Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive208

This is an archive page, last updated 28 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>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <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)

That's some great work there, TK.

Catching this bit of vandalism^img so quickly after three full months. DarkStar (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd. ^EXTERMINATE 23:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But TK still missed one^img. It was up to "JulesBongo" to fix it. Jules will no doubt be punished for this, the way all sane and helpful people are. Gauss (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He needs just one more excuse.^img - π 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy and quantum mechanics---the insanity never ends

So we have Jesus is a particle, the Holy Spirit is a wave, and that's how quantum mechanics works^img. Uhhh, Andy, most Christians believe that the Holy Trinity has three entities (Latin 'tres') and "wave particle duality" has two (Latin 'duo'.) We're looking forward to "wave-particle-something triality". Niels Bohr obviously didn't read the bible enough. Gauss (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Richard Dawkins was asked about quantum mechanics and the Trinity. Basically, the concept of the Trinity can be as unintuitive and confusing as anything in quantum mechanics, so why not consider it? His response is good. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

God is a warticle--216.67.39.3 (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Very few people properly understand what wave-particle duality means. So saying that Andrew "relativity is a liberal conspiracy" Schlafly doesn't understand it just simply isn't news. ^narchist 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have spent 33 years trying to work that one out. All I got was a vision on acid of a bubbling, resonating "thing" which was neither. Which is my answer. 'Tis more than both, and encompasses both. The wave and the particle are both macroscopic human observations of reality, which we struggle to use to understand processes far beyond or beneath our level of perception. ħuman 03:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Irish bail-out (redux)

Ireland has publicly confirmed earlier speculation, and is taking a €100bn loan from the ECB, or about €22,222 for each man, woman and child. I wonder how long it will take TK to correct CP's borken 'news'? CS Miller (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry

Just for the record, the "prolific chemistry contributor" was emphatically NOT me. I don't operate any socks on CP. The chemistry on CP isn't that bad, actually. It's not particularly good or extensive, but it's not riddled with the same crap as other things. Perhaps when Schlafly has finished with relativity he'll start on how atoms don't exist and are just a liberal conspiracy. ^narchist 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ADK, it is obvious that you have been brainwashed into liberal beliefs such as gun control, censoring prayer and atoms. By teaching that atoms exist, atheistic public schools teach children that god uses building blocks and doesn't just make shit happen. This denigrates the role of god in Creation, and leads to mental illness and suicide in people between the ages of 24 and 30 with 95% certainty. ^EXTERMINATE 18:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to accuse chemicals of being liberal. Some of the chemistry articles are parody, of course. Broccoli (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You forget, this is a man who thinks Medieval liberals corrupted the Bibbel, and the space/time continuum only exists to stop people reading the Bibbel. After all, Sodium & Chlorine are both poisonous, so how can salt be made from them? More people believe they're poisonous than believe 2+2=4. Deny that and lose all credibility. On another note, my first CP sock had fun (well, I got bored) fiddling with the numbers in the periodic table. They're still there, from a glance, look you boyo. --Ψ GremlinTal! 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

LanthanumK wasn't me either. Some of the chemistry articles are indeed parody (in addition to what Psygremlin noted above), and LK would probably have found them before long. Too bad. Much of the decent chemistry material was contributed by ElizabethK, another sysop casualty, and not related to her cousin Lanth. Gauss (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't me either, as I have lost all most interest in CP. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 02:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That entire talk page on the pros/cons is a delight. This is awesome:

Point 4: You say you've learned things in chemistry from Wikipedia. Fine, but Wikipedia has no contemporary lectures with assignments and tests, grades no homework, and is typically not concise as required for education. We are all those things, and more. [Schlafly]

"Here at Conservapedia, we tell children the Earth moves around the Sun. There is no point in delving into all that nonsense about how." Let's not forget that books are useless, too. Basically, Andy is an innovator because he wants to return to oral tradition as the primary method to pass down knowledge. Interesting! --Leotardo (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as conservatism has a mlarge dollop of "do as I say" stirred into it, it's not that surprising. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So "Often students who are good in organic chemistry will struggle in inorganic chemistry, and vice-versa." is parody/vandalism? Because that is pretty dumb. ^narchist 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, I've noticed an absolute clanger in the atom article. I won't say explicitly what it is since we're not supposed to out vandalism, but you'd need to be pretty knowledgeable to spot it. It's subtle. ^narchist 20:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that subtle, but they'll never find it. It's the kind of clanger that would seriously mislead a genuine student and even cause him to fail some of the first homeworks I remember from my intro chem class back in highschool. But then you'd have to have a screw loose to believe Conservapedia is a real educational resource. On a completely unrelated note, I find TeacherEd's smugness really inspiring. More kudos to whoever's running him. Not-so-subtle stuff like the 120 year lifespan nonsense that someone called him on is what CP is all about. Nothing like reinforcing biblical literalism based on really clear and discredited misreadings that only fundies adhere to. Cheers. 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, my dear Watson larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Obsessive thinking

Who says Ken lacks self awareness^img? --Horace (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Or was that just one of his deletion and recreation things? --Horace (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Obsessively deleting and recreating the article on obsessive thinking. I would like to think its his attempt at a joke...Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Kenny's not worth a WIGO anymore, but at least now we know^img what he was getting at with this latest bit of weirdness. DarkStar (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, he's no longer WIGO-worthy, he's overplayed his hand with his theatrics. But this I really enjoyed because it's a list he created to prove RationalWikians are obsessed with CP, and to create that list he had to evidence that he obsessively reads RationalWiki. --Leotardo (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't down to my last sock I would love to go onto the talk page and ask "where can we see people who suffer from this terrible affliction"? DarkStar (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken reverted Andy once he got the picture loaded. It's of a beautiful lab that symbolizes RationalWiki, gnawing on the gross gnarled bone of a dead animal, which symbolizes Conservapedia (hee!) Then some Hitler photos thrown in to continue with his...<yawn>....usual theatrics. --Leotardo (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And to top it all, Ken affirms "The word machismo and the phrase Olé! Olé! Olé! are trigger words that can greatly exacerbate the symptoms of Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder". With his matador photo. Poor Ken. JJ4e^talk 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We have made the front page!

Ken

celebrates 4 years of CP with a thinly veiled swipe at the site that must not be namedimg. - π 10:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ARRRGGGHH IT MAKES ME FURIOUS!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's next delusion.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a Conservapedia: namespace page or a subpage of this page, called "Andy's next delusion," and we could vote them up or down. For example, Look at the State Churches section here. Andy is only one jump away from a long and bloated essay about "Free Market Christianity" - Lots of competing denominations vs. "Socialised Christianity" - State churches. What do you think? ^EXTERMINATE 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that scans MPR? It could look for (what Andy perceives to be) ad-homs such as "liberal", "atheist" or "homosecksyooal", followed by a search for whichever word (excluding "the", "and" etc) appears most often within recent entries. Take the two most commonly used ad-homs followed by whichever word appears most and see what we get. "Muslim, criminal Pelosi"? "Lamestream homosexual Facebook"? Of course, we'd need to manually "retire" certain words, or else every trend the script would come up with would forsee a delusion about a homosexual, atheist Obama.
Oh, and I just noticed - ipads automatically capitalize Obama - Liberal Apple must support abortion, affirmative action and the clubbing of baby seals.121.218.212.153 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll bet it doesn't auto-capitalize "bush", revealing its liberal double standard. @The bot idea, sounds fun if we have any idle scripters to take a swing at it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Bush wasn't a real Scotsman Conservative...after he was out of power. --Kels (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

True, nobody could say a word against him while he was pres. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy - UK Expert

This^img is another lovely example of Andy talking without knowing the first thing about what he's saying. "Britain has no constitutional right of free speech": well we don't have a constitution, so that's technically correct. However, article 10 section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." and that's part of British law.

"There are laws prohibiting some criticisms of the king or queen" - no there aren't.

"[T]ruth is not a recognized defense" - yes it is. Even though our libel laws are crap, they aren't quite that crap.

So I'll use my freedom of speech and say "Fuck off Andy you ignorant pillock". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I submit that as long as this is permitted to remain in effect, there is no guarantee of free speech in the U.K. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. There has and always will be certain types of speech that are exempt from any free speech law. Hate speech simply isn't protected speech in the UK. Sensible enough. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. That is not actually a law against hate speech, but a law against blasphemy. And even if it were not, it is not a legitimate "exemption," since the whole purpose of free-speech guarantees was to protect expression of all viewpoints. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or does this not kinda totally destroy the whole vitriol that's being put against this act:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

That's a direct quote from the Act. If this law has been misapplied by ignoring the fact this passage is in the Act, as your page on it seems to indicate has possibly happened, then what you should be complaining about is the incompetence of the prosecution in those cases, and/or the incompetence of the defence by not pointing this out, not the Act itself. 92.7.62.227 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am against the entire Act as a violation of the principle of free speech. Such violations have been shown in the past to be particularly susceptible to abuse. That being said, the two cases cited in the article do not actually fall under the scope of the exceptions: the hoteliers were criticizing the person who founded the religion in question rather than the religion itself, and the Gateshead youths were torching the Qu'ran. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

well, gosh. I hope you're extending your principled objection to other such clear violations. Did you know your own country has laws against treason and espionage? Such a horrible violation of free speech! Quick, get outraged! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Hence, I think you are confusing treason with sedition. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He probably is, but the same kind of judge that can make burning your own copy of a holy book not an "expression of insult" can no doubt count "I sent a donation to an Islamic school which turns out to support actual bloody Jihad" as "comfort to the enemy". Our liberty always is trusted more in good judges than in good laws. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically the UK does have a constitution, it just doesn't have an identifiable written document which enshrines that constitution. Americans often think this is a really important distinction, but in practice whether in the US or UK you end up with judges looking at secondary documents, as they did for example in the "recall" cases CP cared so much about. The mechanisms don't matter much (in the UK a thin government majority in two houses could hypothetically throw out the ECHR, in the US it would require a larger majority and also ratification by the states to do away with the First Amendment) because in the end you have to make it possible to change the rules, all the rules, or else your only way to adapt to changing circumstance is revolution. That's democracy's only clear win - bloodless transitions of power. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

An eager editor originally added Andy's crap from elsewhere. Jpratt questioned its truthiness. Andy didn't approve of the the answer because he has to have the last word when it comes to adding crap. Auld Nick (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you ready Andy? I shall now educate you to the level of a UK high schooler, Britain has a constitution, it's a non-codified constitution, but it does exist. Also freedom of speech is guaranteed by the European Union, and the laws they pass automatically supersede those, past and future, from the individual member nations. This simple failure to have the first bit of expertise about the things you opine about like an expert is why parodists are running rampant on your blog which is the laughing stock of the internet. Even your beloved tea baggers aren't joining en masse, you ever wonder why? -- Iscariot (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What is really ironic here is that a good deal of U.S. law is actually based in English common law. Mr. Schlafly, J.D., Esq., should know this. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Couple of clarifications needed: We have a constitution, even a written constitution, what we don't have is a codified written constitution. We have freedom of speech (although the blasphemy laws are an abomination that need to be changed), but we don't have the freedom to say whatever the hell we like, a distinction that Americans seem almost genetically incapable of grasping. We pretty much say that freedom of speech ends with defamation, or engage in any speech that can reasonably be expected to end in violence, which means that we may express any views we have on any religion as long as we don't cross that line (e.g. I can call the Catholic Church an institution of kiddie-fiddlers and sympathisers, I'm not allowed to say: "Right lads, burn down the churches and lynch the paedos"). We can say whatever the hell we like about the Royal Family, and have enjoyed that freedom for a lot longer than most people think.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy is of course full of shit. However, there is a genuine issue of English libel laws being too restrictive and being abused to silence critism. You can read about it further here. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, it's certainly a case that the libel laws are being abused, but the keyword there is abused. Judges in the UK have huge discretion in how to read how a law should apply, frankly a lot of the libel problems could be corrected by instructions from the top on how the libel laws should be interpreted. The fact that there hasn't been any such instruction seems to indicate that the current libel laws are a good money maker for the UK. If that is the case then don't expect to see any changes soon.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a further note, I think, though I may be wrong, freedom of speech would come under the negative rights of the rule of law as expounded in Entick vs Carrington, as in "you can say anything the law doesn't explicitly tell you you can't say", which for practical purposes is just about anything. Not the most convenient source of constitutional law, but it's there. It's also worth pointing out that whilst the libel law has a massive chilling effect in the UK, it's not, as I understand it, concerned with criminal prosecution, the current plight of Mr Sheridan not withstanding.Grumblejaws (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is what 'freedom of speech' has to do with Andy's original claim that American English spellings "developed to a more concise and economical form in America, where there is freedom of speech, than the English used in the monarchies of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where freedom of speech does not exist"?Auld Nick (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's AndyPandy isn't it. The thought-process there is "American-x is different to Whereever-y so American-x must be better and there has to be reason for it and by God, if I can't find one, I'll make one up and declare it a new verse in the Gospel according to Andy". There are Telegraph and Daily Fail readers in the UK who are the same. In their case they see US spelling as being different to UK spelling and ascribe it to a childish desire on the part of Americans to try and pretend they have nothing to do with Britain. The real reason the spellings are different is, obviously, down to the fact that there was no codified system of spelling in English until relatively recently, and in both the UK and the US it was generally the most common form of spelling that got adopted, and that, in turn, was governed a lot by accent.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be so fun to be in a salon with Andy and to tell him off in person in front of people every time he opened his mouth. Or TK or KEn or Ed, Heck even Rob (who bothers to think before he speaks some of the time, and usually has something to say in his own defense)--216.67.39.3 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Entick v Carrington. Not vs. Raeg. Webbtje (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Noah Webster responsible for American-English spelling? According to WP's article on him, he ticks most of Andy's boxes, except he refused to bring God into his text books. CS Miller (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Skim error. His speller was secular, but his American Dictionary was replete with references to god. CS Miller (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Webster was able to deliver some spelling reform to American English. More spelling reform would be useful across English, even including modern American English. But it seems English is very resistant to reformation. Noah got lucky, someone following in his footsteps today should not expect acclaim 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I like this bit: "There are laws prohibiting some criticisms of the king or queen". Somebody should tell the tabloids.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Were that the case, guys like Ben Elton and Eddie Izzard would have been dragged off to the Tower (no, Andy, not London Tower Bridge) ages ago. --Ψ GremlinTala! 12:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Andy doesn't really know the difference between Thailand or the Netherlands (that one surprised me too Wikipedia:Lèse majesté) and the various commonwealth realms. Having said that I wonder if there is still some lèse majesté law in England and Wales which hasn't been directly repealed but would very likely conflict with parts of the constitution or other more recent laws and is never going to be enforced anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Having said that he may be confused with Spain. A couple of years back a newspaper was fined 3,000 euros for making a satirical cartoon of the royal family.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy obviously didn't bother to read the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Section 73. ^EXTERMINATE 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If Steve Bell can get away with this, I think it's pretty safe to say anything about the Royals. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, all 'sedition' laws arise from common law in the UK, and were only applied once after WW2 - in the 1970s, concerning some Northern Irish dissidents, and I think it was thrown out as being outdated and redundant - should probably check that. It was recommended that they be repealed in the late '70s, but nobody cared enough - since they'd been thrown out of court anyway. Anyway, the 2009 act formally did away with any sedition laws, under Section 73. ^EXTERMINATE 13:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed above link which was supposed to be to wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"…I wonder if there is still some lèse majesté law in England and Wales which hasn't been directly repealed but would very likely conflict with parts of the constitution or other more recent laws and is never going to be enforced anyway…" I think that, technically, flying the Royal Standard upside down counts as lèse majesté ('cause it's the pre-eminent flag in the UK and the Commonwealth), but yeah, if such a case were ever taken to court it would promptly be laughed back out again. It's like the archaic Chester law where you're allowed to shoot a Welshman inside the city walls after midnight as long as it's with a crossbow. The law is still extant but you'ld still be prosecuted for murder if you did it. There's a fine old tradition in the UK where if a law is still on the books it can be ignored, as long as the used-to-be House of Lords, now Supreme Court, says that it can be ignored.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite apart from all that, implied repeal - any silly nonsense like that has been 'repealed' by subsequent legislation. Doesn't take the HoL/SC to declare it as such.Webbtje (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, if it is an implied repeal it would be treated as such by the lower courts, but would always be open to appeal until it reached the Supreme Court. It would have to be heard at the CoA, should it be raised, because it ia an appeal based on a technical point of law, and the SC would hear it because the ruling would be a clarification of law of national significance.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Poetry

Let's not forget: we have a CP poetry contest going on. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Pottery? I love pottery! If this is to be believed, I even are a potter! ħuman 03:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Wired people are right; that order-form of yours is a true antique. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fill in our own prices which you will "correct" eh? nice. Is there an RW discount? Real first name and last initial (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have the Perl do the math but it refuses to. I'll have to check the publishing date of my "camel", since I bought it while writing the order form scripts. I got an email from a guy offering to build me a website for $5k... One day I may redo the site as a MW installation, though. I also hear there's this thing called "CSS" some people use to control the look of sites. ħuman 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CSS? Meh. Try Netscape Editor. --164.132.63.102 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New CP Page.

Conservapedia:Andy's next Insight <-- Go, add your predictions and humour, and click arrows. Woo. If it takes off, great. If not, we can scrap it. ^EXTERMINATE 11:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek

I'm confused. I mean, I know we're talking TwinKle and Faux News here,^img but surely in the real world anger at the Obama/Shiva thing should be directed at Newsweek? Ok, I know Faux will criticise Obama for everything, but still. How stupid are people over there? --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Very much so. If you can, try watching the ORLY show. Post response. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 14:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

I see the old art thief posts a supposed "Featured image" of a Bateleur eagle that doesn't exist (even in their article on the Bateleur eagle there is a red link requesting a PD image). So Andy comes to the rescue with a picture of a Bald Eagle which although PD he has copied directly from Wikipedia (what a hypocritical wanker) - he even gives WP as his original source and uses their resized version rather than the Wikimedia Commons original. But the image has nothing to do with anything on Conservapedia. They don't even include it in their own article. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but in Joaquin's world a picture is as good as an article. Plus this saves them the hassle of actually having write something. Conservapedia is just another big pikchure buk for the kiddies. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 15:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's never seen a use on CP that wasn't fair. 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The picture that Andy posted is PD but Joaquin never even bothered to steal the picture. It seems like they're not even trying any more. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Stealing is a liberal trait. When done by conservaloons, it is using for the ultimate glory of the Almighty, and is not stealing. How can God steal from Himself? Jimaginator (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job Rob (seriously)

He took out the propaganda that birthright citizenship (jus soli) was never intended by the Framers of the 14th Amendment out of the cp:Birthright Citizenship article. I studied this issue in law school and read the entire debate. What is cynically comical is that the Senate debate evidences it was obviously intended, but opponents of jus soli often quote the people who didn't win the argument, hoping people will be fooled that 150 years of birthright citizenship has all along been a big mistake. Everyone from the Supreme Court to Congress has said it was intended (you can read that history from the Congressional Research Office here if you care). I do, however, think it's a valid debate to discuss whether it should continue. I believe it should, but I think the other side has a valid view. It's not the debate I don't like, it's the lies. --Leotardo (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Out of the CP cabal, Rob is arguably the only one deserving of respect. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Occasionaluse. Rob can be quite polite, when you are polite to him. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Rob is great.KaraDuhe 22:28, 18 November 2010

"nobs" (obviously your parents were unbelievers to give you such a pagan name), lack of Bible reading is so prevalent among Canadians that Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to bury the connection. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you're "sources" are ungrammatical, so clearly you're against Conservapedia. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that a larger tax cut for the wealthy stops crime. You can whine all you want, but public schools don't teach that vandalism is wrong, and our criminal justice system does not care whether you learned that in school or not. The truth is available from this site for those who seek it. In Christ.--Aschlafly 11:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Rob is a dangerously unhinged paranoid maniac and a habitual liar. Ace^{word up} 22:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct Ace, but everything's relative, so in the world of CP Knobs is a decent guy. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In the world of the world Rob's a dangerously unhinged paranoid maniac and a habitual liar. Stalin'd be a decent guy on CP. 22:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Rob is generally a jackass, but he definitely deserves more respect than the rest of the pansies at CP because he's not afraid to defend his views and confront criticism. And he *did* remove this propaganda. So, three cheers for you, Rob, ya jackass ;-) --Leotardo (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't. He is as bad as the rest of them if not worse. Ace^{word up} 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rob doesn't defend himself, he spends all his time here talking in non sequiturs and poisoning the well. - π 23:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Rob is a paranoid maniac, rather he's so pent up with ludicrous anger against those with differing views that he has no qualms about taking deceit to astonishing levels to make false claims against the likes of Obama. The question is, what is worse; Someone who is a dangerously unhinged paranoid maniac (several other CP sysops spring to mind), or someone like Robbie who is prepared to knowingly appear as such in order to attack people? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

He is a liar who is more than happy to deliberately distort the truth in order to shill for his bizarre ideas. Someone who is so willing to put a straight face to known bullshit deserves no respect. Ace^{word up} 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it Rob that continually defended his "news" item that Krugman blamed the oil spill on Obama even though the very first sentence says the exact opposite and still defended it after being shown that? He's either a complete liar even when caught or a propagandist. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RobS is a liar who resorts to confusion tactics when challenged. That's it. I have no idea why people would think him better than the other idiots at CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, people, get some perspective. It would be pretty pointless, were we in hell's ice cream parlour, to debate the relative merits of their "pig vomit" and "bat shit" flavours. Junggai (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'll stick by my cheers because the birthright citizenship issue was one I studied on my own outside of class, so I have a special place in my heart (next to the liberal deceit) for people who engage the debate honestly, as Rob did here. It's rare on CP that anyone removes conservative lies. Tomorrow I'll go back to not liking him. --Leotardo (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not sure why we're even arguing relative awfulness here. If I were to rank the CP sysops in terms of how purely vile they are, Rob would be near the top. He's a gleefully malicious liar with a long track record of posting defamatory statements about people and groups he doesn't like. He enjoys hurting people (or trying to, at least) and seems almost proud of it. And as far as defending his views? Look at any debate in which he's participated here. When his facts crumble, he either lies some more or smears someone else. The fact that he was honest once doesn't undo that. He doesn't deserve one dry ounce of respect and the fact that anyone here thinks he does is a sure sign that Stockholm Syndrome is setting in. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 00:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I love Stockholm Syndrome. --Leotardo (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let us end the discussion in a way it deserves. You're all talking bollocks, no doubt as a result of the propoganda put pforward by the Peuce Psuedo-Pastatariat movement of our Lizard Overlords. Wibble.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Just to clarify, is it this Rob Smith who's a "decent guy" and "worthy of respect", or this one? I can never keep them sorted out. --Kels (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

At least he has a damn sense of humor, and can even laugh at himself. And he walks with the jackals. That's three things no other CP sysop can claim. The rest is all true, of course. ħuman 04:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So Ed, Ken and Terry haven't come here before, sometimes on a regular basis? Ed seems to at least think he has a sense of humour, although it's about as creepy and forced as everything else he does. --Kels (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They have come here, but never really interacted in a sane or close to it way. And Ed thinks he has a sense of humor. I think Rob has one. ħuman 06:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And what ever happened to Bohdan? I miss that guy. And then there was Fox as well. Though he could be a colossal dick. DickTurpis (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I only left him out because, well, he ain't been at either place for years. I miss him too, he was fun. And a decent prick in our side, the best kind we could have. ħuman 06:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the kind comments. Leotardo, I had no idea how timely this issue was til this morning's newspapers reported this [3] which I, as a lifelong Republican, find distressing. As to the Krugman article, I waited til the other shoe dropped, i.e. the President's response. And the current version of that article, edited by me, reflects that. [4] (In context, Krugman alleged the oil spill was Obama's fault; when the President was questioned about it, he admitted he was to blame for some things. Ratvandals from day one were attempting to distort both the story & the issue before Obama could even respond to legitimate criticism being asked from the usually biased liberal White House Press Corp).

Now, somebody nominate me for Sysop, ok? nobs^{don't bother me} 21:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off Rob. Just fuck off. You've completely proved what several people have said above - and made me look a twat for defending you. Fuck off. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delta, I found his comment to be genuine. What made you feel it was disingenuous? --Leotardo (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Leotardo, he's still claiming that the article says the opposite of what it actually says. Check out the links. Junggai (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullcrap. The current version which reads, "[Krugman] in his regular New York Times column, Conscience of a Liberal wrote a piece entitled "The oil spill is Obama's fault," and stated "that’s not what I believe....", was put it by me. User:Netharian and others comments above simply are uninformed. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In context, Krugman alleged the oil spill was Obama's fault. Recognize that, shit for brains? You just said it, and it's as false now as it has been every other single time you've said it. Your mild hedging in the CP article does not negate the fact that you're still spewing bullshit after all these months. Junggai (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could seem to the casual reader that the primary reason you included this piece was because of its intentionally misleading title. Maybe something he's written in the op-ed could enlighten your readers, but the title was shrewd linkbait for Krugman. It also sort of sticks out because you all don't often use titles with the sources you cite for a sentence (nor do most people). It could be seen as disingenuous given the strange role it plays in the article. I think that's Junggai's point. --Leotardo (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"...it's painfully obvious to any reader who's read your past work that the primary reason you included this piece was because of its intentionally misleading title." Fixed that for you. --Kels (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I'll summarize what Rob has been doing, and why I keep calling bullshit on him:

April 20, 2010: Deepwater Horizon blows up, spewing oil.

One week later: Spill becomes worse than anyone imagined. Krugman writes an article called "The Oil Spill is Obama's Fault," where he expressly does not blame Obama, rather attacks the predictability of the media, which he says in the coming days will for sure falsely blame Obama for the oil spill, just as Bush had been rightly blamed for Katrina.

The Next Day: The right-wing media blames Obama for the oil spill. Obama responds to criticism by admitting that he maybe should have done some things differently. RobS writes a spectacular, fact-free article in which he claims that even the liberal Krugman blamed Obama for the spill.

The Following Days and Weeks: RobS's bullshit gets WIGOed. He comes here to defend himself with his usual "nothing to see here" tactics, then changes his article to mention that Krugman claimed not to agree with the statement expressed in the title of his article, but leaves it in the article, with its title displayed prominently as evidence that criticism of Obama was bipartisan.

Yesterday: Nobs comes back here, claiming that in context, Krugman alleged the oil spill was Obama's fault, even though that was never true, but attacking us for misrepresenting his CP article.

That's what I meant. Junggai (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Rob has a mental disability which prevents him from grasping basic logic. Mocking him for it is a bit like making fun of a retarded child for not understanding long division. DickTurpis (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See wp:Wikipedia:Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [bolden in original]. Cannot think of a better of WP:V than Krugman's NYT piece. And read the cited Presidential New Conference transcript. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "verifiability" means that you make a statement one can check up on, hence the terms "verifiably true" and "verifiably false." At WP, if you make a verifiably false insertion, then it will get edited out. You tell me, Rob, which one of these two is your use of Krugman? Junggai (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Whereas the threshold for inclusion in andy's wingnut blog is any one of "any old shit I think of and if you disagree youll be blocked", "Lets lie through our teeth about Obama and block anyone who tries to insert a modicum of truth into our lies" or "all liberals are by definition liars so its ok to lie about them despite that creating the logical trap of us being continually proven liars and hence by our own definition liberals" and more. Seriously, do you REALLY think that verifiability is a worse threshold than the kind of crap that assfly comes out with in his counter examples to relativity and biblical foreknowledge? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaks to Rob

Rob, do you find this intellectually honest? Do you think this Alaska election shows the will of the whole of Alaska (as best can be discerned by those who voted) to be for Mukowski? Do you think it's good for the "tea party brand" what Joe Miller is doing here? Is it hard for tea party and christian right conservatives to think that Murkowski's win is validated as the will of the whole of Alaska, and that ultimately respecting--if not cherishing--the will of the people is what conservative values are all about? If you agree with that principle, then you can't just agree with it when it fits your own views. A principle spans politics, it has roots that can't be twisted. --Leotardo (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no, shades of grey. Miller was the GOP primary winner, however state law allows for a write-in (some states do not, but it is argueable this is one of the clearest expressions of democracy). As to Tea Party Brand, this is illustrative how Palin is somewhat of anti-GOP establishment rogue. She ran against the Stevens-Murkowski GOP machine; she raised taxes on big oil. And in this election (as in the O'Donell, Angle, Rand Paul and elsewhere elections) we can't preclude Democratic crossover votes in the GOP nominating parties. Remember how Nadar & the Greens were really GOP stooges, or how GOP crossovers voted for Jesse Jackson in Democratic primaries in 1984. The idea being, to produce the weakest candidate available (this may be how Alvin Greene won in the Dem SC primary). I think tea partiers & christian righties respect valid wins and the decision of thier fellow citizens, even when it's flawed and potentially disasterous. Such is democracy. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be missing one important point here. Yes, Rob is dishonest and is incapable of giving a direct reply to a question. However, is it (as in the discussion above) really worth it. After all, it's not like Rob's publishing this stuff in the MSM (where he'd be laughed out of town), but rather on the 2-bit, second rate blog of a vindictive little failed lawyer that nobody takes seriously.

That alone should tell you just how crucial Rob's "reporting" actually is. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 10:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Leo - and anyone else unfamiliar with the Knobster - check out Conservapedia:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem and its talkpage (particularly here, where Robbie pitches in to defend himself and proves the our point perfectly). You'll soon realise why many of us hold Rob in the regard in which we do. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Fun:Clinton and the Gay Bomb: A play in two acts better; and the Conservapedia talk:RobS's Idiot's Grin Stratagem is pretty good, too. PalMD puts an appearance in in that one. I found a few other good ones that could expand Idiot's Grin with, as well. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes yes but is TK Rob gay?

Just asking. C®ackeЯ

I would say probably not... Ace^{word up} 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not feeding time

So stop feeding the troll. He's like this site's version of Bugler, except we already know his agenda. Stop giving him the gratification of arguing against him. At the end of the day he's knowingly a sysop at a blog site that espouses discrimination on the basis of gender, lifestyle, race and religion and that promotes the very worst form of cherry picked debate and pseudo-science backed with the complete and total censorship of any dissenting voice, rational or otherwise. Here in the UK we have a term for such people, it is 'cunt'. -- Iscariot (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Politcal criticism cannot be met effectively by rational argument." -- Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Rowe, 1942, p. 144.

• "Rob Smith is a stupid cunt." -- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, scene iii

Adoption

Has Andy forgotten the many of those who are 'pro-abortion' tend to support adoption for everyone who will make a fit parent even if they have a 'non-traditional' family rather then only to those who fit his limited definition of family? [1]^img [2]^img Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that anybody who hasn't adopted an unwanted baby needs to shut the fuck up about the abortion debate. Especially if they're pro-life. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the joke from Family Guy: "I'm only interested in protecting foetuses. After they're born they can go f**k themselves". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that for you

So close, DavidE,^img let me fix that for you:

• Conservapedians assume that any book espousing a conservative or Christian position is automatically authoritative and unquestionable.
• Misplacing the burden of proof: Conservapedians insist that things like the Great Flood or Magic Man in the Sky have to be true until they have been conclusively disproved.

You're welcome. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What is strange is the idea that extraterrestrial visitations are accepted as "fact" by "liberals". It could be me though as I read a great deal of skeptic blogs, such as Bad Astronomy, written by folks who are generally liberal and extremely skeptical and dismissive of any alien visitation woo. In fact the idea of alien visitation and abduction is common in conservative Christian circles, expect they simply claim said aliens are really demons, as if that makes the whole phenomena more rational. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Libs are only skeptical of rational things, like the bible. They fall hook, line and sinker for things like aliens and global warming. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The CP definition of "liberal" has almost no meaning whatsoever, beyond "those people we disagree with."--TinOl (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling the thought process for determinig who is "liberal" goes like this at CP-

1. I am conservative

2. I don't like punching kittens.

3. The opposite of conservative is liberal.

4. By (3), liberals are defined as those who like punching kittens.

This is easy to see, because all human characteristics are defined by one unified set of principles and the opposite of those principles. That is why you can't support, for example, both gay rights AND tax cuts. It is the bi-chromatic rainbow of all of human existence. Carlaugust (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan (You are missed!) said it best: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Jimaginator (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence not proof. That was somebody else. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Carlaugust, that train of logic suggests that Andy Schlafly doesn't like punching kittens. And I'm just not sure that's the case. Has he ever specifically denied this? If not I think we have to assume it's true. X Stickman (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about punching kittens, but analing gerbils seems to be his thing. DickTurpis (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys, stop spreading this vicious rumor that Andy punches kittens. It's not true that Andy enjoys going to the pound, rounding up kittens, and punching them, and to suggest otherwise is slander. There is NO PROOF that ANDY SCHLAFLY fills his punching bags with INNOCENT KITTENS, and BEATS IT UNTIL the blood POURS out the seams. To suggest that Andrew Layton Schlafly achieves sexual arousal through beating innocent animals is a cruel thing, and I won't stand for it.

(besides, everybody knows that every time you kill a kitten, god masturbates. don't think andy would approve of that.) 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mystery: Does Andrew Schlafly achieve some kind of perverse sexual gratification whilst torturing small animals? With all of the accusations flying in the internet-political-sphere, it speaks volumes that Mr. Schlafly hasn't specifically denied this claim. Perhaps even he cannot bring himself to lie in public? More to come later. X Stickman (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, good old-fashioned right-wing, "just asking questions..." ^EXTERMINATE 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be irresponsible not to ask! --Kels (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘And don't forget, CP compared Obama to Hitler when he opposed animal cruelty. I think we're on to something here, folks.

And for that matter, has Andy ever said where he was \in 1990 when Glenn Beck is accused of raping and murdering a fifteen year old girl?

And has he proven he wasn't on the grassy knoll in Dallas 47 years ago yesterday? MDB (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would have made him a fucking deadly one-year-old. Defensive weapon of poopy nappy maybe? Hey! Just realised Andy's the same age as my sister and she's also a cantankerous old bitch. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Has he proven he was born in 1962? He could be keeping himself preternaturally young by regularly consuming the blood of virgins (just like Dick Cheney does). MDB (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?! ^EXTERMINATE 12:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that, because I would have sprayed it over my laptop screen. Dalek wins an internet. MDB (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd loudly when I read that. Quality post. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's spinning logo thing on MPL

looks stupid. It was bothering me so much I couldn't resist saying something. Please carry on. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean, maybe if it fucking spun in a full circle or something, but the way it is right now is just straight up retarded. Why the hell does it only spin half way? What's the point? WHY IS IT SO BIG!? Ugh Senator Harrison (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it so fucking difficult to make a .gif spin in a complete circle and not make it so fucking big? FFS I can't wait for it to go away! Senator Harrison (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What's most vexing is that the background is black. They might as well make a border of words around it that says "THIS IS A FUCKING GIF!! LOOK AT IT!! LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT IT IS FROM THE REST OF THE BACKGROUND! AAARRRRGGH!!" Carlaugust (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, it has finally happened: Conservapedia now has the technological capabilities of a late 90s middle school. Next there will be poorly rendered MIDI files that'll automatically play The Star-Spangeled Banner each time you load a page. May the Lord have mercy on our souls. Doppelheuer (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec, you bastard, you made the same points) That gif looks like it would feel right at home on a circa 1997 geocities page. Where's the sparkling-star background and the cheap midi music? I mean, if you're gonna take the geocities approach, at least do it properly. 60.229.239.51 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This just in: It looks exactly the same. – Nick Heer 05:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing how many don't change that much. - π 10:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That gif dates back to ages ago, was made by a homskollar as a new potential logo, then never improved upon. It's all they've got. ħuman 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, their current logo is the same 3d model, from the looks of it. -- Nx / talk 12:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite the same. The static logo has white/grey writing but the text on the spinning eyesore is overlaid with the stars and stripes. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. -- Nx / talk 12:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if you're going to be stupid enough to call them the same when they aren't, it obviously needs someone to point such things out to you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone make them a new one that actually looks like it was conceived in this millennium. It'll also invalidate their 'atheist liberals don't do charity' point at the same time, because they clearly need the help. -- Iscariot (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they're waiting for Geo 'Master of Photoshop' Plrd to make them a new logo. It should be at least as awesome as the medals he created. In other news, that GeoCities pages is wrong... where's the yellow "under construction" tag? --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ken looks fetch in his chainmail bikini, but I think this geocitization does them better justice. Hateboy (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That geoshittization is not going away... The horror replays over and over whenever I close my eyes :( Please, gods, make it stop! -- 18:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about MPL, I like how Ken's skillful editing^img turned the iconic bald eagle into a symbol of "neurotic liberal obsession". Röstigraben (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, he has wiped away Andy's "Featured image" header. This is a classic symptom of why CP is doomed - nobody is left who gives a shit about cleaning up other people's pet projects or doing "menial" housekeeping. Anybody who cared about the quality of the site rather than the monolithic dogma has been banned. Now, like George Bush, they have to clean up their own dog poop. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I loved the symbology. The more it turns to the right the more unreadable and thin it becomes. It can only straighten itself out by turning back to the left. Well done.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the awesome new essay^img, Rösti. I especially like the panic buttons. The knobs that Ken spends his days playing with are not the knobs of women. Hateboy (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

<obligatory lame joke>"Knobs of not women" or "not knobs of women"? </obligatory lame joke> [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that link capturing device for ya. Now MPL features a man's alleged mental sickness written by the dude with some other mental sickness. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not even Andy reads CP

I love when they put duplicate headlines^img within a few headlines of each other.^img Really confirms that no one cares. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how the Dear Leader deleted the one he didn't write, which was the more informative one. It took Uncle Moonie to plump up Andy's a bit and it took TK to fix its inaccuracy. --Leotardo (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Without further ado, Conservapedia Day awards.

(don't forget to unsticky after Nov 21 or so)

Open for nominations and category discussion!!!

Forum:2010 Conservapedia Day Awards

Dalek (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Santa Syndrome

Perhaps^img it's time for Andy to "do teaching writing" again. Hey, Terry Koeckritz, I'll show you atheists can be charitable and offer to teach a basic course in writing in coherent English to avoid such embarrassments in the future. -- Iscariot (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a screen shot for prosperity. Ace^{word up} 21:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Too late Kenny boy, we already have copies. -- Iscariot (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Parody couldn't be much better. Since nearly the whole planet has been range-blocked the few remaining editors now have to add parody themselves because no one else can do it for them. Auld Nick (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do we help them cleaning up the wiki again? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Same reason you open the window to let the fly out after it's been bashing into it mindlessly for the last hour. There's something almost adorable about their single minded determination to fail that you can't help but lend a helping hand. X Stickman (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

... I don't let the fly out after it bangs into the glass window/door for the last several hours (they usually are accounted for in the ways of... natural losses). They usually don't last that long anyways. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I normally spray the buggers so they die. Are you hinting at euthanasia for Andy? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 08:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We could try prayer. That would work!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Boss

I love it. No matter how much we try and push the insanity envelope over at Andy's latest insight, he always manages to out-crazy us.^img Yes, Andy. The Boss never sang a Vietnam protest song, because he knew Obama's dirty little secret.

Could it get any more insane? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 09:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like the "over-the-hill" tag. After all, we all know what happens when aged celebrities won't shut up. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The paranoia is amazing. Truly amazing. Step back and just think, "Imagine meeting somebody who could hear Bruce Springsteen's choice of songs for an event, and take it as confirmation of a conspiracy theory they believe." Wow. ^EXTERMINATE 10:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he's so over the hill and past it that no gop'er ever wants to use Born in the USA and no republican ever listens to it.Oldusgitus (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As act of revenge, Andy tried to ruin the song^img. Glenn Beck tried also when he decided to actually listen to the lyrics and *shock* it wasn't exactly the right-wing patriot song he seemed to think it was. --Night Jaguar (talk)

Springsteen left BitUSA out of the Superbowl, but he included 'Born to Run' (which is hardly complimentary) and 'Working on a Dream' which was a reflection of his optimism about Obama. He's not a conservative, get over it. Reagan et. al. used Born in The USA as some kind of anthem for a while before they got a slapping. So Conservatives have a slightly mixed record when it comes to the Boss. And as for being over the hill, he is in his sixties and still regularly performs full-on concert of 3+ hours. I'll shut up now cos I'm liable to get a bit ranty. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My dad first saw Bruce Springsteen in the 70s and last saw him in 2009, I think. Loves him, certainly one of the few performers who're still great with age. ^EXTERMINATE 10:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the Bush the Elder campaign that tried to use BitUSA as a campaign song, egged on the George Will, who really should have known better. They stopped when Bruce said "Don't vote for that fuckin' Bush." MDB (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am always glad to see what he posts because it seals it that he will never, ever attain elected office. And Andy wonders why he came in fifth in his Virginia campaign for the House? Ha ha - let's see him do another campaign where he has to run against "books" and "music". Even if Ken deletes all the history of CP, capturebot ensures the campaign issues. So, let's just enjoy watching Andy live out on CP what a miserable failure he is. --Leotardo (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This explains why Andy lets his sycophants go around the internet stealing copyrighted material, he sees it as a conservative tradition started by Reagan and Bush. -- Iscariot (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If the shoe fits the cat...

I'm not the brightest spark, but even this level of moronic flies right under me. Here is my understanding of a passage wherein Ken engages somebody^img who will likely ignore him for very good reasons:

Hi. I just threw a shoe at a cat. I made it yelp because it fit the cat...I mean the cat yelped at the shoe I threw at it...because it fit the cat you see...if the shoe didn't fit the cat it would have yelped anyway because I threw it, right?...but the cat didn't like having the shoe fit, understand? That's why I threw the shoe at the cat...it yelped, not because I threw the shoe but because the shoe fit the cat...anyway the cat yelped. I declare victory! --Brendiggg (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume it's Ken masturbating furiously over Jpatt's talk page, because we once again WIGOd his drivel. Ken gives a whole new meaning to OCD. And stupidity. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 12:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Does he not know the difference between "hit" and "fit"? And when do cats yelp? Dogs yes, cats no.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank the gods. I thought I was the only one who didn't get WTF he was on about. -- 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a personal ban on writing Ken WIGOs, and I vote all that get put up down. He craves attention too much. His buffoonery is at a point that I find uninteresting. It's degrading to write about the silly shit he puts up, like critiquing a website for second-graders who post their 9/11 art. I'm just glad he exists, because more than all of us combined he is a living example of CP's low intellectual standards. --Leotardo (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I second that. TK and Ken both edit CP in order to get their jollies from our reaction. I say boycott both the buggers, if only because it'll drive them to ever-greater feats to try and win back our attention. --Ψ GremlinTala! 16:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I..I, man that statement of his doesn't even make sense. As for Ken

WIGOs, I tend to agree.  At first I found them humorous and WIGO-worthy but soon his ever growing number of atheist "essays" became increasingly boring, as they are all just the same jumbled paragraphs re-written along with a new animal picture.  That last "essay", "Conservapedia disorder", was written as an obvious desperate cry for our attention; probably because we are the only ones who give him any attention.  As one can plainly witness, the rest of the Interent, indeed even the CP administrators, have taken to ignoring him. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh...Terry?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GCEFWU75SMW7PPTUMLDSRSUWZI/profile^img Member since 1999? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pwned. Is this the TK we know and love? What will Ken think? The Ken-TK relationship just became even funnier. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it could have been someone out to get him 11 years ago. Although it does sound like him and so many of these zealots have a darkside as black as night. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like CPMonitor was on it months ago. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now you've outed him, does this mean we can officially talk about how much of a weirdo TK is for hanging out at homophobe central? I wonder if he has gay bowel syndrome? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the CPMonitor post ages ago, but nobody seems to be commenting on the big issue: TK has a middle initial??? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"HOT young guys who know what they want and will take charge to get it! Young, hung, cut, TOP and smooth are favorites of mine. Surfers, military, skaters & punks." Wow! Terry and I have the same turn-ons! --Leotardo (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It's confirmed by his hotmail account posted on his user page. When I say it in my head it's "TERRY. FUCKING. KOECKRITZ." Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Ghod, no, TK is one of "the family". I feel so dirty. MDB (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

We've always known these conservative gay creeps exist. Look at wp:Roy Cohn or wp:Ted Haggard or wp:Ken Mehlman or wp:George Rekers or Andy's brother John Schlafly, amongst many others. This isn't a strange situation for him to believe the bile he spews on CP and also be a submissive gay man. It's quite believable. --Leotardo (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Using his own full name sounds to dumb...
• Probably he was annoying people even back then in 1998

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly helps to answer some of the lingering questions about TK. It seems like power is his kink in a major way. Both people having it over him, and him having it over them. That jibes pretty well with the TK persona we've come to know and, et, know from CP. It doesn't help answer the broader question of whether TK actually has some ideological agreement with the Schlafly brand of crazy or if he's just the troll to end all trolls. In fact, it even further muddies the waters on that front. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Andrew Schlafly would never dare admit that he’d let a nasty homosexual slip into his holy of holies" (from CPmonitor). Now THAT is a mental image burned forever more into my brain. On a less dirty and more constructive note, I still think TK is a troll. The only way he could actually be on board with CP ideology is if he were loathing of his overwhelming power-play sodomite sinfulness, a la the Ex-Gays. The fact he seems willing to flash it round and play with it online would suggest he is not big on that idea, so I'm going with epic troll. -- 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course he's a troll, and a liar. I very much doubt if he's ever put a word on line that he actually believes. The man^(?!)'s a worm. Every site that he can be found on, he's trolled, why should Yahoo pulse and Conservapædia be any different from HotOrNot? 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"JacobB" confirmed that Terry is a man...but I suppose we don't know if he was "TK" all along... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I admit he's probably genetically male, but: a man? 21:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A tenner says he spins this as a 'patriotic hunt for the dirty liberal homosexuals weakening the great friendly firers US military', you remember Andy, the same bullshit he came out with after you were let on that he was one of our parodists. -- Iscariot (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"TK is gay." "He's male, but is he a MAN?"

If you found this on CP, with any other name (but what the hell let's say Barney Frank just for discussion's sake) being inserted, tell me with a straight face that it wouldn't be WIGOed for homophobia/gay-bashing. And no, being gay (if anyone involved is) doesn't buy anybody a free pass. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because they hate the gays. We support the gays. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the "he's a male, but is he a man" comment as calling TK's masculinity in question because he's a lying weasel (and therefore not very much of a man), not because he likes the cock. DarkStar (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not a fan of homosexuality, but I'd never have a go at gays - it's none of my business. The humour here is the hypocrisy of the situation, not the fact that Terry Koeckritz is a homosexual. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find this stuff credible. TK is always and ever playing a game of powertripping and lies using the internet as his playing field. I don't trust anything else he says, so I don't know why I'd trust this. 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Terry Koeckritz removed many references to homosexuality from entries where it wasn't relevant. I don't know what his previous history on this topic was, but one could argue that this was the one topic on which he wasn't a hypocrite. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not so much.^img 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose I could change that to "less hypocritical than at other times" but it's not saying very much. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course nothing the TK does can be trusted, but if the rumors are true (just rumors!) he has been, shall we say, living inconsistently with the CP way of life for years before CP began, even before he went into borrelworlds or whatever with guns blazin'. There would be no logical reason for a normal person to craft an elaborate identity online and then hide it from everyone for more than a decade. If this is our TK, then its probably genuine.cm² 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In ref to male=/=man with TK, do not see how in the context used this could in any way be construed as homophobic. It is clearly referring to TK's less than gentlemanly honour in just about all his social interactions. Sexuality doesn't come into it.-- 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude/dudette, that is a huge frickin' stretch. GIGANTIC. His less than gentlemanly honor? Sexuality doesn't come into it, in a thread that is explicitly about his sexuality? Speaking of context... 173.10.105.29 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

At least some here have a sense of decency. Well, M. 173.x.x.x, anyway. The rest of you except for Nutty are dribbling idiots. ħuman 04:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I resent that, I haven't slept for 36 hours and have said nothing to know one. Though I am dribbling a little and hearing voices. Ahhh fuck it - Xenu lives. Ace^{word up} 10:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Human on this. Whilst it was fun to speculate and no doubt ruffle some feathers, naming names - especially on RW - was a dick move. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That said, what is a perversion,^img TK, is lying to yourself and others, and denying who you are, just so you can play power games on a 2-bit blog. That is a perverse lifestyle, my friend. --Ψ GremlinParla! 09:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

173 used to be a ruined number for me... it used to be the starting 3 number of most paid escort/dating service when I was little (of course after I moved to a different country the phone system is all different now) Please stop describing people with 1 set of number out of the 4; either be more general (BoN) or be more specific. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pointing at TK for his sexuality. It's entirely his own business. But I hope you won't mind if I have a quiet chuckle about his aleged hypocrisy. I have to say I'm taking it with a pinch of salt though. StarFish (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the whiners, I still think it's interesting. Yeah, it's probably not Terry Fucking Koeckritz, but it's probably someone messing with him. It's funny that it was happening back in 1999 just as it is now. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As a gay man, I did not look for the worst possible meaning of the male=/=man comment. I have nooooo problem with people making jokes about CP editors based upon hypocrisy of those CP editors' own narrow, bigoted view of the world, holding them to their own standards. Human took issue with me when I kept joking that retired CP editor Jinx McHue is a drag queen, based upon his name. I am friends with quite a few drag artists and have a deep appreciation for their art and what they go through to do it. I simply don't care what other people (who may not be in my community) tell me what's offensive to my community. I was thrown out of my house as a teen because I was gay, so I've earned the right to have my own opinions. I also believe, strongly, in outing homophobic conservatives who push homophobic agendas yet are gay themselves. Frankly, I don't think there's one valid argument against outing such a person. --Leotardo (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As a straight man can I say Oldusgitus (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well one valid argument against outing such a person is that it's a douche move. This is just like the classic political "party over principle, or principle over party" argument, and I always ditch the party for the principle. And while I feel for you for the rough road you've traveled, we've all got our crossed to bear - you're not entitled to a free pass on doucheyness, although of course you're entitled to say practically anything you want in the grand scheme.

Anyway, my original statement was a precise construction and none of this changes anything - if RobSmith said "Barney Frank (or whoever, NPH or Leotardo etc...) may be male, but is he really a MAN?" there'd be plenty of tut-tutting over here. If all of these comments had been "what a hypocrite" that'd be one thing, Leotardo, but the tone of these posts is covering a LOT of different ground, and blind defense of all of them is, well, very Conservapedian of you all. 173.10.105.29 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that "douche" argument holds no water. Even if it did, I'd rather be a douche than protect vile closeted gays who hurt other gays over their own warped shame. We can talk about Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy with his drug addiction, but we can't talk openly about wp:Ted Haggard or wp:Ken Mehlman or wp:George Rekers's hypocrisy over the gay issue? Please. These people foster an environment where gay suicide is extraordinarily high, and you want to protect them from the shame of a public lens over their hypocrisy? Ugh - gays don't want to protect their own Judenräte, and we've been greatly harmed by them in the past (see linked names above). Neither I nor my fellow gay MDB (as far as I know) found any issue with anything written above, though I take issue with your opinion on this. --Leotardo (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well of course you get to make the decision that you'd rather be "A" than "B"; these aren't federal offenses we're talking about, it's just internet nonsense. Again, though, this isn't about talking about TK's hypocrisy, it's about the negative connotations being ascribed to him because he's gay. I really don't care what the self-outed gays, the closeted gays, the closeted straights, or the self-outed straights say about this if they're saying wrong things. As for taking issue with my opinion, knock yourself out. Given that I'm "taking issue" what what others are saying here, that's certainly fair. Aziraphale (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) fine, I'll go get my password reset...

I didn't find that anyone here was associating gays with anything negative. I think it's obvious that they were ridiculing TK because he is so anti-gay-bowels while possibly having gay bowels himself. This same type of humor you can see nightly on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert nightly. --Leotardo (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And no, being gay ... doesn't buy anybody a free pass. I disagree. My friends and I often make casually homophobic/racist/sexist remarks among each other, much to everyone's (juvenile) amusement. We only do it among ourselves though, because we know that we're all uber-liberals and intend no offense. Intent matters. You mgiht disagree, but here's the kicker: I don't give a shit and never will. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Intent certainly matters. I think Susan intended a slight to Terry's masculinity, and she tied it to this thread out of all threads, where his sexuality is the point of the discussion. Meanwhile, 1, the line you just quoted says "being gay... doesn't buy anybody a free pass." That's a reference to a state of existence, not an intent behind an action, so to then tell me that intent matters is true but uninteresting. I accept that you don't give a shit, but could you please not speak shit while you're at it? Merci, Aziraphale (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) not really French...

I don't think anybody on this site would make anti-gay comments except in the context suggested by One: all there have been in this thread are anti-TK comments. I'm a bit surprised at Psy calling outing TK a "dick move" when he's been the one dropping hints about TK being gay that are so heavy they clang. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And I think that's No True Scotsman... having an RW account doesn't confirm reasonableness.

Look, I'm not pro-CP and I'm not pro-TK. He's pretty much every bad thing that people here say he is. I'm just saying it's not impossible that lines can be crossed here, and I think that the comment I highlighted originally is just such a thing. So far, defenses of that comment have been unimpressive. Aziraphale (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) And I'm Silly Putty, so that's a pretty low bar...

Be that as it may, that's all they were - hints and allegations. Has anybody actually stopped to think of the potential legal implications of 'outing' TK, if, in fact, the information out there is indeed fake? It's very, very unlikely... but there is that chance. It's one thing to hint, it's quite another to state. --Ψ GremlinZungumza!

Has anyone actually said "TK is gay"? The thread is long, but I remember pretty much everyone here saying it's possible, not definitive, based upon some questionable minor evidence that presumably was not created by anyone here. That's not libel. I also doubt TK would come out of his Conservapedia closet, as it were, to pursue this, though I wish he would. I'll volunteer to be lead defendant, for the lulz. --Leotardo (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically outing a homophobe hate-monger as a homosexual is a douche move? I think you live in an alternate reality, BoN. Who/what suffers if we don't out them? Who/what suffers if we do out them? Can you make a case that not outing them is better for society? No, I don't think you can. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Outing somone is, imo, generally a bad thing not to be done. However if that person is a bigot who either professes anti-gay sentiments or who is an active and supportive member of an organisation that professes anti-gay policies then, again imo, they are fair game. I, for example, think the hints and suggestions being made about a senior british politician currently are wrong as he has never to my knowledge supported anti-gay policies and has in fact spoken in favour of equality. Outing wp:Harvey Proctor on the other hand was a public service. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mine too - exactly my position, actually. --Leotardo (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Openly gay congressman Barney Frank created the 'Frank Rule': ' a closeted person who uses their power, position, or notoriety to hurt LGBT people can be outed....[Frank:]"I think there's a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy. And people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door and do it themselves"'. The issue with applying the rule in this case would be whether TK's pathetically small (yet extremely abused) power would be enough to justify outting him (if he is in fact gay). I vote 'yes'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, alright, let's settle this. One of us needs to join Terry's supposed stomping ground groups.yahoo.com/group/BallersPhinest and lure him out with our smooth young hard cut selves. --Leotardo (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, but doing the right thing when it is hard/no fun is the only time it matters whether you do the right thing or not. If outing someone isn't good, it only matters that you refuse to out someone when you want to do it. Besides, what's the behavioral line one must cross before one becomes eligible for a public service outing?

"That's crazy, you may not be able to define a "bright line" to be crossed, but TK's behavior is clearly on the other side of it," you might say. But no, it's only clear to the people who agree with you. It's not obvious to everyone, and absent that you're simply choosing to ignore a convention you otherwise agree with (not outing someone) because you want to use someone's sexual orientation against them.

"But they're being hypocritical, and I want to expose that!" Great, so because you want to use someone's sexual orientation against them for a reason you deem fit, it's ok. Douche move.

Keep in mind, it's defensible to say "I'm not going to leave useful tactics off the table just because they're distasteful, this battle is too important," even if it's not an auto-win. But, you know, that's what Conservapedians (most notably TK) says about some of the shit over there, and you all don't seem to like it. Aziraphale (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) winning friends and influencing people...

Using your logic, Aziraphale, when someone is coming after you to kill you, then you should allow yourself to be killed instead of kill that person, because otherwise you would be violating your principle that murder is wrong. Look, if someone if a closeted gay homophobe is working at Hush Puppies Shoes at the mall, fine, let them be. When someone is influencing public policy and opinion with a wide platform, no. How many people did wp:George Rekers of NARTH hurt, yet you would want to protect him? As far as I'm concerned, he has blood on his hands. He's now in no position to influence anything since his outing, whereas before he did nothing but damage. I think your view is more ethically questionable than my 'douchebag' view. --Leotardo (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The "logical extremes game" is really, really boring; it only works when you assume that the involved parties are idiots. In any case, as FJF, below, helped me realize, whether or not TK is being outed, and whether it is/was right to do, isn't where this started for me and I'm chasing my own tail at this point. If there is a line to be drawn, over which your behavior makes you fair game for an outing, I haven't seen anyone here (myself included) that I'd trust to draw that line, but I suppose I can acknowledge that it hypothetically does exist. Aziraphale (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) wow, that's big of you, Az...

It's not a game my friend, and if you're gay you probably know people who have killed themselves over it because of the frothing-at-the-mouth of people like TK. You're also aware of the high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, which is again a product of Christian hatred. You have raised unconvincing arguments throughout this thread and I find your view myopic--if not outright dangerous for gays--but you're welcome to them. --Leotardo (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscommunication, "game" was simply a turn of phrase not meant to cause confusion. What I meant was it's ... well, dumb to assume that I would carry a philosophy to ridiculous extremes - what's a reasonable position at one degree isn't necessarily so at another. Thus, "an it harm none" is critically important to "do as ye will." Hell, I even agreed above that there could hypothetically be a line that a person could cross when we can throw our own ethics away and out them - I just don't see any reason to trust anyone here to draw that line.

Just to be clear, since we're actually down a tangential path - you honestly think that Susan is completely, 100% in the clear for her "male/man" comment in this thread about TK's sexuality? Despite that being the subject of this thread, she wasn't tying her "man" snark to his possible homosexuality? Aziraphale (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) tries to stay on point. Fails a lot, but tries...

Given Susan's publicly-expressed sexual preference, I think it's phenomenally unlikely that she is going to attack people for their own preference. As I said above, it was an anti-TK comment, not an anti-homosexual one. You're reading more into it than you should. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Given TK's possible-but-unexpressed sexual preference you would think that a lot of the things he says would be unlikely, but there you have it. Given Susan's typical willingness to go straight for the verbal jugular I find it more likely than not that she meant it exactly like I'm reading it. And that may sound like bickering-caliber back-and-forth, but it's actually (imo, natch) a valid point - nobody gets a free pass on this stuff. You're telling me you're unfamiliar with lesbians and gays having demeaning opinions about others of similar persuasion? Less than half but more than 4 (in other words, I'm not going to try and get an exact count) of my LGBT friends have pretty strongly negative views on, at a minimum, the opposite-gender versions of their orientation.

Again to clarify, I'm not saying Susan's evil (like she cares what I think, I know...). All I'm saying is that this kind of demeaning language is, in fact, possible within the community and it doesn't deserve a pass just because the offending party is on the right team. To beat the greasy spot on my driveway where the dead horse used to be, this thread is chock-a-bloc with folks saying TK's crime isn't homosexuality but hypocrisy. Weeelll, what's the word for calling out sexual orientation-related slights at CP but not at RW? 76.104.170.93 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I'm just as glad as you are that I've picked now to open my mouth, believe me...

Hi. Ex-moderator for HoN here. It isn't actually "outting" him, since TK himself openly claimed to be gay when he joined HotOrNot in 2000. He listed himself as "gay" in the "meet me" section and "double matched" with other gay men. He messaged men thru the forums, his conversation was explicitly sexual, his personal profile was much the same as the above. He liked to talk about kinky fetishes, copies of his posts and IMs are still floating around. TK (never married, no kids), was partnered with a man until several years ago, then had some legal & financial problems, and went to live with his mother. These days he likes to portray himself as straight. It's an interesting insight into the man, but it's old history now, and will be soon forgotten. TK will move on from CP when it dies and reinvent himself as he wants to be seen, so in the end, what does it matter? FJF (talk)

That's extremely intriguing. Thanks, FJF. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@NightJaguar - I'll stick by my "being gay doesn't give you a pass" comments above. I'm a big fan of Barney Frank's on a lot of things, but I don't invest him with the authority to decide when outing someone ok. I won't waste your time twice, my arguments above fit here as well. Aziraphale (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) this space for rent...

@FJF - you know, you're right and I apologize. My original beef wasn't with outing him, I've kinda gone down the rabbit hole on this one. My bad. I still think he's had at least one slight directly tied to his sexuality, however, and for all the cries of "hypocrisy!" above, the strenuous defense for same seems misplaced. Aziraphale (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) knows when to fold 'em...

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘To add to what I said. The pinacle of the kind of scum who positively SHOULD be outed are those who, either by their actions or by their statements, foster an atmosphere in which homosexuals feel they need to conceal and deny their sexuality, despite being gay themselves. Add in those who vehemently oppose homosexuals whilst censoring any reference to the fact that one of their own family is an out promiscous gay then you have cp and many of it's sysops. IMO they are fair game. IF tk is gay then good luck to him and I hope he finds the courage to come out. I am damn sure that, even at this stage, were he to do so then the majority of those here on RW would support him in whatever way they can. Personally I know I would. I would continue to despise his political trolling but in terms of his personal life I would certainly applaud him.Oldusgitus (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I think this violates the basic line of privacy guidelines we try and use here. Keep your focus on TKs actions as a person and on CP and not deep google searches. Personally I think the thread so get early archival and we don't rehash this anymore. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This argument would be far more impressive if the basic premise wasn't being violated all over the site. For instance, this article has no problem naming an underage girl "whose mother asked that her name not be used". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just cause its broken in one place doesn't mean we don't fix it here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Did somebody say "underage girl?" --Ed Poor 02:44, 20 November 2010

What makes you feel compelled to draw the line here, Trent? I don't think this was a particularly intrusive thread; perhaps full of conjecture but nothing insane and that isn't already on the web. I felt it discussed very substantive, thought-provoking issues in a rational manner, and I found it a thrill to discuss this with so many different viewpoints. I'm not being facetious. To me, this is the best of RationalWiki. --Leotardo (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it our place to out anyone. Some of the other discussion is good, I for one have long been uncomfortable with the fact that RW often uses homosexuality and terms for homosexuality as an insult to be thrown about. Its mostly directed at various CP personalities but by implying negative connotations by "accusations" at CP (not just TK but Ken as well) I think it implies a negative view of homosexuality. But its also not an fight I really want to get involved in. In this case it happens that my personal issues were support by others that expressed discomfort with it. So I have brought it up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, stop doing gays a favor. We aren't for protecting those who hurt us just because they find the same gender attractive. Maybe in the 1980's and 1990's, but the world is a different place. History has taught gays that there are those who feel the same way we do, but try to hurt us. Gay kids come out in their teens today, and they aren't putting up with the Rekers, Haggards, Craigs and Mehlmans anymore. When you're willing to "out" people who rail against drugs and alcohol as being drug addicts and alcoholics, but not willing to expose the hypocrisy of homophobic closeted gays, what you are saying is that it's a shame that must not be named. Even here. --Leotardo (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't have a problem with "outing" under certain circumstances. Such as the constant outing of vehemently anti-homosexual pastors who hang out after hours at gay bars. But that is different than doing it on RW. This isn't about protecting a certain class of people. This is about our basic zeitgeist of supposedly valuing pseudonyminity and privacy of our users. If someone came over and posted a court record showing a CP sysops drug arrest and conviction I wouldn't even have this argument it would be oversitted before it began. The reason I didn't say anything earlier was because I think this is just skirting a long the edge because of the hypocrisy factor. In the end I spoke up because I think RW is not the place, and others expressed discomfort. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then I'm curious: where do you think the appropriate place would be to discuss a homophobic editor of Conservapedia who actually might be gay? --Leotardo (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Psygremlins blog? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a weak answer (but you already knew that). --Leotardo (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Except it's not just one place - it's in many places. I made this point in my previous incarnation as Rpeh. Roll on one year and there's still no sensible policy here. Look at the articles on "Conservative" and RSchlafly and tell me that no "deep google searches" were used. Find a consistent POV and then come back. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistent policy is about balancing the information of "public" figures that is relevant to the disputes and statements on wiki relative to invasion of privacy and appropriateness. There is no magic bullet policy statement that gives us a clear distinction. Down that path lies citizendium. Instead when I see what I think is a violation and something that goes beyond the line I say so, or if I think its particularly bad I delete it myself. If there are other specific examples that haven't been discussed then we can look at those. But that doesn't alter in the least my objection about this thread. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is TK not considered a "public" figure, when he is posting things on a public blog that receives millions of hits? --Leotardo (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think enough evidence has been admitted above to obviate the "appropriateness" argument. It is fully within RW's mission to explore cases where people say one thing publicly and do something else in private, and I don't see why TK should be excluded from this. I'm well aware that some of you talk to him off-wiki but I would invite you to consider the notion that it is you who are being manipulated here, not those of use who use only his public utterances as a reference. As a self-confessed "senior admin" on a right wing hate blog, TK should expect to be a target for people investigating hypocrisy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TK is a public figure, if he were not his name wouldn't even be published on RW. The issue is balancing what's appropriate for RW to be discussing or not. There is a difference between us discussing someone who was outed somewhere, and us doing the outing. As for talking to TK, I have my filters set up for any e-mail from him to go directly to trash bypassing my inbox. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? You're being ambiguous. --Leotardo (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is we are doing the outing, not responding to a high profile source that did it. If the LA Times did a follow up piece on CP and outed TK in the article then its not an issue. That is my opinion. I am obviously in the minority so that is that then I guess. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So, if I write all this information in a blog post and stick a link in my sig we can have this discussion? It seems a bit of a roundabout way of soothing your conscience. -- Iscariot (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See further down, its about balancing how high profile the source is, the amount of synthesis and the relevancy. There is no set algorithm for this. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's take that argument at face value. Assuming all is true, did TK not out himself on HotorNot? Did TK not out himself on Yahoo? Is your argument that those sources are questionable, so we should not discuss them and the issues they present for the editorial content of Conservapedia (yet insinuating that Ed Poor is a pedophile is an area you feel comfortable not speaking up about)? Is 'gay' the shame that must not be named (or, to use your terminology, "goes beyond the line")? I realize that seems hyperbolic, but what you are saying inevitably leads to that question. --Leotardo (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The Ed Poor point was one I had intended to bring up at some point, but you beat me to it in a very effective way. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If original synthesis is required to make a claim then it falls under the auspicious of potentially problematic. Each claim needs to be assessed as to its appropriateness for discussion and revelation on RW (based on our mission). This case skirts the line because of the hypocrisy issue. There is a difference between an actual accusation and satire/snark. The Ed Poor pedophile stuff is questionable at best and only because of the obvious satire of it. I have actual fought several high profile battles about trying to decrease the wild parody accusations of CP figures versus actual relevant information. There is a reason Andrew Schlafly article is no longer mostly crazy pictures and quotes about grooming. But the battles are hard fought and there is a lot of people the feel different which is why Andrew Layton Schlafly is what it is. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have failed to articulate why 'gay' is the line you are drawing in the wiki. You have also failed to articulate why TK, a person you admit is a "public" person, is beyond that line. --Leotardo (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Gay isn't the line, I never said it was and have said the opposite. In fact as I said earlier in response to your question of drugs/alcohol if someone showed up here and posted info about a CP sysops related to addiction recovery I would oversight first ask questions later. So in fact the line is less clear hear than in other potential cases. It has nothing to do with gay, but about the standards of privacy we have set. The public figure issue is complicated, everyone on CP except Schlafly is not actually a public figure. There is just a lower standard here on RW because of the relationship we have with CP. Most of the information that is allowed to be posted would not be allowed if it was not for this public figure criteria. However, as I said, the general guideline is how high profile or wide spread a revelation is, how much synthesis was needed to reach it, and its relevancy to RW and our mission. This three prongs need to be weighed in determining whats appropriate or not to post here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is everyone on CP but Schlafly not a public figure? Is 'Conservative' not all over the Internet; on PZ Myers blog; reciprocally-spamming Vox Day, shockofgod and other tripe; publicly identified by PZ Myers as Ken DeMyer; taking on public persons publicly, daring them to debate Conservapedia and others? They trumpet their hits to beat their chests over their influence. Just because we don't think they are influential doesn't mean they actually aren't (all evidence is that they are not, but still). So let me understand your argument: if RW broke the 'Rush Limbaugh is an Oxycontin fiend' or 'George Rekers vacations with Rentboy.com prostitutes' you'd be okay with that b/c of their "high profile" but CP admins are the bottom of the barrel, and RW, which was set up as a response to CP, is not the place to examine information that a homophobic high-profile sysop of CP is gay? That seems to be your argument. If so, I don't buy it, but maybe others might. --Leotardo (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No not my argument at all, some ambiguity has entered this conversation. Let me try and be more precise. I do not think RW should be in the business of publishing personal information on anyone unless certain prongs are met: the source of the information is high profile, the information is wide spread outside of RW, or the information is directly relevant to RW and our mission (this is the clause that makes this issue a bit blurry as others have pointed out with the hypocrisy issue.

Public figure is a legal term that has specific definitions in a court. My statement holds that conservative is not actually a public figure and would not hold up in court, no would TK. Schlafly likely would. However, because RW is RW and our relationship with CP is what it is high profile users of CP can are "public figures" according to our policy which would otherwise not allow any non-volunteered information to be posted. This applies to other people not just on CP that are "on mission" but not technically "high profile" like some crazy woo pusher, who we might reveal personal information relevant to the discussion at hand (I.E. that the perpetual motion machine inventor flunked his EE class but not that he was arrested for domestic violence in 2003).

And finally, obvious parody is another beast all together. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You would be wrong about 'Conservative' but right that public figure is a legal definition, and CP sysops meet it (so do Wikipedia sysops and editors, including myself, and I've been subjected to vile public discussion, as has David Gerard). If it makes any difference, this issue was relevant to my life. What I find hard to reconcile is that there are so much 'Wild Wild West' discussions (sorry for the poor catch-all phrase) about every aspect of CP sysops (and many others) but you felt the need to step in here. I really don't get it; and you've been somewhat all over the board with your reasoning. --Leotardo (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because I am responding to points that seem to meander and circle. I have intervened before in other cases 90 percent of which had nothing to do with sexuality beyond removing reference to gerbling and grooming in CP sysops articles. This is not the first time I have intervened. Most of my interventions I haven't even bothered with discussions until after the intervention (such as posting links to information about TKs mother). Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. You know I have a good deal of respect for you, but I will tell you that you would be hard-pressed to find a gay under 40 who would think there is any justice in what you are advocating. --Leotardo (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You now speak for all homosexuals born since 1970? Do you realize that being gay gives you no special understanding or priority in this discussion of the lamest thread I have ever seen on RW? The logic "I'm gay and I say it's ok since it's about gayness and I'm one" ought to be a logical fallacy article here on RW. ħuman 05:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And you speak for...whom? What insights you provide here! You clearly have a superior intellect and gay life experience than me, Human. I bow to you, you old politically correct (straight) tart. --Leotardo (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, as I said I am not against the concept of outing hypocrites prima facie. But what we are dealing with here is a conflict of philosophical and ethical points. I am not arguing this as a sub-issue of social political sexuality politics, but as a sub-issue of the privacy and respect for pseudoanonminity that we as a website have cultivated with greater and lesser success. We also do have a policy on this, and while we like to "wing it", it's still there. And last but not least others expressed concern about this which is what propelled me to get involved even though I think this is right on the edge. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "others expressed concern" = Human, an old liberal (who happens to own the wiki) of the 1980's politically correct variety, whose philosophy in 2010 is outdated; and Az, who has already given a mea culpa above. Other than that, it's just you. I agree to disagree and yield. --Leotardo (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lurkers support me in p-mail, which is RW meme for I had people contact me off-wiki about it. C'est La Vie. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd believe it. Straight liberals still think of outing as the idea that the dude in the cubicle next to them might be exposed to the boss. Most don't see the nuance in the issue, whereas most gays under 40 do. C'est La Vie (that's just the way it goes ;-) --Leotardo (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Please tell me how RW can justify the contents of its articles on other CP syspos that reference material not present on CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to go line by line through every CP article, I haven't read most of them because I stopped caring about CP beyond a casual interest years ago. If there are specific points bring them up and they can be looked at, some might very well not be appropriate, others might have a valid argument. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with one person. Look at Roger Schlafly and observe the number of non-CP references. Then come back with a better argument. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate where my argument is invalid other than saying that I have not personally applied it to every article on RW. Why don't you pick the most egregious example from the R. Schlafly article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, what does it take here? You say "I am not going to go line by line through every CP article" so I give you one. Now it's "Why don't you pick the most egregious example from the R. Schlafly article". Well I just picked the "Failed cryptographer" at random. I don't know that it's "the most egregious example" but it has no references and please tell me how it relates to his activity on CP? Are you now going to ask me for one specific sentence or are you going to start answering questions? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I am writing chapters in my these while alt-tabbing to RW to try and address concerns and answer questions which I have, many. I don't have time to also find your points for you. As for the cryptography point the lack of sources is a problem, which should be rectified by people who care or fact tags added. It also sounds like the issue is widely known outside of RW. So prong two seems to be met, and if good sources were added prong one would be met two (prong one-high profile sources, prong two- widely known outside RW prong 3- relevant to the mission of RW). Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So the latest argument is "I don't have time"? Every argument against including the information about TK has now been shot down. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You using "other stuff exists" or some such crap argument. Discuss what is at hand. Got a problem with the RSchalfy article? It has a talk page. ħuman 05:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how you ignored my actual response. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond when you respond to my response. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Argument by petulance, I like it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My gOD, are you trying to channel Ken

here? You haven't responded to any of my points but you're trying to make it my problem? You asked for an example; I gave one. A sensible response would be appreciated, please. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded. Three reasons we might include outside information: its sourced to source that lots of people read, its well known all ready, its highly relevant to RW. The example you gave me fits atleast the second point and if sources were used probably the first. And your only response to my points was "you said your busy I win." Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sourced to source"? Your punctuation of that sentence is so awful I can't quite determine what your three points are: if you need somebody to proofread your "these" I'll gladly help you out. I think you mean that RS's crypto activities are well-known and that justifies inclusion in RW without sources? Really? I know that I hadn't heard of the guy before I came here, and I don't believe the "Everybody knows this" argument is valid anywhere outside high school. Can you give me a proper argument, please? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the basic ground rules for a discussion. You don't get to just respond with "I dont think that's valid try again." While also being a petulant asshole at the same time, and expect the conversation to go anywhere. So here is a big fuck you too and I have better things to do than deal with you. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With an attitude like that, good luck with your "these". You have failed to respond to any of the perfectly valid points I have made and have responded with nothing but profanity. I suggest you consult a good reference on English grammar, as well as a good book on proper debate tactics and come back when properly prepared. Good day to you, sir. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel very uncomfortable participating in a discussion in which everyone goes through every nook and cranny of the internet to divulge the extremely personal secrets of someone who is not by any stretch of the imagination a public figure.--cm² 03:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(you know, I didn't offer a mea culpa like I was completely off base. I apologized that I got off track since my original point had nothing to do with outing Terry. I've also acknowledged a hypothetical where someone "deserves" to be outed (because gay is the shame that dare not speak its name, as someone above said?), but I don't see any reason to trust anyone here (myself included) with making that determination.) Aziraphale (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Apologizes a lot, but hopefully for the right things...

Kill it with fire

This should have been done eighty posts to this thread ago. The only sensible comments I see are by a BoN (173...?), Nutty, and Trent. The rest is the purest tripe, and it all starts with a violation of our desire to respect privacy and not stalk people all over the internet. Kill it with fire. ħuman 05:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's embarrassing. I'm reasonable as the BoN but not as Az. :/ In any case, I'll 2nd the thread kill... Aziraphale (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC) It's like the end of Taps except less Tom Cruise and more explosions...

I may have missed the odd even comment. ħuman 05:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow Human, you raise very compelling, rational arguments. If only you had interjected sooner, we would have all been soooo enlightened to see the error of our dynamic discussion. Please, keep a closer eye on 'your' Wiki so we don't repeat these mistakes. And please, block us freely. --Leotardo (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck off. ħuman 05:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And again - utterly compelling argument there. You, Trent and the others have offered nothing to this debate except a vague "I don't like it". Where other examples of the site ignoring privacy are pointed out, you stand silent. Your double standard is obvious, pathetic and unjustifiable. But then from Human at least, I don't think I'd expect anything else. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my argument isn't much different from Trent's, but here goes anyway: outing a sysop at an obscure website we don't like is fundamentally different from outing well-known anti-gay instigators like Haggard and Reker. Those guys were in a position to make the lives of gays miserable, because up to millions of people looked towards them for guidance. Outing them had a direct and huge impact on their ability to spread bigotry - maybe it didn't have much of an impact in the long term because the bigots just found another preacher who would pander to their prejudices, but still. TK, on the other hand, is completely unnotable, and whatever he says on CP won't reach an audience besides us and CP's other dozen editors. Apart from that, outing him is completely unnecessary - his behaviour over at CP, which is what we should focus on, is well-documented, and anyone googling his name will immediately find our article about him (and Psy's blog, ED etc...). You don't really have to worry that he'll be able to reach a position of importance and use it to harm gays. So, outing TK does no good at all, and he's definitely not worth sacrifing or compromising important principles. So yeah, +1 for getting rid of this thread. Röstigraben (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether a hypocrite is a politician with an audience of millions or a lonely idiot living in his mother's basement. TK uses his position as a "senior sysop" to pour hate onto the internet including, as Nutty pointed out, hate about gays. For his contribution to the hatred on the internet aimed at the LGBT community, TK deserves to be outed. Since we seem to be voting, +1 for keeping this thread. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going against my better judgement and actually being drawn into this whole thread. All I have to say is that the people who're taking pleasure in TK's alleged homosexuality are JUST as bad as the people on Conservapedia who see a source, see that it says what they want and so take it as fact and start telling others it is true. ^EXTERMINATE 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancillary thoughts

Ignoring the HCM above, if we assume the allegations to be true, there's 2 interesting things that come out of this. Firstly, what if he isn't being a hypocrite, but rather - using his anti-social skills honed on HoN - seeing CP for what it is - a right-wing, bigoted, homophobic, hate-blog - and took it upon himself to discredit it and bring it down from the inside - a job, you have to admit - he has done well. The second is more sinister. It makes one wonder just what kind of hold TK has over Andy, that the latter can overlook TK's betrayal, lying, calling Andy names, dislike by all the other admins, plagiarism and calls for him not to be unblocked / reinstated / promoted to sysop by other respected admins, at the cost of losing half his sysops and virtually shutting the site down? Maybe Andy has a secret or two... --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 13:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think the poor grasp Andy has on reality (as illustrated by the CBP, etc.) is a simpler and equally good explanation. — Pietrow ☏ 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TrollKing fights fiercely, but has he ever lost a night of sleep in respect of the vanquished enemy? --85.76.179.108 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So I take a few days away in central Africa and come back to find what must be the longest ever thread on this page. I have had suspicions about TK based on IMs and this was confrimed to a degree by Psy's blog. However, I do not think that his sexuality is relevant here as I am not aware of him posting any homophobic material. OK, he tacitly accepts it on CP and while he generally supports Andy's wingnut POV he also is not a YEC, but then there are things which I don't agree with here. So I don't think that there is any question of hypocrisy in this case and publishing it here was a faux pas. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My original thoughts about this matter were that it shouldn't have been published, and I wanted to treat it as a joke (hence my first comment about the middle initial being the big deal). Since then, it's the people arguing against mentioning it who have provided the best arguments for including it. People have pointed out this^img and this^img, and I'm afraid those two edits prove that TK has been hypocritical.

At this point, I'm going to stop arguing because it's reached the point of "I'm right and you're wrong". If the Large Jubblies or trustees want to censor this entire debate (and everything that came after) with revision delete, go for it. It won't change the facts, though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lazy Jaguars couldn't do anything, and the trustees wouldn't. It is not the board's job to monitor day-to-day issues on the wiki, just to make sure it's paid for. ħuman 07:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do people think this is real?

I may be missing something, I haven't read the discussion in entirety but is there any reason to think this isn't just a parody? When I first saw it yesterday it screamed parody to me. Looking at it again, my feelings haven't changed. Are people reading too much in to the 'member since' thing?

I have a Yahoo account from a long time ago (I created primarily for the mail) which I use occasionally for various stuff. I just created a Yahoo Pulse profile and as I expected it says I'm a member since 2000 (I somewhat doubt Yahoo Pulse existed in 1999 or 2000). Notably when Yahoo deletes your mail for inactivity you still generally keep your account AFAIK (perhaps after a very long while it's deleted too). And Yahoo as with most free online email services (or most free services that ask for your name) has never really cared what you put as your real name AFAIK and you can change it at any time. I could easily change my real name before I created my Yahoo Pulse profile to Andrew Layton Schlafly I suspect and no one would be any the wiser that I just did it. In fact from my own testing I can still change it now for Yahoo Pulse and then delete the event associated with the change so it won't be obvious I was ever something else if you hadn't seen me before.

There doesn't appear to be any info publicly revealed from that account that isn't already know about TK (apparently not everyone knew of the F being his middle initial but it was clearly public). If the account Yahoo account name is tfk92270 (the one thing you can't change) then we may be on to something but based on the cpmonitor story above and the some searching, the account name appears to be [5] (look in the link) in other words nothing to suggest it was connected to TK at the time of creation.

More significantly a simple search find some stuff from 2000 [6] [7] which suggest the person behind the account may genuinely be gay and in to 18-25 year old males but they were calling themselves another given name before that begins with P. (I've avoided mentioning the other name because whoever owns that account and whatever they're doing, I do think they deserve some privacy.) If you look into some of the stuff from cpmonitor, you also see this P name in the MySpace profile that seems connected and also the Yahoo 'gaymarines' group ads but notably nothing to connect it to TK that I can tell (not sure about the photos, they seem the sort of thing it would be difficult to tell with though).

Interesting enough, the real name (as opposed to screen name) of the person doesn't appear to be revealed to all by default (only to your 'connections') in Yahoo Pulse, you have to change the settings. In other words, if this really is TK they not only used to go by a different name but still manage to leave their real name in their profile after making it public and they even had to purposely show their real name. This and all the other stuff including the way the account almost seems to be set up as a parody makes me strongly suspect this isn't real.

The only real iffy thing is why the ad from 2000 mentioned in cpmonitor was deleted. It could be cpmonitor did something which let the owner of the account know they are looking in to it so they removed it as part of the parody. (Although I'm not sure why that particular one as one of the other ads also links to the profile.) I do hope no one participating in this discussion set up the parody if it is one and is then pretending it to be real. Of course it may have been set up for cpmonitor not us anyway. (It could be someone just put in TK's name because they don't like him or for fun not necessarily intending anyone to notice.) Then again though this has reached the stage where it arguably affects RW negatively much more then TK if it is a parody that people have fallen for. (Of course it could also be somewhat at conservapedia trolling us, but that seems beyond what we've seen from them that I know of so far and in any case there's also the question of who would own the account given the person behind it genuinely appears to be gay.)

Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The account is iffy, and I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it. Information from HoN admins that Terry Koeckritz is (or was) gay is much more compelling, IMO. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I didn't take the Yahoo! or the HotorNot evidence as conclusive or even swaying, but I thought it was worth discussing the idea in the context of TK's edits, and that it wasn't impossible given the lengthy list of socially conservative homophobic Republicans who bash gay rights because they can't get over their shame that they are gay. Generally, liberals still have a 1990 view that they are against outing anyone, and it's a position that is pretty insulting to the LGBT community. --Leotardo (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you find it insulting that someone would be against outing and what the consequences of that belief are? Who doesn't get outed? When? 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW as another point against the account the person apparently was/is? looking for people in the OC/Inland Empire or surrounding areas of California (and says they live there) but according to our article TK lives in Nevada. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Terry has lived (or lives or purports to live) in Southern CA. He often uses California zip codes in his handles and email addresses. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any verification of the HoN account details or the allegedly lurid emails he sent to male members, but I find it plausible. I'm not saying Terry Koeckritz is gay, I'm just pointing out that people are asking if Terry Koeckritz is gay. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what an Übertroll TK is. He wrote something a DECADE ago, and we're tying ourselves in knots over it now. --Gulik (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are three possibilities:

1. The accounts are fake and someone TK pissed of 11 years ago created them to get back at him. If this was true, why did a coverup start happening after Psy contacted him? Why not add more (correct) details than just a name?
2. The accounts are TK's but he was using them to troll teh gheys. This is quite likely, and he would never admit to it because it would mean him admitting to creating accounts on gay dating websites, regardless of intent. That said, why create the accounts on boards where you just post "classifieds" looking for love / sex and not discussion forums where you can actually troll people?
3. It is TK and he's secretly gay. So what? Although I agree that outing someone who spouts homophobic rants on the tubes is justified, I just don't feel that dragging someone's sexuality into an argument makes you win the argument.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to think any of the accounts are related to TK 11 years ago. As I mentioned, the only account that seems to have any direct relation to him is the Yahoo one which has his name (all the rest go by the P name and other then the California thing I don't see any connection to TK only to each other). As I mentioned above AFAIK that name could have been changed at any time and we wouldn't know unless someone remembers that account from 11 years ago or we have some other record so we don't really know when it was changed to be TK's name.

I have a tendency for long overly complex posts but to simplify my suspicion of what probably happened here

1. 11 years ago someone creates a Yahoo account and occasionally? uses it to look for young males for sex, I presume seriously. They go by the P name.
2. Most likely that same person, in any case someone with control of that account, more recently and probably this year changes the name in the Yahoo account to TK's name. They also change the settings on the Pulse account so it's publicly shown in their profile (instead of connections only). They keep most of their details intact.
3. People come across the 'TK' profile and have a laugh. They look in to the adds and have even more of a laugh on finding the old ads.

To use an example, take a look at this . This is my account. I just created the Yahoo pulse thing. My Yahoo account itself I've held since 2000 I guess, as it says. I don't live in the US and in 2000 I'd never even heard of Obama. I'd barely even heard of George W. Bush (ah those were the days...). Obama himself is unlikely to have seen any reason why him people would doubt he was born in the US. My account use to be under my real name but I changed just now for this example. P.S. As mentioned earlier I can easily delete the "Born in the U.S.A. updated the Basics information in his Yahoo! Profile" if I want.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The final push?

Got an idea (and it's awesome because TK [hi!] can't do anything about it) to push CP that little bit closer to insanity. What if everyone here set up 10+ Gmail accounts and pummelled them with account requests?They won't be able to differentiate between legitimate requests and, uh, us. What's to say I haven't started doing this already? Anyway, we could see what happens. Either they go into total lockdown, shut the site down, re-open registration or go nuts trying to weed out the trolls. Could be interesting, like a weird psychological study. IP blocks shouldn't be a problem with TOR and proxies. – Nick Heer 06:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You underestimate the siege-mentality of Conservapedia: this would only bolster Andy's status as a martyr for Quantum Christ, and allow TK to rant about orchestrated attacks on a conservative site...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think TK will be just sitting in his chair laughing at the other sysops. After all, he is a troll...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Since they apparently don't care about attracting legitimate editors, they'll just ignore all mails when they're hit with 100+ requests in a short time. Even if some make it through, they'll just get blocked once they start editing. Let CP die its natural death, and enjoy the madness while it lasts. Röstigraben (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

BORING. ħuman 07:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They need no help from us to descend any further, they're their own destruction. 07:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Between strangling themselves by turning off account creation and letting Ken and Andy run wild, CP is doing far more to dig their own grave, than anybody else - even if we condoned such things, which we don't - could achieve. Let's just sit back and watch the slow-motion train wreck. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 08:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the same suggestion was made when they first introduced the restricted sign-up policy. In a sadistic way I think it is rather fun to watch them die a slow lingering death now that they have deprived themselves of fresh air. Conservapedia is now the Terry Schiavo of wikis. (Apologies if that is in bad taste.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Difference with Terry Schiavo is that for whatever reason, whether because they genuinely cared about her as a person (like her husband and parents did) or they cared about her as a political tool to further their 'pro-life' agenda, people cared about her. Virtually no-one give a flying f*** about cp. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you really care about helping them to die (they seem to be doing pretty well themselves), then just say on this page that you got a troll account this week, do it every week, I dunno. Even when they read this page, they'll have no way of knowing which. While I'd rather let them die alone, if you're going to "help" them - it's funnier to do it off their own paranoia than actually giving them something to be validly paranoid about. ^EXTERMINATE 10:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I say definitely not; it will only feed the siege mentality and persecution complex they, like most fundamentalists, have. They will view such attacks as a sign they are doing "God's will" and are being persecuted for "Christ's sake". Besides they are killing themselves oh so ever slowly with their combination of paranoia, extremist beliefs, and internal trolls and parodists in the highest rankings. Sure CP will linger on for possibly years (or until Andy's money runs out), but they will linger in the dark, damp corner of the crosspace under the house of the Internet.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus, as we were saying in the Ninja space, we just have to mention another 'Ides of March' - or in this case December - and their paranoia reaches whole new levels of crazy. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it really paranoia when all your enemies are really out to get you? By the way, our sister affiliate sites have confirmed that they've received their decryption keys for the Ninja space.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I detest the namespace name, I am updating some of the tools developed for previous exploits. ħuman 05:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to my comments elsewhere, I'm not sure that we should proceed with some of those tools. With the lock-down on new accounts those that we have with edit rights should be kept in reserve to prod Andy when he finds his next "Lenski". As the big pink one pointed out, CP is now almost in a "persistent vegetative state"; let's maximise the lulz rather than going for the cheap shots. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)