Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive217

This is an archive page, last updated 26 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>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <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)

Breaking news for MPR

The Tea Baggers are now less popular than Russia and Socialism. Who wants to light the blue touch paper on Andy? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We should see this on MPR any moment because MPR focuses on news of interest to conservatives, and not just news that they consider positive because they are insecure about their beliefs. Any moment, now... --Leotardo (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Giffords

How long you wanna bet it takes before the psychos at CONservapedia start dancing in joy over this tragedy? The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if any of them will mention the fact that palin had gun sights on her website targetting congresswoman Gifford? I wonder if any of them will criticise what palin did? I think I know the answer but go on Nobs, prove me wrong. Criticise palin for pandering to the most wingnutty section of your constituency and say that what she did was wrong. I dare you, in fact I DOUBLE dare you. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How long before they blame the shootings on gun control pro-abortion tree-hugging Democrats? Or claiming that it was all her fault? Argh!! Darkmind1970 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder when someone will start a "don't preempt their nastiness" argument. Anyway, Jpatt announced it^img pretty neutrally, i.e. not using the word "liberal" or anything. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I was about to, but you were faster. Repeat after me, this place is for reporting what's going on at CP, not what might soon be going on at CP. Vulpius (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

^This^ - especially in the context of horrific incidents such as this one. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My point about palin wasn't intended to be so much political about the alleged shooter. It was more to point out that if it were, say, huffpo that had palin in some cross hairs and she got whacked you just KNOW what the reaction over on cp would be. palin has Rep Gifford in the cross hairs on her site and cp rushes to defend palin as some sort of saint. It's cp's crashing double standards and hypocrisy I was trying to highlight. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Today's NYT Op Ed says,

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted...These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.

This thread was started by Gooniepunk after he blocked me with the reason, "This one's for Congresswoman Giffords. It's no wonder, in my book, why shit like this happens ...". This action by a Rationalwiki bureaucrat, blaming the wrong person and acting against that person to avenge some grievance, is not very different from the thought processes of Jared Lee Loughner. And not very Rational, at all. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, leaving aside the comical idea that a member of Conservapedia--where the effort to link Loughner to liberalism continues unabated[1]^img[2]^img--would lecture anyone about rational responses, people have been expecting the right's wingnuts to start shooting for a looooong time. Was it liberals or conservatives who were bringing guns to public discussions with Obama and congressmen? Was it liberals or conservatives who were using, continually, violent rhetoric in their campaigns? The question was not if, but when, and still is. That Gooniepunk or anyone else would have jumped to such a conclusion is par for the course. You can't make your bed with violent rhetoric about guns and tyranny and then be surprised when people assume that there are monsters hiding underneath it. --Leotardo (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Leotardo, I did not make my bed with violent rhetoric. I was blocked. You evidently, have joined the crowd making vicious charges claiming to condemn viciousness. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, the "you" equals "conservatives" (I have a bad habit of using second person). As long as you are not on CP raising issues about how politicized your website is making Jared Loughner's lunatic writings (ignoring all the conservative talking points in his incoherent rambles), your complaints will ring hallow here. Your side needs to tone the violent rhetoric down. It serves no legitimate purpose in our public discourse. --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all bullshit. I was blocked here moments after the shooting. Several people here owe me an apology. Spare me all the other crap. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What does your blocking have to do with anything? We're talking about violent rhetoric in the public discourse, not whether you were unfairly blocked for a day or not (which, by the way, is practically a celebration of you compared to how blocks are handled at CP). --Leotardo (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been oversighted now and I thank whoever for dooing that. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Maybe not. [4]

No, Rob. We don't have the Oversight extension installed here: see for yourself. Compare to CP's Version page. So stop lying and STFU. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You'er right. My mistake.

• 19:38, January 8, 2011 Gooniepunk2010 (Talk | contribs) blocked RobSmith (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31416 seconds (about 9 hours) (account creation disabled) ‎ (This one's for Congresswoman Giffords. It's no wonder, in my book, why shit like this happens with the current sociopathic rhetoric coming out of the mouths of nutters like yourself.)

At a mimimum, an apology is in order. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology for what? You're part of the right-wing hate mob who incite violence at the drop of a hat. Take some time and reflect on all the hate talk you've spouted in the last couple of years, Rob. Since you claim to be a Christian, you should then pray for forgiveness. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You will not find one instance, not one, of "hate speech". Not one. It would be a stretch to try and prove your imaginary point. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, technically, you're right. There is not just one instance of hate speech at CP - there are hundreds. Atheism and *; Homosexuality and *; Barrack Hussein Obama. Let's start with those. More lies, Rob. More lies. Try to tell the truth just once. You're part of Andy's blog that is dedicated to hate. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was I blocked? Gooniepunk setting his sights to me to strike back at someone he imagined was responsible for some politcal act is no different (except for the non-violent nature of the act) than Loughner's shooting Congresswoman Gifford. Justify Gooinie's block anyway you like with your rabid hatrred nof Andy, Ken & TK, but none of this is justifiable. I am owed an apology. And these contortions to stretch the facts to fit a mistake a Rationalwiki bureaucrat did, undone by the sites founder, arew pointless. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you're one of the de facto leaders of CP, a site whose only purpose these days is to spread hate and ignorance. I've just blocked you for another 24 hours as my personal apology to you. Whereas right-wingers would say something like "I hope you burn in hell", I'll just say "I'm sorry for you Rob, I really am. It must be horrible to have grown up as ignorant and paranoid as you have. I hope it all works out for you eventually." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘{ec}That's a laugh Rob! Show you hate speech? How about the Conservapedia Liberal article. If you replace 'liberal' with 'Jew' it could be a Metapedia article. You're a sysop on a site that entertains topics on whether liberalism is inherently evil^img. You sound ridiculous; you feign indignation if someone fucks with you a little when you work at a whorehouse. At a mimimum, an apology is in order.--Leotardo (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevent to this discussion. Wanna see similiar diffs I reverted put in by RW founding editors. And don't this discussion from the point. nobs^{don't bother me} 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course you have similar diffs because they were parodying you. --Leotardo (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The imnmediate issue appears resolved and I thank everyone who helped. My Final Word: Blaming anyone other than the assailant is like blamning Rap music for violence against women or a Heavy Metal band driving teenagers to suicide. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or cp:Goth (subculture) for demonic possession. DickTurpis (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming demons exist, n'est-ce pas? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or that atheism/liberalism will cause people to become young mass murders^img. Again, Rob, you sound very silly. --Leotardo (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll review both articles. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Baring in mind, neither Gothic subculture nor liberalism are persons or corporate entities. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

'*The diff shown (not current) reads "collected evidence", not "cause". And no individual person by name is falsely accused or slandered, other than Palin. Bit of a non-sequitur to claim injury cause the ideology of "liberalism" is indicted, then respond by with espressions of slander & hatred to named individuals, such as Sarah Palin, or Andrew Schlafly. As President Obama said, "We can do better." nobs^{don't bother me} 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The diff shown was the last edit made, on January 9. The sentence is "collected evidence that their motives have been overwhelmingly atheistic or liberal". Rob, someone from CP lecturing us about spurious conjecture as to the motives of a madman is disingenuous at best. Even if I adopted your POV on this, you're complaining about a chat room, when you have featured "encyclopedia articles" that are far more egregious than anything done or said here. --Leotardo (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no hatred or slander directed against a living person; there is an indictment against a nebulous ideology in which there is no agreement about what "libneralism" is; an offended liberal can, unlike a black person or homosexual, change his self identification as a "liberal". It is a far, far stretch to claim this is "hate speech" against liberals. Look at the 203 (or whatever number of) Archives to this page and observe "hate speech" abainst conservatives, only here you will find hate speech directed against individuals by name. nobs^{don't bother me} 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you are the best humor writer online. Do you really believe this shit? How about the Al Franken article, where you accuse, sorry, question whether or not he actively encouraged a major felony in order to gain office. Or where you take a quote out of context to argue that he hates homosexuals (even after many people protested on the talk page) or finally, when you use a photo that has been soundly debunked over and over again with the caption "Minnesota embarrassment (in purportedly fake photo)" Any of that register? SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a wp:Non sequitur (logic); we're discussing cp:Young mass murderers. As to cp:Al Franken, (a) I didn't accuse anybody of anything, etc.; (b) I'll review its contents; (c) I am assuming CP's Al Franken entry contains no more biting satire about living human beings than what Al Franken wrote for Saturday Night Live skits for many decades. nobs^{don't bother me} 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

1, that is not a Non sequitur. You said that CP does not have hate speech, I am providing examples to prove otherwise. Don't use big words unless you understand them. 2, You are part of the leadership structure of CP, which tightly controls editorial content. I think it's fair to say that anything on CP is at the very least, tacitly approved by you or you would not continue to associate with the site. 3, is your argument really "Al Franken wrote for Saturday Night Live, so it's open season on him and his character?" You really are a jackass, do you know that? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1) I said you could not find one single instance of hate speech authored by me; if CP has hate speech, there is a high degree of probability base upon years of experience and evidence, it was placed by Rationalwiki editors; 2) I can't allow Rationalwiki editors to control my time and editing; as so, they are free to spew thier venomnous hate speech on an open wiki then; 3) Al Franbken's "satire" of various public figures, which some may interpret as meanspirited, defamatory hate rhetoric, is certainly a huge part of his biography. If it is kept tongue-in-check, as is his style, it may pass mainstream network programers as acceptable for public consumption. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, reviewed the Franken entry. Where is Al Franken personally impughned as having commited an illegal act or acts? nobs^{don't bother me} 18:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you are a joke. I wish more of the CP thugs Sysops would be hang out around here so we can cut through their online persona and see how god-awful they really are as human beings. Your response is not to deny that there is hate speech on CP, but simply to claim that you didn't write and then assert, with no evidence, that any hate speech was obviously put in by RW editors. You are even a bigger tool than Andy and TK put together. You can really come here, after having read the CP Al Franken article and ask me: Where has Franken "personally" been accused of something.... You sound like a retired mafia boss "You're honor, can you show me where on the tapes I personally said to kill him? I simply mentioned that I would be truly saddened to see him shot at point blank range and stuffed into a cement mixer." SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I gotta love your logic, Rob. Hate speech is only hate speech if directed at a particular individual; saying hateful things about huge groups of people is fine. So saying "Hitler is evil" = hate speech. "Germans are evil" = not hate speech. And you wonder why no one has any respect for your intellect. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramble on about whatever, but certain facts are undeniable: (1) bona fide conservative editors, in general and as a whole, have not in the habit of engaging to my knowledge, in hate speech in CP; if instances of hate spoeech can be found anywhere in CP, virtually all of it can be trtaced to Rationalwiki editors. And if not RW editors, then rogue subversive liberal elements, many inspired by RW. (3) This page, and its Archives, are monuments of hate speech about Christians, conservatives, or various individuals by name who self-identify as conservative. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yah, and bit of a Godwin there, huh? nobs^{don't bother me} 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit on both counts, Rob. CP is full of hate speech about numerous groups, certainly gays and atheists. Your pathetic attempt to deny this by redefining hate speech as only towards individuals, not groups, fails completely. Nor have you pointed to any specific hate speech from this site against Christians or whatever. As for the alleged "Godwin" you miss there too, as that relates to attempts to compare someone to Hitler. I was merely using Hitler as an example that everyone can relate to, and hold similar opinions about. I could use Mao/Chinese, Stalin/Russian, Pol Pot/Cambodian, Tojo/Japanese, etc. Same thing. Try again. DickTurpis (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are expecting a rational response from an irrational individual. Majintahu (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not "expecting", so much as "allowing the unlikely possibility of". Believe me, I learned long ago the hazards of engaging Rob in any attempt at rational dialogue. But life is full of surprises. Let's see how it goes. DickTurpis (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Good point Dick. Rob, I refuse to accept that there is any hate speech against Christians on RW. Until you give me irrefutable proof, I deny your point. On other subjects, you still haven't responded to my last point, about the Franken article and, on yet another topic, CP hate speech, what about all the crap Andy has added. Are you implying that Andy is an RW editor? SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 08:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whenever Rob paints himself into a corner like this he tends not to respond (on CP we would have been blocked long ago). I'm not expecting anything different here. DickTurpis (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See? Though Rob is willing to occasionally engage in discussions with us, he's basically just as cowardly as the rest of them. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

break

In terms of CP's actual reaction, JPatt just posted a link on MPR, supposedly to the shooter's Facebook page. The page is an obvious hoax created just today, and has the shooter being pro-Obama, gay, and anti-tea party, so of course that fits in with Conservapedia's ideal criminal profile. --Composure1 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

$10 says Jpatt made that himself. DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

^ Lol, thats the exact same thing I was thinking.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And now the little retard uploaded this image^img saying (without any basis at all) that it is likely from the shooter. Is Jpatt the stupidest person on Earth? DickTurpis (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a facebook account you can report it as a fake profile of a public figure. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FB have yanked the profile. CS Miller (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC

At least the little jerk ass deleted the facebook link. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That seems to imply he actually thought it was real when he posted it. Damn, this guy is a fucking moron. DickTurpis (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ECx4!) The account^img got the last name wrong, apparently because early reports did. Jpatt's removal comment^img is touching. (In case anyone ignores the saloon bar, the shooting's being discussed there too.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes JPatt, because the 20-year old shooter was encouraging the congresswoman to run in 2002. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It didn't take long for the political opportunism through the blame game to start up... --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of expect it with Jpratt Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are involved with the blame game, and to be honest... It's really disgusting. Have we reached the point in our existence when every crazy with a gun has to branded liberal or conservative as if those words really mean anything? I mean, I know it's easy to paint your political enemies with a broad brush when you can point out horrific acts, but really. It's just repulsive. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 23:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but it's also difficult to seriously argue that a man walking up to a U.S. Congresswoman and shooting her in the head along with killing a controversial federal judge is not a political act by its nature. --Leotardo (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't. The judge was not scheduled to be at the event, he just happened to live near it and stopped by to say hello and shake hands. As for the Congresswoman, is some nut is trying to do something big, he would target someone big. I don't know what his political beliefs were... In fact, his MySpace page and the list of favorite books reveal serious contradictions (He has Animal Farm, To Kill a Mockingbird and The Communist Manifesto). I think it's entirely possible that the guy is just a total whack-job who suffered from serious delusions. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 23:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your idea is bizarre that a U.S. Congresswoman is not someone important as a target to shoot in the head, especially in this polarized era. --Leotardo (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. A member of Congress is a big target, but the simple act of shooting a member of Congress does not mean you have political motives. I am simply saying that until we know what the shooter's motives are, there is no basis to start throwing around comments accusing him of being left wing or right wing. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you suppose the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford was a reprisal action for the death of John Wheeler? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Rob, are you on crack? - π 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why, yes. Yes he is.^img --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn Rob, what the hell is wrong with you? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't suppose some Republicans reacted with the same anger and suspicions upon hearing of the murder of John Wheeler? especially in today's toxic environment? But they remained silent, and didn't go off half-cocked in public like the Huffington Post or Rationalwiki blaming tea partiers or Sarah Palin as Loughner's inspiration. nobs^{don't bother me} 01:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If shooting is random, whingers who have never admitted being wrong about anything will be loudly demanding apologies from everyone. —Canadian Cynic

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

"The suspect in the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords is a 22-year-old young mass murderer..." (emphasis mine). Okay, I guess he's not a suspect any more. Let's throw conservative values like "innocent until proven guilty" out the window. Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As Leotardo woul say, you're "fetishizing the Constitution, thinking of it as a holy writ, when from the beginning it was flawed..." nobs^{don't bother me} 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of fetishes, Rex Ryan and the Jets or Colts? - π 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know his motivation, any accusation of a right or left wing political motivation is speculation at best and rumor mongering for political points at worst. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I see WeirdNuttersDaily are leaping on the "He's a librull!" bandwagon. Mostly because he read Mein Kampf and the CM and based on the evidence of somebody who hasn't seen him since 2007. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer the original question...

Not very long at all^img. At least they had the decency to oversight Rob's picture of Dubya in the crosshairs he stuck up on the main page. I swear he's almost as nuts as kendoll. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At least Andy got the name right, despite MPR still using the Associated Press version. I hope it'll be fixed before it gets buried in new posts. Rob? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see how Andy gets the idea he is some leftist extremist from that linked article. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it's the Assfly. He gets the idea you're a left wing extremist if you refuse to be diverted by his questions about school prayer. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

According to that article he has some weird obsession with "BCE". Sound like anyone we know? DickTurpis (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That is true, I got the "your a liberal" rant from Andy for ignoring his school prayer Red Hearing a few times. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When is MSNBC a reliable source at CP? When its reporting fits your agenda.^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy also notes that the Communist Manifesto was listed as one of his favorite books^img. It isn't mentioned that Mein Kampf is also there, as is secret conservative George Orwell's Animal Farm. His anti-immigration stance isn't mentioned. His complaint that too few people are speaking English in the area isn't mentioned. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf? Don't you know that the anti-communist, anti-immigration, anti-labor, anti-semetic, militaristic, jingoistic Adolf Hitler was a liberal? It's so obvious! DickTurpis (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

According to MSNBC, Mein Kampf was among his favorite books along with the Communist Manifesto. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Our aggressively retarded colleagues over at CP just need to realize that A) Politicizing tragedy automatically renews your asshole membership for the next 5 years, and B) Cunts like this Arizona shooter don't pursue anything close to resembling a rational mindset, much less a focused political view. "Because of hatred of God" Jesus tap-dancing Christ...industrial strength bullshit.Saladin (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least CP bothered to read the articles they linked to this time....Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as an aside

I see Rob's being a whiney-assed bitch again over at WP. Seems the fact that he was blocked here is somehow relevant to CP's article and the fact that Rationalwiki is mentioned via he LA Times article. Is he starting another concern troll spree? --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How butthurt can you get over a two minute block? Vulpius (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If he really cares about unfair blockings I know a site that has abused the banhammer FAR more often and has done much worse than just block someone for a few hours. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob is a profoundly troubled man if he thinks anyone will accept more of his blithe lies on WP. He ought to know very well he wasn't blocked for hours, and in fact I doubt he even knew he was blocked in time to actually email the RW legal address, since I unblocked him the second time after about 10 minutes. He also knows very well that the shooting discussion was occurring in several places at the time he was first blocked as a larf. Grievance collecting liar. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Word of Goat_{The Goat be Praised.} is that apparently his _IP_ was blocked, and thus created his "3 hour" block period. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked the autoblock IIRC. :/ User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to Rob for saying he lied about this if I'm wrong. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hehe:

Completely off-topic discussion about matters internal to RationalWiki and unrelated to any attempts to improve the present article. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to ask for block log cleansing on other wikis, especially not on non-WMF-wikis. And doing so on an article tag page is beyond absurd. Hans Adler 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

--Night Jaguar (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Give CP some credit

Granted, MPR is currently all Giffords, politicizing it in ways that even most conservatives will consider untoward; but some credit is due that the Gabrielle Giffords article^img is tastefully done. --Leotardo (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Only because none of the fab five (four now?) can be bothered to edit anything other than their pet projects or, in some cases, at all. If the Assfly ever wrote an article about it, you can be sure it'd be screaming about how an evil leftist almost killed her. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jeeves... her page prior to the assassination attempt^img was barebones and only had two edits from a Chippetterson. None of the deep-field parodists even got near the article in the first place. Should we be surprised that the average person produces respectful articles? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way...YOU WON. Bobert threw in the towel and decided to troll somthing else. --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of trolling...

That didn't take long^img. You've got to give Ken

credit, when he latches on to an idea only the next ridiculous obsession can shift it from his mind. It's only a shame the flying kitty thing was so brief, that could have single handedly killed CP. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have to love the level of CP's debate:

Critic: You guys are ridiculous!

Ken: Oh yeah? Well, you're fat!

--Ψ Gremlin講話 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well some obsessions; remember that "Conservapedia 120 Day Pro-life Challenge" that started oh a month and a half ago? That one died an inglorious death in the zygote stage, which is a little better then their Socialist one. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Insulting Stephen Fry? He's a national fucking treasure. Oh, Conservapedia, you go too far. SJ ^Debaser 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stephen Fry thing was hilarious, especially since a few years ago Stephen Fry very noticeably dropped a shit load of weight, coincidentally just after he returned from the States. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, in his usual manner Ken

is plastering his childish insult everywhere. And you're right Iscariot, I was stunned to see him on Top Gear a while ago, he was almost unrecognisably slim. Come to think of it, the currently notorious atheist Ricky Gervais improved immensily too. If we were like CP we'd be claiming atheism cures obesity! GTac (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes you all wonder what Ken

looks like in real life, after all other then Andy, there is no evidence any of them are not overweight, at least by Ken's standards. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right? "many of whom have gluttonous and sedentary lives" - this is a phrase that comes from a man who demonstrably sits in front of his computer for days on end writing hilarious satire that calls people fat and sedentary. Even without the inability to prove that Ken is fat, we can nevertheless prove he doesn't get out of the house much. To be fair, perhaps he has an Abdominizer and Shake Weights laying around his Buffalo hovel. --Leotardo (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See our picture of Ed Poor. Count the chins. But it doesn't matter, 'cause fat Christians can be forgiven for the sin of obesity.^img Fat atheists have no such fallback. P-Foster (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of speaking of trolling, I've just read CP's article on ED (bloody initialisms - that's not child pornography's article on erectile dysfunction) and it contains this gem

“” Liberal Bias in Regards to Objects of Satire. Encyclopedia Dramatica has noticeably less biting satire when liberal sacred cows like the evolutionary position are written about. Considering such evolutionist follies as Nebraska man, Haeckel's embryo's and Flipperpithecus, the absence of biting satire in regards to errant positions liberals hold dear can be quite noticeable in Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Not wanting to reveal such excellent parody I decided not to post it here, until I checked the history and and was added by the man himself.^img Fucking unbelievable. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone anywhere proficiently parody that idiosyncratic writing style. The man is a rare bird, as uncommon in his unashamed cretinism as they come. The only question is whether it's inborn or if one could conceivably approach his ungreatness through practice and care. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew it was a Ken quote the moment I saw it. It contains key Ken hallmarks: beginning sentences with the gerund; writing that one thing is "quite" something; verbosity. The link that started this thread had him use the word "atheist" five times in a two sentence MPR item. That Ken is such a poor writer is one thing he can't change and a reason why I enjoy his prominence on CP. --Leotardo (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A good summary of his writing style, I would also add his tendency to repeat nouns instead of using pronouns. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And both "in regards to"s have^img disappeared^img. Hi, Ken

! I thought you said in the ZB that you weren't going to watch us any more? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Of course he replaces "in regards to" with "concerning" as if the latter isn't also one of his characteristic words - it's still obviously Ken.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, two time loser with recall

I looked back over the history of this page and didn't see that this was discussed. Andy Schlafly not only struck out with his recall of NJ Senator Menendez, but also in his recall effort in North Dakota. The ND Supreme Court denied his petition and did not address his "But...but...Washington's letter to his nephew!" reasoning. Did we miss this? It came out right before Christmas. It was a unanimous decision that said recall was against the North Dakota constitution, so they never addressed the federal Constitutional question. The ND court told Schlafly he was adding words to their Constitution, and ignoring its plain meaning. That means if Andy is going to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, he has to do it via New Jersey's solid SC decision. --Leotardo (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all: He's not going to get there - they won't waste their time with that case nor with him.

Second: If he would get there than I want it live on CNN international so that the whole world can laugh about him. With commentary from this lawyer. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

And then maybe santaclause can storm into the court flanked my mail men delivering letters from washington. --Opcn (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

He won't get to the US Supreme Court. It's interesting that nothing was announced on CP about this decision, right? See, NJ's SC is liberal, but the NDSC is stacked with bedrock conservatives. Just like his Conservapedia, Andy has been rejected from across the ideological spectrum, from the voters to the courts. Must feel good. --Leotardo (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Ullha, no cameras in the Supreme Court. Should he somehow get there, you'd have to settle for audio (which Andy's voice would make for some quality entertainment). DickTurpis (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn! Really didn't know that. --Ullhateme (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how his sister Liza is actually a more successful high-profile lawyer. She used to be known as Liza Schlafly Forshaw but now she goes by Liza S. Forshaw. Perhaps she dropped the Schlafly bit out of embarrassment.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

...and who could blame her? Hateboy (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy and Phyllis. MDB (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Liza Schlafly is Of Counsel at Thomson Coburn, where her uncle Tom Schlafly is a partner. I've only read one of Tom Schlafly's op-eds on St. Louis Public Radio, but he seems pretty reasonable. He's the one who owns the Schlafly brewery. He's also the best looking Schlafly I've seen, which isn't saying much. --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. His head is the right size for his body, which is a distinct advantage over some of the others in his clan. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Liza has that trademarked "you can imagine what I would look like decomposed" look that is one of the quickest ways to spot a member of the Phyllis Schlafly family. --Leotardo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has serious reservations about the tone this conversation is taking? Attack Andy, but lets leave his family members, especially those who have never edited CP, out of it. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 20:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Chuck - kinda of pushing the boundary. Ace McAwesome 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would drink some of Tom's brew and then shag Liza. Although to be fair I think the overall tone is "Look how normal and successful Andy's relatives are! He really is a true failure!" Which is spot on. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the overall point, although I hadn't realized gently ribbing the adult members of the very public Schlafly family crossed a boundary on what is often an 'anything goes' chat page. --Leotardo (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's long been the unwritten rule that we try to avoid making any real personal comments on those who are not part of CP. As such, although we occasionally discuss his relative's beer company, we don't make comments about his appearance or intellect (other than to say that his public distancing from Phyllis was genius). SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Leo, dragging innocent family members here is pretty ugly, even for you. For Becathly (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is similarly hard to swallow you hiding behind sockpuppets to make personal attacks, Human. Blue (is useful) 17:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm awful. Just. Simply. Awful. --Leotardo (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This conversation should not have been allowed to get beyond the first post regarding Schalfly's sister. Even for Andy - his personal life is out of bounds here. Now I tried to remove this conversation once, but was over-ruled. Hopefully, somebody with sense will agree with me. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 11:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see what the problem is here. All that has been said is say what Liz and Tom do, that they're pretty successful, and have distanced themselves from Andy & Phyl. No cyber stalking, no personal details, and no insults or slurs. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this has over stepped a boundary (other than maybe the shagging comment). The extended Schlafly clan are fairly high profile in the St Louis area, so you can't claim they are not public figures. - π 11:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that and the "you can imagine what I would look like decomposed" quip; I don't understand the need to attack various relations either, especially if they have zero involvement in CP (and may very well look at it as we do).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when is "I'd shag her" insulting? I think it's more of a compliment then anything else - at least you're saying she isn't that ugly (ok, that you'd need beer for it really doesn't make it better). However that "decomposed" thing is a very cheap shot. Also for CP we are allready the most devilish site on the face of the planet so why bother? If anybody would sue RW for that one, some of us could sue right back at for pretty much every word Ken has ever written, not to mention all the things Andy came up with. --Ullhateme (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because a woman has no value beyond whether you would be willing to have sex with her. - π 13:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting snarky, eh? --Ullhateme (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that and how well she can cook, obviously. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're off limits because they're not part of CP could this conversation in theory be moved to the saloon bar? DickTurpis (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing innocent Schlafly family members into this. My point was only that Andy is a miserable lawyer and has been outdone professionally by his older sister; something that should embarrass both Andy and his mom.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think it's funny you have people who can go off swearing and insulting like they had Tourette's suddenly find comments about a person's skeletal appearance and "I'd shag her" to be beyond the pale. Really, it's very silly. --Leotardo (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But isn't there a distinction to be made between the robust tone of the exchanges between Rationalwikians and the proper way to speak about people outside the community who, so far as we know, are not guilty of any notably offensive behaviour? Speaking personally, I can put up with any number of four-letter words, but "I'd shag her" strikes me as pure Neanderthal, whilst likening somebody's appearance to that of a decaying corpse seems a good deal worse than simply saying, for example, "Andy's such a dork". Tylersboy (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The "decomposed" comment was an attack on Phyllis, was it not? She's been fair game all along. DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The decomposed comment was a jibe at Phyllis and all of her offspring, from Roger to Andy to Liza. They are all public wingnuts who contribute to rightwingers (including Liza) and all have skeletal, bony bodies with heads too big to match. This thread started out talking about a pretty relevant issue that was never discussed--Andy losing both recall attempts--and has turned into "Leave Poor Liza Alone!" with the people writing that not actually commenting on anything of substance in this thread, but driving it off course with their delicate sensibilities. I wouldn't change a thing I wrote. --Leotardo (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Tyler; my comment was to show that I harbour no hostility towards the extended Schlafly clan. PS. You callin' Lizzy ugly? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be that my sensibilities are too delicate, and I must confess that I've completely forgotten what this thread was originally about. I also had no idea, hitherto, what Liza's political opinions might be, though there didn't seem to be any evidence that she regularly denounced liberals as the spawn of Satan. I'd still want to draw the line - and I said it was a purely personal opinion - at insulting her physical appearance. I'm not aware of anything I said that indicated my own views on that particular subject, and I still think that "you're shaggable" would not be thought a complimentary remark by most women. Tylersboy (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffffft. Only a militant feminist lezza dyke would not find that a compliment. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Delta, that's very rude - a "feminist lezza bulldyke" is the correct reference. In the case of a man, a "faggy mcfag" --Leotardo (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Leo, I didn't mean to cause offence. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's droppings

fresh spoor

I note fresh after cleaning his dung up by deleting and recreating Andy's page he goes and does it again to JPatt.
Lucky I took a sample of it before he did so. I can't understand why no one has called him out. I suppose to do so would be to admit the guy is fucked in the head. Ace McAwesome 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also because they don't give a shit anymore. No one at Conservapedia takes it seriously, it's just a place to dump their own particular leavings. For the most part it's a twitter substitute that lets them vent their hate on MPR and delude themselves that people are actually reading it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's "Ms. G." ? P-Foster (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

SusanG maybe? That's my best guess anyway. Does anyone actually believe that Ken

was paid by anyone for his half-arsed strings of "in regards to x foo said y"s? I put the likelihood of that at more or less zero. It's as much a part of his delusion as his SEO business that he seems to try and operate through a skype number. He's entirely off the deep end, and no one is even batting an eyelid. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ms. G was a link to Google. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is that capture labelled "spore"? Did you mean "spoor"?82.23.210.230 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I like his "no factual errors" bullshit. Here's a factual error for you Ken, since I know you read this: you have not cited a single statistic linking atheism and obesity. DickTurpis (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally prefer him crowing over this 'article' and providing no link. It's like arguing with him about God, he adamantly believes it exists and it has potent attributes and the rest of us have absolutely no evidence at all. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what Jpratt has done do deserve Ken's

attentions?  His talkpage seems to be the target of choice for Ken's cries for attention.  Maybe the Prattster likes it though, as he used to just ignore such posts but now at least gives little "well done Kenny, have a biscuit" type replies.  Speaking of Ken

, I like how he doesn't even bother to make his random pictures relevant, now having sections in his 'essays' called pictures with captions. Probably the most accurate thing he's ever written. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Jpatt committed the cardinal sin of not flatly ignoring Ken at all times. It wasn't so bad in the ZB, where Ken's long, garbled e-mails could be safely ignored, but to respond to him in public is social suicide. Happy for any attention, Ken will now cling to Jpatt's talkpage like a barnacle, using his droppings there to proclaim "See! See! Somebody does like me!" I made the same mistake and it got... creepy... --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 11:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you JPatt, and fuck the heritage foundation.

I know I shouldn't let that little prick make me angry, but the ignorant fucker lets himself buy anything the rich fuckers who move him around like a puppet are selling. Today it's the bullshit^img from the heritage foundation^img.

On the off chance JPratt is reading this, he should read the fucking FT now and then. Then he'd know as every fucking trader knows, OPEC knows, and the evil fuckers at the heritage foundation pretend not to know that the price of oil is controlled by futures speculators. The solution to high oil prices isn't to trash the environment for corporate gain, you little retard, it's to roll back the senseless deregulation of the futures market that was sold to fucking stooges like yourself under the guise of freedom and to make your corporate overlords fucking shedloads of money. You made the rod for your own back, and instead of learning from it, you're doubling down on your fucking stupidity and ignorance to make your world just that incremental bit worse. Fuck you JPratt, fuck you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Havn't prices been going up since the bush adminastration. Of course then, the rising prices were a sign the economy was doing better because oil execs are making a shit ton of cash.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but your CP:liberal deceit is preventing you from admitting that high oil prices and the Deepwater Horizon disaster were because of Obama regulating the oil industry too much and letting oil companies do what they want without regulation. Of course Jpratt is right; we need to let the oil companies do what they want and all will be well. (As a slightly more serious aside, as the North Sea reserves were realised, Thatcher privatised the British oil industry around about the same time as Norway nationalised theirs. The UK is now skint and Norway is fucking minted.) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the financial press this week the panic is about nobody actually knowing what the real price of oil ought to be. Basically, the news of the Alaska pipeline shutdown caused every arsehole short term commodity speculator and their dog to jump on the market like a dingo on an unattended baby. This means that the listed price of oil futures now reflects the fundamentals of the industry not at all, because the bulk of the trading is not between producers and consumers (so-called "physical players"), but almost entirely between commercial players. Historically, commodities futures when the trading was mostly between physical players has been a good reflection of what the price ought to be. Now, there's utter panic that the index prices of the usual benchmark oil blends like West Texas Intermediate don't reflect the real cash value of a barrel of oil, and they've no idea how to find out the real price. It's hilarious if you ignore how fucking scary it is.

It used to be the case that this sort of speculation was limited by legislation to keep financial players at bay, to keep speculation to the minimum needed to ensure liquidity in the market. But due to various shady backroom in Washington deals, not futures trading is more or less unrestricted, hence the disconnect between sane price fluctuations determined by market fundamentals and the fluctuation of the futures market. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We have some of the lowest gas prices in the world. Such a stupid thing to complain about, and raising taxes on gas is a must to get us out of our financial mess. --Leotardo (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Paradoxically low taxes on energy have contributed to the US's current problems. First of all they discourage domestic exploration when cheaper oil can be obtained from overseas thereby increasing dependence on foreign supply, secondly that in percentage terms the fuel price at the pump is more correlated to the global price (in the UK where we are used to higher prices anyway, the increase has been much less as a percentage so doesn't appear quite so bad - it's increases in taxes & duty that affect us more) and thirdly low prices do not provide an incentive to economise or improve public transport so that the poor are hit disproportionately.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh memories....

Have been going some CP archives for kicks and found this lovely talkpage^img wherein PJR defends incest. What fun CP used to be. Ace McAwesome 03:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to hear a Xian give a decent defence for Biblical incest. Not to mention Lot offering his daughters to the mob. Good, wholesome family stuff. Oh yes, and if it was just Adam & Eve & Cain & Abel, who were the freaking people in the land of Nod Cain was exiled to? --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 11:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course Christians can always try to turn it around on us evolutionists, as common descent has to involve incest somewhere in there as well. We just don't have to justify the morality of it. DickTurpis (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I always wanted to bring this up back when Andy was on his high-horse about "moral relativism" and I still had a respected sock. My thought process is this; God said "Be fruitful and multiply", but then later goes into excruciating detail about which members of your family you can sex up. So either (a) God commanded Adam and Eve to sin, and is a huge dick or (b) God gives certain rules to certain people at certain times, making him a moral relativist. *sigh* My kingdom for a sock... Carlaugust (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have an elevated rights and highly respected sock. Email me whatever you want him to ask Andy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the trolling paid off...

Terry Koeckritz's name has been removed from wp:Conservapedia. How did that happen? Still, it's funny watching the malicious little runt trying to cleanse the internet of his nefarious deeds. You'd swear he had something to hide. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm - saw your blog too. Him (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How's that happened? It's no longer on any of the 500 last revisions of the page. I didn't think MW could even do that? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I've asked for information. I doubt we'll get anywhere, but you never know. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been removed from the entire edit history without any ceremony or discussion. Unless I just wasn't looking in the right place for whatever discussion that did occur? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can't find it anywhere. Just a thought... we're not all having some group hallucination, are we? It did mention Terry Koeckritz at some point, right? I'm pretty sure, but... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Er... now that you mention it... No, I'm sure it did. Why else were Rob and Terry trolling WP? --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 15:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys sure you're not just talking about the episode where TK got the Oversight Panel involved because I once mentioned the name on the talk page? I don't remember the name being mentioned in the article - only Brian's. --Sid (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Has he got us to the point where four different editors now have false memories about him??? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhh! This is a group hallucination! Terry Koeckritz's name was never in the article, what he and Knobs were trolling for was to get the LA Times article struck off as a reliable source, as that article contained his name. His thinking being 1) people will follow the link and read his name, and 2) as we get his name from there, he could then say "take Terry Koeckritz off your vandal site because even WP say the LA Times' article can't be trusted! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How embarrassing. Groveling apology posted on WP. Now to lay off whatever it is that's making me so paranoid... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

/hangs head in shame. I feel so... so... used... --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it wasn't just me that couldn't recall where Terry Koeckritz's name was mentioned at WP. His talk-page edits are still there but as far as I am aware TK always goes by his initials when he needs to troll.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I've just added his name so as you were! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just fucking with our heads :-) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a Google cache^img of wp:Conservapedia with Terry mentioned. Someone might want to capture it if capbot doesn't get it. --Leotardo (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ On a related matter, have you approached WordPress about the lack of Terry Koeckritz articles on there, Psy? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have a copy of the 3 April 2009 version of wp:Conservapedia, retrieved and stored 4 April 2009. It does not mention hoTcaKe, neither by name nor indirectly. It does not mention any conservapedes by name except for Andy Schlafly himself. mb 19:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we've all realised that Terry Koeckritz was never mentioned by name before today. A certain disgusting, libelous, liberal blog recently (yesterday) pointed out how Terry Koeckritz has managed to get some special treatment at WordPress, and it seems several of us were feeling a little sensitive as a result. It just goes to show - a successful troll can do frak all for two months and still cause a reaction. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the WP forums, so will wait and see what happens. I still find it hard to believe that they would do that because some little arsehole went 'someone's being mean to me.' Unless, he got Andy involved to do some lawyering for him. Either way it's strange that WP wouldn't have taken me to task for it. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 12:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You had me confused there until I realised you were referring to WordPress and no WikiPedia. Doh. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't this thread been oversighted? Now we're the #1 laughing stock of the innertubes. Oh wait, Ken even beats us to that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Lily" (I notice how you hide behind an alias), I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and there is an anti-Christian tone to your postings, so admit it, you're a liberal troll. You also refuse to accept that going to church stops crime. In sum, conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible. As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. You are violating the 90/10 rule, and are in danger of being banned.--Aschlafly 11:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If Andy ever claimed action at a distance reduces sexually transmitted diseases, it would be closest thing to a fact he's ever said.

Problem fixed - what ever it was. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Work, Doug...

Yes, I know about 1/3 to 1/2 of these are broken redirects, but DouglasA's single-handed campaign to delete Conservapedia^img continues unabated. There were some halfway decent articles in that list. P-Foster (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that he would undertake such a project without being authorized/commanded. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree. Somewhere, they've discussed this - something like "the editor is blocked, he's writing about things we don't understand, we're too dumb to verify his facts, delete them." --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

...which makes it all the better. CP eats itself because it can't be bothered to do some simple fact-checking, or to fix any intentional mistakes that might have been let in. Or maybe, just maybe, Douggie volunteered to purge CP of "bad" content as a way to undermine the project--it ain't like TK/Rob/Andy/Ed/Ken/JPatt are authorizing the deletions in a systematic way. P-Foster (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd generally agree with your last point, except for the fact that this has been going on for months now, and it would appear as if he's never been questioned, nor any deletions reversed. Either he's doing it according to plan, or it's just another sign that the CP sysops no longer give a toss about CP, besides using it to slag off Obama on MPR. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2) They no longer care about articles that might be considered encyclopaedic. I believe that Psy's point is true but there is no doubt that many were created by people of a liberal tendency (I would hesitate to call them parodists or vandals) and I'm sure many of the article are fully true and correct. In fact most of the articles there are the product of non CP-diehards - I'm actually quite proud that a couple of my own are among the best on the site (IMVHO). So what happens when he's deleted all the cruft? We are left with Andy's moronic insights, Kens demented ramblings, Rob's "reds under the bed" series, TK's handful of plagiarism, the monomaniacs' KAL-007 and Alger Hiss, Karajou's copy/pastes from the CIA factbook and civil-war battles, and US ships A-B (partial). Even a lot of their US-centric stuff is written by banned editors. Of course deleting pages also deletes page counts so can we expect Andy to trumpet the same page view milestones as they go into reverse?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is probably true but hilarious that any article, no matter how factual, is removed because the former contributor was not an absolutely loyal disciple of Andyism and thus purged. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Doug, if you're reading this, here's a few you missed: cp:Jean Rameau, cp:Rudolf Hess, cp:Barque, cp:Puget Sound, cp:Inlet, cp:Mt. Saint-Michel, cp:Cape Cod. I'm sure there are others I wrote. Some are even somewhat accurate! DickTurpis (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dick, Dick, Dick! Clearly he can't delete articles if you've listed them on this page. It'd be better if you emailed him your suggestions! 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Know that he's seen they're admitted parody (in some cases) from an avowed member of A Vandal Site ^TM I don't see how he can not delete them. DickTurpis (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to not outing obvious parody? He's been a busy little beaver removing all non-politics entries a few at a time to demonstrate that CP is nothing more than a rant filled politically twisted blog and you go and draw attention to it here. Great work idiot. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

EC:When I opened recent changes this morning, there was a solid red block of deleted articles all with the same name beside them. If that's not self-outing, I don't know what is, asshole. Fuckin' tool is what you are. Stop being a noob. P-Foster (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll stop being " a noob" when you stop acting like Ken Doll, "I've found something, PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" Cunt. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The remaining sysops are so extreme they can't tell the difference. They also know that we've outed genuine editors in the past and got them banned, so they won't take our word for it. And with CP so marginalised already, we no longer need to persist in the effort of keeping CP an unreliable resource... so we might as well bask in the amusement of any parody that we happen to find. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Awesome! Almost every article I have written on CP [3]^img has been deleted as "creation of parodist, material thief" or "false material". I am curious to know where they thought I stole the material from (not to mention the irony of such a statement given Bad Touch's and TK's history). False material is without a doubt any information that didn't conform to the YEC fundamentalist view of the universe. Also I am classified as a parodist, which is even better since I didn't hide what I really thought on that site. I am officially an un-person in CP, do I win some sort of prize for that? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

By contrast, every article I copied from obscure government websites as part of terrorizing the old Contests is still there. Stile4aly (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Were you the guy who pasted in all the stuff from, what was it, the nat'l geological survey or something? Good times. The only time I ever got night-mode edit rights was when I was on Andy's team in a contest. I immediately used them to wiki-link every instance of the word "goat" on CP, including those in the actual "goat" article and got myself banned. Good times. P-Foster (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's me. You and I were in the same contest. I hesitate to link to my contributions because I would hate to see such high quality articles deleted. Stile4aly (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

CP really needs another contest. Those were great. Besides the blatant plagarism and thousands of inane edits, it always led to strife among the editors. People would accuse others of cheating and usually someone would quit at the end. If they were ever meant to help build community they had the opposite effect. DickTurpis (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the main it was Andy ending up on the losing side and not accepting the result. Plus ça change, eh? But yes, fun old days. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My treat, Ken...

If it means you not crowding up CP's Recent Changes with 27 edits to write any given sentence, I'll buy the software for you.^img Seriously; just leave a note on my talk page, I'll get a cheque in the mail. P-Foster (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple requests for my services as a paid writer" HAHAHAHAHAHA!! "obsessively writing obscure internet content for free" WOHOHAHAHAHAHAHA! Brillant! Finally, Ken comes up with some fantastic comedy and parody. Even if it is about himself. Seriously, I'd pay for an infinite number of typewriting monkeys before I paid for Ken. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 14:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear god. If someone would actually pay Kennyboy to write, they must be illiterate or completely mad. Maybe he's paid by the word! That'd explain the endless "in regards to"s and repetitions of quotes and even the absence of pronouns. 14:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should I apologise for teasing him or let hum run with the delusion?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's delusions are getting downright scary. It won't be long until he says he has some important work to do fighting atheism on the international space station. At that point we really will have to see he gets help. In the meantime, I'll be checking google for any results for "Ken Demyer" that aren't RW or blogs criticizing CP. DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Come now, you don't think the International Mug of Mystery is going to write under his own name do you? Hellsbells, he can't even do that in the ZB. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 14:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If he's getting paid he might not have a choice, depending on the desire of who's paying him. Since we all know no one is giving him a dime for anything involving writing (except maybe to stop) it's a moot point. DickTurpis (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he signed up for Examiner.com or some similar scheme? Although in that case, he'd probably rather boast to TerryH about it. Röstigraben (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Dick, many writers use a nom de plume or like my favourite alter ego act as ghost writer. But seriously, if Ken thinks that a piece of software is going to help him be a writer then he's in for a big disappointment. Using my superior atheist intellect™ as a long time report writer and erstwhile copy-editor, I know that you need to be able to think creatively before putting a metaphorical pen to paper. Mere technical correctness does not necessarily make an engaging read and Ken's turgid prose is far removed from anything creative. He'd do much better spending his money on a creative writing book, a good style guide and something like Bill Bill Bryson's Troublesome Words. Thinking that a piece of software will automatically make him a good writer reminds me of the Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore sketch where a rich guy hoped to learn how to play a Beethoven concerto by the music teacher calling out the order of the piano keys. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Does he really think that even someone as stupid as Jpratt is going to believe that bullshit? Surely even the CP sysops think his writing style is utterly appalling - regardless of its pathetically inane content. If you're gonna lie then make sure it's a believable lie! PS. I'm not an academic, but isn't it the students who get grades, not the tutors?^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Best part of that last link? The article that the image comes from appears to be about grade inflation! UPDATE: he ditches the link to the grade inflation article, and demotes himself from A+ to A.^imgP-Foster (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Was he at Patriot Bible University? That would explain a lot about the origina of this masterpiece. Röstigraben (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The good news is, if he does write anywhere else, we will instantly know it is Kenny just from his unique take on the English language. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not even a coherent lie. Kendoll was a tutor but he got a grade? He's nuts. I don't even understand why he's inventing this whole fantasy life for himself. Is he trying to fool us that he isn't some loser who spends 19 hours a day battling atheism on the internets? Does he really imagine himself a great writer who ought to be paid for his writing, if only the evilutionists, gays and atheists weren't keeping him down? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Universities assess their lecturers, and perhaps their tutors, to check the quality of their work. It might be turned into a rank of how good they are, so it could be called 'graded at A overall', but its a bit of a stretch. CS Miller (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken responds^img. I'm still at a loss as to why he's using JPatt's page to send messages here. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 21:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Burn! Burn! Burn!

I hate your talk page!

That makes six times today that Ken

has burnt JPratt's talk page to the ground to cover his tracks. This time to hide his latest lunacy about paid per click advertising (including amusing spelling mistakes, o master writer.) Will JPratt summon the spine to call him out on his delusions and tell him to stop wandalising his talk page incessantly? I'm going with "no." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2)I wonder what it's like to learn writing from the man who feels the need to delete edit histories so people can't see how many edits it took him to construct a readable paragraph. And even then he misses things (PS Ken: Gentlemen rationalize away their, or a gentleman rationalizes away his). EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

He does seem to be having difficulty with his plurals today. "An atheists is"? I can see why they pay you the big bucks, kendoll. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tenses as well. "Atheism is a clown and did not know it." DickTurpis (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"The transitional animal the flying kitty?" gets my vote for most awkward title. --Benod (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are so many to choose from, but the lack of grammar in both the Atheism/Clown and Flying Kitty titles are stand-outs. --Leotardo (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) What was it supposed to have been? "The transitional animal, the flying kitty?" "The transitional animal: the flying kitty?" Blue (is useful) 18:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the title was meant to convey "Is the flying kitty evolution's transitional animal?" --Leotardo (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like crying. Spread your wings and fly, Ken, you beautiful beast. Fly!--Brendiggg (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Gentlemen at a rather liberal website, I have found an amusing animated GIF of a flying cat and want to use it to insult evolutionists, so I'll imply that evolutionists would believe that it's a transitional form, but I'll phrase it as a question to avoid actually making any sort of accusation to cover my ass." --Sid (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Now Ken is saying that he got academic credit for tutoring. I'm not sure how one would grade a tutor if one was not able to observe him, but I guess that's possible. Nor can I imagine anyone assigning Ken to tutor anyone in writing, but if the class he signed up for was Tutoring 101 or something they might not have a choice. Chances are very high Ken is making all this up, but I do wonder if perhaps there was a time when Ken was a moderately bright person, then maybe he got in a car accident or something and had a brain injury. I guess that's possible. DickTurpis (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of sad because he's not very bright - anyone can say anything when there is no need to provide proof to anyone that what you say is true. The problem is that if a person says their writing is in demand then they should actually evidence a working knowledge of grammar. That's to say nothing of his verbosity and repetition. --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, Ken, since we know you're reading this, why not end the suspense and tell us exactly who is going to pay you for your writing? We'd all love to know. And will that mean you won't be writing for Conservapedia anymore, as you can't sell what you're giving away for free? If it's an Examiner-type situation, you should keep in mind guys like Hurlbut make about a dollar for their columns, so it' hard to really call that getting paid (in the amount of time it takes you to write a column you could collect that much in redeemable cans; also, it's hard to get paid for columns you constantly delete). So, who's the lucky rag whose about to land the famous Ken DeMyer as their next writer? We all want to know. DickTurpis (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

With regards to him tutoring someone and getting a grade for it, I guess it is possible that he was on a course (English or whatever) and was also tutoring other students, like ones from an earlier year or something. I'm pretty sure while doing my degree some people in the third year were tutoring people from the first and second. I'm not sure if it was an official thing or what. Anyway it could just be an awkward way of wording it. "I was tutoring people while I was taking x course, in which I got an A." X Stickman (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Ken is actually telling a "lie" but like all of his creationists ramblings it is probably a gross distortion of the truth. When I did my degree (admittedly it was sometime before the flood) my tutors were either professors, lecturers or Ph.D. student and I can't see Ken fitting any of those roles unless it was at one of those unaccredited bible colleges. But I have not heard Ken mention any sort of diploma or degree, so it's puzzling to find him bragging about some term grading. So one can only presume that he was a college drop-out. However, it is certainly amusing that he needs to keep burning JPratt's talk page to cover his gaffes. The fact that he does so is more proof that despite his promise not to read RationalWiki he is in fact devouring everything we say. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just for the record^img. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To be a tutor in a college you don't need to have a command of the English language. I can barely speak/write English yet I tutored children with English as a second language for credit in college. They didn't need Shakespeare for where they were at. Of course Ken reads us: we are his only audience that gives him any meaningful consideration. However, he could just as easily drop in here and leave his weirdo comments without responding as he can "talk" to us via Jpatt's page. He's such a freak. I don't know how a gross distortion of the truth is not a lie. --Leotardo (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But if he actually came here, he'd spend most of his time here and have to be blocked as a member of a vandal site. Also, here he can't burn his more embarrassing trips in to lala land. They'd be logged in our database forever. Every gentlemen he ever wrote has been burnt, usually only minutes after he wrote them. Being Kendoll must be very strange, constantly being in horror of the insane thing you wrote about five minutes ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And have our Recent Changes clogged up by hundreds of his edits trying to make the same stupid point? No, thanks. The red telephone is fine, let CP handle him. Röstigraben (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As a freelance journalist myself...

I can tell you that Ken's level of written discourse is unlikely to earn anything, anywhere. Like Genghis said, he probably isn't "lying" so much as being extremely liberal with the truth. Ace McAwesome 19:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And if I were an editor receiving material like Ken's I'd probably be extremely worried for his mental health. Ace McAwesome 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't so much "write" as compile scrapbooks. That's why there are no "facts" to disprove. His articles and essays all comprise quotes from third parties or images scraped from the internet.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Which, if you were being paid to write, would be fairly close to plagiarism. Ace McAwesome 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And fairly close to something that a child would turn in to his third grade teacher. --Leotardo (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ken^img but as a published writer myself - you fail miserably. Ace McAwesome 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think my "brain damage from a car accident" hypothesis is starting to look better and better. DickTurpis (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Ken, quit using Jpatt's talk page to talk to us. Whether or not he admits it to you, it's very unlikely he appreciates it. At least have the balls to use a page of your own. DickTurpis (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Ken shows the attention to detail that marks a great author.^img EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, Ken, if you want to address the community, just come over here. All you're doing now is confusing CP's editors. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on Ken. Have the ma-cheese-mo and come over here, we can't come over there and tell you that you are making an arse of yourself to your face, but I would if I could. - π 22:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting cringeworthy. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's lessons

I think Ken's course would be something like this:
Lesson 1: Pronouns and why to fear them
Lesson 2: Using emoticons for emphasis
Lesson 3: Who needs proofreading?
Lesson 4: Witty pictures and captions 101
Anyone else? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would pay to take a course give by Ken on this stuff, it would be well worth the price of admission. - π 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but it would have to be by reservation only: his mum's basement can only hold so many people. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Obsessively deleting and recreating your work Ace McAwesome 22:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why previewing is for wussies and other liberal pantywaists Vulpius (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra credit: 'With regards to professionally writing, how to cram in as many "regarding"s with regards to your professional writing. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Verbose quotes, your dream ticket to paid-by-the-word success --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

... cannot reasonably deny

Apparently we can't "reasonably deny"^img that Kendoll gets paid for his writing. I beg to differ, Kendoll. I deny it. Your writing at CP would embarrass a ten year old, and they only people who would pay you for it would be people more insane than you clearly are. Links, Kendoll, or it didn't happen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I notice he keeps harping on about "attending" a major university--nothing about "graduating" from one. What degrees has he earned, and where did he get them from?

This is one case where it's easy to prove his point: link to the article for which he got paid, or the name/date of the publication in which it appeared. Come on Ken

, it's that easy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That would assume it isn't a tissue of whoppers, which of course it is. The weird thing is he seems to think his lies are as bulletproof as his sooper seekrit identities. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. I know that. I'm pointing out that since Conservatives never lie, distort or do anything other than tell gOD's unvarnished truth, there must be a misunderstanding, and so it should be easy for Ken

to give us the information. I can say with all honesty that seeing an article of his in a commercial medium would be a life-altering event. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah. Burnt for the eighth time today. Too late, Kendoll. Capturebot sees all. Now you have to put up or shut up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What about this?

Could this be what Ken was paid for???? Investigator is a creationist publication. Ace McAwesome 23:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ace McAwesome 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, found you Ken! You get mentioned several times here. Ace McAwesome 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm. 2006. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The subscription form states that writers are "volunteers only", meaning unpaid. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 23:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's this little gem too. It's typical Ken

bullshit, but the writing itself is much better than anything he defecates on to CP.  Confusing.  DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(Also, they're all already linked in the Kendoll article) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That first one from Ace is classic Ken, kicking of with a trademark repetition "A review of the geologic literature shows the geologic literature is becoming more creationistic in its outlook." before 'citing' a number of extremely old quotes. However that one I posted is so much better written, I can only assume it was copyedited to within an inch of its life before it went out. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On another note - I am looking forward to Jpatt surfacing and seeing the clusterfuck on his talkpage. Ace McAwesome 23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. All this Kendoll baiting has really driven him in to a frenzy of wandalism. He's probably hiding until it blows over, the better to ignore the fact that his talk page is now the official red telephone. Andy is, as usual, supine and submissive to the madman ruining his wiki. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt clearly doesn't mind b/c Ken has been doing this for awhile. And I agree with Delta - first link was usually Ken drool, but the second link didn't even sound like Ken. My problems with it were mere trifles. It must have been copyedited by someone, because otherwise why would he write as poorly as he does on CP? Unless......IS KEN A PARODIST?! --Leotardo (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, uncomfortable truths^img. I, for one, am laughing uncomfortably hard. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is awesome. The first article is one sentence and a dozen block quotes. Klassic Ken. If ever there was any doubt conservative is Ken DeMyer it is gone. And no, that can't be what he is allegedly paid for, as even creationists are stupid enough to pay someone to post nothing quotes from others. And is Ken calling us mentally deficient? Alright, being mentally retarded is one thing, and I have no problem with that, but when you're retarded and have a superiority complex and pretend you're the smartest guy on earth, well that's over the line. DickTurpis (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If the second article was indeed copy-edited, I wonder about the editor's command of basic English grammar and syntax. It may be better than Ken's usual ejaculations, but it's missing about a half-dozen commas and about as many hyphens, is full of run-on sentences, and reads as if a computer mechanically transcribed an 80-year-old preacher's ramblings. Typical Ken for me was the misuse of academic-sounding prepositions and conjunctions. Junggai (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Quick note"

Kendoll's quick note now occupies more than a screen of text and looks to any independent observer like the guy is having a seven level discussion with himself. Why is nobody stopping him? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

the gentlemen cannot find one factual error in my articles^img I have found a factual error - there is no link between atheism and obesity and, if there is, it hasn't been shown. Ace McAwesome 00:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering this whole big giant thread is about the factual error that Kendoll has been paid for his writing, I don't think he's in a terribly good position to employ his last ditch evasion this time. You're lying Kendoll, and you know you're lying. That's a mortal sin you know, Jesus is all upset. All you have to do is provide a link to your paid writing to make Jesus happy again. You want Jesus to be happy, don't you ken? Well, don't you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I laughed so hard when I saw all the BS that Ken wrote on JPatts talk page that I had a coughing fit. Thanks Ken, now I have a headache. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A challenger!^img Will Ken respond with machismo? Or, more likely - revert, oversight and block. Ace McAwesome 00:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaand he wiped it all. It's a pretty pitiful display. He can't possibly be thinking good thoughts when he has to wipe what he's just spent an hour or so doing. Plus he knows that we're watching and that we have caps of what he's done. So... why? Man I'd love to know what goes on in his head. X Stickman (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

All that time spent for nothing. He didn't take up Terry's challenge either. I guess Conservative lacks machismo. He's also probably fat. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from it, in my mind. No, I think our little friend is a solid 96 pounds. DickTurpis (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Another subheading!

Does anyone else find it strange just how normal this is? Ken's basically talking to himself on someone else's talkpage in response to us talking to each other on a different site, resulting in some weird stilted conversation. And it doesn't even seem particularly unusual. I mean, it's weird, as people have mentioned above, but I just had a moment of clarity or something and I realised just what this would look like to someone who hasn't heard of CP, or followed it, or anything. This is objectively batshit insane. The fact that my response (and the response of most others by the looks of it) is "Hah! Classic Ken" rather than "this is one of the weirdest things I've seen in ages" says a lot about how desensitised I am to CP's bullshit by now, and that kinda scares me. X Stickman (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm totally inured to Kendoll's weirdness. What I can never quite fathom is that nobody at CP ever takes issue with him. It boggles my mind every time I think of it. There's this guy effectively wandering around naked smearing his shit on the walls and they're all going about their business as if he wasn't. JPatt probably won't even remark on this eminently remarkable turd that has magically appeared on his talk page, let alone the dozen or so burnings over a 10 hour period that led up to it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please remind me why a professional writer who got straight As in English at university needs to buy a piece of software to check his writing?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, you're forgetting the all-important criterion for Ken being allowed to remain on CP - Andy still believes that Ken's inane dribbling and link-spamming his essays somehow translates into higher Google rankings. An even scarier thought is that Andy actually thinks Ken is making substantive contributions to CP; he certainly seems to think the abortions that are Atheism, Homosexuality and Evolution are true masterpieces of our time. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that the corridors of CP are increasingly empty nowadays.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a solution for that: Ken, ask your great leader Andy for an allowance to create an account here and talk to us here. You may not be welcomed warmly but I'm pretty sure that weird feeling (yes it really feels weird) would stop. I'm pretty sure as long as you dont delete anybodies talk page or start burning the pile there really wouldn't be a problem, or would there? So if you got the balls for it, come over have a bear and let's talk our problems out. --Ullhateme (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"if you got the balls for it" well, there's your first problem right there. In regards to internet debates, it has been shown that on the subject of internet debates, Ken Demyer is quite lacking in balls. This lacking in regards to balls, is quite prevalent in his debating skills in regards to debating on the internet. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was going for. If somebody can say that Richard Dawkins arguments are wrong because he doesn't want to do the mindfuck of debating creationists - well than, let us invite that guy for a debate and see what happens. So Ken, to go for CP "logic": Debate us or(/and) we are right anyway! --Ullhateme (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken, ask your great leader Andy for an allowance to create an account here and talk to us here.....ummmm, Ken already has an account here. He can use it anytime he wants. P-Foster (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, did not know that... Guess I'm still a n00b. So far so good, and know discuss something. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken stopped editing here because he couldn't control his talk page by deleting or protecting it. He tried to do it at ASoK but they wouldn't let him either. That's why he withdrew. He would only debate if he could pull the plug at the first sign that he was getting pwned. He doesn't have the cojones to debate in an open forum. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Ken

lacks the MA-CHEESE-MO to debate atheists and evolutionists in an environment that he doesn't have complete censorship control over? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that was what I was trying to get at. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Ken is a liberal lacking machismo. Up is down and fire is cold - or these people are just talking bullshit. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AceMcIncompetent

How dare you disbelieve me!

Ha, we have an angry shout-out!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Linky, because we know it'll get burned in 2 seconds' time.^img --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 08:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh, wasn't my screencap upload good enough for you?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything you do, is good enough for me, sweetheart. I just likes to be teh thorough. --Ψ GremlinTala! 09:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't come your smarmy Welsh charm with me, boyo. Capturebot is OK to ensure that something is archived for posterity but searching for anything among the thousands of meaninglessly named PNGs is impossible. I do wish that people would categorise and add descriptions after they have used <capture>.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And he cleverly redirects the talk page to the appallingly grammared "Atheism is a clown and it did not know it." Still, who needs tenses when you're destroying atheism on teh innertubes. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 08:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually jealous. Everybody gets shout-outs except me. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 08:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't get anything either Psy... The best I've ever managed is TK wrongly accusing someone in Utah of being me. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 09:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky. I was always AmesG. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And poof! Another shout-out to the site that shall not be named vanishes. here's a hint Ken, if you write something to Ace, you might want to leave it up until Ace actually reads it. Please let me know if you need the concept of time-zones explained to you. Oh yes, and what happened to your promise to never again post shout-outs? You know, the one you made in ZB? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 10:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I have a shout out please Ken? The most recognition I ever got was being blocked for using an IP address the same as that of "SuperJosh, the RW crat." Although I'm glad they recognised my Superior Superness in it. SJ ^Debaser 10:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I got a shoutout once, but I never got a screencap of it. - π 10:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

When was that? Maybe somebody has a screencap of it? --Sid (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We might have the text actually, I thought we were collecting them at one stage. - π 11:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I got some shoutouts from Ken but my greatest triumph was TK thinking that along with Auld Nick I was the all-time master parodist and ascribed every identity under the sun to me, when in virtually all cases I was just messing with him. Even Project Smoke and Mirrors was designed to put him on the wrong track - he thought that he was getting a sneak peek into the cabal (There is no cabal™) when all that he was seeing was what we wanted him to see. Disinformation has always been a more successful tactic as it leads to infighting. The beauty of it is that because of the suspicion of outsiders they end up destroying themselves from within. Who can't say that after Andy the two editors who have accomplished the most damage at CP have been Ken and TK? There was a slim chance at first that CP might turn into a viable alternative to Wikipedia - you can never tell when something might go critical mass - but I think that we have been most successful in ramping up the paranoia so that they ended up going crazy trapped in their own isolated world. It's still fun to laugh at their crazy antics but CP is in a cul-de-sac with no hope of turning back. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you went to the zoo and poked a chimp with a stick until it started throwing its own poo around and ended up messing up its own cage? - π 11:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) CP was doomed the minute Andy surrounded himself with spineless incompetents, who could and would do nothing to make up for Andy's tragic failings as a manager. True, their own paranoia, Ken's insanity and TK's trolling have done the damage, but CP's hopes of being viable died the day Ed, Kara, Hurlbut, Ken and TK were sysopped. Everything since then has been small bumps on a downhill road. Nice analogy, Pi. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Andy's management, though. Andy's 'insights' have also contributed to it becoming a pile of shit. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Pi, let's say it was a very ugly and disagreeable chimp. As for the "adult" sysops that Andy promoted, they have to a man (and apart from Jallen & JessT he has tended to select men) been ill-tempered losers who when given just a little power abuse it as much as they can. Basically they are like those grumpy low-IQ thugs who get jobs as night-club bouncers - they stand by the door and choose whom to let in or throw out but can never actually join in the fun that's going on inside. One of TK's big whines was that he felt excluded because he never got the jokes at RW. I think that conservatives and especially Teabaggers are deeply unhappy people because they can never enjoy the present, they always harp back to some golden age. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I never thought of tea-baggers as wanting the past, but an alternate present. There problems seems to be that America didn't go in the direction they wanted. Laws were passed they would not have supported, amendments to the constitution prevents them from making laws they would like, Supreme Court cases were decided in ways that go against what they would have wanted, and most of this happened even before they were born. Their talk of "constitutionalism" and "returning to the constitution" and so forth seems more like a wish to wipe the slate clean of the last 220+ years of US law and start again. - π 13:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, CP was doomed the moment Andy bought the domain name. --Kels (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this shit still going on?

Ken at CP

You guys were poking this nut more than 12 hous ago, is he still being baited by this shit? I mean we are working as a team, he is one lone guy. - π 10:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you poke him he will come. No... wait... that sounds wrong... --Ψ GremlinPrata! 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But is right. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I just checked RC to see Ken spent another 8 solid hours overnight creating a couple of copypasta shitheaps. Ken, we've talked about this before. Take your fucking meds and get your sleep cycle back in control. You're acting like a retard. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rather like laughing at the inmates at Bedlam. Him (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the original question: I gave money to Trent, twice, in part because I appreciate how this site helps me find the needles of funny crazy in the shitstack of boring dumb over there. In other words, I gave money to a third party so I can read more Ken. It is really completely unthinkable someone could give money to Ken directly? mb 12:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Giving Ken money directly to write something is a bit like paying somebody to spit in your face - but then again, there are people that are turned on by that. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On a Ken related topic

All his obesity essays contain section about the physical and metal effects of being over wight, clocking up 15 citations in total. One of his latest has only 17 citations in total, the other two do nothing to show that atheist are obese only who a few prominent atheist are. It seems to me that he confuses the number of citations he has with citation that actually back up his point. - π 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Ken's latest emissions are based solely on 1 survey that says religious people might have healthier eating habits and a couple of photos of tubby atheists, it's safe to assume that Ken thinks a citation is a French car. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC, I seem to have been thing the same thing) His article Atheism and obesity actually only has one citation that actually gets to the fucking point and that is the Gallop poll that shows that religious people claim to have been more healthy in the week before the survey. That is it. 97 fucking citations and all except for one (repeated three times) does anything to shows that atheist maybe unhealthy. The rest is bullshit, anecdotal evidence, and some shit about marriageability that has nothing to do with. Ken gets some actual fucking facts! - π 12:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hence the "lack of sources" WIGO; none of them actually show a link between atheism and obesity. Unhealthy habits don't necessarily mean you're fat. For example, smoking's unhealthy, but it doesn't make you fat. It just gives you cancer. SJ ^Debaser 13:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at that poll and of the four questions asked I would have answered no to two of them. In fact "ate healthy all day yesterday" is actually kind of subjective. I would say no because I would fixate on the fact I ate a cookie and had a couple of coffees. To me eating healthy for a whole day would mean nothing but water, salad, fruit, mung beans, and lean grilled meat and I never do that. I suspect other people would overlook mountains of shit they ate and still say they were healthy. - π 13:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't eat healthily at all, but I'm as thin as a twig. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not alleging anything at you but nobody could say that anorexics have healthy eating patterns.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken doesn't merit all this consideration

Is there really so little else going on at CP? --Leotardo (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He's literally the only show in town my friend. We should switch hobbies. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides, I need something to do whilst my clown porn downloads. Yes, I have refined tastes. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 15:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if clown porn actually exists? I can't google it at work just because I would be mortified to be called into HR over such a search. If Ken is the only game in town, I will definitely have to find another hobby. --Leotardo (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. So, apparently, does midget lesbian nun porn. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 16:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh - they aren't even hot clowns. That felt weird to type that. --Leotardo (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing I really don't want to click on that link. Am I right? DickTurpis (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Clown porn possibly has its legit uses Him (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would believe clown porn exists (not clicking until I'm home). Back in the early noughts I went to a fashion show and part of the show had topless women in panties and heels vacuuming. When I uploaded them to Flickr I wanted to place them, as well as all my photos, in an image theme group so I searched for nudity and vacuums. I was surprised at how many groups of men there were on Flickr who were aficionados of photos of women cleaning naked. So, if you can think of it, there are groups of people who are into it. --Leotardo (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Links or it didn't happen. P-Foster (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] --Leotardo (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FLICKR WOULDN'T LET ME SEE THE FUCKING PICTURES, ASSHOLE. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't you only need to log in? --Leotardo (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Group membership. P-Foster (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The scientific term is Quantum Fetish Mechanics. --Kels (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WTF Andy?

Why do you need this redirect^img? P-Foster (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He's got in to the scotch again. Someone stop him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia - now officially supporting ileetaraysie! --Ullhateme (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The redirect doesn't even work right, since it's a double redirect. You'd think that Andy would know how redirects work by now, but no. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick! Someone get their sock out and create a redirect from "Republicanrs". Andy can't possibly question it because it's only logical. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be "Republicanus". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Further investigation reveals a bizarre timeline:

18:59 - Andy mis-spells Democrats on the main page. It produces a redlink.

18:59 - Andy notices this and fixes the spelling.

19:01 - Andy creates the redirect for his mis-spelling anyway.

So, after at least a minute of consideration, Andy decided to create the redirect, just in case he makes the same mis-spelling in the future? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, although given that MediaWiki rounds the minutes it may have been that he saw the redlink and opened it in a new Firefox window (I believe that's his browser of choice because it has a spelling checker) so it might have been that just took him a minute to swap tabs, create the redirect, and maybe preview it before hitting enter to commit the change. I can't see him sitting there motionless for whole minute thinking "Should I make a redirect for this? Eeny, meeny, miny, mo"..." Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just surprising they used the legal name on their propaganda blog instead of "Democrat Party". I really don't get why wingnuts think saying Democrat Party is such a slight; I don't know anyone who cares if they say Democrat or Democratic. --Leotardo (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A parodist once did that but Andy reverted and banned him. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Research first Andy

Google's current CEO is stepping down and into a different role in the company; Andy uses this story to state^img that Google has lost its most visited website ranking because of its liberalism. Of course the cited page makes no such claim, and Alexa shows Google still #1 in both American and the world. Conservapedia by contrast is #16,147 in the US and #60,016 in the world; the site is growing rapidly, no doubt due to its "true" conservative values and commitment to academic freedom. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Put it to WIGO and in article on Andy. --Max Sterling (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to alexa.com: "Visitors to Conservapedia.com spend about 41 seconds on each pageview and a total of three minutes on the site during each visit." Clearly the Conservapedia readership consists entirely of speed-reading autodidacts. Mr. Swift (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect some of that might be bots, not just our click bots, crawlers, indexing bots, and the such. - π 11:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess he means this story (though they apparently only counted US visits). Of course, Facebook isn't exactly a conservative site in Andyland, either, if I recall correctly... --Sid (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't appreciate anything that's popular or fun as being conservative. Which makes the impending victory of Conservatism that little bit more doubtful. Röstigraben (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Does he really believe the stuff he says? It's like he thinks Google started out as a SeekFind.com--"God-honoring, biblically based, and theologically sound Christian search engine results"--and once Google became No. 1 in the world, they suddenly switched to liberal atheism and started plummeting in users. BTW, SeekFind.com is ranked by Alexa as 1,416,350. --Leotardo (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a parked domain, what did you expect? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you meant seekfind.org? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Compare that to RW, which is current up as 98,030 in the world and 32,709 in the US and visitors spend an average of 6 minutes on the site. Which isn't half bad for a site that hasn't tried to whore itself out with SEO and has only a very narrow scope... Just sayin'. ^sshole 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, on every stat by "rank" RW compares favourably, if not does a little better. ^sshole 20:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CP - as classy as ever

1 Sep 2008 - Editor (quite likely a parodist) mentions Helen Mirren's date rape in the Hollywood values^img clusterfuck, and basically says she deserved it, due to her lifestyle choices.

Despite many, many subsequent edits by Andy and Japtt in particular, this is allowed to remain, untouched until 21 Jan 2011,^img when some, soon-to-be-blocked editor finally removes it. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Heresy!

Uncle Ed reveals himself to be an atheist liberal commie traitor^img with his stance on classroom prayer. That's exactly what everyone has been telling Andy, without success. Is he about to be on the receiving end of a vicious godspeeding? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, his eloquent one-sided "debate" arguing that he should be able to use the word "nigger"^img has probably won him some brownie points. --Leotardo (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the CP:Classroom prayer article^img I came across this sentence: "Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the First Amendment (the relevant part of the Constitution)." This completely contradicts Andy Schlafly with his U.S. Senator recall nonsense, since he is using a letter from Washington to his nephew to say that words not found in the Constitution are implied, and Washington said-so to his nephew. --Leotardo (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're making two cardinal mistakes here: looking for consistency from a lawyer, and looking for consistency from Andy Schalfly. DickTurpis (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Times A Charm?

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik faces a recall. It might work if Andy stays the hell away.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Screw the polls

CP knows the real ranking of the potential Republican candidates for President.^img

If someone can come up with a good WIGO-worthy phrasing for that, go right ahead. MDB (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to even begin to comprehend the delusions of grandeur Andy suffers from these days. He honestly thinks he is discovering things and revealing untold secrets. - π 11:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Added capture tags so I can see it. I'm in 403 land again today. Hateboy (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, poll numbers don't mean anything when we're almost a year away from the first primary and the suspected major contenders haven't even declared whether or not they'll run. And he has Palin ranked lower than most of her drooling fans at the right-wing fringe do, that's an assessment where he's more in line with serious analysts and forecasters. Röstigraben (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That Presidential ranking is one of my pet things to watch. Andy does the Republicans, and Rob does the Democrats. According to Rob, Mike Gravel will be the 2012 Democratic nominee. If you look at the Republicans it's easy to figure out who Andy likes: Jeb Bush, who is the only one whose positives vastly outnumber his negatives. --Leotardo (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob admitted that his Democratic rankings are bullshit and used for disinformation and propaganda (though, since no one reads his shit but us you have to wonder who he thinks he's fooling). Andy's aren't supposed to reflect the current polls but are supposed to predict the situation in 2012, and in that sense his elevation of some underdogs isn't so preposterous, though his touting them as something real and official, not just his own musings, is. Palin's rank on Andy's list is probably a better indication of her standing in 2012 than her current tied for first rank. It's clear that he's also trumpeting his personal favorites, such as Rubio and Paul, despite the fact they'd have to start running with less than a year of experience in the Senate, which is less than a third of what Obama had and he was considered unqualified by Andy and company. Also, the Rand Paul ideology has rather limited appeal (Nate Silver once said there were only about 3 or 4 states that would potentially elect him, though Kentucky was one - not that Silver's word is infallible). DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did Rob admit that his rankings are bullshit? We discussed his rankings and he never indicated that. --Leotardo (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit here he comes out and says it. This whole forum, or parts of it, get into it more, though the conversation goes off on all sorts of things. The long and short of it is that when I challenged Rob to a 10 to 1 odds bet that none of the people he lists as being more likely than Obama to be the candidate actually beats him in the primary, he admitted Obama probably wouldn't face a serious challenger (let alone lose to one) but has decided to keep his rankings as is anyway. That is, until he comes along and changes his story again. DickTurpis (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reading Rob's words the same way you are, though granted he's not always coherent. I read what he wrote to mean that he is following the news where people like Ed Rendell and Dan Rather are predicting that there will be a challenger from the left (I don't know if that is true that they are predicting that) and he was tongue-in-cheek implying that they are the disinformation agents. Granted, those words don't rationalize why he is accepting their analysis, and CP:Presidential candidates is not watched by anyone but us, as you mention. Why would anyone take seriously a ranking that has Mike Gravel prevailing over Obama. --Leotardo (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That explanation might makes sense except that Rob's ranking have nothing to do with what Rather or Rendell are saying; they're 100% Rob, so he is the disinformation agent. Besides, why would the liberal media try to make Obama seem vulnerable? Admittedly, Rob is a complete idiot so he might well think anything. At one point he used a satirical prediction of events of 2011 as proof that Russ Feingold had already declared his candidacy (next Fall). DickTurpis (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that quote from Rob. Wow, so he finally admitted that CP is nothing more than a propaganda and disinformation tool - which is inconsequential because they're too incompetent and obscure to fool anyone, but still. We've got a confession that CP will actually publish information it knows to be false and sees itself in the tradition of Nixonian sleaze and manipulation - that's a rather striking statement for someone from the "trusworthy encyclopedia". Röstigraben (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The baited trap

I just received this amusing bit of spam, and it struck me. Could there be a scam more tailor-made to entrap our very own attention-hungry Google obsessive, Ken

? --Kels (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot reasonably deny I have been paid a respectable wage for my google rankings! If your atheist site wasn't so poorly written unlike my hilarious essays, you might have been paid too. But unfortunately you're obese! Ole! Ole! Ole! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So who would put their knighthood as part of their email address, let alone have to add a number to differentiate it from all the other sir.richardscholes@gmail.com? And using my Times World Atlas I notice that Altrincham, Cheshire is not actually part of London.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine had a different name and contact info on it, so I assume the scammers switch it around from time to time. At least mine had a gmail address. --Kels (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I call a Ken boycott

First, look here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative&diff=842768&oldid=842755^img. The guy doesn't sleep, just look at his edits. Ken is clearly insane. I used to feel bad for him but ever since the army thing I just hate his entire waste of existence. After this, I propose a Ken boycott. No one reply to this thread. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few of us are already boycotting Ken WIGOs and voting them down. It would be great if Ken threads stopped, too. --Leotardo (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that... Senator Harrison (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is called Operation Nobody Gives A Flying Fuck. - π 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we all using small text? ~SuperHamster Talk 04:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, this again? If you scroll up the page a little bit, you'll see that a lot of people here obviously enjoy following Ken's psychotic exercises. Every few weeks there's someone in here saying "Let's boycott X! Downvote all X wigos! No more threads on X!". Does it ever work?
I have a suggestion. How about you boycott Ken and leave the rest of us to enjoy his over-the-top lunacy? 121.216.129.229 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He'd going to do the same crap whether we pay attention to him or not, so why not bring a little joy into his dreary little world? --Kels (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He craps even more if we pay attention to him, which damages CP even more. It'll be nice when primary season comes around to see if one of Andy's favourites, or at least one of their campaign staff, will go on the record saying a CP endorsement is a liability. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Iscariot's argument is persuasive. The Ken Ban is Dead Long Live the Ken Ban. --Leotardo (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC) On the other hand, it could be argued that the more we ignore him, the crazier he craps to get our attention. Just sayin'

I don't know if it really matters; he has effectively killed CP anyway, look at what the main page left has become. I don't vote on Ken WIGO's personally, but I do occasional note something he did if its particularly lutz worthy, above and beyond normal Ken. ^{— Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs}

I would like everyone to kindly ignore his latest troll attempt as it an obvious "look at me article" in the hope of getting more popular atheist blogs to link in. - π 11:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kenularity

Well then we ought to shut this whole page down then. There is literally nobody else contributing to the project in the last little while. P-Foster (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken will continue to soil Conservapedia like a month-old Pampers whether we comment here or not.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What on earth will he do if when CP ceases to exist? Webbtje (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

CP closing means Andy admitting defeat, which means it will not happen. SJ ^Debaser 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He's PJR's problem then. Vulpius (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Baaaah, I didn't mean to piss a few of you off. Sorry if I did. I'll keep my special hatred of Ken to myself then. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hating Ken is like hating your neighbor's retarded kid for leaving the blinds open when makes fingerpainting on his walls in shit whilst naked and furiously masturbating. There's obviously something profoundly wrong with him. I admit it's like turning one's head away from a train wreck as it happens, but what do they always say? You don't have to watch if you don't want to. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's about the best description of Ken's intellect I've heard. DickTurpis (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly wish that Andy would actually care enough to notice Conservative and take some type of action. He seems to be getting more and more crazy as the weeks go by. I'm not a fan of CP in the least but conservative makes his whole site look like a total joke. Even if one was a Teabagger they wouldn't be that interested in editing it. His latest seems to be to link Atheism and NAMBLA and knowing his history he is going to find a way to link PZ Myers to it. Quazywabbit (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not too likely. It's one thing to call PZM a fatty, it would be another to link him to that sort of thing (can you say "lawsuit?" I knew you could...). Instead, he'll link the safely departed to the good folks at Nambla. See the section below on the links between Keynes and the group. P-Foster (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah, why would he fear a lawsuit when NOBODY KNOWS WHO HE IS! Such an INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY would be immune from service, they'd never find him! NO ONE EVEN KNOWS IF HE'S MALE OR FEMALE, THAT CUNNING ROGUE! --Kels (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Ken borked

RC?????--Pytram (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that happens all the time. We don't know why. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither does Andy, and it's not like he can turn to User 188 for help. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

judging by what they did last time this happened, it might be that they're completely out of disk space. There was a big spate of deleting images after the last fuck up. Just a guess though. If anyone were so inclined and had an active sock, now would be a great time for some exciting wandalism though :D --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

With RC down redirect random vandalism would be hell to revert. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed's "Dihydrogen monoxide" article--did anyone ever screen cap it?

We have a link to the "dihydrogen monoxide" article in our own water article, but the page has been deleted. Is there a screencap lying around we could use in its place? P-Foster (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry, Ken deleted it, so it's going to be restored/deleted at least another 6 times before he makes up his mind what to do with it. SJ ^Debaser 17:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Check Google Cache - there are fairly recent versions of the article and its talk page. --Sid (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk still exists at least.^img --Sid (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I got another minute.^img --Sid (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've known about it for quite a while, but never bothered to capture it. The article itself is really not interesting—the standard stuff that 6th-graders (and Fox News "environmental" correspondents like Steven Milloy) (and Ed, of course) find amusing. What's interesting in this case is the way CP folks get themselves into a lather over whether it should shouldn't should shouldn't should be deleted. Gauss (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The best part was Ed's edit comments in the history. That's probably gone forever. I should have got a screenshot when I could. Damn, it almost almost feels like I've been outwitted by Ken. I guess the fact that the whole thing is meaningless to me but obviously important to Ken means that isn't the case though. DickTurpis (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sid!!! P-Foster (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Google still has some of that chat here^img CS Miller (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be emphasized that if you see something amusing at CP always screencap it and save it on your PC. Capturebot may not always be quick enough before some jerk decides to memoryhole. Silly twit (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's...it's...still here!

I can honestly say that I am amazed that CP is still up and running. I haven't been reading the WIGO all that frequently because, quite frankly, 2010 was a mostly boring year as far as CP was concerned. However, I was fully expecting that one day Andy would just get bored or perhaps even show a glimmer of awareness of his place in the world and pull the plug on his sad little project. After all, it's been reduced to the same small handful of contributors following the same pattern of denial news cycle after news cycle. Yet, somehow, the stupidity goes on. So, here's what I'm wondering: how long, realistically, will CP exist? When will we finally get to see Andy's "thing on the Internet" reduced to those three sad little numerals, "404"? I'm curious to hear what you all think. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps when Mr. Schlafly is rendered incapable of subsidizing it, whehter by death, (slightly more obvious) dementia, or some other cause; perhaps if TK brings his long-running sabotage project to fruition. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

EC. Fuck, Tetronian. You've been around here long enough not to ask a question like that. I mean, how many "CP is really dead this time" threads have we had here since 2007? CP will be around for as long as Andy is a self-righteous windbag with too much time on his hand and enough bread to pay for the server space. It's like herpes. We have it forever. P-Foster (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't seriously expect him to get common sense. I just expect him to get bored and move on to something else. But I guess not. And yes, I realize we've had a bajillion of discussions like these, but, I mean, it's 2011 now! He's still going through the same daily routine as if CP is his retirement plan. Ah well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The essential difference now is that Andy no longer makes any pretence at CP being an encyclopedia. It's a communal blog. Silly twit (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that CP is about two sysops away from being shut down. JPatt and RobS are the ones most on the endangered list by my count. The moment those two decide that CP is too boring to worth hanging out at, CP will be left with no one competent to clean up the wandalism. Whether Andy'll shutter it, or perma-lock it so that just Kendoll can edit, at that point CP will be life extinct. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You forget one thing - as long as the Fab Five - and Rob & Jpatt in particular - have Obama to bitch about, they'll keep MPR ticking over. You might find that once the GOP have a nice, safe, capitalist whitey in the White House, there'll be no need for their frothing at the mouth and they might drift away. After all, these people, Kara especially, aren't happy unless they have something to be unhappy about. The true test will be whether or not Terry returns after his is sorted out. If anybody knows when to leave a sinking ship, it's our Terry. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Tetronian brings up a good point though; it's 2011 and there's still no flying cars. SJ ^Debaser 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Functionally, CP is dead. They don't generate any new encyclopedic content and don't attract new editors. It's still persisting in a purely vegetative state, but it's not "alive" in the full meaning of the word. It's not a community of people who cooperate on something, it's just a small gang of privileged members, each of whom pursue their own little projects but don't interact much. Ken keeps producing nothing but crap, and Douglas is slowly, but steadily erasing all of the actual substance. CP can linger on indefinitely, but that doesn't mean they haven't already died as a functioning online community. Röstigraben (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's alive in the same sense that Lenin was alive when all those people used to file past his embalmed body. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that no-one laughed at Lenin's corpse. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not openly. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)