Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive220

This is an archive page, last updated 9 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>, <218>, <219>, <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)

Head & Shoulders

Is Benp a parodist? His user page states "Ben P is a teacher in a public school who has contributed to Conservapedia since summer 2008. In writing ability, he stands head and shoulders above all other contributors", yet his grasp of English idiom and grammar leaves something to be desired - Obama and his cronies are foist by his own petard on this one^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From the comments he’s left on Benp’s talk page^img it would appear that Andy thinks that the sun shines out of several of his orifices. Which is odd, given that he identifies himself openly as a godless liberal propagandist. Tylersboy (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Typical liberal boasting and pride, with little to back it up. --Leotardo (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On a lighter note...

This is quite comical (if it hasn't been mentioned already)^imgAMassiveGay (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello heathens!

Hi guys, just checking in.

Apparently, not being on CP for a while means my page and talk page were deleted; how rude of them. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No sir, how rude of you not to visit! Ace McAwesome 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while, a lot has happened in my life. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh yes, life is filled with many things. Ace McAwesome 01:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Karajou skunked you again, deleting pages and blocking for infinity and beyond. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a little shit. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 02:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I haven't seen you in building W20 in a while. Are you still a student at you-know-where? I see that your "crime" was fixing a misspelling in the Ravenna article. No good deed goes unpunished at CP. I may WIGO that. Gauss (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Karajou just got around to deleting your page. Pegasus (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I'm an atheist now and I'm working on getting my life together. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. Did you get your "101 ways to serve babies" recipe book in the post yet? The pan fried liver recipe on page 46 is quite delicious. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming WIGO

Not to say the Conservapedia post isn't ridiculous, but it is also the standard deniers' political line, isn't it? Comes up from all over whenever there,s a storm. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gooners / talk / contribs}

But it takes Karajerk to add some special what the fuckery to it.^img--Ψ GremlinPraat! 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

At least Anger Bear was polite - maybe his diabetes was acting up. --Leotardo (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's funny because the record snowfall is actually proof of global warming. Up here in MA we usually get snow in late december, early january, and late february. Mid January to Mid Febraury it's usually to damn cold to snow (snow dosn't happpen if the temp is below 10 degrees) january and february in MA usually have an average temperature running between 0 degrees and 15 degrees, but so far this year the average temp has been in the mid twenties. The warmer weather is letting more snow fall. So much for andy's "theory"--BenB (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never too cold to snow as long as there is moisture and a way to cool the air, or else snow would not pile up year after year in the Arctic regions. --Leotardo (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no. He's right. If it's below about 10 degrees, water can't really evaporate, and therefore cannot come down. And the Arctic regions are deserts. It's easy to "pile up" when the inch per year just never melts. Quaru^{fruit - You can't explain that!} 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's funny, but not FUNNY!. Bill "The Sane One" O'Reilly asked the same question a few days ago. "Any snow anywhere disproves global warming" is a plank in the Republican platform now, I think.--Gooners (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we WIGO TK's passing?

I'm not the one to write it, but shouldn't we WIGO this? Karajou's confirmations are solid. --Leotardo (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. It's here, so I see little point in a WiGo. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we should do something like a Viking burial, with a flaming longship set adrift to carry its cargo into the next world... but we know the Vikings never reached America. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd opt for not WIGOing it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is WIGOd at RWW. Тиранес^{wash lawnmower, widen communist?} 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We went through a similar thing offering condolences for Dean when his wife passed and we decided to take it down on the basis that it didn't look too good being next to a bunch of entries taking the piss out of CP. Because this involves someone's actual passing rather than just offering condolences, I think voting up and down on a WIGO that reads "TK's died," would look tasteless and disrespectful, regardless of the wording. SJ ^Debaser 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I can't help but think there's something we could do. It's like James Bond hearing that Ernst Stavro Blofeld has died of natural causes or something. Enemies while both were alive, but respect for a formidable opponent in death. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean - in all good movies/comics/books someones arch-nemesis was always an enemy however, in saying that, they'd still work together. Like in X-Men when Magneto (or Mr Sinister) and Professor X were trapped in that land of the dinosaurs. Ace McAwesome 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I agree SJ and SR, good points. --Leotardo (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a WIGO entry, why not just an announcement/statement on the WIGO article itself? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing about WIGO CP is that it doesn't just state what is going on at Conservapedia - it solely points out the bizarre and stupid things that go on at Conservapedia. As a result, I agree with SuperJosh that is just wouldn't be right to put it up there. I suggest that we simply put up a little RIP banner at the top of this talk page. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we should sanitize his entry a little bit. --Opcn (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is any of it less true now that he is no longer with us, than when he was? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Ace McAwesome 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we should not. What's your reasoning on this? He was a horrible person to many. Isn't it ok to say that about a dead man? I'm sorry for the sadness his family might be feeling, and I never wished him ill. But I also stopped wishing him well after a point and since you can't defame a dead man I can't see any reason to whitewash an article about one of the most universally loathed characters on this site end CP. We don't owe him any more charity now than when he was alive. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed totally. While his death should signal an end to the comments and speculation about him, it doesn't change what he did in his life, which in turn means we shouldn't change what we say about those deeds. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just think that it's a bit vitriolic is all. I think a lot of what was written was written in a was so as to specifically make him feel bad, rather than just expose his infuriating tactics. I think that a notice should be put up (maybe like the box that gets put up for fundraisers and elections and the like). How long should I wait before I post the content of our discussions? --Opcn (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a black border around WIGO CP for a week or so? I guess the ding dong template might be a bit tasteless, under the circumstances. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure its only worth putting on WIGO if CP properly acknowledges it. Pegasus (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WIGOing a death? WTF?! How tasteless can you be? As per Ace, "Absolutely not". But his RW page could have a black border (or maybe the same red rose as Karajou put up?), nothing else, no other editing of it. His record is his legacy. DogP (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As Pegasus said, we shouldn't be WIGOing it unless they acknowledge it in the first place. Secondly, if they do some cockassed stunt with his death, then it deserves to be WIGOed... well, not the death, but their reaction. If they're somber and solemn, and appropriate, then there would never be a reason necessary to WIGO it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we at least past-tense his RW page? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My take is we should just add a section noting he died then probably freeze it as it is. Unless he comes back to haunt us, he probably won't be doing much more at CP so it's all a bit irrelevant except for historic interest. Wikis would make it a bit easier to do a Weekend at Bernie's, though. Maybe the Assfly could take over his account... Zombie TK might scare some of us straight. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the SS death index entry enough proof? There is nothing else to corroborate this. Has anyone seen an obituary, or funeral notice, or newspaper report, an online announcement, an "in memorium" guest book - or anything? If you put in his first and last name and search "nationwide" the SSDI returns one listing, but nothing if you specify a state... I tried Nevada and California and Washington. It is difficult, but not impossible to have a manual entry made into the SSDI that isn't valid. There are cases where this is done. I'm skeptical for two reasons. Is there even one convincing secondary source that confirms it? FJF (talk)

There have been people convicted with less evidence. The SSDI entry is not the proof, it is the linchpin. We have plenty of circumstantial evidence, and this simply confirms the theory. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just wasted the last 5 hours trying to corroborate TK's death. I've searched every online source I could think of. Every newspaper in Nevada, crime reports, fire/ambulance calls, obituaries, death notices. Nothing. If I could find one, just one, report of his death anywhere other than the SSDI, I would be convinced. Eira, people have also been wrongly convicted on circumstantial evidence. I have a specific reason for doubting this. Please, prove me wrong. Can anyone find one single reference to his death anywhere other than the SSDI? FJF (talk)

When you die, an obituary doesn't just appear in the newspaper. Someone who cares has to put it together and send it in. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I too have done some searches and found nothing. One Peoplefinder site gives two Terry F Koeckritz, one age 60 in orange counry calif and one 50 in fallon Nevada. It then lists the same family members for both. In my area any funeral home would put a death notice in the local paper, usually advertising the funeral and visitation times. I feel sorry for his Mother. I know mine worries that she is going to outlive her kids Hamster (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that many of those peoplefinder sites list the same person but from prior addresses. That way if you are looking for someone and they have moved then you can find them from their last known abode. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the local cemetery sites to no avail either. Perhaps they just weren't updated. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Break

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You say, "I have a specific reason for doubting this." Please, explain what this reason is. As the vast majority of our evidence is circumstantial, your reasoning has equal and meaningful weight. Be also aware that Obituaries are not mandatory. If he died quietly, then there wouldn't even be a crime report. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Social Security Death Index records contain a person's Social Security number. If this were a hoax, it would be the stupidest way to perpetrate it... one could publish an obituary that everyone would take as more authoritative than it actually is, since as a non-legal notice it need be neither accurate nor real. However, an SSDI entry can be used as a valid reason to terminate a person's health insurance, deny tax returns, and all sorts of horrible things... sure, they *could* be faked, sure they do accidentally end up occasionally being issued to living people, and it makes that living person's hell. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say that we don't WIGO his death, if only to respect his wishes. When we did the same for Dean's wife, TK's comment was to call us hypocrites for daring to express sympathy for somebody we'd previously criticised. While I feel sorry for his family, I feel nothing for his passing. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 07:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For once I agree with TK - if people truly feel sad and mournful, then they should speak more respectfully of these people when they are alive. Leotardo (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping by, but I really don't think this look like a hoax at all. Supposing TK decided to forge a SSDI entry (why not just write an obituary for himself and put it in a newspaper?) and disappear off Conservapedia (why would he want to do that?): it would be in his interests to get a friend, maybe another administrator, to conveniently draw attention to the forgery. And yet it seems as if the people over at Conservapedia don't have the slightest clue what's happened to him. Thomas Larsen (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading this but reluctant to post as it's very difficult to do in good taste. And just because TK did some truly horrible things to me (like posting my real full name on CP and trying to get me in trouble with my employer) doesn't meen I have to post in poor taste.I sometimes let it slip, but I try always to engage with CP by the screen-names and personas they present on line. I try to avoid real names and real people - just the persona they present. For me TK stopped posting permenantly on December 16th and in that regard it is the end of an era.Just my way of deeling with these difficult moments when real life (and death) intrudes on our wiki-fun. In my opinion people claiming it is a hoax are somewhat paranoid. StarFish (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The SSDI record gives his date of death as the day after his last edit at CP. Why should there be any hoax? Why should CP know about it? He lived alone with his mom, do you think he had a codicil in his will that Andy should be informed in the event of his death? He dies, his editing stops, nobody knows why until some evidence surfaces. The irony is that TK was always claiming that all the stuff about him was forged. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how he lived, he claimed to be in fairly constant telephone contact with Andy, and especially with Ed. In fact, Ed was probably closest to TK (and certainly helped with things, such as acting as each other's proxies when trolling editors and it was Ed who unblocked TK). For a month to have passed and neither Ed nor Andy have enquired into TK's silence, is both pretty disgusting and typical of the kind of people they are. Remember, this wasn't a loose bunch of nerds editing a wiki, this is Andy's hand-picked bunch of movement conservatives, tirelessly fighting liberalism. If they can ignore the passing of such a highly valued member of CP with barely a mention, it's pretty disgusting in my book. --Ψ GremlinTala! 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't know the details of what went on behind the scenes. Let's assume for a moment that Ed and TK spoke on the phone two or three times a week. Suddenly, Ed finds his phone calls go unanswered. What can he do? If that's the only number he has, the only option would be to fly across half the country to visit TK's house in person, and even that would just result in an unanswered knock on the door. We're pretty sure there was at least one other person in the same house as TK, but it's entirely possible that this is no longer the case and that the person is living with one of the other Koeckritz clan in the light of his death. Of course, it's quite possible that Psy is right and they're all a bunch of revolting assholes. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FFS they're a bunch of grumpy old men not the Facebook generation, communication is not their forte. Ed and TK phoning each other two or three times a week for a casual chat? Let's not forget that there is also a 3 hour time-zone difference. They probably only chatted when they had some issue at CP to discuss and there hasn't been much need for that recently. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki is very much a community-driven site so I would expect friendships to arise here. Despite the homeschool class beginnings Conservapedia is a completely different beast - it's just a conglomeration of disparate people with similar POV. We should not project our own ideas of what they should be doing in regards to their own social interaction. Expecting people to spend several hundred dollars to fly across the country for the funeral of a comparative stranger or to see if someone is OK seems like a tall order. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on this.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia

We could put an unnumbered (voting) mention in BoC, it is a milestone in CP's hisotry, (short though it may now be). C®ackeЯ 04:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you must immortalise him, add it to Conservapedia:Timeline --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 07:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done exactly as you suggest PG. I think it's an important moment for Conservapedia. I have tried to do it tastefully without going over the top to sanctify the man. If you think I've got it wrong please feel free to amend or remove. StarFish (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite what some Conservapedians may think, I don't think TK dying would qualify for a mention in our article here entitled "Best of Conservapedia." SJ ^Debaser 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the timeline page would do nicely, I had fergotten we haz one o' doze. C®ackeЯ

What now?

To start, I'd like to say hi to everyone here at RW. I've dabbled here for a while, but have decided to settle down with a face and actually become active.

The news of TK's death shocked me. I still have emails he sent me, one where he clearly got caught up in his own deception, denying his name was Terry Koeckritz when he'd signed under that name on the previous email. Any loss of human life is tragic and sobering. He may have deceived people online, but who are we to judge why? A sixty year old man doing such things isn't the sign of a happy or fulfilled individual. Anyway, I digress.

My point of query is thus: what next for CP? Will it grow now that TK is gone, or has it sealed the doom of the site? I'd be interested to hear everyones' opinions.

P.S Sorry for grammatical errors, I'm British and it's fucking late. FairyCupcake (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It cannot start to grow until the rangeblocks expire. --Opcn (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He was a complete party-pooper. It'll be much more lively now - it already is. Jaxe (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Apart from a slowdown in idiotic stories on MPR, nothing much will change. It looks like Karajerk is stepping up to the role of Chief Bully, but that's the only obvious difference. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Plus CP can't possibly grow if sign ups are off 24/7. And CP doesn't have the dedicated police force to have open sign ups any more. A bit of a catch 22. Nope, CP is doomed to a slow lingering death. RobS being smarter than the average rat has probably jumped ship already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is why the registration has been down 24/7... TK locked it before he passed, and no one has thought to turn it back on. It's like how TK was doing the whole night-edit mode during the day thing and no one really knew about it, so they never turned it off at times. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My IP (like many others) is range-blocked for infinity. TK's legacy will continue for as long as CP exists unless someone decides to give the site some serious housekeeping - and middle-aged men are never very good at that. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fight for power at CP?

I'm kinda wondering if what we've seen in the past week or so have been Ken and Karajou, among other things, migth be signs of a strugle to replace TK as Andy's cheif toady? While they might not have known that TK was no longer with us, I am sure they at least subconciously noticed his absence. And if the fight is on, any bets on who might rise to the top? -- Ravenhull (talk) 10:41, 3 Februarhy 2011 (UTC)

Please PLEASE let it be ken. If he wins out the whole blog will dissappear under a pile of putrid flying kangaroos or similar and it will be wonderful. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Ken has enjoyed the freedom of TK's absence. The SDG shows that Karajou was not enamoured with TK (having done a LANCB) and might decide that he now defaults to Officer of the Watch but Ken is a flyweight when it comes to facing up to anyone without the superior sanction of a banhammer and is therefore unlikely to challenge him. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Jpatt is the most likely successor to TK as a member of the Fab5. --Leotardo (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It'll be a combo of Karajou, Ed and JPatt. Neither of them are willing to fight the other two, and Ken is uninterested in anything outside his A/E/V trinity. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit too much speculation

What various CP people know or don't know, have done or not done about TK's alleged death is unknown. Speculation about them flying over to knock on his door, not realising anything has happened, ignoring it, etc. is just that - speculation. I vote for benefit of the doubt and leave it at that.

TK, if you're gone, then may you rest in peace. If you haven't and it's the ultimate trolljob, respect! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. The news of TK's potential death had been a punch in the guts for me last night, but trying to guess who knew what when is getting us nowhere. --Sid (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Celsius

I know it isn't right to rewrite a WIGO that is undergoing voting, but the original WIGO missed the point entirely. This guy (Barclay) fails in the most unbelievable way. I bet even Ed Poor would have seen the error. Just kidding. He wouldn't have. Gauss (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you rewriting a WIGO that is under going voting. If you can turn around its misfortunes all the better. - π 03:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It had no misfortunes. It was doing great. There are now 2 negative votes since I rewrote it. It was funny, but incorrect, before. Now it's just nerdly. Oh, well. Gauss (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My personal vote is for accuracy. We're not a comedy/parody site, so if we complain about something, we should try to get it right, even if it gets in the way of a joke. --Sid (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you just rewritten our mission? :)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd call it more of a corollary. ;) --Sid (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WIGO CP is so far from what the mission cares about it's almost embarrassing how much time people spend on it. ħuman 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Assfly digs deep in to his mighty soul...

... And once again finds the strength to shoot the messenger^img. What would it take to convince him that Kendoll is fucking up his "encyclopedia"? Would Ken literally have to photograph his cock and slap it front and centre on the main page? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone besides Andy and Karajou still have hope in this project. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 08:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's academic now, Ken finally felt brave enough to block the poor guy after Andy shot the messenger. He wasn't feeling that brave when the salient points were on Andy's talk page. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 09:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Never underestimate Andy's powers to not give a shit. Ever since he made the core people sysops, he completely stopped caring. The sysops police the lower mortals as they see fit, and when somebody complains about the sysops, they are wrong by default in Andy's eyes because doubting his sysops would (in his eyes) equal doubting his decision to promote them. And we all know that Andy hates to admit he was wrong about even small details. --Sid (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What Sid said. The Fab Five of CP are basically untouchable, even more so since the old abuse page was deleted by Geo (another who seems to have cut and run). Anybody who dares raise their voice against them, is immediately a troll, because how on earth could one of Andy's handpicked minions possibly be doing something to the detriment of CP? Even when Andy does take action, it's usually only after the sysops have raised a stink about another sysop, and even then, he doesn't communicate, he just acts. Given that Andy somehow equates Ken's scrawls to web traffic, he can carry on as he does. And because he has Andy's blessing, the other curs won't speak up, even if they do care. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't even tell anymore if Ken is just trolling or really clueless

Ken already burned the diff links, but the current version of Talk:Atheism^img has this fun sentence:

Ladies and gentlemen, there are no posts in this forum! Likewise, there is no obesity section necessary HERE :) conservative 07:08, 3 February 2011 (EST)

I gotta ask: Is he just trolling, or does he really not realize that those forums are PRIVATE and thus show no posts unless you are authorized? From the parent section of the first link:

Plus sized women (5,769 Posts in 384 Threads) Private

And from the parent section of the second one:

Men's Health (1,284 Posts in 68 Threads) Private

Oh, and for extra hilarity, another glimpse into the "Christians can do no wrong and resist temptations easily" mentality, from the last link:

Pornography Addiction Support (16,468 Posts in 3,007 Threads) Private

Maybe Ken should write an article about Christianity and Pornography Addiction? :) --Sid (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

*LOL* larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken is getting a bit weird. It seems his new way to bring down Wikipedia is to call them nerds. Luckily, Karajou is showing some sense for once. --Ψ Gremlin講話 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"getting"? --Ullhateme (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't Ken have an Essay laughing at RationalWiki? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Because he relies on links to external sites to make his arguments and, AFAIK, links to "rationalwiki," or even work-arounds like tinyurl activate CP's content filter. Another reason--even he is smart enough to know that K-Jou and (until recently) TK would never have let him get away with it. I'm surprised they even let him get away with the Red Telephone. P-Foster (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a rhetorical question, I know damned well why. Also he wouldn't get any more page views than he does already by linking to us. I'm sure the Wikipedia bashing is purely to garner more page-hits from a larger audience. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's his reason for WP bashing it's pretty stupid. Most Wikipedians already consider themselves proud nerds (myself included). Plus, I mean, come on - this is a guy who spends days in a diaper so he doesn't have to stop writing his hilarious satire. --Leotardo (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah. I see he has burnt the evidence, along with Nate's stuff. Too late again, Kendoll, CaptureBot sees all. Try owning up to your mistakes instead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear

You know. sometimes you really try to help people, but their stupid-fu is too strong. I dropped everybody's favourite swabbie a friendly e-mail mentioning the fact that Einstein wasn't Christian and the whole setting for his little parable was flawed. Did I get a thank you? Did I ever.

“”as a liar, as someone who pushed blackmail and extortion against us, we cannot trust you one bit.

So, in Karajou's world, Einstein is a Christian. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken's borked the diffs on the Atheism talk page but:

“”You don't ever refer to a spanking as child abuse here.

I just hope that he's not someone's dad. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

EC What was it Einstein said about relativity? Something to the effect of. "If I'm right the Germans will point out that I'm German and the French will call me a citizen of the world. I'f I'm wrong the French will call me a German and the Germans will point out that I'm a Jew." Or something like that. Add Karajou's delusions to the list, I suppose. I wonder what andy, with his love of relativity and relativism, would think of Karajou's claim? P-Foster (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a likely source of the story: youtube
• Hadn't we have a discussion quite a while ago that any story about a young boy can be appended by the dictum: and the name of the boy was Einstein - and gain more gravitas?
• Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
• Anyhow, he's coming late to the party: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/episode_cxxx_einstein_einstein.php

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Found it, halfway into that section. Based on the same Snopes link, too. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Has I been banhammered?

I can't access Conservapedia anymore. I get the error message: "Forbidden - You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server." Does this mean I've been banhammered? It would be a little odd, because I haven't been on there in months, and I used to keep a fairly low profile even when I did. Johann (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that a 403 error? You might just have someone else's IP. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

Whoops, just noticed the discussion further up the page. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Johann (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And away they go...

American History is up and limping.^img With no mention of the world's largest American History class taught by a moron in a church basement, and account creation turned off, so new students can't troll their nipples off sign up. I await the homework answers with interest. How long until this course takes a hiatus? --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Even Andy doesn’t seem that interested. He noted on the application page^img as long ago as January 2nd that “this course will include many concepts not included in most run-of-the-mill American history courses, such as . . .” and still has to come up with an example. Tylersboy (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think we're going to be treated to the spectacle of homework marking this time around. TeacherEd might make a perfunctory effort, but nothing good will come of it. I don't see the online version lasting much past the second lecture. I have no idea why he bothers with the online version at all these days. CP is now such that you couldn't associate your homskolling with it, because the parents might come along and take one look at all the ATHEISTS ARE FAT! material and demand their money back. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think TeacherEd is around any more. And sadly, the online courses are losing some of their hilarity - the true joy always came from Andy's extremely generous (and that's an understatement) marking of his homeschoolers' work, but they're not around any more. I'm not even convinced that he tells his RL classes about CP any more. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"A small boat sailing into unchartered waters brought the Pilgrims to America." (emphasis added) LOL, Andy is stupid in so many ways. ħuman 05:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Who would we miss? For me, Ken

I was giving the CP crew some thought about who, if anyone, I would feel some sense of sadness if they passed away. The only one I came up with for myself, believe it or not, is Ken. He doesn't come across as angry or even mean-spirited (fat atheists is just his childlike attempt at humor and, like a child, to get attention). I even forgive his homophobia because I see him as just a big goofy retard shut-in who I think was handed a set of values from whomever, and adopted them because he can't think for himself, which is why he relies so much on quoting other people to support his positions. He can't argue them. As much as I tire of 'retarded Ken is doing something retarded' threads, if I'm around when the time comes for him, I will look back with a smile and think, "What an odd, quirky weirdo." Whereas with Karajou, I think we'll have even harsher sentiments for him than we did for TK. --Leotardo (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but feel sorry for Ken. He's so child-like it is hard to feel malice towards him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Did anyone else catch Ken's fiftieth birthday last week?

I agree - and happy birthday Ken Doll, but if I was Barbie I'd stick with Australian surfer Blaine. --Leotardo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken was originally introduced as Barbie's brother. The relationship is hideously scandalous, but never discussed in the Lamestream Media. MDB (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

heh - the original version of Ken is creepy incest-pedoesque; 1980's Ken soooooo resembles the young Nazi Brownshit singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" in Cabaret. --Leotardo (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I might miss Ed Poor. I am waiting for his review of Pippi Longstockings. Its wrong , yes, but fascinating. I do agree that Ken is unique and maybe in need of help Hamster (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd mess Ken and Ed; besides Andy, they're the only ones that really do the true crazy on CP these days. Rob's barefaced lying has become boring, Chuckarse only turns up to linkspam his blog, Karajerk stomps around snarling at people and copy/pasting stuff and Jpatt only adds 'Obama bad!' news stuff. That said, it would be really interesting if Andy departs and leaves the keys to somebody like Ed Poor. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss any of them. Ken isn't funny any more, just disturbing. It's like watching some poor bastard in an insane asylum and being surprised when he throws handfuls of his own shit at a different wall from usual. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently visited a friend who is in a secure ward along with some others who have been sectioned - he hasn't he's voluntary, cockoos nest like - and to be honest I feel more comfortable around the people who have been sectioned than I think would around assfly, ken or ed. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Greatest Achievements by Teenagers trimmed

Did Andy get rid of the 7 year old teenager? Nope - the 16 year old fossil finder^img since finding fossils is Atheistic and Evolutionary. --Leotardo (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Great googledy moogledy, that cites Yahoo! Answers as a source. That's like citing... Conservapedia. MDB (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It gets better - the cited Yahoo! Answers answer (which was added by Jpatt^img) was copied from an old version of Wikipdia's article on Michael Kearney. So in effect, Conservapedia has cited the nasty, liberal Wikipedia as a source of its information. Nice going, Jpatt. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Typical conservative deceit, he removes the liberal fossil hunter with a glib "trim a bit". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, this one will "Shake Planned Parenthood to its core.^img--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The fossil hunter should get an award. Every fossil he finds adds one gap in the fossil record and makes the Theory of Evilution less likely. Planned parenthood has had some whoopsies in the past but they do take a hard line on criminal conduct, so no FBI today. Hamster (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservative deceit, indeed. The same can be observed with Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History^img: The edit comment states: three new mysteries added, and that is somewhat true as he added:

1. Was the Mayflower trip motivated by profit, or by faith?
2. Did Christopher Columbus bring back slaves to Europe?
3. Did Puritans allow dancing?

But is the same edit, he erases three other mysteries:

1. Who killed John F. Kennedy?
2. Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates? and Why Are Black Americans Still Poor?
3. Did Barack Obama's win in 2008 reflect a turning point in American politics when it comes to race or was it simply that no good black candidates had seriously run before?

So, did he solve those? And just doesn't want anybody to know? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The mysteries he took out were either stupid (JFK) or offensive (Blacks). The ones he put in just sound like test questions, not "mysteries". --Leotardo (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

When will it end?

We've had well over a month now, and something over 3000(!) edits (not including the several thousand he has deleted) with Ken telling the same HUR HUR! ATHEISTS ARE FAT! "joke". Some sysops didn't make that many edits in their whole careers. Of all his obsessions, this must be the most long lasting and the one that makes him look the most childish. When do you think he's finally going to get over this phase, and give us some new material? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone was harping over "why didn't anyone at CP do anything about TK?" I realized something, we spent hours and hours and edits upon edits on WIGO Talk:CP talking about why the other sysops at CP do something and get Ken some help, because he's off the rails... if you need an answer for why they didn't know or care about what happened to TK, then that's really all the proof you need... they don't really care for each other or have concern for each other's safety. They are not their brothers' keepers. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the saddest revelation about CP in a long time. No wonder they can't sign up more conservatives - it's an angry and lonely place. Life is too short. No jokes, few discussions, scant friendships; joyless. --Leotardo (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am waiting for the day conservative is blocked from CP for being a sock of AmesBuscombe (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought Ken had his super important project that prevented him from editing conservapedia? Surely he didn't make that up! GTac (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but has CP ever been full of happiness and light and frolicking bunnies and kittens? Wait.... I thought not. Darkmind1970 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As sad as it is, it's also a wonderful example of just how mature Ken is when it comes to debates and rebuttals. PZ goes "Well Ken, you say atheism leads to obesity, but you're wrong because, you base it on incorrect assumptions from the data you use, etc, etc, etc. How does Ken respond? "Oh yeah? Well, you're FAT! Na-na-nana-na." Dear Ken. PZ can diet, but you'll always be a Faulknerian Idiot Man-Child. --Ψ GremlinTala! 09:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, he's really lost it^img now. The whaling harpoon is particularly sad. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We've always wondered just how crazy Andy would get, given the constant feedback from the echo chamber. Here we're seeing the kind of special crazy that develops in a vacuum. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We're getting closer and closer to this every day. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's Still Cold

Newsflash. – Nick Heer 07:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead. - π 08:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

lol Leotardo (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you glad liberals have been falsely emphasizing medicine? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I watched the Freakonomics movie last night and one segment illustrated Andy's way of thinking perfectly - the bit about how ice cream used to be blamed as a cause of polio - purely because incidents of polio went up in summer, as did sales of ice cream. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but what about pirates? --Sid (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth a WIGO . . .

. . . but I note that the CP main page is now laying into Rachel Maddow for having been fooled by a ChristWire spoof. A link is provided to a typically mean-spirited NewsBusters piece by Noel Sheppard, who pontificates:

“If [Maddow] can no longer discern between fact and fiction, serious commentary and satire, she can’t possibly be trusted or taken seriously about anything, for who knows what her next source will be and whether or not it’s actually legitimate.”

CP, of course, would never make such a gaffe – unless, of course, you count citing ChristWire as the source for its claim in the infamous Barack Obama article that Michelle Obama mocked the homeless by wearing $540-dollar shoes to a food bank. Perhaps those Conservative Bible scholars should brush up on their Matthew 7:1-5. Or, better still, draw the appropriate conclusions from Sheppard’s pronouncement. Tylersboy (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. When a liberal is fooled by ChristWire, it's because liberals are stoo-pid. When a conservative is taken in by ChristWire, it's because liberals use clever deceitful tactics. QED. MDB (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Being a liberal (of sorts), I never thought of that. Tylersboy (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll is trying to get sneaky by oversighting the fact he was fooled in the first place. unfortunately he can't quite grasp^img that you have to burn every revision with the offending material in. Countdown to deletion and recreation in 5, 4.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Tylersboy - compared to Andy, 95% of people are some sort of liberal. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In continuing stupid liberal mode, I forgot to secure the evidence^img. Tylersboy (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding that evidence, did you notice the Huffington Post being used as a source about Michelle Obama's sneakers? According to the CP:Huffington Post article^img, it is a "hate site where its one-sided news cannot be trusted" - lol. --Leotardo (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely registered it, but was concentrating on capturing the ChristWire ref before it disappeared down the memory hole. But lol indeed. Tylersboy (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ummmm, Exhibit A: Fox Nation reports Onion article about Obama email as true. Exhibit B: Conservatives Don't Know Stephen Colbert's Joking. --Leotardo (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Exhibit C: Fox News falls for this story. --Sid (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Weekly World News responded to that, as only they can. MDB (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

re CP citing ChristWire; HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's fucking brilliant! On a more serious note, it does show that people on the extreme end (either end) of a spectrum will beleive any source as long as it says what they want it to. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The depths of idiocy plumbed by CP rarely surprise me nowadays, but I do find it odd that the big news organisations continue to perpetrate these howlers. You'd think they'd keep lists of satirical sites. Who in the media hasn't heard of The Onion? And supposing there are such people, why don't they at least suspect that a "source" with such a name might not be entirely trustworthy? Tylersboy (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't blame the talking heads of FoxNews, (nor even Maddow) but the interns working for them trying to get a little piece of revenge for having to get 36 coffees from Starfucks w/o being allowed to write down who wants what. That's my take. 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Hee, that's an awesome theory. :D --Sid (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

... 3, 2, 1 and burnt. Why does Kendoll have so much of a problem with being found to be wrong? Most people would just remove the offending section and get on with their lives. (P.S., Ken, you forgot to burn the Obama^img page as well. Jump to it.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Karajou on Egypt

So much hate, so much wrong^img, this paragraph on MPR has it all; a conspiracy theory about Soros and Obama, another about an international Muslim conspiracy (...whatever happened to the international Jewish conspiracy? Is this its repalcement?), a "new Hitler" shout-out to Ahmadinejad, Mubarak as the good guy and pro-democracy protesters as the bad guys (remember when they did the same thing with the monks in Burma?), and a portrayal of one of the world's largest religions as "unholy." Awesome. P-Foster (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, George Soros is Jewish and Barack Hussein Obama is a seekrit Muslim. Clearly the evil Muslims and the evil Jews are in it together. Obviously we should support a repressive dictator to prevent these shadowy socialist elites from gaining power. After all, if there weren't any nice friendly repressive regimes, who would we turn to to do our torturing for us? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The right wing does not care about American principles, just American interest. That is part of the reason 9/11 happened. In praising a State of the Union speech by George W. Bush, the Economist said it best: "Obviously, we should all be warily celebrating the possible fall of the Mubarak regime, not bemoaning it. Not because it will lead to any near-term benefits for us, but because it stands a chance of making Egyptians freer....That doesn't mean that such freedom will be in the interests of the United States, in the near term or really in any term we can envision. We should be cheered when other nations start to "find their voice", not because it is in our interests, but despite the fact that it may not be." --Leotardo (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you have to remind me of Ed's Burma Riot Monks? =| --Sid (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, Karajoke has gone full on Glenn Beck. All thats missing are ties to socialism and teh Nazi's.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What's really funny is that Angry Bear accuses us of being "hate-filled" and then he spews forth this garbage. What a sad little man our swabbie is. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 14:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What's also funny is that during the Iraq War the American right was all for "spreading democracy in the Middle East". Now that democracy, is, y'know, spreading in the Middle East, they're in a blind panic. So, apparently, democracy in the Middle East is only good if it comes from American military intervention. People demanding democracy on their own is a Bad Thing.

In all fairness, it is not unreasonable to be saying, "hey, it's possible Egypt's revolution could end up like Iran's, and that would be bad almost across the board." But the right seems to be assuming that's the only possibility. Or at least acting like it, so they can create "ZOMG! Scary Muslim people! It's Obama's fault!" responses. MDB (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just read Karajou's entry. HA what a fucking idiot. SJ ^Debaser 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All the loudmouths seem to be accusing Obama of being on the disfavored side in the Egyptian shouting-match. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's American to support a people who want to be free; it's unAmerican to support the dictator suppressing them. --Leotardo (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not put it in such absolute terms. In this case, obviously, the U.S. should be on the side of the protesters, in whatever way they think is most expedient; but then look at Iran, where the revolutionaries promised heaven and delivered hell. Or Afghanistan, where the U.S. actually supported revolutionaries against a dictatorial government, with rather nasty results. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't predict these things, and our support in Afghanistan was Cold War thinking (we cared more about the Soviets' power than a rag-tag band of extremists). Even in Iran the people--particularly the women--felt betrayed by the Revolution's promises. We can be supportive in spirit without doing anything because it's not all about America. We are so narcissistic - we think we have a say and a hand in whatever happens around the world. When the people of a nation want something for themselves, who the hell are we to tell them "no"? --Leotardo (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The one's with the guns? Quaru^{fruit - You can't explain that!} 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We aren't the only ones with guns.

Though we do have some of the best, and are good at using them. And don't get me wrong, I agree with you fully. I'm just saying. Might makes right. Quaru^{fruit - You can't explain that!} 18:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) My point in mentioning Afghanistan is that we supported people whose philosophy we knew very well to be just as inimical to ours as the Reds' was, to our eventual sorrow. Same with Iran, where you had Reds like Marjane Satrapi's parents dreaming big dreams about the Islamic Revolution, not bothering to notice that they were palling about with a pack of theocrats.

We can be supportive in spirit without doing anything because it's not all about America. Try telling that to the contingent of rabid moonbats with their febrile fantasies of an "American Empire," who seem to think that at the snap of a finger somewhere in New York or Washington, any dictator halfway across the world will tumble.

When the people of a nation want something for themselves, who the hell are we to tell them "no"? Interesting you should ask. It appears that some decades ago, the people of Germany were inspired with a wish to possess the whole of Europe. Some people had the audacity to suggest that the U.S. was not entitled to tell them "no." These people were called "Nazi sympathizers." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense, by why do people always have to bring up the fucking Nazis? Seriously - there's more historical examples than that one. Sorry to be blunt, but it really is tiresome. Anyway, a country hellbent on taking over the whole of Europe, hurting other people's freedom, is not the same as a people wanting to work out how they govern themselves. We can't predict how movements will turn out. In 2000 I didn't think there would be a big difference between Al Gore and GWB, but look how that turned out. It's only because of the West's own hubris and narcissism that somehow we think we have a say. In 30 years if China is trying to intervene in how Americans govern themselves, we'd flip the fuck out; but ha ha - that's seems unlikely, so it's okay for us to do it to others. --Leotardo (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can remember being German and having that time 3 times in school, Germany declared war on the USA - not the other way around. So the US simply defended itself against Germany (that that was in Europe though is some irony). --Ullhateme (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It was merely an illustration of how sometimes people want ridiculous things, or even very bad things, so that one must not make overbroad statements. I used the Nazis as the best-known example of when it was the U.S. saying "no."

Yes, the U.S.'s war against Germany was legal in international law, but that did not stop the Nazi sympathizers from calling it a "fratricidal crime against Aryans humanity." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy. Karaturd's spreading that Beckian anti-Muslim anti-Arab Global Caliphate nonsense like it's credible, and even credible to tie it to Obama's "Muslim Agenda." Ffffffuuuu. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

....and it's crawled into the mainspace^img. P-Foster (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil? / Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil? / Yes a spectacle monopolized / They hold the reins, stole your eyes / All the fistagons the bullets and bombs / Who stuff the banks / Who staff the party ranks" - Rage Against the Machine, Guerilla Radio --Ullhateme (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is JimFullerton?

Who is JimFullerton and why is he allowed to raise reasonable arguments on CP:Talk:Atheism^img? He's been around since 4/2010, was vandalized by User:SWEATYfaggot^img (ew) and according to his Talk page^img, was FUTK (Friend Under TK). BTW - TK enjoyed Knowlwood's burgers; what a pleasant tribute to try one if you live in California. --Leotardo (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yay, the Assfly sockpuppet is posting homework!

Oh look^img, we will get something to mock after all. The only question is, is the Assfly himself writing these or are they genuine homskollar submissions? If the latter, why the hell is he posting them to CP? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not teh Assfly. Those answers support church/state separation, have "mixed feelings" about Columbus, etc. Pretty decent parody though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

NY Times = COMMUNIST!!1!one!

JPratt thinks rejecting unsubstantiated claims that the newspaper is printing falsehoods is what communists would do.^img You kind of have to wonder what drives someone to be quite so dismissive of things like "facts" and "reality". Not sure if WIGO-worthy, but I thought it was quite inspiring.AlexR4444 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you examined the source more closely, you would find that the claims in question were substantiated, and according to the New York Times's policy it is irrelevant whether or not they are substantiated. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Still not communism. Still fucking stupid. P-Foster (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was talking about the original source. JPatt is not even writing legibly, let alone refraining from making a Godwin's. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

JPratt is factually wrong, the thing is about letters to the editor, not editorials. Nor are they clamping down on dissent, just handling errors of fact differently from differences of opinion. It's basically a complete non-story. JPratt doesn't seem to have read his source, just decides to whine about communism. I suspect he picked the communism angle up from some other blog summarising a blog post which summarises another blog post. Such is the way people like JPratt get their "news." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is probably not even as sophisticated as that; more likely he saw the words "newspaper" and "won't print," which triggered the association with communism. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The letter in Prof. Volokh's original post contained both a factual correction and a difference of opinion with the Times. The Times refused to print the letter unless the statement of factual error was removed from it; but the opinion part of the letter was based upon this, so insisting on the removal of the factual claim was a handy way not to get the opinion part published. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I read the source, and it says that asserting that the writer/editor has got it wrong is something that is addressed to the corrections board, not to the letters section. Possibly was unfair of me to write "unsubstantiated"; I think I just assumed so, the letter itself may be right. However, the point stands that comparing a newspaper to communism because it rejects letters sent to the wrong office is ludicrous.AlexR4444 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's an old idea that has often come up over there, but it still amuses me that CP can ever dare accuse anyone else of silencing dissent. Like 90% of the activity over there is aimed at doing exactly that. X Stickman (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not stalking

but: what's this? 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I get no results - what is this indeed. Ace McAwesome 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

[[:File:Death Nevada TK 2010.png|here]]^{Deleted for copyright} 20:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely not!? Ace McAwesome 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if he's gone to troll the choir eternal it would certainly explain why he isn't trolling us on this earthly plane anymore. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh man. I'm not signing up for that, though. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Only thing is it shows as Fallon NV, I thought he lived in Reno (60+ miles away). 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you he had been living in Fallon. Doers this have a date though? Could be his father from some years back? Ace McAwesome 20:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a 2010 death (Norseman's link lets you search by year), so it's not his dad. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

His dad would be extremely unlikely to also be Terry F. If true, this is very sad. 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Real end-of-an-era moment. I wonder if the people at CP even know? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I remain skeptical. Ace McAwesome 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On a little more careful inspection, I think that's advertising for peoplesmart.com not an actual record. In fact I think that whole site might be poorly disguised advertising fodder. Reports of TK's death have been greatly exaggerated. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that some people here were still in contact with him over the past couple of months? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems Jeeves is right. The "current" result will show up regardless of the nature of the search. 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and nothing shows up here, in the logical place. Junggai (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, if it's not true, I suppose this whole thread should be revision-deleted, since it gives Terry Koeckritz's home town and other personal details? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So far, I've only seen evidence to back it up... the various "it could just be advertising for ___" doesn't show up anything for a "Terry asdfbalh"... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

SR is probably right, but should we nuke just certain posts or all of it? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This matches up with his last edits on CP being the 16th of December 2010. This is the Social Security Death Index, so it's highly reliable. (Found this by going through the Reno Obituaries.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've vaped my pic now as it was copyright & Eira's is much better. 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope he went well, that's all I can say. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do remember some mention of heart trouble a few years back... Ace McAwesome 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It used to be fun to joke about, but this sucks. I'll miss our cryptic conversations filled with lies and paranoid accusations. RIP, Terry. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I fear this settles it. It's a shame to see him go, especially after the bizarre, half-veiled instant chats we had. Do the CP admins know? Surely Andy must. It would reflect well for them to acknowledge a major site member/contributor's passing. 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find death sad, so I don't find this sad. Death is only sad for the people who are left behind. The act of dying itself is natural and something that happens to everyone. Aside from all that, the man did some pretty nasty things, including threatening (and sometimes attempting) to disrupt people's careers. Now we are mourning him? Please. --Leotardo (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find death sad either but this is definitely a defining moment in the RW/CP world. Ace McAwesome 21:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that CP didn't know; as he edited on the 16th and went on the 17th, it seems that it was sudden and unexpected. And if they did know, they wouldn't mention it on-site as we would see it. And I know we didn't like him, but I still think it's important to acknowledge that he lived and has now died, and to indicate some regret, even if only on his behalf. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That goes to show how despotic CP has become...or that they just don't care. Can't figure out which. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's sad that they let their reaction be defined by their enemies. But in their defence, they may not have known, and it's probably what TK would have wanted. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken will know now though - and the others that stumble over. Ace McAwesome 22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling they probably didn't know. When DeanS' wife died they put up a notice. Surely the death of a sysop would get at least the same? But you're right - they'll know now. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC3) The last point is a good one. Another possibility is that Andy has opened his mind to the delusion that TK isn't really dead (but Castro still is). Occasionaluse (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Anyone care to update tk's page here on rw? I've not done it because I am wikifu lacking.Oldusgitus (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

EC--My condolences all 'round. To quote a prominent Canadian politician on the death of one of his political rivals: "He made things more interesting. not necessarily better, but more interesting." P-Foster (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I said I retired, but I lurked today, and wowsers. Hard to believe. sterile bullfighter 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that explains everything. It's a shock but also a pity that his passing isn't mourned more. I can't see any of Terry's family bothering to inform CP unlike when Dean's wife died.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)That's kind of eerie.
• Yes.
• I thought 50's, although 59 is more than I imagined. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• His last actions at CP were a block and a deletion of a user page^img in the early hours of Dec 17, 2010
• Does the state fit (Nevada) ?
• I always thought him to be in his late fourties, not being 59. Is this correct?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think TK is still alive and this is his last act of epic trolling. He's obviously taken a sabbatical from CP, hacked into Nevada state's online death records undetected and doctored a death certificate for himself so he can read our reactions from a proxy server in Hawaii. If this is not the case, I can only assume he's dead, which is quite sad, given that neither RW or CP will be the same again. Goodbye TK. SJ ^Debaser 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Faking a Social Security Death Index entry would be a little more difficult than just disappearing, or posting something on your page... You're talking conspiracy talk there... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Karajou has noticed^img Ace McAwesome 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And added a small tribute^img Ace McAwesome 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That was nice of him and I'm not used to seeing Karajou be nice. Somebody really should do something on the site, some kind of tribute or essay. --Leotardo (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well blimey - that explains that then. It is a weird feeling, Terry was a horrible and nasty person, but no one likes to hear of anyone dying. Condolences to those who survive him. I hope he didn't find that St Pete (or Satan maybe) had rangeblocked him. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Or that he rangeblocked them. SJ ^Debaser 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Or that he oversighted his record of birth. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

TK and I had a (seemingly) good working relationship at CP. This news saddens me, in spite of the hassle he gave me upon my return back to RW. Godspeed to you, Terry (and I mean that truly in the non-snarky way). Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 23:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of us here probably hated the guy, but still he was a human being. Maybe not a decent one, maybe not a nice one to people that weren't his friends, but still a human being. So I wish for him that what he believed is true, that he went to heaven and experiences eternal happiness beside the great guys of his religion. And I hope that all of you hope the same thing for the other side of the argument, that we atheists may fade away into the nothingness, released from the pains and pleasures of material life. TK, Rest In Peace. --Ullhateme (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, that is a shock. Can't say I liked the guy but certainly wouldn't want to see him dead. I would use the parlance of my generation and say it was a major bummer, but there are no doubt people out there who would try to misconstrue my words to try and score a cheap point, so I won't.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing is I really don't know how to feel about this. I was initially shocked, I was not expecting this. I never had a positive interaction with the guy, but on the other hand I never really knew him, never met him, never chatted off-site. In a way I kind of bad that he is dead, even slightly sad, which seems odd for someone I didn't actually know. - π 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I can't really mourn for him, not because of his past actions, but simply because I never knew the guy IRL. At the same time, there's nothing that would be as potent to remind me of real life like a real death, and it's a strange feeling when that intrudes in an online exchange. Sad, at least a little, but I feel mostly stunned by this. Farewell, TK. Röstigraben (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes me wonder...

How would anyone know if an RW user died? Ace McAwesome 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How would anyone on any site I occasionally contribute to know when I die? I'm single with no children and my relatives live in South Africa and have no idea of what I do in my life. Oldusgitus (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Jtl died on January 6th. Nutty found out. Тиранес^{sell zebra, subvocalise computer?} 22:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my brother formally had an RW Account so you'd figure out my death pretty quickly. And the no doubt...unusual circumstances....Ace McAwesome 22:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

JTL????P-Foster (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Huw tied a string around my wrist I can yank if I fall down and can't get up. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

user:Jtl Check his talk page. Тиранес^{shave bluejay, bamboozle raid?} 22:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Shit, I was on a long wiki-break at the time. Bummer. P-Foster (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Rose

On TK's page courtesy of Karajou, publicly acknowledging his death - d'you reckon they knew before we did and were waiting until we found out before acknowledging it, or that Karajou learned it here? I'd probably go with the former, but I honestly have no clue. SJ ^Debaser 23:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Holding off for us to notice sounds a bit conspiracy theory like. These people are not evil geniuses. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Most likely, Karajou found out here. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 23:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be disrespectful, but a cactus would have been more appropriate. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just musing, wouldn't go so far as to call it conspiracy-like. I was thinking along the lines of them gauging our reactions, as putting a rose on it before we found it would lead to our own speculations. But now I think about it properly it does sound pretty stupid. Oh well. SJ ^Debaser 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm convinced they found out about it here. Four weeks weeks would have been enough for them to make the point that we didn't know. 6 1/2 weeks means they didn't know themselves. Glad to see you still love us really, Popeye. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering this same thing. I think they didn't know, but that really sounds horrible - I assume they are at least friends with each other. Examining any of that lot personally is a depressing affair. I may not mourn him, but I really would like to see them express something like a tribute, or some nice anecdotes. It would help me see more of his (and their) humanity. --Leotardo (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that Conservative Paranoia will require them to check up. They won't do a front page tribute on our say-so, no matter that there's a screenshot as proof. They probably think we're tasteless enough to photoshop the whole thing. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance that they are tasteless enough for this to be a big troll? That question is nagging at me a little. --Leotardo (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Without admitting in anyway what level of trolldom they are capable of. Faking a Social Security Death Index entry would be crazy hard to do... and that would take trolling of an extra-ordinary proportion. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt you're alone in thinking that - it certainly crossed my mind - but it's difficult to see what they'd gain from it, unless TK wanted to start a new life away from his previous identity, which seems unlikely at 59. Making it up to get our attention would be so massively, hideously tasteless that not even a CP sysop would think of it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that it's TK's dad, of the same name, that died? Or do the dates we've confirmed make that impossible? Jaxe (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that we are actually talking about a cousin/other relative/someone not actually related at all/that the person who edited CP under the handle of "TK" was actually a guy named Izzy Schwartz. 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There's good evidence that TK's dad died some time ago. There's other good evidence that the CP admin known as "TK" was known in real life as "Terry Koeckritz". I don't think there's much doubt about the fact he's now dead. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur, really. But there is a possibility, however small, that two guys in the same town share the same name--more likely if TK stood for "Tommy King" or something...P-Foster (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Talking with gooniepunk, apparently he has been trying to get TK to respond to trolling emails for a while, and has been getting no responses. Presuming that there is some sort of hoax or misinformed fact is simply not supported by the evidence at this point. Or, shall we start labeling the TK-death-deniers now? (Insert allusion here to Andy refusing to believe that Castro isn't dead, or is dead, or whatever the fuck it is.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They shall be known as 'Deathers' and start putting up billboards in backwater villages asking "Where's the death certificate?" -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Occam's Razor applies here. The dates tie up, the initials tie up, the locations tie up... what more do you want at this point? –:SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TK had blocked me on Gchat for a while and then unblocked me and I haven't seen him on since mid december. I sent a message to a woman who was facebook friends with the Terry Koeckritz on facebook (and bears the same last name) so if she is active enough she may be able to answer. --Opcn (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

She was quick, but it was a dead end. --Opcn (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's certainly the end of an era, if true, which it would appear to be, My sympathies to his family and friends at CP. DogP (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with everyone above who gave condolences. It is indeed the end of an era. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TK just got the ultimate banhammer. RIP, TK. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Joaquín Martínez

Also adds his sympathies. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 02:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They totally wouldn't do that sort of thing on our say-so, and I can't see them smart enough to do this as a fake-out (it'd probably cross lines even they wouldn't cross, except maybe Ken), so it's probably true. Quite the shock, really, 60 is pretty damn young to go these days. --Kels (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

They still check their own sources... the SSDI is kind of hard to argue with. And remember, they haven't said outright that anything has happened, they're simply alluding to it based on probability. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's another service that RW does for CP. We fix their spelling, error check their articles and now we tell 'em when their sysops are dead. They really ought to be more grateful. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I still doubt Koward would do something even that minor just because we said something, even if we backed it up. It wouldn't surprise me if at least a couple of sysops had his phone number, so they probably checked it out after reading here about the possibility. --Kels (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, that would be the most hilarious thing I've read all year if it wasn't so tragic. ^sshole 11:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reddit?

So I guess http://www.reddit.com/user/tk1138 isn't TK? I thought folks here were sure it was. 03:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea who you are talking about, even following the link. - π 03:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Guy claims to be working on an etymology degree as well, so unlikely... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RIP

I hope he passed without much pain. And I really feel bad if his mom outlived him. RIP, for whatever it is worth, Terry. ħuman 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aye, or in his sleep. So long Terry. C®ackeЯ 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Over-quoted, I know, but Donne's words seem particularly apt here, and can be subscribed to by theists and atheists alike:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Tylersboy (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yell at me if you like, but while we're on the subject of quotes, I rather like this one by Bette Davis: "My mother told me never to speak badly of the dead. She's dead....Good." --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rest in the ninth world

I, unfortunately, cannot agree with the outpouring of respect here, even though I am speaking as a relatively impartial observer. TK was not simply "a man whose view of things has the hardihood to differ from mine;" he was a slimeball and a hypocrite, the kind of fellow who would have been subject to damnatio memoriae had he lived a few thousand years ago and been caught at it.

I do, however, agree with Human about the prospect of his mother outliving him, for her sake. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While not disagreeing with anything you say, "death" has a significance that is all too real to us that remain. I don't think there is really any outpouring of respect. Honestly, as horrible of a person as he is, I never would have wished DEATH upon him. He has been punished too greatly, none of his wrongs deserved an eternity of not existing anymore. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? PUNISHED?!?!?! By who (if there's a "punishment," there has to be somebody deciding to give out and actually administering said punishment)? And for what? And HOW? By having what happens to every last single living organism happens to him? P-Foster (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When I put my hand into a pot of boiling water, I am "punished" by severe burns. While everything dies, it can still happen too early, and it can happen for wrongful reasons. Thus not all death is "ok". Wishing him a painless death is being courteous enough to say, "hey, this guy was a total asshole, but it still doesn't mean that he deserved the torment of pain prior to the end of his life, nor did his actions make his death deserved. The whole point here was that he did not earn death. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I do not, as it happens, believe in the Fall of Adam, or any other variation on "the wages of sin is death." What comes across from Norse mythology is that the three afterlife destinations correspond to the ways a person can be remembered: the glorious memory of the sword-dead, the not-inglorious memory of the straw-dead, and the evil memory of hypocrites, oath-breakers, etc. (e.g., Haakon the Bad of Norway). ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in "the wages of sin is death" either. But death comes to each of us, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is still the end of a life. Nothing we do can make us deserve death. Not even murder. With this position, then no matter how much of an asshole this guy was, there was no reason to warrant his death, or for us to wish him death. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He was just an internet troll. He was not a murderer or a child rapist. While I do sometimes wish the worse for some people, they have to be much, much worse than TK to qualify for that. The only thing that he did to me (and many of the people here) is to ip block me at CP. --Tlaloc (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Being an asshole on the Internet doesn't mean that you are worthy of death, nor does it mean that your death is not a bad thing. Farewell, TK. -- λινυσ^(☮) 06:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TK's online persona was that of a deceitful, self-serving, lying, vindictive sociopath and I feel no sadness about his death. Maybe people act differently online but I think that the only difference is that their real personalities are revealed as they are less constrained by the social niceties that we adhere to in face-to-face interactions. He could have been a pleasant constructive character at CP if he had wished but he chose otherwise. I'm sure in real life he was perfectly amenable and a good son to look after his mom in her later years and it is with her where my sympathies lie. She is elderly, not in the best of health and worried about family finances, so will miss him terribly. I hope that she has suitable financial and social support to see her through. Nobody deserves death but it as an intractable fact of life and just because TK is dead doesn't mean that we should profess some sort of respect for his passing. I never knew him in real life so his death is just that of another unknown joe. CP will be a different place without him, although he contributed to its decline he imposed some sort of misguided order and was probably the strongest character who inhabited that strange world. He always said that he tried to bring down Conservapedia "because of the children" but paradoxically he ossified it while simultaneously driving the children away. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"...I think the only difference is that their real personalities are revealed as they are less constrained by the social niceties...". No way I agree with this. While your online life can bring out some hidden parts of your real yourself that you don't show in "real life", the biggest part is just acting, "playing a game" and assuming different roles. Regarding TK, his real life intrusions can't be forgiven, but other than that he was just conspiring for the destruction of CP (well, and us) and having fun - the same reasons most of us are here. He made life more interesting. His trying to convince you that he is your ally and everybody else is either stupid (at CP) or evil (at RW) was quite entertaining. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't know TK, CP might have been a game but is was only one in a succession of games where he played a vindictive sociopath. He had only one role of his own making and that reflects an underlying character trait. You may be able to divorce yourself from what you do in a virtual world from what you do in the real world but they are linked on a subconscious level. We have less free-will than we think. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Genghis Khant wholeheartedly. With all due respect to everyone's feelings, for quite a few of us the beliefs that people like TK espouse are destructive and hateful, particularly for gays like me. Maybe some people here see CP as a big game and are mourning the loss of a 'rival player' but some of us have actually felt the weight of the ideas he, and other CP admins, espouse. It's great that this particular subset of wingnuts is ineffective, but he was a nasty man who could care less about the suffering of people unless they had his worldview. And Eira, on one hand you say death is a punishment, on the other hand you say there's nothing wrong with it. You're ideas about death are confusing but from what I can glean I don't share them. --Leotardo (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While I understand Genghis Khant and Leotardo, I still think there has to be a difference between the person and the human being. Yes, as a person TK was a deceitful, hypocritical, nasty dangerous sociopath. But as a human being he would still have felt pain when you beat him and he probably would have laughted when one told a good joke. So while I won't miss the person TK I hope that the human being TK didn't had a painful death. And I don't think death is a punishment, because not only is the ability to feel pleasure gone but also the ability to feel pain. Nothingness can't be a bad thing, it is nothing. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't get me wrong but none of us knew TK in real life, we only have his online presence to remember and I certainly wouldn't wish ill or pain on a fellow human. However, we don't need to give a eulogy but just because someone has died doesn't mean that we should somehow be remorseful and respectful. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Same. Some of the comments in these threads seem to imply that there is no happy medium between respectful mourning over a tragedy and dancing on his grave, hoping he died painfully. The happy medium is not caring and not whitewashing his history simply because he's gone; I think Lily said it well when she mourned that he wasn't a nicer person when alive. --Leotardo (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you either mourn a loss or you don't, to be truthfull when my grandfather died when I was seven I didn't feel like mourning anything - that feeling just wasn't there. But it definetly put the smile out of my face for a day (even after that I didn't smile, but more of kindness to my mom). In TK's case it put the smile out of my face for about 10 minutes, like a politician you really didn't like just died. I'm also not saying we should be all respectfull now (I wouldn't even know what to pay respect for), people have deserved as much respect in death as in life, but even if he was the way he is described here on RW, even the worst people that ever lived on this world deserve a basic respect (which CP often ignores and tries to make some kind of faulty argument out of). That's what democracy is build on, enough basic respect for everybody. That's just my view. --Ullhateme (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Even the worst people that ever lived in the world deserve a basic respect" - Are you really inferring that Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer in death deserve some kind of basic respect? What exactly is that respect? --Leotardo (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do infer that. That respect is to not use them for your own benefit (as often done with Hitler) and not to tell lies about them. It's hard to describe: You can state pretty much anything about a dead person, some people will believe you - but it is respectless to the bequest and image of that dead person. I know that sounds weird but the resulting damage is more societal. Honestly, if I were to bring up a grand new philosophy and some asshole consciously uses it wrong, it damages my bequest even if I'm dead. I see that as respect to that dead person. No matter what a person did in his lifetime, they all should have the basic rights and we should have a basic respect for them. And to piss some people here off: I see the right to life as an absolute right, denying somebody that right, no matter who - no matter from whom to come, is inhuman and barbaric. No matter what the guy (or woman) did, some rights and some respect for a being has to be there. No matter how much we don't understand someone, denying rights and respect because of how someone behaved is not democracy it's negativ feudalism. In a society of equals everybody has the same rights, some of these rights (and that respect is one of those rights) can not be taken away - and if it happens so, we should think again to what principles we plead. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree because I think you are looking at it backwards. Not telling lies and not warping the deceased's worldview is more about respect for yourself, your integrity and your values/principles; it's not about about respect due monsters. --Leotardo (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I also think you're going the wrong way around. At least we can agree to disagree. Oh and to say something else: rights work without ethics (the old liberal thought of letting people try to become happy in their own way, as long as they don't harm people), judging if somebody deserved a right by judging their moral behaviour, some CP-like moralist could for example very well argue that due to the immoral behaviour of gay people (fucking other guys in the but) they have lost their right to speak freely. Linking rights and morals is quite dangerous. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Before everybody thinks I'm trying to convince Leotardo of something here, I know that debating about justice, rights and respects is a bit like talking about what colour looks better. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we aren't speaking to human rights, we're speaking to respect due to dead monsters. --Leotardo (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My two cents? All human beings have certain rights no matter what (torture/the death penalty/etc. etc. are always wrong, full stop) and this does extend, to a certain extent, after death. For instance, if somebody wanted to parade Dahmer's remains through the street or defile his body in some other way as a way of making a statement, that would be wrong, even if the dude is dead. I don't believe in all of a sudden making nice with the recently departed when that nice wasn't there to begin with (somebody suggested yesterday that we should "soften" our TK article, which would be phony to the extreme...), but basic human respect doesn't necessarily die with the person in question. P-Foster (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, if we are going to those extremes we shouldn't parade a corpse through the streets or piss on it, but I rarely think, "I will not piss on you, corpse, because I believe you are due some basic respect." I think, "My values are the reason I don't piss on a corpse, regardless of the corpse, because it would degrade me more than it would degrade that person." We all believe the same things--don't defecate on corpses--but our perspectives are different as to why. Of course, it's easy for a bunch of white liberals in western democracies at their keyboards to say such things when we never had to live under Hitler or Saddam. Keep in mind civilized society and these sorts of values are only intact when society is functioning respectfully. Nuclear winter comes, and we'll all be animals again. --Leotardo (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Respect is earnt. Correct, all things deserve a certain degree of civility but for people, imo, they need to earn my respect. This can be done in any number of ways. Admiting error, being an all round decent person, performing a good deed for altruistic reasons. Dying is not one of them. All that earns is a note in the death pool. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction to be made between respect for the physical individual and their family as fellow members of our society and respect for someone's legacy. Although I can understand why some people who are deprived of justice while an oppressor is alive might like to exact some sort of revenge on their corpse.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My respect does not go to TK... my respect goes to death itself. It's a powerful force, and when it happens to anyone it is tragic. Yes, it will eventually happen to everyone, and each one of those will be tragic. Spinning off of Ullhate me, the idea is "human dignity". No matter what a person has done, he should still be afforded dignity. Respect may need to be earned, but dignity is automatic, and inalienable. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dignity! I know that word, why didn't it came to me writing all this way to long stuff?! Arrgh... Thanks Eira. --Ullhateme (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That special wording is memorable to me only because it's the very start of the German "Constitution". It's stated that it is the source of all legitimate power of the government, and the basis of all human rights. (Their "Constitution" starts with their "Bill of Rights"... we had to tack ours on afterwards because people weren't sure it would pass with it internal.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly got no more or less "respect" for the man now he's dead. Anyway, why do we have the tradition of not saying bad things about recently dead people? And only recently dead people - because it sort of wears off after a while and people go back to saying what they really think. Or am I completely off base on this?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about who Terry was and wasn't. It's about how we, as individuals, respond to what can only be described as sad and tragic. It's ok to continue to hate who he was on some websites, but what do you say when you hear someone died? If you didn't care for them much, a simple "RIP" and condolences to those they left behind is tasteful. If you really cared about them, then tears, notices, grieving, etc. is in order. Fuck, I seem to be spending too much of this year visiting graves... ħuman 02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Did TK know he was going to die? He might have known during the last few minutes but didn’t know when he made those last normal (for him) edits to Conservapedia. Did TK know for years his heart was weak and he was not likely to live out a normal lifespan? He might have known and he might have taken it out on the people he met on the Internet? At least he can’t harm anybody anymore. Kirk Johnson (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Funeral

RIP TK. He was a slimeball, but still will be missed by RW & CP. Do I presume he would have had his funeral already? I would have expected Andy to jet up to Nevada if he knew and pay his last respects to a guy who he felt helped the site immesurably. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, why would any of TK's family or friends bother to inform Andy or the other CP sysops about his death? CP may loom large in our world but I doubt that TK's online activities attracted much attention from his family who have more important things to worry about than a stupid blog. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If he did live with his mother then she no doubt knew that he spent the vast majority of his waking hours on his favorite site, and he and Andy shared phonecalls. I would have expected Andy to call his number concerned as to his absence and received the news from TK's mother. If, say, Josh or Nutty (or anyone else here I'm in IRL contact with) disappeared I'd at least give them a call to ensure they were alright. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would his mother follow what he does in his office? She's in her mid-eighties, why should she be interested in her son's internet activities? He had his own life, it's not like he was some teenager; and CP was not his only vice he probably had lots of other calls. My wife doesn't even know about RationalWiki, she's not interested in what I do on the internet so long as it's not browsing for porn. You obviously get on well with some fellow RWans but none of the SDG or ZB files gives any hint that any of them conversed in a social role. Do you think Ken's mum and dad are are aware of what he is up to until 5 o'clock in the morning and would communicate in the event of his demise? As for Andy, TK has taken time off before, he might have been starting to wonder why he hadn't heard from him but funerals generally happen within about a week of the death unless there was some suspicious circumstance and it would have been around Christmas when much of north-eastern USA was snow-bound. I think you are inferring far too much into their relationship, there was never any indication that they had ever met in person and Andy does not come across as the warm-hearted genial soul who would fly across the country to the funeral of someone he only casually knows, even if he knew about it in good time. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Crundy's original question which Genghis has already answered but which I'm saying again anyway; the funeral would presumably have already taken place. When my granddad died we (my dad) waited 2 weeks to sort everything out, which was long enough. In the event I die anytime soon (lol) literally one of my friends knows the name of this site having seen me on it before, and he wouldn't think to post telling of my demise. No one in my family's aware of RW, so it'd be up to Crundy et al. to deliver the happy news. SJ ^Debaser 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In the event that I die, y'all better figure it out or things will get messy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We got it figured out, don't worry. The board can embarrass this place far better than you dreamed. ħuman 02:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry - we'll probably all be over at Teflnet again, while you quietly moulder in a corner of your flat. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me, Trent's still alive. Who'd have though it? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trent is alive, TK is dead, but what about Castro? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My favorite quotes about TK and his style:

“”Mercutio. ... Thou! why, thou wilt quarrel with a man that hath a hair more or a hair less in his beard than thou hast. Thou wilt quarrel with a man for cracking nuts, having no other reason but because thou hast hazel eyes;--what eye but such an eye would spy out such a quarrel? Thy head is as full of quarrels as an egg is full of meat; and yet thy head hath been beaten as addle as an egg for quarrelling. Thou hast quarrelled with a man for coughing in the street, because he hath wakened thy dog that hath lain asleep in the sun. Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for wearing his new doublet before Easter? with another for tying his new shoes with an old riband? and yet thou wilt tutor me from quarrelling!

—Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1

“”Benvolio. We talk here in the public haunt of men: Either withdraw unto some private place, And reason coldly of your grievances, Or else depart; here all eyes gaze on us. Mercutio. Men's eyes were made to look, and let them gaze; I will not budge for no man's pleasure, I."

—Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1

Really, now I am retiring. sterile bullfighter 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Memories. Over 6000 entries in the block log later, he shall block no more.

My final contact

After a few back and forths with TK I stopped emailing/IMing him because I felt it a waste of time. But I did get this, some months later, when trying to get a CP account (knowing I wouldn't of course - just in jest...). Ace McAwesome 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Ace, you are quite the card! And never mind the veiled "I know all about you" comment regarding Mrs McWicked

Dude... what a cock... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

At least he wished you a merry christmas... --Ullhateme (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not a passive aggressive thing to do to an atheist at all. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: that was sarcasm on my part. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I post the IM chat betwen me, Nutty, Josh & TK then? It was teh win! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your parts are teh win. We should all regroup off-wiki to compare stories and see what resources we have so we can come up with a fitting way to make a tribute to this man's legacy of deceit. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I can post my actual final chat with him, which was just him and me, with the boring end stuff trimmed off? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you go! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

HEY ASSHOLES!!!!

All of you idiots posting about TK on CP are seriously in need of a new hobby. You're making us look guilty by association. You have no fuckin' class whatsoever. Grow up. And get off my lawn!!!! P-Foster (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just random griefer assholes. They lurk and love to latch on to any chance to cause drama and suffering. The worst kind of trolling and the kind of people you really want to punch in the face. =/ --Sid (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just awful. --Leotardo (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are those people? I dissociate myself fully from all of them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What Lily said. Although it physically couldn't be me, nor can I see it, 403 blocked FairyCupcake (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fucks sake. I thought it wasn't going to happen like it did before. If that person is a member of RW then please fuck off and don't come back. You're not welcome here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite that we still don't have any official CP acknowledgement of TK's demise. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that it will still come, but that they first want to be really sure he's actually dead because it might be really awkward if TK logs on after an extended holiday just to discover that Andy has declared him dead on the Main Page. Keep in mind that this entire development is basically just a day old and that TK maybe didn't give out much information to let others verify things like these. --Sid (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus people are actually trolling CP about TK's unconfirmed but likely death? The guy fucked around on the internet, he wasn't raping children here. If anything the serious members of this site should at least hold a grudging appreciation for TK since hes the one whos done the absolute most to keep people off that site and prevent it from growing. No matter his motives I'll at least thank him for that. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't because TK is one of the people who made it what it is. I actually would like to see a 'conservative encyclopedia' that explored the nuance of thought in the conservative movement in a serious, intellectual way. I fault Andy (and TK, Ken, Karajou and the rest) for turning it into a bizarre world of conspiracy and anger that often expresses support for odious ideas. TK being a jerk hasn't stopped their "Homosexuality" article from being the #2 hit on Google, natch. --Leotardo (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Leo, do you really think that an "Encyclopedia" made by Schlafly would ever be what you want? That thing was doomed ever before it got started simply because it was started by a mental case. I agree with you that I would like to see something that does express nuanced and rational conservative thought also. I hate that the opposing party to my beliefs are run by nuts currently and not thoughtful conservatives that I know are out there. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that CP was created by, and staffed with, fools. As a Brit, my perception of American conservatives has been largely shaped by CP. As you might imagine, this means that I tend to view them as retards. I know that that isn't true, but I can't help it. There are arguments for gun ownership, privatised medicine and the like - but CP doesn't describe them, it just has angry and heavily biased screeds against liberals.

In a way, though, I suppose CP has done it's job; on a few occasions when debating with conservatives, I've gone into the argument imagining I was facing someone like Andy, and got wrong-footed when my opponent actually accepted my points and provided sourced counter-points. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trolling CP about TK is just fucking disgraceful. Fucking idiots, have you no heart? DogP (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happened with Dean's wife ("I'm glad she's dead"), and TK blamed it on us. I hope none of us are behind this. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes. And what did I get for removing that disgusting comment? However, this goes beyond the pale. It's disgusting and uncalled for. That said, I doubt whether it is anybody from here, given how, our discussion of his passing has been fairly refined. It's probably ED, or Ebaumsworld again. Not that Karajerk will believe that of course. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 09:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not ED, since I didn't see any edits on the CP page for a while...I was actually the last one to edit it. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 23:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Belming Cocktards

Moved from SB 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1) people don't "pass", they die. It is a perfectly good word for the cessation of life. Use it. Pathetic euphemisms are part of the American way of death designed to relieve the living of as much money as possible.

b) You all fucking loathed TK.

iii) His only notable contribution to anything was range-blocking rather a lot of the interwebs.

4) Rather more far nicer people die every day, lots of them in interesting ways most of us really don't want to know about.

e) Fucking get over yourselves. Internet Troll is dead, there'll be another along in a minute.

vii) I don't know why I've bothered to point this out.

5) This place is dead to me.

82.23.210.230 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

^ belming cocktard. I'm hardly a troll, it's just the WIGO talk page is positively embarrassing. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

queue Monty Python Parrot skit Hamster (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess we've found out who the dickhead is who keeps creating usernames on CP called things like "LOLWheresTK" then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I really can't be bothered creating usernames, I doubt you're interested, but I was lateralquercus. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right? What a loser. --Leotardo (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This guy made me ask myself some tough questions and he's right. I'm LANCB for 90 days starting now. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, but again, there's a happy medium between mourning a loss and dancing on a grave. As someone else said, TK wasn't a child rapist, he was just a Class A Asshole. I personally think that a lot of people's mourning on here are not doing so over TK, per se, but over that universal uncomfortable feeling people have when someone dies and is gone forever. We saw TK as a CP institution, and his death reminded us that life is short. Writing, "Fucking get over yourselves" isn't appropriate in the context of any of this. And "passed away" is common in the English-speaking world, not just in America (As the Times of London's obituaries make clear). --Leotardo (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I now feel that Leotardo completely understand my position. Cheers for getting something accurately transmitted through this horribly inefficient medium. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And as an addendum to that, I doubt that anybody here is mourning TK's death, given that nobody here knew him all that well. What we are doing is pointing out that whilst we didn't like the guy, we certainly didn't wish him dead either, nor do we wish the pain that this has caused to his family. It's called basic human decency, something that you might want to explore a bit.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, fuck off. SJ ^Debaser 16:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never been in a conversation where telling the other party to get over themselves didn't help things along immensely. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm fucking off, you don't need to ban people round here, they grow out of your sub-Ed childishness and illiteracy. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I know that Huddersfield is a shithole, but is there really nothing else interesting to do there? Oh, and please don't let the door slam you in the arse on the way out. Get fucked, dickhead. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

oh, good oh. TKish stalking of ip addresses now, fucking well done you stupid cunt, the address is simply UK, the server farm is in West Yorkshire, and slanging off where someone might live is actually sub TK behaviour. The previous UN signed by an adult 82.23.210.230 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) ps Huddersfield is a rather nice town if you're ever in the UK.

My wife is from Huddersfield originally, and even she agrees that it's a shithole. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"ZOMG I GAVE MAH IP TO THE PUBLIC AN THEY PUTTED IT INTO A GEOLOCATOR, AN DAT MEANSES TEHY R STA>LKING MEH!!!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of threads people don't like...

...only happens on Conservapedia. Never happen here of course. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your thread, such as it was, hasn't been deleted. It got moved to WIGO: CP as was appropriate to its content. You can go bitch further over there if you like. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. A 'moved' tag or whatever would've been nice. 82.23.210.230 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We'll keep that in mind next time we remove one of your crap threads. --Leotardo (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It was too much effort. I've bothered for this one, though. ^sshole 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is WIGO worthy, but here I go

The Main Page of CP says that Schlafly is ready to indoctrinate those kids again with his American "History" course. I read the first lecture and I noticed a complete lack of scholarship, credible sources, and I am searching for inaccuracies, which knowing CP, are bound to be there. The homework is ridiculously easy from what I've seen, and most of it is opinion. Meh.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the first sentence on this page.^img Then read it again, because you'll be pretty sure that somebody who calls himself an educator shouldn't boast about such a thing. Pour yourself a drink and contemplate the fact that there are people who will eventually be in positions of responsibility who are getting their education from this guy. P-Foster (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Responsible for making sure I get enough packs of ketchup with the fries I'd like with that? MDB (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

High scores: -1, 31, 100%. Eh? A negative number? Getting percentages involved? Oh, Andy! You crazy! Webbtje (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Why are there different exams for boys and girls? And what's with the "Greatest Mysteries of American History"?? 1/2 of them are trivially solved, the other half seem to be a big "who cares?", and easy enough to just look up. The few remaining seem to fall squarely into conspiracy territory. Quaru^{fruit - You can't explain that!} 15:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You must be new here. It's all about "chivalry", or what we in the reality-based community like to call misogyny. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno.. 8 months or so? I usually try to avoid CP. I found this site by it being (reasonably) intelligent and fun, not as a fallout of my dissatisfaction with CP. So sometimes, when I check, I get dumbfounded by the utter retardedness that is CP. But that sexism present in tests in a "real" class? Fucked up. Quaru^{fruit - You can't explain that!} 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been some debate as to just how real his homskolling classes are these days. There's something very strange about him posting the lectures and homework there, but none of the homskollars actually using it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Those homskillers have been posting more answers to Schlafly's homework which will benefit them in no particular way. Yay for ignorance! --Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Terry != Terrence

Looking at the SSDI entry, is any male legally named "Terry"? Shouldn't it be "Terrence"? CONSPIRACY!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise it has been exactly 90 Kendoll days since your last post here? Another stunning proof of White Hole Kensmology. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, so considering the speed of time in Ken's Universe and an assumed age of about 46 years, that means that he was born a little less than two weeks ago. I remember seeing him around much longer than that though. I'm confused. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's more like dog years. Kendoll is perhaps 46 in human years, but that means he's approximately 64607 Kendoll Years old. This may be why he's wise beyond our, erm, Ken. Or totally insane, one or the other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Does he also sleep for 20 seconds every minute? That might explain his editing patterns... --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's take for a second that his real name wasn't "Terry"... I'm sure the Social Security number attached to the entry is meaningful beyond any thoughts of "Terry" vs "Terrance". Again, faking an SSDI entry is really retard if you're not dead, because you give your SSN to the public. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the SSDI. In addition, we have confirmation from the Sheriff's dept - Terry is dead. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 09:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That Tribute.com article comes from the SSDI record, so using it as evidence to back it up is circular. - π 09:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So by CP standards, it's perfect, logical and infallible evidence? Still, I'll take the Sheriff's word as gospel tho. --Ψ GremlinTal! 09:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia OCD

I hate to say it, but Ken was right. I saw this knobber in the boozer tonight, and the first thing that came to mind was Assfly!

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Was too tired to edit last night when I saw this, but thanks to you, I fell asleep thinking of a cheesy theme song to some bar comedy. ♫♩♪ So when you're down and lonely / and there's libruls in every hallw'y / you can come down to good ol' boozer / and meet all of your trusworthy frieeeeends ♫♪♩♪♫ (I know, it doesn't rhyme or even scan, but at that point of the song you're supposed to be too drunk to care. Also, Unicode doesn't have crooked and bent notes to indicate the increasingly off-key singing.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Creepy Uncle Ed again

Maybe we did cover this one, but I can't wait to read Ed's currently red-linked article on "Sexual slavery"^img I'm not quite sure what point he's making with that last, throw-away sentence - are conservatives also feminists? I like the edit summary too - typical Ed, "I think this needs more work, so I'm going to bitch and moan, but I'll be damned if I'm actually going to do the work." --Ψ Gremlin講話 12:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken decides to cross the streams^img by dragging his "[word] and obesity" meme into the same talk page to remind Ed that feminism is EEEEVIIIIIL. I mean, seriously, we can't let anybody on CP claim that feminism has good points in any way, right? What's next, an atheist who doesn't eat babies? --Sid (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see he repeats his "I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events" crap. Any bets that there's going to be a non-stop 24-hour news "event" at some point in the next 24 hours? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 12:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

With TK gone...

DMorris makes his move^img in the race to be CPs biggest cock. P-Foster (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's redundant anyway. Karajerk's the one who reports people to the authorities. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

DMorris is a self-important moron, both on CP and WP. This edit at the latter was a classic. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we learn from the SDG that Popeye only threatens to report people to the authorities, but in fact has no idea how? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

he claims to have phoned the library from which he thought Icewedge was editing. Can't find the SDG or ZB ref tho. --Ψ GremlinParla! 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in 190/cac918aece71daeb.html –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The SDG and ZB show that Kowardjerk is the one who shows the most vindictiveness and nastiness towards really wanting to fuck people up for disagreeing with him or posting on his blog. He revels with great delight in the delusion that the FBI etc will actually send parodists to prison. What a pathetic little man. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, in 640/65efe he also made the superb prediction that; "Within a year, Conservapedia will be very serious competition to the rest of the wiki-wannabe encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, and they don't like it." Spot on Koward, spot on! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

SDG? Pegasus (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Protip: Try typing "SDG" into the handy search box located at the top of the page! 124.183.244.157 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

CP sinks deeper in to conspiracy territory

The Assfly continues his off the reservation climate change safari. Now he's talking about a conspiracy theory^img that his own source tells him comes direct from Prison Planet, the Alex Jones mouthpiece. It even tells you right there in the article why it couldn't possibly be true.

He's more or less taken on all the facets of the conspiracy theorist now. Wild claims that run counter to the evidence, refusal to even see what's right in front of him, and trusting exceptionally dodgy sources over much more reliable data. I wonder if the CP experience will send him full scale tinfoil hat? I'm kind of looking forward to watching his David Icke style descent in to madness first hand. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Love the phrase, "Predictably, the White House denies responsibility." Coming soon to MPR: "I can't find my keys. Predictably, the White House denies responsibility." Doppelheuer (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conservapedia a failure, ignored by even the conservative fringe. Predictably the White House denies responsibility." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WIGOed. C®ackeЯ

Legacy

It seems Andy's taken on the mantle of discussing things in smoky rooms, rather than online.^img Bonus points for pulling "Godspeed" out of retirement. --Ψ GremlinHable! 10:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP did ask for a mail address. But yeah, "Godspeed" is back! :D --Sid (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Godspeed!!!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Andy's answer totally misses the point, which is about not being able to access CP at all, not creating an account. Goatsloth. Cantabrigian (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The person asked for an email address and Andy gave them one, where is the intrigue? - π 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck.

Just when I thought Ken couldn't get any more scarily weird. Now he has a writing plan^img for JPratt. It's really coming apart over there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken requested Ed to create the same article^img, but Ed said no^img. I really don't understand why, though. It's not like Ed puts any effort into the other stubs that he already creates (at least, I hope he doesn't put any effort into them, because that would just be sad make it sadder than it already is). It would take Ed only about 15 seconds to find a quote and create what he would consider an article. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Andy's mom is certainly not overweight!" Old people hitting on each other via the internet is just creepy... Pegasus (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when has Ed shown any interest in the history of science? All I've seen him do lately is liveblog the TV and write creepy sex stubs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Ed here. Ken should ask User:Conservative to write it. «-Bfa-» 02:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody bites.^img P-Foster (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Desmond Morris always was interested in these little subcultures. He should write a book. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even Ed would be embarrased to put his name to those kenservative articles, hell Ken won't even put his names to them. --Opcn (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

But if he is away, are these editors going to maintain his high standards of kitty-based lulz? Pegasus (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, DMorris. No longer relegated to pretending to be a cheerleader troll to get attention. No he's a big boy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Now the request to Ed disappears^img. Expect another user's talk page to be deleted and recreated soon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Still, it was nice of Ken to share his blueprint for new articles with others. Want to become a succesful essayist, just like Ken? "See if you can find Chuck Norris saying something negative about homosexuality, then feature his pic on the page" - that's all the advice you'll ever need. Röstigraben (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

POOL

How long will Ken's wikibreak last? Closest without going over wins 100 internets.

• 74 hours P-Foster (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• 8 hours. - π 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• 30 minutes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• 7 hours. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure, but I predict he'll take 6 edits to announce he's only returning temporarily. This pattern will repeat every day or two. Pegasus (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Once he announces his vacation on his user page (if it isn't there already, I can't be bothered to check), I give him 11 minutes after that before he is back. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• 9 hours. Gauss (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of Order

Have there ever been 74 consecutive hours since he joined when Kendoll didn't edit CP? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The data was collected recently, wasn't it? It got up to about 8 hours tops. ^sshole 02:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hrm. I think all bets are off on account of him never actually leaving. Apparently the correct answer was 0 minutes. I guess there'll be a rollover jackpot of 200 internets next time we play What's Kendoll's Age Again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish he'd keep his word. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We are going to run out of Internets, because it will keep rolling over. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... when exactly is Ken's "holiday" supposed to start, cos I see he's blanked RC again over there? --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to have started last week? Wasn't that his excuse for why not being able to respond to any E-mail anymore? GTac (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you delay a holiday if you had such important things as " Essay: Ponies vs. atheism" to write-up? I love Ken. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Atheism something something girls something something ponies something

Could be worse. Could be Unca Ed posting about girls and ponies.^img (EEEWWWWW.) Update: Better^img. P-Foster (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren't ponies atheists too? Sen (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Many American women love their kind and generous God fearing husbands" who treat them like property, or at least children whose opinions can be listened to, but not indulged. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken sure loves his animal metaphors. I'm sure Freud would have a comment concerning this. Doppelheuer (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, my gf likes snakes and other creepy crawlies, maybe she is a sooper seekret atheist. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What annoys me most about Conservative is the way he depicts Christianity merely as a means to satisfy one's desires. "Believe in God and you'll get the ladies!" seems to be the underlying implication of his latest essay. "Believe in God and you'll no longer be fat!" seemed to be the message of his "essays" on atheism and obesity. But, as a Christian myself (and quite a theologically conservative one at that), I find this an utterly nonsensical and detestable approach to evangelism. Nonsensical because it assumes that a person can somehow wilfully and deliberately change, in response to a desire, what he or she believes. This makes no sense: can I make myself believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I'm feeling hungry? That's ludicrous. And it's a detestable approach to evangelism because it insinuates that God made promises that he never did. God never promised to give someone a girlfriend, or eliminate someone's excess weight, simply because he or she chose to believe in God. Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My assumption has always been that Conservative isn't necessarily evangelizing, at least not directly. To him, I think it's most important that he beats everyone who disagrees, and buttons down his little narrative, where deviating from whatever brand of Christianity he subscribes to means that his God will get you in ways you never anticipated. Possibly he thinks that all the atheists have decided they don't want to be fat, unwed, and mentally deficient, and are fleeing to NOW as a last resort before finding a proper religion. Once he stamps out feminism, by linking it to obesity and hemorrhoids, we'll all wind up in myriad cults. Then he'll make a project of linking Islam to acne, or whatever else he or one of his God-warrior pals can wildly infer from polls.

I like this latest one. It takes a special level of stupid to read Vox's blog-post, claiming that feminism makes children of working mothers fat, and then ask someone to create an essay about fat feminists, with that as the only source. Evidently, you can make links like that based on two words being in the same written work. So he can link pretty much anything to obesity, as long as it's listed in the same dictionary, and it'll be completely logical. Convenient. Ellipsoidal (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The most uncompromising and aggressive atheists I know in my personal life are girls. JUST SAYIN'. Also, if you're an atheist looking for a partner, wouldn't you prefer someone who is in agreement with you? I have no intention of dating theists. -- λινυσ^(☮) 06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"To him, I think it's most important that he beats everyone who disagrees," Yeah. That's pretty much right from what I can see. It's undoubtedly an ego thing, that he has to be right about everything in the world ever. ^sshole 14:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The satisfies desires thing - glance over at wp:Prosperity theology. Maybe Ken is into that too. -Shagie (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me, but the whole "<Thing> and Obesity" marathon smacks of, "God foresaw your rebellion, and arranged the world so you'd suffer for it". If he does subscribe to Prosperity Theology, that just makes him more nauseating. I used to find myself in Pentecostal churches fairly often, and they were big into that. I remember one guy giving a sermon/message about his month-long, prayer-filled search for the best car for his sixteen-year-old daughter (Spoiler alert: Jesus led them to the promised Honda). I knew they believed God had his hand in everything, and wanted nothing better than to guide them through every trivial event in their lives, but holy shit, exercise a little independence. If you can't decide what sort of bread to buy without a pastoral consultation and twenty minutes of communion with the Holy Spirit, you're not even cut out for life in paradise, what with the paralyzing choice between milk and honey. And I imagine God would get bored with filling your sippy cup for you after a few eons. Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

God help us all if...

User:C becomes an atheist! I mean can you imagine having him on your side bringing his special blend of quote-mined drek and his own brand of "satire". FSM forbid!

No, it's always going to be better if he's Jesus'. 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ