Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive214

This is an archive page, last updated 10 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>, <213>, <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)

Conservative of the Year 2010 awarded the ConservaMath Medal

Long after pretty much everyone else announced the winner of their gimmicky 'contests', CP's Conservative of the Year 2010^img is the winner of the 2010 ConservaMath Medal for starting dumb publicity ploys that they never finish and that are moribund from the start^img. The ConservaMath Medal^img is awarded to the encyclopedia that cares the most about gimmicks and hits and less about substance and principle, hilariously failing for the entertainment of the public. Bravo, CP! Andy began this in 2010 because he saw that someone's else's gimmick gave them press and because he was pissy that they omitted Rand Paul^img in their COTY rankings. --Leotardo (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Macho man Ken ready to debate those atheists (with conditions)

Ken is demonstrating his machismo and ready to debate mano-a-manocomputer screen-a-computer screen any atheists who meet his list of demands^img. 1) You must give $17,000 to a Christian charity of Ken's choosing and you must give it the way he tells you (cash, check, money order?); 2) "The 8 one hour written debates would take place in 2011 at a website of my choosing".

How fortunate we have the Internet, or else this debate would never happen since Ken can't leave the house. If you think the 17K is steep (it's what Richard Dawkins was paid), consider that this is eight hours of debate with a Dawkins caliber intellect. You should act now, because Ken warns that "There is no guarantee I will make this offer again." If nobody should accept this offer on its face it's likely due to the "failures at defending atheism". --Leotardo (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong link, maybe, or did Capturebot not grab it in time? All I see is a link to his user page... ghazi alizm, ^comments? 05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken (I know you are reading this) it is Khant not Khan, you illiterate fucktard. Typical of a creationist, seeing what he expects rather than what is actually there. - π 05:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Capture bot first caught during one of his deletion moments, and then I couldn't get it to re-capture. I tried the diff, but it produced that result. Not sure how else to get it. -Leotardo (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I have it. The demand for $17,000 to be donated? Or based on the actual ratio that gets spent trying to "help" people, really about $1700 donated? Sad... ghazi alizm, ^comments? 05:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken responded to you^img --Leotardo (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Dance, puppet, dance! - π 05:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, of course. For someone with the incredible fortitude of spirit to sit in his basement alone and argue with thin air, he sure can be a spineless coward sometimes... ghazi alizm, ^comments? 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't he had comments before about how physically weak atheists are too? Or am I mistaken? I think it'd be fun to go "mano y mano" ... and I can even yell some arabic while we go at it to! that'll give 'em a fright I'm sure. ghazi alizm, ^comments? 05:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

He wants our response posted on the front page. Is a picture of my balls with the message "Suck it Ken" really appropriate for the front page? - π 05:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

May as well say "decline" now because really, who is going to pay Kenny $17K for anything he says? I love lutz at his expense too just as much as the next rational person and it would be the easiest win (so much so it couldn't even be a victory to hang one's hat on), but I am not paying $17K for it, maybe $1.70 if its done through Youtube video, but not $17K. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)When he (or his "friend") sees nothing on the main page during the week of March 1st, he can pat himself on the back for "winning" without having to have faced an opponent and nobody else will give a shit. - π 06:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I say we do it only if Ken agrees to donate $17k to this fundraiser. Or maybe this one. ~SuperHamster Talk 06:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that is an idea. - π 06:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I say we do it if Kenny accepts a counter-offer where he too must donate $17K to the secular charity of Richard Dawkin's choosing, and it be done by video so we can confirm he is not obese and has proper MA-CHEESE-MO. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. I have 6000 British Pounds sitting around after a reasonably lucky investment and I'm sure I can find the other 4000 if necessary. So Ken, the 2 of us commit to legally binding agreements, you to donate 17000 USD to fundabortionnow and me to a christian charity of your choice. Let me know, or ask RobS to contact me via here, and we can start the ball rolling. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was Hitchens who got $17k to speak. Now Ken wants $17k to argue on the internet? Ken who? ħuman 05:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem in a nut shell Human. It's simple market economics which is a thing most conservatives claim to understand and promote. Hitchins is worth $17,000 because enough people want to see him speak to justify that fee. Ken simply isn't. Why would he be worth $17,000? Why would he be worth £100? No-one respects his opinions - not even the Conservapedia sysops. There is a small comedy value in watching him dribble but we get that for free every day StarFish (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I said it before and I will say it again. Ken cannot stand confrontation other than where he is able to control the situation - a common creationist tactic. A written debate would be no debate at all as it would gives him the opportunity for a Gish Gallop. As for $17K, even Andy didn't demand that much, and once again the demand is him running away from confrontation as he knows nobody in their right mind would pay even a fraction of that to debate with an internet nobody. (Sorry, Oldusgitus.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We know that ken will never follow through on this. Even if someone put up the 17000 no conditions attached he would back out. He's the classic kind of troll. One who throw out challenges knwoing there is no way he can ever be held to account for what he says. I am active on some football forums in the UK and for all my failings I have never tried to conceal or deny my views and have always been willing to say face to face what I say on the forums. Just about every cp sysop is the direct opposite. Incidentally, I notice capturebot has now managed to get a shot of the original challenge. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW Ken, you show you cowardliness every time you blank your user page, delete one of your pathetic "essays" or "Gentlemen" shout-outs, or protect a talk page so that nobody can challenge you. If you had any machismo you would let your writings stand and only archive them when necessary. Also, if you have been following the advice of your guru Gerald Celente then I am sure that you have made quite a tidy profit in gold by now so you can surely match the $17,000 for any debate. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. If he thinks he's right and wants to make a point in a public debate why hide behind a $17k barrier? I suppose it's an excuse not to debate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob, there's nothing to understand when you are dealing with the permanently bewildered.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Ken can't even reply to an e-mail (altho it's hard to know which of his 7 e-mail addresses he's using this week). Even if we were willing to part with $17k to debate this intellectual non-entity, I guarantee the goalposts would move with frightening rapidity. There's no way he will (or can afford to) match the $17k, so he's already wimping out there. And any guessing what the "website of his choice" will be? Conservapedia, of course. Where TK will block you after your opening comments and they'll crow about how they suckered atheists into giving money to Xian charities. I wouldn't waste my time debating that idiot, even if he paid me. I can just see his opening statement, "A certain internet site shows that Asian ladies don't like Richard Dawkins. This means his writings, and thus evolution, are false, so I win!" That said, I would pay to see somebody tear Ken a new one, not that it would be a fair contest. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 10:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this right, Ken issues a challenge to cowardly atheists for a debate then promptly memory-holes it when we start laughing at him. Cojones, Ken, do you have them?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is CP that Ken would use (and presumably it would be, unless he buys time to host a private message board or something) he's essentially saying you can pay $17k to start up an account, have it guaranteed you won't get banned for 8 hours, and then get banned anyway, while he deletes and recreated nonsensical bullshit we can watch for free anyway. What a fucking insult, and a massive waste of money. I wouldn't trust anyone on CP to use money lent for the bus properly, let alone $17k. SJ ^Debaser 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that Ken's charity of choice would be his HMO. It's interesting that one of the medical problems associated with obesity is "Difficulty sleeping". I think he has documented his own problems with this while pretending to be Ruy Lopez. So is Ken also a lard-ass? ^{— Unsigned, by: Silly twit / talk / contribs}

This is classic Ken. He's accused atheists of not debating, having no ma-cheeeese-mo, staying in their intellectual bunny hole, etc. and now he's been called out on being the anonymous coward that he is. So, in best Kendoll fashion, he has to think of a cunning ruse to get out of it. "I know!" he exclaims, "I'll challenge people to a debate but put so many ridiculous conditions on the offer that no one will ever accept! No one will ever see through that cunning ruse! It's as brilliant as my disguises I use when spamming forums!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In Dec 2008, cp:User:Conservative posted to the Zeuglodon Blues group the question: Should User Conservative Challenge Lenski to a Debate on the

Conservapedia evolution article? (320/8148420d347bca21.html) Not even his peers (in the full sense of the word!) bothered to give him the slightest hint of encouragement - or even an answer, though he craved for it: While Lenski may have more stature, I do think I am a better debater than Lenski. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good find! Yet another ZB post where his peers whistle and look the other way. In related news, I notice that after I pointed out somewhere above that the Japanese are both very healthy and generally atheist, Ken's now taken to referring to "Western atheism."^img So nice to be able to control editorial content over there. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's challenge reminds me of Ashida Kim's 'Open Challenge' that got called out on multiple times by Bullshido. It's vague, biased, unfair and attributes financial rewards to the challenger maker far in excess of their status. The very minimum he could do to make it fair would be to offer mirror conditions to his opponent (allowing them to simultaneously host the debate on a site of their choice and make an identical donation to the charity of their choice), will he? Of course he won't. In a fair debate he'd lose, Gish has been developing his way of misdirection for years, Ken can't take criticism but craves attention. He'd crumble the first time his confidence was dented by losing a point.

As far as his mouthing off about Chuck Norris goes, he's tellingly quiet. It's OK for his to make claims of martial prowess for other people, but not to actually do any combat himself, reminds me of his military record. We can of course settle this one quickly, find Ken an opponent in his weight class (or a lower one to make him feel confident), get the match added to the card of a local MMA promoter and have both competitors place an agreed amount in escrow accounts and the loser forfeits his stake to the charity of the victor's choice. Would Ken have the ma-CHEESE-mo? Of course he wouldn't, he'll hide in his intellectually vacant echo chamber claiming victory for the rest of his pathetic existence. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

While America sleeps...

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Get a life Ken.

Ken spends the night deleting, protecting and recreating his talk page. Is there not a single person at CP who can show some Christian charity and help the poor lamb get treatment?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very severe case of OCD. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor guy is probably going to that Hurlbut quack for treatment. Leeches and bleeding don't do much for mental illness. Maybe he should try trephination next? --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiple people have called Andy and left messages pleading with him to take a stronger interest in Ken's health because he can't manage it himself. I never saw a single personal message to Ken in either of the super secret CP listservs nor anyone expressing the least concern for his wellbeing, reflecting to me that the sysops there are the worst calibre of person. Their singleminded hatred of all things they call liberal pushed out any love they had for anything good that actually is liberal like being concerned enough about others to lift a finger in their aid. Merry fucking Christmas, eh you odious turds? Way to look after your flock. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You must bear in mind that none of the sysops can stand Ken and only tolerate him because Andy has deemed him kosher thanks to his link-spamming SEO attempts. He frequently mentioned his (real or imagined) medical problems, and not once was he ever asked if he was ok. If Ken dropped down dead tomorrow, they wouldn't say a word - besides TK posting something from a "vandal" about being glad Ken's dead, you know, like he did for Dean's wife. There's no milk of human kindness there, only the bile of self-inflicted misery. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Two and a half hours later and he's back "working" on his Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution. I bet he was either dreaming about new things to add or spent all the time surfing Flickr looking for new pictures. Either way it is not how any sane middle-aged man would behave. Truly a sad, sad state of affairs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is really sad because it's so public and documented, and Andy encourages him. Andy seems like an emotionless robot who would be lost with human relationships if he didn't have the Bible explaining to him how they are supposed to work. I don't think we can expect him to be the sort to "reach out and give a brother a hand". The only thing that draws that lot together is anger and resentment, which doesn't translate into caring if a person's participation feeds their instability. This is yet another reason why I am against Ken WIGOs. --Leotardo (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember the last thread I saw in which another CP sysop (Andy, TK, Karajou, Jpatt) directly addressed anything Ken said. Ken'd be lost without WIGOCP and RW, as there aren't any other sites that'd give him as much attention as we do. I don't know if this would be good or bad for him. SJ ^Debaser 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm as guilty as anybody for poking Ken with a big stick, but I think we need to do the same as with TK - try our damnedest not to WIGO him, or mention him on TWIGO. As with TK, it should have the desired effect of driving him to ever greater bouts of insanity, in order to attract our attention. We should even go as far as to comment out any references to him from now on on WIGO and TWIGO. Make him an unperson here, and remove the last semblance of relativity that he had to CP. What say the goats? --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this in spirit, but the best we can hope for is self-restraint with the WIGOs. If Ken doesn't come up on TWIGO, there would be no TWIGO. He's the only one doing anything. --Leotardo (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck that, let the intellectually vacuous prick give himself a breakdown. He comes here, we don't go to him and make him read this page. He can stop any time he chooses. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does Tyler Zoran hate black people?

My family has been in America for over 150 years, and I must say, I'm sick and tired of the swarms of illegals, gays, WHATEVER, storming our borders and perverting our country. - Tyler Zoran^img

Tyler Zoran is on Conservapedia and despite his taking on the huge workload of a "graduate student of business, law, and Spanish at a private university in the Midwest", he has also found time to register at Wikipedia, AStorehouseofKnowledge, CreationWiki and Metapedia. Tyler Zoran is unlikely his real name. At Wikipedia he is a "graduate student"; at ASK he is just a senior in college^img (w/o the law study); and at CP he is simply "working toward multiple graduate degrees and helping to manage a small investment fund at the same time." He was homeschooled for 12 years^img, natch.

Metapedia is a white supremacist encyclopedia. Our college and/or grad student stumbled upon them--he is a tea partier, as he proclaims on his CP page--in July 2010 and <capture>immediately offered to help^img. He even went to the Slavery article and helped out there by wikifying 'liberal'^img in the following sentence: "The liberal media often talk of a period of slavery in the United States, however this is a gross distortion of the truth. African migrants to the United States were more often paid workers of the white farm owners."

Five months later Tyler goes to Wikipedia and for his first mainspace edit unsuccessfully nominates the wp:Metapedia for deletion, and then unsuccessfully PRODs it. He gives his reasoning, which is that they once reverted him^img for factually editing their Conservapedia article, and that unlike "Wikipedia and Conservapedia, they have virtually no following."

Questions: How does someone who is a grad student in business, law and Spanish and an investment fund manager have any time to be undertaking the nonsense he is all over the Internet? Is Tyler Zoran a white separatist who sees black people as lesser than him? If not, then why wikify a word that is part of an objectionable, historically revisionist vile sentence on a white supremacy wiki Slavery article with no evidence that he thought that there was anything else wrong with the article? Does he really think that his participation in a white supremacy wiki would be grounds for a decision on its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia? --Leotardo (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he probably has a tiny penis. The stereotypical African male's genitalia is several inches larger than his European cousin's, and Tyler is obviously jealous. SJ ^Debaser 21:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume it's because 150 years ago his family moved to America and had just got their plantation up and running when all of a sudden those uppity northern Negroes started to raise a ruckus. The Zorans haven't been the same since. --Leotardo (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After many years of wondering whether people like Tyler Zoran are the real thing I sat down and did some deep ponderin' and came up with something I like to call "Nutty Roux's law," which says "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." Imma be famous I am. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slutty, what law schools in the midwest are attached to a small religious college that would be a good fit for a home schooler? Perhaps someplace like wp:University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)? Tyler fancied himself hot stuff on Top10Traders.com. --Leotardo (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it. More likely Bethel or Northwestern College. St. Thomas is actually more for the private school crowd. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't obtain a JD at either of those, though. The name's a fake, so maybe all this other stuff is BS too. His 'internet voice' doesn't read over 15/16 to me. --Leotardo (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Top10Traders.com is a site where people play the stock market with funny money, not real. Here we see Tyler boasting and thumping his chest because of his funny money account gains from penny stocks, and someone replying that in the real world he would be foolish to bet on those stocks. 'Tyler Zoran' sounds like he is about 16. --Leotardo (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an MSF/JD joint degree at the school this alleged person allegedly goes to and there's no such thing as a JD in "finance law" at any law school. Oops! Law schools don't even offer coursework in finance. The extent of "business law" is going to be administrative law, tax, bankruptcy, business organizations, maybe business torts, etc. I've also never heard of a 21 year old being admitted to business school. Ever. Maybe I'm out of the loops, but the dozen people I know who went to U of C, Columbia, DePaul, Loyola, and Northwestern business Schools did it in their mid and late 20s after getting at least some management experience. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the slavic immigrants to this country 150 years ago ended up in the industrial north, so the plantation story doesn't sound realistic to me. --Opcn (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"swarms of...gays... storming our borders." 'Cause the gays obviously weren't born here. P-Foster (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they hold raves at the immigration office. --Kels (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you watch Fox? They obviously turn our borders in to great big gay orgys. Just like they're gonna do to military barracks in the middle east.--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

I was looking for a way to change my life. I could not do this on my own. All the ways I wished I could be, that's him! He's homophobic in the way I want to be homophobic, he race baits the way I want to race bait. He's dumb, incompetent and most importantly impotent in all the ways I am not.

People do it every day. They talk to themselves. They see themselves as they'd like to be. They don't have the courage I have, to just run with it.... Little by little. I'm just letting myself become...Tyler Zoran! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

TZ is another of those editors who appeared and immediately began to parrot Andy, which did it's usual trick of earning him rights. What he has done differently, thanks to the sage advice I passed on to him before he signed up, is that he's gone to the effort of creating a decent back-story... possibly as little too decent, as - as has been pointed out before - he's made it a little bit too complex. Still, not bad for a first attempt. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 09:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have told him to use a name that is less-Googleable, b/c it is evidence that the name is a fake. --Leotardo (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Finally, proof atheists are obese

Kendoll has finally given is irrefutable proof of the strong link between atheism and obesity: a list of 3 overweight atheists^img (one of whom is dead and certainly not overweight at this time). Brilliant, Ken. The most religious states are the fattest, but yet atheism has the strong connection to obesity. It's a shame they all don't weight 98 pounds like you do. DickTurpis (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Weren't PZ's heart issues a congenital thing rather than brought on by obesity (and honestly, he looks about average for a guy in his 50's)? Or am I remembering wrong? --Kels (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He is fishing again, trying to get links in from popular blogs. He mentioned in one of the ZB group pages that passive-aggressive attacks are a good way to get links in without having to reciprocate. - π 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And the RW link farm happily obliges! ^moral 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pavlovian repose to Ken's trolling here on RationalWiki is well documented and understood. What he wants are links from richarddawkins.net and scienceblog.com, both of which get several times the traffic of Conseravpedia. - π 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact P Zed doesn't permit linking or mentioning Conservapedia. And isn't the RD Forum famously d e a d ? Which all raises the question of what the moron thinks hes doing? He also thinks his duplicate content helps him on Google, forgetting the cardinal rule that thou shalt not duplicate content lest the source and target get downgraded. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one reason I always hit the img link instead of the one directly to the monkey house. Why give Ken the hits? --Kels (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I capture-tagged it, but it don't seem to be working...P-Foster (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I switched the link from a cp: to a regular external. That seems to have done the trick. DickTurpis (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Christopher Hitchens too; making fun of someone dying of terminal cancer is the epitome of class; stay classy CP, stay classy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's also not exactly too fat if tons of hipsters from LA to Prague wanted to fuck him in the 80's. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit more. Obviously fat Christians are a dime a dozen but I can't think of many fat Muslims.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You've not been near my local mosque then. This is a slight generalisation, but only a slight one. Most of the local muslims around here are thin and svelte until about the age of 30 at which point they positively balloon. I doubt there are many over 50 who aren't clincally obese, male and female.Oldusgitus (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

True. I had a friend who spent 2 years working in Saudi at one of the hospitals. Most of the people she saw were obese, with corresponding ailments, especially things like sleep apnoea. It's a soceity with a lot of food, very little emphasis on exercise, and foreigners to do most of the physical work anyway. Also, lots of cirrhosis of the liver, due to home-made brews they chug down. (you can buy grapes, yeast and sugar next to each other on supermarket shelves). --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 11:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Before they were nationalised by the Saudis, Aramco used to have what was known as the Blue Book - basically an instruction manual on how distil your own hooch. The houses in the Dhahran compound were built with a central windowless room where you could install your still. And in Kuwait the expats used to take a sample of their distilled spirit down to the hospital lab to be tested for safety. You needed to take a pint, although only a small amount was used the surplus was the payment. One of the Aramco pilots told me that the Aramco executive jet which was used by Sheikh Yamani had its own bar which would usually be opened before they had even taken off while those high up enough to be invited to oil ministry banquets reported that the range of legitimate liquor brands which were available was mindboggling - no need for homebrew. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wahabis, of which the house of saud are the premier example, are possibly the most corrupt of all muslims elites. The tales of their 'excesses' rank up there with those of the xian ruling elites, people like kent hovind and ted haggard for example. It is something that runs in all religious elites, in fact in all unchecked elites such as the former soviet elite and the heads of the gop. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. For an example closer to home we need look no further than our own favourite parodists, tk, ken and the assfly.

Give those who possess limited imagination coupled with delusions of adequacy the possibility of some form of limited power and cp results. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

God counterexamples then. How about Hindus? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

On obesity in the Middle East, yep, it's real: a nice interactive world map. Junggai (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not comprehensive but mainly it's women who are more obese. The only exception I found was Australia where there there's a higher percentage of obese males. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes dead?

Has Ken borked CP's recent changes? Main page loads fine, but RC not. And I've tried IE, Chrome & Firefox. --Ψ GremlinParla! 11:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Borked for me as well. Well done ken.Oldusgitus (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here too. I can get everything but RC. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You can use the API query instead, but it's not hugely useful. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You can get the recent changes by using the RSS feed. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the RSS feed doesn't show the username. Which is kind of stupid, but I'm sure there's a reason to it. -- Nx / talk 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It does provide for a self-challenge though. You can test to see if you really know your CP editors by guessing who made the change. Other than that, yeah, it's stupid. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The blue link does take you to the diff tho. Such as this^img wonderful example of Ken's debating style. Nate hands him his ass, and all Ken can do is fall back on his idiotic mantra of "do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true?" --Ψ GremlinTala! 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see that would be well worth 17K dollars to watch him debate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is why Ken isn't all that fun to poke^img; he shows an intellectual immaturity that he has indicated is diagnosed with all his "health problem" references. Not answering questions and repeating the same irrelevant response is, in his mind, "winning" a discussion, which is what children do. His mind evidences that it is on a loop: a phrase is repeated over and over in the same paragraph, and even in the same sentence ("Pardon the pun, but are some of the fat evolutionists/atheists or have some of the fat evolutionists/atheists been prominent evolutionists/atheists?" - where's the pun?); cuts and pastes the same response to different questions; ignores questions; and falls back on his wp:Argument from ignorance to demand that someone do the impossible, which is prove a negative (God does not exist) in response to a question about obesity and atheism. He starts off every sentence with "Also" "Next" "In addition" "On the other hand" and other connectives, but that's just poor writing. While I have no desire to debate someone who is developmentally challenged, I enjoy that his work is featured so prominently on Conservapedia and with repetition, just like his writing. --Leotardo (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nate commits wiki-suicide.^img Ken's exhausted his collecgtion of witty retorts and now only blocking and oversighting remains. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm getting 403 errors every time I try to access anything. This looks like the 403 blocks CP had a couple of weeks ago. I can access it through a proxy just fine (except for Recent Changes still). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How on earth have they managed to fuck MW up so much? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No wonder they turned account creation off again; the vandals would be having a field day during the RC blackout. --Leotardo (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't think of that! Gentlemen, start your socks! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes? All you need is this. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we still have that bot that tracks Ken's editing sprees? P-Foster (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't believe it can deal with all the page deletions. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting RC now. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see the RC as well, but if I try to change the options (to see more than 50 changes, say) the page fails to load. Colonel of Squirrels^{医药是医药，和那个不是医药。} 18:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Still getting 403s here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing the 50 most recent but not in the 'normal' format. It looks more like an out of date version of mw to me. example^imgOldusgitus (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, that's an Anon attack. Yikes. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, yikes indeed. Into the bunkers cp'ers. You've got 'famous' enough to be anoned.Oldusgitus (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's TK when you need someone to lock the database and turn off account creation? They were doing it to stifle debate. Why not to, oh I don't know, protect the site from actual vandals? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm...that screenshot is a year old. The current RC looks fine to me. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sooie!

What do you think of when I say "atheist hotbed"? Oh, neither Arkansas nor farming^img came to mind? Funny that. – Nick Heer 18:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first place to go to learn about hog calls is a football team's website. Then, construct a trivial hog call article solely based on information from the football team. Next, screw up the football team's chant by naming the article "Sooie" and redlink for another trivial article never to be created, cp:Hog Call. Given the aforementioned, you should then categorize "Sooie"--all about the Arkansas Razorbacks--as "Category:Farming" (also redlinked). Next, do not include one sentence on the topic that is not cut n' pasted from your source site. As you can see, you have a Ken DeMyer article (sometimes also known as an Ed Poor article). --Leotardo (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Ken so stupid that he can't do named references? So many of his turdpiles have multiple links to the same reference (often the same dumb YouTube video). Perhaps he ought to ask his Uncle Ed for some wiki tutelage. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. Ken, I put in a link to MW so you can look up how to do it. Signed, Your friendly atheistic superior intellect.)

I have to say the "hog call" is one of the most annoying things you will ever hear (and I'm a life-long Razorbacks fan). Every time I'm at a bar watching a game I cringe when I hear someone yell out, "Let's call those Hogs!" It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't repeated three times. Every time. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 01:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a little taste. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

RC comes back...

... and already the goodness^img is flowing.^img Anyone care to WIGO? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment of Andy's is priceless. Come on, Andrew, we know Ken is mentally disabled, but what's your excuse? DickTurpis (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I'm disgusted and saddened by Ken. And as usual, Andy puts a big ol' smile back on my face. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to use capture, as they're still 403ing to me. Idiot Number 60 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I like this discussion^img between him and Andy. Andy basically says, "Yes, I see you are right, but even though you are right I wonder if there is an ulterior motive that would make me want to keep the inaccurate information about whether Jesus went to hell or not." --Leotardo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my question, is Andy defending Kenny because he sincerely believes in the latter's "work", or is it purely a "circle the wagons" mentality predicated on ego, because Andy cannot admit that allowing Ken to spooge all over CP for so long was a mistake? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a doubt, it is the latter. But it might also be the former. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Use? I'm from the Liberal Democrats. After that last reply, I'd like to offer you a place on Nick Clegg's speechwriting team. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of this gem. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think they think that it's just liberal criticism, and they will do the opposite of whatever liberals think should be done. That's what I think possessed Andy to post on MPR an update that was clearly Ken's words^img. While I have enjoyed watching the Kens Essays Suckathon, I don't think we have any interest (at all) in seeing them removed from Mainpage. So, keep up with whatever you all are doing because those essays are breeding like rabbits all over Main out of the principle of contrariety. --Leotardo (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

While they are not WIGO-able any escalation of Ken's essays and satire at CP has to be good news in the longer term. I mean, making Conservapedia a laughing stock was what all the parodists and trolls signed up for in the first place, wasn't it? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Arkansas

First the birds^img. Now the fish.^img Anyone else really glad they don't live in Conservative Arkansas? --Thunderstruck (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to CP:Environmentalism^img, they love it like that in the 44th most environmentally-friendly state. Who needs fish or fowl when you have humans?(Reference for question^img) --Leotardo (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Arkansas even all that conservative? The state has a Democratic governor and an overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly and Senate. Of course what happened to those animals could be anything at this point. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere else a helpful Merkin has splained that the dead birds were frightened out of their nests by fireworks, 82.23.211.127 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense until you think about how this should happen everywhere, every year. It's obvious that George Bush pissed off god, so now god is taking it out on Arkansas. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I like it when people who have Obama Derangement Syndrome reference Bush Derangement Syndrome. --Leotardo (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pure Schlafly stupidity once again. Fish kills happen all the time. It's probably due the the severe fluctuations in temperature we've had lately. *cough*climate change*cough* PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is, how does this tie in with the Rapture? --Kels (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because George Bush! Senator Harrison (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada needs to become america

It's on the talkpage so it sorta fits here; sorry if im doing this wrong haha. "Maybe if they spent more time reading the Bible (...and Conservapedia for insight), and less time eating maple syrup and drinking beer, they wouldn't have such a problem....Martyp 18:42, 3 January 2011 (EST) "--174.70.47.94 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Books WIGO

Borders may be in trouble, but Barnes and Noble sales rise. Does this make their e-Book reader conservative? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh! Best New Conservative word: "Kindle" --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you point it out "Kindle" seems like something Ed Poor would be interested in. (Kindle - a portmanteau of 'kinder' and 'fondle'.) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of BNCW. Andy sees having to work two jobs to make ends meet as "the work ethic at its best."^img --Ψ GremlinSprich! 10:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but I have always believed that moonlighting referred more to wokring illicitly at a wsecond job, usually in an effort to avoid paying tax on the second income.

So thinking about it again it sums up assflys brand of conservatism perfectly. Avoid paying your dues and avoid your responsibilities whenver possible. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Falling liberal book and newspaper sales along with conservative terms being generated at a faster rate, with much higher quality than that of liberal terms, all imply the inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism. Andy's insights seem to mirror the Marxist loonacy of the ultimate triumph of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Andy dreams of being a leading conservative intellectual... makes a better comedian though. Auld Nick (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A few points...

1. Isn't it amazing that someone who purports to be an educator thinks less books is a good thing?
2. Borders is also hurting because they completely bollixed entry into on-line retail. Their original on-line store was just a partnership with Amazon. By the time that partnership ended and borders.com was an independent entity, they were way behind the rest of the pack.
3. Borders was, and still is, a book-lover's paradise. Browsing there is a delight for me. But they can't beat Amazon on prices or selection. I only go there now if they have a really good coupon (at least 40% off) or I'm looking for magazines.
4. Borders' frequent shopper plan is a confusing mess. Barnes and Noble's is a lot simpler and more customer-friendly. MDB (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Andy's dislike of books centres on the fact that they contain those nasty inconvenient things called "facts", which tend to disagree with most of his world view. Poor petal. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that people read less as a "good thing" is Conservapedia in a nutshell. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not just that; it's a lot of modern-day American conservatism in a nutshell. They've gone from populism to anti-intellectualism to bordering on embracing ignorance as a virtue. MDB (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy's "reasoning" is less "book sales are down and that's a good thing because it means people are reading less" and more "book sales are down and that's a good thing because it means that people must be reading fewer books published by liberal publishers and university presses and are therefore reading more modern, cutting-edge conservative media like Conservapedia." It's not anti-intellectualism for its own sake as much as it's anti-what-passes-for-the-standard-as-intellectualism. He's actually much more radical/revolutionary than conservative in that sense. P-Foster (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He's right. For every unread book, Conservapedia gets 100,000 pageviews. Deny this and lose all credibility. We need a name for this new insight! DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy has always said that "if you want to learn, don't read a book, write a book". Now, while the act of writing something out is a great way to commit stuff to memory and ensures that you really need to understand something if you have any hope of being able to teach someone else, but exactly where you are expected to acquire your own knowledge in the first place without the aid of books is a Schlafly mystery. Also, as the Bibull is "the most logical book ever written"™ I guess there is only one book you really need. However, what's the point in writing a book if there is no point in anyone else reading it? When I visit someone's house I always give the bookshelves a good look over as their contents, or lack of, give a great indication about a person's character. I can well imagine a few rows of legal case studies, some US constitutional papers and the Bibull being the only tomes to grace the public areas of the Schlafly residence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In some very vague respects that is an almost zen like stance. The standpoint that true wisdom comes from within and in the act of creating 'output' a deeper understanding is gained, esentially the basis of koan. Not that assfly means it that way. He's just stupid and probably heard some 'self-help' guru say it one day or read it in something like who moved my cheese. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm locked out of CP again, so I can't gather the difflinks, but Andy has railed against just about every medium and aspect of culture in the last few days. The mainstream media and especially newspapers are an old canard, but he also lambasted rock music, musicals, movies and now books as being inherently liberal. I've got no idea how that man is able to derive any enjoyment from life, given how he's apparently always fearful of liberalism lurking below the pretty surface of mankind's cultural achievements. Röstigraben (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, anyone who believes as much as Andy in a book that says that you can demolish a city via the cunning use of trumpets has a screw loose. Anyone who thinks that reading fewer books is a good thing has a DIY store's worth of screws loose. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That "learn better by writing than reading" thing that Andy has seems to be one of his central problems. I've heard this saying quite a lot, and I actually believe it, but I think his understanding of it is a bit different than mine. I've always understood it to mean that you learn more by writing a book *and* reading than by reading alone, i.e. pick a subject, research it, write a book/essay/whatever. Andy seems to skip that "research" bit, as if he's taking the saying at face value. He believes that the very act of just writing is as good as actually doing some research or other work. Maybe he reasons that the people who *originally* came up with certain concepts couldn't have researched their ideas (by reading) before writing them down because they didn't exist anywhere else (the guy who originally came up with 2+2=4 couldn't have read it anywhere else because he's the first one to think of it), but that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of... of pretty much everything, ever. X Stickman (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not the first time Andy has said something like this^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As for Andy's sources^img: "I get my information from Conservapedia, and the internet at large, from the best of the public (conferences, emails, students), from court opinions, and from various other sources too numerous to list here". Yes, he actually says he gets his information for his personal blog Conservapedia, "the internet at large", students and emails. Anyone surprised? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm

Looks like the 403 blocking is back for now. Either that or Ken's latest rampage through the database has screwed things up more than they usually are. Keep it up Kenny (just think of that obese Ed Poor if you're having trouble doing that by the way), you're bringing down Conservapædia much faster than anybody else ever could!-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird - I got 403ed yesterday but now it's fine. Seems to affect different people at different times. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't worked for me since yesterday either. To think of all the awesome essays and insights I must be missing out on... Röstigraben (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm getting 403es again. I'm still not sure whether this is cock-up or conspiracy. With CP it could be either or both. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Us Virgins 'sarf of the river' haven't been able to get it since this morning. Mick McT (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have spent the last 2 weeks moving at hectic pace around the North Island of New Zealand and, when I have time to check, I have found 403 errors from some networks but not others. Weird. Ace Mc^fuckingAwesome 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy Schlafly just uninformed about Michael Steele?

Andy Schlafly has several times defended Steele's re-election despite his disastrous tenure as Republican National Committee Chairman. This has been of interest to me because the only thing I can surmise about Andy's support is 1) Michael Steele once defended Ron Paul; and 2) Steele was supportive of the tea partiers.

Apparently that's all that Andy needs to know before he starts whitewashing CP:Michael Steele^img and spamming his candidacy on MPR, asking if he is "Steele the One?^img" and wondering if it is RINOs who are trying to defeat the pro-Ron Paul candidate^img, amongst other spams[1]^img[2]^img[3]^img[4]^img

Andy is so uninformed, because obviously the pro-Ron Paul, pro-Tea Party Michael Steele contains this baggage:

One of the more interesting parts of the debate came when Steele made a plea for the Republican Party to be more inclusive. Back in 2009, there was a question among conservatives about whether Republicans needed to stick to their conservative principles or reach out beyond their base. At the time, Steele was making the argument that the party needed to seek out to candidates who, for instance, supported gay marriage and were pro-choice. And he stuck by that position at the debate: "When we make assumptions about [groups of voters] and say, 'Well they won't vote for us anyway, that's when we lose. This isn't America of the 1950s." And: "We can not be a party that comes with a litmus test." None of the other candidates agreed.[5]

I'm not taking Andy's Steele support as anything except that he is uninformed, particularly since Steele said back in 2009 that the GOP should reach out to gay and pro-choice voters. --Leotardo (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War and for the DADT repeal. Andy has called many others RINOs for much less than that. Andy's double standard never ceases to amaze me. DickTurpis (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1) Michael Steele once defended Ron Paul; and 2) Steele was supportive of the tea partiers...and 3) He's a black guy, which allows Andy to give the appearance of being blind to the question of racial identity. Maybe not a huge thing, but it probably figures in there somewhere. P-Foster (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy really likes Paul for his fiscal views and despite all the other stuff he bleats on about Andy is basically a tightwad so keeping as much of his money as possible is his primary objective.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think he has an appreciation for Ron Paul's principled libertarianism, but is hopeful that Rand Paul won't be so principled (e.g. no gays, pro-war, pro-government for conservative ends). --Leotardo (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It snows, thus no climate change? Andy writes, thus no brain damage?

"This winter's extreme weather -- with heavy snowfall in some places and unusually low temperatures -- is in fact a sign of how climate change disrupts long-standing patterns, according to a new report by the National Wildlife Federation. [...] The Great Lakes region is also experiencing more snow, the report says, because during warmer winters, "the lakes are less likely to freeze over or are freezing later [and] surface water evaporation is recharging the atmosphere with moisture." - Washington Post 1/28/2010

Wait wait wait! Liberal lies!!1! More snow means less global warming!

Andy has been going in overdrive trying to use typical winter weather (latest: snowstorm in California = no global warming^img) to evidence that he doesn't know the difference between weather and climate. If I didn't know better, I would think Andy only focuses on the news that fits his preconceived world view. That can't be the case, though. So it must be that he is just not aware that in the last week New York had a blizzard, followed by flooding due to unseasonably high temperatures; Alaska had record high temperatures that made it too hot for running sled dogs; and that the warm weather in the northeast effected Maine skiing.

Andy, here is NASA's explanation of the difference between weather and climate. --Leotardo (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course he only uses news that fits his preconceived notions; remember the unusually hot summer world wide last year? Remember Russia being so above average in temperatures that they were choked with huge fires for weeks? CP felt that was unworthy of mention. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So the question is what he hopes to gain with his liberal deceit? 1) He believes his website is a generalized opinion-maker, and this is his chance to join the national discuss and influence against the 'global warming hoax'; or 2) he believe his website is a conservative opinion-maker, and this is his chance to throw red meat to his legions of followers so that they can wallow in their ignorance like obese atheists? The problem with these tactics is once people realize you are only talking from ignorance, people stop listening (CP has already arrived at that condition). --Leotardo (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All these "global warming" deniers fail to understand that an increase in average global temperature does not equate with warmer local weather. The dynamics of the global climate means that Britain enjoys a temperate climate; "global warming" could put an end to that and actually make us much cooler. I was talking with some Americans in California this last month and none appreciated that New York was actually on the same latitude as Madrid, while northern England (Manchester) is level with Edmonton in Canada. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if the ignorance you share is spread. Let me image a scenario: Child grows up in a christian fundemantalist household (probably a small town), homeschooled by an Andy Schlafly, grows uo, goes to college and studies something completely unrelated to (hard) science (for example theology at certain colleges), child discowers CP and sees new "facts" - not everybody is always at anything doubtfull, and people that read CP to get education (obviously a lost cause) will believe in the propaganda Andy spreads. Not that these are many, maybe a few thousands I'd guess, but we should think that there are some true believers out there. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Try a few dozen. No one reads Conservapedia except for ridicule. Kendoll has seen to that. DickTurpis (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot I'm on an American website, I meant internationally.--Ullhateme (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that "homeschooled by Andy Schlafly" is part of the sequence, I'd say the number wouldn't change. That said, even the far right sites don't want anything to do with him, and it's unlikely more than a very small handful worldwide would take him seriously (and that includes his sysops). --Kels (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wtf? "homeschooled by Andy Schlafly" is not part of the seqence - "homeschooled by an Andy Schlafly" is, it's synonomous with "homeschooled by someody like Andy Schlafly" and "homeschooled by someody alike to Andy Schlafly", creating a set of people who's identies are unknown, but share an ideology alike to that of Andy Schlafly. These are exactly the same mistakes that lead Andy Schlafly to mishandle "global warming" with "climate change", climate can change in a distinct place, but "global warming" means it's getting warmer on a whole planet (in this case planet Earth). If only Andy would be that bat-shit crazy there wouldn't be a political party in Germany called PBC (Party of Bible-abiding Christians), that wants to substitute the constitution with the bible - and has 3734 members. --Ullhateme (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I enjoy watching them is because they are such failures. They have outright pride in their ignorance and they are impervious to any finding that disputes what they want to believe, such as when Andy put the obese atheist stuff on MPR. They'll never get their act together because Andy Schlafly is the real problem with why it doesn't work, and it's his website. --Leotardo (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a sad study of a common theme in all too many people, delusion mixed with intense pride. Andy's pride is so immense, he will never admit he is wrong; he only gives ground if someone argues any even more conservative position that fits well into his preconceived notion anyway. This is why Ken's crap is allowed to permeate the site and why he has to defend it, because his pride forces him too. He knows its crap but he cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong in allowing it to go on so long. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Andy remember that the Vancouver Winter Olympics had major problems with the record snow fall at the start of last year? CS Miller (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe these will fit into Andy's idea of global warming: Western Cape melts in heat wave & Heavy rains flood Newcastle and Ladysmith in Natal --Ψ GremlinTala! 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll gets the ridicule he craves

PZ "if you're so smart, why are you fat?" Myers pokes our own dear Ken in the jacobs once more. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Andy...he never learns. The more he lets Ken take a poo all over the main page, the more ridiculous both Andy and Conservapedia seem (if it is even possible for the two to seem even more ridiculous than they already do). ~SuperHamster Talk 23:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I think you have it wrong. I think any notice to them is good notice. They are way, way beyond hoping for serious consideration. I liked this comment:

Is this a threshold function--hit a weight of X, or a BMI of Y, and instantly join the Dawkins Foundation? Or is it more of a gradual function--say, detect 1 logical fallacy per cookie eaten? Also, this means we unchurched get all the bacon, right?

As far as Andy and the leftovers at CP are concerned, this was a slam dunk. --Leotardo (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shout-out to PZM captured^img 'cause why the fuck not? P-Foster (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What a fucking coward Ken is. If he spoke like that to most people's faces he'd get the living shit beaten out of him. But hey it's the internet so he can thrive on negative attention from the comfort of his crummy apartment without getting his glasses and nose broken. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken now has a "Reply^img". --Leotardo (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Real men set weight setting goals, publicly declare their weight loss goals, and of course, use the Total Gym." I look forward to hearing of your weight setting goals, Ken. Or at least post a picture, like PZ Myers has. Don't tell me that he has more machismo than you when it comes to being open. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Is Ken simultaneously arguing that Myers lacks machismo, but also needs to drink less beer and more Slimfast? Wow. DickTurpis (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Read it, there's nothing in his 'essay' that is in any way replying to PZ. Instead of creating another link fest (expect something on the main page at the end of the month extolling how many new articles were made this month due to his padding the stats by deleting and recreating them) Ken might actually consider making a cogent rebuttal to what was actually written. Whether he possesses the intellectual capability to do so is another mystery entirely. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Leotardo (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'reply' is now being shouted from MPL, unfortunately in his rush to C+P everything from the other essays he's neglected to actually link to what PZ said, meaning unless you read PZ or here then you have no clue what this 'essay' is replying to. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy happily jumping on board the sinking ship of insanity:^img:

Paul, obesity is a growing problem in atheistic public schools, and I doubt many realized the correlation between obesity and atheism before User:Conservative began to publicize it in a witty manner. Don't you think he deserves some gratitude for that?

--Night Jaguar (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tits or GTFO Iscariot (link + capture or it didn't happen) User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Leotardo's link captured the page 8 minutes before my timestamp, the capture illustrates the state of the 'reply' as it was. Ken of course can't tolerate any criticism so he ran away and burned the history, probably because he lacks ma-CHEESE-mo. By the way Ken, it's still not anything approaching a reply, hiding the link doesn't help any of your readers understand what the hell you're on about in this 'essay'. I notice you deleted your debate challenge when fair conditions were offered back to you and people even offered to take you up on the financial conditions, if Dawkins lacks machismo because he won't debate someone from another point of view, what do you lack for not debating anyone and burning the evidence of the offer? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious if the few seemingly serious editors are going to see it as a victory or another colossal embarrassment. At a certain point, contributing to a brand synonymous with inaccuracy, innuendo and name-calling has to lack some dignity. --Leotardo (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Remind us, Ken, what the specific and measurable goals for operation grassroots and flying fortresses were again? Yes, we remember things that happened before last week here. Now STFU. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If anything of Ken's had a noticeable effect on the real world (other than peals of laughter), he would be proclaiming it from every rooftop as it would be the proudest moment of his life. That he still avoids all but the most cryptic references to his old (probably abandoned and half-forgotten) "operations" is a glaring testament to their ultimate failure, as with everything else in his life. --Kels (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you kidding? Ken is on cloud nine right now - he won't be able to sleep for days. Given Ken's life, having one of your 'biting satires' commented on by its intended target must be a dream. How many of his neighbors can say that about themselves? The title of the essay reply is "A reply to atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers" - if he's an atheist, it's redundant to call him an evolutionist. --Leotardo (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, deist and evolutionist would work. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You got my point backwards - I was talking about Atheists, not evolutionists. Theistic evolution is a popular concept (even Popes have acknowledged it). --Leotardo (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry really got that one wrong, I shouldn't read when I eat. --Ullhateme (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to boost Ken's ego a bit more. Him (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken has reached his goal: he got recognized by www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula, a blog with much more traffic than conservapedia has. So, he considerably increased his pageviews - the only goal of his actions. Remember, he is all about quantity, not about quality.

His obviously delusional invitation to debate someone serves the same purpose - he wrote once in Zeuglodon Blues:

Should User Conservative Challenge Lenski to a Debate on the Conservapedia evolution article? I might use this tactic as a last resort if the conservapedia evolution article has difficulty getting into the Google top 10 for evolution using other tactics.

I do think that getting conservapedia's evolution article in the Google top 10 will increase Conservapedia's overall traffic 30% to 300%. Last time I promoted the article via various posts to Conservapedia (Hitler pic) I think our web traffic at least doubled (if not more) if memory serves. So I don't think 300% is an unreasonable figure. I think the publicity surrounding conservapedia and other anti-evolutionist web and articles shooting up the search engine rankings and/or internet traffic could be a big deal.

I just don't know why he doesn't try to add some porn - this would help, too. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how his estimate for the increase in Conservapedia's traffic rank is "30% to 300%". Can't go wrong with betting on a range of 270%. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Math isn't his strong suite, on the other hand what is? --Ullhateme (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoever did this... bit distasteful.

Come on, bit distasteful.... ^EXTERMINATE 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do like Dmcq's unflappable response. --Kels (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've since removed the comment. It doesn't belong there, especially when the user calls Conservapedians "power-hungry lying murderers". ~SuperHamster Talk 03:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If "Sean" is serious, they should engage a local newspaper reporter in the story, hence creating an RS for the tale of woe. If not, stop trolling WP. ħuman 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just Google Townsend suicide - it's crap. Him (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, though, as the user didn't just troll the CP:Talk page, but went to Jimbo's talkpage, and Karajou's. Note Karajou's lashing out, wanting some accusations removed, then makes lulz as he calls the guy a liar and originating from RW (he wants accusations about CP removed, but makes accusations about RW, for those who don't care to look at links). Real death or not, it's amusing. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I always did take Koward as one of the few "true believers" on CP who actually thinks that Andy is in the right and surrounded by lesser beings wanting to tear him down. Angry outbursts like this sound a lot like a limited thinker defending his worldview from the one enemy he'd managed to identify, and therefore all enemies are that same enemy - RW. --Kels (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is always such an obvious thug, you can spot his rants a mile off.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the suicide that Sean Townsend is complaining about is Ctown200^img. RW discussed his banning in November^img. It was Karajou who he got in a fight with on CP (here is <capture>his talk page^img. --Leotardo (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How nice of Jimbo to bring RW into this with precisely zero fucking proof (that's the technical term). Any evidence you'd like to bring Jimbo? Or just pulling things out of your arse because of a past between the two sites? Perhaps everything that befalls CZ should be assumed to be Jimbo's fault on TWIGOCZ due to his past lovers' tiff with the site? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk sincerely believes in CP - and will storm the beaches (or swab the decks) of wherever he feels CP is being maligned. Of course, given that he's a small-minded thug and bully, with anger management issues, he invariably ends up doing far for harm to CP's reputation than if he'd just stayed the fuck away. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 11:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The psychologist in me cannot help but think that Karajerk's anger problems point to overwhelming feelings of inferiority and insecurity. He really doesn't have sufficient confidence in his core beliefs to let them weather any criticism which is why he ends up acting like a bully and a coward.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It also explains his previous "leaving-and-never-coming-back-for-2-days" episodes. CP is his security blanket. It's the only place where he's ever been able to wield some authority (and absolute power corrupts absolutely) and sad as it might sound, he needs CP far more than CP needs him. --Ψ GremlinParla! 12:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia and free software

I dunno if this has been covered on WIGO but the page on GNU/Linux has this amusing little corker:

Numerous sources, including Steve Ballmer, one of the driving minds behind the success of Microsoft, have claimed that the Open Source movement is inherently Communist. Both Free Software and Communism shun the idea of personal property, instead favoring a communal ownership where no single entity has control or authority.

If this is a new one, I do hope someone will put it on WIGO. If it isn't new, just giggle at it.

Needless to say that Conservapedia runs on a free software/open source wiki engine (MediaWiki), a free software/open source web server (Apache) using free software/open source plugins (OpenSSL, mod_php etc.), probably on a free software/open source database (probably MySQL) and are running all that on a free software/open source operating system (some Linux distro or t'other).

Communism: it's everywhere. It's even hosting Andy Schlafly's popular wikiblog. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You think they would support the personal choice of the creator to give away or distribute his product for free; don't they believe in individual choice or do they just hate freedom?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And they probably absolutely hate the gigantic corporate code contributions from major companies that projects like Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP etc. get, and they especially hate the fact that open source makes the lives of small businesses much easier when they need to sink less money on IT. The annoying thing about open source, from political point of view, is that there's only good sides in it, whether you're pro- or anti-capitalism - this is the sort of an idea that folks like CP can't wrap their heads around. It's like environmentalism: it's unfathomable to some people that efforts to improve environment benefits all people regardless of their political stance. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

cp:Special:Version reports they are indeed using MySql as the database. CS Miller (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

and netcraft confirms it is on Apache/Linux. IIRC MediaWiki can run on other OSes, web servers and databases. Where's CPAdmin to fix this travesty of natural justice? CS Miller (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Caught between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand, linux is based on pathetic socialist principles of sharing, openness and freedom, but on the other hand, Microsoft was created by that liberal atheist Bill Gates. Bondurant (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

CP as last gasp before a new god

Back in November I read an article by wp:Paul Saffo in The Economist entitled, "The World in 2036: New era, new god" in which he argues that humanity is long overdue for a new god. It's short and interesting, but the last paragraph jumped out at me:

Populations around the world are struggling to find security and identity in this strange new future-shock world. The rise of fundamentalism is a sure indicator of dissatisfaction with the current religious order. Unhappy believers first look back to their roots for comfort, but origins rarely comfort and thus they will inevitably search for a new god.

This is the light in which I see Conservapedia. The things they say and write would have been anathema to most Christians (and polite society) 50 years ago. Their strain of fundamentalist Christianity has far more in common with wp:Cotton Mather than with wp:Billy Graham. The views of Conservapedia and fundamentalist Christianity hold little appeal for youth (30-40% who claim no church): "Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label."[6]

Conservapedia is symbolic of a last gasp of the old god before a new god takes shape. Going back to the Christianity of Cotton Mather and Founding Father worship are signs of that. --Leotardo (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to assume there has to be "a new god"; personally I think the world will continue to secularize while the remnant will sink deeper into the fundamentalist strain of old time religions. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When you filter out the secular and rational then the fundamentalist wingnuts are more concentrated.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Most people are happy to go along with whatever the 'norm' is in their surrounding society. It's hard to see people as crazy when they're among the vast majority, whatever their beliefs. Atheism was once absurd, now it's pretty mainstream and gathering pace. Religion will slip away ever faster and faster as moderates go along with the new (and evidently superior, thanks to a century or two of science) norm, leaving only pockets of religious wingnuts who'll be seen by everybody else as the village idiot. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if we ever get netrunning like equipment up and running then I suppose we could see a CyberGod movement start (although that sounds like something that Doctor Who would have to face). The really sad thing is that if we ever did get to netrun it would probably end up being called something lame like FIVS©™ (Fully Immersive Virtual Surfing©™). Of course, there is also the argument that we've already seen the rise of two new gods, Scientology and the FSM.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Science is your new god, libs. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Buffy was my new god, until I discovered she voted Republican.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If science is the new god, does that essentially mean nature? --Leotardo (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be closer than you think, Leotardo, since the modern strain of generalized paganism/Gaia worship has mostly emerged over the past three or four decades. Hell, I remember only about 20 years ago a lot of Wiccans and similar were justifiably afraid of losing jobs and homes if they went public. As "rooted in prehistory" or "carried secretly through the Burning Times" they might claim, what's out there now is a pretty new take on it. Pity so much of it's woo-laced (especially the New Age, crystals-and-light lot). --Kels (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wiccans I know are generally contemptuous of the New Age movement. (One pronounces it "newage", rhyming with "sewage".)

On the other paw, one of the Wiccans I know is a multi-million dollar lottery winner. He does credit the Goddess for making his win possible. MDB (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DouglasA deletion spree...

Check out this list^img. Apparently a great work of literature like Dubliners is non-encyclopedic. Any idea whose work he's going after? P-Foster (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What I want to know is why TeacherEd isn't unblocked. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec - exact same thought as Eddy)No idea, but DouglasA's gnads are smaller than Ken's. --Leotardo (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He earned Assfly's favor, but not his protection, which is something new. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr Adams said he was bored, so I sent him through another list of pages to delete. Just like last time. Expect the Ancient Egypt, Classical music or Astronomy categories to get stripped next. --Ψ GremlinTala! 12:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is great. We have one sysop deleting great swathes of pages with useful content because they were created by "undesirables" while another sysop creates dozens of repetitive junk pages comprising pictures purporting to mock atheism and evolutionism. The balance between being a third-rate conservative Christian "educational resource" and a second-rate wing-nut comedy blog is inexorably shifting to the latter. With no new editors to redress the balance I look forward to CP becoming the ultimate internet ant-farm in 2011.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ant farm - that's a perfect description. Our little wingnut ants - what will the lil' bumblers do? How will they fail? Which conservative or religious figure will deride them next? --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ant farms are pretty boring when they have only 5 ants, though. Fortunately, TheKettle isn't around to boil any newborns in their dozens, so maybe it'll pick up. I think that analogy is spent now. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

More birds fall from sky ... Materalists are at a loss to explain this.

Is andy incapable of reading and understanding anything?^img The article he links to offers materialist explanations:

"In Arkansas, preliminary tests showed the blackbirds there, as many as 5,000, died after massive trauma. Experts said the birds were likely spooked by fireworks, lightning or some other loud event and then ran into each other and other objects as they fled at night while roosting.

"The birds suffered from acute physical trauma leading to internal hemorrhage and death," the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said in a statement Monday. "There was no sign of chronic or infectious disease.""

Auld Nick (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Materialists are at a loss to explain this!

...The Bible is strangely silent on the subject as well." DickTurpis (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Assfly's world god isn't merely content to be aware of a sparrow falling, he actively kills them now? I'm not sure what message he's trying to send here. We know god by the way he vindictively murders the crows? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, god vindictively murdered people so why not Blackbirds? --Leotardo (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I really find it hard to believe that drool isn't running from his mouth as he writes drivel like this. He has no understanding, but continues to generate crap from vague memories of statements past. I believe that this stems from his argument that materialists couldn't explain birds' homing senses. Now birds are falling from the sky. Birds! Materialists! Andy puts hand to keyboard as the spectre of an old argument rises up in his mind... EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eddy, it looks like Andy heard you^img. I don't understand Andy's argument by inference, even after reading CP:Homing. Is he saying that god guides all those pigeons home? Why not also just say that god keeps everything planted on the Earth, eschewing the "theory" of gravity? --Leotardo (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck yeah, I called it. Where's my prize? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"...Add to this: fucking magnets, how do they work?!" User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

At least some folks aren't baffled! --Kels (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a bus with 47 seats large?

Andy writes^img:

The countdown begins for this year's March for Life, as Conservapedia will send a record number of 3 large buses from a single location. 20 days remain, and only 21 seats (out of 141) are not yet filled.

So, the question: Is a bus with 47 seats really large? Or is this one of his typical exaggerations? Sometimes, I think that Ms. Schlafly was in for a minor disappointment in the wedding night....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A large single-decker coach in the UK has (typically) 52 seats, so 47 is pretty large, yes. FretfulPorpentine.

I don't much care whether or not the buses are considered large or small, I want the answers to two very pertinent questions:

1. Are these buses real, or like the "world's largest class" are they made up?
2. Is this a start-to-finish enterprise by Schlafly (and therefore Conservapedia) or is it the the hard work of church and community groups that the snivelling wretch is taking credit for?

Very simple for Andy to prove beyond doubt, just like his class sizes. I'll take bets that these questions won't be answered for the simple reason that what he's put up is an outright lie. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 09:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't buses socialist? Surely good conservatives should all be driving there in their own SUVs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember CP bitching like mad about how the filthy librulls dared to bus people into the Colbert Day celebration thingy. Ah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning... --Ψ GremlinTala! 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The buses are very likely real. The slightly fake part is the "Conservapedia sends" one. It's simply Andy organizing the buses for whoever feels like going there (to lure people who might want to go, but are too lazy to actually figure out transportation on their own) - it's not a "Conservapedia" event in the sense that you actually have to, I dunno... know the site. Check out last year's pimping of this event by Terry Hurlbut. Oh, and the "3 buses, 47 seats" thing has been in the pipeline for a year, too. --Sid (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That wingnutess holding the anti-abortion sign in Hurlbutt's 2010 column is holding a grammatically incorrect sign quoting Mother Theresa, "Any country that accepts abortion is the poorest of the poorest." Mother Theresa, who herself had trouble believing in god later in life, said it grammatically correct: poorest of the poor. It's amazing how often wingnuts wave signs above their heads that say "I'm an idiot! I'm an idiot!" although we see that on CP every day. --Leotardo (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, jeez... coming from NJ to DC means they'll pass withina few hundred yards of my home. (I live within sight of I-95.) MDB (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I dare you to hang a "RationalWiki ♥'s Andy Schlafly" banner along the route. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 12:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dang, that's tempting. Would anyone be willing to chip in on the cost of a professionaly printed banner? I know the perfect overpass to hang it from, and it's often used for banner hanging.

The one flaw is that while they'd probably take I-95, they could use the B/W Parkway (there's other, even less likely, routes) and never see it. MDB (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, people on buses tend to see things out the side, not the front (unless they're sitting in the first few rows), so most would miss it if it were hanging from an overpass. DickTurpis (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great job with the research. They got assflys middle name wrong. or maybe its "P" as in "Pud". --Thunderstruck (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not surprised that Andy wrangled three full sized buses for this event; say whatever else about him but he is definitely sincerely in the pro-life/anti-abortion activist camp. I am sure though this arrangement is done through his local church or churches even if he is footing the bill, and most of those who will participate have absolutely nothing to do with Conservapedia whatsoever, or even heard of it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy conducts his homeschool classes in a church basement, so I'm confident that his March For Life bussees are drawn from among the congregation and pupils/family of his homeschool class. As Conservapedia was started with the aid of his homescholars I'm sure Andy still sees the his current intake as being Conservapedians despite the fact that virtually none of them seem to be interested in CP. As to putting up a banner, I wouldn't go to the expense of having it professionally done for just single event which he might not even see. You could probably print it yourself with one letter per sheet of printer paper (legal rather than letter) and stick them to a large sheet of something robust enough to be suspended from a bridge - such as heavy duty polythene stapled/glued to some nylon rope. Finally, we all had a good laugh about Andy's middle initial when it was spotted originally.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Easier would be to go an art store and buy a roll of white paper that's about 4 feet wide and long enough to write the message with a paintbrush and black One-Shot paint. Total cost for all that should be about $20-30. --Leotardo (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You could also just rasterbate whatever size image you want onto 8 1/2 x 11 sheets - the program rasterizes, resizes, and gives a handy border to cut out each sheet for reassembly. Then you just tape the image together sheet by sheet. I've got a gigantic rasterized image on my wall printed at Costco on large photo paper but you can print it out on any laser printer. They're not that durable since they're just cut out pieces of paper taped together but they look great. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It would need to be heavier than standard paper -- the wind would tear it apart. Most of the "signs" I've seen on that overpass are made by spelling out words with colored plastic cups stuck through the chain link fence. This is the overpass of which I speak. MDB (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like cups are the way to go then. There is still the issue that most passengers won't see what is directly ahead of and above them, though. DickTurpis (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just use 30 lb paper and packing cello. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Abort yourself." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy has to specify "large" buses because attendees are accustomed to riding in shorter buses. DickTurpis (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Win! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That was great. --Leotardo (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it would be not beyond possibility for one of us to attend the MFL and meet Andy's daytrippers. Such a person could then, after a meet'n'greet, determine the general make-up of the group. "So how do you know Andy?". The world's largest homeschool class has entered the world of verifiability! ^{ONE / TALK} 15:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd bet that a lot of his past homeschoolers are the ones filling those seats, but it's been pretty well established that his classes and CP have little to do with one another, so saying "Conservapdia is sending..." is disingenuous. If people actually associated with CP were going they might fill a modest-sized hatchback, but probably not. Also, Andy seems to have varying criteria for what makes one a "conservapedian". Remember when he once referred to mommy dearest by that moniker, then later, when someone questioned her association with the project, he got really bent out of shape about it, overreacting and accusing the user of all sorts of conspiracies? DickTurpis (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

--Leotardo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess that as a "Liberal" is defined as being anyone who Andy says is a Liberal then a "Conservapedian" is defined as being anyone who Andy says is a Conservapedian.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember that but it sounds hilarious. Got any links Dick? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Link^img DickTurpis (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for a link myself, but since Andy's only real notoriety comes from Phyllis, it's hard to find. I did, however, get side-tracked on Free Republic by "WonderousCreation", who in one of his posts talks about how brilliant Conservapedia is and also has this gem: "In a time when “science” says...the (very real) terror of hell below is just the rumbling of ‘magma and plate tectonics’..." Classic! I never knew Fundamentalists thought that an earthquake is Ol' Scratch knocking at the door. I think this guy sounds like Karajou. --Leotardo (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That thread has Poe written all over it. DickTurpis (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Going off what One wrote earlier, I think it would be a *lot* of fun for a couple of us to go on the abortion buses, take pictures, chat with them, ask their opinions on Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia and record their answers. Perhaps stick a bumper sticker on the back of the bus that reads "Honk if you love abortion" or the bumper sticker my friend Sheila came up, "Abortion saves lives...saved mine!" I'd be up for any of that. --Leotardo (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, if only I lived in the US I'd be booking the flight already. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be an idea to prepare some literature on Andy and CP if anyone's going to be there. Nothing like hoisting them with their own petard. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well...we do want a ride back home so that might not be the best idea. Of course, taking one of the Chinese buses back home might be preferable to a bus full of pumped-up pro-lifers. It might be fun to go just to get a few photographs of Andy to play with. --Leotardo (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're putting you off the bus and not Schlafly then you're presenting the wrong screenshots of CP. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh heh

1. Create dummy twitter account
2. Claim to know another ertwhile CP editor
3. Tweet Ken's Obesity 'article' - making sure he can't pick up the irony
4. Make Conservapedia's Main Page^img

or maybe it wasn't me... who knows... --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk... another deceitful liberal.

I like that in a person. MDB (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That woman is like the Kendoll of twitter. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work Psy.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sitting in my uni library enjoying a nice chuckle over this, causing several people to turn round and look at me as I type this with a grin on my face. Good one Psy. SJ ^Debaser 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"So apparently you're more likely to be healthy of you're religious.^img" She's not a spelling teacher, okay. Here is Ms. Clark's Maths Class. --Leotardo (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How sad is it that some random average Jane's random tweet from somewhere on the planet makes the front page of CP as a major announcement? It just reeks of desperation for attention, any attention.. "Someone, somewhere has noticed my essay!" How lonely must Ken really be if a random tweet of acknowledgment is the major highlight of his week, or perhaps month? Dear Gawd, I actually feel.. pity for him. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I love it! Ms. Clark may only be a middle school algebra teacher in Africa, but don't forget that her views influence what must be around 20-30 students per class. And those students then go home and tell their parents, siblings and friends about Ms. Clark's tweet. Suddenly, you have three large buses full of people who know atheists are obese. Then a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo. Had this really been PsyGrem, it would have been an *awesome* troll. --Leotardo (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that is Mrs. Clark's math class? That appears to be a U.S. (California) school. Phiwum (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess they should have called the Assfly.

When even Kirk Cameron thinks your religious ideas are "silly" then perhaps you ought to think again, Andy. Maybe we should tip off CNN that Schlafly is a great 10 dollar pundit who will deliver the hilarious religious nutbaggery they clearly craved in that segment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see it now. <nasal drone on>

"Well, Anderson, liberal scientists and materialists can't explain this, despite all their tax-funded research; just like they can't explain migration. If only they'd read the most logical book in the world and open their minds, they'd realise what's going on. It's all in there."

"Um... the most logical book?"

"The Bible, in particular the liberal-free edition, as edited by the best of the public."

"So the Bible explains bird deaths?"

"Absolutely! It's as much as sign of God's greatness as beautiful autumn foliage!"

"Er... what?"

etc... etc... --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How the Cameron interview should have gone:

COOPER: Kirk, there's a lot of chatter out there on the Internet about these thousands of birds and fish dying. Some people saying this is a sign of the end of days. You obviously starred in a series of films based on the idea of the "Left Behind" series. When you hear that, what do you think?

KIRK CAMERON, ACTOR: Well, I first think that they ought to call a veterinarian, not me-

COOPER: Yeah, why the fuck didn't we do that? Someone get a relevant person here and throw this wingnut out.

That would have made a lot more sense. DickTurpis (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when the guy you're interviewing starts off with "why are you asking me?", it's not a good sign. MDB (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At least Cameron was smart enough to first state that perhaps CNN should have interviewed someone who may actually have a clue. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"And it seems that everyone, religiously, in business and in politics, is playing the blame game. And I want answers. So I decided to go on a journey and retrace the escape route of the pilgrims. They left us clues to get us back to the real treasure of America and get the ship righted again." Oh yeah, Kirk, I'm sure the Pilgrims left secret clues for your scavenger hunt to find answers as to how to fix America in 2011. This ancestor worship on the right gets hysterical at times. --Leotardo (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajou makes a funny

"unless science has a carcass on the table, the word "alleged" has to be used here."^img
So expect to see "Jesus, the alleged son of the alleged God" and "Noah, alleged builder of the alleged ark" sometime soon. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an Alleged Bible Project in the offing here:

In the alleged beginning an alleged God created the alleged heavens and the (non-alleged? got a corpse on the table) earth. Now the earth was allegedly formless and empty, alleged darkness was over the surface of the alleged deep, and the alleged Spirit of an alleged God was allegedly hovering over the alleged waters.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like some sort of liberal bible version you're using there; I see no mention of the very real yet alleged existence of Hell. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as the carcass of Jesus... not to be the pedantic theist on here, but it's kind of a key point of Christianity that there is no carcass. (He got better.) MDB (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly got better. I haven't seen a medical report, or medical aid claim, to back up that assertion. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He was clearly not a newt after he allegedly got better. That in itself makes it an alleged bonafide miracle.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's revealing is his use of the word science and that it has to be dead to be a confirmed sighting. Kinda sums it all up, doesn't it? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whillemina is back: RationalWiki Trolls said "I told you so"

[T]here are several people apparently from a liberal wiki who have harrassed me through email...and have told me that I would be gone, and that I'm a target, and that conservatives and I will lose, they say. When I was blocked by Conservative, one of those trolls emailed me telling me, "I told you so."

Wilma, fresh off of un-blocking himself, appeals to DouglasA^img to make sense of all this blocking and deleting. I'm assuming he's not one of you all given this rather lengthy essay on god sending people to hell^img and why god exists^img. So who is e-mailing this poor soul and telling him things that would (and did) happen? --Leotardo (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably Jesus. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Supernova

Good find that, altho CP dodge the bullet by ignoring the librull, atheist, baby-eating age of the Supernova, which actually occurred Last Thursday, around teatime. However, reading through his list of achieving teenagers^img again, reveals some wonderful comedy. Best bits:

• 13 - John wrote the first draft of the Gospel of John, the greatest written work of all time. The citation to which is Andy's "Mystery" about John being a child.
• 16 - the average age of 58 homeschooled teenagers who founded Conservapedia, so that the light of truth would continue to shine and darkness would not overcome it. Said teenagers have since abandoned CP in droves, possibly due to fears of being overcome by Bad Touch. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 17:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Achievements by Teenagers!

A little girl discovers a supernova.^img Cool. I just hope it doesn't turn out that they find a new black hole and rain on his parade convoy of buses. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it'd be churlish to point out that a ten year old isn't a teenager. I think the best part about this is the Assfly appropriating JM's broken news as a boost for his own ego. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The girl is from atheistic Canada, and there is no indication she's homeschooled. What's your angle, Andy? DickTurpis (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And chances are for a supernova as bright as the one found, it's remnant likely did exceed the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit and indeed collapsed into a black hole. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why use "teenagers" when it's clear he means "children"? It's one of those pointless things Andy sticks to despite it making him and CP look like like idiots. --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just classic Andy. Remember his "young mass murderers", that eventually got to include anyone who just killed themselves in a vaguely threatening manner? (Also, technically there were no mass murderers on the list, the ones that actually killed people were spree killers </pedantry>) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(Hah. Speaking of which, I went back to review Andy's insanity and came across this classic from 2010^img. Pesky facts always obscure Andy's insights.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly is just insane. There is no valid reason for this story, as it doesn't advocate his extreme right-wing POV. Just crazy.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's simply Modus Assfly Col, he makes up a completely ridiculous "insight" and then has to stick to it. Jeeves's link is outstanding too! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how Schlafly says that wearing black clothing is indicative of anti-Christianity. Don't many nuns and priests wear all black? --Leotardo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that on CP. I think that was their condemnation of "goths" and the like in America's public school or something like that.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

“”I'm not a fascist; I'm a priest. Fascists wear black and tell people how to live, priests, erm, um...

—Father Ted Crilly

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed the pre-tees, but Andy reverted saying that they obviously made similar great achievements in their teenage years too^img, and I'd be tempted to sort of go along with that, except our newest one obviously hasn't and probably won't (it was a fluke that she discovered a supernova and probably won't repeat this; same probably goes for the Civil War Medal of Honor winner), and the title is achievements by teenagers, not "highly achieving teenagers". DickTurpis (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I really am embarrassed for Andy at times. How the first 8 entries of under-12s had remarkable achievements as teens goes to show you how half-assed are his attempts at logic and reasoning. --Leotardo (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What Andy can't see is how self-contradicting his entire hypothesis is. With a few exceptions, all his examples are cases of remarkable achievements for people so young. Since he believes most achievements are made by such young people, the modifier contradicts itself. In fact, we should have a list of achievements by older people made despite the fact that (unlike most great accomplishments) they were made by people who were no longer teenagers and well past their prime. If you think about how mundane most of these are in the grand scheme of things when you dismiss the ages, it's a very unimpressive list. Performing with an orchestra, writing a polonaise, graduating from college and becoming a teacher, writing a book, killing a guy, becoming a nun, winning military decoration, etc. I'll give him that Chopin, Pascal, Menuhin, and others made accomplishments in their teenage years by his standards, but his standards are damn low. DickTurpis (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

By rights a teenager like SharonS should be running his American History class. Oh wait, she probably is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you think "he believes most achievements are made by such young people" - I don't see that. Link? Otherwise, I agree it's a relatively unimpressive list. For instance, some kid who obtained all the Boy Scouts merit badges; Andy's homeschoolers; or "19 - was the average age of front-line US service personnel fighting to defend democracy in Indochina during the Vietnam War" - the History Channel goes out of its way to say that's a myth; the average age was 23. --Leotardo (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He most certainly did say that, Leo.Read it and weep. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, when am I going to learn not to give that tard the benefit of the doubt^img. --Leotardo (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that Mark Zuckerberg creating Facebook is on the list (added by Andy himself^img). Andy has said FB kills marriages and causes failures in school^img. Also: "Facebook users 'are insecure, narcissistic and have low self-esteem'. Conservapedia users are the opposite."^img When convenient for an 'insight' FB is a "great achievement by a teenager". When it's needed for other purposes, its greatness is forgotten and suddenly it's ruining marriages, failing students, and its users are losers. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger Mason is also still on there. --Leotardo (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So Andy, how does it feel up in the asses of the few readers you have? --Ullhateme (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

He says it again here. In fact, that whole talk page is pretty awesome. Andy gets trapped by his own idiocy and has to ban BenR when he can't defend his position anymore. DickTurpis (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion and BenR made many points I was thinking. The ref on the mainspace page is really, really funny : "Public school teachers, many of whom homeschool because they know what public schools are really like..." That's clearly an assertion without support. --Leotardo (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The art thief

So I had a look at Joaquin's Virgin Mary Gallery^img and see it has "Welcome" plastered across the top. Is it supposed to be some sort of shrine? Does JM kneel down before his monitor each night and pray before CP's gallery of paintings?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Assfly allows this display of naked popery on his good Christian website. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF ANY GRAVEN IMAGES, JOAQUIN! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Andy is Catholic; although one does wonder what the fundamentalist protestants on CP would think of this. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot that Andy is himself notionally a filthy papist. Really I wonder if any of the fab five is really religious, or whether Christianity is just a stick they have handy to beat people with. Well, except Ed of course, Ed's just a colossally stupid cultist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They really give meaning to the old saw that fundies worship the bible, not Jesus or god. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

double standard lulz

Conservative Hollywood^img values! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch! I haven't really looked at that CP page before, and aside from the ridiculousness of it, it reads like an absolute pile of shit. I mean, what the fuck does "Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes" even mean? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How in the hell does skipping out on a $60 dinner tab become a felony?!? --Leotardo (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you're in Mississippi. Refusal to pay any bill over $25 is a felony for some odd reason. "Defrauding an Innkeeper", they calls it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It must be based on Mississippi income levels. --Leotardo (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a double standard. Others on the list are Republican as well...like Heather Locklear and Mel Gibson [7]--193.200.150.152 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. I guess what I meant was that if Gary Collins could be even remotely tied to liberalism, the story would have been heralded in a different light (as well as the "Hollywood values" one). Occasionaluse (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@193.200.150.152: You forget that it's Conservapedia, not Republipedia. Just because somebody votes for or is a member of the Republicans doesn't make them conservative. In CP Land, there are two clear requirements for counting as a proper conservative: (1) Agree 100% with the views of Andy Schlafly, Keeper Of The Absolute And Objective Truth. (2) Do nothing bad. The moment you break either of those, you risk being a liberal or at the very least a RINO. Gary did something bad, so he clearly isn't a conservative and thus fair game. The rules only change if you're somebody who has been previously hailed as a conservative - then the entire thing flips around and becomes "Don't worry - no matter what you do, we won't portray it as being bad or it simply will be ignored." --Sid (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as you strictly follow rule #1, you can be pretty "liberal" with rule #2 in Andy's eyes, because its loyalty to his ideology and reverence of him that is important to Andy, not strict moral conduct; the latter is there for lip service to other conservatives of higher standing. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again with the birds

He's really stuck on those dead birds^img. I really want him to make explicit exactly what his theory is as to what happened to them. Apparently "materialistic" explanations aren't good enough, but what is? Does he really think this is some kind of end times portent? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's typical Andy style. All he's trying to do - as with Lenski, is create reasonable doubt. He can pour scorn on the scientists attempts to understand the world, without having to offer an rationale of his own. Not that he could of course; he's happy to wallow in the trough of his own ignorance. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Remember his news item about scientific papers being retracted. Andy is just becoming more and more anti-science. Also, I'm fairly certain he's not a "rapture's a-coming" sort of wingnut, though I can't remember what has given me that impression. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more the lack of evidence he's a "rapture's a coming" type that contributes to that impression. CP holds to almost every element of American Christian fundamentalism except that one. Which is part of why it makes Andy's exact religious beliefs so hard to pin down. MDB (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's anti-science binge has really taken off in the last year or so. Even with Lenski, he was more about finding errors in Lenski's research, than dismissing the actual research. These days, he writs off everything from astronomy, to physics, to geology to zoology as being 'atheistic' and 'materialistic' (is that becoming his new snarl word, along with 'liberal'). IIRC Karajou is the End of Days fundie on CP. Not sure why I think that tho. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 12:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The really sad thing is Andy's thinking about science. He doesn't seem to understand that science isn't a ready built worldview that has to contain answers to every question possibly asked, but is simply a toolbox of methods how to get to the truth. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to know the truth, but simply says: "Well, I think I have an idea how we possibly could find out." - for people so insecure and frightened that everything they ever thought to be true may be wrong, waiting for an answer just isn't an option, they may loose control over the situation. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I get that vibe from Andy's statement also. He isn't so much about believing the sudden death of groups of birds as some sort of apocalyptic warning, he just wants to use the occasion to cast doubt on modern (secular) science as he angry that science is now starting to explain what was once the exclusive domain of religion and myth. To him, this means science is stepping "out of its place" and asking questions it shouldn't be allowed to ask because religious dogma has already given TEH TRUTH that cannot be questioned on the deepest mysteries. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what always bugged me about Philip's repeated pronouncements about science being started by Christianity. It's anger at the ingratitude of science, not staying subordinate the way it should, and trying to stuff it back in the box. It's the same sort of thing, once you've gotten into that mold of continually trying to poke holes in parts of science (like radiometric dating, for instance) and thinking that proves something, at some point you get like Andy where you're trying to poke holes in everything and then shout "AHA! You don't know everything, so therefore my religious fairy stories are right!" --Kels (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure about Philip, but Andy's actions are, I think, an extension of the 'god of the gaps' argument. As well as asserting that anything that science cannot explain with absolute, 100% accuracy must mean that God exists as that is the only other possible explanation, he takes the next step and tries to make a bigger gap for God to exist in, by trying to dismiss the science that DOES explain certain things, that dismissal usually being based on his own dislike and/or ignorance of the science he's trying to dismiss. 86.161.123.230 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Great article for anyone interested. In brief mass deaths are not on the rise - but reporting of them is. Like so many other thigns the media has a fleeting interest then moves on. StarFish (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to read that. I have shark attacks to panic about. MDB (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The sharks are a Mossad plot (read to the bottom) Jack Hughes (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

TK

So what's the news on TK? Has he gone on holiday? Has he left for good? Do his last edits give any clue? And most importantly: why aren't socks coming out of the drawer in droves to pester Andy about TK's whereabouts? His disappearance has been a boon for lulz, and I want to know what elusive development has bestowed upon us this gift of gifts. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is "good riddance." I'm guessing he got bored with CP, as there was nothing left to troll, and moved on. Hopefully Andy will realise that CP is a better place without his malignancy hanging over the place. Sadly, CP as a community is too far gone, for it to ever return to the days when bona fide editors could have discussions on talk pages. TK's job is done, all that remains is for him to leak the third batch of SDG/ZB discussions. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 13:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all the parodists assaulting CP now that TK is not there will just reinforce Andy's opinion that they are under constant attack and that they need TK to protect them. -- Nx / talk 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Especially given how TK already convincved Andy that is previous leaking of the SDG notes was to benefit CP. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

But that's been CP's future for a long time now. With or without TK, they have to lock the place down. Because of Poe's Law, the only way they think they can tell a parodist is if the new user raises reasonable questions that they can't answer without becoming defensive and authoritarian. That's why I think they don't care if they grow anymore, they mostly care to have an elaborate blog that has a link farm on the main page and that is wikified to their crappy poorly-written articles that only make the points that they want to make. --Leotardo (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to generalise about their collective aims for CP. Obviously Ken's goals are different from Karajou's and Andy has his own agenda.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What you say and what I say aren't contradictory. They may have different aims with the project, but none of them seem to have any interest in allowing new users who show deviation from Andy's knee-jerk politics or in responding to reasonable questions about things that are demonstrably untrue. That's evidenced time and again. That five people can come to such a conclusion, given they all act in this manner, isn't difficult. --Leotardo (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The last time TK "went dark" was when his mum was sick - if I remember correctly. Much as I loath the guy and all he stands for I also sincerely hope it's not the same reason. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubts he'll be back ere long. Should we have a pool on the exact date and time? DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I think TK will be 60 this year so his mum must be well into her 80s (or more) and any illness on her part would not be totally unexpected. It would be best if we learn nothing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe in the circle of life and so does CP. Everyone's born, everyone dies, and I don't find it sad outside my own personal loss, and TK is such an asshole I don't have much sympathy for him because he's going through what we all have to go through. --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that a few people here are in the know as to TK's current status, but probably can't tell us for various reasons. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

While I guess it's not too far out of the ordinary, but both Karajou and Smeg Ed only have 8 edits each so far this year. DickTurpis (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

At this pace, it will soon be just Andy, Ken and the occasional parodist/vandal. Vulpius (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I'll be holding a candlelight vigil for TK on my talk page. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you know where to put the candle, right?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that TK has fucked off, this is an opportune time to fill out the article matrix. 81.141.71.43 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy stares at his beliefs continually sidelined in the conservative cause

The Republican Party and conservatives in general could do themselves a whole mess of good by getting off the anti-gay bandwagon, because for many Americans holding such a belief is a non-starter. This is becoming more and more true. It's akin to saying, "I dislike black people, but I've got a lot of great ideas!" So there's Andy on MPR confronting the decreasing support of social conservatives^img, who are opting out of CPAC because it includes a gay conservative group (and some are dropping out because it includes a conservative Muslim group). Even the Tea Party movement realized conservative social views aren't electoral winners except in the former slave states. This trend shows no sign of abating. Sorry Andy, just like you came in fifth place in your Congressional run, and just like your website is ridiculed in both the conservative and liberal political spheres, your views are losers too. --Leotardo (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to burn a sock?

After all, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Blocked from even seeing Conservapedia?

Currently I get 403/404 errors when trying to even view the site. The site is there (proxy allowed me to see it). A throwaway account and a question on the main page got me reverted and blocked with such niceties as "UK access has proven unwelcome here". See [8] & [9]. Blahman (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

link^img Him (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you can ad Germany to that list. --Ullhateme (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"UK access has proven unwelcome here^img" --Leotardo (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I try not to really get involved with the CP stuff, but I'm wandering in... If CP are actually trying to not allow UK internet users to view their website, then we should immediately stop using the "There's an alternative article at CP..." template. ^EXTERMINATE 20:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They're not blocking the UK. I am fine for viewing in the UK, both from work and at home and my ISP is one of the major UK isp's. I've not bothered trying to register as I think my home isp is range blocked for accoutn creation and work tend to frown on that sort of thing slightly. But they are definately not range blocking all UK from viewing, at the moment anyway. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a UK user and I'm getting in fine. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too - damnit! Him (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish the UK would simply block Conservapedia. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you hate us that much you want all of us to miss out on the lulz and insanity as well? I have introduced countless people to unwitting hilarity that is assfly and his nutty right wing blog. The funniest things is that some of the most critical of him are those who think the witch thatcher walks on water. To some of them Keith Joseph was dangerously left wing and even they think assfly and his fellow bloggers are totally batshit. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am us. But GPWM. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Since a few days ago I too have been getting the 403s as Blahman mentions. We all know that CP aren't exactly picky with the way they block people, wouldn't surprise me if they tried to blanket ban the UK and missed vast pools of it. Judging by Blahman's block comment I wonder if their campaigns to bring CP to the Atheistic and Socialist UK are at an end? Aslate (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It keeps on changing for me. While I was in Scotland over Christmas, there was no problem. Got back to London; still no problem. Then 403. Then access. Then 403 again. Currently 403ed, but it's easy enough to use a proxy to get around that. I don't understand what they're trying to do. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The worst part is the string-vest ban is useless even where the string doeth fall. Activate the TOR proxy and once more you get to enjoy the lulz at CP.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They definitely seem to be targetting the UK IPs - look at this pair^img of log entries: User creates sensibly-named account; 3 minutes later it's blocked by JPratt with a TK-esque "I know where you live" comment. If they really are going after the UK, I feel somewhat proud. *sniff*. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's true, I too feel a certain sense of pride for my people if they're persona non grata at CP. Anyone unwelcome at CP must be doing something right. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Does TK have SSH / FTP access to assfly's server? I can't imagine Andy bothering to piss around with .htaccess files to directly block entire countries. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish the UK would simply block Conservapedia Twattish comMENT. What other things would you like blocked? One of the best bits of the internets is that there is almosst no control. Cp needs to be pointed at and laughed at.

Well it seems like whatever was wrong is now right again: CP is viewable from the UK again. It's worth mentioning that the last few days have seen the worst levels of wandalism in some time. RobSmith/Ken, you should tell your glorious leader that if you try to block people from seeing what colossal morons you are, they'll find ways around your ban. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just the UK. A few month back they temp banned shawcable.net for a number of weeks, blocking out most Canadians in the process. FreeThought (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaand it's gone again! Thanks for watching, CP! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and this time they blocked HideMyAss.com - 216.18.194.245. Well I'm on a new anomizer now - 65.60.9.250, so let's see you do that one. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Amusingly, after that post the whole site was unblocked again for a little while but now it's blocked again (but HideMyAss isn't). I get the feeling CPWebmaster has given the keys to his Porsche to idiots like JPratt and Kowardjou. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)