 120: Jarad, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Mahalalel, Lamech, Shem, Enos. Now I suppose they would argue that the "pre-flood world" was different and special and blah, blah, blah, and people naturally lived that long. However, Eber, who in Genesis 11, lived entirely after the supposed flood died at 464 (Genesis 11:14-17), Salah lived to be 433, Peleg to be 239 years old (Genesis 11:16-19). The patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, Abraham himself lived to be 175, Jacob 147, and Issac 180, therefore also shooting that "120 years maximum life" Biblical decree out of the air. Of course all of this presumes all of these people existed but those who wrote the various books of the OT certainly believed they did, and in that Iron Age Levant world of Psalms, I am sure it was considered amazing anyone did live to be 70 or 80.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I like that today's average lifespans are exactly the ones from the Bible. And I also like that the dudes in Psalm 90:10 had the common sense to specify the average global lifespan of 2010. Because boy, does the local average seem to fluctuate... For bonus points, Jeanne Calment defied God by being 122 years old. --Sid (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The lifespan aren't 120 years after god alledgedly commanded it; but then I don't suppose Andy got the time to read the article. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate." WTF? More like they've become accurate for our current time because of modern medicine. Even if you adopt Andy's timeframe of human history, we've only attained that level of longevity very recently. And what's the point of ascribing scientific "foreknowledge" to one fixed prediction about a variable that's constantly changing anyway? Röstigraben (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But that is just it, lives of Biblical figures born after Genesis 6 did live past 120, some by centuries. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(As this is my first post, let me say; after being banned several times from CP trying to correct glaring, stupid errors in spelling/logic/fact, this site is a breath of fresh air.) On the positive side of Andy's prediction, we now can falsify the Bible - as soon as the average global lifespan is greater than 80, and people live to be more than 120 at least a handful of times, Andy will have to agree that the Bible is false, right? By his own admission, one counterexample disproves the WHOLE idea. As to Jeanne Calment, let me play Andy for sec: "The bible verse says "man", Jeanne Calment is a woman. Completely different. Bible Accuracy 1: Thinking 0" Carlaugust (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes this one so ridiculous is that it has already been disproved by the long timespans in human history when an average life expectancy of 70-80 years was nothing but a fanciful wish. He just focused on the 120 years ceiling as a benchmark and ignored how idiotic his statements about the average are. Röstigraben (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and I see it's been removed^img by someone who made the effort to read the bible passages following the one Andy quoted. I fear WillS' days on CP will be a lot less than a hundred and twenty years. Röstigraben (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So the most biblically accurate countries (per Sid's link) are Iraq (life expectancy at birth=69.95) and Greenland {77.07). What can we deduce from this? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update - Andy reverts WillS, which is obviously predictable, but he then goes on to explain why he reverted WillS. He's basically saying that his statement is more important and relevant than the Word of the Bible™. Worth a WIGO update, or wait and see what responses come of the talk section? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy: The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify.

DENY THIS AND LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy isn't even keeping up the pretenses of making any sense. It really sounds like fun, I want to try: Exodus 3:15 PROVES the Poincaré conjecture. Carlaugust (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

MOAR INSITES ^{ONE / TALK} 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Andy addressed^img the consequences of people living to be 120+. If it happens, it simple human error; for example "You're 125, you say? You've made a huge mistake in not dying at 120 like you were suppose to" Carlaugust (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make sure that we capture this^img before it disappears. Compare and contrast with the following Andy statements: one^img, two^img, three^img,four^img, etc. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so Andy's reverting the removal and his argument amounts to "I can use the Bible to make shit up, but you can't use it to disprove me"? He really is a paragon of hypocrisy. -- Iscariot (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that he basically says that God can intervene to make 'exceptions', thus they aren't a disproof of what he says[1]^img, but the 'signs' of Jesus (feeding the 5,000, his healing, walking on water, etc, etc) are definitely not such 'exceptions', so thus some of them disprove the Theory of Relativity[2]^img. 92.18.76.189 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More Ed what the fuckery.

Words fail me. Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a round number. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.^img So now the Bible also rounds off to the nearest decimal. Wait... they weren't invented yet! ooh! ooh! a new foreskin foresight - Bible predicts decimal point and rounding up. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've always found this to be a unconvincing objection to the Bible. Of course it's rounded off, it's not like rounding is something that has to be invented, it's all they could do. There's really nothing else it could say while still giving some measurement of the vessel. "And it was roughly 31.4159265 cubits around?" Stupid objection, and I agree with Ed. --Benod (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Benod. Please quote some more approximations from the Bible. Everybody tales the feeding of the 5000 at face value, not "slightly more than" or "5,172." All other numbers are taken as exact, so to say this is an approximation is, quite frankly, a cop out. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good work from Uncle Ed. To get from pathetically defending biblical bollocks to slagging off liberals, atheists, and climate scientists in such a small step is mighty impressive. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ed will now point out that Andy is grasping at straws when he says that times are stated precise to the nanosecond in the Bible?131.107.0.80 (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Man, he can't even distinguish between "decimal place" and "significant figure". 3.0 is one decimal place, 3 is one significant figure. Did he claimed somewhere he heach math somewhere? I really feel sorry for those kids now. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bomb hits for Jesus

I don't even know what to say about this. TK thinks detonating a neutron bomb^img with the expressed intent of killing civilians is the way to deter terrorism. Ahh, nuclear mass murder of innocents, just like Jesus would have wanted. Carlaugust (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned twice already, up yonder and over thar. Come on Ken, stop pussyfooting around and show some ma-cheese-mo. Call Terry Koeckritz a troll to his face. Bondurant (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

TK is the TrollKing - we suspect he doesn't believe most of what he says, he just spouts it to fit in over there and also to yank our chains. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, I made a duplicate point! :( I'm sorry rationalwiki... Carlaugust (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(victim of two vicious, unprovoked ECs) Sadly, nothing TK does or says surprises or shocks me anymore. Left bereft of editors to torment, he can only add ever-increasing levels of insanity to MPL, until he gets caught. Getting caught by Ken is = HCM1 - everybody will ignore Ken. TK's going to keep pressing until he attracts Karajou's attention (who will then leave and never come back... again... for 2 days) and finally, Andy might look up long enough from masturbating over his Bible, to slap TK down. No, to shock me, TK would have to post a video of himself and Gary Glitter raping AIDS orphans in an Austrian cellar, whilst punching kittens in the face. Anything else is just a pathetic old man yelling "Look at me! Look at me! I'm trolling a wiki!"--PsyGremlinPrata! 15:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuking innocents and sacrificing dwindling approval of populations of a-rabs in the name of "show[ing] them we are serious" is super creepy, and an idea I haven't even seen "power," "prestige," and "wealth" foreign policy thinker advocate. Maybe I'm reading the wrong magazines. Ken disagreeing with Terry's prattling makes the whole experience more surreal. Giving TK the benefit of the doubt, do any better-read foreign policy people here know if there's an ounce of currency among wingers in the idea that we should be nuking the Middle East to cultivate whatever right-wing foreign policy objective? 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. The only one I can think of would be Ann Coulter, who once said the US should "wantonly drop daisycutters throughout the Middle East", also to show they're "serious". But then, Coulter is a troll much like TK - the only difference is that she's getting handsomely paid for spouting provocative nonsense. Röstigraben (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean Norman Podhoretz isn't advocating nuking Tehran for giggles? 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

He was advocating a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, which in my opinion is still in the "shortsighted and harmful" ballpark. What TK is calling for can't be called anything but "pointlessly evil". Röstigraben (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm aware of the surprising position some are taking that Israel (with inevitable US support) should nuke Iranian nuclear facilities, and I've even read that it should happen this fall. So TK's just hatemongering and trolling. Too bad he hates himself more than anyone else would bother with. 16:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot "nuke Iranian nuclear facilities" in a way that would definitely and lastingly disrupt Iran's fuel cycle without killing tens of thousands people in the process. Even among the installations you can read about on Wikipedia at least a handful are (a) underground and (b) within a few kilometers of mid-sized cities. There is some mainstream support for the idea of bombing Iran, but the idea of nuking them is insane. Hateboy (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FFS you're right. I should have been a lot more careful about this because the only hits that come up for "israel nuke iran" are (thankfully) irrelevant or batshit crazy. I really should have said conventional first strike if I knew what I was talking about. 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz finally calls Ken

a liberal/RINO/lefty/pantywaistimg, with a strange shout-out to us too.  What is going on at Conservapedia?  Kenneth Demyer making sense?  It shows that he might not be a complete lunatic, it's just that his hate of atheism/evolution/homosexuality (and I think the Assfly has manipulated that to extend to 'libruls') and his love of the bible have made him spout idiotic nonesnse in regards to these subjects. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 06:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And Ken

asks the question againimg, since Terry Koeckritz didn't answer it. How much longer before Terry Koeckritz makes a post with "Conservative" in quotes and telling him off for being mean? This is one of the most fascinating little exchanges in some time. What's it like being beaten in an argument by Ken

, Terry Koeckritz?^{— Unsigned, by: SuspectedReplicant / talk / contribs}

He's done an Andy: made a statement without thinking it through and now has to stick by it, come what may. 09:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And PJR was not removed, he left in disgust and embarrassment at his so-called Christian fellow sysops. Jesus would probably have done the same.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And now Ken has to tell him that the Crusades weren't all that great. I have to say that I'm seriously impressed not only with his reasonableness about this topic, but also with his willingness to stand up to TK's trolling. Unfortunately, that fucker always gets away with it because Andy won't take any action, so it's a useless struggle. Still, more power to you, Ken. Röstigraben (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A while ago, I made a post about TK saying that his whole thing has gotten old and that we should just ignore him because all he does is say dumb, nasty things and expect everyone to react. But god damn, he's a good troll. What, he figured that people were getting tired of his shit and now he's come up with a new thing? He's made me think Ken is a reasonable man. He's made me take Ken's side of an argument. That's just... it's masterful. X Stickman (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't call him the TrollKing for nothing. It's why trying to arrange a TK boycott is largely fruitless... TK knows how to yank the chains of someone here even if not all of us. But then I rather like following the story of TK's viciousness and lying, even if it's like reading the Daily Mail (allowing myself tog et angry for no reason) ^{ONE / TALK} 10:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry is playing Ken like a cheap violin. He knows he's touched a sore point and is going to keep on pushing Ken's buttons (the Crusades showed the world, Conservative, we don't need to placate those who belong to 13th Century communities.) (What?) Notice how he alos gets his cheap shots in, calling Ken a RINO, whilst alluding to the fact that the discussion should be private. In other words, the minute Ken takes the bait and bitchslaps TK, he'll be able to play the victim and claim that the conversation should be held in private, etc, etc. It's nothing new - he's just found a way to potentially drive off, or isolate, another CP sysop. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been reading Machiavelli^(sp?): "It is better to be feared than loved." both personally and nationally. 11:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And now he's deleted the conversation, or at least most of it. Typical TK. We have never been at war with Eurasia. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as trolling goes, it wasn't the cleverest bit of thinking from our Terrykins. Yes, I'm sure nuking Afghanistan would piss the survivors off, not to mention the whole Arab world (goodbye Saudi oil), the EU, Russian, China, etc, etc. The US would have sanctions slapped on it so fast its head would spin. All that would be left was the pact of the Just or whatever it was called - US, Guam, Estonia... (on a related note, if "most conservatives believe" nuking is a good thing, I fear for the US's future.) --PsyGremlinHable! 11:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So why'd you burn half the debate, TK? Didn't like everybody laughing at you getting outreasoned by the Flying Kitty Man?--Brendiggg (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Did someone take a screenshot of the whole exchange? This should definitely go into some article. I forgot to capture Ken's last reply, though. Röstigraben (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I got one here. Not sure if there were any replies between this version and the oversight, though. --Sid (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! That's all of it. Röstigraben (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, after vaping half the conversation, TK indulges in some last-wordism^img, trying to sound calm and reasonable, as opposed to the frothing troll he was earlier. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the sig - that's Ken's post. Though it's funny that TK changes the YouTube link in the opening post - I still got the screencapped version open in a browser tab, and it doesn't have the changed link in it! --Sid (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Screencap of the opening post in the last pre-oversight version. Either Ken changed that link back and forth during the discussion, or TK is trying to rewrite history to make Ken's post look stupid. Considering that this is still a discussion between the Troll King and the Five-Edits-Per-Post King, both is possible, but given the situation so far I think that this is TK's doing. --Sid (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Even for ToppedKinky that must be some sort of new low - editing other sysop's posts to suit his needs? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm just glad that the kids won't read the "let's nuke 'em" trolling. Playing power games with Ken and trolling liberals is one thing. Letting homeschooled kids read that from a senior CP sysop is quite another. For whatever reason, TK, nice one. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any homeschooled kids reading this stuff? I doubt it: in this case, their moms and dads would try to edit. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For instance, seekfind.org ("a Christian search engine") doesn't show CP's articles. (sorry, Ken)larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

TK changed the youtube link from the video Ken cited, which still works, to a video removed for a terms if use violation. How much more evidence is needed that TK is a troll? EddyP (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy - he's openly subverting your authority. Do you have the scrote to do anything about it? 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Foolish librull! Don't you know that undoing another admin's block is verboten. Making sure they stay properly blocked is a-ok. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's wish was that the user would come back under a different username and he set the parameters of the block to make such an invitation. TurdKutter wobbles over to up the ante by permablocking and removing the user's only possibility of communicating with anyone but him in private. And he does it on the basis of an obvious lie. How can you tell it was a lie and not a mistake? Because he's still over there shitting on MPR an hour ago, so I'm sure he's seen this conversation calling attention to the incident yet hasn't corrected any "error." So I don't think he was making sure anyone was staying properly blocked. I also don't think it matters a single bit since Andy's (a) a coward who won't confront him ,(b) lazy, and (c) already endorsed broader blocks than necessary because of the low odds of any single editor being bona fide. Troll on TrollKing. 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

9876543210 is a phone number? *snickers* This is worse than that time he thought that Palin's book's ISBN was a phone number... --Sid (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, if you do a search on it then it DOES seem to be a phone number of one of those scam sites. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Christian sites

The following also have no mention of CP:

• Christian Top Sites
• Christian Top 1000
• Cross Daily

In fact, I seem to remember searching conservative sites and it was only one - Top Conservative Sites or something that mentioned CP, and even then it was in a footnote - something like "we forgot CP, but if it was listed, it would come in at 45" --PsyGremlinTala! 13:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeating search on conservative lists:

• Top 100 Conservative sites Sep 2010, based on 3 month Alexa rankings... CP no mention
• The Right Links - no mention

I think we can call "fail. massive fail" on CP's attempts to draw the conservative mainstream. (Note CP didn't even make the 'also rans' which includes "Zombie Time," "Comrade Chad" and "Grouchy Old Cripple." It doesn't get a mention in the "oops, we left one out" section either. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical bias rant

Wikipedia is biased because they don't have a completely ludicrous article on biblical scientific foreknowledge? Probably not a good example, Andy, since yours wasn't created until 18 months after Conservapedia started- so you admit you had Liberal bias! Even then, it was Ken who started it then immediately protected it for the next 11.5 months. The next 4.5 months were just a few reverted vandals, then one day of Ken editing and protecting again. It wasn't edited by anyone else until November 2009, a year and a half after the article was created. Its only content until that point? Ken talking vaguely about homosexuality (shocking, I know). So Andy, where were you that whole time? You didn't contribute until later that month. All I'm saying is, be careful about putting yourself on such a high horse- your definitions consistently walk the line of double standards. You didn't have the beginnings of an actual article on the topic until less than a year ago, exactly three years after Conservapedia started, and now you're using its absence as a definitive example of Liberal Bias? If you only realized how pathetically sophomoric that is... Kallium^talk 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that he will take that to heart and remember it before he makes any further rash edits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course he will. He's open-minded, right? Kallium^talk 12:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More on lifespan foreknowledge

I just noticed something rather amusing... Andy is claiming that the Bible says a person's maximum lifespan is 120 years, but his own Conservabible says something else! If you take a look at Genesis 6:3 in their translation, the comment indicates that the "120 years" explicitly referred to there being 120 years left before the great flood at that moment in history! I.e. God was giving man 120 more years to live before he flooded the whole world. Of course that's not what's meant in the original, but it's certainly what's implied in the CBP. (That passage was translated by TerryH by the way --Composure1 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Genesis 5 states that people were much older than the 120 year time limit. It also states that about 1500 years of the 6000 year old Earth were pre-flood. --Sigma 7 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The bible predicted the great flood! --Opcn (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, if there is 1500 years before the great flood and Adam took 900 and Noah took 600 (500+ shipbuilding and stuff makes 600)... How many generations are between Adam and Noah again? Two or three? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not that simple, unless they only became fathers on their deathbeds. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's as simple as having your great-grandfather still alive when you're born. See RationalWiki:Annotated Bible/Genesis#Genesis_5:1 for the actual timing. There's basically enough information to build some age table, where you can even see that Adam was still alive when Methuselah was born. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Life gets weirder and weirder

The debate ("a silly public exchange, more fitting for our mutual friends at another site") between TK and Kenny Baby is about the most elucidating dialog that I've ever seen over there. Lord knows, Ken sounds like....welll.....kind of reasonable and intelligent, and is left dumbstruck and horrified by TK's 'neutron bomb the fuckers' schtick. I have to go and get drunk now, my tiny brain can't cope with this. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Covered above? Enjoy your drinks! ħuman 07:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It really is a sight to behold. Ken seems almost... rational. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its the "public" that really gets to Terry Khan. He hates being shown up, he'd much rather slime around in private cyberspace. 09:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

== Hand-washing Ken

==

Wow! After being the voice of reason in a discussion with Terry Koeckritz, Ken

now revives a discussion which Andy had left so effectively (his silent prayers to get his dialog partners blocked were heard...): Should you wash your hands before handling food?img

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More proofreading

pssst! Guys, this list is a bit outdated. Isn't it about time Popeye got a mention too? --PsyGremlinTala! 11:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Influential editors and users on CP? Try more or less complete list of the only editors on CP, and even some of those included finally realized you can't paint a turd. 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Godel

Is anyone else excited to hear about the Biblical foreknowledge related to Godel?! I know I am. In fact, if I remember my Sunday School lesson's correctly, I bet Andy is refering to 1 Samuel 8:15-17, which states "Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory." I will stay tuned, Andy, I will. Carlaugust (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I love how all of Andy's insights go from "I wonder if X has to do with Y?" to "Say, X might prove Y! Stay tuned!" to "I think X proves Y" to "X proves Y! Deny this and lose all credibility." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Blog

Wandering around I fell upon this^img: "*Conservapedia is currently developing a blog for the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation. The blog in its prototype form can be found here: http://mindszentyfoundation.blogspot.com/" (First Edits TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009) (last edit TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009) Sic transit gloria blogi. The whole page is interesting. 14:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(Ah now I see how I found it (memory goes with age!) It's Psy's link 2 above.) 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. "Developing." On Blogspot. Shit, they couldn't even be bothered with some fancy formatting. And looking at the contributors, no wonder it's dead - Andy (his ADD kicked in again), Andy Jnr, Addision (since jacked the whole project in). Anybody know who Edward J. Coleman, M.D. is? One of Andy's quack doctor clients? --PsyGremlinParla! 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

HEY! Who is Eleanor Schlafly?? Andy's sis? Another reason for his inferiority complex? 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation? President Eleanor Schlafly says hello! Oh, and the entire thing was also founded by Phyllis and Eleanor Schlafly (among others). Looks like Andy was using his homeschoolers (Addison - or am I wrong here?) to work for a family business. Nice. --Sid (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Eleanor Schlafly: Sister of Phyllis' husband Fred. Which is sort of more than I ever needed to know, so I'll stop here. --Sid (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Addision has been adding most of the entries. I'm glad he (she?) finally saw the light and walked away. Didn't he/she also side against Andy over the whole 'different tests for boys and girls' thing? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit!

Every time I se "Cardinal Blog", I keep thinking, "Cardinal Blog! Bring in... the comfy chair!" MDB (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly one of the great comedy moments, surpassed only by Saint Eddy's "Cake or death?" --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm...Cake please. --Tygrehart

I'm sorry, we're out of cake.

So my choice is "or Death?" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"John Raese nearly lost..."

"Raese nearly lost by four percentage points." Now I'm all curious as to the outcome---did he lose by 6 points, which is "nearly" four percentage points, or by 2 points...or did he "nearly lose", and therefore won by four percentage points? 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Semantics, schemantics.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have lost 48 to 52. Perhaps they meant he lost by nearly 4 percentage points, or something. Hateboy (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Reminds me of the time when I arrived on time at work to be told by a pathetic junior manager (desperate to impress his boss) that "in another five minutes you'd have been late!". Right. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

More TK talk

his latest borken news item^img with the exception of alternative energy and possibly private practice physicians the sectors mentioned are just about the least entrepreneur filled sectors in the country. In order to compete you have to have tens of millions to billions of dollars. No one has an insurance startup. --Opcn (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job TK... Failure. This is a nice..."news" item.RascalJack (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I merged your report of the news item with my report of the news item. --Opcn (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know that TK just keeps on piling shit on MainPageRight.RascalJack (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Link is wrong? It goes a gallup poll thing... ħuman 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what you wanted, I think. ħuman 02:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

More Schlafly humour

Joaquin, it's great to learn from your edits again. I really enjoyed your edit to the Bible verse by inserting "Conservative Bible Project." :-)
 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think Andy read a management book or something that told him that giving random compliments is good to keep people productive. And like a lot of crap managers before him, his compliments come off as totally insincere because he totally doesn't give a rat's ass about his "workers". Oh, and this might be a good addition to the Andy Prophecy File, "By the way, I'm thinking that conservative Marco Rubio may be our next president." --Kels (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What annoyed me was that he gives someone a compliment and then puts a smiley at the end. "Sorry Jo, I was just joking". Fortunately JM is too dim to understand it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did Andy wikilink conservative (not ken but the article) on his talkpage? --Opcn (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He always wikilinks everything he possibly can, he's just a spaz.Webbtje (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I kept trying to come up with the words to say what you said. Nice work! ħuman 08:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd interpret that in the same way. To me the smiley is just a way of emphasising the point the enjoyed the edit. More something I'd expect from someone my age or younger then someone like Andy though Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Weren't conservapedia including I presume Andy nuts about how Obama was 'inexperienced'? Yet he wants someone who if he wins the election will have had only 2 years of experience in the Senate when he takes over as President (Obama at least had nearly 4). Or is that a tactic admission by Andy they ain't going to win in 2012? Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bible course

Looks like the teacher has become the student. --Composure1 (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The circle is now complete. Hateboy (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I'm sure assfly doesn't have these reasons every good teacher should always accept that they can still learn and so should always be a student until the day they die. If you ever find a teacher that does not acknowledge that fact walk away and find a better teacher. Of course that pre-supposes that the teacher/student can accept they are wrong about some things and are willing to change their mind when shown contrary evidence. assfly patently doen't fit that in anyway at all.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Ed got enough guts to put the adulteress story into the lectures, and subsequently get trolled by Andy. And is anyone doing a recorded lecture in person somewhere? I would love to see that on youtube. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys don't actually believe that Ed is a sincere user, do you? DickTurpis (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's almost a given that CP utterly failed in attracting actual conservatives and that only some (not even all) of the sysops are sincere users. It's of course possible (and in many many cases, it's never settled), but I really doubt it. But as I said earlier: If TeacherEd is a parodist, he's definitely pushing the envelope with the Bible Course. --Sid (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who claims the CBP to be anything other than a steaming heap of faeces has to be suspect. Unless your name is Andrew Schalfly. In which case you lie back, think of Saint Ronnie and moan with pleasure as your ego is caressed. I call a big Poe on this. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes me wonder whether the typos (or my lack of english understanding of whatever the new grammar/words has come up) in his lecture 1 is intentional. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading the first paragraph of lecture one, it contains so many Assflisms that Teacher Ed has to be a parodist. It's quite a serious parody project, so fair play to whoever is running the account! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I call huge Poe on this. "the complex vocabulary needed to fully grasp the meaning of the Bible didn't exist yet back then" and "many of these translations are biased - particularly those made in the past hundred years or so. One attempt to eliminate the bias is the ongoing Conservapedia Bible Translation project." Ok, I love how the Bible is the Word of God, but for some reason the Omni-everything man in the sky just didn't have the words to dictate his Word properly. Also note the "extra credit" - getting the students to work on Andy's blog for free again. The question is - what students? It'll also be hard for TeacherEd to actually do any work on the project, without any user rights. --PsyGremlin講話 10:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

More Nobel Prize

Wow, I'm kind of surprised that CP hasn't picked up on the fact that the Nobel Prize for Physics went to Russians for work they did in the gODLESS UK. Where's the outrage? Or has TK's latest act of pettiness got them convulsed behind the scenes?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the Nobel Prize for physics should have been posthumously awarded to Jesus for his quantum mechanics experiment. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus QM experiment was pretty great. I mean, showing that waves are not affected by gravity! That's pretty amazing, especially since that result has never been replicated again. Scientists are so stupid.Carlaugust (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Silly, it wouldn't be posthumous: He lives in heaven! 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The word posthumous is a liberal creation to disguise the truth about heaven and hell ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.1.197.90 / talk / contribs}

Doesn't it just mean "after burial"? ħuman 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, "post" means "after", while "humous" means "a thick spread made from mashed chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic; used especially as a dip for pita". So Jesus could win the award, but only if he'd eaten pita's while he was still around. Carlaugust (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's definely a typo. Humerus is an arm bone. So after Jesus arm bones healed... Wait, they nailed him in the upper arm? Just for laughs, perhaps? ħuman 02:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's common knowledge that Jesus was the first stand-up comic.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus: So anyway, I said "hey guys, don't kill that adulteress. You aren't perfect either. And they fuckin' believed me!" [raucous laughter] No really folks, they totally stoned that bitch. [woohoo! boohyah! conservatism rocks!...etc]--Brendiggg (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus: And what's the deal with airline food? The portions are tiny! Good job I learned that trick with the loaves and fish or I'd have starved to death! [raucous laughter] ^{ONE / TALK} 14:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget that old classic, 'Hey Peter! I can see your house from here!" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ken!

Go to the tvtropes page on Suspiciously Specific Denial, click the Real Life tab, and look for Conservapedia. The Larry Craig thing is nice too, apropos of nothing. Apologies if this has been mentioned before; I'm new here. Hateboy (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. You mentioned TVTropes. You just had to mention TVTropes, didn't you. Now this bunch of yahoos are going to be over there, link hopping for the next 18 hours... Although that CP reference is classic. Now if you'll excuse me, I saw a link to Pani Poni Dash I need to follow... --PsyGremlin講話 17:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Shame the CP link is borked. Someone ought to do something about that. Now, I need to investigate Most Definitely Not A Villain....back in a few days, eyes hollow in sockets. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There goes my day ... --Opcn (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nyahahahaha. Remember that one time last November when Ed Poor completely disappeared for 16 days? First person to guess which specific image board I pointed him to wins an Internet. Hateboy (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

CURSE YOU! I had an oral exam to study for. Now I'm stuck in "gratuitous foreign language." Junggai (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Less exam, more oral. Get in there buddy. ;) --Opcn (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well they do have an entire Conservapedia page.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And a RationalWiki page! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just... ooh... more links.... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I have work to do. MDB (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of tvtropes.org before. I now find myself unable to leave my PC, for any reason, until I have read every single page of that site. Damn you. Damn you all to hell. 92.22.71.33 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I've heard people raving on here about tvtropes, I've just had a browse and - I don't get it. What so good about it? I mean it's alright, but not OMG I'm going to lose a day on here good. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was just me, Delta. 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's less to do with the quality of the site and more to do with TVTropes being one giant hyperlink daisy chain. The opening paragraph of each page contains links to many, many other pages, so you click on one to find out what it means. Then you click on another link on that page, and another link, and another, and next thing you know, four hours have passed. You can get the same effect from Wikipedia. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

XKCD explains. Truth be told, it's not as good as it used to be. The XKCD cartoon (among other things) caused a leap in traffic that led to people adding total shit. For instance, the Crowning Moment of Funny page used to list genuinely funny stuff. Now it's sub-paged because too many people added "This troper thinks..." entries (that are supposed to be banned anyway). It's a classic case of what happens when you have too few/too nice admins on a wiki. CP being the other extreme. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true; their quality has taken a nosedive in the past 2 or 3 years. I knew they had jumped the shark when I read Eric S Raymond had signed up. Hateboy (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Best of The Public always improves things greatly. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadam (sic) and the Shredder

Dear TK: Last I heard, and it's been awhile, the whole thing with Saddam and the shredder was false. No doubt he was a bad, bad, dude. But the truth is the truth, and urban myths should not be repeated just to put across your ideas, they proliferate quite rapidly. If I find something reasonably corroborative, I will post it.Jimaginator (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein's_alleged_shredder It's like the SETI@home project, I had 20 spare seconds so I googled it for you. (And before SOME people (aka remaining CP editors) lose their shit over it being a Wikipedia article, do as you say and read the sources.)

Thank you. \o/ Freethinker Jimaginator (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It was alleged that Saddam Hussein used human size shredders for executions, and/or torture. Never really proved. Jimaginator (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I get that part. Why are you addressing this to TK tho? 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

“”Aside from the Saddam-friendly flavor of this article, which makes it seem a virtual paradise, and him an "enlightened" elected official instead of the despotic dictator he was, I find it disturbing Saddam isn't shown to be the master genocide practitioner of the region. Like feeding political opponents into industrial shredders carted into the dining room for his guests amusement.--~ TK MyTalk 06:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

—Terry Koeckritz, http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Saddam_Hussein&oldid=671844img

CS Miller (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So someone watched Fargo and thought, I bet Saddam used to do that?! ħuman 21:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The "people shredders" myth is a rhetorical trap. You point out that it's bullshit, and the inevitable response is "Oh, so you're saying Saddam didn't torture people?" The same thing happened back in the 90's when the "Republican guard kills babies in incubators" thing got exposed as a myth. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 21:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Theory: There were three reasons given for the war with Iraq:

• Weapons of mass destruction
• Ties with al Qaeda/support for 9/11
• Replace a brutal dictatorship with a democracy

The first two have been disproved, so all conservatives have left is the third. Now, it's hard to deny that Saddam was a real nasty guy and Iraq is better off without him (or will be eventually), and I think most Americans would agree that having a stable, functioning democracy in Iraq would be a Good Thing, if it ever actually gets there.

The question then becomes "was it worth the cost?" The right has to keep turning Hussein into one of history's greatest monsters, rather than just another dictatorial thug, to convince people is was worth the cost.

As an aside, I can remember during the run-up to the war, when Sean Hannity was constantly reminding his audience how bad Saddam was, someone asked him, "well, what about North Korea? Kim Jong Il is easily worse than Hussein." Hannity defiantly responded, "they're next!" I'd love to play a tape of that and get his response to it today. MDB (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes it doubly funny, is that this "monster" was flavour of the month back what Iran was Prime Evil, for kicking out another US patsy. Just another example of "as long as he's our dictator, it's cool" I certainly didn't hear much about Saddam gassing the locals and mincing up others during the Iran/Iraq war. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘(Not directed at you mdb but...) You know I get REALLY fucked off with people using that argument, Saddam was nasty so we had to do something. Almost ALWAYS the people saying that are exactly the same ones who were calling me a naieve liberal left wing student when I and others were opposing UK and US policy towards Saddam in the 80's and condemning the treatment of Kurds long before it became fashionable with the tories. I've been having a long running argument with someone on another site because I opposed the war and his tediously right wing reply was just this. For some reason he has never managed to answer me when I ask him what he was doing in the 80's when I was protesting against Saddam and he was calling me naieve and left wing and stupid. I am left wing, I was slightly naeive (I was 18 at the time) but if anyone was stupid it was the bloody right wing who thought our dictator was controllable. And remember Tony 'im an honest sort of guy' Bliar voted against a motion in the house of commons condemning Saddam over what happened at HallabjahOldusgitus (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is occasionally you have to deal with evil bastards, because they help you deal with even bigger evil bastards. I know this gets into Godwin territory a little bit here, but we decided in WWII that we could deal with Stalin to stop Hitler.

Now, I'm not saying we made the right decision to ignore Saddam;s evil in the Eighties, but I do think that occasionally a superpower has to say "not every country whose support we need is going to be as nice as Canada." MDB (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily disagreeing with you MDB but the way this bloke in particular tries to pretend that everything that was said about UK and US (and other's) foreign policy in the 80's towards Iraq and Iran simply didn't happen bugs me. And you see it throughout the poitical sphere. Horseface coulter does it as does G Galloway. I just wish they had the balls to stand up and say 'yep, you were right all those years ago and we were wrong - sorry'. I can dream.Oldusgitus (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Winged swine will soon be seen hovering around Chicago's O'Hare Airport

Because when CP actually likes a Nobel Prize winner^img, pigs will be flying any day now. MDB (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I dunno. Countdown to Andy bleating about the award being given to an undeserving foreigner, when a brilliant American author (and all the best books were written by homeschooled teenagers) was overlooked. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the doublethink past them. Ngo Bao Chau was a communist trained nobody. This guy is totally different. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it shows that Andy's unfamiliar with "In Praise of the Stepmother". Or I don't understand Conservapedia values. 207.172.209.70 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whats to understand? The man's bat shit INSANE. --Thunderstruck (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

They won't really condemn the Nobel Prize until tomorrow, when the Peace Prize is announced. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And it was given to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo [4]. I wonder if Andy will praise it, for standing up against the tyranny of Communism, or bemoan the fact that most of this year's Nobels have gone to furriners and far-eastern ones at that. CS Miller (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be amused if his next insight is that the Tea Party should have received it for their peaceful efforts to unite and strengthen America. --Sid (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama has waaay to much time on his hands.

Must have taken him ages to stuff all those envelopes. i⁹ 03:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How DARE he pay for people's Social Security when rich people need their tax cuts. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the SSA even part of the executive branch? I suppose it might be, but if so it's probably fairly independent. ħuman 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The hell happened to CP?

I haven't been paying it any attention for a while now, is something wonky going on over there? The participation level is so low. tmtoulouse 22:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy has disabled account creation and Terry Koeckritz is blocking new users at first sight. With most of the productive users gone for greener pastures, nobody's editing. --Onion ^Hi! :) 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The site is also so extremist it has drifted far from mainstream American conservatism, so it may no longer be seen as "trustworthy" by potential editors and readers. --Onion ^Hi! :) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is account creation been disabled permanently? At least there won't be any more parodists... or editors. --— cm² — 22:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No - it's still allowed from time to time. I think the latest Terry Koeckritz vs Ken

spat is having some behind-the-scenes ructions. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I really, really doubt it. My guess is that most sysops simply don't give a shit (or don't even realize what has happened) and that TK simply mailed the remaining people individually to sell them a carefully worded fairytale that makes Ken look like a deranged liberal. Bonus points if he blamed us in some way. Keep in mind that TK got away with - among other things - leaking the entire SDG. If something like this is remotely threatening his right-hand role, then only because it's the straw that broke the camel's back. --Sid (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider this: Anybody who is logged in won't notice that the "create account" thing in the top-right corner is missing. Just like they won't get any error about editing being disabled. To Andy, there is no obvious indicator that CP is locked down. (Also, it's not like Andy actually gives a crap about what anybody else does.) So unless Andy is doing it himself, it appears as if somebody is exploiting the situation to quietly suffocate CP. None of this is of course official, but yeah, it's the current reality. --Sid (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't mean that there are any CP-ending, epoch-changing events taking place. I just mean that since undoing another admin's block caused enough flap, censoring another admin's posts is likely to cause a similar amount of flap. Plus, Terry Koeckritz is probably still defending his comments because he can never, ever admit to being wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised Andy doesn't seem to care, the kind of editing pattern we are seeing right now creates a self-fulfilling downward spiral. Regardless of view traffic lack of editing creates the perception of a ghost town, and no one wants to contribute to that. All CP is at the moment is essentially a right wing new tracker RSS feed, though poorly formatted. tmtoulouse 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that all CP is is a news tracker? What about the continuing insights about Biblical scientific foreknowledge? And what about the TWO ongoing educational courses (American Government, and the Bible). Conservapedia is is the foremost conservative website on the internet. Deny this and lose all credibility. --Composure1 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sites that go on for years as ghost towns. I kinda like the idea of Andy paying through the nose to keep a ghost town around. Though it is possible that TK will get bored and leave. --Opcn (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There were 177 account creations in the month of September (several of which seem to be from RW ranks), and only ~18 (forgot the count) of those have any contribs. There hasn't been a new account since Monday. Although I can't be bothered with how many of those were blocked immediately, I can assume that an overwhelming majority of them were. That tells me that either a) precious few new users who are true conservatives, or those posing as such, are accessing the site and attempting to contribute, or b) there are plenty of conservative users attempting to edit the site but are met with disdain and torment. Although I haven't been following the actions at CP at all recently, I opt for the former. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 02:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, recent changes @ 500 is spread over 5 days. If Ken could use preview, it would probably stretch over 8... ħuman 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me put that in perspective. 500 edits to this talk page alone only goes back to 9/30 - this talk page is more than half as active as all of CP. You freaks of nature. ħuman 02:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To continue with this theme, at the SB 500 edits also goes back to Sept 30. So here on RW we have two freaking talk pages that, combined, are as active as all of CP. No wonder we got kicked out for "talk, talk, talk"! ħuman 21:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they'll let us all come back and edit the "cheese", "bridge" and "polygon" articles. sterile steak dinner 03:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And I could start my Aquarium Keeping series of articles. ħuman 03:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking the stats I notice that there is still a lot of click-botting activity so even the page views count is artificially inflated. Генгис^unbelieving 10:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What I find strange is that none of the other sysops seem to have noticed anything wrong. We know Kara reads this page, and surely he can't be looking at the lack of activity and thinking, "More liberal lies, we're doing fine." Still, it's like we said all along, with no dissenting voices and only Andy's echo chamber, CP has gone so far round the bend, that no self-respecting conservative wants anything to do with it. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Karajou would probably be the only sysop who slightly cares what happens to CP (other than as a home for their own projects), but then I think it's in the vein of showing solidarity with the forces of anti-Liberalism rather than having any belief in CP as a genuine encyclopedic project. No matter how low in the water CP sinks he will continue to circle it and fend off the sharks but ultimately do little to rescue it. Генгис^unbelieving 10:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what you'll find is that Conservapedia has been on a geometric progression towards conservative perfection, and so it is only to be expected that the number of article edits will decrease over time as there is no longer anything to improve. I mean, just look at this page. How could it possibly be improved? Bondurant (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Andy became annoyed by the ingratitude of the editors at CP: in August, over 500 of his edits were marked as "reversions" of vandalism. Furthermore, he had to defend his last obscure ideas against newcomers offering facts. And while Andy's answers are often petty, evasive, or just plain dumb, he has stated in the past that it takes much of his precious time to compose them! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This little graphic posted a week or so ago by LArron shows the problem nicely, Trent. Very rarely is account creation AND editing turned on together (editing of course being not in 'night mode'). I believe that Terry Koeckritz now has the rights to turn these on and off, and the Assfly is to stupid to realise that Terry Koeckritz's using this rather smartly to completely starve CP on new editors. Any that manage to sign up then stick around long enough to actually be able to, you know, edit the fucking wiki are then blocked. The site is growing rapidly! PS. What makes people think Kowardjerk cares? All he cares about is getting people sent to jail for disagreeing with him (I've been reading the SDG), and with the exception on Jpratt, is the stupidest sysop there. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to edit in a few days. Funny thing is this current state of lockdown coupled with Andy's embrace of the Bible Class will practically force him to give TeacherEd night editing rights. <tented fingers> Excellent... </tented fingers> 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, funny how editing rights go from being earned on "merit" to being the only way you can edit on CP anyway. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. They don't need subtle psyops to make them nuts. Taking a look at what's going on there today I'd say the place is definitely circling the bowl. We've got Andy blogging on MPR and rating the electability of a another creationist moron (it's an encyclopedia, after all), FOIA rambling about his Favorite Person in the World, Jpatt fawning over the tits article and some anti-homosexual screeds <confusing!>, some standard CP copyvio in support of some teabagger senate candidate, and a parodist gumming Andy's junk in his Bible class homework. Did I miss anything? 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the graphic. There are times when you can create accounts but not subsequently edit from them? Hateboy (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The only times on that graphic when one can create an account, one can't edit. ħuman 03:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Andy approves of his goons giving little thought to blocking masses of people, but I simply cannot believe he also wants people signing up who cannot at least first edit his blog before getting blocked. Then you at least get something other than the sad state of affairs I reported above happening on RC. What evidence is there that TK and any others have access to the account creation throttle? Andy would be livid if he saw that graph and trusted its source. There's at least one reference in TZB to him being irritated that either editing or account creation was turned off and he apparently had no ability to access any log to see who did it. 13:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. "Sign up here if you want to edit; we are looking forward to your contributions! Oh, on second thought... no. Hahahaha!" They must understand the only editors who come back after being given the finger like this are the parodists, right? Hateboy (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly learning from experience? That's a good one. He never learned that all the people who followed the rules to a T were parodists. He never learned that the people who joined and immediately started kissing his ass were parodists. Even when parodists revealed all their tricks on Andy's blog, he still fell for the same routine the next time someone showed up. Putting the site on permanent lockdown is the only way for Andy to be sure that no troublemakers are about (except for the ones who were already in there, of course). Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 14:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The last account was created on Oct 4, 2010. Account creation seems to be disabled all the time. I don't know why they bother to shift in/out night-mode: is there anyone without edit rights still commenting? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

American Government

Does anyone else have a feeling that Andy is dropping the course? So much for being the biggest course of its kind. The only one that turned in the homework to lecture 2 was TeacherED. Quazywabbit (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be carrying on in the church basement. I'm guess Andy has finally realised there are no sincere editors or students left on CP, so has saved himself the trouble of posting stuff there. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case does it mean that he has finally given up on CP as his homeskool resource and will just keep it on as a wingnut blog? I don't see it closing down completely as it would be too much loss of face with mommy, especially as he continues to trumpet the pageview count as proof of its success despite, as site owner, knowing the true impact of clickbot campaigns. Генгис^unbelieving 10:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. It started with the writing course getting dropped. Without knowing what's happening in the church basement, one can only assume he's keeping it offline. If there are students left, of course. I can't remember when last a home-scholar worked on CP. Addison I guess? But that's the fail - Andy trumpets about the "largest class" and yet none of them want anything to do with his encyclopaedia. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's dead, Jim. His third lecture is way behind schedule too, but he keeps saying that he'll get it done eventually. If this course is still continuing as planned elsewhere, why the delay? Assuming that he writes his lecture notes for the RL class on his computer as well, reformatting them for the wiki wouldn't take more than a few minutes. And if he didn't want to continue posting them on CP, he could just say so and avoid being constantly pestered by parodists. Another clue is that he sneakily removed^img the course link from the list of "popular articles" a little while ago, and then deleted^img the last MP reference to it two days later. Röstigraben (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's that Kettle fellow when you need him? Or TimS? EddyP (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kettlickit? You need to say his name two more times. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not easy to say it three times quickly

His only source of info would be if he is still friends with Phy - and she's off at college, right? Though I guess she might commute or come home most weekends. What do you think are the odds a HS parent tried to join CP and was "politely removed", and by the time the smoke cleared, all the parents told their kids not to go there? ħuman 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rost makes something of a good point, but he makes one fatal flaw. He assumes Andy writes out lecture notes for his classes. I will bet serious cash that he makes minimal preparation for his classes and just gets up and talk about whatever is on his mind, with a bit of the basics of US government thrown in. There's probably quite a bit of discussion in his class too, which takes up time. No, I'm nearly convinced that the closest his "lectures" ever come to being planned, organized creatures is when he writes them out for CP. Now it seems he's doing it after the fact, and with no real interest. DickTurpis (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but... (Rob)

(This has likely been covered a dozen times, but I like to hear myself talk whatever.) Okay, so I actually bothered to check up on Mainpage_left. Yeah, I was kinda bored. And ehhh, I wasn't in a reading mood, so I just looked at the pretty pictures. And then I made the terrible mistake of actually looking at some sources.

• Headline: "Youth Unemployment hits record high in Obama's first two years"
• Caption: "Loss of Hope of ever finding a job leads many disillusioned youth turning to drugs and crime."
• Image name: "Crime Scene"
• Image source: "G-20 Toronto June 2010"

Um. Seriously? Obama's policies caused the G-20 riots in Canada? Insight!

• Headline: "Unemployed over 50 may never work again"
• Caption: "Senior workers may be the first written off and forgotten as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."
• Image name: "Elder workers"
• Image source: "US Navy 080821-N-7280V-171 Storekeeper 1st Class Yayah Sesay gives a massage to an elderly woman at the Bluebird Home for the Aged during a community relations project"

Man, at least Canada 2010 was kinda close in time and space! This is Korea, 2008. Not shown in the CP version: The Navy dude giving the lady a massage. Said lady is an "elderly woman at the Bluebird Home for the Aged", and the dudes helped out there. So... I kinda doubt that she's looking for work in the US?

• Headline: "Poverty rate explodes"
• Caption: "More than 43 million Americans now live in poverty, up nearly 4 million just since President Obama took office, according to the Census Bureau."
• Image name: "Shanty town"
• Image source: "Manila shanty"

Yeah, not quite the US, and not quite from Obama's era (2006).

Oh, Rob... every single point could have been made with a proper image from the right time and country. You work so hard on blaming Obama for everything, so why are you so lazy when it comes to this? Or do you just assume that the end justifies the means?

...crap, you likely do, don't you? --Sid (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking him? You know what he will do. He will come over here and talk in non sequiturs and poison the well by making list of irrelevant things done by Democrats or the mainstream media. - π 22:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant? But it's all connected, can't you see it!? The tattered newspaper clippings and miles of red string in Rob's apartment say so! Vulpius (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The pictures were clearly changed by vandals.Webbtje (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It gives me that warm feeling of knowing that behind the scenes, other sysops will facepalm at Rob being so bad at lying AND coming here to make a complete ass out of himself. The guy wrecked the mainpage, and I want him to give an encore of idiocy. :) --Sid (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Just when have they facepalmed at CP's Director of Counter-Intelligence's actions before? Hey - "counter-intelligence" I just got Rob's clever little joke. The means justifies the end - like his abortion Obamaville - which says nothing about the so-called Obamavilles, and there's certainly no mention of the Bushvilles that were there first. --PsyGremlinPrata! 23:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we misunderstood what Director of Counter Intelligence means. In this case it obviously means that he is responsible for running the check-in desk for peoples' intelligence before they enter CP. If CP was a physical institution Nobrot would be the equivalent of the bloke that runs the coat check cubicle and hands out the raffle tickets.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's G.W. Bush's fault a navy guy gave a back rub to a Korean senior who ended up in a Manila shanty town and later protested at the G20 Summit in Toronto. I'll make the correction. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob, did you pass out and hit your head on the keyboard again? That's the only thing that could possibly explain that post. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 18:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Rob was actually joking. ħuman 18:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Busted again. We're gonna fire Congressman's Grayson's ad agency as our consultant on this. Sloppy work, again. Disgusting. Maybe Bill Mahar can advise on the relevency of outdated material. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wow. 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Teacher Ed

Might be over-reaching himself here.^img Ah yes, indeed.^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 04:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not a very informed person, but is trying hard to fit in. One of the first thing I noticed in his Bible Lecture is that he parrots the same nonsense about the Bible being banned from classrooms in public schools (it's not) that is so frequently trumpeted by Andy. He wants to be one of the gang.--^talk 04:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What a prick ħuman 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly Andy's attitude towards charity is explained. He doesn't give money, because Jebus decreed these people should be poor. Sanctimonious scum. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 05:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that his answer was prayer but now it looks like he can't even be bothered to get on his knees for 30 seconds to help the needy. When is he going to move onto rich men, camels and needles?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this was one of the few cases where I cursed loudly at my monitor. Is he seriously-... I mean, just-... What? GAH! *headdesk* --Sid (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This does exemplify the nasty side of his TeaBagging politics. I know that many religious people actually engage in proper charitable works to help the poor but the only poor that Andy has helped is a half-witted Moony that he deigns to keep around his wiki in a position of ill-deserved authority. Генгис^unbelieving 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice blog post here that pretty much destroys Andy's reading of those passages. Schlafly really is a nasty piece of work. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to think of him as mostly deluded, not (completely) dishonest, but now I suspect it's a lot more of the latter. He basically just pays lip service to charity and then rewrites the Bible to match - how "Christian" is that? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Very, the answer is very. --Opcn (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That was an excellent blog, SR. I've saved it under favorites in case I enounter this shitty argument again from conservative relatives. Junggai (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised but I see Andy's quote mined the Bible. Full verse reads : "You will always have the poor among you, and you can help them whenever you want to. But you will not always have me." What a truly repulsive little man he is. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Return of an old favourite

"inspiration for Orwell's growth into conservatism remains unexplored"^img Probably because it never happened. How long until we get "Wikipedia is biased because they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Orwell was conservative. Nice of Andy to trumpet his insanity on the main page again.^img --PsyGremlinSprich! 07:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's painful how little research Andy has done into this. I'd bet $100 that Andy never even read Why I Write, heck Andy probably hasn't read anything of orwells outside of Animal Farm, and Maybe 1984 back when he was in highschool, and he skipped half the reading and did what ever it is that dorks did back then. Someone has his mailing address, maybe we should pitch in and buy him a copy of Why Orwell Matters by Hitchens, the non-existent liberal hawk.--Opcn (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's almost like Mummy Phy found a copy of "Down and Out in Paris and London" or "The Clergyman's Daughter" hidden under Andy's mattress, and he claimed he only read it because he was seeing how and when the author became conservative and now he has to keep on saying that, because Mummy is watching, always watching. Which also explains Andy's persecution complex. --PsyGremlinFale! 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In other news, Andy can catch up on his Orwellian reading for free. And here's a quote from your hero, Andy: "A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?" --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point the idea that the meaning of the words "good" and "conservative" are the same is so permanently ingrained into Andy's head that he literally can't even conceive of a situation where a true conservative would do anything wrong. Likewise, he believes the converse, that all good things must be done by conservatives. So that explains his obsession with Orwell. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fun to think about how the hero's of a crazy place like conservapedia might rip it to shreds, but in the case of Orwell I think we are quite justified in thinking that he would simply trample Andy. Hitchens on Orwell--Opcn (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Pageview bumping

Are people still doing the artificial pageview-increasing after all this time? The other day I noticed that cp:Mammary glands and cp:Homosexual fantasies were suspiciously high up the pageview rankings, but now almost all of their views have mysteriously been erased. Meanwhile, a couple of other chortle-worthy pages are making their way up the list. Who keeps doing this?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt deleted those pages yesterday. 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoever it is, they're not talking about it. I've tried various search terms on google to see if anyone's conspiring on a forum somewhere, or boasting about their efforts... but nothing. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nutty Roux linked to the first two, here, on 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC). We must have more lurkers here than we think, if that's all that boosted the page-view stats. CS Miller (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not so sure. It's easy, I guess, to see how many views a day this page gets, and the views per day that the above linked articles get would have to be lower (quite considerably lower, I'd expect) to fit that theory. If they're higher, then someone's clickbotting them... possibly using this page to get ideas for targets. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt in particular has been deleting pages to reset their view counts for a long time now. I sincerely doubt anyone's looking here for inspiration, since many of the ridiculous entries on Popular Pages haven't been mentioned here recently if ever. I've also searched for links to some of the pages and found nothing tracking back. 14:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

A hint for increased bot activity is that they started to prevent IPs from looking at Conservapedia, again: for the last couple of months, I could gather data from the api without much trouble (well, they don't like perl-scripts :-) , but now, they close their shop after hundred queries or so...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

They are evidently clickbots, because if you sit there refreshing the Popular Pages list (should one be inclined to do so) you can see the pageviews going up at quite a regular rate.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past Ken

. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, cp:Homosexual fantasies obviously gets a lot of hits because it is such a quality encyclopedia article. But what is it about anyway? Which article do they mean? The only link gave me a 404. 207.172.209.70 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read that's very close to some common heterosexual fantasies too. Ed and Ken must be closeted, it's the only explanation. ^sshole 14:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Andy's time of the month again...

Now this is mildly interesting. Andy on Mainpage Right:

• August 20: "Give it up, liberals: Sharron Angle retakes the lead..."^img
• September 30: "Give it up, liberals: Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold trails by 11 points..."^img
• October 8: "Give it up, liberals, Americans aren't fooled by your tricks anymore..."^img

Makes me wonder if Andy has his own quote generator... --Sid (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes I wonder if CP and WIGOCP are just two quote generators interacting. --79.44.92.111 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty amusing if an accidental collaborative effort by CP and RW passed the Turing Test like this. --Sid (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt on the stock market

He really is a fucking moron. Even the quickest of searches would have revealed that the market went up because the high unemployment puts pressure on the Fed to do more quantitative easing. But, instead, he makes up some complete shit about Republicans winning being magically good for the market. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Teets, put this into this into your Mikrosoft Speech program > Lolololololololololololololololo--208.54.7.129 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What did Ken do now...?

Did anybody catch what was so bad that it had to be reverted by Andy and oversighted? It was on MPR, and here's the history gap:

• (cur) (prev) 19:08, 9 October 2010 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (45,363 bytes) (Reverted edits by Conservative (Talk) to last revision by TK)
• (cur) (prev) 15:01, 9 October 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) (45,363 bytes) (Obamanomics Sign of the Times)

(Not that it matters as Ken is merrily orgasming on MPL now with History of Abortion even above the pretty "FALL LEAVES DISPROVE EVOLUTION" addition.) --Sid (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, TK replaced the awful picture with another awful one. Surely there are some truly gorgeous fall foliage photos on the internet somewhere? Hell, I could scan any of dozens of photos, or go outside with my camera tomorrow (although it's not really classic this year, very dry summer and cool night/warm day timing being off a bit) and do better. ħuman 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd tell you but I don't want to expose my sock. It took a while to work up to sysop. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Any person who loaded the page at the right time could have seen. --Opcn (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor thoughts™ from the vault wigo

I vote someone comments it out, it is completely illiterate. ħuman 01:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thought I had eaten a bad herring and was hallucinating. PenguinLust^{Flying isn't all it's cracked up to be}

New Conservapedia

Here's a Conservapedia you can edit! It's growing rapidly, parodists are very welcome. And I think half the RationalWiki team are already there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC) RationalWiki

That's it...

I've tried all day to get some work done, but if I can't get anything done, neither can anyone else: *Casts spell of "Productivity Diminishment" ^{— Unsigned, by: Carlaugust / talk / contribs}

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! --Sid (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's today fucked then. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes me wonder for a minute-would it be worth the while to set up a list of religion tropes? Not just to call out examples from any one faith, but to underscore that what many regard as THE real deal is just the same old, same old, recycled to the point of being a trope rather than a "unique insight ". --DinsdaleP (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh, check out the first link I found on that page without even trying. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy & Bible class homework

I thought he secretly gave up on the Bible class (since he never advertised it), but he's doing the homework now! --Composure1 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Teacher Ed's Bible course. Obviously more important for Andy than preparing notes for the world's largest American Govt class. I'm waiting for the moment when Teacher Ed steps on one of Andy's many, many crazy toes - especially regarding interpretation of passages. 100 internets says Teacher Ed is blocked before he can finish his course. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)He won't pass up a chance to justify the CBP, so of course he'll jump right in. Though I'm mostly amused that so far, three people got the "sheep follow blindly" approach down: Nobody questioned why all links in Bible Homework One^img read Bible Homework Two. --Sid (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we at some point start suggesting him to start a new religion open a new church now? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see one fatal flaw of having Andy as the head of a charismatic church... the man has the charisma of road-kill. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we expect liberal grade inflation when Mr.Ed. marks the homework?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at how the site is run and how those who disagree with Andy's opinion (a.k.a. The Truth) tend to be banhammered, I don't think TeacherEd will dare to mark ANY of Andy's answer below "Perfect!" --Sid (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My prior respect for road kill has been decimated...--Brendiggg (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, road kill is one of the four major food groups. On a serious note, I have a feeling Ed is trying to set Andy up, paint him into a corner over some Biblical issue. Of course, not having a ban hammer, he's doomed to fail. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My question is: Will Andy get the extra credit? And will he actually have done the work required? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed his answer to why the Bible was translated. I always thought it was so it could be read and understood by anyone, but it appears it's because its original meaning is no longer correct...82.1.197.90 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I wonder if he takes the same approach to the constitution.... --Composure1 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Silly student three: "Correct, but you should not have included the picture (which I removed). This is a serious class - would you include pictures in a real-world class? Minus 1 for that, for a total of 9." [5] WTF? sterile steak dinner 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"I like the Gospel of Luke because it is so beautifully written and its parables (like the Prodigal Son) are so powerful, and Gospel of John is so brilliant." OK, so that's the sort of answer that Andy himself would give full credit for, but "so brilliant"? Has he turned into a 14-year-old girl or something? Cantabrigian (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be quite fitting given that the instructor's name is Ed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This from an Ivy league asshole. Fuck, those places of higher learning must be regretting =taking mommy's bribe--Thanatos (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Andy, you're the best in class! This course has real potential for the parodists to goad him into doing more silly stuff just for the extra credit, as he'll never let anyone outdo himself on this topic. Making him twist another few bible verses was a good start. Röstigraben (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)