Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive218

This is an archive page, last updated 1 February 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>, <217>, <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)

Has Ken's talk page always been protected?

I notice he protected it after he recreated it. But has it always been protected? Mr. Swift (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares, buddy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oldtimers, such as myself, have long noted User:C's penchant for not talking. 05:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I actually do care. His earliest edit comments upon locking the page are disjointed and fortell his decline into madness. I feel so sad for that man. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 06:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't. Ken may be one of the most dillusional and nonsensical people ever to roam this planet, but he is also a complete and utter asshole, in my opinion. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 10:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dillusional? The meaning of this word illudes me. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's when you're not very good at pulling of illusions. SJ ^Debaser 11:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's dillightful! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't say "always", but I've noticed, over a fairly long time (several months at least) that he protects (and frequently burns down, of course) his user page, talk page, and most things he works shits on. He also doesn't have email enabled. This means the only way people can talk to him is on main-page-talk (hence all the complaining about peanut butter a few months back) or Andy's talk page. Or, lately, he's taken over JPatt's talk page. He also typically makes article talk pages that people might want to use into redirects to the (locked) article page, or sometimes some other (locked) page, like one of his peanut butter / obesity "essays". For an attention whore like that, who likes the "red telephone" so much, he sure knows how to make communication difficult.

Speaking of which, I haven't yet gotten a personal "shout out" from him, while most of the important RW people have. Come on, Ken. Talk to me! Gauss (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've posted a lot of shit about the guy, and he never shows me any love either. P-Foster (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We're forgetting somebody...

I know Ken's been hogging the headlines with his general weirdness, but we shouldn't overlook everybody's favourite creepy uncle and his ongoing attempts to create a trustworthy encyclopaedia. Let's go back in time and review some of the greatest hits of the man who gave us the seminal "Two meters."

Ladies and gentlemen, I present for your viewing pleasure, Bad Touch Poor and his illuminating, educational entry on the Platypus.^img --Ψ Gremlin講話 09:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. He's trying to create an encyclopedia that is "trusworthy" no "trustworthy." Trus me, there is s difference. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 10:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's actually funnier than anything that Ken has ever posted (which was intended to be funny). Silly twit (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic of Bad Touch, can I just say that this edit he made to his WP user page genuinely made me LOL. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh, that is classic Ed. Got to appreciate his honesty. I wonder if Ed has ever read an encyclopedia? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's comedy gold. He makes an edit to complain about the standard of writing but in so doing he negates the sense of his original point. What delicious irony. It's not wonder that proofreading at CP is so Poor. For a long time now RW has been the main proofreader for CP. Although Ed criticises the writing at WP, the standard of English at CP is actually quite abysmal. Ken can spell but he can't write, Rob can neither spell nor write, TK had his own idiosyncrasies but was not much of writer, JPratt has no comprehension skills, Karajou doesn't write he just copies from other sources and Andy thinks that he can write but without his Firefox spelling checker he flounders. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What's really scary is that Ed probably sincerely believes what he writes is true. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 12:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Honesty? Did you read the previous edit? "Wikipedians stopped being as interested in unbiased descriptions of controversies as I am". Sure, Ed. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Call me Uncle" Ed spends a lot of time butthurt over there about how they don't follow POV (ie., not putting non-science on equal terms with actual science) and his various defeats when he's crossed the line doing so. So he whines and whines, but nobody except like-minded cranks pay him much mind. Which generally results in him going back to CP and lording his User #188 "status" over everyone and taking it out on some random editor. Pity he has far fewer targets these days. --Kels (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He'd have more targets if our dearest uncle hadn't come up with his own, unique view of handling unban negotiations: "Admit your guilt, apologize to the guy who blocked you, submit a writing plan, and accept that bans on CP are not punishment... then we might place you under indefinite parole." --Sid (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While we're waxing nostalgic about some of Ed's old edits, I was tempted to remember a personal old favorite of mine, the final sentence of this article^img in which Ed uses no less than 8 prepositional phrases. A parodist soon got it up to 14^img. That, my friends, is writing. DickTurpis (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's spectacular. I may bookmark that diff. AlexR4444 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll sinks yet lower

He's now promoting his own forum spam^img as a major victory for CP. I'm wondering if he's starting to be unable to distinguish between his various fantasy personas and reality. Huge conversations about how awesome he is with people who aren't listening, promoting his obvious alter egos' praise for his greatness, fantasies about jobs he almost certainly doesn't have, etc. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, I've just posted the same thing below. That's definitely your fault. Somehow.AlexR4444 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy & Hollywood

I see Andypants is working himself into a fine old lather over Hollywood again and indulging in some wonderful liberal namecalling while he's at it - moronic "stars"; "silly, self-congratulatory prize"; liberal actors. I also notice that he didn't do his usual "oh, they gave the Oscars to liberals!" rant last year, so I'm guessing we're going to be in for a bumper crop this year.

I'd like to know just what has stepped on his crazy toes this time tho - it seems to be the whole Ricky Gervaise thingy (btw, am I the only person who thinks The Office was pure, unadulterated and unfunny crap?). Still, nice to see Andy's finally thrown away any pretence at being encyclopaedic... Golden Globes are silly and for some strange reason, the fact that they're held in the Beverley Hills Hotel makes them even more silly. And not a citation in sight, because Brother Leader has spoken. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 09:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If only he weren't so half-assed about developing his own alternatives, some parodist might be able to goad him into setting up the Conservacademy Awards. But as it is, it would quickly founder like the Conservamath Medal (which was, of course, not the least bit silly). Röstigraben (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've ever read the Encylopedia Britannica or opened a holy Bible, you would already know that Beverly Hills is indeed a very silly place. --Etc 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And here I was thinking it was Camelot... Sad part is, given CP's lockdown, we'll never get to know just why the Beverley Hills Hotel is silly. Given how his grudges develop, he probably can't afford to stay there. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 11:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know how many Conservapedia awards have been announced with appropriate fanfares and have then sunk without trace? I seem to remember that Richard Dawkins was recently nominated something like "Atheist Idiot of the Year" (can't find it now), and that I was really disappointed to find that previous recipients of this prestigious accolade were not listed. (As for Ricky Gervais, I don't mind The Office, but think The Smoking Room infinitely superior.) Tylersboy (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Infinitely?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - finite element of hyperbole there. Tylersboy (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit touchy today - after Andy Coulson resigned because he "could no longer give 110% to his job".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem: you were quite right to point it out, and I've been put down a lot less gently than that this week! Tylersboy (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of awards

While we're talking defunct awards, let's not forget this clusterfuck^img from Mr I've-got-a-certificate-in-Photoshop Geo.Plrd. Still dying to know who won the Conservapedia Medal for Dentistry. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 11:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'd not seen it before. Has the look of the most inspired parody, but must, I suppose, be genuine. I now have a vision of diehard Conservapedians printing the pretty pictures, cutting them out, and affixing them to their rompers and/or cardigans with safety pins. Tylersboy (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Conservapedia: Contest^img page is pretty awesome too: it has a special category for "WWII European Theater/Nazi History". Tylersboy (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I had never seen that page before. Had to laugh at TK judging Psychology and Ed Computers. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't fancy the Moses Award: the prize appears to be GBH from a bearded lunatic wielding a tea tray. Tylersboy (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not know that!

...I really did not.^img Thanks, Conservative, for that valuable bit of information. I will, thanks to your latest intervention, re-think my position on the role of the state in economic development. P-Foster (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You have peaked my curiosity in just who the hell the cited Zygmund Dobbs was. --86.45.14.184 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It was Archibald B. Roosevelt. Or not. There's a whole debate about it apparently. It's still a pretty funny article though. --Danfly (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Again: mental - just mental. Is it me or is the bullshit per sentence rate rocketing through the roof with Ken? --Ullhateme (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is spelled "piqued."

Zygmund Dobbs was hired by Archibald B. Roosevelt as a "research director" to try and root out Reds and "Fabian socialists," especially at Harvard. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently "statistician" is now an insult. Not that this is a surprise or anything. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Ken still doesn't know how to do named refs. Silly twit (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Listener. Is his background discussed in any historical texts that you might know of? I'd be interested in finding out more (and I've found the 'Keynes at Harvard' website bio and forum discussions already). I might start a wikipedia article if I can get the citations. --Danfly (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides that site, the only thing I remember (vaguely) is some propaganda from the John Birch Society recommending Dobbs's books as evidence that the Big Evil Conspiracy (when they were calling it a communist conspiracy) had taken over the U.S. top to bottom. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*covers eyes, ears*

So, CP and its editors love to boast that global warming is false, as evidenced by recent snowfall, etc. But several news and government sources note that global temperatures have been rather high this year, indeed, among or even attaining the highest (NOAA). I keep waiting, but I have yet to see any mention of this on CP as the latest made-up scientific evidence for AGW. Are they afraid or just closed-minded? ScientificRigor (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they're afraid, just sure as hell stubborn. Andy is convinced that he is never wrong. If water came gushing through Andy's door, he'd probably just duct tape his door shut and post on Conservapedia, "Look! In Argentina, it's 2 degrees! Global warming? Pah!" ~SuperHamster Talk 21:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

They're afraid. They're all cowards, see Andy offering to debate any 'liberal' and then fast backing down when he realised someone would call him on it. That's why he'll never run for Congress again, other candidates would murder him in the debates. Prove me wrong Andy. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love nothing more than to see Andy run for Congress. I can only imagine his opponents quoting his comments on Conservapedia endlessly. Kendoll would have to delete just about every page Andy ever made a comment on. That would be epic. DickTurpis (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It'll never happen, Andy's too much of an intellectual flyweight without a spine to go for another run. For all his claims of America being conservative and the majority supporting his views, deep down he knows that he's talking rubbish. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I know. But it would still be awesome. DickTurpis (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there's a way to get someone into a primary without telling them... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting Andy to run for office would be awesome. Nowadays there would be so much public record of his stupidity. Has anybody ever researched his previous attempt? Silly twit (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It'll never happen. If anything, the Bible Prpject has made this guy a pariah for anyone but the real fringe. He'd have to look to the right of Joseph Farrah for a base. Also, Silly Twit, we did, a bit. The footnotes might be helpful. P-Foster (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for some newspaper coverage of his campaign. :( Silly twit (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Delusions of popularity

I know that there's a "don't feed the troll" thing going on with Conservative/Ken (sorry, don't know how to do his moniker thing properly), but this is confusing for me:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageleft&action=historysubmit&diff=843371&oldid=843362^img

Surely Andy has to stop him from linking to this thread when every comment following that quoted says "lol no", INCLUDING THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY POSTED THE QUESTION! Oh wait, Andy also has delusions of grandeur (side note: is that an idiom now?), so won't do anything. I do not understand these people. If I had to selectively quote people just to make myself look even slightly reasonable, I'd notice, and I'd feel shitty. CP just seem to carry on as normal. Can anyone explain?AlexR4444 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically, obvious Kendoll sockpuppet is obvious. New user turns up at forums with a bogus story and a link to a Kendoll article. It's the Kendoll MO. Note for your future spamming though. The Richard Dawkins forums were shut down and removed months ago. It's best not to claim you found out about your shit from there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can look at a conversation and think "that one comment putting me/my position in a better-than-terrible light, amongst a horde of negative comments, I'll quote and link that". Surely there's some part of him that's saying "you know, everyone else disagrees with you. Address that instead of skipping over them"?

AlexR4444 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

JeevesMkII, it can't be a Ken sock. If it was his sock, why aren't there any "Post last Edited by Kendoll at xx:xx, edited 27 times in total" posted in his message?! Mr. Swift (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I may be a bit slow here, but... do you (Jeeves) think I'm Conservative? I'm not. For one thing, I'd like to think I am a much better writer than Kendoll, and for another, I previewed my comments.AlexR4444 (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IAmTheCross is demonstrates all the characteristics of a Ken sock except the writing. He is new to the forum, post one of Ken's articles, but the naive acting and coherent sentences does stray a little from Ken's usual posts. Also Ken usually post under false names that appear to be real, taking the surname often from other CP users (Jensen, Moore for example). The guy is obviously a Christian from the name (serious fuck up actually), I suspect he is on of Ken's "friends", a blogger or vlogger he does this shit with, one of those guys he gets to write posts for him so he can post them in his articles as "facts". - π 02:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus, that was posted in mid-November. He could've waited two months to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry, but I don't think he has that kind of patience. Röstigraben (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pi. That post wasn't written by Ken - it uses pronouns and it doesn't fit in with his naming convention. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt whether it is Ken. User asks is the accusation is true; Ken would be more "in regards to Richard Dawkins debating creationists, it seems this article implies that he does not in regards to debating creationists. After he lost to Rabbi Shulman (or whoever) this article implies he does not debate in regards to creationists." Likewise, IATC's second post basically backs down, saying should they just ignore the article, with no links. Ken would have link-bombed that place to death. However, I remember Ken once asking a certain "dear, sweet Christian girl" if she had Christian friends who weren't known on atheist and religious forums - this was around the time of Operation Flying Fortress (olé! olé! olé!). It might be another of those, although Ken is too much of an attention whore to have let that stand for 2 months. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 11:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing insight. When's dinner ready? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised there were so many Yoda avatars on the Atheist forum - every one knows that Star Trek was based upon rationality and Star Wars was based upon magic and religion. Perhaps they just aren't very bright; one of the Yodas wrote about the Richard Dawkins CP page, "It's just clever enough to have some people believe it, but the truth value of the site is quite low." Maybe for a 12 year old. --Leotardo (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Conservapedia's" letters

I see that following Conservative's 'open letter' to señor Ricardo Dawkins we can also expect open letters to the British Humanist Society and open letters to the Royal Society^img. I for one cannot wait to see if these open letters are the same regurgitated pablum or whether Conservative can actually write something new with something different concerning open letters to atheists. I expect that I will be cruelly disappointed by his predictability in regards to Conservative's regurgitation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Open letters are poinltess as it's just him banging on as usual - does he really think any of these people read Conservapedia? He needs to send them a letter and publish any reply as Andy did with Lenski. Then we'll have some real fun. StarFish (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Are open letters like C and U? As opposed to closed letters like O and Q. I guess R could be called half-open or half-closed? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A letter is open, if for any given point $x$ in the letter and a metric $M$, there exists a real number $\varepsilon >0$, that for any given point $y$ such that $M(x,y)<\varepsilon$ is also in the letter. - π 13:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting a headache from this over here. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But is the letter-space metrizable in the first place? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's beyond our kern.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to settle this once and for all with a new article: Essay:Quantifying Open-Letteredness ^{ONE / TALK} 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

At least R is an open and shut case. And A, come to think of it. Tylersboy (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What bout I? It isn't really either one. «-Bfa-» 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Topologically, there're only I, P, and B. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So is R a B that was wounded in war (defending it's great country of Latinia of course) - or a B possesed by a demon? --Ullhateme (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mummy, Rationalwiki's being weird again. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Ken, rule number one, letters are signed. See Andy's hilarious missives to Lenski and Moo. Go put the names of one of your aliases at the bottom. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken is letting his targets know about these letters? I'm certain that they'd swiftly respond upon seeing the the digital village idiot has penned yet another masterwork on his blog. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Having spent a day working on the letter, he's deleted it and delinked^img it from MPL on the grounds that "he/she did ask legitimate questions, but it does appear to be faked attempt at being naive and trolling".

Failing troll has failed. I wonder if this was the pièce de résistance he was ranting about on various victims' talk pages the other day? Seems like he's been planning it since last November. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone grab the history? A certain webcache starting with 'LP' has the document but not the history; I've cached the cache. CS Miller (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What Ken announces and what he ends up doing are pretty much never related. --Sid (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No longer popular

I haven't seen the change from Popular Articles to Important Articles^img mentioned anywhere. Given the importance that Andy, Ken and Ed attach to Google rankings are we sure DouglasA isn't a parodist?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think we're pretty sure he is a parodist. --Benod (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)\

How can it be parody if Andy doesn't spot it as such, but actually embraces DouglasA as doing a good job for Conservapedia? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Andy not spotting it" is one of the defining characteristics of parody these days. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with parody is, we wuz lucky. In the old days, you could go along, parrot Andy, agree with everything he says, copy/paste some shit and then merrily block editors. Nowadays, the bar has been raised so high, that you need to out-crazy Ken's emissions and have those accepted by Andy. Plus the fact that just being an editor on CP is suspect these days. Anything less than that (besides deleting CP article by article) is a fail. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor at CP^{mały książe} feels very suspect. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Essay: Greatest Conservative Songs^img is definitely an important article. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gremlin is right - just a person expressing interest in editing there is immediately suspect. Anyone espousing their views is suspect. They only trust people who jump through many hoops - and who wants to go through all that to volunteer at a weirdo blog? So they only trust people they can vouch for personally, and that crowd ain't the types to have extensive friend networks. --Leotardo (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well they have supposedly a hundred or so 'friends' going for a walk with them today. How many are we thinking will consistently edit between now and next year's walk? I'm betting none. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's generous - they don't even exist now. These are kids from his class, his church, their friends, his little wingnut organizations. We know who edits, and not one of those people (in the photo on MP) are overweight late middle-aged men who have mobility, health and social problems. They know Mr. Schlafly has a website and they know he's going to put some photos on it. Will it bother them that they are used for the website's popularity propaganda? Probably not - they are mostly kids. --Leotardo (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure none of the people depicted in the photo have even so much as been to CP. To describe them as Conservapedians is a simple lie. Also, why are all these fresh faced kids even being dragged to stand in the freezing cold all day to protest abortion, when not one of them (one hopes, anyway) has even had sex or had to consider the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy? I'm sure their parents are exactly the same people who complain about sex education inappropriately sexualising kids at an early age, yet here they are voicing "their" opinion on a weighty sex-related issue.--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the false memes about Conservapedia is that it's worked on as a project for his homeschool kids. There's a YouTube commercial about it; still on the WP article; and the reason to continue the ruse of "class related announcements" on a site the members of the "largest homeschool class in the world™" never visit. The bus photos make it look like Conservapedia can deliver busloads of people to D.C. at the start of a work week. --Leotardo (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting analysis of Andy Schlafly

"...[t]he delusions that somebody is trying to control your mind, and also the bizarre delusion that somehow the government was trying to control his mind by grammar, that's what we call, at least to me, is a bizarre delusion. Almost no other condition do you have these kinds of symptoms on it, so that really within the first day of what I was listening to, you know, I've seen several hundred people with this disease and he just fit a textbook case [of schizophrenia]."[2]

Did I say Andy Schlafly? Oops, I meant Jared Loughner, but I couldn't help think of Andy when I heard that. The next time Andy rails on about how A is promoting B by changing the word Y for the synonymic word Z, I might just laugh a little less... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice grammar. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The next time Mr. Schlafly rails on about how A is promoting B by using the word Y instead of the "synonymous" word Z, the best approach wuld probably be to call him a politically-correct lib-burr-rul. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

I'm not even going to guess what crazy toe set Andy off on his anti-Facebook^img rant. Maybe nobody accepted his friend requests. Anyway, now that FB is officially on Andy's shit list, I look forward to loyal peons Ed Poor, Karajou, Jpatt all deleting their FB accounts. Btw, I'm upset - I've been on FB for years now and I still haven't interfered with any marriages and personal relationships. Is there a special page I'm supposed to like for that? --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 12:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Captain "Anecdotes equals evidence" Schlafly is probably referring to people who instigate affairs and such via Facebook, but the he should also add employment to the shit-list. I'm sure that plent of relationships are strained by busy jobs and relationships that emerge among co-workers. If Andy wasn't living on wingnut welfare he'd realize how destructive work can be. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How can a social network be anti-social? What's next? Will Andy make up his own online church and tell people normal churches are anti-social (the guy allready writes a bible, so...)? But seriously now, I know a few couples that were able to sustain a long distance realationships with sites like FB. It's the same thing like that "global warming is not true because it's cold today"-bullshit all over again - Average! Average! You idiot! --Ullhateme (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy must have some kind of personal grudge against Facebook, nothing else can explain that outburst. Perhaps Mrs Schlafly spends more time on Facebook than in kitchen. (Which would be extra ironic, considering the amount of time Andy spends on CP)Vulpius (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

These days, the targets of Andy's rage have become completely random. His hatred for Obama and the media is something that could be expected from a right-winger, but the most recent rants against Facebook, Hollywood, rock music, books (!) and so on are completely idiosyncratic and unprovoked. He'll just classify things as liberal or conservative according to the voices in his head and then proceed to bash the former relentlessly. We can spend hours trying to come up with a reason why he's locked on to Facebook now, but I don't think there is anything in particular about it - he just needs something to vent his anger at. Röstigraben (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood and rock music are long-time targets of social conservatives, too. The Facebook thing is puzzling (okay, yeah, it's a time-waster, but only in Andy's fantasy world is "time-wasting" a liberal value), and his hatred of books, especially coming from someone with a strong education who purports to be an educator, is just bizarre. And honestly, is there that big a dearth of conservative books? Pretty much any conservative with national TV or radio exposure has a book or three out, Tom Clancy is a hawk on defense and a general Republican supporter and anything with his name on it is a guaranteed best seller, Orson Scott Card is a major sci-fi author and a social ultra-conservative, etc etc etc. If there's anywhere in the media conservatives do well (beyond talk radio and Fox News), it's books. MDB (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the fact it's a capitalist enterprise, it would be difficult to argue that there's anything terribly conservative about Facebook, therefore it is ipso facto liberal. It's that easy. Keep in mind it is full of young people, who tend to be more liberal, and the fact that it does take up a lot of some people's time means that they are not using that time to read the Bible (as I'm sure all of the would be doing if they weren't on Facebook). Remember, this is Andy "Teetering on the Verge of Madness" Schlafly, and the only things worth reading in his view are the Bible and CP (preferably both). DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Waitaminnit... Facebook was started at Harvard. RW has speculated a lot about how part of Andy's hatred of Obama may be due to the fact Obama is a Harvard Law grad who did far better than fellow alumni Assfly. Perhaps this is another care of Andy being jealous of another Harvard person doing better than him. MDB (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What's new is that he used to discriminate between particular works of art and not just issue condemnations of whole artistic genres. He developed the lists of conservative songs and movies (or at least endorsed and contributed to them, I can't look it up right now). Older conservatives might have railed against rock music in general, but it's rather odd for someone born after 1960 to revert to that stance. Edit: and about the Harvard thing, wouldn't he have cheered for an outsider like Zuckerberg to stick it to the establishment elites if he resented their success? Ignoring the fact the he was born with a sizeable silver spoon himself, of course. Röstigraben (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We are making the mistake of looking for consistency from Andy. MDB (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Andy is a conservative someone claiming to embrace conservative values. He's not consistant...itive. --15.195.201.89 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC) ninja edit by 15.195.201.89 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because facebook already has a Conservapedia page which appears not to be owned by Conservapedia.

These arguments against Facebook are only meant to generate some kind of media reaction, like that anti-Facebook preacher Andy spammed on MPR who made headlines (and turned out to enjoy threesomes with his wife and male members of his congregation). Andy Schlafly is a media whore, so he'd sign up b/c there is no principle. What else can you expect from a man who argues, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people...but people don't cheat on their spouses, Facebook makes them cheat.' I bet now he shops this privately as his attempt to 'investigate' FB or something. --Leotardo (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The CP facebook page is overridden with liberals. But I'm sure theres another group with Andy actually in it! Pegasus (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, Andy. But please do keep up your efforts to deny the Religious Right a valuable organizational tool, even if it means that you'll have to write a lot of angry letters to all of these heretics. Röstigraben (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's objection to Facebook seem to be based on three things:

• People (especially students) waste time on it.
• It's been used to facilitate extramarital affairs.
• People are using it rather than CP.

Okay, one and two are valid objections, though Andy spins them all out of proportion. However, what he misses is that Facebook is just a new communications tool. One hundred and some years ago, Andy would have probably objected to that new "telephone" thing that allows people to make instantaneous contact with their illicit paramours. Twenty years ago, he would have griped that students spend time sending this "e-mail" stuff rather than studying his brilliant rebuttals to evolution. It's nothing more than a new way to communicate, and Andy, in typical conservative fashion, has decided "new" equals "bad". MDB (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the Pope has come out in support of social networks. Once more, Andy finds itself on a very lonely crusade, although that has never stopped him. Röstigraben (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get how Andy can call multi-billion dollar corporations like Google and Facebook "liberal". And how is The King's Speech "conservative" - it's a movie about "liberal atheist England".--75.23.47.32 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember, liberal means "everything Andy hates" on CP.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks no longer a terrorist threat

So sez Andy.^img My guess? They have stuff in them that makes Obama look bad. Therefore, they can't be all bad. P-Foster (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Like leaking his birth certificate? ROFL Pegasus (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who redirects a lot?

I'm hopeless at finding examples of stuff on CP, where should I go to find examples of " You shouldn't focus on this [glaring issue of incompetence] why don't you go research [this esoteric made up shit that supports my ideology]" I just got pretty much the same shit from the Australian Vaccination Network. --Opcn (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This? Not quite what I think you're looking for, but it's a personal favourite. EDIT: Tits. Who knows how to fix this? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That exactly! here is my discussion with the AVN --Opcn (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this "the" TK?

I was running through the back-and-forth comments between arguing Christians and atheists in the comments section of the CNN blog post "My Take: How Christians should rethink sex" (the blog post just caught my eye, okay?), and I found a guy named "TK" who made the following comment:

I find fundamentalist Christians among the most morally corrupt people I know. You know who you are: you're concerned with silliness like whether doing yoga will compromise your Christian values....but you're having an affair with a guy whose wife goes to your church. Somehow, being fixated on Jesus makes this okay in your universe. After all, Jesus will forgive you if you're saved, whatever that means...and you are somehow absolutely sure you are. The rest of us see through this nonsense and we wonder: what's with this insistence on righteousness? It isn't getting you anywhere. Why not try dealing directly with your demons?

Note that the comment says "fundamentalist Christians", not just "Christians". Terry ain't a fundamentalist, and is, of course, a parodist on Conservapedia. Could this be him? I'm guessing not. But I like to think so. Makes the internet seem like a smaller place, and re-assures me that the man is not dead. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that really looks like any real world person, "SuperHamster". Do you? You seem to share a liberal agenda that Terry Koeckritz is active all over the internet. Gosh! That I could be so active! You don't seem to deny that liberals are "among the most morally corrupt people I know" so I don't think this is the right place for you to be editing! Good luck on your wiki acknowledged to be a vandal site by an independent source! Godspeed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Terry to presently be without internet access. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll sinks even lower than before

I know, I know - the guy is mentally ill and we shouldn't acknowledge his trolling however this article makes no sense whatsoever.^img From what I can gather - some study says the religious have better self image, obese people have bad self esteem because they are obese, poor self esteem leads to suicide, non-religious have higher rates of suicide.
But it is all meaningless. Not one of these things relates to the other. Fucking weird man. Ace McAwesome 00:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Compared to his artical on Atheists and Pedophiles, this is actually tame.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I know, my "sinking lower" was in reference to his mental state. Ace McAwesome 00:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing I find interesting about Ken's 'atheism' articles is that the problem is always with atheists and not non-Christians. There's an implicit acknowledgment that the religion doesn't have to be the truth in order to give the benefits.

EC.Too bad he didn't read the University of Michigan (GO BLUE!!!!) study he quotes right to the end--to the part where it says that the researchers conclude that we should "refrain from asking the question of whether being overweight makes one worthless." P-Foster (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Preliminary studies" = "2 blog posts I found" lol. Pegasus (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I really want to know what Uncle Ed thinks of these essays in which Ken basically calls him a worthless fat sack of shit. (OK, in his case it's true, but still...) DickTurpis (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When God-believing conservative creationists are fat, it's okay^img, because that's sin, and sin is human nature. When atheistic evolutionists are fat, they are behaving contrary to their own logic. So Ed's good to go. P-Foster (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Justice's Speech

Scalia is going to address the Tea Party legislators.^img

I know Scalia is one of the Conserva-deities, probably sitting at the right hand of Reagan almighty, but if that was a liberal judge, speaking to the Congressional progressives, the right would be up in arms... MDB (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite literally.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As a (non practising) lawyer, I find it absolutely abhorrent that a Judge from the highest court of a country would go around making political speeches to anyone, let alone a legislative body and let alone have the speech entitled "separation of powers". I know Yanks do things a bit different over there with regards to the politicization of the justice system but this is beyond the pale. --Damo^Hi 06:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Any comments about this? Does anyone else agree with me that Judges should almost never make extra judicial comments, and should certainly never address the legislative? Should this be on a different page? --Damo^Hi 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, this section is halfway up the page. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but it wasn't so bad when I wrote the first time.--Damo^Hi 17:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not gonna link to it...

...but I think it's a little weird that CP is hosting pictures of Andy's students at the anti-abortion protest; when I worked with kids, the organization I worked for had pretty strict rules about not putting their likenesses online. P-Foster (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This one has some probably-atheist weirdo wearing black!!!!! Quick! Call the cops! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(from my duplicate thread}Jpatt puts up photos of Andy's imaginary army of Conservapedia editors^img. And that's just the New Jersey Conservapedia chapter! Three buses! Until RationalWiki can mobilize such armies of editors, we will never be the success that is CP. --Leotardo (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of particular short-sightedness is the line "Conservapedia image from March For Life '11 *Images that they can be freely used without any copyright restriction" -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 19:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a bus article?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just when I thought the main page would look half quarter respectable now that MPL doesn't have Ken's shit at the top and begins with a list of what they see as their better articles, Jpatt goes and fills the first screen up with his pictures he took on his mobile *sigh*. - π 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at that^img it looks almost normal now. - π 22:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the way your screen has to be about 1800 pixels across to fit all the images on without wrap. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, we now have an(other?) image of Andy^img that "can be freely used without any copyright restriction". Granted, the man still needs to learn how to smile for the camera, but it's a start... --Sid (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love his math: Each person equals 20 people. So in reality, there were "5 Million People" at a "True" March Against Freedom Of Life. I shit you not^img--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Doubtless a wonderful insight provided to him by one of the speakers. You really did make a difference by freezing your arse off out there, Assfly. This year the Republicans will decide it's going to be the year to kill their cash cow. This year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy never ceases to amaze me... +cap --Sid (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an accurate attendance count from an independent group yet? As much as I'd like to believe Andy and the organisers, they do have a history of spouting baseless propaganda. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

From the photo uploads it looks like Jpratt & Karajerk both attended. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy’s main page estimate that five million people are affected by the March is actually a downsizing of his previous claims. It would seem to be based on the WP observation that approximately 250,000 people have attended the March each year since 2003. The main CP entry^img claims that 400,000 attended in 2010, and that these huddled masses may be estimated to have influenced a further eight million people, and a projected 40 million if the attendance figure is replicated for a decade. As per usual, no source is offered for the assertion that one person influences twenty, nor does Andy take the possibility of negative impressions into account, nor yet the fact that each year veteran participants must find twenty new people to harangue. I can’t discover how many people are supposed to have gone this year, but the lamestream Washington Post did report it. Tylersboy (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The National Catholic Register says 100-200,000. The Daily American says 200,000. Of course CP is going with a bigger figure, but then This March is Growing Rapidly!!!!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So where there two marches in 2010^img? Don't forget to thank RationalWiki's proof-reading service when you correct it guys! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Got to agree with P-Foster. I can't believe Andy (the lawyer!) allowed photographs of his homeskoolers to be taken by an adult un-associated with their teaching, and then upload them to the internet. I wonder whether or not parental consent was obtained for that??? -- 11:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy has deleted two photos, one of which was the obvious "These are my homskollers on a bus" pic. The others don't obviously show "his" kids. It was Popeye and Pratti who did the uploads. But no, I wouldn't let those two take pictures of anything related to me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC 2x)Well Andy has since "reorder" the pictures^img, e.g, removed the ones that clearly showed the kids. Good on you Andy. - π 11:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

HA HA, picture in the upper right hand corner...its a troll.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Call me skeptical...

...but all we have is Andy's word that he shipped 3 busloads of people to Washington. (Remember how horrified he was that people were bussed in to the Rally for Sanity?). Even looking at the pictures, I see one of Andy and that's it. The rest are all random crowd shots. Where's the happy campers climbing on the busses? Where's the 'Conservapedia' banner? Where's the pictures?? Seriously, I think Andy and Johnny XRay went along and the buses are just another figment of Andy's imagination. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) There was a picture of happy homskollers on a bus, which doesn't prove it, but is at least partial evidence. That one has been deleted though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually with have these two incredibly dull boring^img<capture> <capture>pictures^img which show three buses. I don't think he lied about it - just stretched his definition of Conservapedian. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case "Conservapedian" is defined as a person associated with his church or the homeschooling network is he involved in. Other than himself (and perhaps JPatt) no actual CP editors were likely there as few as they are. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, "Conservapedian" is anyone within six degrees of separation from Andy. Today, we are all Conservapedians. --Leotardo (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As those pictures were uploaded without copyrights (as per the original licence on CP), I have copies if anyone needs to check them for elves or whatever. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was right by that pavilion at the March for Life wearing my "EAT MORE DELICIOUS BABIES" shirt but somehow I'm not in Andy's pictures? Riiiiight. Those aren't from this year dude. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

While technically they rented three buses---they only really needed two, according to Terry's Examiner article: "All the passengers had to transfer to the other two buses as the stricken bus limped home. Seats were available, and the transferees took nearly all of them."64.30.2.130 (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! In a single blow, Terry manages to show Andy "all three buses are full! We're taking over 200 'Conservapedians'" to be a lying skunk. Turns out it was barely 100 home-schoolers, family members and a priest or two. Article here, including yet another butt-ugly Andy snapsnot. PS Terry, unless Andy has multiple personalities, it's should just be 'activist and lawyer.' --Ψ GremlinTala! 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

On Jan. 24, 2011, Conservapedia filled a record 3 buses from a single location for the March for Life (Three buses from one location (other than a school) is a record for the Northeast, but there may be larger groups traveling from the Midwest.)

I love these qualified superlatives: the biggest inner harbour western of Chicago, the biggest man under 5 feet, the greatest baroque column hall north of the Alpes - the greatest idiot on Conservapedia (wait, that may be an absolute...) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Geography

My US geography is a bit dodgy (but then again, I want to see you filthy librulls point out Ekhertweebuffelsmeteenkoeelmorsdoodgeskietfontein on a map) but is Washington an easy drive from New Jersey? And isn't Jpatt in Ohio? Seems like a long way to go for a little day trip. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

New Jersey is not that far, Ohio would take a few more hours. Unfortunately I think in Australian distance where 1000km is "near" something. - π 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About 3 and a half hours (275 km) from the far side of New Jersey to Washington DC. Less distance than Vegas to the Grand Canyon which is all the driving I have done in the States. - π 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So Karajou made his way up from Tennessee and JPratt came from Ohio. Is Buffalo so far away that Ken couldn't make it as well? Or was he too busy writing articles about atheists and peanut butter to care about the abortion issue? What a shallow, self-serving little man he is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think even the other sysops have ever met Ken. In the old SDG files (not the newer ZB ones) I think there is a conversation about them not even being sure what his real name is. My guess is he remains an enigma even to them. - π 12:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I live just north of DC. Last time I drove to NJ (the NYC suburbs), it was about 3-4 hours, taking the route Andy probably took -- I-95/Jersey Turnpike. MDB (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The SDG file is Level_1\bc71204f541c6e18.html. All sorts of paranoia there. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I have never had the stomach to go through them properly. - π 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) What I'd still love to know is what the collective old-school sysops told Andy in order for him to sysop them within days of joining. Given their collective mental issues and lack of intelligence, Andy must have been desperate for sysops and saw in them just the kind of spineless sycophant he needed. --Ψ GremlinTal! 13:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a few. Ken promised good work on the evolution article, Ed did his "I'm user 188 and have vast technical knowledge of the software, but now I think that Wikipedia sucks" routine, TK copypasted lots of stuff into articles and at the same time started his "I know [well-known person Andy is bound to like]!" thing... plus a dose of his usual "You need to weed out the troublemakers and I can help!" banter. The initial blog rush was frantic, so Andy gave out the powers like candy to whoever made some bullshit promise. Once that was over, he should have taken a closer look at the entire team to promote/demote on a basis of quality (which would have included doubting the technical competence of Ed "What are namespaces?"^img Poor, for example), but instead, every sysop was simply grandfathered, ultimately leading to the situation today. --Sid (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just incredible! I knew Ed was dumb but had not idea he was THAT dumb! That post really shows just how ignorant he is of MW. I come from a programming background, so the namespace concept was never a big deal for me, but it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem for most other people. The fact that Bad Touch claims to be a WP expert and a programming expert really throws that claim into its proper light. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to understand what a pathetic person Ed Poor really is. I don't believe that he really cares about CP, he only showed up on their doorstep because of his humiliation at WP. You can see by the number of edits he makes at WP compared to CP that he really would rather be feted there than amongst Andy's loons. He only hangs around CP so that he can exorcise his slapdowns at Wikipedia by overlording minor editors. Now that there are not many of those around he tends to ignore the place.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I understood it, but he was a fucking 'crat, FFS! How could you not understand namespaces at that point? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What's interesting there, is just belows Ed's drivel, where Andy is having a fairly sane debate with Ames of all people. Not a "godspeed," "more people believe it than believe 2=2=4" "read the most logical book", etc in sight. Ah, for the good old days, before Andy's insanity became full-blown. --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was a bit unfair:

“”And he also has to stop his trolling at RW, because whether he realizes it or not, those people are out to humiliate him by any means possible, and they don't care how they do it.

—karajou

I don't think we have gone out of our way to humiliate him, we have always just given him enough rope to do it to himself. - π 13:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think either JPratt or Popeye actually attented, I think the Assfly just emailed pics from his blackberry to the sooper seekrit discussion group, and then one of his minions posted them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, Andy uses his trusty old Canon PowerShot A480 for which he has never set the date - it always shows "1 January 1980". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Backup. When I look at those pictures in detail they show the same stupid angles taken from the same vantage point as previous years. I doubt that JPatt can be an equally bad photographer. So yes maybe Andy did take the pics and JPatt just sat at home and uploaded them. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The dull bus photos were definitely taken with a blackberry, which suggests the other two morons were there. Wasn't RIM a liberal company? Or was it being attacked by liberal companies? I can't keep track of which companies are in our global, Soros-funded, leftist conspiracy. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It has suddenly occurred to me to wonder if Andy ran into anybody from PLAGAL on the March, and to speculate further upon what he might have said to them if he had. Tylersboy (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, where's my talk page?

It is now 21 times that Ken has deleted JPratt's talk page in less than a month. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does Jpatt deal with Ken's shit? If I were Jpatt, I'd be pissed off enough already, coming online everyday and seeing the "You have new messages!" banner, only to find out that it's Ken every time. But then, on top of it, he blows the page up. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's be a great name for a movie of Conservapedia. Jpatt would come along and say to Andy, "dude, where's my talk page?" and Andy would say, "where's your talk page, dude?" and then upload pictures of minors in his homeschool class onto one of the most reviled conservative sites on the internet. Is Ken's obsession with deleting things to cover the difflinks of where he's been? SJ ^Debaser 12:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Jpatt is losing interest in CP. He barely does anything there, except block editors and scrawl on MPR. He probably gets more people reading his tweets, so why stay on CP? --Ψ GremlinSprich! 12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I give JPratt a few weeks to live at the most, and I suspect RobS is already gone. Now that TK has flown the coop, CP really is in critical condition. There's no good reason at all to continue to hang around, especially not for JPratt who has to suffer the drooling moron on his talk page all the time. My bet is that by June it'll either be offline or it'll be kendollpedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the activity log I think Larron is about to give us some graphs to show how close it is to being kendollapedia. - π 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The same reason Karajou hangs around - he believes he's defending his Christian/conservative principles. As far as I can tell the white Christian right in the US believe that they are under constant persecution from the evil forces of liberals, atheists, illegal aliens and Islamists, despite the evidence that white Christian conservatives still largely pull the strings. They have both nailed their colours to CP's little mast and will do everything to protect it but at the same time do nothing to improve it or expand it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, defending it only requires sysop status and a short introduction to banhammering, nothing too intellectually challenging. If they wanted to work on the content, they'd have to invest time into research and learning how to present information. The stuff they add doesn't take any effort, they just transfer news items they read on other right-wing websites to MPR and post the occasional incoherent rant. Then again, you might say that they're simply following the Dear Leader's example, only stopping short of embellishing their idiotic screeds as "insights". Röstigraben (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Don't write our friend Terry off just yet. He's in the middle of a rather ugly family legal wrangle and probably feels the need to keep a low profile, so he can once again play the victim. Once that's done, I'm sure he'll be back to deliver the coup de grace to Andy's blog. Karajou also isn't going to give up the only thing that gives him a sense of power and importance. Rob's no doubt infiltrating some Commie cell for the CIA. --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing makes CP boring quite like the presence of TK. --205.211.50.10 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a table...

... of all the pages at Conservapedia which were deleted at least ten times. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're wonderful, LArron! Him (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Out of curiosity, is there an easy way to show which ones (if any) remain deleted? DickTurpis (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I split the action of the deletion-log into "deletes" and "restores". Often, a page is not restored, but created again and the old content pasted in.
• I linked to the pages at cp. Anyone who is interested can follow the link - and add in the "active?" column whether the page is active or not.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They manually deleted the "Come to RW" page 18 times before it occured to them that maybe they should protect it against recreation? Was that in CP's pre-totalitarian age? Röstigraben (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Creation protection came in (relatively) recently. MW 1.14, I think? Before that the best you could do was protect a blank page. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Three quick pics

Who deletes pages at CP?

quantifying silly-mindedness: Ken on a rampage...

Ken's part

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we seen the second pic as a 100% stacked column, to see how Ken's proportion of the deletion pie has changed over time? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, we can! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Legitimate Content Pages at Conservapedia

One (probably intended) side-effect of Ken's constant deleting-and-restoring of articles is the creation of the impression that there are quite a few relatively young articles, i.e., that there is something going at CP: when looking up CP's data base, there are a lot of articles marked as new, which are only revived corpses...

content pages

To get an impression of the real rate of article creation (in earlier versions of wikimedia dubbed as legitimate content pages, in contrast to redirects, user pages, talk pages, etc.) and to ignore the zombie-articles, I used the Wayback Machine, in fact, I retrieved the earlier versions of cp:Special:Statistics: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

The result isn't surprising, but it becomes even more devastating if we look at the daily creation rate, especially when using a logarithmic scale:

daily creation rate

logarithmic scale

A. Schlafly said once: Just look on the statistics page for the running count. The silly "more must be better" mentality of Wikipedia is not the purpose here. Our goal has always been conciseness, especially in entries (and unlike Wikipedia) [...] Article count beyond a certain critical mass (say 20,000 entries) doesn't have any particular significance. People who are interested can look at the statistics. But fewer than 20,000 entries, and perhaps fewer than 10,000 entries, are of any value to 99% of visitors (cp:Talk:Main_Page/archive57#Number of Articles)

I just don't know where Ken's articles a la atheists eat flying kitties and become obese fit in this concept - I'd say they are of no value to 100% of visitors...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at their Special:Short Pages you will see that almost 11,000 pages are only 500 bytes or fewer. It would be a lot more than that if there hadn't been a half-hearted clean-up attempt; as demonstrated by this abortion^img. Ah, how I miss that perennial favourite of easily amused liberal morons Law Terms D (subject of illegality by vandals, punishable by up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's sure to be some real gems in there. Check out this comparison between wp:American music (a redirect to a pretty substantial article) and cp:American Music. DickTurpis (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And another Ed gem: Keyboard shortcuts^img. It never gets old. DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ye gads. That might just rival Two Meters in its godawful wonderfulness. --Ψ GremlinHable! 15:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Check that one again - it's parodist EdS no saboteur Ed Poor. Duh. I'm a fucking moron. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the other end of the table I hadn't realised that the clickbots are still working on Homosexuality, now over 15 million 'pageviews'.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I stopped monitoring the page views last November as I thought that the total count was too large for clickbots to have any serious effect. At that time (22 Nov 2010)

Views total 184,550,813

1. Main Page 8,929,022 views)

2. Atheism 4,995,889 views)

3. Homosexuality 3,619,733 views)

Now:

Views total 206,905,348

1. Homosexuality 15,104,529

2. Main Page 9,436,858

3. Atheism 5,027,902

So 11.5M clicks on Homosexuality out of 22.4M total. The beauty of this is that nobody will dare to reset the Homosexuality count. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is.... remarkable. But it raises the question: Who is doing this? I assume it's nobody here (why would any RWian want to boost that article? There are far nuttier ones), and I can't see Ken knowing how to do it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This quite delicious. I can understand the early clickbotting of the Homosexuality article and its spin-offs when nine of the top ten pages were Ken's homo-erotic blatherings but since then his magnum opus has stood proud amongst all his other offerings in never having been deleted. Now it has the highest number of page views on Conservapedia, such a ridiculous number that those views are obviously bogus and designed to make CP look like a homophobic obsessed-site. But nobody will dare do anything about it; Ken wallows in his page-view counts even though he knows that they are bogus, Andy has long known that many pages are clickbotted but will only delete and reset the more obvious candidates. The likes of TK, Ed, Rob & Karajou really don't give a toss. So we are left with DouglasA looking like a dweeb. Having renamed the Popular Articles section of MPL Important Articles because "conservatives are not driven by popularity" he has been humiliated by the refusal of anyone else to reset the page count by deleting and recreating the page. So what will he do - absolutely nothing because the whole site is now so craven to Ken's SEO antics.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe homosexuality is their most highly-ranked article on Google, registering at #2 in Google rankings. Any idea how it got so high but the Metapedia article is nowhere to be seen? They both are pretty similar. --Leotardo (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because CP is hilarious and the kind of thing you want to share with people: "Hey, Bill, wanna see something really funny? Check this out." Metapedia is scary and makes you feel like you need a shower after you see it.P-Foster (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the high ranking of the Conservapedia Homosexuality article, I believe the Conservapedia Homosexuality article is highly ranked because the Conservapedia Homosexuality article is on Conservapedia and has a lot to say as regards to homosexuality! As can be seen on the stats for the Conservapedia Homosexuality article, the Conservapedia Homosexuality article has made great strides on the internet and is on the verge of wiping out atheism and homosexuality on the Internet!!!! I am sure continued improvements to the Conservapedia Homosexuality article will have huge effects on Homosexuality on the Internet. Oh, and here's a random picture of a clown!!!! Olé olé olé!!!!!!!!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Page View at CP according to http://waybackmachine.org/
cum. pageview	daily pageviews

• four month went lost during an upgrade, so ~10M page views are missing
• on average, the site is visited 144K times a day
• the daily numbers are fluctuating, there is no clear trend: neither increasing nor decreasing.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajou again.

Popeye froths at the mouth^img over one doctor's criminal negligence. Also, "The left's disgusting celebration of murder?" Remind me again who was prancing around Washington, using abortion for their own nefarious needs? --Ψ GremlinPraat! 15:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Disgusting celebration of murder" is also ironic coming from a Christian. «-Bfa-» 15:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the doctor in this case is charged – though not, of course, convicted – with something more serious than negligence. Tylersboy (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Which actually makes Popeye's rant all the more distasteful. Tylersboy (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The best part of Karajou is that you see his extreme anger with how his life turned out in every edit he makes. --Leotardo (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Though, to keep this into perspective, this is (according to the AP) a murder case, not a criminal negligence case. The guy was inducing live births, and then murdering the newborns with scissors. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Or is alleged to have done so - which is why it is particularly disgusting (to borrow his own word) of Karajou to equate abortion with what may prove to be undeniable murder. Tylersboy (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers' take on this has gotten some positive media attention. Well deserved, too, IMHO. Junggai (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point - though he rather glosses over the specific charge which Gooniepunk mentioned. Tylersboy (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

By Conservapedia logic: An American soldier intentionally shoots an unarmed civilian, therefore the entire US military is a corrupt "industry".--75.23.47.32 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't some liberals reasoned precisely that? Tylersboy (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We're gonna need a new Irony Meter

I'm surprised its taken so long to link Atheism and Pedophiles^img (is there anything left to link Atheism to?). Which begs the question, didn't they miss somthing? Andy is gonna owe us a new Irony Meter if this one keeps exploding.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Those priests molesting children are actually an example of "Homosexuality and pederasty."^img See, Ken got it all carefully covered. --Sid (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of looking at these too, which brought me to the Mark Foley article^img where he is described as a "liberal Republican". Mark Foley was the Representative from Florida who left office disgraced for sending underage male Congressional pages gross e-mails. But I don't see how Foley can be described as liberal: Rated 30% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record; Rated 33% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record; Rated 97% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record; Rated 10% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes; Rated 20% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes; Rated 84% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record; Rated 28% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record; Rated A- by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record; Rated 11% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record; Rated 11% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record; and it goes on and on. How is Mark Foley liberal? Oh, right - he was in a scandal. Liberals do bad things; conservatives never do bad things. Bad things done = liberal. --Leotardo (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, but how is he rated by the all important fidelity to Anydism record? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Only took him a few edits to get that one right. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh...

Odd wandalism is odd^img. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

¿ʇı ʇnoqɐ ppo os s,ʇɐɥʍ ~SuperHamster Talk 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ʇuɐɔıldǝɹpǝʇɔǝdsns ˙ǝɯ oʇ ǝuıɟ sɯǝǝs llɐ ʇı

˙ǝɹǝɥʇ pıp noʎ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs I User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

¿op ʎǝɥʇ pıp ʇɐɥʍ 'puɐʇsɹǝpun ʇ,uop ı--Opcn (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

¿ʇnʍ Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 04:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does the pope go?

Not in the woods. I'm more asking clog, blog, world... or maybe even CP as it is applicable there too. Pope promotes Christian netiquette and Pope to Catholics online: It's not just about hits (still trying to find the original document). Some fun points in there:

• Social networking OK
• Always adopt a respectful netiquite
• Don't create false identities
• Don't dilute the Christian message to achieve popularity.

Since all of this is applicable here (all of these form a rebuke of some part of CP (or arguably, us at cp)), thats where I"m starting. But it deserves to be on some WIGO. --Shagie (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the woods? P-Foster (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A reversal, I suspect, of: "Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods?" Tylersboy (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New Accounts

What is happening with the new account registration. I thought it is only possible after sending an email and facing some questioning about the personal habits. But I have seen quite a few new accounts with usernames like WhyWasntAndyAborted and Sillymarches4idiots. What is happening? Is it more a geographical problem (viewing from librul Europe)?Buscombe (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

They casually turn account creation privileges on and off. Probably just to remind themselves of how evil libruls are. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The e-mail request is still there, just above the bottom of main page. So they can still block you for not reading the whole main page. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What it evidences is that their readership is almost purely people who visit to ridicule the backwash that passes for thinking on CP. If they actually had conservative readers, they wouldn't only have parodists and vandals sign up when registration is "on". --Leotardo (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Desperate for something to back his bizarre points of view, Andy has taken to quoting the 'Frugal Cafe's Forums' as a reliable source^img for the Trusworthy Encyclopaedia. Given that the Frugal Cafe motto is "where it's chic to be cheap" and it seems dedicated to low-cost gift ideas, maybe the AAPS isn't paying too well. Or the recall committees demanded a refund. --Ψ GremlinParla! 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when you are crazy and nobody agrees with you. What I find even more "amusing" is that Obama is being called uncommunicative (well something like that) - if he'd walk into everyones office once a week he'd be a control freak/fascist that doesn't trust his own people. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is actually just Andy evidencing his stupidity. He could have just gone straight to the horse's mouth and read the New York magazine article, but then Andy would have to actually read. Instead, he could have gotten his Reader's Digest from Frugal Cafe but put the link up to the New York magazine article. But it's an in-depth article and that means conservatives won't read it. --Leotardo (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservative film?

Can someone explain to me why The Kings Speech is supposed to be a "Conservative" film? I would have thought The Social Network was the very essence of a Conservative message, "Arsehole Makes Lots Of Money" is more or less the entire point of the Republican party isn't it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you go far back enough in US history, supporting the British Monarchy was a conservative position. Andy's rockin' it old-school. P-Foster (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the "lack-of-cuss-words" makes TKS just swell in Ashfly's eyes. The movie he cannot even NAME must be so liberal that it could revive Edward Kennedy (if they put a 3G player in his casket). C®ackeЯ (EDIT: Obviously I haven't seen either movie.) 03:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a bit of swearing the The Kings Speech. DickTurpis (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, though I didn't see it, didn't The Social Network make Facebook, or at least its founders, look bad? Maybe it's a liberal movie because it attacks a great achievement by a teenager. DickTurpis (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny that this should crop up now, because I was pondering Andy's view of the British Monarchy earlier. For if that eminently Conservative word "cogent" dates from 1659, that puts it at the fag end of the Cromwellian Protectorate. I can't work out whether Andy would be in favour of that as a bunch of tough military guys who got rid of a pantywaist king, or whether he would abhor it for having (temporarily) encouraged dangerous crypto-Commies like the Levellers and Diggers. Can't find out at present 'cause I'm getting the old 403. Tylersboy (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he'd like the Protectorate, but hate the Commonwealth - very suspect, liberal term. Tylersboy (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The News Quiz on Radio 4 featured a cutting about The King's Speech - "Contains strong language in a speech therapy context." Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of cuss words?--cm² 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I bet he hasn't even seen The Social Network, he's just on a general Facebook-hating^img spree again. But yeah, I wonder how he can celebrate capitalism and then go on to thrash Apple, Microsoft, Google and Facebook for being liberal. Well, this mixture of mindless free market worship and anti-corporatism is just one among his many inconsistencies. Röstigraben (talk)

21:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My sole happy thought in this mess is that several of CP's Facebook-using admins (especially CP's master of social networking Jpatt) must be groaning right now... but since Andy's opinion is The Truth, they can't even do anything about it. --Sid (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He probably doesn't like the fact that there are other rich white males who are far more successful than him and don't use their positions to push ultra-conservative views. SJ ^Debaser 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Those little certification guides to which Genghis alludes can be hilarious. Rabbit-Proof Fence was said to include "mild emotional intensity" and I think more than one film "contains some moderate language" - which implies almost the exact opposite of what is meant. Tylersboy (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a classic example of Andy's "I don't like x, therefore x is liberal; y did better than x, thus y is conservative" muddled thinking. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 06:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting that facebook is the reason for trouble in marriages etc., but guns don't kill people, people kill people and the solution is more guns. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen The King's Speech (and it's a damn fine movie, btw). I can't see that it's political at all, but then I'm not Andy, who probably chooses between breakfast cereals based on their perceived political leanings. As close as I can come, Andy must think the movie is conservative because:

1. speech therapy helps King George give the speech that inspires Britain to fight the Nazis (because liberals all loved the Nazis in Andy's world-view)
2. King Edward is condemned for his non-conservative relationship with a divorced woman
3. The speech therapist used techniques not recognized by the liberal medical establishment

QED. MDB (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen The Social Network. I can only assume that Andy thinks it's liberal because it doesn't portray Facebook as an evil monster destroying marriages and such. As for how it portrays the founders of FB, I thought Zuckerberg came off pretty easily. He's not portrayed sympathetically, mind you, but he came off more as geek completely lacking in social skills or business savvy, not really intending to steal ideas, just kinda accidentally borrowing ideas and not giving credit for them. Sean Parker, one of the key players in Napster who was also heavily involved in Facebook, comes off looking far worse than Zuckerberg. MDB (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya'll are overthinking this. A) Andy is just backing the most probable winner, and B) For anyone who has only seen small clips, King's Speech looks calm and conservative (upper-class accents, lots of wood and leather and gold furnishings, etc).--WJThomas (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Watched this last night. Awesome film. (Does that make me conservative?) Just a few points though - I see it was made in atheistic England, helped by money from that nasty socialist Lottery thing, which is also gambling. Then again, it must be conservative, because the Royal Family, like Andy, are completely out of touch with reality. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 08:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers something about evolution and a pig

Someone has to stop this guy^img P-Foster (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In his own words: ¡Olé Olé Olé! Blue (is useful) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Does fucktard not know about the blarney stone? --Opcn (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I keep expecting Andy to step in and put a stop to this nonsense. Does that make me dumber than Andy? 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 07:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Does PZ Myers have machismo? An upcoming essay" - Can't wait! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe that hasn't been done. What's the betting that it features smooth peanut butter? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The longer he keeps going, the better. In the unlikely event that anybody stumbles across CP thinking it's a useful resource, essays like that one will soon set them straight. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Ken's still doing this because the two or maybe three creationists he's in regular contact with, (i.e. Shockofgod) see his nonsensical crappy essays and say, "this is hilarious!" like with Richard Dawkins and MA-CHESSE-MO. Keep 'em coming Ken. SJ ^Debaser 09:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Could someone make one of those morphing .gifs that morphs a picture of PZ Myers into a picture of a pig? And then release it into the public domain? I'm confident that Ken will be unable to resist using such an image in his article and it may even end up on the main page. It might, might just out-do the Flying Kitty Mainpage Event (speaking of which, why didn't that one become the new Greatest mainpage ever?). ^{ONE / TALK} 09:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'm glad that PZ is keeping a dignified silence, whilst Ken gurns like a dribbling moron, a part of me really wants him to drop Andy a friendly reminder along the lines of "you're a lawyer, you should know what defamation is" (yes, I know, legal types, it isn't, but still...). If nothing else, it would be fun to watch Andy vaping Ken's nocturnal emissions. --Ψ GremlinHable! 10:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

page-views cp, rw, scienceblogs

<- Keeping silence is the best thing PZ Myers can do: Ken just wants to create page-views, and being mentioned at pharyngula (the biggest blog of scienceblogs by far) will get you visitors - who will laugh at you, but that doesn't matter for Ken. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Christ on a stick, Ken continues to dig his way further into new depths of total insanity. Hasn't someone called his nurse and asked her to up the dosage? He's no longer flirting with defamation, he's bought her the ring and set the date for the marriage. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's his upcoming plan for the homepage [1]^img. Andy is going to have to step in at some point. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If this kind of vile gibberish was posted on Wikipedia about Dubya then it would get instantly pulled and the writer banhammered, or at least suspended. It's so wrong it left me speechless. It'll be interesting to see what Andy does. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's one of the best things he's done. I hope we see more of it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy endorsed Ken's essays a while ago, and given his pig-headed (no pun intended) conservative consistency, he can only watch and grind his teeth while Ken turns CP into his personal garbage dump. Maybe he'll "trim" the worst of the crap that turns up on the main page a little, but I'm not betting on a policy change. Röstigraben (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

When Jesus invented humour, he couldn't have forseen Ken's brand of the same. If someone points this drivel to Andy, I suspect he will either turn his head away as usual or suggest that liberals do not appreciate humour. Wonder how old Ken is. I hope we are not mocking a child. Buscombe (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The closest Andy's come to saying anything about Ken's drivel is that the people who complained about it were trying to censor him. As always, Andy will do nothing (he's incapable of doing anything without TK or Ed to whisper in his ear anyway) and Ken will spiral ever downwards in his ever-more frantic attempts to get PZ or Dawkins to mention him. --Ψ GremlinParla! 13:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Despite stating that mockery is a liberal trait Andy is now firmly entrenched in the "liberals cannot stand mockery about their own" camp that he is going to let Ken's diarrhoea run and run. TK is probably the only one who could stop it, and with him not around at the moment Ken is having a field day. I agree that this is some of Ken's finest work and look forward to even more of it. It's a shame that Sam Harris hasn't got love-handles - perhaps Trent might start binging on the Taco Bells again.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to put your brain in the head of a crazy person, but I'm wondering if we could give him some ideas. Following on from "Atheists are obese" how about "All atheists are gay"? Two memes together! Or "All atheists are aliens"? or "Atheists are not Americans"? Or they are communists or Satanists, or fascists. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Atheists are obese, gay aliens. It makes total sense. Here's a picture of a flying kitty to prove it! Pegasus (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you guys find this so much worse than anything else he's done. To quote Bob M, "I think it's one of the best things he's done. I hope we see more of it." --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

When I asked for fairness on CP that;s what Andy told me. But I think Andy's interpretation of the quote ignores that there are qualitative differences between grades of consistency. If you have a little mind you pick foolish things to be consistent about, Andy consistently ignores criticism, he consistently supports Ken in exchange for page view, he consistently chooses to be in control rather than to grow. He does not maintain a consistent tone, he does not maintain a consistent rule of law, he does not maintain a consistent editorial policy, he does not apply his personal moral code consistently. These foolish choices are the hobgoblin of his little mind. --Opcn (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy never understood Emerson's quote:

The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. (Self-Reliance from Essays: First Series (1841))

While Andy thinks that making inconsistent decisions at the same time doesn't mean that one of the decisions is wrong, Emerson looks at a development of judgment: you are allowed to change your position over time.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte}

Interesting fact: the much-hated Wikipedia has this as an official policy - one of the most long-standing ones, a pillar even, and its meaning and importance have been widely discussed. Folks call it "Ignore all rules". A/k/a "it's the spirit, not the letter, of the policy that matters". Or, blind following of rules (the rules that bring us consistency!) can sometimes cause problems and you're supposed to use common sense. Or, you can think of it as the application of moral general relativityism. ...Awake and listening already, Andy? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I think reverence for our past act or word pretty much sums up Andy's biggest flaw. He allows himself to twist his beliefs into the most tortuous positions, simply because once he's made a proclamation, it can never be wrong. Junggai (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops

The RevJohnMarco takes off his mask.^img Seriously, are there any non-sysop genuine editors left there? And I see Ken just keeps on editing his crap, ignoring it. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 11:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Anus Schlafly" was mildly amusing, but that's about it. Boring and juvenile way to go. Webbtje (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He kinda made it read like a MadLib. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 11:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And the award for weirdest block reason goes to...[3] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just about as creepy a Jpatt quoting Bibbel verses when he blocked people. Still, at least we know Ken reads us, it's only fair - we're the only people that read him. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the first thing Ken does when he gets up in the morning after 2.5 hrs sleep is to head straight to WIGO:CP to check what we have written about him?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say as long as he has a window up editing CP he has a window up watching us here. Hi Ken! SJ ^Debaser 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame JPatt; he probably just saw his talk page wiped for the 25th time by Kenny and just had a momentary bout of flipping out right when the Reverend John Marco did his elementary school exit. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a link between obesity and hemorrhoids. Ken, don't you wonder if the fatty PZ Myers has hemorrhoids? What's he doing to correct them? Does it hurt for him to sit? Are his hemorrhoids the reason he can't sit down and learn about the truth and wisdom of Creationism? --Leotardo (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. KenDoll Q. Schlaffsucker IS a hemorrhoid. I'm not being juvenile! I'm not! Jimaginator (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

With each new "essay," Ken sounds more and more like the World's Smartest Human, Doctor of Cubeology Gene Ray. --Phentari (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ken's "essays" are nothing more than an illustration of taking the Cartesian product of the small sets of knowledge he has. Pretty soon he's going to be mixing and matching things that are completely unrelated, like "Atheism and chili beans." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the comparison of chili beans and atheists, chili beans tend to be thin at the ends and thicker in the middle, which is something that could also fit many atheists! Olé olé olé! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary studies suggest the religious are more tolerant to hot foods than the non-religious. If atheists had more machismo and became religious perhaps they'd enjoy more chili! Sooie!

Preliminary studies suggest the religious have more healthful bowel movements and pass their bowel movements more easily than the non-religious. If the non-religious ate more fiber perhaps they would have more healthful bowel movements like the religious that are as easily passed as the bowel movements of the religious in regards to a fiber-filled diet that contributes to healthy gut health.

Preliminary studies suggest the Hitler was never a fan of hot, spicy foods. This may be due to the fact that Hitler was non-religious. If Hitler had turned to the Bible, then perhaps he would have pleased his wife with machismo by eating more spicy foods.

Damn that picture is making my mouth water. Don't care for the chili though. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Chip Peterson, Birther

Andy - you know how you despise he-said-she-said gossip? Well, you've got some gossip on your Main Page that's false^img and put up by goober Chip Peterson. Mike Evans is embarrassed and remorseful about saying that the Hawaii Governor said there is no Obama birth certificate. You should be embarrassed about publishing such claptrap. Chip, instead of rushing to post liberal gossip, why don't you read the Bible? Have you ever considered that? --Leotardo (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You expect non-hypocritical consistency; you expect too much. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about TK's absence.

Has the wiki stopped "mysteriously" slipping into night time mode at odd hours since TK's been gone? --Opcn (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we need a graph. Where's LArron when you need him? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

semper lurkens - when CP 403'd my ISP, I was to lazy to enhance my script to work with tor. But I'm going to do so...

From my past encounters with A. Schlafly, I drew the conclusion: don't take for malice what could be more easily explained by laziness. His handling of CP borders to neglect. He wouldn't confront TK, because that would take some work to do. Therefore I have to assume that TK's absence has other reasons.

And that TK's policies aren't continued in his absence is not a sign that Andy doesn't like them, but that it would be laborious to carry them out.

Or did Andy spot that TK was suffocating his little blog?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing so dramatic. TK merely has some real life stuff to deal with. He'll probably be back. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No net in jail or the nuthouse. Him (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Psy, is that confirmed, or an assumption on our part, if that's OK to ask? -- 16:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And Ken gets paid to write?

From his essay on longing "article" about Teenage Homosexuality,^img "For example, it is important the teenagers are knowledge about the causes of homosexuality." Also Recent Changes appears borked again. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. The reason to engage in teenage homosexuality is because all teens are into sex, so it is easy to find somebody to have fun with. What else do you need to know? Dendlai (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, knowledge is you? --Sid (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I want not approve on this... --Ψ GremlinPraat! 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question in the heading, no. No he does not. DickTurpis (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how Ken and the rest of CP seem to be able to write tons about cp:homosexuality and health, going on about its links to HIV/AIDS disregarding how condom usage drastically reduces the risk of STDs and the pure fact that few gay men are carriers, and devote a pathetically small amount of their article about it to the sharing of needles. Pathetic all round. SJ ^Debaser 19:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Don’t Misunderestimate my Refudiation

Odd that Jpatt should object^img to the inclusion of “refudiate” amongst those New Conservative Words on the grounds that it constitutes a potential embarrassment for Caribou Barbie. Who^img , I wonder, was responsible for the decidedly subversive idea that the concept of “word poverty” was “popularized by President George W. Bush”? Tylersboy (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As a wigo observed, even more odd that Jpatt should call Andy's brother^img a liberal palin-hater. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What's this new what the fuckery?

I see they managed to "fix" recent changes again, but now we're treated to every single entry having its accompanying patrol log entry also displayed in recent changes. Can they never fix anything without managing to break something else? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently someone decided it was a good idea to have the patrol log on RC, to see which sysop patrols what. But they forgot about autopatrolling. -- Nx / talk 16:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama's Muslim Agenda

This might be worth a WIGO, but I'm having trouble figuring out these days what's just run-of-the-mill ridiculous and what's uniquely ridiculous to be worth a WIGO. Jpatt adds to Obama's Muslim Agenda^img his support for the people of Tunisia and Egypt rising up against their dictators, and mentioning that Muslims are part of America. They see "Obama's Muslim Agenda" as not a loaded title, but just 'anything having to do with Obama and Muslims', I guess. Because if they really want people to think Obama has some nefarious alternate agenda, they wouldn't include things like "Muslims fighting for freedom getting U.S. support", which has been this country's policy (allegedly) for decades. With TK gone, Jpatt really, really wants to be considered part of the Fab 5. --Leotardo (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The voices on the radio must have been telling him how evil Muslims are again. I get the impression JPratt has never had an original thought in his life. If you stopped him on the street and presented him with a printout of this little obsession of his and pressured him to tell you what he thought it was evidence of, I don't think he'd even know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The WIGO I was drafting in my head went something along the lines of "apparently, any mention of the world's one billion (...note: I think that's the right number) Muslims or of any Muslim country is proof of Obama's 'Muslim agenda.'" what does JPatt expect? Fdr the POTUS to never mention a central foreign policy issue? P-Foster (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves is right - look at Jpatt's latest MPR update^img, which is an unenlightening "Jim DeMint says..." item. Got it Jpatt, anti-Obama Republican is anti-Obama. What insight! Glad you covered a story that the lamestream media won't touch. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk Twists the Knife

He just can't help being an obnoxious asshole can he? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Call the FBI! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's cute how he actually expects law enforcement to do something about some guy ranting about CP on Wikipedia using the library computer. Curious to know what laws he thinks were broken? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Government computer"...pffft. It's not like the guy broke into the FBI just to use their computer to vandalize CP. Although that would be a lot of fun: "Call the FBI!...oh wait..." 16:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, while it's fun watching Karajerk work himself up in to a froth, if that actually is anyone from RW (which I doubt) fucking stop it. It isn't clever. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody on WP know that Karajou is playing sysop over there (if that is Karajou - remember, any idiot can make the claim, so until I see a written statement on his CP user page, I'll have doubts)? --Sid (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think Karajou making an ass of himself and lodging a complaint with local authorities which they'll only laugh at is "twisting the knife". More like walking into a door. DickTurpis (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I love it when Popeye ventures out from behind the moronic curtain and demonstrates just what a pathetic boor he is. If he'd ignored the tasteless concern troll - like everybody else did - it would have all gone away. But no, he has to stand there and pound his chest and do the whole "I know where you live," "Call the FBI," "MYOB." I can almost picture him pounding his desk - in between slugs of Mad Dog 20/20 - as he types that. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 08:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is hilariously easy to troll. Remember that email he quoted, thinking it was genuine, in the comments section of some news story? The email purporting to be from a liberal who intended to make sure trees got more rights than people and that every baby be aborted in the glorious liberal future? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"One side wants family values, the other wants to shove in the family's face sex, drugs, and aborted babies. One side wants to go to church to worship the Lord, the other wants to go to the church to burn it down." (TZB /440/a5b1b...) - Karajou has sliiiightly distorted views of liberals to say the least, so it's no wonder he'll readily believe any fairytale that makes liberals as a whole look batshit insane. Though I gotta admit I'm curious - you still got a link to that story? I vaaaaguely remember this, but details escape me. --Sid (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly not, which is a shame because I want to see it again too. It was lulzy. The story was about CP though, so it might be listed on our "CP in the media" page. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the article by Rowan Scarborough. Sadly, the comments sections seems to have been removed. Maybe the Ark Hives have something? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Err... I don't think that's the link you meant to include... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Eer... no. let's try this one instead. At least it wasn't a link from HotAsianPorn.com. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kinda old..

Am I retarded or is this from 2009. A little old to be in a wigo now.. 166.137.138.235 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a great WIGO, but if you think that's the main thrust of it, then you're reading it wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it. 128.205.107.61 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Farah rant has been referenced before here, but it seems to have had a makeover. I don’t remember the tasteful juxtaposition – so hilarious they had to duplicate it – of two ads giving the impression that Obama is hitching his belly up and down. Just the kind of thing you want to slap in the middle of a supposedly serious defence of the KJV immediately before the author starts to hold forth about “trivialization and politicization”. Tylersboy (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more explicit with the WIGO. My point was that the news source CP calls the most reliable calls CP worse then "incredibly stupid and misguided", says CP is "nutty", that CP is involved in the "trivialization and politicization" of scripture and engaged in "profoundly dangerous practice spiritually" practices. Yes, the WingNutDaily column is a trifle elderly, but given that CP is still pushing the CBP on its front page, I think it's still relevant. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

the news source CP calls the most reliable calls CP worse then "incredibly stupid and misguided" This. That is why it is funny. CP says WND is the most reliable news source in the world and even they say CP is full of shit. - π 04:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Andy's original response suggests, assuming he hasn't by now convinced himself that the whole thing never happened, that he'd try to claim that this was an isolated instance of personal closed-mindedness on the part of Farah rather than an official condemnation by WND as a whole. Tylersboy (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

CP has alwaysnever been at war with WND. MDB (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the rationalization that happens when one of their own slams CP. This is why I hope with all my being their other paragons of conservatism come out and rip CP to shreds. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of chivalry

Everybody at CP knows that the girls should never challenge the boys^img, lest they embarrass them. Also, they all should really put some clothes on. P-Foster (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the girls are standing on the left. *nods gravely* --Sid (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the weirdest boy is on the extreme right. Tylersboy (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the middle two girls are in a lesbian embrace, and the two boys on the left seem to be enjoying each other's company, if you know what I mean...P-Foster (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

A clear case of double standards I'd say: male homosexuality is of the left, and thus liberal, but lesbianism, although it cannot really be classed as conservative, is more centrist and moderate. Still, nobody appears to be obese, so they're probably not atheists. Tylersboy (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There are penises and breasts on display. That's not very family-friendly. I would expect a little more censorship^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken smackdown?

I see somebody has finally cleaned up the Main Page, and Ken's steaming emissions have been reduced to two small headings under Article and Essay of the Month. Has some sort of sense finally prevailed over there? --Ψ GremlinTal! 08:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that the other day. If you go to the pre-pictures MP^img it looks almost decent. It looks better now the pictures are small. - π 09:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about Ken. One of the reasons it looks better is that Terry Koeckritz isn't around to add one of those stupid Obama pictures every other story. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Screencaps please, for the 403 deprived. 09:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Good to see you here again! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken's stuff may not be there, but it's still ruined by the stream of appallingly rightwing "news" stories sliding down the toilet bowl MPR, extending a front page to several times the length it should be on a half-decent website. SJ ^Debaser 11:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that's bad, you should see the archive. Jpatt haven't cottoned onto the fact you can split it into many pages. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 14:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Jpatt has archived the archives in the past, I think after Dean quasi-retired. But he's not been doing it since his initial rush, and they add stuff at a faster rate than in the past. At its best/worst, the archive had been about 1 MB large. --Sid (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess, Conservative is chomping at the bit, wondering how long he has to leave those protest pics up before he can go pack to Hitwin and pics of fat atheists. It's killing him. P-Foster (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If they were really serious about cleaning it up, they'd scrub Rob's droolings too. I'm sure CP would welcome his Obama bashing as a page unto itself, but no one in their right minds thinks that belongs on the front page. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What did I tell you?^img P-Foster (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I see Douglas Adams^img is getting in on the act. Adding illiteracy to JPratt's incoherency. His writing has really gone down hill since he died. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone capture Kendoll's latest shoutout^img yet? If not, we have it now. DickTurpis (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

JP v Wash U

The link hasn't captured. Is it the same ref he's twittered about (this one)? 21:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, same. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, his twitter account reads like the 140 character ravings of a man with FAR to much time on his hands. --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken WIGO

Just commented out a WIGO about Ken - what he's doing is nothing new, and it's just giving attention to the attention whore. 86.164.9.33 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While I will stay neutral on the commenting out-part, I have a question for Ken: If all that is true, why are you still reading what's going on here? And before you throw the same question back, I read the other side for the lulz. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how he's gone from making 20 gazillion changes (thus mucking up RC) to deleting and recreating for each and every change. 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Andy really needs to take away Ken's delete rights. When the Recent Changes are practically flooded with deletions of a single page, it's time to do something. --Sid (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A real dog!

Not Ed's most unfortunate edit by far, but the sentence^img somehow really cracked me up. --Sid (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is sadder: That Weird Uncle Ed thinks that fucking awful joke belongs in an encyclopedia, that he thinks that joke is funny enough to share or that that he's still telling a joke that's a year out of date? I think Ed might be going senile. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I give him credit for that edit. Demeaning women, possible bestiality, and live-blogging all in one (well, that's how I see it). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) _{(I wanted to link to a guro manga for Ed, but it's so terrible I had second thoughts.)}

Sh... don't tell ken

Teh apezss.. It's almost like they're evolving. First gorilla to walk upright. 72.45.254.78 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman Kendoll!

Since about 23.99 hours a day, no one can create an account on CP and even if account creation were actually on thanks to TK's over zealous /16 blocks I couldn't sign up anyway. If you want me to contact you about your debate, then you'll either have to come here and email me, or simply post an email address on your user page like gentleman TK does. You wouldn't want people to think you lacked MA-CHEEESE-MO, would you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Should I call Kendoll's bluff?

I'm strongly considering Kendoll's bluff regarding his debate offer, I have the money in liquid assets available to hand, though I'd have to set some qualifications:

• The donation would be in pounds sterling to an amount agreed.
• The recipient of the donation should be a registered and reputable charitable organisation (not the Kendoll benevolent society) that deals with a real, physical need. This does not include the need for education about Jesus' pet dinosaur. I must agree the organisation proposed.
• The debate must take place in a place and time of my choosing, and with a speaker and title of my choosing. Kendoll's expenses will _not_ be paid, but I can negotiate a venue convenient to him, or perhaps use the internet as appropriate.
• Kendoll must appear in a recorded video agreeing the terms.
• He must send me a letter notarised by a reputable notary public acknowledging the video produced as his true likeness, and confirming his full name and address. His address will not be released, but his name may be used in promotion of the debate.
• The money for the donation will be set aside before the debate, but the donation is contingent entirely on Kendoll's attendance of the debate. I will, if required, provide notarised evidence of the existence of the capital and sign a contract agreeing to the donation.
• The debate will be not shorter than three hours, including a full hour of questions from the audience.

Is it too cruel to subject the insane to this? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this will go over well. Smooth-As-A-Kendoll will never aggree to this because your not a "main stream evolutionist" like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) If you make the offer, he's going to come back with a list of conditions of his own. Before doing this, you need to consider what conditions are acceptable to you and add appropriate ranges to the terms. In general, be very, very careful before doing this. I think we all know that Ken has no intention of ever doing such a debate, and he's going to keep you dancing until he can somehow come up with an "Atheist refuses debate!!!" story. Having said all that, I'd love to see the little tit called out. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything reasonable he could add to this except the requirement that I make the offer to him by video, which I'm happy to do. Everything else is entirely tit-for-tat repaid, or in his favour. He gets my identity by way of me entering in to contract with him, and not even with the reasonable offer of privacy I made to him. I don't ask him to put up any ridiculous sums of money or donate it to a secular organisation of my choosing. I assume he's broke as fuck anyway. I'm offering him a negotiating role in the location of the debate so he can actually get his aforementioned broke as fuck arse there. Any extra conditions he could add would just be wheedling out of it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I thought about it a little bit more, it occurs to me there's a condition I missed off:

• Due to the the unlikelihood of anyone turning up if I promote the speaker arguing against the proposition as some random insane internet troll with no history of public speaking, I must be able (with the explicit written permission of Andy) to promote Kendoll as the official spokesperson for Conservapedia in the debate. If required, I will limit the field of potential speakers for the affirmative to just RW editors so it can be promoted as CP vs. RW.

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cue Andy's spit-take in 3, 2, 1... --Sid (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine you'll need the Foundation's approval before calling yourself the "official" RW spokesperson. If you really want to do it, I'm happy to see it happen (not that anybody cares) but I just foresee a Ken version of Euler being a tosser (it's here if you don't know the story). I'm sure you can kick the shit out of him intellectually, but he's not going to be interested in that. His attack will be the vocal equivalent of flying kitties and obese atheists. I don't know that anybody could beat Ken in a debate because there's nothing to argue against. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I imagine the RWF would be okay with it providing you're not out to bring the group into ill repute. RW is still user owned and generated, so anything a user wishes to do (with common sense exceptions, of course), the RWF will likely support. It'd be fun to branch out into those sorts of areas, but I don't think a known crazy CP sysop is the best place to start. ^{d hominem} 01:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point, if Kendoll indicates he's in principle willing to agree to a debate we'll have to get the newly voted in board to agree to it also. This is also why I must pick the debate title. I'm thinking something that nicely dovetails with the RW/CP schism. Perhaps a proposition like "The US Conservative movement provides aid and comfort to dangerous pseudoscientific notions." This of course is only a 1AM initial thought, it needs refinement. But the first step is to get Kendoll's agreement in principle to such a debate. The ball is in his court, does he have MA-CHEESE-MO? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I see he's retreated in to his intellectual bunnyhole already by deleting the offer. I guess that capital V for victory has turned in to a capital F for another epic fail. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I can easily find you a debater in Buffalo Newyork. --Opcn (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love you to call Ken's bluff but it will never happen. Ken will not identify himself publicly, he would not debate anywhere where he does not have control of the situation and can withdraw and any competent debater would be able to shoot down his arguments in a very short time - the fun would be over far too quickly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This calls for emergency evasive action in the form of a new essay - "Atheist fatcats and their refusal to accept my reasonable demands to hand over their ill-gotten spoils to charity". Garnished with his favorite kitty and lots of links to the obesity articles. Röstigraben (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'll debate on the terms you have specified

Teh Moniez. Atheists have it. Insane internet trolls do not. All you have to do is debate, Kendoll.

I've got the money. All I need from you is:

• Your name
• Your contact details
• Contact details of the charity

Obviously I need real contact details for you and the charity as 20K is a lot of money. Being in NZ this will have to be an internet debate. If you agree to these terms you can email me at ace_mcwicked@yahoo.com and we'll proceed from there. I have met your terms so failure to proceed can only be interpreted as a lack of honesty and integrity on your part. Ace McAwesome 02:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also - I will provide you with my name and contact details (plus confirmation said details are correct) and will make sure your details, as with mine, will remain private. Ace McAwesome 02:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100% certain of Ken's honesty. --Opcn (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum It is important to contact me either by email, as Newton on RW or by posting me a message via CP however you must not delete it after 10 mins because I may not see it - said acceptence on CP must stand long enough for either myself to see it or someone on RW to capture it. My offer is genuine and this qualifier is reasonable. Ace McAwesome 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I realise that Kendoll is never actually going to agree to this, but if you're really serious about spending that much cash then at least make the debate entertaining. No one is going to find more of kendoll's "in regards to" drivel fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I have USD200 I will pay you to write an article for my blog about how PZ Myers is soooooo fat, but I need to verify your writing credentials with your university first. --Leotardo (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendroll just added new conditions ... And ... I can confirm actually did enable his CP email for the first time I've noticed in years. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we've debated with Kendoll before. Funny, I can't remember when. He doesn't even have conversations, he just posts non sequitur shoutouts. And even then, I see to remember vigorously beating him with the facts on at least one occasion. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

When have talk pages at Ken's pet projects been available for debate? Usually they appear to be locked or redirected to another page. Also Ken is committing a logical fallacy with his shout out. The LA Times article did not label RationalWiki a vandal site, it said that some editors admitted to vandalism (personally I think it was only IceWedge who admitted it), that is a big difference and is typical of the deceit we expect from CP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to your terms...

Ken, I agreed to your terms.

• I will debate you
• I have the money
• contact me on the email address supplied to sort the details

The fact you haven't done so and continue to pontificate only goes to show your offer was disingengious and dishonest. Ace McAwesome 05:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am about to go out for dinner and do not have time now but I am more than willing to take this up so you must email me - this is a genuine offer. You made the call and I responded. Failure to respond will result in you being labeled, once, for all and irrevocably...a liar. Ace McAwesome 05:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That fact that I will be away from the computer for a few hours needs me to confirm:

• I have 20K
• I will give said funds to the charity that Ken decides on
• Ken must contact me on the email provided to explain the details of the charity
• Ken must contact me to clarify debate details (Location/format/date/duration etc)
• I can assure privacy

Failure to do so will constitute lost. Your call Ken. (Please - due to my absence for the next few hours, could the community capture any resopnse to this acceptence). Ace McAwesome 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how fresh it is, but here's the latest in rambling insults.^img Apparently he wants you to find a random Christian (by whatever his definition may be) to be a middleman. Makes no sense to me, but good luck. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 06:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually he's setting the bar pretty high. He wants you to find a "trustworthy conservative Bible believing Christian". Having seen the antics at CP they must be pretty thin on the ground. Perhaps he's settle for a "conservative Bible believing Christian".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that Philip J Rayment would be a trustworthy intermediary but as far as I can see it is Ken's way of distancing himself from the arrangement while extorting cash for his own pet religious charity without any quid pro quo and he continues to hide behind his tissue of anonymity. I would suggest that if he continues to keep placing these obstacles in the way of a proper debate - it looks like he just wants to be able to assemble a quotemine ballista - then a counter challenge should be made by taking out a full-page advert in the Buffalo News. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand where Ken expects Ace - or any normal working human being - to find $20k to throw at him to see Ken ignore all genuine attempts to have a reasoned conversation, instead repeatedly linking to pointless articles about how atheism is a bunch of crap and has something to do with cats and pigs. Obviously I'm just a frightened little atheist, but from where I'm standing Ken seems to be demanding an obscene amount of money as a get-out clause, plus a completely pointless intermediary for what will undoubtedly be a disappointing, tl;dr talk page "discussion". SJ ^Debaser 10:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Conservative, when someone accepts an offer of debate, agreeing to your original terms, why do you post a long, drawn-out rambling insult for us to read? Looks like you're trying to puss out. SJ ^Debaser 10:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

'Looks like'? We all know he is. We should be demanding that he give a few thousand dollars of his own (say $5000, because I doubt he has $20,000) as insurance, because lets face it, this is Kendoll; previous tactics include blocking editors, deleting pages and , as on ASK, pleading ill health and taking breaks. Also, if you do do this, we'll need to vet the charity really hard to make sure that none of the money makes it back to Kendoll. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a standing challenge to debate any creationist for 20 dollars? Thus making it one thousand tines cheaper to debate with us than to debate with Christians.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, you guys do realize you're negotiating with a 48 year old mentally retarded adult, right? There is no possible way this can go anywhere. DickTurpis (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Ken, I couldn't help but notice that your alleged "Evidences for Christianity" article (actually cp:Christian apologetics), while it has a bit of definition and history and stuff, is devoid of any, you know, actual evidences for Christianity. You might want to try to fix that. DickTurpis (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Admit it Dick. You just can't find any errors and are grasping at straws. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly it is difficult to find errors in an article that makes no claims. DickTurpis (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How responsible people handle executory contracts with people they don't trust

Ken, where one party doesn't trust the other, e.g. nobody here believes you're a truth-teller or that you're even capable of negotiating the terms of and conducting yourself in a legitimate debate, transactions like this usually occur by depositing the money with a reputable escrow agent until both sides have performed their side of the bargain. Terms of the agreement are fixed in writing without all this anonymous cloak and dagger shit. You'd have to sign and notarize an agreement providing for liquidated damages if you cut and run, as you're wont to do, since you're not the one having to pony up cash. It's cute you seem to really believe none of us here knows who you are and where you live, but seriously, you're going to have to get over this lala land anonymity shit if you want to debate serious people in a serious way and sign a contract binding you to hard and fast terms, not some shit you smeared on some Conservapedia page 35 seconds before you deleted it. If you chickened out or otherwise fled the discussion like usual, the escrow agent would return the money. And we would then just sue you in a convenient forum to recover liquidated damages for you wasting our time. What kind of moron would hand $20 grand to some random person to give to a random fundie charity without any security that you'd perform? Get real, Ken. Cuddles, User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Even that's vast overkill in this case. Sane people just sign a contract and then rely on the courts to enforce if one party breaks it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that a trusted escrow agent is probably safer in this case. So far those who wish to debate Ken are non-US citizens so there would be problems of jurisdiction or actually making a claim in a foreign country. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you sue him for if he breaches the contract? Your voluntary donation? The way he proposes things you'd never be able to get that money back from the faultless third party if Ken backed out. And him inducing you to give 20 grand isn't promissory fraud in my state unless you can credibly allege and show he never intended to honor the contract, which I think would be difficult. Even assuming the escrow agent would release the funds if the debate didn't occur due to no fault of your own, what are your damages without a liquidated damages clause? Probably none since the regular measure of damages for breach of contract is benefit of the bargain. This kind of situation is exactly why people use liquidated damages provisions in the first place. And assuming you did wish to sue Ken for breach of contract or even fraud, where would you do it without a venue selection clause? I'd expect Ken to submit to jurisdiction and venue somewhere convenient to me. And I'd expect him to have the integrity to voluntarily dispense with this flimsy cloak of anonymity he thinks he enjoys and have his signature to the contract notarized. Just some thoughts on the inane process Ken invented to weasel out of ever having to be accountable for his rubbish boasting. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the contract should simply be that the organisers agree to pay agreed charity X amount of money Y contingent on Kendoll's successful completion of the debate. If we don't cough up the money, no doubt Andypants can put his lawyering skills to good use. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and if Ken was a person of good faith that would be exactly what I'd expect. It's the way trustworthy people conduct themselves. But I proposed an escrow agent since he's demanded that you pay the charity through some kind of weird intermediary arrangement before he even shows up and he's setting things up to avoid any personal accountability. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)