Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive213

This is an archive page, last updated 5 January 2011. 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>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <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)

I know the answer is "because he's stupid"...

...but why would Ken

want to bitch aboutimg the fact that the media buried a story which reveals in part that veterans and former FBI bigwigs are speaking out against the war in Afghanistan?

There's actually a weird sort of thing going on re: Afghanistan over at CP. Some of the MPR stuff has been almost anti-war, now that it's "Obama's war," so CP on principle has to oppose it for that reason. But to oppose the war is to get into bed with pinkos like Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Moore, etc. etc....so people who were always persona non grata are now performing "civil disobediance" in the name of the Treasury? P-Foster (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're spot-on with the observation, but we only saw them adopt their anti-Afghanistan war stance around the time Michael Steele was caught on tape criticizing the war and calling it "Obama's War". Then Ann Coulter defended Steele, and CP reported about it eagerly to tar Obama. This is far-far right territory of becoming anti-War for political ends, which is why Steele enraged the rank-and-file Republicans. It's no secret to us that CP's Fab Five are in the far far right. Schlafly loves Steele and Steele defends Ron Paul; I also think Schlaf sympathizes with anti-Afghan war sentiment in Paulist terms. And bully for them - these wars are sucking the life out of this country. --Leotardo (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Ken anti-war anyway (even while other Senior Administrators were for it on some level at least)? It's late here, so I may misremember, but some of his TZB posts made that clear, plus that (partially oversighted?) debate with TK a while ago on Talk:Main... --Sid (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again a lot of that stuff is post-Obama's election. There does seem to be a lot of opposition in the American far-right to the wars now that Obama is in charge. It does seem to be a lot of "we would rather fail than have Obama be able to finish them". - π 02:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Sid was right. I remember being greatly unsettled when I read a few of Ken's posts arguing against the war and agreeing completely with them. GTac (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the service CP provides. Kendoll may be a completely unhinged lunatic who spends all day, every day fighting his illusory battle against atheism, evolution and homosexuality on the internets, but CP gives him the chance once in a while to be the voice of reason. Remember his objections to the great Obama is a Muslim bandwagon? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what they say; even a broken cock point to the right twice a day. GTac (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken's been a busy boy

Voilà! --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to know what he's been working on? Read it and weep^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Utterly mental. 'Agnosticism and Obesity'? That's right Ken, take those nasty Agnos down a notch. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I particularly liked the slight against the US Army that's in there, aren't right wing nutjobs supposed to be pro-military? Also, it's very brave Ken to throw out challenges for other people, how about making one for yourself? I'm sure a 'sparring session' could be arranged in a cage between yourself and an atheist, or do you lack the machismo? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken doesn't even have the machismo to reply to such a challenge. - π 11:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well some people can only talk the talk rather than do anything else. Also, Ken reads this page and quickly removes his disparaging remarks on the US Army lest Andy and TK find out. Coward. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Noah - Lived a long life so definitely not fat. Plus there is no indication especially large food provisions were made for Noah on the ark." Argh! Dear Ham Sandwich! Jeeves I hate you forever for making read that crap. However, if atheists are obese, and all the southern redneck GOP states are obese, does that make southern redneck GOP supporters atheist? --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor, please stand up...if you can.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm thin as a rail, but I'm atheist, not agnostic. Perhaps all this uncertainty leads to anxiety-fueled food consumption? DickTurpis (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As an obese atheist, I'd throw in that if every atheist was obese and every Christian healthy, then it would in no way further the case for god, it's just Ken being childish and trying to insult the people he sees as his nemesis. As a wise man once said, "The fact that a religious man is happier than a non-religious man is no more relevant than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one." ^EXTERMINATE 14:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

16 of the top twenty fattest states in America voted for McCain in 2008. They also tend to be the most religious states. Published over on the journal Nature's site is a study that found, "Religious denomination was significantly related to higher body weight in men after accounting for sociodemographic controls.... No significant relationships between religion and body weight were present in women." --Leotardo (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thing is I envision ken as the <stereotype alert> typical American </stereotype alert> in being overweight, bespectacled and somewhat uneducated. I'd love to see an image of the cp editors to see if they match up to my mind pictures. Apologies to all Americans for the sweeping generalisation. tk, skinny and nerdy with a HUGE rage inside him over something. ken, fat and slug like, rather like Jabba the Hut. RobS, slightly overweight, somewhat nerdy but could be good company in a bizarre way if you could keep him off politics and religion. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh course we all must realize that this entire "essay" was written for our exclusive benefit; who else is going to read it? Who else other then maybe the obscure ShockOfGod channel is ever going to reference it? Even other Conservapedians ignore Ken's

lunatic ravings, and rightfully so; he only continues to be tolerated on CP because he is one of the "fab five", otherwise he been long ago "expunged" from the Central Committee of the Party. Yes, it is often fun to point and mock at the ridiculousness of it all, but face it, he keeps writing the same dribble over and over.  Even half of this latest offering is just a rehash of his other "essays", it is just lacking some sort of flying feline.  It was funny at first but now it is boring.  Worse, people here seem to be actually upset at what he says, it is like getting mad at the conspiracy theories of the Revered Jim Ignatowski, except at least Ignatowski actually believed what he was saying, Ken is just doing it now to troll. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was written for our benefit, and because we've commented on it he'll make more. We're encouraging him. And this is a very good thing. Every time he posts one of these single image link-fests it makes CP look even more stupid and distances them from their sales propaganda of being an educational resource. Andy doing the same thing he's always done, ignoring common sense. He did it for Lenski, he did it for Colbert and now he's letting his 'encyclopaedia' be filled with absolute drivel. Atheism and Peanut Butter? Nobody in their right mind is ever going to take Andy seriously for the rest of his life because we have off-site copies. Is there a way to try and nominate him for the Republican primary at the next election? It'd be great for the press to start enlightening everyone he knows just what he's up to online. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point; CP is indeed dying the extremely slow death of a thousand cuts, and Ken's "essays" are like another razor blade slash against its family jewels. I cannot understand what Andy hopes to gain by allowing this to go on, every new essay is further kills any credibility he or the site has with conservatives or Christians. Unlike the rest of the "fab five" there, Andy at least potentially had some sort of public future worthy of note, but that bright hope is rapidly fading away. Perhaps he knows this deep down but cannot admit what CP is doing to his future political and legal prospects because shutting down the site is tantamount to admitting the future is lost. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the rehashing, the lack of creativity and the poor writing that makes them uninteresting to me. If he improved those even marginally, I would be able to make it past the first floating picture box that is often the beginning and end of the 'new essay'. --Leotardo (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ken, to answer your question "If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat?", the answer is because every time I fuck your wife, she gives me a biscuit.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, I think it's questionable whether Ken has ever kissed a girl, and improbable he will ever find one who would marry him. Women seem wicked when you're unwanted. --Leotardo (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Two word, Thai bride. - π 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What's most important is that Andy approves of Ken's inanities covering his blog like a warm, crazy blanket. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a great link, but are the two complaining about Ken's essays serious CP editors? Because if so, cp:Essay: Chuck Norris vs. obese atheists is even more embarrassing than the peanut butter. It begins with a line even my 13 year old nephew wouldn't write of his favorite superhero ("In a fair fight, Chuck Norris could single handedly take on the whole atheist population of the world." Yeah, that's right - with one hand tied behind his back! BAM! POW! SPLAT!) --Leotardo (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "serious CP editors". If you mean serious about sticking around and editing, then no. If you mean serious about CP not looking ridiculous, then yes. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Only part I found funny in that entire exchange is the statement, "Nate, we don't censor here". Only Andy could be oblivious to the stark hypocrisy of his own statements. The only other real question is why does Nate continue to try? He only is going to have two options, keep quiet and tolerate the crazy and censorship, or speak up on principle and be banished for questioning the Party Line. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

However it is also interesting that other regular users are speaking^img up^img in protest, although it will all be for naught. Even our most beloved parodist gets in on the act^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, the mere fact that they're questioning the actions of one of the Chosen, marks them as liberals. In fact, the only reason they're still on CP, is that TwinKle isn't. Ken can write whatever shit he likes, as long as he doesn't step on one of Andy's many crazy toes. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 16:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unbecoming of a serious project like Conservapedia." *snork* --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, four 'serious' editors are raising a fuss about the embarrassment that is Ken DeMyer. Ken is a conundrum for Andy because he must know the stupidity of the essays is a big hairy mole on CP's face; but he's also running a skeleton crew. Either risk having Ken storm off CP by putting an end to the dumb shit he contributes, or risk losing more serious contributors who are embarrassed by him, but don't show his dedication regardless. --Leotardo (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I was very disappointed to see TeacherEd not blindly supporting Andy. It would have been delectable. Occasionaluse (talk)

The only way Andy is going to do something about Ken's latest stinking pile left all over CP's front door is if another senior editor seriously supports the protesting regular users; this is however very unlikely and those four will just be SOL, and if lucky, SOL without some sort of block against them. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For a man who constantly goes on about 'machismo', Ken seems to be reluctant to actually engage his critics on Andy's page. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken allegedly masturbates to the theme song of Stalker, Texas Stranger. He also has a thing for mullets and moustaches. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But here's something odd. The US is the world's most Christian country (OK it has the greatest number of Christians - but you get the idea). It is also the world's most obese nation. Now if correlation equals causation - which the essay implies - then either being Christian makes you fat or (equally probably) being fat makes you a Christian. Either way it don't help our Ken.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely The Vatican is the world's most Christian country? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hence my parenthetic clarification.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The smackdown of Ken continues^img.

If there's a connection between obesity and atheism it should be stated clearly and concisely. I didn't see that connection presented by what "Conservative" wrote, I just saw pictures of peanut butter, animals, Chuck Norris, PZ Myers being called fat, and other hateful personal messages to people "Conservative" thinks are his ideological foes. I'm tired of explaining to my wife that "Conservative" is the exception to the rule that this site has educational, honest, helpful material when she looks over my shoulder and gasps at how ridiculous some of his material looks to some people. I want to work on an encyclopedia that is willing to accept articles that don't have to be written by top experts in their field like Wikipedia. I don't want to work on a funhouse. --Nate@CP

My fantasy responses would be Ken attacking Nate for lacking machismo, and Andy attacking him for being pussy-whipped for listening to his wife when she should be baking pies for the boys. --Leotardo (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC) And this must be a joke: "I want to work on an encyclopedia that is willing to accept articles that don't have to be written by top experts in their field like Wikipedia."

"written by top experts in their field like Wikipedia" is Andy's out. He can just ride that tangent and ignore everything else. I'm getting annoyed at this coordinated vandal attack preventing Assfly from focusing on the issue. Can we call that off now, please? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just one person; either that, or it's the worst coordinated attack I've ever seen. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

4chan is being DDOSed so \b\ is likely bored and needs something to do in the meanwhile. Seriously though, I hope the cheap vandalism stops too, it just gives them the illusion that creating such tripe is the right thing to do because they are being persecuted! Much harder to do the Christian Persecution facade when their own contributors complain. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

They do seem to be somewhat between a rock and a hard place when it comes to allowing people to register. Closed registration via email and nobody joins, open registration and the only people who join are parodists and wandals. Give it up Assfly, your dream died about two years ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nahhhhhhh...' He's stuck between win and win. First, the encyclopedia is near completion, so you don't need a whole bunch of editors. Second, wandals just prove that liberals are deceitful liars who can't address the undeniable logic of conservatism. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The recent vandal probably comes from here since they are referencing RW. Their vandalism is not clever and, frankly, embarrassing for the vandal. It's possible that the vandal is actually Ken trying to distract from how unpopular are his inane contributions, because if Ken were to vandalize CP this is what it would look like. --Leotardo (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty flimsy evidence that it's "from here". It may be somebody who is aware of us but that hardly means it's "from here". I think I see a reference to 4chan as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be 4chan wondering when TK will be brought back (twice), saying CP is broken and reference Ken's new obesity essay that is being discussed nowhere but here. I guess it could be 4Chan, but unlikely. --Leotardo (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but when you wrote "the recent vandal probably comes from here since they are referencing RW" I read your comment to mean they were referencing the site - as in mentioning RW. (In fact the only site I see them mentioning is 4chan.) I now see that you meant that they were referencing the same things that we talk about.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "from here". As I said "it may be somebody who is aware of us" as I had read your comment to imply "managed by us". But perhaps I read too much into your comment. In which case I apologise--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

This page, now deleted, referenced RationalWiki and EdSm being a parodist. --Leotardo (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz has quite a following over at ED too, and their links to 4chan are rather stronger than ours. The nature of the wandalism suggests either a RW n00b (an experienced RWian should be capable of better) or an ED regular. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that those are the two most likely profiles. Sigh - his timing was bad b/c it distracted from the first (I've seen) groundswell of anti-Ken sentiment on CP, and I had just finished popping the pop corn. My favorite thing about Ken is that he's defiantly dumb, which only serves to chase people away - hee! Keep at it, Kenny Boy. --Leotardo (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a groundswell. Lets face it, they're parodists one and all. Everyone on CP who isn't the fab five or JPratt is parodist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Do you really think that's true? --Leotardo (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's true. I don't think CP has had a genuine new user for about a year now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Day

Would it be possible for somebody with a little more wikiknowledge than myself to check what their edit count was on December 25th, compared to a few other randomly selected days? It'd be interesting to see if the Conservapaedaphiles Conservapedians are good little Christians, or just spent the day online. ^EXTERMINATE 11:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be online at all? No religious restrictions to one's activity on Christmas Day. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No religious restrictions, but for somebody who spends every day ramming their Christianity down people's throats, I'd expect them to have a proper Christmas day, with church, and family, and all the rest. ^EXTERMINATE 15:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect though, some of them don't have families, or at least families they actually interact with on a personable level. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Andy the only one who managed to convince some poor broad to watch his creepy face hovering over her with his bony body? Has Andy procreated? Ken's probably a fat slob mouth breather and TK an anger bear, so no families there. --Leotardo (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy is married with at least two kids; the daughter even occasionally opposes her father's insanity on CP before being told to get back into the kitchen to bake cookies. Joaquín Martínez has a daughter I believe. Andy's brother Roger was also married. The rest though among the "fab five" are bachelors as far as I know. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I always found it strange when people who are so unsuccessful at relationships and marriage go barking about family values. Often the 'traditional values' ideas these guys espouse are what turn off many women to begin with, natch. You know they are freakish about them when they can't even find some broad at church to mate with. --Leotardo (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TK once told me a long while ago that he has a family that he spends time with. Whether he meant living with his parents or having a wife and children, I dunno. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Somehow the combination of TK and family makes me think of something like Manson Family. Vulpius (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CBP Update

Here's what Andy's been missing. None of that wimpy, hippie forgiveness shit. No! Give me Jesus the Dragon Slayer! Or how about the 'Don't touch my shit Jesus?' Or even the 'Don't touch ME, fucker!' Jesus? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 16:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I adore Cracked.com. In fact: Cracked and The Best Page in the Universe. That's all the internet comedy I need. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. that's the Jesus they should have gone with.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh - cracked.com is blocked at my office under the category "Tasteless". --Leotardo (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize maddox was back. He has his moments. And they're usually a month or two apart. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You know, they could just start worshiping Simon bar Kokhba. Barikada (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Since the article was about the Gnostic Gospels, does anyone on here know where I can find the verses where Jesus kills a kid. Then his parents get pissed at Jesus. So Jesus brings the kid back to life just to testify that Jesus didn't kill him. I don't remember how it ends. Mr. Swift (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

can someone explain what the fuck ed is thinking? (rhetorical question)

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road^img is about leaving the gay lifestyle? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Like so many topics, Ed only read the first few words before forming a comprehensive opinion in addition to expert knowledge of the topic at hand. I'm guessing he drew a link between yellow brick road -> wizard of oz -> homosecks^spit and decided that, therefore, bidding goodbye to the yellow brick road is equivalent to leaving the gay lifestyle. Even though the lyrics suggest nothing of the sort. And that Elton John probably wouldn't write a song on that anyway. 86.175.139.46 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Elton John has been in and out of the closet more often than my shirtsAMassiveGay (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bernie Taupin, who co-wrote the lyrics and this reference in particular, was a vocal supporter of gay rights but was straight himself (marriages, children, the works). Here is from Wikipedia (no refs to back it up):

The Wizard of Oz was reportedly the first film Elton's songwriting partner Bernie Taupin had ever seen, and he conjured the imagery in the lyrics relating to his own life as his desire to ""Get back to his roots."" it's also a reference to Elton's fame and fortune and to contrast of Bernie's attempts to remain ""low-key"" while Elton's was be extravagant.

The 'leaving homosexuality' thing is Ed not understanding the song, nor the movie, and thinking yellow brick road = homosexuality ('cause gays lurve Judy Garland and musicals). But in the Wizard of Oz it was "The road that leads to life's fantasies" or "The road that leads to life's answers." So if leaving that road behind leads to Ed Poor, I'll take homos. --Leotardo (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't work?

Andy does away with the Email for an account^img Him (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Account creation is back. That explains the surge in vandal activity today, though I'm unconvinced that the vandal wasn't Ken. --Leotardo (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, the Fundagelical All-Stars over there have vandalized the place more effectively than anyone at 4chan or ED could have managed. --Kels (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

'tis true. Between the scylla and charybdis of idiocy that is Kendoll and RobS, the main page will never recover. And since there's no point of entry that doesn't go through one of Kendoll's little adventures in abusing the mother tongue, there's essentially nothing on CP that doesn't look like it has been wandalised by 4chan's finest. Quality control is not Andy's forte. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Karajou had a very merry Christmas.

Have you noticed that Karajou has been even angrier and crazier than his usual angry, crazy self lately? Check out some of^img his recent screeds^img. He's gone entirely off the deep end. You wonder how America gets along at all what with half its citizenry being lying, cheating murderers bent on wanton destruction. Oh, no, wait. That's just our dear swabbie's imaginary world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

He's probably still upset with DADT being repealed after he fled left the service. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be the same Karajou that I have always known. There was the sudden rush of parodists and talk, talk, talk people who gave him the chance to spout. Though I also think that he has simply reached a point in which the craziness is no longer distinguishable by me. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to untangle the Gordian knot of sadness and anger to understand how a man could actually purport to believe those things is too much for even most therapists. My favorite is his screed against blue laws, which were government regulations of business and the free market for Christian religious reasons. "Homosexuality is adultery" is pretty cool too. --Leotardo (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 'Liberals steal because they pass legal taxes' was also up there.

Ah, I love the sound of Karajerk in the morning. The nice thing with his little rants, is it illustrates his own little persecution complexes so nicely. Clearly somebody didn't get much Xmas cheer this year. You know, reading their collective insanity over there, they should just band together and get Andypants' mummy to build them a secure compound in the Louisiana swamps somewhere. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 09:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

E-mail to Andy

Self-explanatory.

Dear Andy:

A little while ago, when I challenged you to a debate, you agreed---on
the provision that there be a guaranteed audience. (You also said, and
I quote, "I'm fine with debating on a neutral site, as long as it does
not become too time consuming. Feel free to suggest a debate format.")

Well, I've found a place with a guaranteed audience: YouTube. I
suggest that both of us upload a five-minute video, presented from a
Biblical perspective, on an agreed-upon issue---like social aid, the
death penalty, or young-earth creationism.

You could even "embed" the videos in Conservapedia's Main Page; then
any and all concerns about an audience for the debate would be moot.
Even if you didn't link to the videos, YouTube has a substantially
larger audience than Conservapedia.

Because you have not replied to my recent e-mails, I am copying this
onto RationalWiki to make it clear that so-called "liberals" are,
indeed, willing to engage people like you in debate:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#E-mail_to_Andy.

In Christ,
Tom.

I apologise; I sent an incorrect link. Here is the correct one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#E-mail_to_Andy

Tom.

Let's see what happens. Thomas Larsen (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Short answer - nothing. If Andy doesn't reply, then it never happened. Also, if you sent it via his CP mail button, he doesn't read mail from there. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 09:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't send it through his Conservapedia e-mail button: I used another address, and he has replied to e-mails sent to it in the recent past. Thomas Larsen (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll answer you this time, Tom! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy will not accept. He knows that a debate is suicide because goddidit is not a good argument. --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How is debate suicide? It's all about preaching to the converted. The religious have spent the last few decades not even trying to convince the atheists that they're wrong. It's a charade, the appearance of debate is necessary to keep the wobblers in their own camp off balance. So long as they can keep the kind of person who watches Fox (or MSN, or the BBC) without once thinking "Hey, is any of this really true?" they have a majority and with it tremendous power. The cost of shutting down a measly few million Weak Atheists isn't worth it. So you stand up on stage and you recite the same bullshit but while trying to sound like your believe it. And those who are inclined to already say, "See, there's a strong argument" and go back to cowering in their dark caves fearing God. Andy is easily capable of this, a Sunday School teacher could do it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats the point. Andy tries to argue his point of view, and people outside his inner circle will question if all conservatives and/or christians are like this. An unfair generalization, I admit, but people are stupid and tend to think like that.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but putting a link to Rational Wiki in the email was a a stupid mistake. His Andyness won't take you even remotely seriously now. Pegasus (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edz 'n' da hood

Amongst the fun of Andy defending drivel in his usual manner ("we don't censor here;" "you're being awfully quick to seek censorship of these postings;" "I wonder if it is this: some object to ridicule of evolution, and by extension ridicule of atheism") Da Bad Touch Eddy-PeePee cruises in wid' his posse o' homeys.^img Pausing only to crawl up Andy's ass, making sure his shoelaces stick out in case of rescue, he finishes off with a reference to "the 'hood" - the closest to which Eddy-PeePee has come is the top of an anorak.
Funniest line of the year: "The son of the smartest woman in America, and a lawyer to boot, he's just giving you enough rope to hang yourself." Does Andy know he's adopted? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 09:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that amount of arse-kissing was physically possible. Ed, do you have absolutely no sense of self-respect, or are you just used to being Andy's bitch it's simply a medical reaction to shoot up his arse faster than a rabbit gets fucked each time someone's on his case? It's quite incredible what lengths some people will go to to defend shitty, embarrassing essays to maintain the illusion of a unified front, as there's no way Andy and Ed can possibly think Conservative's nonsensical "essays" qualify as decent satire/humour. Or maybe I'm giving them more credit than they're worth. If Andy had taken a stance on them earlier (telling Ken they were good in public/feeding him dog treats, or telling him to stop it in private) instead of ignoring him, he wouldn't be in this situation now. SJ ^Debaser 11:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ed, do you have absolutely no sense of self-respect, or are you just used to being Andy's bitch?" The correct answer is (c) All of the above. --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Father Ted ups the ante,^img Ken delivers a Norris-esque smackdown.^img Certain unnamed blogs etc and the voices in my head tell me they're funny and I've just gone down on ShockofGod again, so he's going to embarrass himself about talking about my tubby people abortion. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 12:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Most popular Christian on Youtube? Man Christians on Youtube most be a tiny and insular group if Shock is the best they can come up with, damn.. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"He's not as easily fooled as you think." - PffffffffBWAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA... --Sid (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha! --Ψ GremlinPraat! 12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll take me about a week to get over Weird Ed Moon accusing _other people_ of being in a cult. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is actually a little too much stupid for me to handle. It just makes me feel weird. Ed seriously has no idea how stupid he is. Andy thinks he's so much smarter than everyone else that he can't be seen through. And Ken just needs help and no one on earth will give it to him. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pure gold over there now. TK is not around to burn the complaints and block the accounts of a freshly opened sock drawer before Andy's virgin eyes are tainted. Ed reaches Karajerk levels of crazy-bile, reaching three whole paragraphs before he finally melts down to shnizzling the jizzle. Ken, the ultimate unwitting parodist, openly tells Andy's favourite new parodist that he (the parodist, not Ken) is indeed a parodist. Please keep it up guys and, yo dawg, keep it real Ed!--Brendiggg (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Get real, baby", how very 70's. Maybe he heard the Pope's Xmas message, and thought that would be an era he'd like very much... --Kels (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed's use of street terms is only understandable if you have watched RNC Chair Michael Steele talk street and get jiggy wit it. Seriously, though, this is nothing but good news for us that Andy is supporting Ken. Parodists or not, Andy is just not listening to them insisting that their "the essays are stupid and embarrassing to me and CP" arguments boils down to "I am uncomfortable ridiculing atheists". I'm glad that essays are staying, but it's breath-taking anyone would want to be part of a website that 1) could care less about your concerns; and 2) tells you that you think one way when you repeatedly insist that you think another. This is why they can't sign up or keep new users, and lose the old ones. Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If I were NKeaton, which I am, I would be proud for having the courage to start this important discussion on CP. Thank you for your support. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame they'll lose you! The insights of you and your Carmelite friar friend were useful! --Leotardo (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What else should I take credit for next? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy Quoted Again

YAY, more people know about us.^img Reality: An Obama campaign volunteer uses them to show how the tea party, or conservatives don't know much about socialism. Burn.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick....bully someone!

Karajou sees an account created^img...but people aren't supposed to create accounts!^img They're supposed to go to the main page^img and click on the...wait a minute...Oops...oh well. Sorry, Bob! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick retcon, minutes later: "The mail address has always been here! It never left!"^img (and account creation is off again). --Sid (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. If CP doesn't want people to create accounts, why did they leave the account creation mechanism open? Seems like general stupidity to me. I suspected them to at least enforce their unjust laws.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Burning the Pile anymore, that's Burning everyones Brains! --85.182.145.82 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

They decided to give it a try to allow account creation, but they realized the only people who want to create accounts are people who ridicule. As DouglasA pointed out, "I mentioned that I had asked my Christian and conservative peers their opinion of the essays, and the response was unanimous: I have yet to find a single person who finds them humorous, witty, or clever. Quite opposite, the comments range from "in bad taste," to "creepy," and I'll leave others aside for courtesy's sake." It's lost on Andy that one issues crossing the partisan divide is that both liberals and conservatives find Ken's essays creepy and moronic. So why allow account creation? They are okay with being the Lords of a garbage dump. --Leotardo (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone believe Ed could sink any lower?

I know I couldn't, but there it is. He's back to what he does best, liveblogging things he watched on TV, but now he's actually citing the tv guide as a source. Oh, Ed. Remember when you used to be a big wheel at wikipedia? Remember that, Ed? Where did it all go wrong? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through his contributions from back then. It never went right. --Kels (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how he red-linked "family tradition" and "achievement", as if CP will ever create useful articles about either of those complex concepts. --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny Ed Poor aside, only a year ago was he arguing on the WP talk page for Moonie members, "I copied a bunch of unsourced stuff off other Wikipedia articles, isn't that enough?!" After all that time on the site and 50,000 edits, he still didn't 'get it'. --Leotardo (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I never really took the time to look at his earliest edits until now. His first edits were composed of inserting personal commentary, such as writing "Huh? That seems to be an error" right in the middle of an article. AFAIK, at least one of his edits were reverted as vandalism. I guess it can be considered too harsh to criticize someone for their first edits, though, but the thing is, the man still doesn't get it after all these years that he has spent on Wikipedia. If I were him, I personally wouldn't brag about all that experience he has. It gives people high expectations. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ed actually believes his own hype, that by making a bunch of otherwise-useless stubs that were later fixed by other people, he can claim the final versions as his own accomplishments. So by that rather modest metric, he believes he's been an essential part of WP's early days. --Kels (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is evil inherently liberal?

This is great^img:

If we accept that the universe is created by God, and that God is entirely good and just, then it follows that the order of the universe at the time of Creation would ALSO be entirely good. Thus, any rebellion against this order would not be good and just. Conversely, any elements in the universe which are not good and just must perforce represent a rebellion against God's intended order. - Benp

Even by Christian standards it's a stupid argument. Evil includes the intent to cause harm or destruction. For almost all of recorded Christianity, slavery was okay by God and justified in the Bible, as was separating the races. This idea that however many thousands of years ago when magic man created the planet was the 'perfect moment' and every change since is liberal and thus evil, is something only a child with little worldly experience can dream up. --Leotardo (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And typing something like that in a computer is a hypocritical act. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Socialism citing WIGO

I'm too lazy to check, but would it kill people to do some basic homework? The diff you link to is a WANDALISM REVERT.

That entry actually seemed to evolve naturally into the cited Google phrase, starting in 2007 and apparently getting its last touch^img in March 2009.

If you think that CP plagiarized, then give a source that predates the corresponding CP version. Having clicked some of the links, it appears that this actually IS a strange case of random people citing CP. I'm too lazy to analyze the context or validity (though the examples I clicked were Obama-related, surprise, surprise), but the point is that this is a dumb WIGO that makes us look like idiots. --Sid (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See Above Please, Thank You, Hail Satan.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it and have no issue with that. But the WIGO seems to go for "CP pats itself on the back even though they're not the source of the quoted part", implying plagiarism. Yes, I probably could've posted it as a reply to your section, but that's already buried behind longer sections and my criticism is more focused on the handling than on the actual case. --Sid (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Teh peasants are Revolting!

Come back TwinKle, dissent such as this^img cannot be allowed to stand unpunished. PS. Jane, I think I love you. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 16:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The most useful critique was DouglasA^img's, if not just because he is an admin who is not suspected as a parodist. --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think we are doing this all wrong as there may be a danger that these essays will stop. What we should be saying is "Oh no! That essay is really good! We've really got no answer to that! He really shows the stupidity of Liberal ideas." Because we want more of this stuff at CP not less. Each time we point out how laughable it is we reduce the possibility of there being more of it.

So I'll start - though these lies come hard. "I can't believe how meaningful and insightful the essay on Atheists and fat people is. I've finally understood how horrible we are! And now I'm going to put on weight. I must rush down to my local church to join and I'm going to suggest that all my liberal friends read the article." Actually that last bit might be true--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, this approach is working just fine. Criticism from anyone outside the few people Andy trusts (even though not a single one of them is worthy of it) just makes him dig in his heels all the harder. Those "essays" aren't going anywhere, and in fact this all just makes Ken think they're "controversial" and somehow hurting the homoevotheist cause so will end up making more of them. Maybe enough pushing and he'll make one of the Article of the Century! --Kels (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kels. They best way to make them do something - anything - is to try to get them to stop doing something. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And another thing, I'm starting to be glad that TK is gone. First, shit like this gets to stink up the place for a lot longer. Second, Ed and Karajou are really ratcheting up the stupid and doing a bang up job of picking up the slack in hate and bigotry. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is amazing, the few actual good faith contributors, including someone of importance (DougasA) are finally speaking out on the puerile behavior of Ken

and how his "body of work" is just hurting the site and all Andy can do, thanks to his wound-up paranoia over the years, is accuse them of the worst thought crime possible in Conservapedialand.. Liberalism.  Then we get one of the trusted of the inner circle, Bad Touch Poor, adding fuel to the fire by condemning the dissent while showing support for Il Duce, assuring those essays will be protected like a national treasure.  Now we just need TK to swoop in and "expunge" the undesirables and all will be pure and perfect once again. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. People bitch and complain about how dull CP had gotten, and when things finally do start jumping they want TK to come back and make it boring again. Seriously, Andy is at his best when he has sane people to play off of. All TK does is remove the sane people, which gives Andy & Co. less to argue against, demonize, and try to "explain" things to. Which of course generates insights, the comedy lifeblood of the place. --Kels (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, BMcP was a longtime CP editor, so he probably is a masochist who feels he doesn't deserve the fun. ;P Occasionaluse (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's why I like Fetlife so much! ;P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but they really can care less about our opinions outside of pointing out obvious factual/source errors that a ten year old should be able to spot. I don't like discussing Ken's essays just because of how stupid they are, period. I find it degrading to laugh at him in the same way I would feel degraded to laugh at the antics of a retarded drifter. I sort of enjoy how he lacks self-awareness and finds solace in his mutual spamming of what he considers to be popular Youtube channels. Take Shockofgod: most of his religious videos get about 500-2,000 hits (which is what almost every schmo with a YouTube gets; the more successful Shock videos jump to about 15,000 hits.) By comparison a game called "Barack Paper Scissors" has almost 600,000 hits. So, I enjoy Ken's cluelessness because I enjoy watching wingnuts work so hard while failing at what they set out to do. --Leotardo (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the only reason they are worth discussing at the moment is because of the significant grumblings among the peasant classes of CP-land; which is the first entertaining event in that place for over a month. Will they just be brow-beaten into silence or will some suffer the banhammer? Tune in! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing, Tyler. Assfly is getting circled by people who aren't summarily blocked. No need to keep your pretense up. Out yourself while you have such a spectacular opportunity to do so.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tyler is playing the long game. I don't know why he even got involved. Jane is long overdue to get the boot. TeacherEd is in Ken's sights, and as we all learned from Willminator, Ken's decisions have traction for some odd reason. EdSm can go ahead and grab his coat. DouglasA must be ignored by Andy for the time being, the silence of which is music to my ears. I'd love to see Creepy Ed respond to Doug. Rob knows better to get involved because you know he agrees that Ken is insane and hurting teh CP. And maybe TK is playing voyeur? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Andy is possibly the only man in the world who would willingly drive off a cliff just because a liberal told him not to. The essays are ridiculous, and according to JacobB's operator Andy and all the sysops acknowledge this, but wait! Criticism! Circle the wagons men! Defend the essays to the death. And on the subject of Willimnator, why doesn't he just unblock himself? He has the power, and a block/unblock war with Ken would just make Ken more troublesome for Andy. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The feudal paradise finally has the peasants revolting. Excellent. But, do the serfs protecting Schlafly's manor exist yet? The ones who indoctrinate with their extreme right-wing thought? Perhaps CP will go down the toilet with Citizendium at the rate it's going. I'm glad to hear about heroes like Jane sticking it to the King.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's already down the toilet, it is just a question of when the plunger will be used to clear out the remaining crap. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

When Schlafly and the other idiots finally give up and realize their mission is futile.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I like Occasionaluse's scorecard above. I don't know why Rob would keep silent about Ken's puerile essays, when they should embarrass him as well. He has some cover given DouglasA's vote of no confidence (assuming one ignores the peasants else as parodists, and ignores Moonie Ed Poor because he's a mouth-breathing idiot). --Leotardo (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

PhillipM wins for best parody. He wants to know why the "censorship squad" isn't refuting Ken's essays. Remind me, Phil, how exactly do you refute a possum eating peanut butter? Kudos on reinforcing Andy. This should get interesting! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy's ability to just not get the points being made^img never ceases to amaze me. People aren't complaining that Conservative's essays are offensive because they're mocking evolutionists/atheists, Andy, they're complaining because they're dumb as hell. It also still amazes me that he can't not use the "BUT DO YOU ALSO CRITICISE THINGS I DON'T LIKE?!?" argument. He crams it into *everything*. He is literally like a machine built to be bad at debating points. I could spend decades of time and millions of moneys researching and creating an AI system designed to lose a debate and it'd never be as good as Andy. X Stickman (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And then Kendoll posts on MPR about how Twitter or whatever is all abuzz about his "atheism and obesity" essay, complete with a link to a page reading "Sorry, we couldn't find any relevant results." Well done, Ken. Well done. DickTurpis (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a user twittering about his "essays." Only it's a twitter spam bot. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What I love about Ken's Surchur link is there isn't a single positive CP headline in there: "This interview with Andy Schlafly of conservapedia.com is hard to watch. It's almost embarrassing." "I thought it was just a joke about Conservapedia!" "Conservapedia has declared that Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a liberal conspiracy" "Conservapedia on 'Socialism' - Show a big photo of Hitler then immediately rant about Barack Obama" "I was aware that Conservapedia was a pathetic Young-Earth Creationist organization but I did not expect that they would deny everything in modern science!" Wonderful stuff - just the kind of stuff CP should be pointing prospective editors (yeah, yeah, I know, there aren't any) to. --Ψ GremlinTal! 14:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

More Recall Nonsense

Excellent! I'd been wondering what would happen with the Menendez recall after the NJ Supremes basically told Andy he was an idiot. Owner of the world's scariest blog picture, TerryH, tells us that the teabaggers are definitely going to petition the US Supreme Court, and then updates the Menendez article with the latest case details. Bonus How many references to his own blog posts - where he gets paid per page view - can you find in that update? Conservatives? Dishonest? Perish the thought! Hopefully SCOTUS will grant cert. and we'll get the wonderful spectacle of Andy in front of them. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just enjoying that. It's almost kinda nice to see Andy get used, even if Terry really is an Andy fanboy. It looks like he almost never posts without linking to his blog. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant the way th actually implies that Washington wrote to the court himself. "this after the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed a letter by George Washington asserting that elected officials would remain recallable". Brilliant stuff th. Keep up the good deep cover work Oldusgitus (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Even better is the reality that Andy, arch-zealot of states' rights and limiting the federal government, is running to the federal government and the arm of it that he seems to despise the most in order to get them to overrule his state. And they say Americans have an irony deficiency. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh God, I need a capture of the References section^img - ten out of twelve references are to TerryH's wallet Examiner articles. And I love the thin veil of deceit he keeps up in the article even though everybody knows the truth: "TerryH" inserts a crapton of references to "Hurlbut, T". Lalala... --Sid (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sort of like Ken in reverse. --Kels (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. And while I'm capturebotting: Anna C. Little also got the Hurlbut treatment.^img --Sid (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I love it when states rights and small government types appeal to federal courts to try to change what the state courts say. (See also Miller in Alaska) --Shagie (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no doubt that TerryH has similar views to Andy but I don't believe he seriously thinks CP is a worthwhile resource, otherwise he would make a more substantive contribution. He just sees it as somewhere to boost his own projects. Remember the times in ZB that offers to "take charge" of various mooted projects?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that TerryH considers Andy a personal friend and that he was the one who vocally defended the whole "Andy's opinion = the absolute truth" thing in TZB. He may currently use CP mostly to sell his own views as a reliable source, but he seems to believe in CP's glorious mission more than the other sysops. --Sid (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

CP: Bernie Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, possibly Democratic Prez nominee

One of my favorite exercises in stupidity on CP is their cp:Presidential Election 2012 rankings, which make no sense. The Republican list seems to have a logic to it, but they also include essentially any Republican who has won office and/or appeared on a Sunday talk show. Where it gets interesting is the Democratic list. According to this list, only a day ago did Bernie Sanders, who is not a registered Democrat, had a greater chance of capturing the Democratic nomination than Hillary Clinton. Sanders still has a greater chance of being the nominee than Obama. Here are the top five possible candidates, ranked--yes, it's a ranking (which is clear from the edit history of the page)--based on CP intellectuals' proprietary formulation:

1. Mike Gravel - a former Alaska senator you've never heard about is, today, by CP's standards, the most likely to be the 2012 Democratic nominee.
2. Russ Feingold - a respectable guy who couldn't hold on to his Senate seat in Wisconsin in 2010.
3. Hillary Clinton
4. Independent Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who does not belong to any political party.
5. Barack Hussein Obama

I'm surprised more bloggers don't discuss this insightful, logical list where we learn that the sitting President is only fifth most-likely to be the Dems 2012 candidate. --Leotardo (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff there. I do like how inexperience is dismissed for Rubio and Rand Paul, but Scott Brown, who has a year in the Senate while the other two are still Senators-elect, has "inexperience" as a stated disadvantage. I see they acknowledged Ron Paul's vote for DADT repeal, yet strangely they don't seem to be calling him a RINO, unlike those raging liberals Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran, and Bob Bennett. DickTurpis (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Manic progressives & the tax cut

This discussion was moved to Forum:Manic progressives and the tax cut.

Ken Jr.

Go TeacherEd,^img go! If there's one good thing that came out of the discussion regarding Ken's essays, it's that it allows for everyone to create their own essays now that they have Andy's explicit approval. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh that is epically hilarious, Ed you are one of the finest of 2010! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This was so funny, that Ed has moved up a notch in my rankings of best CP parodists, swapping places with Tyler. --Leotardo (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Has Tyler ever done anything funny? He's just a boring toady. TeacherEd is one of the all-time greats if you ask me. Benp's underappreciated too. He made the Best of the Public what it is, and if he can get "evil is inherently liberal" approved I'll be even more impressed. --Benod (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not Tzoran isn't a parodist. We've got a user here who goes to school with him in Chicago. Chime in buddy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Nutty, I've went back home on vacation and haven't been checking the web really at all. Unfortunately I have no classes with tizzy during the winter term. Maybe the spring term? (he may be a loony but at least he understands finance!). ghazi alizm, ^comments? 14:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And Ken can't even run to Andy and present this essay as evidence for Ed being a parodist, because it's exactly the same nonsense he produces himself. Andy has already damaged CP beyond repair by deciding on policies according to his whims and stubbornness, but he's really outdone himself with this permission. I don't expect any "essay" produced by a parodist to top Ken's flying kitty madness, though. Röstigraben (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Although there was no endless use of "it seems" and the spamming of a million other dumbo essays, I thought it was one of Ken's. --Leotardo (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Favorite quote: "Unlike Santa, Jesus maintained a slim figure."

This has got to be one of my favorite moments of Conservapedia's history. Keep 'em coming.^img Keep giving Andy what he asked for. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I almost want to join in on their reindeer games! MOAR ESSAYS! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is going to be seeing some use. «-Bfa-» 05:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken's deleted it and blocked EdSm! His quest to be the only tard in the village continues. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, hypocrite, but too late, thanks to Capturebot. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken smackdown continues; Nate's still small voice

Nate does not back down^img:

I wasn't aware that these essays are part of keeping away serious people from this site until DouglasA wrote it. Them and the responses here are definitely driving me away. I've tried having a conversation about their poor quality and garish appearance on the front page with several admin while I was considering whether to work on this website. Deciding to try and become part of a community of like-minded people isn't an overnight decision for me now that I'm underemployed because of the economy and have a lot of time to spend working on computers. The admin here are not receptive to criticism because "Conservative" is said to bring so much web traffic to this website. It looks like "Conservative" can get away with whatever he wants and the admin will defend him in order to protect web traffic.

The entirety is actually an articulate, rousing speech against Schlafly's responses and the thing called "Conservative". --Leotardo (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. Nate is actually a member of that rarest of species, a serious contributor who wants to improve CP's quality. Unfortunately for him, he'd first have to get Andy to admit that CP isn't perfect yet, which obviously won't happen. As it stands, he can consider himself lucky that TK's apparently passed out on eggnog. Röstigraben (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's lovely watching Andy's knee-jerk reaction to any criticism on CP. Immediately you must be a liberal, for daring to criticise in the first place, and insisting on censorship; then you have a double standard for not criticising something totally unrelated to the point in questions, such as atheism. Soon he'll be onto the "open your mind" and "the Bible is the most logical book" rants, whilst all the time ignoring the fact that Ken's infantile outpourings are a serious embarrassment to CP. Just how far will Andy go to defend his hand-picked morons? Is it because they're hand-picked that he has to defend them, al a "Andy is always right? --Ψ GremlinTala! 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well done all

To all who have commented on Assfly's talk page on this subject, whichever side you chose, good on you. You have encouraged Kendoll not only to hold his ground but in fact up the ante by adding more retarded ramblings. Encouraging comments he has taken as proof that his inanity is welcome and humorous, while those opposing him have led to him believe he is actually harming atheism with his essays. A classic win/win situation. But by far the best part of this is his complete and utter lack of any evidence whatsoever that atheists are in any way more prone to obesity than Christians. Not a single fact or statistic backs his assertion up. All he has is a photograph showing P.Z. Myers with a bit of a paunch, and allusions to some board members of American Atheists, and if this is the page he's referring to then we have certainly a handful of pretty fat people, but by and large nothing out of the ordinary for a country with an obesity rate of about 30%. Also, it's great how he dismisses the American Atheist photos as insignificant^img, and then, 2 hours later, cites it as a prime example of how fat atheists are^img. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Ken is about 5'2" and 98 lbs. DickTurpis (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! We now have the proliferation of obese atheists plastered not once^img, not twice^img, but <capture>thrice^img across the main page, and we can only expect more of CP Funhouse. Ken's never worth a wigo, but for trolling he's worth his weight in gold in making CP look ridiculous. --Leotardo (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Moar!

I see Ken's managed to blank CP's RC again. And he's blathering^img on poor JPatt's talk page again. I wonder what he's done to deserve that? Maybe Ken's mistaking him for an angel-voiced Korean lady? Also, I love the Amish analogy - given how they work pretty damn hard in the fields and raising barns and eschewing junk food, one would expect them to be pretty slim and fit. I honestly think there's a whole bunch of projection going on. Ken probably hates being a pasty white lardarse but is too damn lazy to do anything about it, except assign a negative connotation to it. --Ψ GremlinHable! 10:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (and it's certainly possible I do not) didn't I find JPatt on Facebook and find him to be someone who is not exactly on the thin end of the spectrum? It would be great is Ken were going off on fat atheists to an obese guy. Since Ken seems to love selection bias and takes it as proof that he's right on this, despite actual evidence to the contrary, let's take a look at another study I just did:

Richard Turpentine: atheist: 6'2", 169 lbs. - not obese

Edmund Poor: loonie moonie: 6'5", 250 lbs. (approximations for both; low end guess on weight) - obese

Conclusion: atheists are thin and healthy, Moonies are fat and have impaired brain functions (the latter is self-evident)

Just out of curiosity, Ken, what's your height and weight? Was I in the right ballpark with my guess above? DickTurpis (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe someone pointed out Jerry Fallwell already, then there is pastor John Hagee of a church of 19,000. Bishop Eddie Long of the 25,000 member strong New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is a bit on the big side too. Are evangelical pastors of mega-churches fatter then the average atheist? You decide! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rick Warren, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee and his entire fat creepy family, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, this fat priest or these fat missionary ladies going to countries with hunger problems. Only 4% of the U.S. population describes themselves as atheist or agnostic. Meanwhile, 34% of American adults are "obese" and another 34% are "overweight but not obese"[1]. This is the only aspect I like about Ken's essays: they act like fools for the sole purpose that they think it gets under our skin. Because they think it bothers us, they (an encyclopedia) keep demonstrating for us (essentially a chat room) the breadths of their stupidity except they also show mainstream conservatives and everyone else the same thing. It's kind of beautiful how often they sink their own ship. --Leotardo (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in to smileys or emoticons or whatever they're called, so I will communicate my views the old fashioned way: Good post! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the current pope of the conservative movement.... Good old slim and trim Rush. PS, he's a confessed drug abuser and just had his fourth marriage.... Why do they still like him? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The rightwingers don't require that their leaders follow the morality that they preach and lambaste others for not following. As Newt Gingrich was having an affair with his third wife before he left his second wife, he told her, "It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live." This is okay, as you can see from CP's placement of him second among the Republican contenders for President. Whereas John Edwards career is over. --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also compare David Vitter and Eliot Spitzer. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Also compare it is ok to lie to take your country, and other countries with you, into a war which you were still bogged down in after 6 years and which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and which your deputy president's companies made billions of dollars from but it is an impeachable offence to get a blow job from a consenting adult intern. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made my day. I want not approve on it I think goodpost.gif. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The real reason why Andy can't do anything about Ken

Of the last 500 wiki-wide edits, Ken has almost 350. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Ken

has really upped his work shit smearing rate, I've never seen him blank RC when set to 100!  Go Kenny! Go Kenny! Go Kenny!  DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Obsessive Conservapede Syndrome much? It's typical Ken tho - "Oh noes! People are daring to say my shit is shit! Quick, let me spread my shit even further and faster!" --Ψ GremlinTal! 13:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did this^img spring from? Five minutes later he was himself again. Broccoli (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Home Alone

Watching Andypants try his best to deal with wandalism when he doesn't have his faithful minions at his beck and call is touchingly pathetic. So far, it has taken him about 20 minutes to clean up 6 of 16 wandal edits. I wonder if the rest will take him another hour or so? I wonder if he'll try keep CP going when it's just him raving incoherently and wave after wave of parodists and wandals? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I'm not a fan of vandalism as it's not funny or in any way entertaining, however the thought of a severely hungover Assfly frantically clicking away as his little empire crumbles beneath the weight of Ken's

essays and a single 13yearold with a new netbook is rather chortlesome! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately budding parodist NKeaton is trying to earn some brownie points by helping the Assfly. This should give Nate's new operator (who's got the account just now?) some breathing space after the last one hit out at Ken

. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC but I ain't editing what I was going to say anyway) I see parodist-in-waiting, NKeaton, has swept up the rest of the shit for Andy. Extra laughs for any first reverting "vandalism" to User:ILoveKensEssays, then going 'Oh... wait...' and then only blocking and deleting him. @Jeeves - Andy will never be alone there, at least until guys like Karajerk find somewhere else to take their fragile little egos. --Ψ GremlinParla! 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing TK is on vacation. Without him, they see how close their garbage dump kingdom is to chaos. They are going to have to remove account creation again. --Leotardo (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it's beneath Andy to thank a minion. another minion parodist has to do it for him^img --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is something that isn't right about the "TK being on vacation" line. Doesn't anyone remember when he claimed to be on vacation in Hawaii and was editing through one of those remote access programmes via his main PC at home? How come he isn't still doing that?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cynical answer: Because he was lying back then to show Andy that he won't stop caring about CP even during his time off. He just needed an excuse for why his IP didn't change even though he claimed to be traveling. Otherwise, he could've just edited CP directly from Hawaii instead of setting up a remote-PC connection.

More realistic answer (which doesn't contradict the cynical one, though): Even parodists need some time off from the insanity that is CP. As an added bonus, if all Hell breaks loose, it'll show Andy just how important TK is, thus further cementing his right-hand-man position. --Sid (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck would go to Hawaii and spend their time indoors editing CP? I don't know if it's sadder actually doing that or just pretending. SJ ^Debaser 13:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Or to not be able to say a single thing without people being fairly sure you're lying. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I never believed that he was remotely accessing a PC to edit either here or CP. I just brought the issue up again for old time's sake and to have another jibe at the sad, old Walter Mitty.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody believed him then either. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Schlafly votes with his edits and Conservapedia loses

Roger Schlafly edits both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but he edits WP about 3x as much as CP. Even Andy's family who show interest in editing see CP as a big flop not worth their time, a place whose only hits are for ridicule. --Leotardo (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think Roger editing CP more would be considered a loss for them as well. --Kels (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tons of his CP contribs were talk, talk, talk, often with the goal of censoring powerful conservative truths regarding the widely disproven and socially dangerous concept of relativity. *nods sagely* --Sid (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are any of the Schlafly clan attractive or just plain? --Leotardo (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see the disincentive in arguing with your more crazy brother.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

One of them does run a brewery which certainly makes him go up in my eyes in a very masculine, beer-drinking sort of way. Sadly I will never knowingly drink his beer because of his batshit haridan of a mother and his equally batshit brother. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the brewer Schlaflys are more distant relatives who don't share their namesakes views. The beer money does not rise up the family tree, so you can drink with an eased mind. DickTurpis (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The beer guy is Big Phy's nephew. He doesn't seem to want anything to do with her and he states on the faq that she has no involvement with the beer. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyy, hapyp wen yera then to you all. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's good beer. Too bad you can't get it where I live :( On the bright side, Yuengling is coming to town!!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

ICE MUMMY PROVES TEH BIBLE!

Kinda old, but funny. Assfly cites the "ice mummy" as evidence for the great flood. Because by "scientific dating" (LOL!!!) the occurrence of this extraordinary ice storm was dated to 5300 years ago, which is when Assfly decided the flood was...which is only about 1000 years off from Ussher. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"One person got into a bad storm kinda-sorta around the time I believe The Flood happened. This proves that The Flood happened." --Sid (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't stand a chance in front of a jury. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty meaningless. But the whole page is ghastly. I particularly liked the bit on "quantum tunnelling" - that's got to be parody.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope...that's all Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First time I read that I just sat and shook my head and thought he can not be serious. Then I realised it was assfly and thought - yep, he does mean it. The man understands nothing, I mean really he understands nothing. He may possibly know a lot of things but he understands nothing. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Just read the header and assumed that it referred to Mummy Phyl. Him (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the Alps too, I mean how could anyone possibly freeze to death in a snow storm in the Alps unless it was a global flood?! Pshaw! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If there was a Global Flood why wasn't he drowned like everybody else bar Noah & family? How does freezing to death in some mountains (or being frozen after death) square with the account of the flood? It has to be one of his most illogical claims.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lake Superior State U. (!!) banished "the American people"

Andy points out that the no-name university Lake Superior State decided that the phrase "the American people" is one of the most overused, meaningless expressions that should be 'banished'. I agree wholeheartedly. There is no monolithic "American people" nor any unitary belief system among its people. There's virtually nothing we all agree about, but I often hear and read "the American people" thrown around so much. I used to think "the American people" thought torture by governments was odious, morally bankrupt and dangerous. But I don't think that anymore. I used to think "the American people" found talk of secession to be unpatriotic. I once thought "the American people" would be more selfless and patriotic and not demand tax cuts in a time of two wars when our deficit for the last ten years has spiraled out of control. I no longer think any of this. The only thing I can say about "the American people" is that they ostensibly live in, or are from, America. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, "the american people" does sound better than "americans". Although, conservatives shouldn't use it anyway. It's too liberal. "American citizens" is what they really mean. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But the American people like to use as few syllables as possible, hence "Americans". "The American people" is meaningless. --Leotardo (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I always viewed it as a synonym of Americans or the American citizenry; personally I felt they are all rather interchangeable and I don't care what people use. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Redundant =/= meaningless. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't "The American people" refer to anybody who lives on the continent of America? Why is it banned anyway? I can't quite work it out.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The beef is that "Americans" would refer to the same set. Some argue that "people" can also (when used in context by an American politician). The phrase is used very often, and usually involves projecting the speaker's beliefs onto everyone. E.g.: "The American people have rejected gay marriage." Occasionaluse (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is just one of those deals where "banned" means the word or phrase is so overused that its deemed "annoying" and "uncool" and thus shouldn't be used anymore. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Err, yes. But leave it to nearly everyone to miss the point of an admittedly poorly presented article in a (student?) paper. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

LSSU ("Lake State") has been producing the list since 1976. According to their website, "The tongue-in-cheek Banishment List began as a publicity ploy for little-known LSSU.... [T]he University copyrighted the concept and continued the tradition. The popularity of the effort shows no signs of dwindling. Hundreds of nominations are received each year, and LSSU Public Relations Office staff conduct dozens of news interviews, largely with radio stations throughout North America and sometimes overseas on all major networks, including Cable News Network, Associated Press, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and more."[2]. A very successful publicity ploy. --Leotardo (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Global Warming

It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=836393&oldid=836347^img "It snowed, therefore there is no global warming."] I know its old news but I felt the need to mention this because, where I live (Plymouth Mass) it was in the low 50's today. For those of you playing along at home, thats pretty damn warm for a north east state in december. I even left the car at home and walked to work.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

CP's goin' Anarchist?

"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy."^img - so sa(i)d by FoxNews, and CP is going with it. So goodbye regulations - wait a sec, aren't laws regulations too? --85.182.145.82 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which makes Karajou's screed about the lifting of blue laws^img funny, since they were government regulations of the free market. The thing is, there are some life basics that are more important than letting business run wild in the hopes they'll pop out jobs. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and the desire not to have one of the largest oil spills in U.S. history sit under the streets of New York or our rivers catch on fire ever again. --Leotardo (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how this puts a basic logical contradiction of "free market"-ism and christian law against each other - regulations are bad, but if their from god you better not even question them or you'll go to hell. Also I'm right there with you on the environmental issue, heck I voted always but once green in my life. - And why did he leave the "Thou shalt love thy neighbor." out? Because he likes to hate these evil liberals. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the mangled logic of the blue laws rant. They allowed stores to close, since there's no other way a store could be closed on Sunday, no sir. And workers are going to be fired for not showing up on Sunday mornings by the evil atheist owners, who definitely would've closed their stores for church if they'd been "allowed" to. «-Bfa-» 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Because at that time store owners were put a gun to their head from these evil atheist socialists to treat their stuff badly. (The sarcasm is implied) --85.182.145.82 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It also makes no sense because I know of no church that only has one service on Sunday - go in the morning or at night, and stop using god as an excuse to be lazy Karajou. --Leotardo (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"The false gods of liberals - and ones which are increasingly pushed upon society - are atheism, humanism, secular science, evolution, global warming, and so on.", is my favorite quote by far this year, because "secular science" is just another way of saying all science. Science, that method that you rail against because it gave us evolution and Big Bang cosmology is the exact methodology which provided you with abundant food, clean water, modern medicine, warm homes, instant communication and so on, allowing you to spend your abundant leisure time railing against progress instead of hunting deer with a rock while shivering naked in the cold hoping "spirits" won't strike you with the voodoo magic now known as disease.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

--Leotardo (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And I especially love this quote because it shows the doublethink required to be both a conservative and a fundamentalist Christian: preaching every day about the false god called "free market capitalism" as if it were something one could easily look up in the bible, when in reality one has to ignore a bunch of Jesus' own words to believe in this concept. Junggai (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how he reminds us all, with no apparent sense of irony, that Jesus said anyone who harbors hate in his heart is guilty of murder. If that's true, the Swabbie is in for life. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuck me, I've just read the first bit of Kowardjerk's edit (linked to by Leo) and motherfuck me that man is a fucking idiot. A nasty little idiot too. The poor fucker. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TeacherEd and EdSm blocked

Ken blocked EdSm earlier and TeacherEd now. What will Doug do? The unblock comment is clearly aimed at him. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny isn't it kenny boy? The way that satire and humour is a great tool to combat atheism. That is until someone with some intelligence uses it against you to show you and the rest of the world - or at least the small portion that pay any attention to that car crash of a blog you 'contribute' to - what a complete and utter moronic hypocritical wanker you and the rest of your fellow travellers are. Then suddenly it's not satire. Poor poor wittle man. Did the nasty (possible parodist and possible atheist) contributors make you look all silly and hurt your pwetty little feelings? Keep going ken, you are doing more to make conservatism look utterly ridiculous than anything I could ever do. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken himself has just become a parodist, he attributed his own edit^img as Anonymous^img. Just to remind Andy, KJ, TK etc. who watch this page more then their own recent changes, Anonymous are the group of internet terrorists that attacked Sarah Palin. Ban him! -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ken reads this page, realises how embarrassing it is to be caught out for quoting yourself and not accurately attributing the quote and quickly rushes to delete JPatt's talk page. Too late Kenny Boy, Capture Bot is better at this than you are. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He'll do anything for a WIGO. --Leotardo (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'm going to miss being TeacherEd, I'm still glad this happened. Andy liked TeacherEd, but he won't do anything. He's got to keep a unified front. Ken has proven himself to be completely unchecked and with TK-like powers. Ken runs things over there now...and that's fucking hilarious. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it would've been funnier if Ken had taken the role of Cassandra in CP's little tragedy - the only who realizes he's a parodist, but unable to do something about it. Well, let's see if Douglas will unblock him once more, Andy is apparently fine with it either way. Röstigraben (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the scariest thing I've heard all day. Vulpius (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all especially funny in light of the fact that Ken was originally only made a temporary sysop for the sole reason of working on the (already locked) Evolution article. At the time, Andy was still pretending the site had rules and ways to appeal decisions. --Kels (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does he keep commenting on JPatt's page, does he have some secret crush or something? You know Jpatt just sits there and thinks "oh man...not again, why does he keep bugging meee..". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Conservative has edited Jpatt's page over 50 times in the last two months, I think he'd be thinking something a little bit more harsh than that. Maybe something like, "Would this creeper get the hell off of my page and take his bullshit away with him already?" ~SuperHamster Talk 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor TeacherEd, banhammered for being too funny. At least the Tyler account is still operational! We may have DouglasA protection on that one, though that might not carry much water since DouglasA has a section on his user page^img entitled "Some of my favorite bits" with two pictures of naked men. --Leotardo (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if JPratt is going to mind that Kendoll nuked his talk page history in order to cover his own arse? I suppose on the plus side, he did clear out all of his droppings at the same time. Kendoll, you really ought to go back to making gentlemen subpages for your red telephone messages. It was much easier to burn the evidence, and it didn't creep your fellow conservapedos out so much. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Man. Ken bans TeacherEd.... then steals his essay.^img Classy. X Stickman (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's a new kind of low, even by Ken's standards. I guess he's been a-suppin' at TK's teat for long enough to learn new ways to be a despicable cunt. Altho I see he has since deleted it, so maybe there is hope. However, seeing Ken run riot on CP, with Andy's support and no TK to silence dissent, has certainly meant CP ends the year on a suitably insane note. --Ψ GremlinHable! 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)So the parodist must be expelled, but the parody can stay? It would've been difficult for Ken to rationalize blocking someone for producing the same nonsense he does, but this is mind-boggling hypocrisy even for CP's standards. Röstigraben (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that par for the course? Since parodists act just like sysops, their works are exactly what the sysops would have done and thus get to stay. To invert their little slogan: Hate the sinner, love the sin. --Sid (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The great paradox of Conservapedia is that the beautiful parody (and to invoke Ken-speak, the satire) is always left in place as it tends to reinforce their own beliefs, while the ugly uncomfortable truth is erased from the record. I have always believed that The Emperor's New Clothes is a wonderful allegory for what goes on at CP. Everyone laughs at their nakedness but Schlalfly et al are so deluded that they believe they are garbed in the finest rayments. (Unfortunately Philip instigated his own Disneyland.) Really this has been a spiffing end to the year; just as we were thinking that things were dwindling away. I can't decide whether it's part of TK's greater plan - go away and let the vandals back in so that he has to clean the place up on his return: See you can't do without me, I need more powers!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the last couple months have been very boring and then all of the hilarious of Kenny's new "essay" came forth, like a magical Christmas gift for us. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bah must've got the times mixed up in my head. He claimed the essay before he banned TeacherEd, and has since deleted the essay. Which makes his claiming of it in the first place even weirder. He thought it was worth endorsing, then changed his mind and banned the creator? Weird. X Stickman (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Released for time served^img. P-Foster (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reblocked. Doug shouldn't take that shit. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's on, bitches. Discuss.

Countdown to re-permaban?^img User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Ken can handle a challenge to his authority right now, not with his holiday depression and the recent your-essays-suckathon. --Leotardo (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha, TK would never stand for that, he'd be phoning Andy and getting him to unperson Willminator like a shot.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt cites terrorism supporter on terrorism

Jpatt lamented the Muslim Kenyan's recess appointment of James Cole for Deputy Attorney General. On MPR he quotes Rep Peter King^img saying, “The appointment indicates that the Obama Administration continues to try to implement its dangerous policies of treating Islamic terrorism as a criminal matter.”

Rep King was an ardent supporter of and suspected fundraiser--via Noraid--for the Irish Republican Army:

In 1982 he told a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, that "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." That same year, an IRA bomb killed eight people in London's Hyde Park. Two years later, the IRA almost succeeded in murdering the British prime minister. Only good fortune saved Margaret Thatcher's life.[...]

King was such a well-known figure in Northern Ireland that one judge presiding over a murder case in which the accused were members of the IRA, threw King out of his Belfast courtroom because, as the judge put it, "he was an obvious collaborator with the IRA."[3]

Jpatt quotes a guy who supported the group that almost killed Margaret Thatcher. Conservative values. --Leotardo (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't count 'cause that was in foreign, therefore the weren't terrorists but freedom fighters. Him (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy has a lot of previous as an apologist for Irish republican terrorism. FretfulPorpentine.

Link? (Not sceptical, just curious.) Cubic bastard Hoover! 00:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Anticatholic scum. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they do have Republican in the name. That makes them the good guys, same as how "National Socialist" makes someone left-wing. --Kels (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange how the 'baddies' from NORAID's point of view were basically the Conservatives.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange how the baddies from Al Quaida weren't baddies when they were being armed and funded by Bush and Rumsfeld before they turned on their putative masters. Don't forget that during the first gulf war it is alleged that one of the earliest phone calls recieved at the white house was from a Mr Bin Laden offering the help of his fighters, who had been active in Afghanistan until that time, to help throw Saddam (who of course let us also remember was put in place buy the CIA and other western governments) out of Kuwait. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What the fuckery?

In the middle of nowhere with little in the way of technology at the moment. Aching limbs, fly fishing, whisky and funny cigarettes have been my way of life for a week now with another week to go. Checked in to scan the headlines and, what the fuck, hell what shit has been happening here? Satire concerning obese atheists? Peasents revolt? Eh? Fuck. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 08:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The short of it is that TK disappeared, and because nature abhors a vacuum, all the parodists and insanity came out of the woodwood and made the place exciting/hilarious. 94.170.106.85 (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I felt the same way; I headed home for several weeks, only to check in and see all this! ghazi alizm, ^comments? 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the best thing to come out of this episode is that Andy appears to have given Ken explicit public approval for his crazy "essays". Now, whilst Ken's dismal creations are best ignored for WIGO purposes, any increase of them at CP and their subsequent promotion on MPL can only be welcomed. (Snigger!)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, who'd have thought that CP's year could end on a high? Great work by all those who triggered the inanity, it ranks with the great days of the Lenski/PNAS letters. Генгис^pillaging 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CP was more exciting in the last week without their pitbull. I agree with Lily, new essays promoted on MPL and MPR is nothing but a whole lot of good. It's a shame Ken perma-banned TeacherEd because he wants to be the only belle of the essay ball. --Leotardo (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DouglasA has already unblocked him...^{— Unsigned, by: 98.235.82.204 / talk / contribs}

Geez Ken, what do you think TK would do? Block Doug you gutless twerp. Then block the rest of the trouble makers. Otherwise the site will become a complete mess. Man up and be bold dude.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah. Ken doesn't have enough....wait for it....MA-CHEEEESE-MO! P-Foster (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

[4] Way to nut up, Ken. P-Foster (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is DouglasA a wimp or will he stand up for his principles? I do hope so as Ken cannot cope with confrontation, that is why he retires from public discourse - he's done it here, at ASoK, and whenever he's been pwned on discussion boards. On CP he probably thinks that he is safe, but I note that has previously kowtowed to TK. Will our little Buffalo soldier take his medicine like a man or run off to the protection of Mummy Schlalfy's skirts? Генгис^pillaging 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This just in:

... "Liberalism is a mental disorder"^img - 'nuff said. --Ullhateme (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an old thing. It's also a stupid thing to say but they say it over and over and over and over and over and (trails off). Senator Harrison (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, CP is lame. That's a famous line from Michael Savage. Man, Schlafly can't even come up with his own material anymore...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

They're just cranky because they can't have sex outside of marriage. They won't be happy until they bring everyone else down to their fifteenth-century style of thinking. SJ ^Debaser 20:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What bollocks :-) . All the evidence shows that they shag more outside of marriage than any atheist ever did. I have only done it once in 49 years and that was because I thought she was single. Mosy religious people I know are serial adulters. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If an atheist's marriage hits the rocks s/he can rationally get a divorce and move on. But so many religious nutters are wed to the sanctity of marriage that they must persevere with a charade of a happy union and then shag around in the shadows. Don't you just love the hypocrisy? Генгис^pillaging 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I hate extreme right-wingers. "Do as I say, not as I do".--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then they're cranky because they were up all night shagging and haven't had a good night's sleep in three weeks. SJ ^Debaser 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that's just sad, isn't it? "Family values" my arse.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you all are complaining about. Mental disorder is not such a bad place to be considering just a few days ago liberalism was "inherently evil" (an elegant post-Christmas essay by Benp that concluded yes, with Karajou concurring). I'll take mental disorder over that, but my fear is they won't consider them mutually exclusive. Surely God takes pity on the crimes of the mentally ill who can't help themselves, no? --Leotardo (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always read "liberalism leads to mental disorder" not "liberalism is a mental disorder", and that's the real thing that pisses me off about it: First we were evil leading to problems - now the way we think is the problem? I'm sure anybody at CP wouldn't say that one can make a conscious desicion to be mentally disordered - so now we aren't simply evil - we are too stupid to know better? And if Liberalism is a mental disorder, they wouldn't give us the right to vote - and at then point I would rathr live in a dictatorship that just says "nobody has the right to vote" then living under an ideology that treats every thought differing from itself as a mental disorder. We're on the level of bulimia now!

Oh, by the way: Since I'm an atheist I haven't stolen, commited aldultery or betrayed anyone - when I was a christian I did all these things, because god would forgive me... (Ok, I was young and stupid - I know now it wouldn't work that way). Now I have to think about everything I do. Is it bad, is it good? What effect will it have on other people? How would I feel if I do? And, most importantly, how would I feel would anybody do that to me? If I'd be a christian I'd look it up in a roughly 2000 year old book. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You know. I think i prefer Liberalism is evil. Mental disorders seam silly coming from creationists. But evil, thats just so much more fun >:).--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Ken,

When you're scrolling through this page, as you do from time to time, please consider the following:

The study you've been constantly citing doesn't look at obesity whatsoever, but is based on "healthy living," based entirely on questions asked of the people involved. In fact, an obese person answering that they ate healthily yesterday, have had lots of fruit and have been exercising in the past week would get a very good score, while thin people having a bit of an unhealthy week would get bad scores. I just don't think that you can conclude from the survey that atheists are fatter: I'd probably argue that highly religious people would probably be more likely to declare themselves to be eating healthily than atheists - but that'd be plain speculation, like your link between atheism and obesity.

Now, if we actually do a quick google search for studies comparing Religion and OBESITY, not Religion and health/well-being, then look what we get:

• Purdue Univeristy Study, 1998 - "Obesity is associated with higher levels of religious participation..."
• Cornell University Study, 2002 - "Religious denomination was significantly related to higher body weight in men after accounting for sociodemographic controls. Conservative Protestant men had a 1.10.45 higher body mass index (BMI) than those reporting no religious affiliation."
• Purdue University Study, 2004 - "Logistic regression analyses reveal that high levels of religious media practice and affiliation with a Baptist denomination increased the risk of obesity and severe obesity."
• Last Month, of the ten most obese states, nine were one of the ten most religious states in the USA.

Despite searching for over half an hour, I was unable to locate a single study which showed a link between religiosity and obesity. This sums up what is wrong with Conservapedia, but don't you see it? Wikipedia, which you hate so much, would never allow this bullshit. If you went to Wikipedia and started making claims that a group of society (in this case, atheism, but could be anything, based on race, religion, whatever) and an undesirable trait (in this case, obesity, again could be anything), then you would be challenged repeatedly, you'd have to provide your sources. But, see? On Conservapedia, you can make this claim, and it isn't challenged at all. Weak, weak, weak.

Now, Ken, I put a challenge to you: Either remove your claims about a link between atheism and obesity, provide some actual references to show a link, or make it clear that there is no clear link. Let us be honest for a second: If you don't, you're showing just how disingenuous you are.

And, Ken, while we're playing the game of laughing at each other about what studies show; it has been shown quite strongly that religiosity and intelligence are negatively correlated, the 'happiest', lowest crime and longevity all are found in the more atheistic countries, peaceful countries tend to be more atheistic than belligerent countries. Also, Atheists are less likely to cheat on their wives.

Sincerely, ^EXTERMINATE 10:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean you were unable to find a study that shows a link between atheism and obesity? Other than that, nice work, but the only response you can expect from Ken is a new essay about quarrelsome atheist SciFi-fans and their obese, non-volant pets. Röstigraben (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I couldn't specifically find a link between Atheism and Obesity, I tried to be more general, looking for links between Religious denomination or religiosity and obesity. Unfortunatley, every study which actually including BMI or any other measure of weight/obesity comes out with a link that being more religious correlates with being overweight. Meanwhile, surveys which involve people's perception of their healthiness tend to show that religious people are more healthy. Deceit, or delusion? ^EXTERMINATE 10:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Delusion most definitely. BMI is also a horrible measure of obesity, because BMI can be high for either of two reasons, and thus BMI conflates: the well-muscled, and the obese. The only thing BMI can really definitely say is that if you have a low enough BMI then you are neither well-muscled nor obese. For instance, my BMI is 17~18, this says that I am a skinny bitch. However, someone with a BMI of 30 might be obese or might just be well-muscled... there is absolutely no way to tell. Body fat % is a far better measure of obesity than BMI. BMI in fact started out as an astrological-like belief, that your personality depended upon your BMI. (Like how in Japan, they think that your blood type indicates personality traits.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, becuase the studies you found suggest that the link between religiosity and obesity actually exists, at least in the form of a correlation. I guess the underlying causal mechanism isn't a direct one between these two factors, but probably more like "lack of education" as the fundamental explanatory variable, which is associated with both higher religiosity and poverty, the latter of which is in turn linked to poor eating habits and obesity. Anyway, it's certainly the opposite of what Ken is claiming. As for religious people feeling healthier, their thinking probably goes along the lines of "I'm a believer"-->"I must be blessed and rewarded for my faith"-->"I must be healthy". Röstigraben (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Woah. BMI is fine because the alternative explanations are transparently obvious not just to a medical practitioner (who should be the only one making any really drastic interventions, moderating your diet is not drastic) but even to the patient unless they're delusionary. It really isn't possible to confuse me (mildly overweight) for my friend Boris with the same approximate height and mass, but who is a semi-serious rugby player. It's night and day. The "excess" flesh on his body isn't just flapping around uselessly like mine. No MD has ever said "Oh, Mr Rugby Player, your BMI is a few points high, clearly you need to eat less". More likely they ask "Who do you play for?". Actually I've found MDs generally aren't interested in your BMI until you hit at least 30-35 at which point mere "rugby player" isn't enough to explain it, you'd have to be a professional in a fairly niche sport to have a build that piles on that much mass without it being fat, and so you'd have a sports doctor anyway. The reason to mention BMI is that you can work it out at home, whereas percentage body fat you need special apparatus (no, an estimating scale is not a substitute, you're back to guessing from BMI). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mechanical Extermination Bot,

You clearly fail to recognize the link between atheists and being obese, and this is to your detriment, as the study that was already linked to shows it is true. It is disappointing that your liberal deceit knows no ends, such that you would even suggest that it would be a good thing that these facts would be censored on Wikipedia!!!one Your studies are actually deceitful lies just like Global Warming, and Evolution, and if you all were doing any real science, you would actually be enlightened to see that atheism is a horrible health-destroying life-style.

In short, do not expect any take down that you "demand" because CP is far too pig headed to even consider that you might even remotely be stating any ounce of truth. OBTW, again, liberal deceit is CP's trump card against anything you claim.

On behalf of CP, because admit it, this is the shit they're going to say anyways, Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be pleasantly surprised by a vaguely reasonable response from CP, but hey, one never knows! As for BMI being a terrible measure, totally agree, strange that it's still used so much. ^EXTERMINATE 11:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's 7:30 in the morning and Ken has already racked up over 150 edits. And if atheism causes obesity, why is the USA fatter than all the socialist atheistic countries?EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother waiting for an answer, at least a sincere one with cited research. At what point has Kenny done any serious researching for his "essays"? They are neither serious or scholarly work because he simply lacks the ability (let alone the skill set); so why waste your time writing a serious or scholarly challenge or rebuttal? It is better to point and laugh; besides it isn't like he is going dare step outside the safety of his bunker on CP to respond or debate, as he lacks MA-CHESSE-MO. This latest work of his only serves to further defecate on the tiny shreds of credibility among conservatives CP has left, and has only spawned hilarious parody essays for our amusement as a result, if anything we should be encouraging those. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, when it comes to answering questions Ken is quite happy to hide in his bunny hole (nothing intellectual about it either.) Also, Kenny boy, answer me this (sadly I couldn't find a reference that included an angelic-voiced Korean lady) - if Japan is 65% atheist, and certainly not Xian how come they're the most healthy country? --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 10:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been visiting Malaysia and Singapore for about 25 years now and can say that there has been a noticeable increase in tubby kids as western fast foods have made inroads. Similarly the rich Gulf states have also become a lot fatter over the years. As for obsessive keep slim skinniness isn't that part of atheistic liberal Hollywood values? Генгис^pillaging 18:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect wealth and access to fatty foods might correlate with obesity. But that's not why I chimed in. When is someone going to stop "pointing and laughing" and do something to try to get this Ken person some serious support and assistance? He obviously qualifies for and needs someone working on his behalf to help him raise his level of self-actualization. ħuman 08:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being versed in the intricacies of the USA's mental health system, I have nothing to suggest on that front. In fact, it's difficult to see exactly how one would go about getting Ken some help wherever he lives. If we sectioned every idiot who posts megabytes of shit on the Internet, global bandwidth usage would plummet. Ken

only stands out at RW because we focus on CP more than any other site.

Besides, making thousands of edits on a wiki and using several easily-spotted socks to try to hide one's identity isn't necessarily a sign of mental problems. Is it, Human? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Schlingularity?

With this post^img, I think Andy has reached some kind of bullshit singularity.

The connection between communism and high abortion rates can hardly be denied, historically, logically, and spiritually.

Yes it can. I deny it right here, but I can't be bothered to look up statistics any more than you could.

The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions.

Citation needed!

Communism legalized abortion in 1920, and presumably it was long subsidized there as phony "health care."

Schlafly Supposition!

Logically, treating everyone the same under communism means many abortions so that women can work just like men.

Sclafly Logic!

Pro-abortion groups pretend that women in Poland want to have abortion but cannot because it is illegal.

Citation needed!

The truth is that the people of Poland genuinely do not want to have abortions.

Citation needed!

--Andy Schlafly 20:57, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Fuck me he got the date right!!!

It shouldn't surprise me any more, but when he comes out with something like this where every single fucking statement is just pulled straight out of his arse it still bothers me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) (calming down)

From experience, I know that countries like Ireland with strict abortion laws have significant "abortion tourism" where residents go to neighbouring countries to seek an abortion. Indeed, it took only a moment with google (+translate) to discover that that's exactly the case with Poland too. Polish women aren't having less abortions, they're just not having them in Poland. I can't figure out if the Assfly is just a complete moron, or he's completely disingenuous. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"The average married woman in the communist Soviet Union had numerous abortions." This is true, and it was even fashionable for Moscow women to show off their abortion scars like old Afghan War vets. I believe there was even a Soviet wedding tradition of having an abortion a few weeks before the ceremony, right after the bachelorette party when the bride-to-be would get rip-roaring drunk before heading to the clinic, where the party would continue (Soviets were also well-known for their 24-hour one-stop-abort-shops). --Leotardo (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Romania, possibly the most Commie of Commie nations outlawed abortion, which resulted in those horrendous orphanages over there. I wonder how Andypants will factor that it? --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 09:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From w:Mongolia: "Since the end of socialism, Mongolia has experienced a decline of total fertility rate (children per woman) that is steeper than in any other country in the world, according to recent UN estimations:[32] in 1970-1975, fertility was estimated to be 7.33 children per woman, but 2005-2010 prospects are 1.87 (4 times less)." --91.145.89.95 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should laugh, be proud or be sad (that it's necessary) at the fact that some people from my country started the abortion boat mostly so that women in Ireland and Poland could get abortions in international water if they needed to. I think the project has currently been scrapped due to changes in the law, which to be honest I don't find very strange. But man, such a strange project. GTac (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Leo, "abortion scars"??? How does one show them off? With a gynecological instrument designed for mutant women? ħuman 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there, Beverly.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PZ!

About guess who? Him (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Hurlbut clearly lives in a fantasy world that has no connection to reality." No further comment. - π 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, people say "don't link to Hurlbut" because he gets paid for pageviews. But you know, I don't mind paying for quality homour like this now and again. --Kels (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really CP. Just saying.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Terry has proven himself to be one of the more disagreeable CP sysops (remember his Gitmo meltdown?), it's wonderful to see that he's even more insane than Andy. So he wants to return science, geology and medicine to the middle ages and send zoologists on live disosaur hunts? Remember, this is a qualified doctor railing against modern medicine... well modern science in general. No wonder he gave up being a quack and works as a gopher for an ambulance chaser. The man is a fucking moron. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 10:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone feels like making productive edits...

...CP's Creationism article is unlocked for the first time since forever. DarkStar (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I love it when Andy gets suckered by false arguments just because they reinforce his own stupid biases. Генгис^pillaging 16:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he seriously say scientific fact? I know you cant see me, but I'm almost crying from laughing.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda dutifully ups the ante and provides dollops of science. Auld Nick (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just about wet myself reading that page. Does Andypants really think that he's created a meaningful page on the theory that Goddidit? It's a po-faced display of vapid creationist clap-trap... oh wait, I just got an insight into Andy's head and boy is it empty in there. Apart from the conceit that is. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. In fact it is full. And that is the problem he has. Full and full. user:silent monk sitting on the eternal or maybe it was me instead Oldusgitus (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing that the page is so short. They (Ken) can create humungous pages (and sub-pages) with quotes damning things like atheism, evolution and homosexuality, yet have very little to say promoting what they profess to believe in. I guess that it is the same with their politics - mountains of stuff against Obama/Democrats/liberals but little in favour of their own. It's all negative and bitter, there's no positiveness or optimism about their own side. I guess that's what you get when you are dominated by grumpy old men rather than enthusiastic youngsters. The site was a lot different when the homeskollars still had some sort of say in the proceedings. Генгис^pillaging 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I know it's puerile but "Dr. Werner Gitt" makes me chuckle. Is that only a British Commonwealth thing? Генгис^pillaging 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's easier and safer to say "This and that is wrong" than to make your own claims. That's why Ken and others stick to attacking, always charging forwards to demonize atheism/evolution/liberalism. The moment they're proven wrong in one argument, they can just switch to the next idiot claim without losing much face. But the moment they say "Creationism is true because of X", they have to defend, and if they are proven wrong, it's a tougher blow.

That's why the only ones who really made claims were PJR (who then went on to his own site and now is busy defending himself against people who poke his various claims), TerryH (whose claims tend to be in the "...wait, are you serious?" territory) and Andy (whose various lists are jokes which can only be defended by making up EVEN MORE bullshit and by banning whoever doubts The Truth). --Sid (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, CP unlocked Creationism. I wonder why...--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Fab Five are trying to turn over a new leaf, realizing that Ken's crapflood is the only real content contributions. Take a look at cp:Robert Menendez, the U.S. Senator who Andy has been bumbling his way to the Supreme Court over to recall. Hurlybutt has made that one big poorly-written ad for his lil' Examiner columns. They don't even give the specifics of the recall proponents' claims, and the section embarrassingly dwarfs the pittance of biography trivia the forms the lead. The people most responsible for this garbage dump block anyone who tries to improve it. I find watching the spectacle as soothing as watching fish in a bowl. Will they fail again, or will this time be different? I wonder with each of their new endeavors. --Leotardo (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You also must remember that CP is a project down the toilet and their articles usually contain no encyclopedic content. It just seemed bizarre that Schlafly n' Co. would unlock the creationism article being such a high-traffic page to the peasants. Chances are, due to the CP hierarchy, this or any other CP article will never be improved and will only remain an unencyclopedic fringe right-wing dump and they will continue to scoff at anyone who dare improve their "articles".--Colonel Sanders (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to see why Andy unlocked it, based on his unlocking comment:

""Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants was created by God or some other supreme being. " It's not a "belief." It's the acknowledgement of scientific fact. Also, what other "supreme being" is their besides God? Martyp 20:37, 30 December 2010 (EST)

Superb points. I've unlocked the entry so you can edit as you suggest, and perhaps you have some other good insights for this entry as well. (unsigned, Aschlafly)

Thanks! Martyp 10:13, 31 December 2010 (EST) " ħuman 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I never did understand Andy's definition of "superb".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Translate - Aussie flood

Never mind Andy - classy as ever - trampling on people's misery to score a cheap point, what's there to translate for non-Bibbel-reading atheists,^img when he's already described the flood as being the "area of France and Germany combined?" Or is he renouncing his world-wide flood, for one the size of France & Germany? It's another idiotic post from a malodorous, vindictive, vicious little moron. --Ψ GremlinTala! 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't he alluding to the fact that the flooded area is only the size of France and Germany and therefore not of Biblical proportions? No matter, your last sentence is still correct. Генгис^pillaging 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair (to the reporters, not Andy), this probably is about the scale of the actual Mediterranean flood the Bible story is likely based on. As for Andy, most of the atheists I've known have read the Bible far more carefully than most of the Christians I have known, who often have only read specific bits of it. --Kels (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

He's doing it again

Andy proudly announces^img that American History is going to be raped again. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

YEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Already the funny begins: "...history of the United States, from exploration in the 1400s through the most recent events of 2011. Unlike other courses, this class will tie closely to current events." - because lots of current events from the 1400s are taking place these days? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Takin' all bets! Which lecture will this course die horribly at? 2-1 favourite is lecture 3. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Given how bad Andy is at everything sticking with what he starts, it's a wonder he thinks he's fooling anyone. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't give up on his real-world classes after a few weeks. --Kels (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering that everyone who's signed up since TK's been away has either been a wandal or a parodist, there's going to be no-one left to sign up to this course when he gets back. What odds can I get for it never being started? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about this. I thought after the last class he decided not to have an online option anymore. It's only ever parodists anyway. We'll see how it goes. As for in-class students, I'm sure it will be mostly the same faces from his government class, back for more punishment. Anyway, doesn't he already have lectures for this on CP? How different could they be from last time he taught it? I'm sure he'll have a lot more to say about the Obama administration, but other than that it seems his work is already done. DickTurpis (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Every time Andy "improves" [sic] an article he always leaves it in a worse state than it was before.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia in 2010

Editors at CP in 2010, groups

Editors at CP in 2010, account creation

Active Editors at CP in 2010

2010 saw a paradigm shift at Conservapedia: while A. Schlafly generally enjoys publicity, the main event to put him into the internet's limelight was the discussion of his cp:Counterexamples to Relativity in various blogs. This increased the activity at Conservapedia in August 2010, and it seems that A. Schlafly wasn't able to deal with his critiques: At this moment, there are still many questions open at cp:Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity - and A. Schlafly fails to answer them though virtually none of the original debaters is left unblocked (one obvious exception is of course R. Schlafly). Even I - as RonLar - jumped to a couple of hoops to wriggle out some answers from A. Schlafly (I even undertook his test to quantify my open-mindedness), but I'm still waiting for a couple of my

questions

Who did the Newtonian calculations for the GPS? Please cite a source. In the official Specification of the GPS we read: p. 13: To compensate for relativistic effects, the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz. p. 39: The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the control segment two-frequency receivers for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic satellite clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the satellite implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function. How can you reconcile this with your view that GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Please elaborate. Have a look at the paper Initial Results of the Navstar GPS NTS-2 Satellite by James A. Buisson, Roger L. Easton, Thomas B. McCaskill of tje U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Washington, D.C. This is the primary source for results of the first GPS mission. The abstract states NTS-2 was successfully launched on 23 June 1977 into a near 12-hour circular orbit. Precise frequency and timing signals are derived from the two cesium frequency standards. This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect. How do you reconcile this with your statements that GPS satellite clocks were not built based on predictions made by the theory of relativity or that GPS never used the theory of relativity - when the very first clocks for the GPS were not only used to verify the effect, but after the initial phase to conduct such experiments were offset according to the predictions made by the theory of relativity? Please elaborate.

to be answered.

Upps, I got carried away. So, back on track:

A. Schlafly decided that all this chit-chat was just a distraction from the main goals of his project (whatever those are..), and he got rid of any new contributors. This can be seen nicely in the second pic. An obvious side-effect of his measure: the edits to his site are petering out (third pic). This strengthens the dominance of a few hyperactive contributors (first pic), lead by our friend Ken

.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's great to see that the email account validation system worked, but I can't make head or tail of the second graph. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's account creation date on the X axis, and number of edits on the Y axis with each point representing a unique editor. Hence the fab five are on the left near the top, and the cannon fodder are towards the right on the bottom. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)The second is one of my favourites :-) Every Conservapedian who made an edit in 2010 is represented either by a dot or - if (s)he is more prolific - by his/her name. The color indicates the membership in the various groups, red means that the editor is blocked now, i.e., Jan 1, 2011. On the y-axis, you find the number of edits made in 2010 with a logarithmic scale: CollegerRepublican made one edit, RJJensen more than 1,000. The x-axis shows the date of the account creation: for a name, you have to look at its midpoint. Many obvious trends can be seen: if you are a longtime member making many edits, you have to be a sysop. The red dots show that even a longtime membership with a low profile doesn't protect you from getting blocked. As many editors are blocked shortly after creating their account, you find most of the red blocks in the lower right-hand region of the chart. Especially in August 2010, there was a great number of newly created accounts, while afterwards, only few accounts could be created. Nevertheless, roughly half of them was blocked, so the validation system proved to be not that valid :-)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic as usual but I have a request - now that we're in another period of TK's absence and the shit is hitting the fan over at CP can you modify the 3rd graph to show the correlation if there is one between non-TK edits and TK's edits? In other words, I wonder if he is such a nasty piece of work that all editors, sysops and non-rights users, edit less when he's around. You could use the same lag periods to check for the number of edits by any users (blocked and blocked/unblocked) for such periods. Of course the correlation would also reflect the degree to which and only TK blocks anything that moves. I hope this is clear. I'm pretty drunk. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, larron, as ever, but I take it this graph cannot count deleted edits, and thus seriously underestimates Ken's portion of the hideous pie. 14% is roughly 10,000 edits, but here's the thing: he's deleted about 10,000 more of his own edits in the last year, and probably removed countless more via oversight. 05:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)