Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive204

This is an archive page, last updated 18 November 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>, <203>, <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)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have won

Last 500 edits on CP now covers five days. We have destroyed the Beast. It's all over bar the shouting. I'm buying you all a round of drinks for your excellent work in the service of ridiculing internet nutcases. Well done. Now, what do you have planned for the future? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rally to Restore Sanity! --Leotardo (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm bored. --I'm bored (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hooray, my main source of entertainment has been destroyed! ...wait, what? You monsters! >=( --Sid (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that drink. Where can I collect it? DickTurpis (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the significance of the 500 edits? Would you expect much more than that when CP was at its heyday? Just curious. Is there a CP edits per day somewhere? (BTW: I don't drink, none of the apostles did, did they?) Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well what do you think the wine into blood thing at the last supper was all about if they didn't? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

500 is the most edits that can be seen with one easy click at recent changes. You can offset it back in time if you want. Check out, say, April 2007-era. ħuman 20:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the days of 100+ edits to cp:doughnut. I miss those days. sterile crab cake 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just delighted that I'm still editing over there on a regular basis. Nice to see some of my socks have lasted so long. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It helps if you have secured "special rights" but yes, even I am getting bored with my privileged socks. Even at sysop level if you don't have the parodists and trolls editing how can you have any fun? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be cynical, but edit count on Conservapedia means nothing, given that Ken is a major proportion of the edits, his inconsistency means nothing. He could do 500 in one stint, with his stupid micro-editting. 500 in 5 days isn't meaningful! Dalek (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what's important is not the number of edits, but what's being created over there. Answer is not much. Jpatt's creating teaparty stubs, Andy's updating MPR with "give it up liberals" crap, TK is posting "news" stories, Ed & Kara are virtually silent, and Ken is Ken. CP might not be a failure just yet, but it certainly has lost all pretence at being an encyclopaedia. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Three pics

nightmode

Earlier, night-mode was switched on at 1:30 a.m, and switched of at 7 a.m. Andy often made an early comment in the morning, and for a while, his last action of the day was making a minor improvement (spelling, etc.) at Conservapedia - perhaps fulfilling a New Year's resolution :-)

Now, the only thing which is working automatically is switching on night-mode at 1:30 a.m. - and another process which disallows the creation of new accounts after 7 a.m.: this is less obvious, but it seems to me that account creation is switched on manually and arbitrarily sometimes at night (perhaps by TK or Andy, knowing that it will be switched off soon after).

So, if you are a home-schooler interested in contributing to CP, you just have to get up before 7 a.m. and create your account. A couple of hours later, editing will be allowed - but until then, your new account most probably didn't pass TK's scrupulous test, and you will be already banned...

BTW, I can't check for locking the database, as the IPs I use are generally disallowed from creating accounts - my IP at home is even 403ed: as I can't take this hurdle, I don't run into the lock of the database.

active editors

80 individual editors over the last four weeks? in 2007 and 2008, there were over 100 individual editors every single week, and even in 2009, there were only two months with less... Heck, in 2008 there were more days with 100 unique editors per day than not! The numbers of CP now resemble those of Citizendium :-)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Those night mode charts are the most interesting thing to come out of CP in a while. Given how rarely editing and account creation are active at the same time, it does seem like CP is operating some sort of gateway system - sign up, get vetted through checkuser and a little name analysis, then get a chance (a slim one) at editing. The use of night mode also allows the sysops to monitor users for their first few edits and remove them swiftly if needed. It gives the impression that they aren't really interested in new users, but they have to let a few in from time to time to give the impression that the site is open to the public.

Clearly the night mode/account creation monkeyshines is the cause of the downturn in editing, but does anyone know impetus for that? It's a fairly recent development. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 19:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

nightmode on average

• The new pic shows the average over the last couple of days, the two (automatic ?) switches at 1:30h and 7:00h are clearly visible
• I assume that we all underestimate the time it takes Andy to compose his little evasive answers when confronted with critique. Most probably, he came to the conclusion that it isn't worth it as he has so many other important projects to deal with. So, after the relativity-debacle, he somewhat declared his project off-limit for reality...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise CP didn't even bother to have consistent times in their night editing mode. The funny thing of course is that no one in CP seems to understand why having a system when you have no real idea when you can create an account and no idea when you can edit isn't inviting. I guess this flexibility is not that different from the inability to stick to deadlines or promised dates for the American government lectures. I wonder if Andy treats his offline home school students the same? The class may be at 10am. Or may be it'll be at 2pm. Just stay in the room and wait for me :-P P.S. Perhaps the night editing mode is partly about dislike of non Americans? Why have conservapedia open when good ole Americans are sleeping even if it's peak time for other people. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You're basically right - night editing was so that the merkins could get some sleep, safe in the knowledge that their blog wasn't being violated. Of course, in the past they had 24-hour coverage, with PJR and Jallen in Oz, and other senior editors/admins in time zones that would overlap CP's night editing. Not to mention the senior US admins, who would edit for three straight days, seemingly fueled by low quality meth. Of course, all the overseas admins are gone now, protecting CP from that nasty liberal multi-culturism, so night mode is a must. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Several CP sysops must have seen these graphs and been worried by them, but you'd have to apply thumbscrews to get them to admit it. It would mean admitting they've failed, admitting responsibility, and most of all admitting that the filthy ratvandalcyberterrrorists are right. Even while the fire rages about them, they won't admit it because we saw it first - it must just be a liberal fabrication. They let themselves be defined by their enemies. EddyP (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are particularly worried because by and large none of them are content creators. Excluding the monomaniacs, the closest they come to a contributor is Ken with his childish "essays" which they indulge like tolerant parents letting junior splash paint all over the living room walls. Ken doesn't care whether anyone else can edit so long as he gets to use CP as a secure platform for his own stuff. Since TK returned as a sysop any creativity or content addition has diminished and they are in "bunker mode" where the only important thing is to ensure that none of the bad liberals get in. Other than Andy the only sysop who thinks CP might be an encyclopedia is Ed Poor, but he is so incompetent, deluded and stupid that he cannot see how pathetic and destructive his own meagre efforts are - rather like the pointy-haired boss in Dilbert. CP is now just a zombie wiki. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A Leap Only TK and Evil Kenevil Could Make

An Atheist sues a Christian over being roommates, Clearly a sign of the Obamageddon. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks "what a pathetic bunch these 'Fair Housing Center of West Michigan' people are." I mean wtf? She has no choice as to who she shares her house with? What if she'd put 'non-smoker' or 'seeks swf?' As much as I hate to say it, but I'm with CP on this one (apart from the bizarre Obamageddon thing, of course) --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to prove that nutters come in all shapes, sizes and persuasions. It doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure there's a difference between renting out an empty dwelling and sharing a dwelling. Who you share your home with is your own business. Is America the nutter capital of the world? The CP reaction showing how the nutters love to try and out nut each other. I'm assuming the story is accurately presented by Fox. However I couldn't find another news source reporting it. Anyone know of any other (reliable) news sources? Auld Nick (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Weekly World News? But seriously, I hate to say it but the CP opinion that this is wrong is probably right. Stopped clocks as always, although the "sign of teh Obmageddon" is a little bit molehill mountaineering. Atheist gets uppity about special treatment for a religion, yeah, movie at 11. ^bomination 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually special treatment for a religion, which is why CP is actually correct on this one. Anyone who's looking for a roommate can put any conditions they like on who they rent to. Fox News says the Fair Housing Act says different, but this is Fox News, so they're probably wrong about that. Now, excuse me, I have to go take a shower. 92.10.85.252 (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's just turn the situation around and say that I was looking for roommate who was specifcally not a god-botherer. I think that it should be my right but I can't but help think that some of the self-same people now screaming about the injustice would then be demanding that Christians are being disciminated agains. Personally, as a non-believer, I would be grateful that if it matters enough to someone that they have a Christian as a roommate, then that is a great big warning that I wouldn't want to be there. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

True dat. But we haven't yet seen something like the reverse with a hypocritical depiction of it on Conservapedia. So until then, it's still very much "meh" territory. ^bomination 18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The law is a bit complex. The Fair Housing Act says:

“”Nothing in section 804 [the main section] of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, [a bunch of restrictions saying that you can't more than three homes or use a broker] Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented [...] without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title [...] (2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

And then section 804 says:

“”it shall be unlawful[...](c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

There's also a religious exemption, but that applies only to organizations, non-profits, and clubs, not individuals. My understanding is that 804(c) applies to (1) above, but not (2), so this woman should be in the clear if she's the owner. If she's not the owner (she's looking for a roommate while renting or before buying), I'm not sure whether or not the Act can be applied to her at all. The Act is clearly not intended to apply to people you're going to be living with, although I don't know the relevant precedent.

TL;DR I'm not a lawyer but it looks like the suit is totally frivolous. --Quantheory (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

'Obama isHitler' Godwin WIGO

These pricks really have no sense of proportion--AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's TK. He has to resort to Godwins to get our attention. -- Nx / talk 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It worked too. ZOMGFUCKICANTBELIEVETKISSUCHACUNTLETSWIGOIT SJ ^Debaser 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If I cared about wigocp I'd suggest we ban TK wigos the same way we banned the use of irony meters -- Nx / talk 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this message. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggested last week that everyone stop fucking wigoing Terry Koeckritz. It didn't work. SJ ^Debaser 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Start by voting down tk wigos. Or, if you have the machismo, comment them out -- Nx / talk 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think TK is still a valid WIGO target for things like plagiarism and being a petulant dick to other sysops. However, a moratorium on WIGOs of things he puts in MPR is a fantastic idea. Anyone consider leaving a comment on the WIGO page to that effect? Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 18:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Or even better, stop using those fucking name templates so that this page gets covered in massive chunks of attention grabbing text. You're clearly dealing with an ego-tripping and attention-whoring internet troll, pasting their name in giant letters is NOT the way to make them fuck off back to their hole. ^bomination 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Approve Armondikov post. 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Raccoons made me do it. SJ ^Debaser 19:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Far as I'm concerned, the only worthwhile Terry Koeckritz WiGOs are the ones where an established figure like Andy or Koward are actively supporting what he's doing. Otherwise, there's no point since we know it's all trolling anyway. --Kels (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(ECx3 bastards!) I do agree we should not WIGO Terry Koeckritz's obvious trolling/attempts to get our attention, however what we should still WIGO is blatantly disruptive/dishonest/deceitful things that he does and that Andy is completely oblivious/indifferent to. Terry Koeckritz's antics aren't WIGO worthy, Andy's idiocy in not noticing that people he trusts are trying to undermine his blog is WIGO-worthy. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the irony meter rule and the new "use caution for TK" rule to the box that appears when adding new WIGOs. – Nick Heer 19:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Ya'll leave out one point: it's not TK or CP that make the assertion, it's the cited source. [1] nobs^{don't bother me} 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, it's a case of a sysop knowingly interpreting a source in a way that's so bent that it's not pretty anymore, and Rob rushes in to defend him, what a surprise! Only in CP land does "that doesn’t mean American politicians of both parties aren’t still employing the same propaganda techniques utilized by its reviled leader" equal "[Obama's] profile fits one done of Adolf Hitler". Ah, the good old Team Liar is at it again. Funny how TK's self-written blurb omits "Bush Republicans used “The Big Lie” to grow government and rack up huge deficits", huh? But I forgot, it's not mainpage-worthy unless it can be used to demonize Obama and Obama alone. --Sid (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Bush deficits to Obama deficits is like comparing Hitler's body count to Stalin's body count. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob does function as a useful barometer of the truth. Once he appears to defend an edit, that pretty much guarantees it's an intentional lie, rather than a simple misreading. --Kels (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe. "Nobs". X Stickman (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how can we forget? Rob and JPatt just follow TK, who just post carefully-worded, cut-n-pasted, and utterly useless material on Mainpageright. JackalTheRascal! (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't get involved with this kind of crap, but that quite a wall-banging Godwin is too much to resist. It's a pretty bad analogy, although I'm sure it's great in an environment where you don't have to bring facts to the table. Stalin and Hitler's "body counts" were generated completely independently, not sequentially. If you compared the UK and US deficits to those, I'd happily take the analogy but it's just plan wrong in this case. A better analogy would be comparing Hitler's "body count" and Dönitz' "body count" - as he had a short reign over the Nazi Party following Hitler's suicide (okay, there's a slight issue with the fact there wasn't a direct "Fuhrer" successor). To say that the total body count under Dönitz as Fuhrer was higher would be true as the war went on a little bit after Hitler's suicide, but at the same time it would be highly misleading to suggest that this extreme number was the fault of Dönitz' leadership alone. Similarly, to say that Obama is solely responsible for the current size of the US deficit is huge is also just wrong. He inherited a large amount of economic momentum and the situation would most likely have been the same with either McCain or Obama in office right now. See, economic problems just don't spring from nowhere, the vast majority of the groundwork that caused it was laid down under Bush. ^bomination 13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"the vast majority of the groundwork that caused it was laid down under Bush". I'd like to see the independent analysis that didn't say the entirity of the current US deficit was laid down under the shrub. But of course, any independent analysis is by definition librulllll. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Really you need to go back a lot further than Bush in the US, just as you need to go back further than Brown in the UK although both exacerbated the situation. Governments of all colours have been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility and lax legislation of financial markets. Recessions are necessary fact of life in order to eliminate accumulated excesses in financial markets and we should have had one starting in 1987 but politicians don't like them to happen on their watch. So the Reagan-appointed Greenspan pumped extra dollars into the system which ignited the tech-stock and mortgage bubbles. Any student of financial markets knows that they are cyclic and the consequence of avoiding one financial downturn is that there will be an even bigger one further down the line. I'm afraid that Obama has appeared on the scene at the wrong time and will be the one who carries the can for his predecessors. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Nerd Redux

Remember Conservapedia's "test"?^img Well, apparently, most of this site got a 0/10. Don't worry, Ken Doll thought of that.^img --Thunderstruck (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wily like a fox! EddyP (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait... what? So if you say you're not an atheist nerd, then you are an atheist nerd? Hey Ken! Did you study the questions and decide that you're not an atheist nerd? At times like this, I can only fall back on:

Erg, and did you see the bit above that? Three links to "Atheism_appears_to_be_significantly_less_appealing_to_women" in 2 sentences. Best thing I did was removing Ken from RC.--PsyGremlinSprich! 15:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So if you get 0/10, you pass? Liberal Grading gone MAD! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold it right fucking there. Getting a low score on the test means that you are an atheist nerd, but getting a high score also means that you are an atheist nerd? Learn some stats Ken. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, we're trapped! There's no way out! Ken's outed us for what we truly are! It's inevitable, we're atheist nerds! The man's a genius! How does he do it? SJ ^Debaser 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Because by his own definition Ken is now also an atheist nerd. Really, I don't think I've witnessed such childish logic and silly name-calling since I was at primary school.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Its like CP saying "your a Liberal if you say your not." In an attempt to trap us, they kinda trap themselves with us. --Thunderstruck (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I love the way Ken makes it impossible to get a "yes" on most of the questions unless one actually has a girlfriend. Time stupid Hoover! 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been asked before but how does one define a nerd? I'm a computer programer with a first degree in applied physics. I travel to many parts of the world, mainly Africa for family reasons. I hold a private pilots licence and fly light aircraft whenever I can (whilst being a huge hypocrite about global climate change although the rest of my footprint is relatively small and offest). I spend far too much time on the internet, football sites and here mainly. And I am an avowed and proud atheist and have been ever since I could think for myself at about the age of 4. I scored 0/10. Am I a nerd? Oldusgitus (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I still can't decide which is more pathetic - the fact that Ken's regressed to kindergarten-like "nya-nya-nana-nya" antics, or that the remaining sysops condone it, even through their silence. If Karajerk is still wondering where the conservative hordes are, he need look no further than Ken's drivel. Ok, and TK turning off account creation. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If Ken is jealous of your lifestyle (especially if you have a girlfriend) then you're a nerd. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Internet tells me that a nerd is someone who has a large amount of knowledge in a technical, academic field such as science, mathematics or computer programming. This is in contrast to a geek, who is deeply focused on some aspect of popular culture (not that the two are mutually exclusive). A more typical, mainstream definition of nerd is anyone with an interest that falls outside of the mainstream, be it academic or cultural. In Ken's case, it seems that a nerd is anyone smarter than him, so he's using the high school bully definition. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, got it. So almost everyone is a nerd to the cp sysops since virtually everyone in the world has a deeper knowledge on just about anything than any of them do. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So I am a geek and a nerd, especially if we are using the "deeper knowledge" definition in contrast to the sysops of CP. Weird though one of those deeper knowledge subjects is the Bible, how did that happen? Still scored 0/10 though, how... disappointing.

What happens though if the girlfriend is the atheist activist of the pair, do you score negative? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The new version^img has this interesting clause: "Only atheists who are nerds take atheist nerd tests! Real men don't take atheist nerd tests! They are too busy making a difference in the world." So I guess real men don't read Conservapedia, then? That explains a lot...about you, Ken. Also: does this mean we can convert the entire world to atheism just by making them take this test? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kendoll's a big poopy pants, and so is Miss Smith. EddyP (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What Ken missed was that most of us said "well, I'm an atheist nerd, let's see how well this works". We expected to score high, but didn't, because the test is so poorly done. We aren't considering it an insult, Ken. ħuman 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, us nerds and geeks are simply profoundly disappointed the test is so poorly done, and understands so little about geek culture that pretty much anyone will score a zero. What it means, Ken, is that test itself is a failure. I though, do find it funny that according to Ken, being on CP is considered a waste of time and "real men" would be doing something else. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone eles think Ken is watching this site, and reworking the test to mess with us. Hi Ken, Maybe some more questions would help. --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what this whole section is about... ħuman 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is painfully obvious he writes his "essays" for our benefit; we are his only real audience. One thought though, if taking the test is only something nerds do who are not making a difference, what does it say when someone spends such a substantial amount of time writing that test? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How dare he

Ken, don't you dare abuse^img Weird Al like that. Shame on you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How DARE he! Leave Weird Al Yankovich ALONE! Totnesmartin (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As if Weird Al would actualy be on there side. But whats next, Dare to be Stupid? --Thunderstruck (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, seriously....

Ken's atheist nerd page is, by a far margin, the craziest fucking thing. Even more so than the flying kitty page. Taking pot shots at Hawking? Really? Fuck^that 22:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure in their minds, he is physically disabled because of his sin and pride, so fair game. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's getting worse...^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"When you had problems finding a wife, you refused to consider the possibility that you could be the problem and instead blamed it on womankind." Wow wow wow. Has he ever considered that thinkers might be less likely to try to "find a wife" in the first place? "womankind"??? Please write more, Ken!

Ken is an atheist. He's struggling against the deep feeling he has that the entire thing is myths and fairy tales and trying to self-justify. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the basics: white - almost surely, unmarried - definitely, socially challenged - obviously, nerds - spends 36 hour swaths of his "life" editing CP. Ken is almost certainly on the merry path to atheism! ħuman 03:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't he out "making a real difference"? Does he lack MA-CHEESE-MO? It's okay if you want to join the atheist nerd "cause" Ken, we have cookies! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One telltale sign you are acting like (so it includes poe) a religious nerd is that you are writing an article on telltale signs of being an atheist nerd. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 06:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Only atheists who are nerds take atheist nerd tests! Real men don't take atheist nerd tests!" Kinda defeats the purpose of the test then, doesn't it? Ken mate, if you fancy talking to us, just pop over here and have a chat. You have this untrustworthy, English, "European socialist" left-wing piece of shit scum atheist nerd's word that I'm not gonna try and convert you. SJ ^Debaser 10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone on the red telephone? This would be a nice time to get on it. Come on Ken, calls to RW at no charge!! Quacky | Talk! Scream! Share! 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Those white atheist nerds never achieve anything. According to the page, it's not like the second richest man ever was a white atheist nerd82.1.197.90 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys

Is there no limit to the attention craving which he who shall not be named will sink to? Think of the children? Family friendly? I'm wondering exactly how he intends to use his abortion drawings in a manner suitable for young homeschoolers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what terminology they use for the images, seeing as things like "vagina" are verboten. (I mean how can you have cp:Human reproduction and cp:Sex with no mention at all of genitalia? Where's Bad Touch Poor when you need him?) --PsyGremlinSiarad! 17:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's uploading them for some other bloke. What possessed him to actually greenlight these pictures, though, is beyond me. I guess it's the old "No picture is too shocking if it's arguing against abortion." argument. CP would happily show mutilated puppies if they could think of some anti-abortion argument for them. --Sid (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to be creative---they'll just state, "Abortionists (and atheists) also probably enjoy mutilating puppies." Giving them the perfect opportunity to upload that puppy mutilation picture they've got, and giving them #1 Google ranking for "abortion mutilating puppies".64.30.2.130 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey TK, these would be great for the abortion article. (courtesy of Earthland) -- Nx / talk 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, those are real? They're not rubber? Because the babies certainly look like rubber or plastic items, not real babies. Then again, who the hell in their right mind buys these (unless just for fun)? JackalTheRascal! (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're real pictures of abortions. I remember a few years back when there were a video or two on this website that was all pro-life (hosted by a priest no less) and had these videos and pictures up, about 10 minutes worth of doctors pushing around body parts and comparing them to coin sizes while a strangely depressing saxophone solo accompanied the whole thing. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They're printing this on business cards? Seriously? I can't think of a better way to make sure the recipient will just discard it in the nearest trashcan. After backing away sloooowly. Röstigraben (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting that the original source of the diagrams is clear that they are referring to late-stage (or pre-birth) abortions, which are a vanishingly small percentage of abortions, usually performed for reasons that affect the mother's health. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why it didn't appear to resemble any abortion method I'd ever come across. Still, at least the captioning does away with any complex medical terminology. ^bomination 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Little point to all the CP folk who definitely do not read here, no sirree. Want to know the medical equipment used to perform abortions before it was legal? Click here. Want to know what the result was, fairly often? Click here (but be aware that second link is graphic and disturbing). 92.22.79.84 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

An eye for the detail...

Just help me to understand:

1. Someone creates an account^img:

00:24, 25 October 2010 Pc (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎

2. He doesn't follow the naming pattern, so he is blocked immediately^img.:

00:28, 25 October 2010 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Pc (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled) ‎ (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)

3. But fair is fair, Andy disabled autoblock, allowing the user to recreate his account! And fairness, that's the clue for TK to join the fun - his change in the block settings^img seems to enable autoblock, thereby preventing Pc from recreating his account.

02:18, 25 October 2010 TK (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Pc (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2015-10-25T04:28:04Z () ‎ (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)

Well done! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh...I think that is to be expected from TK. Power abuse is his friend. Quacky | Talk! Scream! Share! 07:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock only lasts for a day, but yeah, it's just Terry Koeckritz being a dick. -- Nx / talk 07:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One really wonders why he needs to get involved in the first place. Andy's the boss, does Terry think he doesn't know what he is doing? It's like a couple of thugs where the "big man" knocks someone down and the weak-minded lackey following behind is compelled to give the unfortunate a consolation kick just to prove his own machismo. So, yes, it's TK just being a dick 24/7/52.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TK does that a lot, actually. It's like he feels cheated that he didn't get to block the guy, so he hops in to stomp on him a little more. It's TK being a control freak, basically. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Baseball

I love it when Andy starts talking about how sports have a direct connection with politics (conservative places use conservative values to make better teams). Unfortunately he doesn't seem as interested in America's pass time as he was in the World Cup, which is too bad because the World Series match up looks like it will be an excellent test of his theory: Conservative Texas Rangers battling homosexual San Francisco Giants. --Have Blue (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome it will prove Andy right about something.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So the fact the Yankees are wealthy and spend the most money on their roster makes them liberal? Is knowing how to earn wealth now a liberal trait? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That just means the Yankees are nothing more than a group of experts! I guess the best of the public would be the Marlins. Or the Pirates. Do hope Andy picks up on this though -- it's the formerly-George W owned Rangers vs the San Francisco values Giants and their pothead ace. --MarkGall (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the WS on Fox again this year? ħuman 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on Fox, starting Wednesday. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I might indulge myself, this seems like it might involve some interesting sport. ħuman 02:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know I will, this is a never before seen matchup between two teams that I don't hate. I can't wait for the series to start. But if the Rangers win, Andy's probably going to brag about it, because a victory for a sports team based in a conservative area against one in a liberal area is obviously proof that his conservative opinions are correct. Lol. --Onion <talk> 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I kind of want to see what happens over there if the San Francisco Giants win the World Series. I can only imagine his conniptions. Jsonitsac (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If that happens, he will just be silent on the World Series and make sure the rest of CP is silent too. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap, Obama's gonna be on the Daily Show Wednesday... this Weds? Oh, nevermind, they repeat at 1 AM hereabouts. ħuman 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just realized something, in the 1980s George Steinbrenner was temporarily banned from baseball because he was convicted of making an illegal campaign contribution to (drum roll) Richard Nixon. Now I can't speak for Hal and Hank, but I wouldn't be shocked if they were also conservative in their views themselves. Jsonitsac (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt the Texas Rangers are conservative. Formerly owned by one moron (George W), they were bought by another (Tom Hicks) who spent money he didn't have ($1/4 billion contract to Alex Rodriguez) resulting in awful performances (only 3/11 winning seasons) and near bankruptcy. No wonder Andy admires them so much! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hicks is a wanker.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hicks is brilliant. The best thing to happen to arrogant scousers for a long time. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CDunigan's complaint

Thought this was funny, grabbing a capture before it gets burned: CDunigan on Talk:TK^img: "TK, can you do anything about cp:Andy Schlafly over at the Abortion article? He just yanked out a section I'd written, meticulously documented and researched, about reasons for abortion." --MarkGall (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor CDunigan, not knowing TK will probably ban him and all his contribs were for nothing. "This site is growing rapidly"...*sigh*... JackalTheRascal! (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'Cording to Andy (Get it? Acording? Umbilical cord? ), the reason why women get abortions is because they've never seen an ultrasound of their baby.^img Because everyone knows that if you take a reason as to why people don't get abortions, it can be the reason behind a woman getting an abortion if you just flip it around. "Excuse me miss, why are you getting an abortion?" "Cause I've never had an ultrasound!"...makes perfect sense. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TK: "It takes time to become trusted member of any community" ... Bugler got sysoped in 2 months since first edit. Was that long enough I wonder? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Andy is frothing at that talk page. I doubt CD can reply by now, surely editing is turned off? ħuman 03:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just hope that CDunigan comes back and stirs something up against 'em - it'd be something a little bit more entertaining than having to watch Ken write a bunch of crap about how being an atheist nerd is inevitable. If I were CDunigan, though, I would just go back to blogging. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I love this typical Andy logic-fail:^img I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion. In other words, something I pulled directly out of my ass should take preference over a poll, because the poll could be unreliable. My ass, on the other hand, never misses...

You know what the opposite of speculation is, Andy? Not a "fact," rather a falsifiable statement with evidence. Junggai (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think this illustrates well the Conservapedia's problem of being "worryingly untethered from reality...and tendency to engage in fantasy". There are very few studies that have examine the 'ultrasound issue', but the scant evidence shows that seeing one makes no difference:

In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion clinics in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision.

That generally has also been the case in Alabama, which enacted its law, the first of its kind in the United States, in 2002.

“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

In some instances, the ultrasounds have affected women in ways not intended by anti-abortion strategists. Because human features may barely be detectable during much of the first trimester, when 9 of 10 abortions are performed, some women find viewing the images reassuring.

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

Poor Andy - that ginormous head on that bony little body is not full of brains. --Leotardo (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a great photo, I wonder if there are any more hi-rez ones from that same event? ħuman 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's from North Dakota - haven't seen anymore, though in searching I found former Schlafly intern Chris Beach hot as hell. --Leotardo (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I know a guy who looks like him IRL. He's not bad looking but he's an asshole. Hey, maybe they're related! --Quantheory (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure he's an asshole, but somehow that added to the appeal... --Leotardo (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe! ħuman 07:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Christopher now resides outside of Washington D.C." - What a coincidence, so do I! Also "Christopher worked as a legal researcher for Andrew Schlafly Esq." doing what exactly? Does this hint at Schlalfly having real work or was ChrisB just doing Google searches for AAPS cases in exchange for some pocket money? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It was Chris' job to show ultrasounds to pregnant women. His research was what produced the '80% of women who see ultrasounds don't abort' figure Andy keeps citing. --Leotardo (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

gerontology = pseudoscience???

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gerontologist&curid=106552&diff=824655&oldid=824647 ORLY? Ignore for now how badly badly cp:Peter DeFazio is written. ħuman 07:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I like how their officeholder template has 'incumbent' for DeFazio (and quite a few others). I just wonder who's going to update them all if they change now that there are precious few drones to do the menial work. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TK might get involved (like, by generously unprotecting it for a few minutes so that some other guy can do the work) since he needs to show that he is needed on CP, or Jpatt might do it if enough of his Tea Party favorites pull through. --Sid (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix Sid. However, they don't need to unlock a template as it just a transcluded with parameters. My point was, where are the workers? You can keep many articles up to date when you have many willing hands but now CP has degenerated into a current affairs blog any articles that are not flavour du jour will gather the dust of irrelevance. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Errrrrr, yeah. My bad, I had been thinking about navboxes for some reason. --Sid (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, here at RW, with far more hands on deck, we struggle with updating "timely" things (mostly by asking people not to say "recently" in articles and stuff). How the hell CP can keep up with a simple mid-term election in the US is beyond me. No drones. ħuman 02:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gerontology is obviously pseudoscience: it's laid down by gOD that man shall max out at 120 so there's no point trying to do anything about it. 12:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Obamacare

[] writing... I don't even care if we are "right" when I read tripe like this - since I can fix the tripe here. Who fixes it there? No one. ħuman 07:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean there was a "feature" CP article that is an example of good writing? Never knew....Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Er, yes. I would like to think that some of my articles were of reasonable quality. Unfortunately I do not wish to say which ones they are lest they attract the attentions of TK's arsehole memory hole. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. IMHO I put some pretty decent articles together on CP. Hell, 5 of them were 'featured articles' (before Ken hijacked that for his own nefarious needs). Sadly, most of them are no more, following a collaboration between myself and a CP sysop, to see how far he could push his luck, before another sysop actually cared enough to notice. (Answer - we're still waiting). There are no worker bees left 9except FOIA and TZoran, who only care about their subjects anyway). --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still better written then the Obama article itself, let alone the word spaghetti that is the Atheism or Evolution articles. As for anything I wrote there, about every one suffered afterward from YEC thought police. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, change the wording to "featured" articles-err, anything mocking liberals or anything about evolution/atheism. Since those always will stay the same.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this thread is about. Anyone else? ħuman 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Silly reasons" for denying someone a gun, apparently

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&diff=824704&oldid=824696^img

This is probably going to go horribly wrong and it's probably against all Wiki etiquette as this is my first attempted edit, but hey.

According to TK and Fox News, "silly reasons" for rejecting gun licence applicants include:

'having been fired for "circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment"; having "failed to pay legally required debts"; being deemed to lack "good moral character"'

Am I the only one who thinks they're perfectly good reasons? I don't know enough about US law to comment on the Constitution point TK makes (although I've read plenty of articles here, on WP and on news sites to get an overview), but they seem to me legitimate.

Anyway, that's my first RW edit ever, a very proud moment! Now, how do I get a champagne bottle smiley thing... --AlexR4444 (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome! Your only mistake was taking anything TK says seriously. His gripe about liberals being incapable of reading the Constitution "clearly" was actually a self-conscious swipe at the likes of cretinous republican witch, Christine O'Donnell, who doesn't know the Constitution from her ass or a hole in the ground. While the 2nd Amendment does provide a private right to bear arms, no right in the Constitution, including this one, is beyond regulation. And rightly so. I agree with you that these are all perfectly good reasons to deny someone a gun license. TK's just a bitter internet griefer who enjoys trolling from Conservapedia main page right. Ignore him. 21:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Dammit Nutty, you just said everything I wanted to say but phrased it even better that I would have. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Although I kinda have to side with CP on this one. These reasons are rather silly and dangerously nebulous. How does one define "good moral character"? Based on what moral criteria? Being fired for a poor decision? That's a bit extreme and doesn't have any real baring on wither one can be a responsible gun owner or not. I just see this as a slippy slope where any petty reason can be used to deny one's rights. I know I am in the minority in this case here; I am just one of those gun rights advocacy types. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a schmuck bait: Isn't that implicitly projects whoever opposing this as not having "good moral character" ? To explain further, most of those who would oppose this if they want a gun and they think they don't have "good moral character", which means they fail the character judgement by their own standards, and as such no definition would be needed. Other vague qualifications can be demonstrated in a similar fashion as schmuck baits. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am kinda agreeing with CP on this one. These terms are kinda hard to define (except the debts one, but yeah.)Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm split on various items. The job-related one seems spurious. Then, to quote the Fox Nudes here:

"Another troublesome restriction, Halloran said, is one that allows permit denial if "the applicant has failed to pay legally required debts such as child support, taxes, fines or penalties imposed by governmental authorities."

"So people who are in foreclosure, or have credit card judgments, maybe filed bankruptcy, can now be legally denied," he said."

That's a non sequitur. I think it is reasonable to deny weapons to people who haven't paid child fricking support or money they owe the government. Neither of those have anything to do with the three financial issues Halloran responds with.

I'd like to see the rest of the details, I suspect cherry-picking of a long complex document, and, of course, Faux doesn't supply a link to their source for their quotes. I did find the illustration on MPR amusing, however. ħuman 02:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To a Brit this is of course academic, but how about reversing the onus and requiring people to give their reasons for having a gun? 02:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In many (US) locales, that is a requirement for concealed carry. Not here, though. In NH the "permitting" process is called something like "shall allow", ie, the local cops have to ok you unless you are currently residing in a mental hospital. ħuman 03:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how quickly they forgive/forget/ignore...

Looking at the newest addition to the Best News Sources^img I can't help but wonder if this is long forgotten. Granted, they also list WND as #2, and God knows what little backstabbers they turned out to be... so maybe His Divine Andyness just forgave both of them? --Sid (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They were never brought up in the first place. Would someone mind burning a sock to bring that up? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing - BOTH were brought up. TerryH replied to the WND piece^img and the Christian Science Monitor thing even appeared^img on the main page (A professor takes potshots at the Conservative Bible Project: "This won't be conducive to interfaith dialogue."[15]). --Sid (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But seriously, if there is no peon pointing out to them that they are insults like the FBI thing, they are not going to treat it like as if they are actual insults. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Epic Fail

I don't remember seeing anyone on RW use this annoying phrase that only morons use today because it's been so overplayed. But if you need any more evidence that you should banish "epic" and "fail" from your vocabulary (also "win") then it's TK's use of it^img. --Leotardo (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Awww, this is nice, he even picked up Andy's "Give it up, liberals!" meme in the same post. :) --Sid (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to put my fingers in my ears, you said "meme", and that is NOT a conservative word. If you can't post substantive information, please go elsewhere. Jimaginator (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's going to be added by trusted editors during Operation Ravenstorm. --Sid (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I stopped using the phrase "epic fail" in September 2008 when everybody's favorite unhinged warblogger used it to describe the Obama campaign. I was reminded of the classic MTV ad from a few years back that officially buried the word "bling", and that, as they say, was that. Hateboy (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, that's when I started using it. ħuman 02:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What do I replace them with? --Opcn (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Doughnuts, which by definition must have holes! ħuman 03:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Know what's just as bad as the phrase epic fail? Animated gifs.. Yes I'm looking at you, human. --GTac (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an animated gif! I am a human bink! And what the fuck are you talking about? ħuman 07:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'm sort of pro-animated gif, my favorite being the dancing banana. --Leotardo (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Epic fail from Human. Other types of donut are available, many of which do not have a hole. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Donut shops may sell other forms of pastry, but to be a genuine donut, there must be a hole with which to secure it to the ship's wheel! Heretic! ħuman 02:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, what you're thinking of is a ring donut. Jam donuts are holeless, but are indeed donuts. Open your mind! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jam filled donuts are soulless - they are merely pastries stuffed with jam or lemon curd. A true donut adheres to its topological master, the torus. Open your bum, that a taurus may enlighten your small intestine! ħuman 07:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bedbugs

Now wonder they're scared of the bedbugs at CP, have you seen the size of them? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven or eight cubits from rump to whisker, by my reckoning. Very scary translucent brown cubits, at that. ħuman 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And the wings are vestigial? Surely that implies evolution? Bedbugs are wingless anyway so... I'm confused. Jaxe (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty comprehensive article, which is a surprise as it is not directly related to politics in some way. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't be long until it's linked to illegal immigration (that was the original news story I think) and thus laid at Obama's door. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Free hugs" campaign has been accused of spreading bed bugs in NY, I believe. 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I can't be bothered to find a link but I'm pretty sure that Karajou laid the current New York bedbug infestation at the door of multiculturalism (MPR passim or ZB). It was also covered in a very recent Guardian feature - because of which Mrs. K has now banned me from bringing my suitcase into the house to unpack when I return from my wanderings, although you could hardly miss them according to CP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor point, you spelled Gaurniad wrong. Right? ħuman 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the official misspelling is Grauniad. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fcuk! I knew that ;) ħuman 08:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's one for the Main Page

Andy gets a mention in Macau. Terry, you might like to suck up to your dear leader by sticking it on the main page. 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"But by pulling out of Wikipedia, Schlafly may be removing his ideas from the mainstream." - THANK GOD. --Sid (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm startled that they've heard of him over there. It's a shame that CP is part of the image of the GOP in (hopefully only a few) foreign countries - though I'm a Democrat myself, I don't want to see the other party misrepresented. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Schlafly et al. actually do represent the tendency currently making the most noise in the Republican Party, with the sane ones getting more and more sidelined. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping the Tea Party will fall out of the media spotlight after the election, and I suspect that's what's going to happen. The Tea Party/Republican organizers won't stir up the masses if the next election is two years away, since there's nothing they can do. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When the Democrats took Congress and especially when Obama got elected, the moonbat noise machine went into sleep-mode and the wingnut noise machine kicked into gear. As long as there are laws being proposed by Democrat-controlled legislatures, the right-wing noisemakers will be kicking up dust. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

<Obligatory lame joke>What, Schlafly's religion allows him to pull out?</Obligatory lame joke>. But seriously, I do believe America needs a party of idiots so they can be more easily identified. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The idiot party exists, it's called the TEA Party guys (except for O'Donnell)...now back to your regular programming on Fox News people...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tet, two years ago we were predicting the imminent demise of the teabaggers, just look at the articles' histories. ħuman 06:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that they weren't in positions of power then, but they probably will be after the elections. Several commentators have pointed out that the teabaggers have two positions: cutting taxes and cutting the deficit. You don't have to be a maths expert to spot that in order to do both, you have to cut spending but no teabagger has been able to explain what they'll cut. That's when it gets interesting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If they are not in overall power it is not something that needs to concern them, they can just snipe at whatever the Democrats do. The Teabaggers as a group are unlikely to command a majority even if the Republicans regain control. Oppositions rarely have to have a fully coherent policy because they can say that they don't have access to all the data. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they're still going to have to vote, make speeches and so on. This will give them a record, no matter how much they try to avoid it. They'll try the "Well I couldn't do anything because of Obama / Democrats / Witches" line, but opponents will be able to point to what they did do. There's also the maverick problem again. In Nevada, Angle voted against everybody else so much that a 49-1 vote became known as 49-Angle. The GOP is not going to have an easy time satisfying the teabag wingnuts and people like Olympia Snowe. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes at Genghkiss and Susspect, but no to the last Sussspekt - they have to vote, but they don't have to make speeches. Being in the opposition in the US is a cherry job. Look what happened to Newt. ħuman 09:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

More best words

I wish somebody would teach Andypants the difference between "words" and "phrases". Preferably by beating it into him. Six of the best might just be the best thing that ever happened to him.

Also, it seems as if his grip on the language is slipping. Given the entry for "dog and pony show"^img with the explanation: "an overblown event, typically having more fanfare than substance; liberals like to run a "dog and pony show" in towns having a large public university, where younger people are attracted to it."

Attracted to what exactly Andy? Liberals? The event? The public university? Or maybe you just meant this. Oh yes, and your beloved Merriam is wrong about the date of use. And it seems as if you sucked the definition out of your arse. Still, when there's nobody left to answer to, you can get away with making shit up. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember the first time a friend showed me so early internet porn. Er, the choice selections were a "dog" and "pony" show. Yup. Andy is fucking clueless. ħuman 03:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy couldn't possibly have sucked the definition out of his arse; TK would be in the way. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Six of the best" another bestish conservative word phrase. Also, go easy on the ferrometer.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hah. "Only God can make a tree"... but only Andy could take such a shit picture of one. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy didn't take the picture.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated our article with material from CP's talk page. I love re-reading it! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blogs

More of Andy's nuttiness. "Blogs are written by fools like liberals" - you might want to check with Ken's fanbase before writing stuff like that Andy. Of course, you're also a prime example of a blog written by fools. ooh, I feel a WIGO coming on... --PsyGremlinTal! 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Blogs are written by fools like liberals" says the shit for brains who squandered his education and family connections to micro-blog on a cesspit of a forgotten wiki in the backwaters of the internet. 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberal fools write blogs, smart conservatives just quote them really often. Röstigraben (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives never write blogs right? Oh wait they do[2], [3], [4], guess they are all fools to Andy though, including himself because what is CP other then his personal blog where he proclaims his beliefs and opinions from Obama to Bible translations as "teh TRUTH"™. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget former sysop DeanS had an 'invite only' blog on Blogspot, but it seems to be gone now. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And from a semi-recent T:WIGO discussion, the lovely quote^img from CP's "Conservapedia" article: "Conservapedia is currently developing a blog for the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation. The blog in its prototype form can be found here: http://mindszentyfoundation.blogspot.com/ " --Sid (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Only God can make a tree." Surely... no... can't, er, trees make trees?Webbtje (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a crappy attempt to parody a poem, he didn't even bother keep the rhyme... ("poems are made by fools like me / but only god can make a tree"). Maybe "blogs are full of liberal debris"? "blogs are lib'ral, unlike CP"? "blogs are made by libs goeteed"? --MarkGall (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation blog was a short-lived failure. Of course, doing useful things like blogging for a foundation pales in comparison to sitting around dreaming up time wasters that nobody understands nor cares about like 'best new conservative words'. --Leotardo (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Only a tree can make a tree, until J. Craig Venter figures out how that is. --Opcn (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, trees don't make trees. Programs, designed by Intelligent Programmers, produce trees. (Bursts in a song) ♪♫ ...why only God can make a tree. / For God wrote in Lisp code / When he filled the leaves with green. / The fractal flowers and recursive roots: / The most lovely hack I've seen. / And when I ponder snowflakes, / never finding two the same, / I know God likes a language / with its own four-letter name. ♪♫♪ However, not all programmers are intelligent, as we all know, so the reality is a pretty interesting place. Sleep well! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City Star on niche Bible translations

"[So many Bible translations are] in effect moving away from a common membership in the body of Christ into disparate, confusing misrepresentations of the rich wisdom of Scripture, which ought to unify us." David Lyle Jeffrey, former provost of Baylor University and an expert on biblical translations.

I kept thinking about the Kansas City article, and I do agree with some of its arguments. Growing up Catholic I just always assumed everyone read the King James, and for the most part (as the article points out) they did. So, you could talk the Bible with someone from a completely different place and know that you were talking about the same passages. Sure, you may have different interpretations, but at least you were talking the same language.

Now, there's so many translations (this site has over 100 you can search) that...well...The Word becomes kind of meaningless. Now it's, "What version do you believe in and what does it say?" before you can talk about it. I get the distinct impression on CP that if you read one particular version, other people who read a different version would find your version illegitimate. Every idea I see CP advocate is so divisive, even amongst their fellow travelers. --Leotardo (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When I grew up I assumed everybody read the Good News Bible. Keep in mind that even if everybody had a KJV, and their reading of say, the opening words of Genesis was identical, you'd still find that different versions of the KJV vary in which books are present (any KJV used by modern protestants will probably omit the Apocrypha which would be unacceptable to most Catholics) and authentic re-printings of the original have non-scriptural matter included which assumes the reader is Church of England (might not be noticeable for some other Anglican groups, but any Catholic or Baptist is going to notice right away)

It's always been like this, almost from the first English translations. And then in ancient times these works just didn't exist as an identifiable "Bible", the Old Testament and New Testament are collections of earlier fragmentary works. That's why it doesn't read like a coherent book, it was never written as one. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't what constitutes the Old Testament, at least, long been accepted by Jewish scholars (albeit under other names)? From what I understand, when the early Christians were debating what would constitute the Bible, they pretty much accepted the Old Testament as a block, but argued a lot over the New Testament (including a lot of fighting over Revelation. Oh, how modern day Christianity would be different if they hadn't included it...) MDB (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a minority of modern-day Christians that believe those crazy interpretations of Revelation, and a smaller minority that act on that belief. As for translations, the different ones tend to act as checks on each other that prevent people from extrapolating bizarre ideas from one or two wildly misinterpreted verses, but they don't affect the overall message all that much.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kriss, you're pretty good about making random statements about religion that seem to be based upon your own personal hunches and notions, with little evidence to back them up. You seem very Conservapedian in that regard. If you want to see the percentage of people who believe in the nuttery of Revelations, you can use A TIME/CNN poll (59% of all Americans); the NYTimes (37% of Protestants and Catholics) or a CNN poll that found 40% of Americans "believe the physical world will eventually end as a result of a supernatural intervention, perhaps with a literal Rapture, Tribulation, Antichrist, and Battle of Armageddon described in the Book of Revelation." As for different translations, I can tell you as a gay person that how people translate the Bible has a big impact not only on the message of Christianity that I hear, but also on how those Christians affect my rights based upon their own interpretations of The Inerrant Word of God. --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And how many of those are actually dispensational premillennialists? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fully aware that most modern Christians don't take the obsessive view of Revelation. Those that do, however, have a tendency to be rather vocal about it, and get more attention. (After all, "it's an elaborate blueprint for the end of the world!" gets you much more press attention than, "it's an allegory about the Roman empire and St. John the Revelator was one weird dude." MDB (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying that modern Christianity would be more or less the same without Revelation. The mentalists would just have to find something else to peg their craziness on. But they would find something. The stupid you will always have with you.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At least the world would have been spared the excrement that is the Left Behind series. MDB (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they should listen to what one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about Revelation:

the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge therefore from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in the heavens above or on the earth beneath can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation and pardon me if I say with the candor of friendship that I think your time too valuable and your understanding of too high an order to be wasted on these paralogisms.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic church used to be the sole interpreter of the Bible then somebody invented a way for it to become more widely available. Martin Luther decided that people should be able to read and interpret it for themselves and this is why many fundamentalist protestant churches attach so much weight to the literal wording of the Bible. Unfortunately nobody can read the books in their original form, they've all been copied multiple times and subject to translations. Even if you could read the original text people would still quibble about the meaning. Modern legal documents which attempt to be written in the most unambiguous way end up being haggled over for nuances of meaning, so a text which has been gone through several rounds of Chinese whispers over 2000 years is fair game for being interpreted in any way that suits peoples prejudices. It's all crazy BS and no wonder that a two-bit layer like Andy Schlalfy spends so much time arguing over the meaning of ancient scraps of paper. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Growing up catholic and assuming the KJ Bible is the norm is pretty odd. The KJ bible was in direct opposition to the catholic church. It wasn't until the 1960s the catholic church allowed anything but Latin for religious stuff. A catholic advocating the KJ Bible is somewhat akin to a Nazi advocating a Jew as the Führer. Dendlai (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, when you are whipping out Nazi references in this era of over-used Nazi references, it's hard to see how you expect your comment to be taken seriously. Take it down a notch. --Leotardo (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. But, it was the first thing that popped into my head, as an example of "group X and group Y hates each other, so this is an eaxmple of group X following group Y". It was not meant as an emotional appeal, only an example to show how opposed catholicism and the KJ bible are. Dendlai (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In my household growing up we used the KJV, and my assumption was probably just a childish assumption. But I think a lot of Catholics use the KJV, particularly because it is beautifully written. Bishop Challoner, who oversaw the writing of the main English Bible used by Catholics, borrowed very heavily from the KJV in his revisions, which are still in use. It's hard to find discussion of the WP:Douay–Rheims Bible without discussion about how heavily it relied upon the KJV, so I don't think your Nazi/Jew analogy holds. --Leotardo (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point is King James, and his Bible translation, was anti-catholic to the core, and until the 1960s, the catholic church was adverse to using anything but latin in religious matters. So if the last 40 years of catholics think the KJ Bible is "catholic" it just shows they don't know where they are coming from. The idea of the KJ Bible as "catholic" is... silly. Dendlai (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell that to Bishop Challoner, then. English versions were widely used, whether they had use in church services or not. The Catholic Church ditched Latin because it had long only been used by the Catholic hierarchy and not the lay people of the church. The idea that all Catholics were reading Latin until Vatican II is...silly. But I'll bite: how is the KJV "anti-catholic to the core" as I've never really heard that argument. --Leotardo (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

King James was very anti-catholic, or rather, his enemies were all pro-catholic. The gunpowder plot didn't help much... King James wanted to break the papal supremacy, and making a translation to English of the bible was part of it. Papal supremacy is the essence of catholicism. (The pope can issue verdicts that are the Word of God to catholics. Many kings disliked that, hence why the reformation was such a success). And whether or not all catholics used latin until the 2nd vatican council... What the lay people used isn't important, really. What the church hierarchy used is what's important. England and the countries that followed the reformation used the indigenous languages. The Catholic countries didn't. And just because, here's what J.R.R. Tolkien's grandson remembered of his grandfather's reaction to the 2nd Vatican council:

"I vividly remember going to church with him in Bournemouth. He was a devout Roman Catholic and it was soon after the Church had changed the liturgy from Latin to English. My grandfather obviously didn't agree with this and made all the responses very loudly in Latin while the rest of the congregation answered in English. I found the whole experience quite excruciating, but my grandfather was oblivious. He simply had to do what he believed to be right".

Stubborn old bastard, eh? Dendlai (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Papal supremacy is the essence of catholicism." - that hasn't been true of American Catholicism for a long time. American Catholics don't follow the Vatican on Contraception, Stem Cells, Abortion, gay marriage and a whole host of other issues. Latin was used in church services, but Catholics read English Bibles, not Latin ones. --Leotardo (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is the thing... If American catholics don't understand what Papal supermacy is and don't follow it they aren't catholics. They are some other denomination of christians. The ESSENCE of catholicism is that the pope can speak as the Voice of God, infallible. (The Great Schism). Dendlai (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, that's your view and you're entitled to it, but it's an academic argument not a practical one. I doubt the Vatican is in any rush to jettison their lucrative American congregations (or, for that matter their South American ones). Perhaps more telling than their disregard for the Vatican's teachings is that half of American Catholics don't even know what transubstantiation is. So, there you have it. What a weird, rambling thread this turned out to be. --Leotardo (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, strange thread indeed, full of lots of wrong. Leo, your idea that just because many US Catholics ignore the Poop or aren't theologians is irrelevant. At best they are "bad" Catholics, but in no way do they define what "Catholic" means, just what a relatively liberal congregation allows themselves to get away with. The RCC is a monolithic, top-down operation, with exact rules and regulations. ħuman 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That more or less reveals your own prejudices. I'm atheist, but growing up Catholic and living in the Northeast, that's a silly statement you made that you couldn't back up with reality. --Leotardo (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're basing your claim on a study base of one household. You, seir, are simply wrong. ħuman 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm basing it on my upbringing, being an altar boy, attending Catholic School, and all the people I came into contact with in my parish...but I'm also basing it on the citations I've provided in this thread of American Catholics not being a "monolitic, top-down operation, with exact rules and regulations". You, seir, are simply talking out of your ass. --Leotardo (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the "monolithic Catholic Church" goes, people have sometimes been tempted to think that way, but there has always been, to put it lightly, some amount of dissent on that point. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bible reading is not as central a fixture of Catholicism as it is of Protestantism, to the effect that an official Catholic English translation of the Bible was not made until after the Reformation had gotten going, and this translation never really caught on. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never ever seen a Catholic with the KJV in their home. I've never seen a KJV for sale in a catholic book store. The KJV isn't even the whole catholic bible. Thinking the KJV is part of catholicism is a rookie mistake. --Opcn (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, sounds like you've taken a pretty thorough accounting of the KJV as it relates to Catholic homes and book stores! I defer to your exhaustive research. I was originally only speaking about my own KJV Catholic home, and the assumption I had from it. That said, there's no evidence the KJV has been eschewed by Catholics, unless I take your statement, anonymous Internet person, as definitive. --Leotardo (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the KJV translators translated the deuterocanon as well, even if the books were not included in the widely distributed editions. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Opcn is wrong at least as far as "isn't even the whole catholic bible". Yes, the protestant KJV you bought today in a book shop is missing the Apocrypha. But that's not a decision made by King James or his translators. Years later as printing became more common an explosion of bible printings occurred. This resulted in the same complaints about "confusion" you're seeing now (but without even different translations, these were all based on the KJV). It also resulted in the famous "Thou shalt commit adultery" Wicked Bible. But most importantly for our purposes publishers found that the Apocrypha could be omitted under the rationale that since they weren't canonical they shouldn't be in there. That translated into less pages, which means lower costs, and thus more profit.

It's all a bit more complicated than is being painted. For a start the Anglican churches (including therefore the Church of England for which the KJV was commissioned) are technically Catholic. They deviate from the Roman church most importantly in not accepting the Pope, but there are plenty of other Catholic churches that don't accept the Pope, for all I know there may even be some serious contenders for Anti-pope out there. CofE congregations chant "One Holy Catholic church" in their services -- it's like the "One China" policy where everybody agrees there's one indivisible entity, and that just leaves the small problem of who is in control of it. Their faiths are sufficiently compatible that the Roman church permits entire CofE churches to switch to Catholicism. Married priest? No problem, the Pope will give you a special exemption from the requirement to remain celibate. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's all true, but they are still different churches, and when the King James Bible was produced, one of the big differences was that Roman Catholics didn't allow the Bible to be read in the vernacular. Therefore the King James Bible was a big part of what set the Anglican Church in opposition to Roman Catholicism, so it's at the very least rather a quirk of history if some modern-day Catholics claim that it's the pre-eminent version.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was a leftist

In their ongoing attempts to link Hitler to everything, except the right and athlete's foot, Jpratt will turn to any home-made site as a reliable source.^img Just as long as it says what CP wants it say. I don't know John J Ray is, but looking at his articles column on the left, it's pretty clear he'd be right at home on CP. In fact, Ken could have written most of those articles.

However, in typical CP style, they only read what they want to read, and miss important bits of information, such as:

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

So much for those nasty, atheist Nazis. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Positive Christianity...totalitarians will twist everything to suit their needs. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Roger

I think the phrase you're looking for,^img is "laager mentality." Something CP is very, very good at. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the first definition I came across was to stop communicating with people not in your group to avoid their ideas or beliefs. It's also not a word, but hey-ho. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Lazy Uncle Ed

Love the essay Uncle Ed Denying_History^img ....now where have I seen it before? Ah yes, the Publishers Weekly blurb on the Amazon website [5] It's just a pity that the publisher put the following footnote on the text you copy/pasted: Copyright 2000 Reed Business , Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Mick McT (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's worthless copypasting from the "IT'S NOT PLAGIARISM!" school of thought (though at least he uses the * indent as a flimsy "this part is quoted" kinda-sorta marker), but at least Ed's offering SOME break from the constant stream of "HATE OBAMA HATE OBAMA HATE OBAMA" that's currently dominating CP. It's shit, but at least it's different shit. --Sid (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The sad part about it all is that it's a fairly accurate reflection of the content of the book and if he had just acknowledged the source, it wouldn't have looked so pitiful. It's clearly not written in Uncle Ed's style...it's far too long for a start. Mick McT (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

CP on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

I just noticed that CP has a page on the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

Is it just me, or is CP's use of Jon Stewart's birth name subtly anti-Semitic? Especially since Jon Stewart is not merely his stage name; he legally changed it to Stewart when he got married. MDB (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that, too. CP loves to play name-FUD games. See also Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Then again, it's Jpatt, so what do you expect, really? He's basically CP's Tea Party posterchild. --Sid (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not like they referred to Stewart as a "Christ-killing Jew" or something, but I think the message is pretty clear -- "he's not a good Christian like us."

The fact Stephen Colbert is a practicing Catholic, and apparently takes it pretty seriously, must make their heads spin. MDB (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the more doctrinaire anti-Semites refuse to call Karl Marx by his name, instead calling him "Mordechai," which was his father's original last name. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"The rally, scheduled for October 30th in Washington D.C., is organized by liberal comedians Jonathan Leibowitz, known by the stage name Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert." So...Jon has two stage names? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehe... oh well, they fixed it anyway. ħuman 18:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Obamageddoon....again.

You know what to do. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 20:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Or does everyone else also think that this picture^img of Art Robinson makes him look like some awful drunk staggering out from a bar at 4am. Ace^{word up} 20:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A little. His eyes are too focused though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote their friggin article on Art Robinson. Then they banned me when I questioned TK on his "We don't pick on those with learning disabilities" comment. Fuckers. Thanks for pissing me off asshole Senator Harrison (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, fuck YOU. Ace^{word up} 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a job, slob. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you, I am at work. Trying to write a press release - deadline is in 10 minutes. Ace^{word up} 23:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit, did you make it? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, with a minute to spare. Ace^{word up} 02:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

preemptive post

Scientists May Have ID'd Liberal Gene. I'm waiting with bated breath for conservatives who reject out of hand the notion that someone could be born gay to latch on to this like a brand new toy. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was that headline was from The Onion. Seriously. MDB (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not very surprised. Extremists are not known for their social accomplishments or their social skills; they are especially known for blaming society for their lack of such. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. SJ ^Debaser 16:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Josh; it's no more (or less) stupid than the "gay gene" thing. Those homosexual scientists isolating the "christian gene" was a true breakthrough though. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The "gay gene" idea is a pile of bunk, of course, but it is a useful oversimplification that permits gay rights supporters to sidestep evangelical dreck about people undergoing a Spiritual Transformation after they are Saved™. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a complete pile of bunk, it's just a lot more complicated that the phrase suggests. Matt Ridley's The Red Queen has a little section on it. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Genes affecting personality are a pile of shite. It's the way you're raised, how you grow up, who with, etc. SJ ^Debaser 12:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How are they "a pile of shite"? Do you think your point hasn't been investigated? Identical twins are nature's genetic demonstration project. Sometimes twins are separated at birth. Their subsequent experience will vary, but their genetics is identical. Thus, we can measure and see whether "twin has feature X" is more likely for people who have feature X, after accounting for other demographics variations. We find again and again, whether looking at eye colour, alcoholism or sexual behaviour that genetics is predictive. It's not deterministic - people aren't just "born gay" - but it's also not a simple matter of environment.

It seems that "Men are taller than women but my mother is taller than my father" is still too tricky for our culture to absorb. Group genetic differences exist, but they can exist and matter without being overwhelming. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt's granny

IMO, Jpatt's granny^img tops even Andy's dinner conversations^img:

1. The fact has nothing to do with the fact-tag it replaces
2. The source!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...*facepalms* --Sid (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming she's still alive, how old does this likely make JPatt then? Is he the youngest? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Marital rape WIGO

Seeing as how Roger, and not the usual/more likely Andy, made the amendment to the article, I'd like to change "The son of..." to "A son of...". I'm still more or less a newbie though and don't want to step on anyone's toes and am going to wait a few hours before making the change. --NotANumber (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Marital rape is difficult to define. Many wives see it as just a communication problem." No, Roger, you monstrous bastard. Marital rape is rape, and to call it a communication problem is disgusting in the highest degree. These people are monsters. Corry (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger is divorced isn't he ?... --Opcn (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that Example One^img is based on Roger. Ace^{word up} 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. That's awfully nasty of Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Roger just has a different-than-normal cultural background. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is a son of Phyllis Schlafly, so... yeah. Hateboy (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this talk section, but I clumsily clarified the wigo last night. ħuman 13:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty soon, they'll be using TRS-80's

So, the upcoming GoogleOS is too liberal for CP.

Microsoft products are also leftie.

They don't like Apple, either.

They do seem to like Linux, at least, but once they realize open source equals communism, that's gotta be out the door.

Perhaps they'll encourage Radio Shack to bring back the TRS-80, since it's based in good, conservative Texas. And Fort Worth, too, not godless hippie liberal Austin. MDB (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why Google are "liberal." Surely they are a shining example of corporate America?

When someone points out that Chrome OS is based on Linux, they will have some doublethink to deal with. Bondurant (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OS/2 is my humble suggestion for Conservapedia. That or Christian Ubuntu. Tyrannis (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They should use AmigaDOS. Okay, I only suggest that because 'AmigaDOS' sounds like something that should have battled Godzilla in 1985, nearly destroying Tokyo in the process. MDB (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jet Jaguar OS, will occasionally be taken over by aliens, then expand to fill your entire hard drive to fight viruses. User:Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 13:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

[TI-994a] Made in Texas! Alain (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Google is a very socially progressive company, very much into environmental consciousness. They're also very gay-friendly, and very vocally opposed California's Proposition 8.

I seem to remember CP giving them flack for doing business with the Chinese government, too. MDB (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me a company that doesn't want to do business with China, and I'll show you a company that will be gone by the end of the century. Bondurant (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an outdated truism. Given China's brutal restrictions on doing business there, including having to register your trademarks in China in order to manufacture there, there's a subcollection of businesses that see it as suicide to try and do business there. 76.104.170.93 (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

76. Has NO IDEA what they are talking about. Until serious tariffs are imposed on Chinese imports to the US, China will continue to manufacture all our goods. And if you doubt me, just challenge me. I know whereof I speak. And I would welcome such tariffs so I can buy American again. ħuman 06:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

<pedantry>China exports to the US, the US imports from China</pedantry>. Sorry.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

<more pedantry> 'imports' was used as a noun, so "Chinese stuff which US is importing".</more pedantry> [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I could have phrased it better! ħuman 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that conservapedians are unable to cope with reality? --Opcn (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess Solaris is still ok then (Oracle scrapped the OpenSolaris and focuses its efforts for Solaris 11 the paid version). and then there is BeOS and HP-UX. I can't wait to hear about their market model for the ideal operating system if Microsoft is leftie. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't a parody then I'd suggest JesOS™ but they could always use Ubuntu Christian Edition.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu is mostly GPL, so it's evil communism, blending christianity to it make it even more evil like wolf in a lamb's skin. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What about NetBSD? They try to avoid the GPL, and it runs on just about everything. (Note that I use Ubuntu and Windows 7/Server 2008 R2.) --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Over recent years the slogan "of course it runs NetBSD" has become less true. NetBSD remains most portable (def: easiest to re-target onto any platform) but not most ported (def: actually targeted onto lots of platforms) as in recent years engineers building a new architecture would say "I guess we should put Linux on this" even though that's more work. Even the iPhone hardware was supposedly tested with Linux before iOS was working. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My main point is that they avoid the GPL in favor of the BSD license — the main version is free/open-source software, but unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't force anyone to keep it that way. It's perfectly legal to make a custom version of NetBSD and not give anyone access to the source code, as long as you leave the copyright notices intact. --GastonRabbit (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Horrible people

Between Roger defending marital rape, and Andy defending an assault on a woman, they really couldn't sink any lower, could they? What revolting, little pus-filled buboes they are. --PsyGremlinSprich! 07:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"like" ħuman 07:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Such is the spawn of Phyllis. If the woman had been at home baking cupcakes, where she should have been, she wouldn't have been hurt. Of course it's her own fault. She even had short hair so was probably a lesbian. She was practically asking for it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Men invented mini-skirts and hot pants so women could accidentally "ask for it" indeed. Oh, and coin slots. ħuman 07:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes old "communication problem" - she said no, but I knew she meant yes. The man is scum. --PsyGremlinHable! 08:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Men's "communication problems" always seem to involve physical violence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mine don't, thank you very much. — Pietrow ☏ 15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy and Roger might be trying to compete to see who's the lowest, so each of them gets lower as the other one sinks to new low levels. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"No means yes! Yes means anal!!!. is it any wonder these two turkeys see the world this way, given what goes on in the Ivies? PFoster/TofP, circumventing a block via IP. 71.156.15.164 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When the mother is an internationally known misogynist it's no surprise these 2 boy children are doing their damnedest to outdo her. 16:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was watching Inglorious Basterds yesterday and the dialogue, "are you so used to the Nazi's kissing your ass you've forgotten what 'no' means?" seems appropriate. Or perhaps Roger's thinking would be better summed up by this. SJ ^Debaser 17:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the assertion that Phyllis is "internationally known". I don't think she is known outside the US. I had certainly never heard of her prior to involving myself with CP. She is a mere nationally known misogynist. --Horace (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What Horace said. 21:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Douché. I misunderestimated the reach of her work opposing the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's. 00:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd heard of Phyllis, but only because she gets a mention in one line of West Wing dialogue: Sam says of Ainsley Hayes something like "According to Phyllis Schlafly here..." while talking about the Equal Rights Amendment. Didn't mean anything to me until I joined RW. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I heard about Phyllis Schlafly my whole childhood from my mother and her leftist friends who didn't shave their armpits or legs and smelled like patchouli. I'll see if I can find some pictures of me and mom standing at a rally with a pro-ERA sign from the late 70's or early 80's. BTW I wonder if the Schlaflys think the Republicans who proposed the amendments are RINOs. 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they would, they meet the highly intricate and detailed Andy Schlafly-approved standardised test for being a RINO: 1) being Republican, 2) disagreeing with Andy. SJ ^Debaser 16:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The One True Republican was St Ronnie. Even the Tea Party are "conservative" instead of "republican." And then watch how quickly Andy turns on the teabaggers that a) lose their election and b) fail to immediately abolish abortion, whilst allowing classroom prayer. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The first time I heard the name Phyllis Schlafly was in this context. DickTurpis (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tillman on Maher

Watched my first episode of Bill Maher's show. Can't say I was overly impressed, but it was interesting in that it was the show where they interviewed Pat Tillman's brother. I was reminded of the alternate reality that was Jpatt's take on the matter. After all, why let facts get in the way of a good badly written rant? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that Pat Tillman was a hero, so how could he be an atheist? It makes no sense. I'm not sure why you have difficulty with this simple argument. Phiwum (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This essay isn't even really about Tillman, it's about how atheists are horrible people and the scum of the Earth because of their atheism. Tillman managed to put his criminal teenage past behind him and improve, atheists can't do that. Tillian was a team player in college football, obviously not an atheist because all atheists are completely selfish and narcissistic. Tillian "change people and he wanted to change his country for the better", and not an atheist because of course atheists hate America. Oh and Tillman was in the Army and in combat, so he can't be an atheist because "they are no atheists in foxholes" and all atheists are cowards, thus says Jpatt who never been in the military. Now just imagine substituting "Jew" or "Catholic" for atheist to see how offensive this is (if it wasn't obvious). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think the essay is nasty, check out the comments. A soldier (who happened to be an atheist) showed up to poke some holes in Jpatt's "logic" and got an earfull from Jpatt, Karajou and DanielPulido, the latter of whom deleted one of his comments and called him "a disgrace to the uniform." Support our troops! Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 19:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's about the standard I'd expect from Jpratt - badly written, with no idea of what he's talking about, and using ridiculous twists of logic to ensure that reality fits his dumb little prejudices. The talk page^img is certainly worth a scan - they really are horrible little men, aren't they? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Rally to restore sanity WIGO

Is it just me or is Andy getting more and more spiteful and... childish in his "news" announcements? "Liberal nutcases", "potheads", "pathetic" and "losers" are all in that one. It's not even news in any form, biased, lying or not, it's literally just Andy insulting people. I'm sure I don't remember him being this bad in the past, even just 5-6 months ago. Recently he seems to have really kicked it up a notch. X Stickman (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Crap! I think I'd get most of those labels about people who went. Andy's right! Blue (is useful) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. CP is descending slowly into being nothing more than a nasty blog at MPR. ħuman 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The upcoming elections really drive him nuts, and he's not alone. Almost all of CP (ignoring Ken's banter, of course) is focused solely on the elections and recent US politics. The last 500 edits to MainpageRight cover only... three weeks or so. The only deviations I currently recall are Jake and his Vietnam edit spree and Ed, who (like Ken) kinda does his own thing (mostly blogging movies and fueling the global warming denial). --Sid (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Its just sour grapes. If the republicans dont take over on tuesday, expect Andy to sh*t a monastery.--96.237.141.219 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he will just spin it somehow if they don't take over take on tuesday. But I would agree with Andy getting more spiteful in the last 4 or 5 months. It started getting even worse with the World cup and soccer being a socialist sport. Quazywabbit (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They've been going down that path for a while now. They can't mention Harry Reid without the word "despicable" being thrown in. It's actually funny to see Andy, in the absence of a group conscience and egged on by TK, showing his true colours - just what a mean-spirited vindictive, little misogynist he is. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

ħuman 12:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And the screeching goes on...

User:Sorge causes Andy, Jpatt and TK to handwave wildly.^img And gets banned because this edit^img apparently violates the Commandments. --Sid (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it is TrollKing, what else would you expect. Of course, I love how he highlights just how cynical CP is over what constitutes a 'valid source', the latter including a dead judge and Jpratt's granny. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As usual, it's all relative: External link search for Huffington Post.^img It's nice to see CP's "whatever we like is a trustworthy source, whatever we don't like isn't" sourcing standard in action. --Sid (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess any explanation will do. Doesn't Andy see that his goons are over there lying, harassing and intimidating? I'm always amazed that self described xtians don't see the irony in their mustering the intention to act so dishonestly in a public place. 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I love that Andy typed "the USA Today" in perfect Colbert style. ħuman 14:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn, reading the "article", where is my "edit" tab??? It's so full of grammatical errors one wonders whether it was written by a schoolchild asked to demonstrate "how not to write". I can't think of any other explanation. ħuman 14:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

@Humming - Well it was written by Johnny XRay, so your description is apt (if insulting to schoolchildren).

@Nutty - you forget that "lying, harassing and intimidating" is standard operating procedure to get ahead on CP. That's why they're always so amazed when people like Bugler, RodWeathers and Jabob come out, because they were "one of the crew" who blended in by being insufferable jerks and lying, harassing and intimidating other editors. That's what made Karajerk's comment when blocking Jacob all the funnier "All you did, JacobB, was to prove our point" Yes, that acting like an arsehole, gets you promoted on CP.

Also, fun watching Andy editing with no sense of irony - "I don't think having a rally by a satirical comedian is the best way to get out a message"^img but having one by a wing-nut talkshow host is? USA Today estimate: tens of thousands, including 10,000 bused (sic) in for free^img Sez Mr We-Sent-2-Buses-to-the-March-for-Life! --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Another notable element of this is the fact that Andy tries to cover his ass by arguing that most people were there for the music, thus it doesn't matter if there were clearly more people in attendance than the "couple thousand" he's been claiming, they weren't there for the rally. And he's the one calling Stewart "incoherent." Also, I absolutely love the half-assed grammatical state the article's in now, as if no one can be arsed to change all of the present and future to past tense. My money is on it staying that way in perpetuity, or Karajou will change it out of spite since I just mentioned it. Junggai (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy keeps chirping about how no politicians running for office were at the event... Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see anyone up there with Glen Beck. I mean, the main speakers were Beck, Palin (who's not running for office) and the daughter (niece?) of MLK (see, we're not racist. We found one black person to attend our rally). As a politician, you never want to appear at an event that can be used to defame you later. So... Does that mean the Beck event was a failure? SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Nooooooo. The Beck event had over a billion people, and there wasn't so much as a gum wrapper left behind. --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy was blathering about people showing up to watch the rock concert, but if I'm not mistaken the guest list was kept under lock and key until like thursday wasn't it? It seems unlikely that most of the people there would have dropped everything to go see one song by a performer that they really like after hearing about it only two-three days before hand. --Opcn (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye Kyle.^img Never use Andy's words against him! Occasionaluse (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Terry is there to *ahem* cover Andy's ass. --PsyGremlinFale! 09:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's never a surprise when a user who contributed productively for months gets blocked after exposing Andy Schlafly's dishonesty (yet again). Only after deftly and bravely showing Andy up does Terry Koeckritz say he was a sock of a blocked user. How is it that in the several hours between Kyle making his last reply to Andy's weird deflection and Terry another path to sweet release did Terry discover what had evaded him for 3 months? Oh right... Any explanation is sufficient on Conservapedia. After all, Kyle must be the sock of a blocked user because he was the one who also showed Terry to be a lying shit in Skype Affair, Conservapedia Edition (not to be confused with Skype Hunt, Wikipedia). Only the sock of a blocked user would bother editing Conservapedia and making a record of Terry's bizarre lies. 16:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You used the word "ass" so are you using "cover" in the equestrian sense as well?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, guys

Do we have to do all of your proofreading for you? While you guys bicker and ban users over crowd estimate sizes, someone might as well correct your egregious grammatical, stylistic, and formatting errors. Seeing as I have no interest in dirtying my sock over this, I wrote a corrected version for you here:

You're welcome, chumps.

Junggai (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As they are the (authortative) ones who teach writing, I believe they simply invent new grammar and spelling on the way. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Grammar for Conservative Words! We speak Conservative American! Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 21:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Teabonics! --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A new conservative word!

"masognistic"^img Jammy (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, use capture bot! It make live easier - at least for me (I'm banned from even reading CP at the moment :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How was any of that news? Were they ranting this much in 2008 or have they gotten worse? - π 22:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell? Seriously? I'm going to be so ashamed of Delaware if she wins. I kinda thought that one of the qualifications to be a senator was a 4th graders understanding of the constitution. --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A TrollKing joint. 99% of what he says and does is obvious attention whoring. Let's revisit that discussion people keep poo pooing about not talking about this monster anymore. 23:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Masochistic + <prefix> gnistic => asking woman to hurt themselves, no? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's "misogyny" not "masochism". I'm guessing TK just misspelled. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But an amusing misspelling. Just need to work out what the meaning is. If "maso" is in reference to "masochistic personality disorder", then is it a reference to self-defeating women. ^bomination 03:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The old fart has some idiosyncratic spelling and editing habits which serve to identify him, even when pretending to be user:NightTrain or user:E.Wig.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

what about user:Oncoming storm? or was that Jinx _{hi Jinx!}? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure OC was jinx. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations - another record-breaking month at Conservapedia

monthly editors at CP

monthly edits at CP

In October 2010, 75 editors made ~3900 edits at Conservapedia: only the very first three month of Conservapedia (Nov 2006, Dec 2006, Jan 2007) saw fewer editors, and only in Nov 2006 and Feb 2007, less edits were made.

top ten editors at CP

all editors in Oct 2010

80% of these edits were made by the busiest 10 editors - with Andy Schlafly leading the pack. Due to the restrictions for new users, the number of edits made by subsequently blocked editors is down to .5 %.

active editors

last ninety days

Without a new publicity stunt by Andy, those numbers are not likely to go up again.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

More good work, as always. I'm wondering, is it possible to split up the edits, between mainspace, talk pages and say, main page right. I'm pretty sure there were very few mainspace edits. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to do that. It just means more work for someone.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

edits per namespace

	Aschlafly	Chippeterson	Conservative	Ed Poor	Joaquín Martínez	Jpatt	Karajou	RobSmith	TK
Main Page Right	244	8	44	8	6	76	24	20	241
Main Page Left	120	0	34	1	10	0	1	68	22
Main Space edits	228img	14img	377img	187img	28img	213img	28img	172img	104img
others	74	4	182	66	24	72	17	25	158

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean we can update Conservapedia:Active_users now?

So if my calculations are correct, there were roughly 1150 edits made in October to 'encyclopedic' content. I wonder how many were of any substance whatsoever. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised there were so many mainspace edits. Ken I can understand - that was his 500 edits to move a comma. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hah, remember a while ago when someone calculated that Wikipedia's content increases by a whole Conservapedia every three days? Good times. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work LArron but does the "other" category included talk-pages?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, "other" includes everything that's not MPR and MPL. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a row for main space edits. Hope this helps. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken's is creepily obsessive^img. That is just, wow, even after we stopped caring, he still works on the same couple "essays". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed

One would have though that this website would have been really nasty but is just incredibly boring.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm too scared to ask why you were searching for weird TK x Jpatt mash-ups. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. *reaches for the Brain Bleach* --Sid (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't searching for both but stumbled across it high up in a Google ranking for JPatt. BTW RW's entry on JPatt is higher than CP's on Google Merseyside.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think our Jpatt article could do with some work. Pratty is such a stupid and nasty man, (as opposed to just being in his own little world like other CPers) that we could add a lot more detail. I'll have a crack at it later.... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Rangers doing fabulously against the homosexual Giants

Although a Texas fan myself, I couldn't help but think of Andy when seeing these results for the first two games of the world series. Was it liberal deceit that caused the Giants to score 7 points in one inning, or was that conservative chivalry in allowing the ladies to win? I'm confused. Junggai (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If San Francisco wins, Andy will just pretend it doesn't matter because it's just sports and real men with real MA-CHEESE-MO don't focus on sports for they are too busy making a difference and the world a better place, or something like that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Never been happier for my Giants, but yeah, for whatever reason, Andy hasn't paid much attention the World Series which, given the fact that the Giants are a much better example of a liburl team than the Yankees would have been pretty funny. Oh well, maybe the Super Bowl will attract his attention. The question is which teams would make for a good old fashion conservative vs. liberal battle? The SF 49ers don't have a chance and while the NE Patriots are in liberal "free health-care" land, their name kinda ruins it. Maybe a Obama's home team the Bears would be a good match up against the honest conservative Houston Texans. --Have Blue (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Texas beat the homosexual agenda.^img lets just ignor the fact that they're down 2 games to 1. --Thunderstruck (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I know it's you-know-who trolling his nipples off, but Baghdad-by-the-Bay? Really? Could he make CP look anymore idiotic? --PsyGremlinHable! 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And after tonight's magnificent shutout, it's 3 games to 1. ħuman 06:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And now it's over, 4-1. The only game that mattered to CP will have been the lone win by the Rangers? Is that how sports reporting works now? F'ing moron(s). ħuman 04:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

US baseball results do not usually interest me but when they announced it on the radio sports report over breakfast this morning, I gave a great big grin. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Baghdad-by-the-Bay"

Does calling San Francisco "Baghdad-by-the-Bay" make any sense at all? Even by CP's logic? Beyond "both are cities conservatives don't like", I can't see any logic, and even in CP-world, isn't Baghdad supposed to be a paradise after the fall of Saddam Hussein? MDB (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see that's a term coined by SF-based columnist Herb Caen, to reference the city's multi-cultural, exotic nature.

I doubt that's how TK meant it, though. He probably just heard it somewhere and thought it was derogatory. MDB (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot on MDB, TK has no creativity so like all the cliches he parrots he read or heard it elsewhere. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No comment

62 08:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's just based on pageviews. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm also fairly sure that in last year's list, they left CP out, but there was a comment about "we forgot about them, but if thay had been included, they would have been ranked 45th." So a big slide down the rankings there. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Found it- under notes in the March 2010 listing, so that's a big drop. Also, no mention in the Sept, Aug, Jan 2010 listings. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Irony

Does anyone else find it ironic that CP puts up a story in which they declare that Obama is in "Bunker Mode" only hours after CP declares itself (with the advent of having to ask Andy nicely for an account), what I like to refer to, 'the Fortress Island Nation of Conservapedia'? Carlaugust (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious, really: Hitler had a bunker, but he never had a fortress. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

FINCs! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Vote for us so we can take away your abillity to vote for us. Unsurprisingly, no anger from TK. Maybe because it isn't about "Liberals" and the "Second Amendment". --Thunderstruck (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly had no idea that this was even an issue. Also: doesn't this seem to conflict with Andy's obsession with recall? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Andy was arguing that the fact states use to have more control over there senators as a reason why recall is permissible. - π 00:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say, that's the most interesting and unbiased things I've read on Conservapedia. I hadn't heard about candidates wanting to repeal the 17th amendment and it doesn't strike me as obviously stupid (nor obviously wise). More importantly, CP editors actually describe the opposing view without ridicule. Phiwum (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have heard about the seriously mentally ill who would repeal the 17th Amendment, but I think even Terry Koeckritz recognizes that repeal of the 17th is an extreme reactionary position, tantamount to repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act (whoops! - 2001) or more realistically, bringing back the Electoral College 1790's-style and have only a few hundred men pick the President... However sad he might be, he's not stooped that low. Plus, if you repeal the 17th, why not repeal the 16th (income tax), 19th (women's voting rights), or the 14th? Blue (pester) 03:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard some teabaggers say that the 14th and 16th should go too. As for the 19th, a good woman will be at home in a blue and white gingham dress baking bread and far too busy to vote. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter has never directly called for repealing the 19th Amendment (to my knowledge) but she has said several times that women shouldn't vote. MDB (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a furriner I am confused about why they believe so strongly in the constitution and its ammendments (especially the second) but then selectively want to get rid of the ones they don't like. They'd never do that with the Bible, would they? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Amending the constitution isn't seen as unpatriotic because it was made to be amended. This includes repealing earlier amendments. I don't see any particular hypocrisy in this case.

I haven't given any thoughts to the repeal of the 17th Amendment, but I think I understand their motivation. State governments seem to have lost a lot of power over the decades and perhaps such a repeal would bring some control back to the state gov't level (at the loss of control in the electorate). It seems like an interesting idea to me, but perhaps I am too ignorant to see why it's obviously a bad thing. Phiwum (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Read up on why the 17th was passed. And while you're at it, make a userpage, the red burns mine eyen. Blue (pester) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Amending the constitution isn't seen as unpatriotic" ORLY? You must not have been listening to the right idiots, which is strange because they're pretty fucking loud where I come from. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not. But in recent years, there's been talk of anti-flag burning amendments (you know, to counter the raging epidemic of flag burning) and an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Perhaps these are from different right-wingers than the ones you hear. Phiwum (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The people I'm talking about don't exactly understand what "amendment" means in the first place. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we think of some other ammendments conservatives would be better off without. im thinking the First and Eighth for starters. --Thunderstruck (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

4th, 8th, 16th, 23rd, 24th Tyrannis^{An Iron, but caring, fist} 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Have any of the amendments ever been amended? Bondurant (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, but the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th (Prohibition). The post Civil War 14th Amendment in effect applied the Bill of Rights to the States. The 20th, 21st, 22nd and 25th kind of expand on the 12th (Presidential elections.) MDB (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)