Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive203

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 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>, <202>, <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)

Ken "athiests are nerds" DeMyer[edit]

It hasn't been said in a while, but I'm going to say it anyway: Irony meter. That is all. Tetronian you're clueless 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Theists: Consider the advice that William Shatner gave in Star Trek V - What does god need with a starship? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as it's in it's original packaging……wibble.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
FTFY Jeeves --Opcn (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, "athiests". Another brownie point to Ken I fear.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


And here's what I find even funnier: now Ken is calling his opponents nerds...using Star Trek referencesimg. It doesn't get much better than this, folks. Tetronian you're clueless 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever begun a page that provides examples that these Christians don't live up to the CP Commandments? For 'No gossip' we can include Andy gossiping on Main that Gary Coleman died from drinking (not true) and that Castro is dead. For name-calling we can include 'atheists are nerds' and the Mainpage bit about 'despicable loser Crist'. What I like about CP is that they are a microcosm of typical fundamentalists: Do as I say, not as a I do. --Leotardo (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We've already proven that Andy's broken 9 of the 10 Commandments. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
He would have broken the fourteenth, but there are no sheep on board.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the atheist 'get a life' entry! I've never actually laughed out loud at CP, merely shook my head at their ignorance, or got mad at their bigotry. But this one is great, bring in Shatner (Yup, I'm a Trekkie), bring in race (Yup, I'm white), bring in nerds (Yup, I'm a nerd or technogeek anyway). Oh, but wait, I'm happily married, and not socially backward. How can this be? And wait, I never have, and never will, cheat on my wife like them good ol' Christian pastors. Damn! Thank *God* nerds invented computers and the internet so that you could write these things for us to enjoy! Every time I think you can't be funny anymore, just pathetic, you write this stuff! CP Rocks! Best humor blog on the Web! Jimaginator (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, do you Really, REALLY in your hearts think that Spocko would find atheism illogical? I was very disappointed that the follow on "article" really didn't include any more material. I wanted to read an honest to goodness essay that would explain my evil ways. You guys are simply great! (Hint for your front page: "Number of RW users who think CP is great is increasing!") Jimaginator (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You won't ever cheat like those christian pastors? So you won't ever cheat with a man? What about women? --Opcn (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL! You're right. I won't cheat like Christian pastors, AND I won't cheat with a woman! (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rapidly, Revisited[edit]

Courtesy of the LA Times:

"While middle-aged and older Americans continue to embrace organized religion, rapidly increasing numbers of young people are rejecting it. As recently as 1990, all but 7% of Americans claimed a religious affiliation, a figure that had held constant for decades. Today, 17% of Americans say they have no religion, and these new "nones" are very heavily concentrated among Americans who have come of age since 1990."
"[W]hy this sudden jump in youthful disaffection from organized religion? The surprising answer, according to a mounting body of evidence, is politics. Very few of these new "nones" actually call themselves atheists, and many have rather conventional beliefs about God and theology. But they have been alienated from organized religion by its increasingly conservative politics."

Emphases mine. Hateboy (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason is the exact same reason that folks born after 1985 are more likely to not have a landline telephone than have one. If God isn't portable (n/m scalable), then it's not worth lugging one about. C®ackeЯ
The "conventional beliefs..." section is funny because this is the real poison. The gap between what your "believers" believe and what dogma requires has been growing for centuries, but the gap is now almost too wide for a preacher to shout across. You end up with a country where, sure, only say 1% claim to be atheists, but most of the 99% don't actually act as if God existed in any sense, and won't be moved to vote against their instincts based on the assurance that God wants them to. (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


This is getting almost painful to watch. I find so many problems with this. On a side note:

The Ancient Greeks used plants with tropane alkaloids (mandrake, henbane, etc.) as a form of anesthesia => The Greeks had foreknowledge of anesthesia => Zeus is real!

This whole time, I've been ignoring the FACT of Zeus. I'm going to renounce my azeusism right now, and I suggest you all follow, you white, nerdy, gay, unmarried, un-machismo, un-attractive-to-Asians, azeusists. Carlaugust (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gods that has to be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. God used anesthesia to operate on Adam, and if people had only believed the story for the past couple thousand years, someone would have discovered the same anesthesia? Sure...and I'll bet the process for making women out of bones is right in there too, if only we could see it. Now excuse my while my head explodes. Gooners (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But... but... if God made woman from a rib, doesn't that show foreknowledge of cloning? Gene splicing? Test tube babies? Buffalo wings? --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't show up in the translation very well, but in the original Hebrew, it reads: "Yea, and God spake, 'Countest thou back from ten'" Carlaugust (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I remember getting some surgery, and I started counting back, and I was all "Ten, Nine, Eight" then I thought, "time to blink!" then I'm all trying to say "Seven", and I'm all super groggy, and wondering what the hell is going on. Anesthesia is weird. Semi-on-topic, I can't believe you actually constructed a valid KJV English sentence... most people add too much archaicisms. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Last time I was KOd the injection before hand had made me so happy that I was giggling: "ninety nine ... eighty eight ... eleven ... ninety seven ..." bye bye!. I was lying on the slab legs akimbo - which is why they'd given me the laughing jab - to remove my embarrassment, I learned afterwards. 18:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Someone from CP is reading your comment right now and thinking, "Of course! Why didn't I think of that?" Look for it to appear on the foreknowledge page shortly. Gooners (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
But wait! In the Greek myths, Prometheus was punished by having his liver pecked out during the day and it would regrow at night to be pecked out the next morning again. The Greeks knew of the self-healing capacity of the liver, before scientists even knew the liver existed. The Greek had scientific foreknowledge and thus Zeus is real! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a vestal virgin to visit. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Telltale signs you are on your way to becoming a lonely Conservapedia nerd[edit]

Based on this...img

  • It takes you 15 edits to place a single period at the end of a sentence.
  • You spend 36 hours straight micro-editing a homosexuality article
  • You continually delude yourself that your pet articles are somehow "bringing down evolution on the information superhighway"
  • You use a hate site populated solely by white males aged 35 - 65 to broadcast that everyone else seems to have trouble with the ladies.
  • You're a vicious homosexual in total denial.

i9 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave Ken alone now? It's not funny to make fun of people with mental disorders. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
While Ken makes fun of everyone else he is fair game in my book. i9 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. If a tramp, sitting there with a can of special brew, gently wetting his pants and yelling at you screaming "YOU'VE GOT NO BOLLOCKS! YOU'VE GOT NOT NO BOLLOCKS!", do you go back to him and laugh and point? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would never laugh at Ace that way. --Kels (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it is that if I can't laugh at myself urinating all over the street while abusing passers-by I can't in good conscience laugh at Ken. i9 01:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes. i9 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that:
  1. Kenny be left alone
  2. TK is not WIGO'd
  3. Teenagers and homeskoolars are left alone
  4. Everyone else is fair game
Good rules of the CP-bashing? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just find it funny that a guy who never had a relationship with a woman could possibly poke fun at people who have. Also, fortunately for some of us, some gals like the geeks. :)
Still I get your point, for the most part I ignore Ken's ranting "essays" that reek of desperate desire to be relevant because they are so repetitive, and thus boring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The point is, anyone with, err, well alright, everyone knows that Ken is a paranoid schizophrenic, and he has proved this with his recent outing on aSK. Stalking his every post and making fun of him only deepens that paranoia. At some point he's going to crack and hurt himself or others. I don't want his reasoning to be that "those atheists" forced him to do whatever it is he's going to do. Just cut him some slack already. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think he is a paranoid schizophrenic. His madness is too simplistic and childish. Paranoid Schizophrenics I have known usually have far more elaborate and meaningful delusions and don't usually gurgle with pleasure and amusement over their own gibberish. i9 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Umm, what about delusions of grandeur? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty funny though!img i9 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Funny or not, I want it on record that I'm not onboard with the Ken bashing, because I see this going horribly wrong. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ken is just a person of low intelligence and low education who is surrounded by people who conceal these facts from him. And Crundy, I don't think the opinion of someone who can write "She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!!" should be respected. 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Then don't respect me. I don't need your fucking respect. Go ahead and poke the vulnerable guy. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
As a girl, I have to point to: "7. You tell your girlfriend that she is merely a result of blind random natural forces and there is nothing particularly special about her." To which I would respond to my boyfriend: "Awww... how cute... you're sane." --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
every time he says Bush think Ken--Opcn (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the recent Ken-bashing and TK-WIGOing are simply symptoms of basically nothing else happening on CP. Not justifying it, mind you. I occasionally poke fun at Ken myself, but largely hold back because there is (in my eyes) no art to it. It's like mocking a clown in a circus or explaining a painfully obvious joke. He's simply a supplier of TL;DR lulz, the "written" equivalent of Idiocracy's "Ow! My balls!" series. If people can't be arsed to read through Andy's "Counterexamples To Relativity" list, just point them at the Flying Kitty page and tell them that a CP senior sysop made it. But beyond that, I don't see the appeal of pointing at Ken now that he effectively stopped contributing to the actual mainspace beyond minor tweaks to his pet articles. --Sid (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a 50% guarantee that Ken is a parodist, based on something I read earlier. And yes-I do know about his previous record on TOW.RascalJack (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would love to find that Ken is a parodist because it would mean that the person behind all this is not that sick. Oops, hang on a minute, someone is prepared to spend massive thirty six hour straight editing sessions to produce gibberish in the name of parody. Nah, doesn't wash. Ken's a sick fuck and laughing at him is like laughing at cerebral palsy sufferers. He can't help it. It's Andy's one nice thing, he gives Ken a place where he can be what he has to be. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We all got our initial chuckle out of "Attention atheists: Please get a life!", but now he just adds to it in an attempt to garish our attention. It is better not to feed the delusion, so it is probably best to ignore Ken for the most part. I worry he will do something outrageous though to try and win our notice again. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If Ken is a parodist, he is the God King of all parodists. He had been doing it long before CP even existed. --Sid (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah. No parodist, no matter how long serving could impress me more than TeacherEd. That guy is inspired. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I just can't accept this "Leave Ken alone" stuff. We can say he's vulnerable, mentally ill, stupid, brain-washed - whatever we like. But he's pumping out his hateful stuff right out into the public domain, and that makes him damn fair game. Somebody reading Conservapedia doesn't see who makes what edits, they get that hateful, biased nonsense spoken as though it is all fact. If Ken has issues, that's for Andy to deal with - unfortunatley, people do follow Conservapedia, and as long as they give him the "credibility" associated with that, he's damn fair game. Dalek (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to throw out 2 simple facts right here, without endorsing anything. 1: Ken is at least mildly retarded. 2: Retards are funny. Make of that what you will; I'm just saying. DickTurpis (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What Dick said and Dalek said. Also, Andy obviously has some weird mental disorder and he doesn't get off easily. i9 03:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I buy all of Ace's OP comments except "You're a vicious homosexual in total denial." For that I criticize Ace. Lame fifth point, like you're calling him "gay" to insult him. Is he, is he not? As far as we know, no one knows. Change "homosexual" to "cheetah" or "creep" and I'm on board. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, can't win 'em all. i9 05:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
4/5, plus the extra credit Essay, 105%! Excellent, will use as a model trauma. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Changing "homosexual" to other terms still doesn't seem to work properly -- the 5th point is a "is" description; all the other is what one "does". Should that be fixed to "engage in acts of <insert word here>" ? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of English has decayed again[edit]

Since Ace is picking on other people on usage of periods (the punctuation), I would like to know when a bullet point should have a period and when it shouldn't (since not all of his points has one, I would therefore assume there exists some sort of rules regarding it). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Internal consistency is the rule; or, try to make all one's bullets sentences and full stop them, or make them all fragmentation bombs and leave them open. Ace's first language is not English or a variant thereof, it is an exotic fruit mated with an ovine fur-bearing mammal. And PCP. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Obama diet[edit]

Well, Karajou's comments are great and all, but just where exactly did Ken get the idea that Acadia is in North Carolina?! Kalliumtalk 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. The first sentence of the article talks about someone from NC being at Acadia. That is the ONLY place NC is mentioned. Why would someone be outside their home state? It isn't like the first headline reads "Obama family in Maine", or the picture caption is headed "Afoot in Maine", or that Maine is mentioned seven times in the article (including the escort by Maine State Police), with the author's e-mail being with "Select images available for purchase in the Maine Today photo store", all from the Maine-based newspaper that Ken used as his ref... Yes, clearly they are talking about a different park in North Carolina. Well done. Kalliumtalk 05:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I like how he mistakes eating fatty foods on occasion with being fat and eating fatty foods, so as to make their obesity campaign a matter of hypocrisy. Yet they ignore real hypocrisy, like how Joe Miller managed to put the down payment on his house while he was getting federal assistance to provide his children with health care, federal assistance for those within 1.5 X the poverty line, i.e. those who could never afford a 50K down payment, and now he rails against having to pay taxes for that program. That is Hypocrisy. --Opcn (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That NC thing is just plain weird. And not fixed yet, either. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Karajou, whatever happened to his crappy comics? I guess he ran out of Darwin + blackboard jokes. Corry (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are You An Atheist Nerd?[edit]

Take Conservapedias test And for the record, I got 0/10 so I may be an Atheist, but I'm no nerd. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken seems to have an 8 year old's grasp of adult social interaction. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I got a 0 out of 10 as well, despite being both an atheist and a little bit of a nerd. Of course, half the questions asked about my girlfriend. HA!, Ken, joke's on you! I don't have a girlfriend! DickTurpis (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, if most atheists are men as Ken says, then doesn't that make atheism ipso facto masculine? Aren't me just loaded with machismo? DickTurpis (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's a special kind of stupid right there.
  1. Let's see, my SO is of the ancient faith, so no statues of Jesus there;
  2. I own no pocket protectors (who does, besides Urkel?);
  3. have never argued with SO over atheism - had lots of "energetic debates" about religion tho;
  4. Don't encourage her to visit atheist webistes - porn websites yes, for research purposes;
  5. My SO is fortunately part of the vast majority (i.e. everybody on the planet except you) who has never heard of, nor cares about, SoG, so no problem there;
  6. My YT account is for music videos only, and she dumped me because I had sex with her sister;
  7. As a human, there is nothing special about her, as an individual she is the center of my universe;
  8. Thinking about other men's machismo has never been my thing, despite your obvious hang-up about it. Also I prefer the more liberal OED.
  9. Never been to RDFC meeting (is there even a RDFC???)
  10. Nope, unlike some people with their marathon 36-hour Homosexiality editing binges, I like to go outside now and again, hug a tree, force a passerby to have an abortion, that sort of thing.
So, sorry, Ken, but it looks like me (and every other human being) passes your test. back to the drawing board with you. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I was rather bummed that I too scored zero out of the ten and is now concerned that my "geek cred" is in danger and I may instead be full of MA-CHEESE-MO without realizing it. Also what happens if one's girlfriend is the "secular activist" of the pair?
Special note: If Carl Sagan is considered an "atheist nerd" then I would consider the title a badge of honor, this makes my zero nerd score even sadder. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, this looks like fun. Lemme try... 1 - She was an atheist too, 2 - I don't know what a pocket protector is, 3 - No I didn't, she was an atheist too, 4 - I've met over six women IRL and have avoided talking about anything on the internet to any of them, 5 - She didn't know what shockofgod is, I got through one of his videos and nearly died laughing at his blatant inferiority complex poorly covered up by the need to ride a motorcycle all over the place for no apparent reason, 6 - after my last girlfriend dumped me I spent three weeks getting drunk with RL people, 7 - I did, but instead of crying she hit me, 8 - I've only made it through the first two chapters of God Delusion and don't really have an opinion on Dawkins, 9 - Never seen Dawkins', don't care about seeing him either. I like rabbits though, 10 - I only use Skype to talk to fellow internet folk, using RL to talk to RL people.
So that's... 0 out of 10. SJ Debaser 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the first person to score even one point should win a major prize. 0/10 here too. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Would being a gayer earn bonus points?--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm an atheist, and dagnammit I'm a nerd too. But still 0/10. EddyP (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10, although I admit I was briefly tempted by the communicator. What's with all the "girlfriend" focus anyway - can only heterosexual men and lesbians be atheists in Ken's world? Röstigraben (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10 although I am seriously considering buying the communicator for my nerdy work colleague. But we're both male and both hetero so that rules either of us out as the other's girlfriend.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What happens if she buys the communicator for you because she thinks it's pretty cool, do you get a -1 then? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone one else click on the link to moustache video in the post script? WTF has that to do with anything?--AMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm single right now, but I'll use the girlfriend I broke up with last and still screw on occasion 1)What picture of Jesus? 2)No. 3)No. 4)I'm pretty sure no one ever does that ever, so neither do I. 5)A laughing fit maybe, but thinking shocks question is valid is a dump worthy offense (because I don't date the willfully ignorant) and if not I would destroy that, because shock only keeps going because he is a weeny who avoids debate at all costs. 6)What? 7)I never said that to a girl, we were too busy fucking, and I can't imagine that a conversation like that would come out of the blue. 8)Because the elderly are supposed to have Machismo? 9)The last time I was with a like minded group of people we had rabbit, does that make us cannibals? 10)I want that for me, but I've never had communication problems with a girlfriend.
Another 0/10 score, the number of atheist nerds is growing rapidly. --Opcn (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
0/10 here too. KEN I AM DISAPPOINT. Hateboy (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel such a loser about not having a girlfriend (in Ken's terms of reference).  Lily Inspirate me. 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's funny - half of these questions assume that you have a girlfriend in the first place. A real nerd wouldn't. Tetronian you're clueless 17:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, yup, another 0/10 here. Nice try, Ken - did you ever notice that sometimes the question conveys more information than the answer...? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to pick on Carl, you've got to make a Hitler-Sagan link of SOME sort, otherwise, it just won't stick. What's amatter with yu boys? Can't Photoshop something? Godspeed. Saganlover. 2010 CE. Jimaginator (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ken! Ken! Pick up the phone[edit]

I know you get all hot and heavy about people running from debates, so I thought you'd find this useful. Can't wait to read about this pantywaist on CP. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shockofgod is apparently a pussy. I haven't bothered to check out more than one of his videos, but he seems to think if he just keeps repeating the same question over and over, he'll frustrate the person trying to discuss it, and then their frustration with his not allowing them to talk becomes "frustration with trying to provide proof that Atheism..." --Leotardo (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
ShockOfGod is a perfect mirror of CP, he never allows dissenting opinion, or legitimate criticism, will insta-block anyone who disagrees with him on his Youtube channel and erase the comments, blocks any dissent in the chatroom of his radio site and talks over anyone who tries to make a point on his (or anyone else's) radio show and claim Christian oppression. Then once all avenues of communication he controls are suitably censored to allow only praise and sycophancy to be expressed, state no one can refute his beliefs, and claim victory. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
He's a lot like Kendoll. I'd put good money on both of them having socially crippling mental problems. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Like Kendoll, eh? I'd place money on the fact that shockofgod and Ken being the same exact person. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Ken doesn't have the social skills to communicate without the aid of his keyboard. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Shock is a middle aged guy who lives in LA. And rides a motorcycle. Ken is a middle aged guy who lives on the West Side of Buffalo. And doesn't leave his house for 36 hour stretches whilst fingering his masterpieces. They're not the same person. Please send cash. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you'll just spend it on la hacker más sexy del mundo. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
She real fine. And to quote Crundy, "She makes me do a sex wee, IN MY PANTS!!" Oh, and the greater likelihood is that I'll spend it on booze. I'm pretty easy to figure. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is trivially easy dude. Atheists are quarrelsome and unattractive to women. Real men have lots of female slaves. And mustaches. QED. Nutty Rouxnever mind 15:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


I submit the depiction of Mrs. Garrison in South Park season 10, episode 12 ("Go God Go") predicts Ken. Hateboy (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Has the same first four letter letters as "foreknowledge." Link to Ken accordingly. SJ Debaser 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just realized I'm going to Hell[edit]

Woo! That's where all the loose women go! SCORE!

Oh rationalwiki, I wish I could take you out to a nice steak restaurant, get to second base, and then never call you again. Carlaugust (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What in the world makes you think you can't? Nutty Rouxnever mind 18:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good're looking mighty fine tonight, rationalwiki... Carlaugust (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
On your own old bean. I'm a vegetarian and if anyone tries to get me into a place dedicated to eating dead cows in the guise of trying to nourish me they wouldn't even get to the plate, let alone second base. Shit, they wouldn't even get into the ball park, as I think our former serfs say. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"Sports Fans"? Are you part of a bowling league? You sir are going to HELL. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The gloating, oh the gloating of Obamageddon[edit]

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

Obamageddon. The gloating on every aspect of this supposed implosion of Barry Soetero's Kenyan anti-colonian Muslin administration and all it touches has reached fever pitch on Conservapedia (they now mention 'Obama' 112x on Main). They rely on every poll, no matter its source, to say that they will rule. There is a theory that Republicans gloating that the election is all but won hurts their own voter turn-out (b/c they assume the election is won without their vote). There is good cause to think 'Obamageddon' will be a sad hope (because polls don't count normal people and blacks are jazzed to vote. How will CP handle the likely 'Obamageddon' crap out? --Leotardo (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter what happens, Andy will spin it his way. His world does not depend on silly things like "facts." So it really doesn't matter how excited he gets, since even a Republican loss can be construed as a win in Andyland. Tetronian you're clueless 03:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Do we know what a RELIABLE conclusion from the polls indicates? What're we likely to see? Dalek (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all, because they only poll landlines, not cell phones. Also, they are mostly robocalls. The last election showed the problems in polling methods and forecasting; this election will make them irrelevant, I believe. --Leotardo (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's pretty clearly going to be a bad set of elections for the Democrats and a good one for the GOP. At the moment, the best set of predictions I've seen says the Dems will just hold the Senate - about 51-49 including both independents - and lose the House - about 210-225.
Both bodies could see a wide range of outcomes though. The Reps could win the Senate but would need to win North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, West Virginia and California. The first three of those are pretty certain, but California is likely to stay Democratic and at least one of IL or WV will too. On the other side, the Democrats could hold all but the first three for a 56-44 result. Very unlikely though. This site is one of the best I've seen for a good analysis of the polls. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Another site I forgot to mention here. It has a similar Senate projection and a slightly more pessimistic House one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What SR said, it looks like election night is going to be rather depressing this year and Andy will almost certainly have a lot to gloat about. The best-case scenario seems to be at least avoiding the election of the most extreme teabaggers. I personally don't think Obama and the Dems in general have done a good job at governing (well, he couldn't have lived up to the ridiculous expectations anyway), but the only alternative is so obviously abhorrent that I really don't get why Democrats are suffering from such extreme voter motivation disadvantages. You might also want to check out FiveThirtyEight, my favourite blog on US politics, which has recently become part of the liberally biased lamestream media. Röstigraben (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, you said Obama was made of muslin. Nice fabric, but a bit off-white, as I recall. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
No, OBAMA IS SATIN!!! --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Muricans don't want no muslin president. --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oooh, Obama feels so good against my skin... --Kels (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
True fact, when Obama was elected president, somewhere in the world, Sarah Palin didn't belabor or avoid a simple question, it was a Miracle! course then everyone there but her died.HKJGN (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

SR, Rost - oh, I definitely don't think that this is going to be a good year for the Dems, but the idea that this will be an "Obamageddon" is premature and bombastic. Aside from the obvious point of counting chickens before they're hatched, I would think a Christian encyclopedia would prize temperance as a value. Conservapedia is a case study in Gandhi's observation, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Leotardo (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the Tea Party, by getting some real wackos nominated, may have hurt the GOP and saved the Dems from a real humiliation. Earlier this year it looked like the Dems could lose both the House and Senate, but now that the TP has snatched potential defeat from the jaws of victory in a few districts, they might actually manage to keep slim majorities in both bodies. Palin is no Gingrich, that's for sure. Fingers crossed... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They should just STFU with poll boasting[edit]

To underscore my points above: On October 14, CP is gloating about a poll that shows Toomey ahead in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Today, October 19, Sestak ahead of Toomey. I don't believe either of these polls; I'm taking a temperate 'wait n' see' attitude that reflects my Atheist values. --Leotardo (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Nobody - yourself included - thinks it's going to be a good night for the Democrats, and so by the same logic that had Andy calling a Tory/Lib Dem coalition a "conservative landslide", it'll be Obamageddon because he says so. Even a few net losses would be enough. He's invested so much in the whole "Give it up, liberals" / Obamageddon thing that he'll say it has happened whether or not it really has. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I get you, but anything short of a tidal wave is going to be considered a flop and the usual midterm 'vote against the party in the White House' trend that's been going on for decades. --Leotardo (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Poll boasting is fraught with dangers and you can end up with a lot of political egg on your face and until the results are in polls don't mean a thing. The British Labour Party experienced something very similar under Neil Kinnock. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, though if Conservapedia ends up with egg on its face they'll just do the time honored tradition of deleting their history and pretend it never happened. Public Policy Polling gave Sestak a 46 to 45 advantage over Toomey, and now another poll gives Sestak a 44 to 41 advantage. Again, I don't trust any of these polls, but I *do* want to call him Joe Sleestak. --Leotardo (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The church - best of the public?[edit]

Context is everything... I think?

Okay, I know that Andy considers CP to be a prime example of Best of the Public, but even I'm not completely certain if he's talking about the site or the church in this situation.

...and then there is the whole Best of Nature bit. Just... what... --Sid (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this. So many Christians just think if someone goes to church that they must be 'the best of the public' or a good person. Some of the worst people I've met--my grandmother was an evangelical who stole $1M from my 96 year old Aunt, with the help of another Aunt who also makes a big deal of her Christianity--have worn their Christianity on their sleeves, as if that should confer upon them immediate trust and goodwill. To me, this is an example of that. I don't trust anyone who wears their religion on their sleeve, and I don't give money to any homeless people who beseech my help out of Christian charity (I prefer to give to programs where I know the money will more likely be spent wisely). --Leotardo (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I see the best of nature as a bountiful harvest that will feed people, not a bunch of trees in autumn colors, beautiful as they are. As for the church building, how is that best of the public? Churches are as establishment as they come in this nation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
All i can see is the "Atention Atheists Get a life". Pot? Kettel? Black Much? --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
See any of the Ken-related sections above for that. No need to drag other sections into that mess. =/ --Sid (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But it must be said, they are choosing lovely images. --Leotardo (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are. How hard is that, considering at first they were failing at it? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy just found a mother lode at (no endorsement implied). It's like the old team contests where someone would locate a resource to plunder and they would then pick it bare. Shame that they never really got much past the low Bs when it came to American ships. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's dox[edit]

Moved from the SB 10/20/10 by Human

In order to answer a question on the Machismo talk page, I looked up CP's data. In it was Andy's Name, address, email and phone number. Should I keep this to myself, or put it here? I've gotten in trouble doing that here before, so if no one says anything, I'll keep it to myself, and try to forget it Tyrannis (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We do not need to know what his phone number is. --Onion Hi! :) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the phone number. Prank calls in the US are Serious Business(I think it is 3=felony). I'm worried about his home?(Business?) address. Though it does make the blocking the planet article funnier. Maybe just the city/state? Tyrannis (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a business address of an office rental company. He shares a floor with some lawyers and... a clown rental. I just checked. Still... Tyrannis (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who tries as hard as Andy does to get into the public eye can be found by anyone who wants to find them, so there's no reason to post the information here. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This belongs at talk wigo cp (not the data, the discussion).... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Andy's dox don't have anything to do with what is going on at CP, pedant. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't be an ass, Andy is only interesting due to CP. I moved it. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If only I had some sort of meter that could tell me how big a dose of irony I just received... Occasionaluse (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think this was started just for the sake of starting a discussion, dare I say just for some attention as anyone in their right mind with more than 10 minutes experience of this site knows we don't want it posted here. If you want to stalk people for their private data, do it in your own time but for fucks sake leave this site out of it. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think the clown thing is still relevant. Must remember which wiki I am editing. Now: Homework.Tyrannis (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Ardmondikov has ridden off to a safe distance on his high horse. I'm not familiar with clown rentals by lawyers. Perhaps some of our own legal experts could shed light on how, if at all, this reflects on Andy's law practice. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea? Is he a lawyer, a clown or both? If both, how does he resolve tea kettle arguments? Tyrannis (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* I'm sure we've been through this before. The address is a virtual office, where anyone with a few bucks to spare can get telephone/fax/mail redirection. Schlafly has probably never set foot in the building. No one gives the slightest shit about who else uses this service. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
On the purpose of TWIGO:CP - it is for everything related to general discussions about CP whether it is current or not. We are already too CP-centric so we don't need discussions about CP and its members straying outside designated name-space. As for detailed personal information then it should never be posted just for the sake of it. It is fairly common knowledge in which towns CP sysops reside or what their full names are, and Andy has made some of his family members part of CP, but TK's mum or Karajou's wife and their homes are completely irrelevant to our coverage. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
TK has a mother?! I thought he was spawned in some sort of experiment. — Unsigned, by: Tyrannis / talk / contribs
Of course TK has a mother, just like Norman Bates had one. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Andy's dox are a matter of public record. --Leotardo (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

how dare xkcd push liberalism on us![edit]

by stating that relatively is used in GPS devices! How dare they! Just reading this made me reflect on just how extraordinary (word choice maybe?) all the scientific ideas that CP either ignores or disputes. *sigh* I'm not even a physics person and it still frustrates me. ghazi alizm, comments? 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention >gasp!< the Axiom of Choice! --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The real fun is figuring out which "example" in the Counterexamples to evolution, old Earth, relativity, reality, etc. are sincere attempts on their part and which are parody in the great tradition of Poe. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That was one of the more interesting xkcd comics in a while. And he makes a fair point. Tetronian you're clueless 14:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

CP locked by TK?[edit]

Excuse if this is old news, but is this part of Terry's evil plan against CP?

"Database locked From Conservapedia The database is currently locked to new entries and other modifications, probably for routine database maintenance, after which it will be back to normal.

The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: Conservapedia is undergoing necessary back-up and maintenance and will be available to edit once again shortly.

(by TK at 11:34, 20 October 2010)"

--JJ4etalk 13:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No editing either? But what will Ken do? For crap sakes, Terry, think of the children!--Brendiggg (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Not content with turning editing and account creation on and off, and with no editors left to abuse, all ToppedKinky can do is twiddle the knobs. In this mode, not even sysops and those with edit rights can edit and any questions will be met by "Andy trusted me to do this and only Andy's trust is important to me. Respekt mah autoritie!" It's a well-known fact from The Week That Wasn't that Andy doesn't have the gumption to run a daily backup. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC x2) Yes it has been covered before. TK locks the database to prevent people editing or creating new accounts. Sitting in his mother's basement in Nevada TK has nothing to do with running the CP webserver, it's all part of his plan to prove to Andy that he controls the parodists and vandals with an iron fist but in reality only serves to isolate the CessPool even further from the larger world. Meanwhile TK cruises the net looking for patriotic young men to stand firm against the forces of liberalism. Page and database locking doesn't affect Ken who of can turn it on and off to suit himself irrespective of TK's iron fisting.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I never thought I'd see the day, where TK is described as a "force of liberalism." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RC sans Ken[edit]

Would it be possible for some clever soul to insert a picture at the top of this page that shows CP's last 500 edits without Ken? That'll give those of us who don't have the savvy to install KenBot a true picture of CP's decline, since at present he accounts for almost 150 of their last 500 edits. EddyP (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Suffice to say, the last 500 edits, now stretch back to Oct 16th, sans Ken. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, Kenbot bombs out if you expand to 500 views for some reason. That said, all edits, including Ken stretch back to 16th Oct, which is pretty telling. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you guys mean KenFilter.js? If it bombs on 500, you probably need to fix the string that matches your URL in greasemonkey. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My wiki-fu is weak. I added* as an @include, but it still throws out Ken's name in the 500 RC. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing spectacular. File:CP_RCx500_Sans_Ken.png Occasionaluse (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
For those who don't want to wait for the pic to load - 500 edits sans Ken goes back to 16 Oct, 500 edits here to yesterday. The site is growing rapidly! --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Since the script only removes lines from the view you select, a single 500-RC screencap doesn't say much. You have to compare the last 500 edits with and without Ken. --Sid (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's a busy boy.[edit]

Good old Andypants is leading the charge for AAPS in getting Obamacare invalidated. (Under "AAPS Doctor's tea party" heading.) I wonder if George Washington wrote a letter about that? --PsyGremlinParlez! 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Andy turning into Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law? MDB (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New biggest idiot contest? (sticky until Nov 20 or so)[edit]

What does everyone think about a new biggest idiot at CP contest? Conservapedia Day is a month away, I believe, so it would be fun to announce our winner then. I partially bring this up because there's been some shakeup recently and for the first time I will be supporting an candidate who is neither Ken nor Ed. But if people think this has been done to death and we should give it a rest I won't be heartbroken, and will respect the ramblings of the mob. DickTurpis (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed hasn't been busy enough to warrant a nomination, and picking Ken would be like picking on the disabled. Even so, I'd say it's still a two-horse race this year, although I'm in favour of awarding the Fab Five (or Super Six) a lifetime achievement award and leave it at that. Chances are, there won't be a need for another vote this time next year. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm voting for RobSmith because he is purposefully deceitful. --Leotardo (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Rob knows what he's doing and he knows we know what he's doing. He's not an idiot, he's just dishonest sometimes. Ed is reaaaallly stupid (stupid enough that he thinks he's fooling anyone), but not very active. Andy is really just a contrarian. Karajou is pretty fucking stupid, but again...since nothing has been going on, this is going to be tough. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I forgot about CP Day. I can't wait to revive the poetry contest. Tetronian you're clueless 17:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I really like the idea of a collective award. The fail of the group is indeed bigger than the sum of all individual fails. --Sid (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
True dat. A collective prize is warranted since they have all contributed in their own unique way to making Conservapedia a laughingstock, even amongst Conservatives--you don't see a groundswell of Tea Party editors, even though Andy seems to consider himself part of that movement. --Leotardo (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the group lifetime achievement award, too. Just for fun, leave TK out, he doesn't deserve any awards. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I tell thee, that poetry contest is going to be over as soon as it begins. I'm preparing a cracker. EddyP (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The winner[edit]

moved to Fun:2010_CP_poetry_contest ħumanUser talk:Human 03:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed@WP and the parallel to TK's "It's not plagiarism!!!" behavior[edit]

Hat tip for this goes to ScienceApologist at Wikipedia, who posted a summary to Ed's talk page (which is on my watchlist since I posted there in the past):

The basic story from what I see:

  • July 2006: "Here, I'll just add this verbatim from a public domain report without properly showing that it's copypasted!"
  • October 2010: "Gasp! The intro of our article was copypasted! I added the quote indicators and source now, but what shall we do?"

Naturally, hilarity ensued.

Now, I know that WP is WP and CP is CP, and I usually hesitate to cross the streams (and by God, I really don't advocate crossing the RW stream into this mess mostly because it'll be MUCH more fun with just the experienced cast of regular editors over there so let's stay out of this and let Ed dig his own grave on his way to yet another topic ban). Buuut Ed's initial copypasting REALLY reminded me of TK's regular activity: "Oh, it's public domain (or not, but who cares), so I can simply copypaste it into the article without making it clear I'm merely quoting somebody else, thus making it look like my own work! This is completely fine!" And this case even predates CP, which nicely explains why he never put an end to TK's obvious copypasting-without-proper-quoting. --Sid (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's fucking hilarious. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Just when we thought that we haven't seen much of Ed's stupidity along comes this. But as it's WP it won't count for this year's CP awards.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What's fun is scrolling up a few sections on Ed's talk page... "please don't muck up climate change articles" "OK" "please don't muck up climate change articles" "OK" "please don't muck up climate change articles" "OK" "please don't muck up climate change articles" "OK"... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy to read Washington's Letter in North Dakota[edit]

"The specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a senator or representative in Congress exists under the Constitution," says the report, written by legislative attorney Jack Maskell.

Sheets and Schlafly dispute that in a court filing, pointing to a letter from George Washington, written shortly after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, that referred to the recall of members of Congress. Plains Daily

NJ Justice Rivera-Soto hearing Andy Schlafly's arguments. overwhelmed with the beautiful simplicity of Andy's iron clad arguments

Hoo boy, we have more amusement ahead of us with Andy to appear before another state Supreme Court to read his 'silver bullet' to allow recall of US Senators: George Washington's letter to his nephew. Remember what laughs we--and the NJ Supreme Court--got from his appearance in New Jersey? As Conservapedia makes clear, the humiliation will be televised. --Leotardo (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Occasionaluse (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Did the NJ court ever rule? MDB (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Apparently not. --Leotardo (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait wait wait... look at this quote from the brief that I'm presuming was written and submitted by Andy his-self:

Five years later Wisconsin, long affiliated with the Progressive Movement that supported democratic government, imitated North Dakota and adopted a broad recall provision for its Constitution.

Andy friggin' Schlafly praised the Progressive Movement! Isn't that like a Nazi saying, "I do love matzo ball soup!"? MDB (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow! In what world did Andy even begin to think his NJ argument had any merits? Hopefully somebody will be able to record this fun for posterior. As for NJ, our own legal beagles are keeping an eye on it, but there's been no decision as of yet. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The streaming audio from the NDSC is useless... About every third word is cut. Going to have to wait until they post it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
From his perspective I'm sure it's more like a Jew remarking on how those Nazi's sure are snappy dressers. --Opcn (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I like Andy's use of the phrase: "Your honor, with all due respect..." where I can hear the unspake: "you dumb bastid!" C®ackeЯ
The unspoken phrase is "you're clueless", followed by "you school prayer-censoring, abortion-approving liberal!" ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to hear Andy yell "You're clueless, deny my argument and lose all credibility". i9 02:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How long until we get this carnival uploaded? -- Iscariot (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Recall attempt on Kent Conrad You rang?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Occasionaluse (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, he's really bad at this "lawyer" job he claims to work at. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he used to be better at it, but his reasoning abilities must've seriously atrophied in all those years he spent inside his Conservapedia bubble. How is he supposed to deal with a situation in which he's not the final authority, he can't silence his opponents, and accusing them of liberal deceit isn't going to win him any points? Which makes is all the more mysterious why anyone would hire him after looking at his behaviour on CP. Well, they didn't have much of a case to begin with. Röstigraben (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Was Andy ever any good as a lawyer? It's well documented how he screwed up with a patent claim at AT&T. Why would any successful lawyer end up teaching homschoolers in a church basement? Is there any evidence that he conducts a regular legal practise aside from his sinecures with Eagle Forum and AAPS?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow - looking at the transcript, it would appear as if the eminent justices gave Andy even shorter shrift than NJ. He hasn't even waved his George Washington letter and they're already picking him apart. I think the tea party needs a new lawyer. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, there is a section up above about this. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You found it, cool. And, yeah, they got bored with our pet moron very quickly, IMO. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It may be that I'm just reading the transcript this time (I stopped when he pulled out the letter) and last time I watched the head shaking, but it seems to me like he isn't doing as poorly this time around. --Opcn (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Home Scholars[edit]

Maybe I've got this wrong, but I had the impression that Andy's church basement thing was a daily event, with more than 1 subject being taught. I wonder what happens while Teacher Andy is making an ass of himself in courtrooms around the country? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, once a week for a couple hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it just him or are there other instructors that actually give classes in useful subjects?  Lily Inspirate me. 14:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The work on this may be why he suspended the course. --Opcn (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mind your language Ken![edit]

Really Kenneth, what will your mummy think? I know that your "atheist nerds" claptrap is the biggest hyuck you've had all year, but please don't get carried away, and please remember that you are editing a "family friendly" encyclopaedia (with allowances for Bad Touch Poor's references to rimming, of course) and that a "dork" is also slang for a penis, and more specifically, is the name of a blue whale's penis.img Just thought I'd mention it. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to that diagram. This one is better. Tetronian you're clueless 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean: "Do you claim that atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God or gods and that atheism makes no claims? Of course, claiming that atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God or gods and that is makes no claims is a claim and therefore you are making a self-refuting statement." Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are a strong atheist, then you believe that gods do not exist, which is a claim. CS Miller (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
More Ken "logic". He can't differentiate between the two uses of "claim" in that sentence and is trying his usual debating tactics. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I get it. They're such horrible sentences I couldn't skim them. Alright, so it's a stupid strawman then. Whatevs. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not even a strawman, really - it's just him being monumentally stupid. You see, he can't get his limited intellect around the idea that if you say that atheism is X, that's you making a claim about atheism, not atheism itself claiming anything. The question is whether that claim is accurate, and he has failed to offer any shred of evidence that it is not, apart from linking to a thoroughly flawed CP article. My own experience of being atheist suggests that the claim in question is correct. (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure it is. It's a strawman that implies Ken's either very stupid, a liar, or both. Ken's argument is that atheism is "self-refuting" because atheists allegedly claim that atheism makes no claims, which isn't even a vaguely accurate description of most people's atheism. Atheists make lots of claims. To the extent there's anything monolithic about the beliefs of atheists at all the one that's important to most is that theists fail to carry their burden of proof in making affirmative claims about the existence of their god, its nature, etc. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Atheists make claims, yes, but atheism itself does not (at least, according to his definition of atheism, anyway). As CS Miller pointed out, there is a variant of atheism that DOES make claims, 'strong atheism', but Ken has explicitly rejected this variant, due to it being an 'oxymoron', and, in addition to that, 'strong atheists' are actually few and far between, even amongst atheists. So, playing by Ken's 'logic' (for lack of a better word), we are only left with 'weak atheism', which, as he correctly points out, simply is the lack of belief in any god or gods, and that, in and of itself, is completely lacking in any sort of claim. (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I should point out that, as for the claim you gave as an example of atheist claims, 'that theists fail to carry their burden of proof in making affirmative claims about the existence of their god', that is actually to do with why those particular atheists are atheists, not anything to do with any claims inherent in the definition of atheism. (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I find it hilariously ironic that any editor of a so-called "encyclopedia" would call anyone else a "nerd" as a pejorative since encyclopedia-editing is an inherently nerdy thing to do. Since he doesn't get out of the house only watches YouTube videos and reads NewsMax, Ken must not realize that Dorks and Nerds are considered trendy and sexy right now. --Leotardo (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

400,000 visitors?[edit]

Can anyoneimg verify Terry Koeckritz's claims? -- Iscariot (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those "visitors" are probably just clickbots, along with plenty of WIGO-CP readers. --Onion Hi! :) 23:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait, and go slow until I'm sitting comfortably. Are you saying Terry Koeckritz is lying about 'unique' visitors? -- Iscariot (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh cool, it's the return of the silent masses that read CP! It's been a while! Nevermind that regardless of the validity of TK's claim itself, him making the claim is moving the goalposts slightly as he's banning a user named "NotManyUsersLeft". --Sid (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As Andy says CP has a wider readership than most journals. i9 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
"Unique" visitors...hey, TK's actually being honest for once. Hooray! (facepalm)JackalTheRascal! (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those number are not far outside what I would expect. A medium profile reddit, facebook, somethingawufl, etc. post can net 10k-15k unique visitors, a really high profile one can double or triple that. There is nothing particularly brag worthy in that number though. Most of those 400,000 visitors likely spent <5 seconds on CP, and never came back. Also keep in mind that reddit being reddit these are people coming to laugh and gawk at the train wreck that is Schlafly's insights.

This gets into the long running point I have made, that the "success" of a site can not be measured as the absolute number of people that have stopped by to laugh at it. Things like the health of the community, the number of active users, and their activity level are better indicators. As are the kinds of incoming links that a site gets. I have talked in the past about the difference between "passive linking" where someone links to a site in passing as a "go here for more information" link, or "active linking" where people link to a site as the point of a post/comment usually saying "omg go look at this insanity." If 80 percent of your links are people linking to you as a resource for learning about something or getting more information, isn't that "better" than 80 percent of your links being people telling others to go point and laugh at you?

CP, and its fab five lack the understand such distinctions and absolute values of clicks through are the only measure that they can really understand.

Still though I am skeptical, and there is no way to verify the number outside of seeing the server logs. There are many ways to fuck up that measure as well, most common tracking software will not actually use unique IP addresses for unique visitors. Instead what they do is iterate the count of unique visitors up one for an IP address that hasnt been seen in some unit of time, usually a few hours. So "unique visits" and "uniques visitors" can not be translated into actual numbers of people. Again, its a subtle point that I am sure is lost on everyone there. tmtoulouse 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember you trying educate Ken on this point over at aSK. It was, of course, completely lost on him. i9 23:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif - particularly about the numbers of people who visit to laugh at them, which is most of their traffic. The only blog mentions are either Ken's spam network or posts ridiculing them...not the kind of hits most of us would find boast-worthy. --Leotardo (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To put this in perspective in 2004 I stumbled on a forum devoted to guinea fowl that had been inactive since 1993! and still had collapsed branching threads so you had to click a hyper link to read each reply. The forum had about 200 posts on it all toll and got 400 unique visitors a day. Even though you didn't need to register it was dead and no one had posted on it in nearly a decade. --Opcn (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

TK's crap email "poem" on talk:assfly[edit]

It's sycophants, not syncopates, you moron(s). ħumanUser talk:Human 05:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Although neither of them rhyme with noise. Typically it's TK who's being the sycophant by kissing Andy's ring with an unoriginal anti-Obama piece. It's incredible how he knows just which point to tickle with his golden tongue.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That golden tongue is lead plated with pyrites. At best. And yes, the rhyme breaks as well. What can you expect from illiterates? (Gawd I hate amateur attempts at pottery!) ħumanUser talk:Human 09:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm composing this response / as a bad haiku / to irritate the human. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Teacher Ed again[edit]

Masterful! Perfect mimicryimg of Andy's failed courses. This is some of the best work I've seen since Bugler. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Um I read that hours ago. Maybe wigo'd? Maybe above here somewhere? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Just shut the fuck up. You've been insufferable lately. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to HumanWiki. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I read it hours ago on wigo too. Damn, if only there was a place to talk about it... some sort of "talk" page where people could make sections to talk about wigos. Oh well! Even if there were such a place, I'm sure people would piss and moan about it somehow. User:1 (TLTLI) 11:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
User 1's comment raises another issue for me. Is there any way to institute like buttons on peoples talk page comments? --Opcn (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If you wanna do that, go on Facebook. SJ Debaser 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
All I said is that I remembered reading it a few hours ago but didn't remember where... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News North[edit]

I got an EC when trying to WIGO this, so I'll just post my angle here. It's along the same basic line, but (I think) another facet: Jpatt moans about liberals fearing competition... and links to a news post that points out that this "Fox News North" had applied for a special license that would have FORCED the cable providers to include the channel in at least some of their plans and that they are now applying for a regular license that gives these private providers the choice of including it (the way most other channels are treated). Ahhhh, gotta love the irony... --Sid (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You've gotta remember – not being able to force far-right views on a nation is akin to forcing dirty liburral views on them. – Nick Heer 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thatcher WIGO[edit]

Technically I suppose I could support the sentiment, but I do know that the general feeling around where I live is mostly just saying "Just die already, bitch". Which suggests that I'm not surrounded by the most good-willed of people, but given that I was also living amongst these people when Thatcher gutted the Labour-voting Valleys in the Eighties and destroyed three generations in just one go, well I can see where they are coming from. Hell, I can remember what it was like going to school back then. Didn't see a textbook until I was fourteen, because the schools couldn't afford them, and when textbooks became available it was one between three pupils. Hell, in '91 I was still learning computing on a BBC Micro, which says it all really. Of course, 35 miles down the road, in a Tory voting area, they did get all the text books they needed and state-of-the-art PCs. Curious that, and sums up Thatcherite policies to a T.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Had to be done: Webbtje (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've lost count of the number of times that I've already heard variations on "Got your dancing shoes ready yet?"--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems sort of appropriate here. --Kels (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There's going to be street parties in the North when she does finally expire, the likes of which haven't been seen since the end of WWII. I wonder if you can get "Ding dong the witch is dead!" bunting? -- Iscariot (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Along with the rest of Yorkshire, I'll be in the pub within 20 minutes of her death. The Wicked Witch of Westminster needs to die. Dalek (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
THAT is why my WIGO is at -6?!?!?!? I thought it was because people didn't think "Freedom Patriot" was Orwellian enough. Sure she was a freedom hating shrew who destroyed the once glorious British manufacturing sector, but I still think as an organization it's better to wish people well. Just think of how she will be canonized in the states the moment she is dead. Andy will be teabagging with her in n instant. --Opcn (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can certainly say that, when she does finally croak, just about every single person in Scotland who was living in Scotland at any point during her time in power will dance a fucking jig. Though it is interesting to note that CP is so enamoured of her, as, despite all the bad things she did whilst in power, she did actually increase spending in social security and public healthcare by about 30%, as well as slightly decreasing defence spending. (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess it might be difficult to get why Thatcher is so despised. She was ideologically similar to Reagan, in some ways... but when she took over as Prime Minister in 1979, a -lot- of the the bodies which employed people were publicly owned, and the welfare system was probably more advanced than in America, larger anyway. So, as Conservapedia might put it - a hell of a lot of people relied on the states. Millions of jobs, unemployed people, everything. And so she was in a position to do a hell of a lot of harm. Unemployment was a tool like inflation and interest rates to her, and entire communities were put out of work by her. Everything was about money, the post-war consensus about making living conditions better went right out of the window. Scotland, Liverpool, the north-east of England, Wales... entire areas were driven into poverty. But as long as the south of England was prosperous enough to keep her in power, things were fine. Different areas suffered MASSIVE funding differences. It's true that some schools couldn't afford textbooks at all, while other schools were damn well funded - and it stank of 'Tory areas have the money'. Hatred for Thatcher is a common position, and the poll tax really put the nail in the coffin. It might seen horrendous, evil... even inhuman to wish she's just pop her clogs and die, but people in Scotland and Liverpool, for sure, hate her with good reason. I'll have a pint when she dies. Dalek (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Mostly Goodpost.gif, IMNSHO. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and as well, while people still dispute if privatisation was right or wrong, I think most people accept that it was done badly. HUGE public assets were sold in the North at knocked down rates. The way it worked out, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And the North got poorer and the South got richer. And the South kept voting her in, and she kept shitting all over the North. So we hate her up here, and don't particularly like the south of England for it. Dalek (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm from the north west exiled in the Reading area for some 30 years now as a direct result of that cow. My family had to emigrate after she destroyed the north in the 80s (while I was at university) so that her racist husband and his friends could become multi-millionaires. And don't forget her involvement in the largest bribery scandal EVER to hit british industry when she let her fuck-wit son bribe the saudis so he could enrich himself to the tune of millions. So I'm stuck down here because there are still not enough jobs up there for me to move back home. For me then this sums it up more than anything I will be early in that line.Oldusgitus (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording, feel free to change your votes bastards. :P--Opcn (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This WIGO should probably be commented out, as per the usual custom of not gloating in WIGOs over health issues or deaths. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Just let it get voted down. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's about the orwellian word salad of "Freedom Patriot". Jesus. --Opcn (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To me the CP headline read like she was somehow an American. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I only found it interesting in the fact that it contrasts so sharply with CP's usual derision of everything British in general. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thatcher got rid of nationalised industries that were a drain on the public purse and did more for Scottish nationalism than Scottish Nationalists ever did. Auld Nick (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she got rid of industries that were a 'drain on the public purse', then watched those industries promptly get bought over by foreign companies, which then shifted thousands, if not millions, of jobs overseas, and simply got rid of many more, leading to record levels of unemployment. Many of those industries have yet to recover from that. As for Scottish nationalism, I can only agree with you if you mean that she massively advanced the cause of Scottish nationalism by making the whole of Scotland hate the bitch, as before Thatcher became leader of the Torys, they were all for Scottish devolution, and had no problem with it, if that's what Scotland wanted. When Thatcher became leader, they did an abrupt U-turn on their position, to the extent that they were considering trying to push through an amendment to the Scotland Bill 1979 so that English folk would get to vote in the referendum on devolution, purely as an underhand way to derail it. (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this analysis makes some valid points. ghazi alizm, comments? 12:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Thatcher hatred is hilarious. If ever anyone needs evidence to claim "Rational"Wiki is every bit as loony as Conservapedia. Well, OK, it's tough to achieve that, but this doesn't hurt. I've never agreed with most policies of the elected officials in my country, you'll pardon me if I can't bring myself to "spit on the grave" of one of them over all the others. Particularly at such a distance of time. (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The 'Thatcher hatred' comes as a direct result of her actions, as you can see by the various things said in this section. In contrast, at CP, anything that they don't like, or disagree with, is automatically 'liberal' and/or 'atheist', which, in a staggering bit of circular logic, justifies, to them, their hatred of anything 'liberal' and/or 'atheist'. If you can't see the difference between those two situations, I would suggest that it's not this 'Thatcher hatred' that is loony. (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia Deletionpedia (another attempt)[edit]

(Moved from RW; Saloon Bar)

Sorry about the delay people. My access to the internet can be a bit intermittent. Late 15 October 2010 I posted this idea to howls of WTF (seems I violated some sub-sectioning taboo). The revised post was commented on. Here's the record. It was up for less than 4 days and was relegated to the barchives.


The idea was for a "Conservapedia Deletionpedia." Here's the Wikipedia article on Deletionpedia; to counter the record-destroying that goes on at Conservapedia. It would be a bot program, or a modified program handle by one or several trusted people. As I'm no computer expert, I didn't, and still don't, know the required effort it would take. Half the reason would be to figure out what it would take to get it going.

It would "mirror" (assuming I'm using the correct word) content on Conservapedia, including deleted stuff, gain a reputation as an archive of such; which many others, here and in sites like Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and EoS, etc, can use it as a reference in their mocking.

For the most part the response was negative, until Human referred me to a "capturbot" (User:Capturebot), which Onion linked to User:Capturebot2.


However, (at the time of this posting) its latest screen shot, seems to be the 14th last (not the last) of CP's recent changes.

Among the negative comments

"Also, why is this in the SB instead of talk wigo cp?"
'Cause no one said otherwise and the top of the page seem to indicate such.

"This would have been a pretty good idea 3½ years ago, but it's way too late now."
What's changed?

"I think creating a mirror CP would be a little overobsessive & of very little value."
Some might say the whole WIGO thing is a bit obsessive, but we indulge in it anyway.

"There are enough people watching CP that anything interesting will be WIGOed, but recording deleted matter at another site just for it's own sake seems a little pointless."
But no archiving it on a public site.

Finally, there's the whole licensing thing. Aren't the CP logos trademarked, while the content PD.Civic Cat (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it seems a bit of what I'm referring to was sort of done here aleady. Conservapedia:Blatant plagiarism/Robert Mugabe.Civic Cat (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Capturebot only snaps what we tell it to; it doesn't mirror what's at CP (unless we told it to). You should really discuss this proposal at the WIGO:CP talk page, because if anyone is interested in this sort of project, it'll be the people on that page. We tend to keep the Saloon Bar for non-Conservapedia-related chat. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
So noted. I will spend some more time posting it there ("I put this in the SB, but I was told to put it here").  Remove this section at will.  :-/  Civic Cat (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This page was explicitly started for topics unrelated to Conservapedia. It seems that someone took it upon themselves to remove that specific reference from the Bartop template. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There are so few edits on CP even on a busy day that there's no technical reason CaptureBot2 can't just take a picture of every diff practically as the edit is made and even name it the resolved CP URL with diff number. But why? We call out all the egregious stuff those guys try to bury and usually have screenshots on our own even if CaptureBot2 missed it because he was out back having a smoke. As for entire deleted articles, this also seems to be of pretty marginal value given the effort required vs. the payoff since (a) we can't see what's been deleted after it's deleted and would therefore have to have an archive of the entire site (I'm sure it's not huge but why bother), and (b) already archives CessPit. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Genghis Khant, pity I wasn't informed of this until I got dumped on. I'll keep it in mind in my next CP postings.
Nutty Roux: which alternately means that the task is easier. Why even a computer Rtard like myself could, with some helpful hints, set it up and operate it. As of for you mean this?Civic Cat (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There isn't a lot of deletion going on now which capturebot can't handle because there is precious little new material of note being generated. In the distant past there was a lot of interesting interaction between editors and sysops but they have largely killed that off and deleted the really good stuff. As editing is confined to a chosen few there is little to delete and what is posted reveals what bigoted, shallow and self-centred people these so-called Christian conservatives really are. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. It is always good to make your own screencaps of juicy wingnuttery in case Capturebot isn't quick enough. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)case
So noted and thanks. Mind you, people are saying that CP is so irrelevant. But why is the recent changes page full of CP-related edits?Civic Cat (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Because people like talking about how CP is irrelevant. Tetronian you're clueless 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, is a CP Deletionpedia even useful? The controversial stuff have mostly been copied/screenshooted here, while a lot of the other deleted articles are just boring and totally useless. JackalTheRascal! (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Objectively, CP is irrelevant. Nobody's using it as a resource for anything, the homeschoolers aren't around any more, they are just rehashing right-wing talking points from elsewhere, and on the few occasions when people pay attention to their original material, it's because they're having a quick laugh about it and then move on. This site is really all that's left of CP's audience. I still like it as a source of entertainment and I want to see how it all ends, but that's purely subjective - many other users don't care about it any more. Röstigraben (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"Civic Cat", we don't fall for the self-serving liberal claptrap here. I've analyzed your unconcise replies and all you do is whine, so anyone with an open mind can see that you're not here to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. Open your mind and admit that God stops homosexuality. Observation and logic dictate that black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science. Warning: keep it clean, and don't speculate about ancient Greece. You are violating the 90/10 rule, and are in danger of being banned.--Andy Schlafly 20:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Paul Grass thought similar here, and Flags of Our Fathers might have thought the same when I was stalking him in questions like these.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a word Civic, the connotations of that word (stalking) are doubleplusungood. 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Röstigraben, point taken. Still, I wonder if the profit isn't great in a CP-DP, then what of the effort. Now, if this taxes your efforts, or those of others, please don't expend such--unless there is gratification in it. I was kinda throwing out the idea myself.Civic Cat (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sound like somebody we know?[edit]

I'm not sure if this has been raised iro our friends across the hall, but wp:Dunning–Kruger effect was enlightening:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

--PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article on the Dunning-Kruger effect. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like everyone I know, including me. Tetronian you're clueless 12:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've copied a chunk to my aSK user page - seems even more appropriate there than CP. 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I read about the D-K effect on a blog this week and was entranced that something I knew to be true actually had a name. Back in college my friend Jen once expressed total disbelief when I told her that most people do not know who the Velvet Underground are, because all of our friends were into them. Somewhat similar to the D-K effect. --Leotardo (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I always think people know more than I. Does that mean I am really a genius?--AMassiveGay (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This makes me think of the old rule, "the guy driving slower than you is an idiot; the guy driving faster than you is a maniac." MDB (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
My personal mantra is everyone is an idiot except for me, and thus I dismiss the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect as they are both - by definition - idiots. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, Kruger may have been an idiot, but Dunning had his finer points, no? --Leotardo (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Pothead/Prop 19 WIGO[edit]

I included Prop 19 because CP:Pothead was created by Andy in conjunction with the insightful gem CP:Proposition 19, the California pot legalization initiative. I sort of laughed at the CP:Prop 19 article because you know it will forever remain the lame stub it is now. When I looked at WP:California Proposition 19 (2010), it made me laugh harder at those fanciful dreams they had of Conservapedia ever becoming a counterbalance.

I also thought a Pothead was just someone who smoked a lot of pot. I know successful people in law and finance who are *major* potheads, and a few of them partially credit their smoking weed for their success (for various reasons). --Leotardo (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, Conservapedia's version is a lot more concise! This is, of course, a Good Thing. --Sid (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it, why would potheads vote against prop 19? --Thunderstruck (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur - a pothead is someone who uses pot. Andy is describing what we used to call a burnout. Of course, Andy is working in the DARE worldview that anyone who smokes weed is ruining his/her life, no exceptions. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药,和那个不是医药。 00:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought Andy's worldview was that anyone who isn't Andy is ruining his (nogenderinclusivepronounsloseallcredibilityyyyyyyy) life? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 05:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
A lawyer featured on the cover of one of the Super Lawyer™ regional promotional magazines once traded me a brick of hash for half a pack of Luckies. This parable actually happened. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Political donations are down (progressives are taking over WIGO)[edit]

But political spending has more than doubled hasn't it? (I was thinking it was up something like 300% according to the Slate political gabfest, but that memory is fuzzy) I think the difference is that corporations are spending money to advertise directly, including 501(c)(4)'s. It doesn't matter if you are all of the sudden making less money if on the other side of the coin you have huge massive spending elsewhere. --Opcn (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I was soooo going to add a section about Rob Le Dumbass's Mainpageright. How long on Conservapedia have they been chest thumping about how the whole country is against Obama, and he's going against the will of the people, blah blah, Obamageddon, blah, the American people identify as conservative... But now, with charitable contributions down, suddenly we're in the Age of Aquarius (as opposed to age of recession). Heh - Rob sort of reminds me of the Daily Show skit where Wyatt Cenac and John Oliver debate whether Fox News is Evil or Stupid. --Leotardo (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's more to be said on this. For example, the uncertainty about the Bush tax cuts contributes to falling charitable donations. Corporations & individuals are cutting donations because of the slated tax increases (just as their holding back on job creation). Same to be said about the cost of Obamacare, businesses cut charitable contributions becasue of increased medical insurance costs for their existing workforce. Record numbers of food stamp beneficiaries & extended unenmployment benefits leave many charitable donors thinking it's the government's responsibility, not an individuals. So it may be seen as a church-state issue as well, or an expression of wp:Gresham's Law, "bad money chases out good." nobsdon't bother me 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because you can think it doesn't make it a reality, Rob, though I realize that accepting that premise would negate 2/3rds of the material on Conservapedia. The most likely explanation, per Melissa Brown, associate director of research at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University in Indianapolis, is, "The way the economy goes determines how charity goes." --Leotardo (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) has research published in 1996 on the subject:
By 1986, when President Reagan's economic plan was fully in effect, total charitable giving was 16 percent higher (accounting for inflation) than in 1980. The economic growth that resulted from reducing marginal tax rates actually boosted the amount of charitable donations. Moreover, total giving accounted for 1.9 percent of GDP in 1986 compared with only 1.7 percent in 1980.25 Between 1980 and 1986, the amounts contributed by donors in every category (individuals, corporations, foundations, and bequests) increased, as did the levels of contributions received by nonprofits in every category (from the arts to human service organizations). And these increases occurred despite the harsh recession of 1981-1982. nobsdon't bother me 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
First, taxes have gone down under Obama, not up. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Second, your blog has been trumpeting the Obamageddon Conservative tide over and over, so how is this the Age of Progressive Values, when your blog continually talks about how Conservative Americans really are? Lastly, your own source:
"The top charities may have taken such a hit as giving shifted to smaller, local groups and because people gave less money to arts and cultural groups, Palmer said. Plus, though the recession has officially ended, unemployment remains high at nearly 10 percent nationally, and the economy continues to sputter."
Your source also quotes the Salvation Army as saying, ""The American public really dug deep during the holiday season and in the balance of the year really cut back in what they gave to charity." Your conclusions that a drop in charity is the fault of Liberalism is unsupported by your own source, your blog, logic, academics and the Heritage blurb you wrote above. Not that facts have ever stood in the way of your polemics, Rob. --Leotardo (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I love watching Rob talk complete double think. I think he is secondly only to TK in the CP dishonesty rankings. i9 21:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"The economic growth that resulted from reducing marginal tax rates" - no, it resulted from massive deficit spending (partially due to cutting taxes...), and busted in '92 resulting in the worst recession since the Great Depression... until this one, which also resulted from similar GOP admin policies. When will we ever learn not to elect these idiots? The US may be a "conservative" country (I agree with that), but why are these "conservative" people still being duped into voting for such duplicitous characters? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the source of the stimulus is, (government spending or tax cuts), the result is a deficit. The difference is who decides how the stimulus is spent, Congress or individual taxpayers. nobsdon't bother me 19:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Rob, you should really get into the habit of reading the material you cite, because once again, it says the opposite of what you're claiming. Here's a quote from the Heritage report:
"Despite large variations in federal tax rates over the past two decades, donations as a percentage of personal income have remained constant. Although the top marginal income tax rate has ranged from 28 to 91 percent over the past two decades, the amount that individuals donate to nonprofit organizations has remained relatively constant: around 1.83 percent of personal income."
Like any other just remotely sensible person, even the high priests of small-government ideology assume that the state of the economy is the primary determinant of charitable giving. They're arguing for a "flat tax" policy that they assume will result in stronger economic growth, and claim that this will benefit charity even if the respective tax deductions are abolished. Higher future tax rates will only be a concern for those who don't expect to suffer a sudden drop in income, which is an event that will have a far more drastic impact on their spending habits. Those who have already lost their jobs will have already cut their charity donations as a matter of necessity, and those which are uncertain about hanging on to theirs will save more in order to prepare for the worst. Röstigraben (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The argument here is the role of the state. Nanny state vs small government. Charitable constributions are down, I suspect, because of the uncertainty, the uncertainty generated by the progresive lefts' war on business (see the attacks on the Chamber of Commerce, for instance, if there is any question about whether the progresive commies have waged war on business. Incidently, the CoC supported the $787B stimulus....)
As outlined above, charitable contribs are down because in this particular recession, unlike past recessions where contribs increased, taxes and other costs are set to increase. And the progressive left (athiest) agenda is to supplant Christian charitable giving with the nanny state, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other assorted giveaways. nobsdon't bother me 19:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Charitable giving increased when GDP was down in 5 of 6 Recessions between 1970 and 2002.
No, the argument here is what drives down charitable giving, and all evidence is that it's the economy. This has nothing to do with perceived tax rates in 2011 as the figures you cite measured 2009, not 2010. By the way, genius, your Heritage bit measured from 1980 through 1986; the early 1980s recession ended in 1982. So yeah, by 1986 the economy had picked up and was doing well, so charitable giving had increased.
And yes, I would prefer a secular government, created by the people, for the people and financed by the people, to help the most needy in this country instead of Christian organizations wanting to proselytize by preying on those who are most suffering in our society for socio-economic reasons. Absa-fucking-lutely. I give you points for having the balls to come over here and engage on these issues; but you get zero points for intellect or honesty. --Leotardo (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC)No, giving is down whenever GDP is down. When you want to measure the effects of a recession on giving, you have to look at the data from those years in which the economy was in decline, not several years later. After the 1981-82 slump, the US economy returned to robust growth - I just had a look at the statistics, the 1986 real inflation-adjusted US GDP was about 21% higher than in 1980, so it's no miracle that spending on charity increased by 16% during the same period. And that's exactly the reason why having purely charity-based welfare is a bad idea, because the funds available for it closely track the business cycle. The more people are in need, the less money is available, and vice versa. Röstigraben (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Not true (see chart at right). Charitable giving increased in all recessions excepting the 2003; it initially went down in the 81-82 recession but moved up before that recession ended. Note the spike in giving about 1995 when Personal income went flat. nobsdon't bother me 17:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it didn't. You can see charitable giving going negative coinciding with economic downturns in 1970, 1973, 1990 and 2003. 1982 is the only exception, when it stays flat rather than decreases. The sharp downturn in 1987 is apparently due to a change in tax laws that limited the deductibility of charity contributions. Regarding the spike in the second half of the nineties, note that "personal income", however that is measured here, did not stay flat, the graph is clearly above the 0% threshold. It's true that increses in giving exceeded economic growth in the second half of the nineties, my personal guess is that it's because the internet made it much easier to solicit donations, but that's irrelevant to the argument anyway. I found a report from the Giving USA foundation on this matter that you can obtain here (just entering a random name and e-mail address will do). It also has some data on historical developments on p. 16-17. Quote: Adjusted for inflation, giving typically increases in non-recession years and stays flat or falls in recession years. Röstigraben (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
These are differing interpretations of the data. Yes, generally giving declines in periods of declining personal income; however (and the dirty little secret is) personal income generally rises during recessions (just as stocks, dividends, and worker productivity do also). The chart clearly reveals rising levels of charitable giving during recessions.
Most analysis of this data use longer base periods, 1980 to 86, for example, which include periods of recession, recovery, and major changes in tax policy. The data then is averaged. But we are specifically speaking about giving during recessions, regardless of what base average is used from a prior period. nobsdon't bother me 16:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Grow some nuts[edit]

I really hope Daniel grows a pair and reverts TK back again.img He is a sysop right? i9 20:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

But he's not a senior admin, so to TK he is just as unimportant and disposable as everyone else. Daniel knows he'll be toast if he reverts. Would love to see it, though. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
What was the point of TK reverting other than to be needlessly antagonistic by slapping Daniel in the face with his e-peen? Oh, the community. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Terry Koeckritz is hoping Daniel causes a fuss. Dan isn't an admin - he's a "sysop-lite" with only edit, SkipCaptcha and Block rights. If Dan reverts Terry Koeckritz, Terry Koeckritz will block Dan, and another possible future threat to Terry Koeckritz's position will have been removed. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Why the hell did he remove it anyway? TK surely moves in mysterious ways. 21:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I assumed he was just being a cunt. i9 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he's simply jealous that Andy is spending so much time with the parodists these days. Maybe he really tried to warn Andy and is pissed off because he predictably didn't listen...he should've remembered that they get to benefit from Andy's credulity just like he does. Röstigraben (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'd go after Lil Pudenda too, but why in the world is TeacherEd still around? Someone please name a single new editor who looks to be good faith. Nutty Rouxnever mind 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Anything that chases away more editors I support. You'd think they would wise up that they're killing their own project, but as far as I'm concerned: Bravo, Terry! --Leotardo (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that DishyPudenda is goading Andy about his inability to complete a course these days, and TK is merely doing his job of protecting Andy from reality. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not kidding - name one editor who appears to be a good faith conservative. Someone, please? Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How about John Magoola.... seems like Ed just created an account for this person (because account creation is disabled?) Take a look.
Srsly. Name one good faith conservative editor over there. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

--Composure1 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

TZoran. Ok, he might be deep cover, but the guy has a Creatinwiki account too. Maybe Wilhelmina too. Please send cash. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Plant a Hazel tree? Um, I forget the sciency name right now. Will occur to me later. Something about cystic fibrosis...? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, Corylus spp. I wasn't even close except for the "c" and the "y". ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumbest CP Sysop - Late entry[edit]

I am unaware of other religions advocating martyrdom.

Jpatt 20:39, 21 October 2010 (EDT)img.
My first thought was "WHHHHHAAAAA?" My second thought recalled the study showing that atheists know more about religion than adherents. Is Jpatt really so stupid, so clueless as to not recognize that the death cult we call "Christianity" advocates martyrdom? There are too many verses to mention. What's your favorite? Mine is probably Mt 16:24-25 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." No, Christianity doesn't encourage martyrdom at all... Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Not to mention half the Saints are flippin' martyrs to the cause. Where the fuck does Jpratt think the St Andrews cross comes from? Or the chick who had all her teeth pulled out (patron St of dentists), or Paul being strung up upside down. Just goes to show really. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a "Christian martyrs" article is called for? Or just this list maybe. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Haven't there been Buddhists setting fire to themselves? Or is my memory playing tricks? 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
yeah, but I'm not sure if that's really religious martyrdom or extreme civil disobedience. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, if little Johnny boy wants someone closer to home - there's always the Martyr without a cause. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Jpatt is my pick for biggest idiot at CP. The man is so monumentally stupid it's astounding he can even string together a sentence or two. DickTurpis (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, isn't the whole Jesus died for everyone's sins (never mind whether the sins are real) a martyr (Or do they stop counting since Jesus revived/didn't die to begin with)? Or is it a totally different issue? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a related but different issue. Not all xtians believe Jesus died for everyone's sins in the sense that they're eligible for atonement with god. So it's not fair to say that all xtians would agree Jesus was a martyr. The Calvinists believe only the elect are eligible. Arminian theology says everyone is eligible. See here for a simple explanation. Nutty Rouxnever mind 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
JPatt is just plain thick, Ed is creatively stupid. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure if you can call Jesus a true martyr, because the Resurrection is as an important of a part in setting up the role of Jesus as the savior as the Crucifixion is. Besides can you be called a martyr if you come back three days later with an invincible, non-aging body? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
To be frank I think there is something in the line "allowing suicide for the sake of homicide"img and while I may not agree with that point it is certainly an interesting argument. i9 19:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The town I was born in was named after an Xtian martyr, but they spelled it funny. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm...Jpatt opens his dumb mouth again. Jpatt, your god doesn't tell you to kill others for the Christian cause? ORLY??? And if you die in that cause, you don't go to heaven? Have you ever read the fucking bible? Fuck... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The "stupid" award is a shoo-in this year. Various CP sysops are stupid because of something, but JPatt is just plain stupid. His statement "But let us not play stupid ok?" (hereimg) is a classic. It's a perfect example of someone who doesn't have to play stupid. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
On Jpatt's claim that "Being killed for your beliefs (martyr) is different than killing yourself and others for the Islamic cause"
  • "Through You we will push down our enemies; through Your name we will trample those who rise up against us"
  • "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
I'm sorry for confusing this with that dangerous religion of Islam. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't that OT biblical character Samson take out a bunch of Philistines through suicide demolition? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Heliocentrism is wrong too.

I know, I know, it looks that way in the picture. But the picture is already pretty misleading before you spot that (* Not to scale) on it.

Don't try to defend heliocentrism by saying it gives you an inertial reference frame. No it doesn't. It's all accelerating, and it doesn't matter. That's the big win in relativity, which is how we got into this whole mess. Putting the Sun, the Earth, or the Moon at the centre for the purpose of doing some maths is equally fine, do whatever is most convenient. They're all spinning too, which makes it even more fun if you're determined (out of sheer bloody-mindedness presumably) to treat some spot on the surface of a spheroid as non-moving. But don't bother beating up the geocentrists with heliocentrism, it's like saying the Flat Earth people are wrong because of something the Fake Moon Landing people believe. Anyway, enough rant. (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but, if you do want to beat up geocentrists (why not steal sweeties from babies?) go for the actual model. That's where the current WIGO is silly, because it segues from geocentrism the ancient belief system which gets the orbits all wrong, to a modern engineer or whatever using the Earth as a convenient reference point but with all the orbits in the right place. (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have what you're having.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, crappy wigo, Roger is basically correct. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, he's not correct. Geocentrism is *wrong*. You can make it look consistent, but it's not a valid view unless you recognise the artificiality of it. Heliocentrism is a reasonable approximation of how the solar system works. MaxAlex Swimming pool 20:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
But Roger didn't write that "geocentrism" was correct, from what I read - he wrote than with the appropriate transformations, anything can be described in any reference frame. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a crappy WIGO because it should be a talk page post instead. Kalliumtalk 02:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like an issue for The Relativity of Wrong. Geocentrism - that is, the Earth is at the centre of the Universe and things orbit around it - is wrong. Heliocentrism - that is, the sun is the centre and things orbit around it - is also wrong, because the sun isn't the centre of the Universe, it too orbits around the centre of the galaxy. But to say that they are equally wrong is wronger than either! Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

framing the reference frame[edit]

What matter is it to use inches or centimeters (or cubits for that matter) when a carpenter is building a interior wall...does he also take into account whether (or not) to use the ptolemaic or the Copernican model to aid in his efforts? C®ackeЯ 18:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Then comes the argument of a team of carpenters using different units making things complicated and confusing... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Or a team of engineers losing a satellite due to mixing up metric and medieval units... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh hell yes it's on[edit]

This guy's about as cooked as cooked gets.img I love it. Whoever's running TeacherEd is my idol. Nutty Rouxnever mind 06:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by the TK before CaptureBot could get a read, it seems. Anyone take a snapshot? --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Darn, Nutty posted it and came back an hour later to add the capture tags... I dunno if my firefox would have saved a copy, how can I tell? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
If you go to Show All History and find the page, it might still be preserved in the cache...I'm not sure about that, though. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 08:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Tried that, but sadly, I've been to the dead version and it replaced it. Suffice it to say that TeacherEd made an intelligent suggestion, so of course Team Killer had to remove it. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Go into Work Offline mode (on the File menu in Firefox) then everything comes out of the cache. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Will try, but I doubt it will help since I went there since the deletion. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to help by viewing the deleted page on CP but I don't want to give too much away about my activities there. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I love you TeacherEd.img Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed's played a good game, but I think he's over-extending himself now. Nobody goes against teh TK, especially in public (expect rant and reversion from ToppedKinky any moment now). Also, nobody is safe, regardless of their rights, once TK starts whispering in Andy's ear - even more so if Terry's little chum, Bad Touch Poor, makes up the tag team. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh-hoo-hoo! TK's a sneaky one. After reverting Ed's edit and protecting the page from being edited from anyone who isn't a sysop, he tells Ed that he didn't know what he was doing, and tells him that he can restore itimg...except that Ed can't edit the page anymore. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
"Sorry, Teach, I am not aware that I stole your milk money.....please feel free to take it back!" --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CP in SciAm[edit]

The October 2010 issue of Scientific American mentions CP on page 22. In a brief section called "Science Index", wherein items are rated on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being "Fallacy" and 100 being "Fact"), CP gets the following rating:

"0 - Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, implies that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot."

I wonder when we'll see this mentioned on MPR?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that he will luxuriate in the ridicule of atheist liberals. How will he find out? TK will read this and p-mail him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we find a linky in the online edition? Because, you know, SA is what I would see as a reputable source, just like the LA Times... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Very nice catch: Try this for a link (though you get only a preview..)
On a scale from 0 (fiction) to 100 (fact), they rank three statements:
0 Conservapedia's idiocy
40 Government scientists report that three quarters of the oil that spilled into the gulf is “gone.” [..]
60 Toyota's claim that electronic problems were not to blame in reports of sudden acceleration in its cars. [..]
Indeed, this should be put into wp:conservapedia
As for cp:Template:Mainpageright: Conservapedia is setting a new standard for Science!
larronsicut fur in nocte 13:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, well, well, PsyGremlin put it in, Tony Sidaways gave a source, and DiEb moved it to a more prominent place...
larronsicut fur in nocte 13:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yay! Go team! Now all we need is TK-CP reverts. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I almost doubt that'll happen: TK-CP seems to be kept on a short leash right now by Ed... --Sid (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol u mad TK? Even your lil buddy has contempt for you. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't removing other people's comments from a talk page other than your own a sin at WP?  Lily Inspirate me. 21:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really, no. TK-CP's comment was snide and incorrect, and didn't AGF while accusing someone else of it. Contained no "article-improving" information. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Another JPatt classic[edit]

(WIGO worthy?) He's having a fit about the Dems fielding "longshot third-party candidates (that) hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.img Surely he can't be blind to the fact that that's exactly what the teabaggers are doing? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what chicanery could possibly come close anywhere close to what the some Republicans in Nevada are doing with third party candidates. There seems to me an unsubtle difference between bigging up legitimate candidates and manufacturing entirely new ones by paying homeless people. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Based on the SFGate article, most of the candidates being propped up by Dems are teabagger candidates who refuse to give up. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if the GOP's movement du jour wasn't so fragmented and self-defeating. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药,和那个不是医药。 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox News ...... Sky News[edit]

Sky News is essentially Fox News's UK equivalent. But it's actually fairly decent. Somewhat right-wing as you'd expect but no more than BBC News is left-wing.

Is Fox really as bad as many people make out? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, without doubt. I don't know if Comedy Central's player will work in the UK, but if so there are way too many Jon Stewart clips on how odious they are to summarize all the problems. But you might want to start with this one. --Leotardo (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't get Fox News in the UK then? Here in NZ Sky gives us Fox News (along with BBC, CNN and Sky News which is primarily the Australian and some UK with some NZ news). Other then Fox News bias, it's pretty useless for most Kiwis since it's an American news channel, not a world news channel so most of their news has a real US focus, the only time they really care about the world is when they can talk about homicide bombers or how evil Muslims are. I once asked Sky if they would give us something else lik Al Jazeera English, never read their response though. I guess it's basically free for Sky NZ to get Fox News. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you can get Fox on some premium Sky packages but I only have Freeview (free terrestrial digital). BBC News, Sky News, CNN and Al Jazeera are all free on Poorview. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fox News is available on standard Sky packages. I think it has only ever been viewed in Khant Towers when my naturalised American sister-in-law has been staying with us. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a documentary called Outfoxed I think, might be illuminating. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fox being available on Sky makes perfect sense - they're both owned by News Corporation of Rupert Murdoch fame. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Fox is very US-centric so it doesn't get a lot of coverage in the UK. I don't watch Sky News much but it isn't as crazy as Fox. I guess that's just a reflection of the political spectrum in the UK. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay. NZ free TV is fairly shit. No free BBC or anything close here except for after hours where one channel has BBC. Another channel ironically used to have Fox (Prime now owned by Sky but this was before they were bought AFAIK). Given the geography and low population density (and just plain low population) it isn't easy of course and for that and various market reasons Sky has a monopoly on subscription television here and very strong presence in general (over 50%), the last government belatedly started to consider it a problem but were vote out not long after and the new centre-right government doesn't care (they seem to admire the US situation where basically everyone has pay TV) so not likely something going to improve any time soon. BTW I agree Fox isn't surprising for Rupert Murdoch owned broadcasters, that's what I meant by it must be nearly free although as me and GK said, it's a wonder how many people actually watch it since even if you share their politics, it seems strange you'd want to watch mostly American news all the time if you aren't an American. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't find Fox News any more bias or annoying then say MSNBC, especially when it comes to the commentators and their programs. Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann are just the flip side of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. Wither you love them and think they are mainstream or hate them and think they are extreme all depends on which side of the left-right spectrum you are on. One thing is certain, they are all equally as biased. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, we definitely can't conclude that they are all equally biased. Just because not everything is black and white doesn't mean everything is the same shade of gray. Tetronian you're clueless 02:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I say this because people either exaggerate their biases (if not outright make some up), or downplay them (or completely brush them off) for any of these people. they are all pretty entrenched into their respective political camps though. Not that it really bugs me, they are all very open about their views. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The biggest difference is that MSNBC clearly labels their opinion/commentary shows and their news shows. Fox on the other hand, completely blurs the line between the two.... Fox has also been known to mislabel Republicans as Democrats when they get busted for something awful (IE, Mark Foley) SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 03:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sky is nothing like Fox. Sky News has a great reputation for actual journalism, in fact - but news is much more regulated in this country, in so far as a Fox-style channel would basically be illegal. Sky of course has a bias, as do the BBC, but you don't get the blatant opinion that you get on Fox. Rupert has been lobbying to change this for years, and hasn't managed yet. MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like great article content. Sky News? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Or just go to wikipedia..? MaxAlex Swimming pool 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
WP can't do what we can - they have to be boring, we can say what we really think. Or is there really nothing interesting to say about their biases, etc.? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DebbiT wigo[edit]

It's been burned already. Anyone got a cap of it?Oldusgitus (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CaptureBot seemed to work fine from what I see right now. Team Oversight (a.k.a. most likely just TK) is really going overboard these days. I guess soon enough, oversighting ANY revert will be declared "policy", just like the Template Protection Policy, Image Protection Policy and Redirect Protection Policy. --Sid (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
All I'm getting is this Oldusgitus (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Capturebot is your friend. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks psy. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oldus, (I hope this isn't too patronising) you do realise that the img next to CP links is a link to the screencap?
Not at all, in fact I hadn't clocked that. Particularly after a heavy night on the beer watching Attila the Stockbroker last last night. I'll try to remember next time :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Besides, whereas Terry Koeckritz is at least intelligent enough to oversight the edit in which a comment is posted, Ken is so stupid that he oversights himself removing the fucking comment, oblivious to the fact that said edit remains in all previous revisionsimg. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Oversighting doesn't sound like Ken. He's more the kinda guy who will completely delete the entire talk page and just recreate it with a clean version (like he regularly does with his user and user talk pages). I suspect it was one of the regular oversighters, and the target wasn't the discussion, but rather's Ken's silly gloating in the edit summary. --Sid (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Last word-ism from someone called conservative? Isn't that a liberal trait? Colour me shocked and amazed(!) When is Terry Koeckritz going to realise that Ken is a paid deep-cover subversive from the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Iscariot (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't TK already accuse Conservative of being a closet liberal because of Conservative's opposition to torture? Or did TK oversight that from his mind as well? Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Best new conservative words...Again![edit]

Holy shit.img Now we have more great "conservative" terms, like, uh, "Soccer Mom" and "Chicken Little". JackalTheRascal! (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no other way to put it: that guy is retarded. Seriously, when did Phyllis drop him on his head? Quote the entire moronicity: "The next layer begins for the Best New Conservative Words, which displayed a perfect doubling by century: 21-42-84-168. So far the new layer is 0-0-1-2 by century, including the additions of "Chicken Little" and "soccer mom." Can you find more?" ħumanUser talk:Human 10:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ya know, for some reason, he makes Ken seem logical right now. That's a big shame.... JackalTheRascal! (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far, but he certainly makes Ken seem "at home". Pitiful, really. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Every time I read "layer", I think "hen". Please ignore me now. ħumanUser talk:Human 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, soccer. Just when did that great British working-class sporting gift to the world become conservative? Even Plain Sarah is a hockey-mom.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The word "soccer" is as far removed from the British working-class as you can get. It was used by the upper classes at public (= private) schools and top universities like Oxford in the same way as they used to (and some still do) use "rugger" for rugby. They had a habit of sticking a "-er" on the end of words - "soccer" from Association Football. The word "soccer" is virtually never used in the UK anymore. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The game is working class, it just happens to have an affected name in the US where, let's face it, they are never going to refer to it as "football".  Lily Inspirate me. 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The game was working class, but while it's still more working class than the easy alternatives in the UK, you now need far too much money to see just about any game. Even Conference teams charge over a fiver these days.
The "-er" thing is very upper class. I didn't go to public school myself, but Stephen Fry describes a particular kind of argot in his autobiography, where "-er" is added in very weird ways: "wagger pagger bagger" for "waste paper basket" or "haggers comaggers" for "high communion" - the latter from a priest. Radio 4 cricket is particularly prone to this: "Aggers", "Blowers", etc etc. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Between that and the "conservative" baseball team, it's becoming quite apparent that Andy, now comfortably surrounded by his own personal echo chamber, has reached the stage where he can comfortably spout the first thing that comes into his head as fact. With subtle goading from TK, I'm sure we can expect far more craziness from Andypants in the months to come.--PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I like the way Andy is proving with each layer that the whole BNC-thing is just one of his more idiotic brain-children - and that he has no knowledge of basic statistics whatsoever....
larronsicut fur in nocte 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never really understood the whole 'layer' thing. I'm guessing that it's easier for Andy - once he's massaged one set of data to suit his needs, it's better to start a new one, just in case the new layer doesn't fit the mould. Or if he adds one new 1600 word, he's suddenly got to find 32 or 64 2000s words. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The layer thing is the whole thing. Larron conclusively showed that Andy's methodology was bunk, to which Andy raised the oil well analogy and clarified that these weren't just "conservative words," but the "best new conservative words." He's cherry picking "layers" to satisfy his bias, and as Larron showed, he's actually failing even at that. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger, Roger, Roger...[edit]

He just won'timg learn...img --Sid (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy's reply makes me want to punch something. How can you seriously be that obtuse even after all the education money can buy? Tetronian you're clueless 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is what I don't understand and hate about creationists. With little to no education on the subject they'll declare an entire body of scientific enquiry as utterly false. PJR does it all the time. Fuckthat 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You could probably measure creationists by how many questions it takes to make them say "that field is false" Someone like Karajou could be measured in under ten, PJR took a while longer. Hey, did I just quantify creationism? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)