Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive202

This is an archive page, last updated 22 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>, <201>, <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)

HERESY!!!! Possibly

Isn't that one of the heretical passages on Mainpage Left^img?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bored, did this

Mainspace edits today: CP - 21 edits (inc 3 in "essay" space that the great dunderhead hasn't set up yet), 10 articles, 1 new article (baby boomer), about 4000 bytes added. RW - 72 edits, 21 articles, 1 new article (Prison) about 10000 bytes added. And we're not even building an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when a WP:WP:RS makes note that registration on CP is closed and editing is restricted so we can put it in the WP article. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the issue with "reliable sources" and Wikipedia. It's not true unless a reliable source says it - even if it's blatantly obvious - and it is true if a "reliable" source says it is even if it's clearly bollocks! But I suppose at least that rule does solve more problems than it creates. ^postate 14:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also bemused that the Baby Boom definition is put as between the Second World War and the Vietnam War... Is there any part of American history that doesn't involve war? ^postate 14:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the US was founded on a genocidal war against the native inhabitants, backed with a war against it's then ruler(s) and has continued with wars either itself or by proxy for it's entire history. The only wars they didn't actively get involved in until they had to were the 2 world wars. And before anyone shouts I agree that without US support then Europe would almost certainly have struggled to survive but then without the support of certain US citizens, bush (very) senior for one, so would nazi germany. But then the entire history of the UK until the past 30 years or so has also been based on colonial wars and the oppression of johhny f. Has anyone ever done an analysis? How many nation states entire existance has not been essentially based on warfare of one kind or anotherOldusgitus (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, is there any part of any societies history that isn't cluttered by war? Sure the US started with a genocidal war against the native americans, but they were continuing a grand tradition of genocide on both europe and the americas. When the spanish went through the south west the Athabaskin tribes were a narrow band, when the americans finally made it there they had broadened their control, how you might ask? Oh through genocidal war. The US troops never encountered a tribe that did not have a proud long warrior tradition. --Opcn (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is in fact pretty much what I said Opcn. Do not some anthropoligists argue endlessly over war is a good thing will they not? It increases genetic diversity, drives technology and expans and secures a nations borders, hence the security of it's residents. 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just a sarcastic aside - not to be taken too seriously. Once you start looking at history it's just a string of events where we decided not killing each other was just too much bloody hassle. ^postate 17:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it"

Is this...^img seriously Christian teaching? It strikes me as some sort of non sequitur to say that we wear clothes because we understand good and evil (and thus that wearing clothes is now an indicator of morality), but I won't rule it out - after all, especially the Old Testament had quite a few WTH moments. --Sid (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Far as I know, that's the whole point to the Adam & Eve story. They were innocent, the way animals are, and thus it didn't matter if they wore clothes so they didn't (in fact, neither apparently knew what clothes were). Gaining knowledge of good and evil meant they had the potential to actually do evil on purpose now, and thus weren't innocent any more. Thus the need for clothes, since being unclothed led to evil/lasciviousness. And as we all know, looking at someone naked and thinking they're sexy is a BAD thing. --Kels (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's... pretty weird. *frowns* I always thought those were separate concepts, but yeah, this does explain the "NO NEKKID HUMANS" fits they have. --Sid (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's one reason to laugh at PJR's stupid "absolute morality comes from God" schtick, since if you read the silly thing it's clear God didn't want us to have it. Well, that and the fact that it's stupid. --Kels (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So wait a minute, does that mean the Bible says that humans began as nothing more than animals? Sounds a bit like that evolution thing to me... TheMayor (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best of the Public?

Remember Andy's bullshit assertion that the BotP re: Sports is that "Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill." Well here's a great example of the best of the public coming up against so-called experts. In this case, the experts being people who actually trained for their sport. Enter Indian synchronised Swimmer, Avani Dave, who learned how to synchronise swim via Youtube, in time for the Comonwealth Games. Now, 100 points for effort, but sadly this example of BotP came stone last - 40 points behind the winner. Of course, it might be due to the fact that she's a heathen and not a good Christian... --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But but but butt butt SHE WAS A TEENAGER! We all know teenagers are not only the best of the public, but the most synchronized swimmers ever! ħuman 09:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The judges all have liberal bias, that's what it is. What else do you expect a bunch of middle-aged people to watch teenage girls swim? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's the Commonwealth Games, none of the achievements count. Everyone knows the British are a nation of deceitfu liberal atheists, and obviously they taught all their colonies the same thing. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anti-colonialist

Cut to Forum:Anti-colonialism and the U.S. at 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Camels through the eye of a needle - Schlafly edition

I believe some people have been waiting for this^img one? --Sid (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And again^img for the people who tuned in late. --Sid (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Truly beautiful! 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Andy pretty miserly anyway? I don't recall any large donations to any charities from him, or anything of the sort (but I could be wrong). I guess maybe he thinks his teaching makes it not apply to him? But then he charges (quite a bit) for that too, soo... X Stickman (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

He had three points to address:

1. There's no surprise in his interpretation of "rich man" (with Jesus being the clear ultimate defender of the status quo).

2. The "camel vs. rope" issue doesn't really change the meaning, but it's a little odd for someone so fond of polysemy, semantic shifts and "mistranslations" to make no comment on it.

3. By now I should know better, and yet I still continue to be astounded by grown-ups deluding themselves with that pitiful Needle Gate (or "gate needle") piece of whishful thinking.

I'm torn between what Susan said (enjoying another Schlafly moment) and continue to shake my head in disbelief. This man is supposed to have had access to an education too many people only dream of!--Xyr (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly is not a fan of the status quo. The status quo involves secular states, accurate Bible translations, and sane persons solidly in control of science. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Tea Partiers get just a little bit wackier, they're liable to come knocking on the Schlafly Estates door begging him to run for office. One would hope they'd hire him a voice coach or maybe corrective surgery? C®ackeЯ

Huh. Interesting. What's Andy's position on masturbation, then? Is he not a wizard? Blue (pester) 06:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth writing up eye of a needle. The WP page is, as expected, dry and to the point with whatever can be cited, but the discussion page has some interesting ideas. ^postate 10:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see how he gets to "idle miser" from the root word of "wealth." Then again, I seem to remember WIGOing some comment of his about Jesus wearing fancy robes, so this edit is right up there. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it not say a lot about the man that he actually chose to reword that particular verse when there is still a lot of of the CBP to finish?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have to admire the priorities. It is making me want to rewrite some Bible. An RW translation... pull it off as a group project for National Novel Writing Month‽ ^postate 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I speak English too!

I see that TK's absurd misrepresentation of what "own" means when uploading an image rubbed off on someone with such a long history stealing pictures from all and sundry. 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone thought of alerting the Wikipedian who owns the image to this bit of plagiarism? ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.102.45.117 / talk / contribs}

He released it into the public domain, so it's free for anyone to use. Even lying, stealing bastards like Terry Koeckritz. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use ≠ lie about authorship. 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but to be fair he's fixed that now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken's schizophrenia

He's talking to himself^img now. Creepy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dememoryhole. CS Miller (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like posting comments on a locked talkpage. You can also see him stroking his... er... mouse and whispering "presssiousss." He also as a thing for bossy wives and peanut butter. Given that Ken is single and a virgin, one can only assume his mother inflicted some lasting memories on him. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the page wasn't locked, account creation and general editing is normally locked, which would also prevent anyone from commenting. CS Miller (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So many of these fundies (Christian, Jewish amnd Muslim) are actually scared stiff of women and their sexuality, that's why they need to be repressed and controlled. Of course men have strong sexual urges so when you imprison women with either real or virtual chastity belts you are only left with - horror of horrors - other men to satisfy your baser instincts. Генгис^evolving 14:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I do like the intense aversion to the idea that a woman can be as capable, or more so, than a man. There's a lot of fear in that attitude. --Kels (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Ken's inability to find a woman willing to marry or even date him mean for his MA-CHEESE-MO? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying...

Oct 11, 2010	CP	RW
Registered users	37,955	4,814
Active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 7 days)	36	148
percentage	0.095%	3.074%

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have more user names on RW than CP. Like 20:3 or so. Just sayin'... ħuman 07:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean to say you have more user names on CP, right? Hateboy (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, here. At CP it may only be two - human and nadhob. Here I'm me, "everyone", a dozen or so Bohdans, and probably a handful of others. None of which I ever use (except, duh, this one). ħuman 18:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Double standard

Let me put it this way, Andy. I would have no problem with a wealthy preacher^img if a) he paid taxes on it like everybody else and b) didn't become wealthy by fleecing ignorant, superstitious fools like yourself. Really Andy, take the time and watch Marjoe - with an open mind. Or even better, think back to Oral Roberts begging for money, otherwise God was going to kill him. Nice religion you're a part of Andy. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Look at the poor fools that fall for the TV preachers even AFTER they have been discredited. For those interested, "Marjoe" is on YouTube in sections (or was). I watched a year ago, and it was quite interesting. Considering when it was made, I'm sure it took guts to do it. Jimaginator (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Youtube linky - part 1 of 10. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Psy. Awesome film, we should have article on it! ħuman 01:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Christ... Who made that piece of shit flow chart they have on the page? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 19:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wealth by"??? Where did Andy learn to write, anyway? ħuman 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

He was homeskooled by his mom. 'Nuff said.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dishonest Andy

He was nominated by Obama but he is too liberal to be confirmed quickly, yes, he was nominated by Obama, that ensures that he will not be confirmed quickly. --Opcn (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is being a fuckhead a "conservative" field? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Susan G. Komen

As I see on the CP main page, Susan G. Komen is a liberal feminist communazi, and the only thing she loves more than breast cancer are abortions. Just like the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association, all who are liberal pro-abortionists and pro-breastcancerists that deny the PROVEN scientific link between abortions and breast cancer. </psuedo-CP rant>

Ugh...writing insane shit makes my brain itchy. I don't know how they do it over at CP.

Seriously though, how sick and pathetic do you have to be to attack the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation?Carlaugust (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or retarded. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TK's plagiarism

Dear TK,

when you read the information of various sites, digest it, and put it to paper, it is not plagiarism. When you copy information nearly verbatim without the intermediate step, it is plagiarism. When you copy stuff from a government's source without quotation marks, it is not forbidden. But it is still plagiarism.

Glad I could help

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the part where "it's only plagiarism if I say it is". ^postate 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear TK,

Plagiarism means taking false personal credit for academic gain, which is not at issue here.^img. I'm afraid, your former contributor to the project is wrong, or at least mislead. You should read cp:Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the use of another person's words or ideas with the goal of deceiving readers into thinking the plagiarist originated the ideas and deserves credit for them. Fits to a t. And you are setting a bad example for all the home-schoolers visiting the project - what happens when they copy your methods for their homework? But, but, but, like, I gave all the links! won't help them. And shouldn't sysops adhere to the highest standards? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even funnier - poke TK with a stick and you know how he'll react. 1) Burn the evidence^img. When doing this, make sure you tell a juicy lie about why you are deleting the page. (Hint: Wikipedia isn't "public domain," sbt) Two: In the absence of any actual editors on CP, take out your frustrations on an editor you blocked almost 2 years ago.^img Rinse. Repeat. --PsyGremlin講話 15:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! No!^img The definition of plagiarism is WRONG! I'm going to rewrite it and if you don't like what I say, you're a troll! Methinks the lady doth protest too much, but isn't he just too wonderful when he throws a hissy fit? Mwha, big boy! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that neither TK nor Andy would know integrity if it pissed in their faces. Corry (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

More funny from the recovered talk page - TK deletes it and blocks Tom Moore until the entropy death of the universe, but tM actually had nothing to do with the whole calling TK out thing. It's just him lashing out becuse he's all butt-hurt now. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TK's rant^img

“” I am going to delete this article, pending a rewrite, because of the inconsistencies noted above by Professor Jensen, and the insertion by vandal site trolls (who have all long-ago been blocked for their perfidy) of completely spurious information. Using government-provided text, written at taxpayers expense, and duly cited as the source, with links provided, is not plagiarism as established in case law. Someone employed by the government, to write website text, has absolutely no claim to copyright, as they do so as part of their duties, and are paid for what they do, at taxpayers expense. Aside from that, it is also a well-established policy here, from the owner of this site, that copying from government websites is permitted. Now if someone copies an article from the Department of Defense, without attribution, leaving the impression they were the author, that isn't plagiarism, but it could be dishonesty. But to adapt government copy for use here, or anywhere, with a clear citation of where it comes from is not dishonest or illegal in any way, shape or form. Anyone who argues differently is either a troll or liar, most likely both. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 11:22, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Interesting definition Terry, let's see some case law proving that. And as for the two "government sites" you stole information from (yes, Terry Koeckritz, STOLE) what does their copyright say?

• Uni Nevada: "All text, images, logos and information contained on official University websites are the intellectual property of the University of Nevada, Reno and the Nevada System of Higher Education unless otherwise indicated.U.S. copyright law provides protection for all content, with or without this statement. Reproduction of any content--text, images, photographs, etc.--requires permission."

I have dropped a note to the site owners, with all of Andy's contact details, as listed on the main page so they can lodge an official complaint. Your move, Terry. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the University of Nevada has any problems with their text being copied and promoted by any blog: most organizations love to have their point of view being represented seemingly unaltered and stated as factual in wikipedias around the world.

But that is a part of the problem! The other part is that TK pretends to be able of original thought...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just hope that when DouglasA(dams) takes his mask off, he deletes all of TK's work as "serial material thief" --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd resist any of my work appearing unaltered on WP. Basically, you get a lot of sites that say that they can give you info on a subject - but it's identical to the relevant WP article. So, it looks like you've copied it from Wikipedia, even when it's obviously the other way around. It's why I didn't dump my MChem dissertation onto WP, although I did entertain the idea for a bit, I thought they'd run the electronic plagiarism detection software and I'd get shot for copying! ^postate 17:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to follow all links and stuff, but I'm incredibly amused how TK holds up talk page posts by RJJ as absolute authority.

And seriously, what's all the worry about? TK got his sysop powers through copypasting, practically all his non-trivial mainspace contribs are copypasting, he even got caught on CP... and nothing serious ever happened! It's obvious that TK is above the rules, and I dare any CP sysop to tell me otherwise. Heck, do it by mail if you're too scared of TK watching your public posts! --Sid (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think poor TerryKakes is struggling with the differences between copyright theft and plagiarism; both are dishonest thought Tel-Boy! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the original of the UCLA talk page was burnt, I uploaded a Google Cache screencap of it so people can check it out. Cache link if somebody wants to upload a version with a different width. It only occurred to me later that my upload might be too wide for some screens. --Sid (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WIGOing TK

Why are people still WIGOing Terry Koeckritz? It's rehashed, it's boring, it's trolling, and he gets off whenever he sees his name on this page, or RW users on WIGOCP sporadically asking why everyone keeps WIGOing him. He's had his day in the sun anyway, his worst trolling is behind him (i.e. BluntKnives, plagiarism, DeanS incident, etc). SJ ^Debaser 09:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally agreed, although you have to admit, his frantic attempts to hide the evidence, but his planning to redo the definition of plagiarism, was kinda funny. So glad we can control editorial content from here. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TK is intrinsically both insincere and dishonest. I'm not over-enamoured with the WIGOs but the postings on this talk page have yanked his strings in a most amusing way.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's gone into another meta-level. First, WIGO recorded trolling/lies etc from Terry Koeckritz. Then Terry Koeckritz started doing it to get mentioned here. Now, RW mentions Terry Koeckritz in order to watch him dance to our tune. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not entirely unlike that little incident where Ken and some youtuber entered an infinite loop of mentioning each other. Good times. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of fun. Most of us have talked to TK and we know that he's just fucking around. Who else would he be hiding this shit from? It's the same cat and mouse game it was when trolling CP was fun. Now it's happening on RW. It's better than nothing. It highlights how insulated everyone over there is. It fills in the gaps between Andy's insanity. Keep WIGOing TK. It's good stuff. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's unblock him. He's obviously not going to sue the site and I enjoyed the conversations we had with him. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, Terry's harmless and big ol' barrel of laughs when you get to know him. Hell yes! Let's unblock him. And why not make him a crat too? Cos he's just one of the boys, you know. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. He's a despicable, lying individual whom I would call a "piece of shit" were it not for the fact that shit can help grow things instead of killing them off. Anybody wanting to talk to him can use his email address - or just post something here starting with "Oi! Terry you sack of pus" on this page. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry, if you want to come back, give us a sign. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

He was WIGO'ed because theres nothing else happening. --Opcn (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I dislike the guy as much as you all do but I think that the block was a little hasty. Plus he didn't do what we blocked him for, unless there's something else. That's all. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is fucking stupid, another TK block/unblock decision? Please. TK is blocked, everything is fine, why bother going down this route again. i⁹ 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hasty? I thought we spent months, years, even wasted decades of our lives arguing about it. But this place is so much nicer without the TrollKing wasting our time by calling us names. ħuman 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

(draws line under discussion) 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason Terry Koeckritz gets WIGOed and will continue to do so is because his conduct is representative of CP. If the only things going on are his petty bullying, plagiarism and history burning to cover his own ass, then that says more about CP than any parody. Every Terry Koeckritz WIGO is a concrete example of why no-one in the conservative movement wants nothing to do with them and how badly Andy is mismanaging the site and being a poor educator by putting his own ego ahead of student development. For all his trumpeting of the Tea Baggers, I don't see a rapidly growing category based around Template:TeaBagger. Every Terry Koeckritz WIGO serves to remind anyone thinking of associating with that blog of the kind of crap that is allowed to go on there by the 'most high admin'. So what if he gets hard every time we WIGO him, there are two major theories:

1. Terry Koeckritz is honestly a conservative, therefore every time he gets WIGOed our recording of the conduct means he damages the site's reputation further
2. Terry Koeckritz is a deep cover parodist, therefore he wants to damage the site further and we're just helping him bring it down

Either way, CP suffers. Let's keep WIGOing the pompous shite for that very reason. -- Iscariot (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Death threats from WIllminator

Long time listener, first time caller... I was talking to "Willminator" and I guess I got under his skin. I expected him to be a hypocrite, but I didn't expect explicit death threats ("I want to kill you so bad...", "you will soon lose your life", "I plan to hide and wait all night outside your crib until the morning when you come out of your crib. Then I’m going to push you inside your crib and kill you...". It's kind of freaky knowing an extremist knows your name and is out to get you. Should I be taking action or just ignoring him and hope he doesn't find me? If any of you here is Will, please fess up in our little conversation. JeffT (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be about as worried about him getting you as I would the FBI showing up at your door if you wandalize CP... after all, the people at CP need some way to feel powerful, and since they can't actually do much of anything in the real world (case in point: CP) they probably feel the need to "talk tough" with you. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was email baiting Willhemina but stopped when I became convinced that he was mentally retarded. 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That email address was on CP, right? I sent tizzy zoran an email bait a few weeks ago since his/her address was public but I never got a response. they must be too busy drawing billions and billions of people to their encyclopedia to notice any emails.... but mentally retarded? Do share! ghazi alizm, ^comments? 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghazi is right. Don't make an ass of yourself by taking this loser seriously. Hateboy (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Willminator is a parodist. These emails serve as evidence to the CP higher ups to the fact that he's a 'honest to Me conservative' and that the liberal parodists are out to get people like that just as much as they are out to get CP, at least in the persecution complex riddled brains of various people. By talking about those emails on CP rather than in private as Terry Koeckritz tries to get people to do, he's managed to reference RW openly on CP and get senior admins to openly comment as well.

It's a very well played gambit he's using, can't wait to see what he comes up with next. -- Iscariot (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

this^img is what people are gossiping about (scroll down just a little). Don't know if it's been wigo'd, I just like to see links here - since I got tired of looking CP:RC+500 to find the dishy scoop. ħuman 09:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus. jefftavolieri looks as much of a moron as anyone else on CP. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but none of those emails are real. Will thought he was being pretty clever in making up my responses. I like how I conceded. And how I suddenly decided to call him stupid after he'd already copied and pasted the email. JeffT (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Hey, isn't that opening salvo the one Karajerk quoted as gospel in Scarborough's comments section? Bonus points for duping him - not that it's hard, of course. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I presumed that! The first email from "you" was the one quoted by Karajou a while back and at the time I thought, "How can anyone be fooled by that?" So, the morons at CP either write moronic pseudo Poes, believe them, or both. I fuckin' dis pear. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In other news, Wills is either 12 or a mental midget like Kara and little Johnny Boy. He'll go far on CP. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably both, but to be fair he has time on his side in which to get better. They should put all the others out of their misery right now before they do something that might hurt innocent bystanders. Генгис^evolving 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

JPatt and Reliable sources

Ok... Even knowing that he's an idiot.... Even knowing that he's a crazy homophobic fundamentalist.... On what planet is a website who's slogan appears to be "PROGRESSIVES = SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = LEFT-WING RADICALS = ANTI-CAPITALISTS = UNAMERICAN" considered a reliable source by anyone without a steel plate in their head and tinfoil lining their apartment? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 06:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Planet Schlafly, of course. ħuman 06:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, CP's sourcing standards basically come down to "Whatever a sysop approves of". There is no "X is reliable, Y isn't" rule because they want to arbitrarily approve or disapprove of any article, depending on whether or not they agree with it. Blogs aren't reliable... unless they feel they're cite-worthy. Newspapers are reliable... unless they disagree with the sysops. Scientific articles are okay... but only if their findings agree with The Truth. Check "830/573f55..." and "840/0ec183..." from the TZB for a look into how CP sysops discuss sourcing standards. That makes it clear that sysops recognize the need for rules... but don't want to be bound by any. --Sid (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of Jpatt and his articles, I gotta say that I'd really suspect him to be a parodist if he wasn't so hyperactive on Twitter. Just check his articles on Jill Rowland ("Jill Rowland is a conservative candidate that fights for you against big government") or CommieBlaster ("This has attracted the usual trolls from MediaMatters utilizing their liberal tricks.") to see how the article standards have fallen to the level where it's fine to insert random opinion or simply copypaste phrases or paragraphs from campaign websites. --Sid (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My favorite blog post was the encyclopedic "Liberals who won't debate", written by Andrew Schlafly, and weirdly commented on in its talk page by Ken DeMyer, who thought it was about a completely different obsession. ħuman 09:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of all the sysops at CP JPratt is the one who really creeps me out. Tim Robbins answered in a recent Guardian interview to "what is your greatest fear?" - "Stupid people with guns". JPatt has that stupid violent undertone which is more worrying for democracy than any of the other idiots that habituate the CessPool.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of all the sysops at CP Karajou is the one who really creeps me out. Tim Robbins answered in a recent Guardian interview to "what is your greatest fear?" - "Stupid people with guns". Karajou has that stupid violent undertone which is more worrying for democracy than any of the other idiots that habituate the CessPool. Jerry 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Time of the month again

This just got archived, but he's done it again: Give it up, liberals: college students are mostly pro-life and they're not fooled by Democrats anymore. College students are mostly pro-life? Really, Andy? (Oh, and "anymore" isn't a word) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need a "Give it up liberals" page, not too unlike the "clueless" page. Speaking of clueless, there was another one of those just a bit futher down under the latest Give it up liberals. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "Give it up Liberals" is becoming another classic Schlafly meme.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Andy's new buzz-phrase has rebutted all of what I once believed! I will now vote Republican, go to church regularly, gripe about taxes, and start dating women. (Okay, just kidding on that last one.) MDB (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's the way Reps disguise their proclivities. You can still hang around public restrooms as usual. Генгис^evolving 13:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh great, we had a Clueless liberal claptrap on MPR. Генгис^evolving 13:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Awesome find, Sir! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy is referring to this he doesn't realize that college age and college student are not the same thing. I think it's like 20% that go on to college.--Opcn (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that "gloating" is a liberal trait, Andy seems to be doing an awful lot of it. Prematurely too. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, some collage students will be mature students, so they won't be collage aged either. CS Miller (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "clueless", I like what the closed-door policy at CP has done to it. Andy used to be able to say to serfitors "you're clueless about...", but now that no one can really get in, we only get it on newsblogright as in "the clueless XYZ". ħuman 21:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

American Govt

I see all references to the "world's largest class to be taught by a moron" have been removed from the main page. I assume this means the course, like the writing course is dead. Also, I had to laugh at Terry Hurlbut's self-enriching blog entry where he describes NJ's homeschooling laws as "among the most liberal in the nation." In this, because it allows Andy to earn $250 a pop, 'liberal' is a good thing. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Favorite Conservative Word

I was just wondering what everyone else's favorite word from the "Best New Conservative Words" list is. I'm going to have to go with "coolant", because, obviously, when someone thinks fiscal and social conservatism, they automatically think of what they put in their radiators.Carlaugust (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Tough choice between "Philadelphia" and "Segway". Röstigraben (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia - very conservative movie. Генгис^evolving 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, my favorites are the ones I added to the list myself. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's so many - alcoholism, ambulance chaser (by Mr Had an abortion? Call an attorney), crackpot, grade inflation, etc, all of which apply to the conservatives running CP. Sadly, "refudiate" isn't there yet... --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"antilife; 1929; critical term describing a tendency to oppose life and lifesaving care". Guess Obamacare is in the clear now. The cognitive dissonance is quite astounding. — Pietrow ☏ 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude... my choice is... *pfft*... pothead. Pass the Doritos, woodja? MDB (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My new favorite is "life vest", which is apparently a pro-life invention. Because liberals love drownings. Carlaugust (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they do! They want to drown honest conservative Americans in taxes and paperwork and burdensome regulations! Only the life vest tossed from the USS Conservatism (Captain A. Schlafly) can save us now! MDB (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Local", I mean what word could be more political and ideological then that?? That and "scientific fascism", but that counts only because Conservapedia thinks it's a term used by anyone else but them. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In lieu of one best conservative word, I'd like to nominate a category: Physical objects which have no connection to politics. See coolant, life vest, muscle car, Segway, transistor. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 16:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Transistors are hugely conservative. Just look at some exit polls. 90% of transistors are pro-life. FACT. I'd also like to give you a list liberal word: wrench, aardvark, pencils, socks, and potatoes. Carlaugust (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, transistors are very conservative, as the later thoughts of their inventor reveal. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As an electronics man, transistor is my favourite. However what goes against it is the fact that it is actually a word rather than "more than one word which means it's not a fucking word you dumb prick", such as muscle car. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Like Trojan Horse (from 1837?) and John Hancock (1903?) Gooners (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The question then becomes, are resistors conservative? Or is a "resistor" just a liberal term, especially in electronics? Guess it really depends if the word can help manipulate the results of "Best Conservative Words" in order to maintain that "perfect geometric growth"--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well a transistor is really just a variable resistor, so the plain old resistor is the more conservative being fixed in its ways.131.107.0.101 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We also have to consider what type of transistor they mean at CP. For example, if the transitor in their list is a npn transistor, is the opposite, a pnp transistor, liberal? Same thing with MOSFET vs BJT. I think we can all agree, though, that Op-Amps are filthy communists. (Oh dear, my nerdy is showing) Carlaugust (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BJTs are clearly liberal,

• Bipolar comes from the bisexual nature of engineers who favour them.
• BJ is liberal slang for BlowJob, and conservatives would never get involved with anything so filthy as oral sex.

And as for IGBJTs - Insulated GAYte! Nothing but an attempt by liberals to push their homosexual agenda on conservative electronics students? (Do you think this is why the Assfly dropped his EE career?)

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the three basic linear circuit components:

• Resistor -- a conservative component, because conservatives resist liberal values.
• Capacitor -- liberal, because you need to use the liberal concept of imaginary numbers to analyze them.
• Inductor -- liberal, because liberals induce people to do foolish things.

Clearly, linear circuits are, by a 3:2 ratio, liberally biased. No wonder they have been discarded in favor of good, conservative transistors!

MDB (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no no. A resistor is liberal, because liberals resist logic. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bipolar transistor. Obviously liberal as no conservative suffers from bipolar disorder. CS Miller (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

But if it's bipolar, could that not mean it's both conservative and liberal at the same time? 92.0.22.154 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My favourite conservative words has to be 'Socialist,' although as something of a French speaker... I really struggle with 'provocateur' and 'tour de force' being conservative words. Maybe all French phrases entering the English language are conservative? Raison d'etre, for example? Dalek (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'algorithm' is probably my favourite. What the fuck? Dalek (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Europe, Frenchy. We're all Euroskeptics here (or whatever the word was). Although, I must admit, in college I was a little Eurocurious, but it was just a phase.

I love that we apply more logic and thought to our fake discussions (i.e., the political leanings of electronics) than CP does to their entire site.Carlaugust (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Je suis anglais!! Je suis d'Angleterre! Pah! Dalek (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes, 'algorithm' is great, especially with the definition: "an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style". AKA:

Step 1: What does the Bible say?

Step 2: *fingers in ears* LALALAL EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY LALALALA

Step 3: PROFIT!

Step 4: Throws Freedom Fries at Dalek Carlaugust (talk)

Hehe. The French loved nothing more than that 'Freedom Fries' stuff. Just the chance to have a lovely rant about what children the Americans are in their eyes, and how 'French Fries' are belgian. Can we have a "Fun:Liberal Words" to claims words for ourselves? If he can consider 'Polar Coordinates' a Conservative Word, then we can claim ANYTHING! Dalek (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Dalek (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

News headline: Global Warming Threatens Polar Coordinates - Cartesians Rejoice! ħuman 21:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprised they haven't attempted to add the word "Euroskeptic" to the list, or "Frenchy" for that matter. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Be aware of 'trivia', it is a conservative word because its "insignificant detail, which can sometimes obscure what is important and distract people from the Bible". Remember game shows are anti-God. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I like 'invisible hand of marriage' because Andy made it up. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I like "decrypt", because "encrypt" isn't on the list. Only Liberals encrypts, and they apparently don't have the need to decrypt the message to understand them. Conservatives don't encrypt, and therefore whatever they are decrypting isn't encrypted to begin with. (As in using the method to decrypt OTPs they can twist any plain text into anything else) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My favorite's Muscle Cars, since the whole entry is so far from the facts and I am a fan of classic cars anyway. "Placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance; also celebrate masculine style against erosion by feminism." Wow, so lets check the facts-not all muscle cars are from the 60s (GNX, Mustang, and Trans Am just to name a few), not all are 2-door (Chevy Impala anyone?!!), a lot of them became popular with females, and the older ones didn't handle or stop well. Course, Andy will also try to ignore that some of the biggest classic car fans are liberals.RascalJack (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can convince Andy to completely remake the English language (he's done a lot that already). Like how in Spanish and French words can be masculine or feminine in Schlafly English words would be conservative or liberal. The grammar of Schlafly English would treat conservative words completely differently than liberal words. Seriously, somebody suggest this! --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sweet FSM, just what the world needs is the Conservative Grammar Project! MDB (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken fails to understand science.. again

On the front page there is this gem^img:

"An evolutionist declares in a science journal on the alleged evolution of sex: "And as always, there is more work to be done."

Followed by a screed on why this makes evolution "just a hypothesis" and morally bankrupt and how it cannot compare to a book of fables, blah, blah, blah. While all hilarious, the best part is the assumption in the first sentence shown above, that any theory of science doesn't have more work to be done. All theories of science can be refined, or improved upon, or enhanced with new evidence. That is true for the theory of evolution, germ theory, theory of gravity, atomic theory, theory of relativity, tide theory, electromagnetic theory, theory of magnetism, ad infinitum. Ken doesn't understand science, but he is a YEC after all, and that alone is enough evidence to convict him of ignorance. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did Ken just use a local paper from Northern Ireland as his source on the progress of the Chilean mine rescue?? Is Fox News now too homosexual, with only the Belfast Telegraph being reliable now? Dalek (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty common thing, unfortunately. Someone or something (like an organisation) admitting that they have work to be do on a particular topic means that everything they know is wrong. You're either 100% sure, or you're 100% wrong. It's the same kind of logic that leads to people like Ken criticising science for "constantly changing", or in other words, responding to new evidence rather than blindly ignoring it. Please ignore the fact that this post is horribly written. My brain not work good at the moment for some reason. X Stickman (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Brains failing to work properly after reading Ken's rants = normal Dalek (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And yes Ken, we know about the "queen of problems in evolutionary biology" quote by Dr. Graham Bell, back in 1982 that your video link quote mines. Because of course evolutionary science never advanced in the past three decades, oh wait... --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken: "sex ... more work to be done" regarding sex. ħuman 04:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

the obligatory "essay" follows^img of course. i⁹ 04:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's so full of funny. "mañana"? Surely Ken is taking an adult education Spanish class to enhance his Mah-Cheese-Mo? Also, Ken, that's not a "photo", it's a graphic. ħuman 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the evolution of sex, I have just begun reading The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, and it is absolutely fascinating. Just FYI. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now it makes front page left^img. Personally I find this hilarious as it directly displays CP's (and Ken's) complete ignorance of the scientific method. There is no theory in science where there isn't "more work to be done", scientific progress doesn't stop, and you'll never know 100% of everything there is to know about any aspect of the natural universe. To say there is no more to learn, no more to work on, no more to know is the antithesis of science, such views are the domain of religion, which is why you don't mix the two. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ken doesn't understand what bona fide means.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The only people on the planet more narrow-minded than American Christian conservatives are Northern Ireland Protestants (many of whom are Southern Baptists anyway), so it makes complete sense that CP would start mining the BeleTele for articles. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the representation of Sisyphus he chose... why Sisyphean success? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of MPL, at least they finally found an actually photo of fall foliage... ħuman 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And there is always work to do
CS Miller (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, Jpatt.....uh......

...You do know that this news item you posted^img is in fact a parody article? i⁹ 04:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He only read the first line. ħuman 05:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody email him this Onion article: Obama Depressed, Distant Since 'Battlestar Galactica' Series Finale? I want to see it on the CP mainpage. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He can't spot satire on CessPool why should he be able to spot it elsewhere?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If he can't spot what's wrong with the EU Times, I don't think he can be relied on to distinguish between news and nonsense.Webbtje (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could help^img, Terry Koeckritz. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hell, that's just hilarious. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I think I am convinced that Jpatt really is the biggest idiot at CP. And there is a hell of a lot of tough competition in that race. DickTurpis (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now if they just lifted the permanent range blocks, we could do this for them and make it a lot easier. You know, like back in the old days where RW users did actually do the hard work on Conservapedia. ^postate 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this lets too much reality in. 92.0.108.0 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bombay, India block

Anyone know why being from Bombay, India is a reason to block someone? --Leotardo (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Did they register a user name? That's a blockable offense at CP. The location part is just TK "showing off" that he has checkuser. ħuman 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Terry Koeckritz is a typically racist CP fuck. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Does he mean Mumbai? Bondurant (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that and the whole "British Empire" thing. You know how much CP LOVES England. --Thunderstruck (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just typical Terry Koeckritz, he blocks a user from India because he wants us to be all horrified about obvious racism. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 20:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Move along. Nothing to see here...

With the numbers of editors down - and the influx of new editors throttled, Conservapedia becomes the blog of a couple of forty-somethings riding their hobby-horses (Really, Andy, what happens when a liberal says^img apple pie? Does he burst in flames?)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! To misuse a quote, CP is like a car. TK's stamping on the accelerator, RobSmith is dragging the steering to the right and Andy is looking out the back window, yelling directions. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean...uh...um...cider pastry? P.S. Where were you on October 12 between 4:40 AND 5:08??? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

CP = cider pastry?? Генгис^evolving 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to avoid using conservative words like "a*$le p#e". It might be fun to make a list of conservative words and their liberal alternatives. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is this really true? About the only times they open up account creation they turn off editing to new users? I can see overlooking this paradox a few times, but according to this they happen simultaneously, so someone is making a conscious effort to do this. Is there any explanation other than someone [cough TK cough] trolling? DickTurpis (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I do get it. It's like an airlock. You let the noobs sign up but they can't do anything until TK has checkusered their IPs. It's a de facto preregistration process which Andy was so against. Генгис^evolving 13:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

and the purely arbitrary time-slots guarantee that only trolls will try to sign-up... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That must be it. I had no idea just how much the access of new editors has been restricted - out of the latest 100 to sign up, a whopping eight have made any contributions. OK, many of them signed up with insulting names, but even among those who followed the first-name-and-last-initial-convention and were welcomed on their user talk pages, most didn't make any edits. Röstigraben (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that would be some good stats to look at. Larron, do you have any stats for new users in the past few months? How many were blocked, how many simply never made edits, how many made some edits then disappeared, stuff like that? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to think that the conservative words are like newspeak and can only convey conservative ideals. --Opcn (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cider Pastry sounds tastier than apple pie. Tyrannis (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

account creation at CP

last 90 days

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

More things CP doesn't understand

In order....

1. How a satellite interview works^img on television
2. The irony of claiming prayer is the only possible explanation,^img screw the thousands of dollars of equipment and the hard work by the rescuers.... Which makes me wonder, why couldn't God have just moved the damn mountain?
3. Identity politics^img conservatives still haven't figured this out.... NOW is not going to endorse someone who's against their every policy position just because she lacks a penis.... You'd think they'd understand this by now (see Sara Palin and the lack of Hillary voters supporting).
4. Satire^img _{discussed earlier}
5. Politics in general^img

Jesus.... How do they tie their shoes in the morning? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Velcro. ħuman 06:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, they weren't 33 "Chilean" miners. One was a furriner. ħuman 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Who caused the mine to collapse in the first place? Auld Nick? He's just a fallen angel, not an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, agape deity. Many gods are omni- but there is only one Om. CS Miller (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was prolly a liberal vandal. ħuman 08:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing how many people where there to step in and claim the credit after the real hero's did the real work. I like PZ's idea of stopping the drill with just a few feet to go and having a prayer off to see who can pray the last few feet through. however TK is just trolling us. --Opcn (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I only enjoy Ken and Andy over there anymore, and for very different reasons. The place is a mausoleum. And TK is just a boring loser whose only vine to life is this talk page. ħuman 08:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets help them out as they obviously don't actually think before they post someone else's critique. The source refutes satellite delay via several examples of Maddow giving immediate responses to Robinson's points (at 0:42 when Robinson insults Maddow by saying she is not "capable of understanding" hormesis, her response -- "that's patronizing and charming" -- is immediate. Same thing happens at 1:11 when Robinson accuses Maddow of an "outright lie." Her reaction -- wide-eyed innocence -- is instantaneous.) We, the viewers, do not view this exchange from the satellite but from the studio, hence we do not get an equal delay for each party. We instead view his delayed feed next to a real-time Maddow, she's watching the same feed as us, hence she is able to respond "instantly". Note how it takes him a few seconds to respond to this, because of the delay in both sending it to him and receiving the response! Aslate (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments on the source article are funny too: "Any direct satellite link that occurs anywhere in America would only introduce about a .25 (1/4) second delay." - yes, because America operates satellites at ground level. Sheesh. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NASA deserves far more credit then any deity, however to the folks at CP, NASA is a dirty government program, so they are not worth mentioning; even if they are American, they are still full of godless libs.

Actually, that guy's correct with his calculation and I was going to elaborate on it. The actual delay for a signal to a geostationary satellite (the type comms are) is 35786km * 2 / c = 0.239s, that's assuming one satellite hop (fair for a US-US communication, but not necessarily) but you also need to include the signal processing in between. In the UK when I switch from analogue to digital TV there's a very noticeable 2-5s delay where I can hear things being repeated. Seeing as Maddow's signal requires this to get to him, as does his to get back to Maddow, that would make up the rest of the difference. Either way, have they not seen that "live" broadcasts and interviews on a non-liberal news organisations have also suffered from this for over 30 years (and it's gotten better, thanks to faster signal processing). Aslate (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's always intrigued me: the time pips on R4. The difference is noticeable: Fm:DAB:Freeview:Freesat:Internet in delay order. 12:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from this being amazing cognitive dissonance (forgetting ever satellite interview he's ever seen), I'm glad Andy finally solved the mystery of "is it a satellite delay?". Occasionaluse (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the delay on digital is a corollary of the processing. An analogue signal from microphone to your radio essentially needs no processing at all, so any delay is as a result of the time it takes the signal to travel down wires and through the air. (Of course there is some processing because virtually all radio stations use various digital players, mixers, faders, and connections to the transmitter itself.) Digital broadcasts, on the other hand, are very processor intensive, both at the broadcast end and at your DAB radio or digital TV. Even more so for the live iPlayer. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since god saved the miners in Chile, then logically he must have hated the ones in West Virginia. I support TK's adoption of the Westboro Baptist Church stance. --Leotardo (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I unequivocally deny any involvement in the Chilean mine incident. Auld Nick (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick list of miners God hates: Poland, USA, Wales, China, Mexico, England, South Africa. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You could understand atheist countries like England and China taking a hit from the SkyDaddy, but good Catholic countries like Mexico and Poland, chapel-loving Taffs and that most credulous of nations the USA also getting whacked?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier

...at this point to list the things CP does understand? It would certainly be a much shorter list. MDB (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel tumbleweed coming on... ^postate 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And a flying cat with glasses. For whatever insane reason. Carlaugust (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Self-imposed chastity is all I have for that list. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

how to demand that it be imposed on others, or how to do it? Bristol Palin claims to know what it means, but I've seen that kid, I know it exists. --Opcn (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They understand the deep liberal agenda. Err, I mean. Wait. They understand their interpretation of the bible. Even if it is bat-shit insane. I wonder if their Bible has gotten to Ecclesiastes yet? Quaru^{fork - You can't explain that!} 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about other than trollking being a twat

But an interesting exchange [1]^img whiche of course ends with a block ^{— Unsigned, by: Oldusgitus / talk / contribs}

Please learn to spell "witch" before you post! Jimaginator (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly just some noob being punished for the horrible crime of posting on CP. If s/he where smart they would have used email. --Sir Onion ^{Kneel before my vegetable might!} 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's about time we had a special section or subpage to put all things Terry Koeckritz into so that the rest of us can just ignore him. I'd suggest here Bondurant (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, TK was likely acting on request. Notice how Ed starts contributing^img for the first time in days juuust after TK cleans up? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... --Sid (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony being that RBLibertarian is legitimately a conservative. Like anti-gay marriage anti-evolution anti-drugs pro-praying in school Pro-choice conservative, he just thinks he is a libertarian. I know him from elsewhere, he is as close to what Andy might call a movement conservative as I have ever seen outside of conservapedia. --Opcn (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But the guy didn't even write any articles. All he did on CP was to make a couple of broken userboxes for his own personal use. Röstigraben (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

With such a distinctive username it wasn't hard to get a feeling for the guy's positions within 30 seconds of googling him. He would have fit in quite well at CP if it was a legitimate project. Pity they can't attract and keep 16 year old conservatives any better than they can even get the attention of the big names (Coulter (chortle), Limbaugh, etc.) they were hoping for. 15:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat enjoyed Terry Koeckritz's demonization of the guy. "Hi, please delete my articles. Thanks."..."YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH DEMANDS!!!" And then Ed's coincidental appearance. Ed is easily the most cowardly of any CP sysop. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Obama spying on us?

Obama uses Facebook to spy!^img says this document from before Obama was president. Lies flow thick and fast from CP. i⁹ 21:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He must be the one who's vandalizing CP as well! Rob, are you listening? Röstigraben (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can just imagine the kind of vital information the President of the United States could access through Facebook. "OMG, Rob is now going out with Charlotte? And LOOK, Frank likes Two and a Half Men! I also like this!" SJ ^Debaser 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You laugh, but just wait until "Operation: Hack Ahmadinejad's Facebook Page And Change His Status To 'Gay'" goes ahead. Then the shit really hits the fan. X Stickman (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So what else is new? The security services have been legally monitoring emails and phonecalls without permission since the so-called Patriot Act was enacted by that liberal George W. Bush. Checking what books people get out out of the library or perusing FB pages and Twitter feeds are actually less covert tactics. Apart from the libertarian fringe of the Republican Party most of the right-wing actually approve of these tactics if they think that it's all about preventing terrorism. Unfortunately governments of every hue have been equally culpable in the removal of hard-won freedoms over recent years.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps CP's inflated page views are due to government snoops keeping an eye on it because of all the anti-Obama activity? The Secret Service have no sense of humour when it comes to that sort of thing. ^postate 13:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste Fail

Oh dear. More copyediting on CP.
Dear DaniMinouge'sPudenda if you did a little research, instead of just copy/pasting from Merriam, you would find that "fabulous" is derived from the Latin "fabula," meaning "resembling a fable" " To say the word means "like or resembling a fable,"^img whilst not technically wrong, certainly leaves out the meaning used by normal people in everyday life = amazing, astounding, fantastic, wonderful. Better luck next time. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of the wp:Etymological fallacy. And what on earth is that clunkily-worded quotation supposed to be about? Cantabrigian (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Go-Gos

More pop culture from Bad Touch Poor. Although they did make good music. Fuzzbox were better tho. --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I still have my tape of them playing "Our Lips Are Sealed" on SNL. And two copies of their debut LP, with differing color schemes. But Ed makes it all seem dirty, somehow. ħuman 10:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh. The girly pop of that era can't be matched by The Bangles. They even outdid Simon and Garfunkel in S & G's very own existential crisis song. That's no mean feat.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a great cover. Keep in mind they didn't write it. Time, time, time, see what has become of us... ħuman 11:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, now I'm going to spend the morning listening to Eighties pop music. "Ess-ess-ess-ess aay-aay-ayy eff-eff-eff-eff"... MDB (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"No page on Wikipedia"

With Jpatt mentioning this two^img times^img and Andy declaring^img this to be the new Wikipedia Bias #1, it's kinda funny to see how CP illustrates exactly why some entries either don't exist or have questionable notability (I won't go into detail about Andy lying about the Al Gross entry being flagged for deletion):

• Al Gross (guy with Wikipedia article that has notability issues): Currently no article on CP.^img At all.
• Ruth McClung: CP article created^img this night, with sentences and phrases copypasted from her campaign website. The unsourced "Van Helsing" quote comes from Moonbattery (Yes, Van Helsing from Dracula posts on Moonbattery, which uses a bat in its logo. Why no, I have no reason to believe that this is not his real name!), apparently - though it's not exactly in that form. I googled for the exact quote and couldn't find it, so apparently Jpatt just fudged it a bit. It's not much, but it speaks volumes. And the only reference of this page is an article about her opponent that also mentions her in comparison to him. Ehhh.
• Jill Rowland: CP article created^img last Sunday. No references at all, and just like the McClung one, it's mostly just copypasted from her campaign website, resulting in such encyclopedic and neutral wording like "Jill Rowland is a conservative candidate that fights for you against big government [...]" (which was only fixed^img five days later, maybe because I poked this before).

So yeah, wow. It's totally Wikipedia's fault that there are no articles about them (and never were). Because... uh... the overwhelming amount of Reliable Sources about them is... er... overwhelming me! ...yeah. --Sid (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol at my favorite "best of conservapedia" reporter! ħuman 11:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me that finds unintentional humour in the sentence: "Jill is a Christian wife, Pro-life, mother of three and a practicing Dentist"? Cantabrigian (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

From Ruth McClung's op-ed on "man-caused global warming" - Scientists talk about a "Midieval Warm Period". Who knew that she was a Kiwi? Генгис^evolving 12:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Rowland article has a redlink for her entrenched liberal opponent, who does have an article at Wikipedia. So no double standards there, no sir. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Global Handwashing Day

Remember that piece of Biblical scientific foreknowledge about "Jesus [...] declar[ing] hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary." ? It was commented about at cp:Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge#Unclean hands and food, and in this very talk page (see archive: Hand washing).

Well, I just wanted to make any Conservapedians lurking here aware of the fact that today we cellebrate Global Handwashing Day. Enjoy your next meal!--Xyr (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another watcher of Rachel's bum? 15:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Rachel ? Bum ? (I had to look in the dictionary to be sure about that last one)--Xyr (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trapped Miners

You know I find it rather ironic that CP is saying it was capitalism that saved the miners, considering the government run NASA played such a huge role in it. ^{— Unsigned, by: BenB / talk / contribs}

Don't you read any of the previous sections?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Ministers

They are relatively nice to this this Liberal leader.
"When Chretien left the Office of Prime Minister in 2003, Canada had trimmed $50 billion from a total government debt of more than $550 billion and start to balance the budget."

As for Brian Mulroney. He didn't say "(do)" yourself.
Brian Mulroney tells Peter Newman to "Go **** yourself"
1:19.
Civic Cat (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What does TK have against the French Version of O Canada?

Here, or the guy who posted it?Civic Cat (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he was too lazy to check to see if the lyrics were correct, which they are. Odd considering the French lyrics were never revised to remove the hardcore Catholic imagery, including a reference to the cross. A thinking person could find some liberal bias there worth reporting on. 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia dominated by right-wing Catholics or right-wing Protestants, or do they keep an uneasy truce-alliance as they do with other political affairs?Civic Cat (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a healthy combination of all Terry Koeckritz's troll tactics. First, the inclusion of the French version is liberal multiculturalism. Second, no one can be trusted and he's not going to double check every letter and accent. Third, the guy was apparently from Canada. Fourth, he'd already decided on blocking him, so he has to revert all his edits anyway - good faith or not. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be ultra-right wing Calvinists, not Catholics, with the exception of Rob Smith, who I assume is Catholic bc he at least gives lip service to alleged "anti-Catholicism" among liberals despite palpable anti-Catholicism being present in places at CP, and TK, who professes to be Catholic but is TK. I don't think Andy Schlafly can safely be called Catholic anymore given his uncatholic and impolitic positions on a few important subjects, what I would characterize as a presuppositionalist/literalist/inerrantist approach just like all the other fundie loons on CP, and his attending a Puritan church. Catholics don't roll like that. 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So noted, and exploitable. As for the article: I suppose it is why the Wikipedia article is, and remains, the superior version than this inaccurate CP stub butchered by a man (TK) who likely couldn't name the 10 provinces from memory if his life depended on it. Oh why does Conservapedia hate Canada? (Do you hate us for our Freedom?)   :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadians are hated for their intelligence, beauty, hard work, and leebrawlism, all of which TK secretly craves, but can never have. I pity the fella... Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: New Members

I don't really follow Conservapedia too much, can somebody clarify... have they completely stopped taking in new members, or is it just severely limited? When does one join? Dalek (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See "Move along. Nothing to see here..." above 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CP's bible lecture

It's getting better and better. The next homework assignment^img is to create Ken-style "satires" of evolution. One^img is already up, and I can't wait to see what Andy will come up with. Röstigraben (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, another Ken masterpiece, and relying on the whole Archaeopteryx thing again (wouldn't it be nice if they could quote more than one source (Hoyle) that it was a hoax). And flying dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible. I wasn't aware other dinosaurs were mentioned, unless you mean leviathan? Ken, has also never heard of Pterosaurs before. The man's ignorance is astounding. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 06:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't Ken this time, which is why it's so hilarious - the bible course explicitly encourages other editors to imitate him. Röstigraben (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Really, teacherEd is not trying to be sutile anymore. His parody is so obvious that Andy will reach a new level of stupidity if he actually submits that homework. --Tlaloc (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Ken can't spell astromer astronomer.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't astromer the type of polymer that is only possible to produce in outer space like those Gundamium alloys? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, didn't realise it wasn't Ken who wrote that. Full marks to LanceS - how can they block him for parody, when his articles mirror the stuff Ken writes. Can't wait to see how Andy answers. Can't wait to see how TeacherEd winds this one up. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean the largely defensive alloy of Gundamium? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, you cannot now convince me that TeacherEd isn't in fact the Best. Parodist. Evar. He's even got the Assfly dancing to his tune. Congratulations to whoever is running him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bets on how soon he will become a non-person? I say within 24 hours. ħuman 09:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Andy likes him, so the other sysops can't touch him. Unless he pisses Andy off by giving him a bad grade or something, I wouldn't be surprised if his efforts even earn him elevated user rights at some point. LanceS, on the other hand, is probably walking on thin ice. Röstigraben (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Best parody ever. The real clincher was the age thing. --Opcn (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Thick Kardboard headed one reads this, and is not KompleTely stupid. He might clue Andy in to the obvious parody is obvious of assigning people to create parodies of Ken's kitty articles... oh, never mind, you are right! PS, I'd love to write a CP article on shop safety. ħuman 09:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Additional lul's for this^img on lances user page. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. Terry Koeckritz is in a position to ring the alarm and warn Andy that his strings are being pulled. There are four possibilities as I see it:

1. Terry Koeckritz doesn't sound the alarm because he wants to see Andy getting sent on a wild goose chase homework. Terry Koeckritz knows Andy is a complete idiot, and has been known to give parodists a blind eye anyway, so it stands to reason he wants to see this play out. For all Terry Koeckritz likes to piss us off, he too is trying to have fun with (and destroy) CP. This particular piece of parody isn't likely to threaten Terry Koeckritz's grasp on CP, so he might just let it go for the lulz.
2. Terry Koeckritz's urge to ruin our fun over-rides his urge to see Andy being messed about, so he sounds the alarm. But Andy ignores him or downplays his concerns, just like when he ignored PJR about the Lenski letter.
3. Terry Koeckritz sounds the alarm and Andy takes his advice, letting TeacherEd get blocked. For the first time ever, Andy would have demonstrated the important human faculty of listening to someone else. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Terry Koeckritz quietly blocks TeacherEd and Andy doesn't even notice.

I'm betting on number 4 myself. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say #1, but #2 is also plausible because of Andy's complete obliviousness to parody. I think #3 and 4 are unlikely - the first one because parodists are generally safe once they've gotten on Andy's good side, and the second because Andy has enthusiastically welcomed TeacherEd and his "course", so he would definitely notice if he weren't around anymore. Especially since not much else is happening on CP these days, it would be really hard for TK to cover up a block. Röstigraben (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's on the hook. TK has probably warned him in p-mail but he's letting it play out before doing anything to so that he can be proven right later on.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm guys...did you ever think that TeacherEd could be TK himself? From what I heard, he has done this type of thing before.RascalJack (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As if TK had the intellectual energy to pull off something like this. TK may be in on it, but if he is TeacherEd he has someone else feeding things in to him. --01:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TK has no creative instinct, you only need to check out his contributions; they're all either blog links, blocks, reverts or plagiarism. Генгис^evolving 18:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Chile again

It was the power of prayer... as well as capitalism and free-market economy^img that saved them. *sigh* --Sid (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait... so suddenly liberals are against "innovation, risk, and investment" and "capitalism?" I must have missed that meeting. All I'm saying it was our drill that got the job done, so more post-WC warm and fuzzies happening here. Sorry Karajou, but I didn't see much help coming from your neck of the woods. Oh... right... you were praying... silly me.

Also I love their little reminder at the top there: "Please, to help with searching of topics, include tag line in edit notes below before saving. EG:"Obama Fails"" Subtle, no? --PsyGremlinParla! 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't that well known Government agency NASA also help out by sending food packets? Bondurant (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the fact that some of the miners had "complicated" or unconventional love-lives. Apparently this is OK in god's eyes as they were saved along with the others.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as the "God saved them" brigade overlooks why they were trapped in the first place so the "captalism saved them" overlooks why the mine was unsafe. The Chilean president has said that the government will now instigate more safety regulations. I wonder if we can expect CP to protest at this expansion of government control and demand greater freedom for mining companies to let the free-market enforce standards? Генгис^evolving 13:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. @ Psy: Shouldn't that be "redneck of the woods"? Генгис^evolving 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to add, just felt the need to say it CS Miller (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone actually surprised at the shite being churned out of CP claiming it was conservative values that saved the miners? I think by now we'd be more surprised if they didn't claim credit for it. SJ ^Debaser 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I'm only surprised that they haven't made more of it, but then it is foreign news and the US right doesn't have a great track record in that respect. I guess they've got far too much on their plate blogging about obscure Tea-bagger politicos. Генгис^evolving 13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at with the "humorous political cartoon" WIGO, pointing out the (at the time) lack of any coverage whatsoever given to the miners. That said, I'm still impressed that the first WIGO I've added in a while has hit -39. SJ ^Debaser 17:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like two drums and a cymbal falling off a cliff there... but anyway, what did you expect? For them just to report facts and perhaps a story of survival and human compassion? No. Everything is political and everything can be used to smear people that don't share the political views of Conservapedia's bloggers. ^postate 13:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"It seems strange, that if God is supposed to be unchanging, "the same yesterday, today, and forever", that his ability to perform miracles improves as human technology improves." 14:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When I clicked on PZ's link to the paper's homepage it struck me immmediately that there was very little about Chile. El Espectador is, of course, a Colombian paper. It is important that scientists get their facts straight before publishing. Генгис^evolving 14:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PZ gets on my tits a bit: he's too fast to go into print sometimes. 14:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Without PZ to Pharyngulate polls like that I would never have discovered that El Espectador has Kristina Svechinskaya as "la hacker más sexy del mundo". I'd get on her tits a bit. Heck, I'd give her my credit card numbers just for asking. 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why oh why did you have to go down the "sexy Colombian women" route? I've spent the best part of 30 years trying to get over my own piece of Latin ass from Bogota, who was also named Cristina and looked like a young Sophia Loren. That being said, Mrs. K. was born in Paraguay and is just as beautiful in her own sweet way (despite being of British stock) and is an atheist. I don't think I could taken 25 years of being married to a practising Catholic. Генгис^evolving 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you've stayed married for 25 years reflects nothing more than your implicit acceptance of the moral authority of Jesus Christ. Indeed without accepting God's authority your worldview would be completely unintelligible. Nothing you claim to know or achieve comes without accepting the Christian moral framework and recognizing its divine authority. See here for inspirational witnessing and information about what you believe, Genghis. I'd like to pray with you sometime. 15:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Genghis eats smooth or crunchy peanut butter? On a serious note, I see no shot is too cheap for Andy.^img --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He eats super-chunky Skippy like all true Mongol warriors do. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I eat crunchy Whole Earth organic PB., and I'm only still married out of sheer inertia. Генгис^evolving 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is safe to say it was a combination of government programs, capitalist innovation, and most importantly, human compassion that made the saving of all those miners possible; what you can't say is it was divine intervention because that is the one claim among the other with zero evidence. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

all this talk of God saving the miners just reminds me of the 29 miners who died in West Virginia. Where was this God bloke then? Christians make me want to puke sometimes. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayhaps we need a God of the Good Times article, like the God of the Gaps? --PsyGremlinFale! 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

West Virgina is just too secular these days, it was a warning to be more faithful like Latin America you Mountaineer heretics. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It was flash wot got 'em out. Hat tip 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Flash, Flash, I love you! but we only have fourteen hours to save the miners! 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)~

What is the death count in Chinese mines last year? --Opcn (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Heard an interview on radio 4 yesterday with an offical of the international mine workers union. The offifical death toll in chinese mines is in the region of 10,000 but he estimated it as closer to 20,000. Incidentally, looks like god was so busy in Chile he missed out on this one sadly.Oldusgitus (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How long until Andy or Terry Koeckritz turns this one into a politico-religious issue? "The Chinese miners died because of atheist communism" or "God didn't help them because of atheist communism". SJ ^Debaser 11:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You just beat them both to it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken has a new parodist disciple

Have you heard of the The transitional animal the flying dinosaur^img? Normally not worth noting because it sounds pretty much like every other Ken insane flying whatever animal so-called "esaay", but this one was entirely written by LanceS^img, one of TeacherEd's (creeeeepy name) Bible Lectures students, and possibly Ken's singular disciple.

I almost didn't want to make note of this essay, only because now it may be erased and parodist LanceS made into an "unperson" as Ken and Terry Koeckritz both read this talk page regularly. Yet again it may stay, as it fits perfectly in line with Ken's special brand of Young Earth Creationist insanity, and thus not matter if it's parody if it tricks some sucker into believing it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken (a) gets that it is a blatant parody of his essays, and (b) would delete Lance's essay even if he does know. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See above. We're all eagerly awaiting Andy's own entry. Röstigraben (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I totally missed that and I was gone less then a day. That Bible Lecture Two page just SCREAMS parody, how are they not seeing this?? Ego? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's The Emperor's New Clothes. Генгис^evolving 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We get flying dinosaurs perching on our bird table every morning. The Real James Brown (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I like The Emperor's New Groove better. --Kels (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

James Brown gets chickens on his bird table? Garden birds aren't very much like dinosaurs (strictly IIRC the Dinosaurs are a group with four legs, lots of things from "dinosaur" movies aren't dinosaurs - so birds are right out on that basis) but chickens are incredibly saurian. Watch a chicken lay on a warm rock scratching itself, in that position the feathers can't conceal the fact that this is basically a lizard with wings. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RobS, Obama and the gay gene theory

Only wanted to say: kudos to Jammy and to Nutty Roux for that wigo. --JJ4e^{I christen thee Sir Annoyz Alot} 00:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I can no longer look at stuff about homosexuality on CP. It was funny at first, now it just disgusts me that those pricks can think (i use the word loosely) like that. It wouldn't be so bad if I could believe it is just those nutjobs on CP that do, but I know there plenty of folk who would agree with em--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is, has Rob been tested? I would say unless we see conclusive results from the sysops at CP (and a couple in particular), they should be treated as suspect. Just to be sure. --Kels (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I just assume everyone is gay until proven otherwise.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. It can make for some amusing social circumstances... ħuman 02:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wat--JJ4e^talk 01:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tested for a gay gene? I thought thats what Kels meant--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what I meant. I'll have to check my notes. --Kels (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As a gay, I will say that I find CP's coverage of homosexuality to be awesome. To watch Ken toy with his sexuality publicly (while obsessively updating his gay music interests on his user page) and the propaganda spread by them warms my heart. Why? Because they are exactly the opposite of where the country is; with homosexuality as so much. Even Glenn Beck is for the gays these days. I dunno - I enjoy it. But only because CP's handful of editors make the site so inconsequential. --Leotardo (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken and Terry are gay, and I suspect Brian. Ed has, er, different tastes. But what about Andy? Is he allergic to ladies? It's a reasonable probability, after all. --JJ4e^talk 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm with a AMassiveGay on this. I used to fine reading through Conservapedia a real laugh, but after a while the homosexuality topics just feel depressing. It's not just reading it - it's knowing that the human mind can be so hateful, if so conditioned. Dalek (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying people are "gay" in order to slander or compromise them is really lame. Can you people please get over your schoolchild giggles? ħuman 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not about "schoolchild giggles". The possibility of gay CP sysops is not something I would call "lame". Human, you're clueless. The implications of gay CP sysops are striking! --JJ4e^talk 18:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say Human I read that as saying that ken and terry ARE homosexual. Not as a insult but as a statement of a reasonable supposition based on their seeming hatred for all things homosexual. It's long been postulated by some that those who have the most vicious reaction towards homosexuals are frequently suppressed homosexuals themselves, a concept I actually heard first postualted in the programme that went a large way to changing my view of homosexuality The Naked Civil Servant with the estimable John Hurt as Quentin Crisp. Just look at the some of the preachers who are caught taking rent-boys on holiday with them and the like. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, I over-read that. Any "insult" there is that they are hypocrites, not that they are gay. ħuman 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well of course, as soon as something in your mind becomes evil and illegal, it makes it all the more tempting to commit. It's why as a christian myself I don't treat anything Good/Evil, simply a matter of decision(not to say that being gay is a 'Decision', more of a Preference).HKJGN (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is one homosexual sysop on CP-just do some research and you'll find out.RascalJack (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

More correctly there is definitely at least one homosexual senior sysop on CP. Генгис^evolving 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TeacherEd

Our new favorite parodist seems pretty inactive. Considering the Bible class is the only even slightly interesting part of CP these days someone needs to get going on this. Also, how is LanceS not banned? Other than his satire article and his homework answers which have elements of thought put into them and aren't regurgitated parts of the lecture, we have this in his homework: "the CBP showed that not being able to understand Biblical Greek is no real obstruction to translating it". Come on, folks! Are your heads really so far up your collective asses that you just can't tell when someone having a go at you? DickTurpis (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, Ed can only edit in the 30 seconds editing is open each day, so it might be hard for him to update his course. Also, it's the same problem with Andy - he doesn't want to admit he's made a mistake, so will ignore everybody's yelling, until such time as the mask comes off and he's shown to be a fool, as well as stubborn. Psy (tltli).

Looks like Lance finally got banned by fellow parodist Tzoran for screwing around with some Chinese... and Tzoran reverts back to "appropriate and correct" version which was actually a bogus Wuhaoism in the first place. Can the software be configured to only accept ASCII? Unicode reeks of liberal multiculturalism anyway... --MarkGall (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What I find amusing about the Bible Lectures themselves (outside the homework assignments and inflated grading for Andy), is that everything written so far is already common knowledge for anyone who is even mildly involved in or has a cursory knowledge of the Christian religion. It's sub-basic Christianity, you learn this stuff in first grade Sunday School; any parodist could easily write this remedial crap. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the Bible is banned from public schools, most people don't know anything about it - therefore, the Bible course is very important and valuable. Deny this, and lose all credibility! --Composure1 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the interpretative abortion known as the CBP, they likely lack even the basic understanding of Christianity or what the Bible itself says, so you go TeacherEd! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Andy is learning from the lectures, and even thanking TeacherEd in his edit comments. --Composure1 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy doesn't know enough to learn from an advanced course. the only thing Andy seems to know is Schlaflyian conservatism. I really wonder what he does with his spare time. --Opcn (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction, Andy doesn't know enough to learn from a remedial course. ħuman 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ripkin

Someone please help me understand this. I like to think I get along on a fairly high level, but this one is completely over my head. 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

the baseball player one? No, i don't see the connection. andy doesn't even say it's about a young earth. crap WIGO is crap. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The page it's on? Counterexamples to an Old Earth" 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

oops! i'm so used to everything being on main page right I failed to check... my tea levels must be dropping... Totnesmartin (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The age of greyness has decreased from history to now, from about 50 to 35 in mere hundreds of years. If people were as old as the old earth idea suggests they would now be completely grey. Voila!

I think the reasoning (excuse me, "reasoning") goes like this, based on other ways Andy has argued against an old Earth or old universe. He believes that an old universe requires uniformitarianism everywhere, at all times, at all scales, linearly extrapolatable ad infinitum. For example, he argues this stuff based on the amount of fresh water in the great lakes. I don't remember exactly, and I can't be bothered to go back and look at it again, but it's something along the lines of "If the water level in Lake Michigan is 3 inches lower than it was last year, then 13 billion years ago the water depth must have been (fill in the blanks; I can't be bothered; I'm just making this up) and there isn't enough water on Earth for that." In this case the argument is that people's hair is turning gray (or they are losing their hair) at an earlier age than previously, supported by his usual careful scientific research of looking at a picture of Cal Ripkin. This means that aspects of human life or the human genome are changing at too fast a rate--humans aren't uniform over (thousands / millions / billions / whatever the hell he's talking about) years. You see, an old Earth requires that the human race shows no discernible change that we can see on a human scale. Or something like that. Gauss (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I get it. And hence the bible is true. Soon we'll be born bald and grey. Etc. etc. 20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Takes me back to an old boyfriend (Chris) - he was bald by the age of 21 - lovely guy - died at 40. 21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart was bald at 19 wasn't he? As a counterexample to early greying Phyllis Schlafly is not grey yet is she? --Opcn (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming she doesn't dye her hair. On a smug note, I will never go grey.--AMassiveGay (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Then there's Saint Ronnie, dark-haired until death. And Paul McCartney, who was greying, but a regular routine of prayer seems to have reversed it! ħuman 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to those 2000 Grecian gods!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart was bald at 19? So that explains his awful syrup in I, Claudius. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So is Gauss' ability to figure out the reasoning show that he is a genius or just plain crazy? Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to understand how Andy isn't embarrassed by himself. "Uh, Sports Illustrated said he was gray...thus, the Earth is 4,000 years old. Boo-yah!" It's fun to laugh at him, though. --Leotardo (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy did Bible Homework 2

He is promising to add a Ken-style satire article as well. Unbelievable.^img --Composure1 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

'Homework' is a redirect to an image in Andyland? Shit, if I'd have gone on any of his courses I'd have a hundred degrees by now. -- Iscariot (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I love how his first answer is essentially, "I dunno, it's a puzzler." And I'm betting he expects (and gets) full marks for that. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't I remember ParodistEd marking down another 'student' for putting a picture in his homework? On the grounds that it was a serious course? I'm betting that Andy won't be held to the same standard. -- Iscariot (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He could at least have created The Evolutionist Lies About Random Foliage and put the image on it, with some Ken-esque rambling, and at least one quote mine. ħuman 03:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Question number three's answer wasn't unexpected given how he doesn't understand evolution at all and is proud of his strawmen. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else ever take a look at Andy's earlier attempts to kill evolution on the internet? EFU Evolution Fallacies ETA: also question one was a great Andy Trap, too bad he managed to side step it. --Opcn (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also worthy of note (and of mocking) is that per the talk page Andy "Read your Bible!" Schafly didn't know^img that "blind leading the blind" was a quote from Jesus. (And guess who made this^img translation?) Random surfer (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am struck by how incredibly lame Andy's contributions are. Even his beautiful autumn foliage is using somebody else's picture. He lives in New England, he lives in the woods, he has a camera, why can't he just take a picture from his back door? And redirecting a page title to the image page is the height of laziness. Can you imagine any of his pupils getting credit for the same thing? Even when he adds a picture from a public domain source he adds "no endorsement implied" to the attribution, is that him being a lawyer or just a general all-round asshole?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, parts of New Jersey ain't exactly a tourist destination. But still, yeah. ħuman 09:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a landscape to illustrate Andy's point. I can walk round any of the local parks in Liverpool (yes, we do have some) at the moment and see autumn colour. According to the stalkers Andy's house is actually amongst the woodlands, I would think that he could at least make a modicum of effort.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And it would be the first time. ħuman 10:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

People like that don't wander around their yard, they hire illegals to touch anything natural outside. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Predictably, TeacherEd just got rewarded with edit rights for giving Andy a perfect score --Composure1 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So far 54/50 and 55/50, not only perfect but beyond perfect! Although, did anyone expect any different? Can't wait to see how this ends; keep going TeacherEd, keep stroking that ego of his. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GBS

So I was taking a medical exam (a rather big one, actually) and one of the questions was about a gay gentleman presenting to the hospital with longstanding diarrhea. I looked and looked, and none of the answers mentioned gay bowel syndrome. Corry (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And I thought this was going to be about George Bernard Shaw - right up until the last three words! ħuman 04:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough George Bernard Shaw was one of the answers. Who knew? --Opcn (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh - like Human I read into "GBS". I thought it was going to be a play on GPS and the whole theory-of-relativity-is-liberalism. But once you got to 'gay gent' and 'diarrhea' I got it. --Leotardo (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

When I reached those I was expecting it to be a GBS jibe about Oscar Wilde. ħuman 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A new challenger for dumbest Conservapede

TerryH storms into contention with this gem: (found on FSTDT #76904, but also proudly displayed on his Examiner page.) Brace yourselves, because it's a doozie:

A team of planetary scientists has now found water ice and organic compounds on two asteroids. The team leader asserts that this shows that the asteroids seeded the earth with the elements of life. But the real answer is that the asteroids came from earth, and carried water and germs with them, on the occasion of the Global Flood.

So hang on, not only did it rain a lot during the Great Flood, but there was also some sort of cataclysmic explosion that blew big chunks of the planet into space? Strange, the writers of Genesis seem to have missed that bit. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap, that stuff. He actually inserted it on CP, too, somewhere. Lemme dig... --Sid (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. It's on "Extraterrestrial life"^img (and it had been there since the initial version^img even). Also in "Essay:Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible"^img, which seems to be an interesting read all by itself. --Sid (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd better screenshot that before Nancy's saviour oversights it. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I got local screencaps just in case, but you make a good point. Converting links + cap. --Sid (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

He wrote nearly identical, and I mean very nearly identical, drivel on the CreationWiki asteroid page. But what's cute about Temlakos puffing himself up here is that in October 2010 this hydroplate nonsense is the "most likely proposition", but in June 2008 it was only the "most coherent creationist model offered to date. ..." 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also on a Hurlbut note, how about this? I know TerryH has been fiddling Digg results but admitting so brazenly that "Global Weather Dataset being Systematically Corrupted by Terry Hurlbut"??? The man knows no shame! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I know it's the byline - this is called a "joke"

Good one. You had me going for a sec there. 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is epic, I am keeping that one. I know Answers in Magic made a similar statement that if any microbial life is found on Mars, it can be explained by Noah's Flood; they at least don't yet claim entire asteroids were lifted from the Earth because of it. Still creationists attribute some amazing astronomical features to that flood, one fella on Youtube, Geocentrist Nephilimfree, even claimed the flood was responsible for the craters on the Moon[2], on fella called it his "Lunar Bukkake Hypothesis"[3].--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Isn't there supposed to be only one Creator according to Christianity? Oh come on, it's a section of silliness already... =P --Sid (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

check Nephilim Free vidss on you tube. One of them explains that when the 'fountains of the deep' erupted the subterranean water under immense pressure blew water and mud and rocky debris into space. Some hit the moon, therefore water on the moon (and incidentallt fosils ) while some of it formed the comets. There have been ruburrals which discuss the actual physics of it . Hamster (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't agree with Thunderf00t and DPR jones on this one. I think that it would be possible for some water to get that high through purely classical physics, just not all of it. I don't think that the falling rock would do it, but I think that if you can get all of the water up 60km then you can get 1% of the water up 6000 km, and by that point gravity can no longer be approximated as a uniform field vector so I give up, Damnit Jim I'm a biologist, not a physicist! --Opcn (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You could probably get water pretty high but to actually escape Earth's gravity it would need to be travelling at 11.2km/s, which seems a little unlikely. See WP for more info. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And surely once water enters the cold vacuum of space it would cease to be the jet of water that they are obviously imagining it to be. Furthermore, if you add in spherical dispersion (the fountains of the deep are supposed to be a global phenomenon and not a single enormous geyser which just happened to be pointing in the right direction to hit the moon, let alone Mars, are they not?) then the force that would have been required would have blown the Earth's crust to smithereens.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

After checking a few figures, orbit of moon 363-406 thousand km, radius of Earth 6.3 thousand km, ratio of about 60:1. Therefore spherical dispersion about 1/3600. Seems a pretty safe distance to me. As for Mars, the closest approach to Earth is between 54 and 103 million km. For round numbers lets say 63 million or 10,000 Earth radii under favourable conditions. Spherical dispersion 1/(10,000 x 10,000), that's 1:100,000,000. So, Earth fossils on Mars? Bollocks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But both the Moon and Mars would "sweep up" a bunch of junk as it passed through their orbit and gravitational influence, right? Venus still has her Earth water, I say we demand it back... ħuman 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm no astrophysicist (just did A-level physics) but the stuff that Mars & the moon might sweep up would surely be in similar orbits to themselves. If we are talking about something that is ejected from Earth then once it goes into space it will surely continue in motion unless the gravitational forces can overcome the momentum, we've already established that they have a significant velocity in order to escape the Earth's gravitational attraction. While the moon and Mars might attract some particles it would only be a minute fraction of what was sent in their direction. You might also consider that the some detritus will be catapulted even further into space through gravitational forces just as spacecraft have made use planetary gravity to journey through the solar system. Anything that will settle into similar orbits and be swept up is marginal. In the case of the moon much might even be pulled back to Earth rather than being attracted by lunar gravity. Yes, some will be swept up by the M&M but we are largely talking about water and certainly nothing big enough to create craters.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No to the velocity - sure it has to get high speed relative to the Earth's surface to "escape", but all that velocity is lost in the "escaping". There's no need for it to be travelling very fast after that, except to keep the capture by M&M in a Biblical timeframe ;) By the way, I think precisely 843 angels can dance on the head of a pin. For very small values of "angel" and very large values of "pin". ħuman 03:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As absurd as Nephy's idea that water from the Earth made the creators on the Moon (including the far side), it becomes even more ridiculous when you consider the other heavily cratered bodies of the Solar System, such as Mercury, Mars, Callisto, Rhea, Iapetus, Oberon, and Umbriel. There is no reason to even consider the idea, it is born out of the desperation of trying to fit the facts of our Solar System into a 6,000 year old religious cosmology.

Checking Terry Hulbutt's page through Psy's link above, I notice in the side bar that October is Free Thought Month with a link to Freethought Day: A celebration of freedom from religion.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

TrollKing makes a funny

I enjoyed this^img that Terry Koeckritz put on the front page. Quoth the TightKnickers: "[Y]ou should be ashamed of yourself. You should apologize. Have you no decency? Have you no shame?" "Those who stoop to the level of attacking a man's religious beliefs to gain higher office, I believe that they should remember that it does not profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul in the process."

Presumably, the dear leader will now be offering an apology for two years of claiming Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim? No? Oh well. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear from recent demand that they need to reopen the irony-meter factory.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget, saying "shame on you" is a liberal tactic or something (it's on one of their articles). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy (obligatory Rimmer joke) - I give you cp:Liberal style #41. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If I recollect correctly that is very reminiscent of TK's attack on PJR (don't have a linky to hand). Is our ace political consultant writing Paul's script? Генгис^evolving 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a great find on CP #41 for "Liberal Style". haw haw haw at the hypocrites. --Leotardo (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

KenClone

Oh dear, little DirtyPudenda has rehashed the tumbleweed^img for his extra credit. They might be big on original sin, but original thought... nah.
That said, full marks to TeacherEd, as for letting his students create more Ken-crap unmolested, and as for his "Why do you think the serpent tried to tempt Eve, as opposed to Adam?" question - masterful. Just watch all the misogyny come to the fore.

• DP:^img "Eve was the easier mark-- more susceptible to deceit and more prone to sin" Based on what exactly?

• better link^img

• Andy:^img "Eve may not have respected the command as much as Adam did, thereby making her more vulnerable to the temptation."

--PsyGremlinSprich! 10:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, 'and the Serpent said, "Wait a minute..."' Bonus points for quoting the CBP. --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yawn..... but they are still in infringement of Photobucket's terms of use which state "pages on other web sites that display content hosted on Photobucket must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Photobucket." Just putting the link on the upload page is not good enough. On a Wiki where images are transcluded there should also be a link back to the Photobucket page where the image is hosted.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

TeacherEd is an excellent parodist, possibly the first to successfully convince others to do his parody for him. EddyP (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I thought Andy's explanation that Eve didn't hear the command from God, just second-hand from Adam, therefore making it less authoritative, seems like a pretty good answer. DickTurpis (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Dick, she was the stereotype of all women: totally useless and untrustworthy once out of the kitchen (and bedroom). 14:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dick. Andy avoided gender issues and came up with a decent (considering this is the Andyverse) excuse for Eve's fruit-eating behaviour. That being said, Adam still ate the fruit too, despite having received the direct order not to. Maybe homework three will deal with that one.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the stereotype is that women don't obey their husbands' dictats so that's why they need to have it beaten into them. Генгис^evolving 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dick. This is Andy ducking the trap. I don't see how he could have answered the question in a less sexist way. --Opcn (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on tho, that raises a whole new bunch of issues. Eve heard it 2nd hand from Adam, who was probably still a big groggy after the anaesthetic God administered, but she gets the full wrath of the Lord when it comes to punishment. Now Adam, who disobeyed a direct order from the Big Guy (ok, it was probably a choice between "obey God" and "get laid") but he gets off relatively scot-free. Is God a misogynist too? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all know the answer to that last question. Генгис^evolving 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scot free? They both get kicked out of paradise forever. DickTurpis (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy has raised that issue before, I don't remember where, though. Anyway, if Adam defied a direct order and Eve was just collateral damage, why didn't gODD make Adam have the babies? ħuman 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I might argue that having to work for a living is as bad as childbirth82.1.197.90 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously male. Women also have to work in between foetal traumas. ħuman 03:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

May it live forever in infamy

And just like that, TK ushers in Obamageddon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For the first time on RW, a meter that isn't an irony meter breaks. Well done TK. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the meter has topped out before. --Opcn (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it the result of an error the last time it happened? Or have there been more times? ~SuperHamster Talk 00:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It starts full, and only updates to the real value after the page loads (mainly due to laziness on behalf of the programmer.. er, me, *cough*) this may have confused people. But, AFAIK, Obamageddon has not happened before. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Parodist watch

JacobB and DouglasA have dropped off the map. To their handlers: I know nothing much is going on over there right now, but back in the day we had something called making our own entertainment. EddyP (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell, even TK is bored with the situation over there. Why should our other sysops be any different? Генгис^evolving 18:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

CP is currently as good as dead. Nothing I can do to change that. There are no new users, no conversations, "debates," or anything of the sort. 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eddy - what happened to JacobB's entertaining antics? They were the only source of humor for a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The best entertainment lies not in what you see, but in what you don't see. --Sid (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to defend JacobB. I collaborated with him on the aborted "multivariable calculus" stuff (which neither of us expected to see finished; we just enjoyed working on it), and I have corresponded with him by email both during that time and since. He is a real person. It is inconceivable to me that he was a sock of someone here. Other than "yourenemy?" and zoetrope/zelmerwhateveritwas.

He is also a decent person. He started out as a well-meaning contributor to CP (yeah, I know, that's unfathomable), and made some mistakes. The biggest one was falling victim to the "power corrupts" phenomenon, which nearly all CP sysops fall victim to. He did not have the good judgment to see that this was happening to him. The other was, of course, coming here and raffling off his password. He has seen the error of his ways, and has seen how the senior sysops, especially TK, abused him and made CP into the cesspit that it is. He has gone off to serious mathematical pursuits elsewhere. I can't imagine him wasting any more time with CP or RW. (Would that I could say the same about myself!)

I don't know about DouglasA. He has never responded to my emails.

SamHB (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pubs, cp has been declared dead in over a month. RW believed that to be soi you wouldn't obsess over every post. Signed:Douchebag--208.54.7.132 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If JacobB was a sincere user he was also a toady who attempted to enforce the party line and play to Andy's tune long before he was given any additional rights, and did it for that very purpose. When I was contributing there, he watched every edit I made like some kind of creepy stalker outside a teen girls bedroom in an eighties slasher flick. What was it that he said... He needed to watch me because of my "evolutionist elitism" or along those lines, and gleefully censored any information that ran contrary to Andy's bizarre view of the universe for the sole purpose of sucking up to the boss. That guy was a tool. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize JacobB did a lot of damage at CP, as all the sysops did and continue to do. And I make no excuses for that. I'm also aware that you, BMcP, were the primary recipient of that damage. I have never discussed with him whether he actually believes that time has no meaning in the cosmos, that questions of the age of stars have no meaning and are worthy of deleting, or that astronomers deliberately misinterpret observational data to falsely claim that M31 is 2.3 million light years away for the purpose of driving people away from the bible. I suspect he was toadying to Andy and TK. I make no excuse for that. He shouldn't have done it. Nor should any of the other sysops do that. JacobB was the author of the "Makes me sick to kiss up to him [TK] like this" comment on my RW user page. There was a simple way to prevent that sickness, and Jacob didn't see it.

By the way, I believe I have suggested to you that you bring your astronomical expertise over to Wikiversity. Take it from me; it's quite therapeutic. SamHB (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Screw you. We were just doing our job. Evolutionary elitist. 06:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone who spends most of their day creating inane articles and essays about homosexuality and atheism and then calls atheists socially challenged nerds who should get a life is surely the master parodist. Either the parodists have taken over the asylum or the lunatics. I find it hard to believe a human being can be so incredibly stupid. Auld Nick (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 10:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good post. What CP had on its side was that it cropped up during the media firestorm about Wikipedia, when the media was insatiable for all stories Wiki. Now, forks and sites operating on MediaWiki are a dime a dozen. If CP was begun today, it wouldn't get any notice. So, kudos to Andy for the timing. --Leotardo (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys like Conservative make me wonder if it's possible to be a parodist and not even know it. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the essence of Poe. 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Honest question: do mentally retarded people know they're retarded? Is this a similar problem as non-human animals not being able to identify themselves in a mirror? Do Downs kids know their intellectual capacity is substantially lower than that of others? Do people with brain damage appreciate the difference between their present and previous mental capacities? I can tell that other people are a heck of a lot smarter than me, but honestly I don't know if the same is true when you get down into range of mentally retarded, delayed, brain damaged, etc., which for all my serious issues I am not. Advance disclosure, I intend to make fun of Ken for the irony inherent in him trying to memeify this "___ is a ___ and didn't know it," (Shlock of God came up with it) as in "Ken's got schizoaffective disorder and is moderately developmentally delayed and didn't know it." Yeah, I'm an asshole. 17:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Actually now that I think about it more I'm not sure I'm making fun of Ken so much as just laughing at the irony of it all. But yeah. I'm an asshole. 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, and maybe we should port it over to a forum. But anyway, yes, I think they do know, at least to an extent - after all, what is one to think when it seems like everyone is brighter than oneself? That said, I think once one moves out of the range of "really bright", intelligence as a currency gets diluted by many other traits - people who tell great jokes, play guitar well, can draw, or are just great people to be around - sure, they know "so and so is really smart", but then move on to other things. The brain damage/injury question is an interesting one I often think about, especially since I drink rather excessively - would I notice if, say, to use a crude metric, I shaved 10-20 points off my IQ? How often to I even use the "upper edge" of my mental abilities? <lack of humility alert>A loss of ten points would still leave me smarter than a lot of people, but I suppose I would start noticing more people or things I'm reading as being "smarter than myself"? I suspect people I was still smarter than wouldn't notice the change?</alert> And if it did happen, would you guys tell me? ħuman 20:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Leotardo, arguably a wiki project as an educational resource for home schoolers with a Christan perspective could be a serious idea. Andy could have taken the list of articles all wikipedias should have and adapted it for curricular use. Home schoolers creating the articles as part of the learning process. At the same time taking advanage of the free publicity available at the time. Of couse, Andy being a congenital failure turned it into a travesty of an educational project--from any perspective. Auld Nick (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as Andy's direct fault entirely. His big mistake was welcoming in the "senior sysops" - the Terry twins, Ed, Ken, Karajou, Rob and to a certain extent PJR. While Andy might like to blame the "Liberals" for getting sidetracked it was really these middle-aged men with their own agendas that diverted CP from being an homeskooling educational resource into a religiopolitical blog.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't think that was Andy's fault? He's the one who did it! ħuman 09:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence is tricky. We don't know exactly what it is, our attempts to measure it are very crude (it's very, very tricky to come up with a test that you can't learn to improve at, but we doubt that getting better at the test means you're more intelligent...) and it's very tempting to include things which look like intelligence to us, but which an outsider might see as just arbitrary specialist knowledge. I feel comfortable saying that my ability to look out of a train window, spot "14" on the route indicator ahead and stand on the right side of the train to disembark at platform 14 is NOT intelligence even though many other commuters line up on the wrong side of the train. They just don't know where to look. But how about my ability to look at four geometric shapes and figure out that three are rotations of each other? Is that intelligence? What about my ability to perform arithmetic-like operations on arbitrary symbols? Abstract symbol processing is what computers do (it's what computation is) but is that intelligence? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)