Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive221

This is an archive page, last updated 16 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>, <220>, <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)

Just a reminder

CP is absolutely swarming with vandals and parodists right now, and they're certainly going to be discussed here. However, please don't make WIGOs about them. The intention of WIGO CP is to document the craziness from established users, not to expose parody. Thank you. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. We certainly don't want to give people radical ideas, like looking at the page with initials RC on the wiki known by the initials CP, where, even if they don't filter out all the crap by someone with initials KD, they might see a huge swath of hitherto unrevealed wingnuttery. There is unexposed parody (I have about a dozen examples), and there is blatantly visible stupidity. Parody? Wingnuttery? Who knows? By the way, I fully expect certain new users to become established users in short order. Gauss (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I once posted some material on a user who was "Parody? Wingnuttery? Who knows?" in talk - not even in a WIGO. He was blocked within a few hours, and a low of RWians were angry with me. Don't make the same mistake. Non-established users are not valid WIGO subjects. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the swarming also and so want to say something because there are a few gems there, but I agree, no WIGOs. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait.. we're not WIGOing parodists now? Why do I keep seeing WIGOs about Ken

and uncle ed then? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I really hope you're kidding... 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. In the future I will not WIGO anything from someone who hasn't been around for 3 months. It would indeed be embarrassing to WIGO something that got reverted and blocked a short time later for being over the top. Bit I'm pretty sure <redacted>'s stuff will not be so reverted. Note to Andy: <redacted> is taking you for a ride. Just like nearly everyone else at your stupid wiki. You don't see that? Too bad.

IMHO our audience is the public, and our job is to provide them with a convenient and easy-to-navigate guide to the most egregious wingnuttery and batshit-crazy fundamentalism, reactionary politics, anti-science sentiment, and general denial of reality that is to be found at CP. We don't WIGO:

• Things that aren't really egregious, though that's subjective. Hence we have voting.
• Things that don't represent the actual viewpoints of the CP powers that be. Like obvious vandalism. Anything that the sysops revert is presumed not to represent their actual viewpoints.
• Things that are so endlessly repetitive and obvious that someone does not need us to point them out. For example, to see the latest of Ken DeMyers' demented ravings, one would merely need to look at whatever is occupying most of recent changes on that day. Or just go to the main page and look for jars of peanut butter. Or rabbits. Or flying pigs. Whatever. Putting it another way, Ken manages to monopolize CP; we don't let him monopolize WIGO.

But we can't distinguish between parodists and people who actually believe this shit. We don't know what people actually believe. Our criterion is whether their writing is allowed to stay. I do not know, or care, whether <redacted> is a parodist.

We also have a policy of not tipping off the sysops to stupidity ("unexposed parody") that they would revert if they found out about it, but that the public could find if they are diligent. This is a ground rule for editing the WIGO page. For example, I won't say anything about the CP page whose md5 digest is 14aa039bb6b9ce44bf2a2bae8feb5d75. Or 20ddb50a43cf94b0590bf079b79cddd5. Or 790b7dcb0530ff673b04017ed05d0d7a. Or f280692aaaee12f5d79000fec4495e17. Etc.

While I am aware that we don't want to out parodists and satire, there is an expression: "the cat is out of the bag." Once someone has WIGOed a parodist or satire, it's out there to see for anyone watching the WIGO. Hiding it behind HTML comments isn't going to actually do anything but draw even more attention to the parodist/satire. For all the "Genre Savvy" that people are presumed to have here, no one is thinking about the Streisand Effect? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The person who read our diffs hoping to ferret out liberal deceit is dead. I think those guys care a lot less about their site than the troublemakers primping and preening. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Two fingers

Jesus is giving the Two finger salute on http://www.conservapedia.com/Mosaic_(art)^img Conservapedia front page. I'm not Jesus (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's a blessing gesture. Just in case you don't know. --ZooGuard (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You can tell it's not a two-finger salute by the fact that the fingers are together, not apart. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a blessing, I was making a Joke. I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hence my "Just in case you don't know."--ZooGuard (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't he making rabbit shadow puppets? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or plotting revenge for this? Tylersboy (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken explained

After watching CP for the last couple months, my careful analysis brings me to the following conclusion: Ken is a fucking meth head. All the signs are there. Editing for days at a time with no break, obsessive edits trying to get that article just right, general detachment from reality, all the signs are right there. Ken is a fucking meth head. Sad, really. Thoughts? PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 09:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You really think he’s a meth head? Don’t tell me those goodie, goodie Christians can’t control their use of illegal stuff! And CP accuses atheists of alcoholism, lack of self control etc.

If Ken is into speed that’s unusual at his age and there’ll be a great strain on his weak old body. Perhaps soon he’ll be joining TK in the afterlife. I'm not Jesus (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the meth head explanation sounds about as good an explanation as any I've heard so far. It would also explain his weird obsessions with various subjects (i.e: obesity) for months on end, only to find another obsession. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 10:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

When exactly does he have the *time* to go out and buy meth? And he certainly isn't making it himself. X Stickman (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed this referred to methylated spirits, which Ken filters through half a loaf of bread. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that an autism-spectrum disorder is more plausible than a meth addiction. -- λινυσ^(☮) 12:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think MDMA symptoms fit better. You're talking about rapid but extremely repetitive behaviour. He hits a rhythm; write a bit, save page, write a bit, save page. Also, MDMA users tend to start "feeling" patterns and meaning in the music that they're bopping too and relate to it in whole new ways (although this is also explained by the fact that most ravers I've met are pretentious middle-class twerps) - so Conservative working with his "atheism and..." articles seems to fit, he's seeing patterns and deeper meaning in what is essentially noise. But mostly the repetitive patterns. I think it fits better than the meth effects. Either way, however, withdrawal temds to provoke anxiety and paranoia so... perhaps this 90 day break is for rehab. ^moral 14:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

oh dear Jesus. I now have this indelible image of Ken as a rave bunny, waving glow sticks and going "n-cha n-cha n-cha" as he edits. I'll never be able to listen to Okie with a straight face again. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 14:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Tyres from Spaced doing his dance at the traffic lights... but with Ken's face superimposed instead. Yeah. ^moral 15:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Hitler's face would be more appropriate. ^moral 15:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken only has obsesive compulsive disorder. I have a sister who also has that condition, so I am pretty familiar with the symptoms. Before leaving a room, she turns off the lights, then on again, then off, then on... Six times. It has to be six. I think they reason like this: "Tomorrow I am traveling on a plane. If I don't turn the lights on - off six times, the plane is going to crash". The paranoia is also part of the condition: She has not eaten in a restaurant for years, because she is grossed out by the idea that other people manipulate her food, or having to use plater and cutterly that were previously used by someone else. By the way, these people are fully aware of their condition, and they realize the irracionality of their thinking, but they simply can't stop. I really don't understand it, but I guess it it because I don't have the condition myself. But anyway, I think that most of Ken behaviour fits here. His essays about Conservapedia Obsesive compulsive disorder may be a sign that he is aware of it. Actually, OCD is a relatively common disorder. I personally think that Andy has something weirder. I mean, there are two possibilities: Either Andy does not believe what he says, is which case he is just a ashhole. But if Andy truly believes that the number of conservative terms doubles by century, or that the aparitions of Jesus represent foreknowledge of quantum tunneling, then he has a mental condition, and something weirder than OCD for that matter.--Tlaloc (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if he had OCD myself. It's manifested in his huge number of edits - the desire and drive to make every article he lays his hands on perfect. I also think that his huge number of 'satire' articles could be a symptom of that - aside from the title, the content is 90% the same, but he needs to make sure that there is no way that anyone could miss the 'fact' that atheism causes obesity or some such nonsense. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured his huge number of edits could be attributed to the fact that the CP mainpage keeps track of how many edits the site has, so Ken, like his link spamming, is just inflating that number. Gomedog (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You realise...

this is screaming for a "match the drug to the admin" section right? (NB! this is PARODY) --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Andy - LSD (where else could all his "insights" come from?)
• Karajou - PCP (explains Angry Bear)
• Bad Touch - Rohypnol (not for personal use...)
• TerryH - Cocaine (all that self-love link-spamming his articles, as well as the sudden temper tantrums
• Jpatt - grass (they say it makes you slow)
• Rob - Cocaine (come on... all that paranoia...)

(disclaimer. the author read about the supposed effects of these chemicals. Any possibility that info was provided by Ace, is purely coincidental.) *sniff*

"Not for personal use." Teh heh. I lolled. Hateboy (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I put it into an article, here. I'm not Jesus (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are 42 sysops this page declares DEAD but sTriKeout is listed as ACTIVE? What is this shit? Hateboy (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's determined mathematically based on edits made over the past few months. TK edited enough that even without editing for two months he's still listed as 'active'. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He's still a lot livelier than CollegeRepublican, that's for sure. Vulpius (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Roger Mason WIGO

These are my favourite types of wigo, the ones where Andy is explicitly confronted with evidence he can't directly refute, so he has to back pedal and make up excuses and eventually just resort to "me boss, you do as I say". Makes me really wonder just what goes on in their minds when this happens. Does he honestly think he's won, inside his own head? Or is he just trying to save face? X Stickman (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he knows he's won. Benjy will probably drop in with another argument, which Andy will revert and whip out his 90/10 banstick with a common "liberals just can't shut up" excuse. – Nick Heer 22:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellently written WIGO. Hits the nail on the head. It's not just that it shows Andy's incompetence and dishonesty; the WIGO tells a story in links, and the link texts are accurate summaries of what they link to. Ah, it should always be that way... Fawlty (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. After the recent controversy about what you should or shouldn't WIGO, this shows how excellent it is possible to be. Gauss (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, classic Andy and excellent WIGO. I'd love to know whether Andy's behavior is down to dishonesty or genuine cognitive dissonance? Well, either way he's proving that he doesn't need TK's help to drive sincere editors away from his blog 'o' fun. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets see ken make this essay "Atheists: Fat, Cheap, Correct."--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent WIGO. Andy once again sticks his fingers in his ears and "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you!"'s himself into once again showing the true shallows of his mind. Darkmind1970 (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Full marks indeed to the WIGO, but why on 6,000-year-old earth did Andy bother to jump through all those increasingly embarrassing hoops? He could just have said, "Ditch all that Ediacaran and Pre-Cambrian nonsense and open your mind to Biblical inerrancy." Tylersboy (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what is really scary? Someone that dishonest, stupid, bloody-minded, closed-minded, anti-intellectual and incoherent is allowed to vote. ^moral 11:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect example of Andy moving the goalposts when faced with facts. I'm guessing his only argument is that it conflicts with his YEC POV. The man really is a dishonest asswipe. I suppose he'd write this major discovery by a 9 year old, as not being made by a teenager. --Ψ GremlinTala! 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Andy is quite happy with 10-years old Kathryn Aurora Gray happening to discover a supernova along with her astronomer father and his friend. (What's with the "2010lt"?) Also in what way is Bernadette of Lourdes having a vision at 14 acceptable when Mason's discovery is not? (I know that some will claim that the author of that has been discredited yet it is still allowed to stand.) And surely by definition you could only attain Boy Scout merit badges if you were a teenager? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer to the Bernadette question is, as I implied in my 09:04 posting, and as Psy more directly stated in his of 12:28, that Mason’s discovery is an affront to the Young Earth Creationist crowd. Martyp seems quite happy to point this out explicitly^img. What I still can’t fathom is Andy’s apparent reluctance to take an equally forthright line. Tylersboy (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's because of his YEC and his smugness in highlighting "Great Achievements by Teenagers" as obviously a conservative thing which liberals deny. If a teenager comes along and discovers another piece of evidence for evolution, it's obviously not conservative and therefore not fitting with Andy.

Also, the WIGO's very nice. Haven't had any good back-and-forths between Andy and a new user slapping him about with pesky facts for a while. SJ ^Debaser 15:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing what can happen when you haven't got somebody who butts into every conversation, "I don't like what you're saying, I know where you live, Block, Block, Block!" --Ψ GremlinSprich! 16:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that Mason's having been a professor in Red China is hardly going to endear him to your average Conservapedian. Tylersboy (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The best kind of WIGO. Andy once more unequivocally makes a fool of himself. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was my WIGO about Ken's begging clipped?

That's it, no more. --Opcn (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why, it is not reusing a link and even if it is it is not repeating another wigo. - π 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it was about Kendoll. If we WIGO'd all Kendoll's bizarre behaviour, this'd be WIGO: Kendoll's Mind. It's more or less taken for granted that Kendoll is fucking nuts, and he has to do something extra special to be WIGO worthy. I guess someone thought that one wasn't quite enough. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That was me what commented Opcn's WIGO. I didn't want to have redundant items, so I nixed my own to be fair to other users. (I also was slightly embarrased that I hadn't checked the [then] current list to be sure I wasn't adding something that had already had been covered.)

I felt that Opcn's was rather weak, the diff used showed only User:C being himself...mine had that little bit extra that made it better.

Mostly though I thought one WIGO was enough, not everyone can write 'em like me (or Sid, who is my WIGO hero).

I'll just go and comment mine back out. 04:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I was more curious than indignant --Opcn (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a fair cop, I was pist 'cause I didn't get mine in afore ye. 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Jesus Wept, Assfly.

Now, I know Saint Ronnie is your necro-love interest, but come on. 100 years is a nice big round number^img and FDR lived through interesting times. When 100 years old zombie Raygun reaches, and you don't get the same treatment for him, then you can complain. Jesus, the fucker pretty much got the Lenin treatment at his death, haven't we had enough worship for a few years? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ummmmJeeves, you know it's Reagan's 100th B-day, right? Of course you do. P-Foster (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Doh. Never mind then :D --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FDR was out of office for nearly 40 years when the milestone rolled around, Ragan was less than half that time. Not long enough for a proper callback. Also the modern newscycle means that there is a lot less room for that sort of thing. I'm sure that the volume of news about Regan's 100th was higher than FDR's even though the market share was probably a bit lower. Did FDR's land on a super bowl sunday? --Opcn (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here in atheist Britain, the liberal BBC showed an hour-long documentary on Reagan yesterday. Very interesting it was too. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from randomly tuning into CNN yesterday, I think they devoted at least two hours to Reagan's DeificationBirth Day.

And as Opcn points out, yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday. Most of the networks barely even try to put programming on then. MDB (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it just points out that the US right is inherently evil. Reagan was an evil man, as the Iran-Contra thing proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. That WND uses Ollie North as one of their commentators now is just logical. Conservapedia complaining not enough people pay their respects to an evil man is notable how? Dendlai (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TK's lost all his rights

Notable?--Star trooper man (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really a wigo worthy, but I have already added it to the Timeline. - π 11:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, posthumous demotion. I guess he's not getting beatified then, or even so much as remembered on CP. He's just quietly slipped down his own memory hole. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

They are probably worried someone will try to access his account now. This has long been a policy Andy applies unevenly of removing unused accounts right. - π 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still typical of them that they couldn't even acknowledge his death in a brief MPR entry. I mean this is somebody who's been at CP almost since day 1, was Andy's right hand man and constantly referred to as "the most valuable contributor" to CP. That's gratitude for you, conservative style. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 12:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit of a shame they don't acknowledge apart from a couple of roses on his userpage. Of course, publicly acknowledging a death like that may attract vandals from ED or elsewhere, or otherwise come into conflict with their concept of "conservatives have a healthier lifestyle, longer life expectancy, etc. etc." given that TK died of natural causes, but if someone here popped their clogs we'd have a tribute on mainpage as soon as finding out.

As far as removing his rights goes, if I saw someone editing as TK I'd probably shit myself too. SJ ^Debaser 12:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Heck, even "cremation" of his user page with a marginally appropriate comment would have been more respectful than this. TK might have actually approved of it. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Software engineer perspective) It's good security practice to remove all privileges from a user who will no longer be accessing a system.

You'd think they would have noted his passing, though. MDB (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. WP removes user's rights upon hearing of the user's demise. wp:wp:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines#On_the_account. CS Miller (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit though, those editors on WP:RIP were basically giving more information than what CP as a whole contains. What could CP possibly do in comparison? "TK blocked a lot of liberals and reverted as much" is the best they could say. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia valued TK's contributions but didn't respect him. Kirk Johnson (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty sad that there was no acknowledgement of his death. Surely there was some sense of community amongst the members. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 12:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance through the TZB and SDG archives will show there is none, even off-site. Most of the sysops can't stand each other and most of the conversations are railing against liberals or us. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I don't know about that, with all the behind-the-scenes maneuvering and backstabbing that TK was especially famous for... but for me, the strangest thing is that they had to learn of his death via RW in the first place. If there had been a sense of community and constant off-wiki interaction, why didn't anyone care that one of their top three contributors and admins had gone missing? They had one and a half months to find out about it, and it wouldn't have taken a super sleuth to find out about his fate, especially since some of them already had his phone number and home address. Even now, this page is filled with threads about TK, and even though we definitely didn't like him, there are many sincere tributes and farewells here. Contrast that with the total lack of interest from the people who were supposed to be part of his own community. Röstigraben (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a big difference between RW and CP: CP exists for ideological reasons, to promote a certain way of thinking (that the sysops don't like each other that much is certainly due to some of their quite anti-social behaviours, making the need for a common enemy to keep the project together - a bit "War is Peace"-style). RW on the other hand is a bunch of people that got together because many of us share the history of doing something reasonable and being exiled for it, therefor we can say RW is community site - not promotion site. And so to play devils advocat, there's no need to make a big fuss about TK's passing, because it's about the goal, not the way to it, it's not about the people it's a certain entropy of collectivism in there. We would post something like that because we care about the people more than about the goal(s). Think about this: Would WP make a big fuss about it when one of there first editors dies? No, certainly not, because there again it's the goal not the people. --Ullhateme (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would WP make a big fuss about it when one of there first editors dies? Something like this German Wikipedia editor dies unexpectedly, or this? It's fitting to remember a valued editor or sysop, if he dies. BTW we should perhaps do something about User:Jtl - a banner, or a short intro/memento?: I never met him, exchanged only one comment, but I often run into his edits here at RW, and think of him. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see where Ullhateme's coming from, but for a site which prides themselves on "conservative values", I always understood they were supposed to emphasise the importance of the individual, rather than that of the collective. Also, some kind of memento for Jtl sounds nice. SJ ^Debaser 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a WIGO - that RW discovered TK's passing, and only then did CP take notice and took action? A snarky entry on how they find out through hot babe Susan's prodding points more at CP than TK. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can also see UHM's point, but remember, WP has hundreds of admins, most of whom probably don't know each other. CP has 6, who've been living in each others' pockets for the last 4 years. I guess it's likely that they had a private moment in the Fab Five, but I'd guess they don't care. Ψ GremlinFale! 14:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP wasn't the best example it really blows out all known wiki-proportions. Generally if wiki has it's intracommunity news page where getting to huge user numbers. And I would size the "fuss-to-make" relative to the wiki's size - allthough I'm pretty sure nobody agrees with me on that point. "big fuss" I'd generally consider Main Page - I'm even "surer" that nobody agrees on that.

Second one: I've realized that we demand social behaviour from people many of us would call stupid, twisted, socially-challenged, anti-social and some even flat-out sociopaths. It's like we'd walk into a mad house and be astound we found mad people. Kinda incosequential of us I think. On the other hand we know that these accounts are people and we think people should behave a certain way. But we wouldn't walk into a mad house and ask a mad man to be sane for the sake of fitting into our behavioural patterns - we'd want him to be sane for the sake of seeing clear.

Third one: It's been seen often, that when in fascist societies something bad happens it is just ignored, partly because nothing should be said, partly because people want to ignore the problem. Making it clear: They see were CP is going without TK (who has been the police force of CP), and they simply don't want to see the problem.

Fourth and last one: Andy, how about this as an acknownledgement of TK's death: rangeblock 100% of the IP adresses for a day - it's like we do what he liked most to do. (Sorry for the black humor guys, I couldn't resist) --Ullhateme (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

TK will become the new "FBI"

They'll use TK's death to weed out "enemies", anyone who mentions or alludes to TK will get blocked.
If the old lady who sells you the lottery tickets died you'd likely have more thought and feeling for her than what the senior admins @CP (apparently) have for TK. That's just sad. C®ackeЯ 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Um...

Is it just me, or did Mr Adams just reduce CP's pageviews by a few million?^img --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that seismic anomaly I just registered was just Ken fainting. Fine then. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That will make Mr. Adams obnoxious and disliked.

Bonus points to the first person who gets the reference. MDB (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you had in mind? Tylersboy (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You get 100 billion dollars. Please speak to the attendant before leaving to claim your prize. – Nick Heer 17:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm overwhelmed. Tylersboy (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait... didn't you also win 3 internets the other day? I smell a rat. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be at least 17.2 million pageviews down the pan. Something which I pointed out further up and which I suspect was the trigger for Douggie's deletion. Hopefully the clickbots will back off now and leave Ken's dungheap to return to the oblivion which it truly deserves. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Founding Father notwithstanding, John Adams does seem to get glossed over sometimes, perhaps mostly due to his "obnoxious and disliked" demeanor. By most serious accounts though, he was instrumental in shaping what America became, and I'm glad we had him. Of course, Thomas Jefferson is getting reamed over in Texas school books, but that's another story... Jimaginator (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Psygremlin: four actually – though it’s not as if I know what to do with them. I’m not even sure if they’re worth more or less than the $100 billion. Tylersboy (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sound Familiar?

Hmmmmm, now I sure I seen this before.... Ace McAwesome

No. - π 11:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a Legacy

I didn't know the man T. Koeckritz. But what will stay from the internet personality TK - which blocks will be still in place in 2016?

≈ 1300 editors

≈ 150 blocked single IPs and a handful of range-blocks

≈ 300,000 blocked IPs in these range-blocks

number of IP blocks per range

blocked IPs

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for a quick comparison:

IPs blocked at Conservapedia

IPs blocked at wikipedia-en

But as usual, it's a question of the scale:

cp, wp and TK@cp

TK blocked more IPs at CP than there are IPs blocked at wikipedia-en. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you know if it was TK arranging the 403 blocking? I've had to use a proxie for quite some time now, and based on chatter elsewhere it appears to be quite widespread. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What happened in November 2008 that got them all lathered up over there? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that around the same time TK Returned? Ace McAwesome 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TK got block rights December 1st 2008^img. I noticed Andy has just recently removed all rights. - π 00:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was kidding :) For the life of me I don't understand how Andy Schlafly could have believed Terry had his site's best interests in mind. What goes on in his head? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He's easily deceived. Look through the ZB or SDG files and you'll see that he has been taken in time and time again, even after warnings from other people. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Really? That^img is TK's epitaph at CP? Ouch.
• A couple of IPs (including mine) seem to be indefinitely blocked from reading Conservapedia , and any IP which is used to access Conservapedia to often in to short a time will be blocked for a couple of minutes. That makes gathering data a painful (well, at least time-consuming) act. I can't say who is responsible for that, it sounds like TK.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

However, that doesn't seem to have hampered the clickbots which have now got Homosexuality up to 17.2 millions views. Also, why has Andy left him in nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO and nsTeam1_talkRW. Now I look at those groups isn't it funny that they have a nsTeam1RW? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know why they keep these obsolete groups around. Oh wait: I do know: they suck at house-keeping (remember: girlie stuff), Andy is to lazy to do anything requiring more than two clicks, and there is no one else who has the rights to do something about it. It's the same as with the essays namespace: all agree that it is a good idea to have one (even Andy), but it is just not done - all the existing essays would have to be moved, and I doubt that cp:User:EdBot is up for this task...
• And now for something completely different: Here is a list with the editors who have at least five block entries made by TK in their block log: AmesG (12), Jrssr5 (11), Iduan (8), Order (8), Masterbratac (7), Sid 3050 (7), Wikinterpreter (7), JDWpianist (6), SamHB (6), TimS (6), 173.244.192.0/19 (5), 99.190.44.0/22 (5), AutoFire (5), BrianCo (5), Conservative (5), GofG (5), GregLarson (5), Jinxmchue (5), JosephMac (5), Palmd001 (5)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TOP-10 of wielding the ban-hammer against editors:

Karajou	Aschlafly	TK	Jpatt	Jallen	DeanS	DanH	TerryH	HenryS	Ed Poor
3458	3440	3295	2186	1281	1247	1239	703	657	608

(No. 11 is Bugler with 582 blocks of editors) Karajou, Aschlafly and TK were remarkably busy, Jpatt just can't keep up with them!

Error creating thumbnail: File missing Karajou

Aschlafly

TK

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Concern troll on FB

Strange stuff happen on CP's FB page. Some sort of concern troll is posting endless screeds in support of CP, and yet he seems clueless about the staff there and doesn't appear to be an editor. Also, he's not a sock of Ken, and he has no recognisable CP people as FB friends. Yet he seems genuine, if a bit deranged. Best quote yet from him:

“”Many individuals going through a gender identity crisis as per the DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders attack conservatives as a way of expressing their anger or getting it out so to speak.

--Ψ GremlinFale! 09:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow... where to start. Um. A) Doug seems like he would fit in perfectly on CP... and B) people with GID usually don't attack the right until they get tired of being called a horrible mutilated monster. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not Ken

, then he's doing a decent job of imitating Ken's

style:

“”This Conservapedia website reached via clicking on the Info tab above is a very good website for an alternative to Wikipedia when it comes to certain issues if you want to see the other side's position on a given issue which is subject to interpretation.

–SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

“”To whoever you are since you have no photo, [snip eight hojillion words from this one paragraph] discussions out there to help them.

I resurrect a comment I posted to someone else... "Paragraphs are your friend." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Of all his weird comments, that one's right up there. Just because I don't have a pic, suddenly he's incapable of seeing all the other info there. Like I said, "proof that conservatives can't read without pictures." --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 10:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Doug is fucking hilarious. Either he's mentally challenged or failing at parody. Fucking Poe's Law central that guy. ^moral 14:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking concern troll. He parrots the CP party line, but knows nothing about it, and doesn't even know what The Onion is? And what's this "go to boxes" business, I don't get the joke. --Kels (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How long has the CP FB page been up? They have less "Likes" than I have friends (WP has 587,577 likes on only one of its many FB pages). --Leotardo (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several CP facebook pages. Undoubtedly the majority of the "likes" are detractors who care enough to like it for the shits 'n' giggles. ^moral 15:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'boxes' thing is a tab along the top of the page. Doug's posted some rants there and seems to keep spamming them. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 16:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Go to boxes" is what doug has to use since he cannot redirect everything to Essay: Fatty fatty fat fat, (you know, like how User:C redirects everything to Atheism or Homosexuality and [xxx], as if already haz all the answers you'll ever need. 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

See the mission statement on the info tab: "To entertain those of us who do not believe that Barack Obama uses mind control and hypnosis techniques in his speeches." - it is not a pro CP page

Baah, I just wasted 2 hours trying to argue with the guy.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 21:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I gave up. Reasoning is hard. – Nick Heer 04:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"IQ of a genius." I couldn't stop laughing.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He claims to know Russian and Spanish on his userpage. Anyone here want to engage him? I call bullshit. Junggai (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, this is fun.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, but it's not really worth my time... I've debunked a few people. One time I was talking to a guy who claimed to be from Germany, so I started talking German to him, and he didn't understand me, so I confronted him auf Deutsch, then he's all "oh, I'm actually Russian staying here in Germany" to which I then confronted him po-Russkii, which he also denied, eventually I worked out that he was Turkish, and had a half-Turkish conversation with him replying back in English, then denying that he were Turkish, and I'm like, you're responding correctly to all of my Turkish, you obviously speak Turkish, umbs. Anyways, I'm rambling. I could easily debunk Spanish, French, and moderately easily debunk his Russian, but why feed the trolls? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now I have to ask, how many languages do you speak? --Ullhateme (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a parodist. That sort of childlike naivety is usually someone trying to make a subtle jab at you, coaxing their opponent into a heavy handed response. I'd ignore it. ^moral 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I love this stuff. Logic just went out the door. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 22:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I created a nice summary ("nice" is subjective). – Nick Heer 04:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny that he ranted about AIDS when I said his point was moot.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy hearts Rand

Last week I heard a rumble coming from the south of New York. I thought it might be a snowstorm, but I now realize it was Andy creaming his panties. Rand Paul gave the stock response "If nominated, I will run" for President^img. Yeah, me too. Is there any better scenario for Obama than Andy's preferred candidate to get the Republican nomination? --Leotardo (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ayn's namesake getting the nomination and the mainstream media getting wind of CP's over the top endorsement of him. It'll be hilarious watching Paul pretend they don't exist and Faux News trying to write CP off as a deep cover liberal site. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

lol you can't be serious. It's very rare CP makes the news, and it's only when they go so far that there might be 500 people who agree with them, like re-write the Bible or Relativity is liberal deceit. Their casual nonsensical musings about the Presidential race get no coverage even on blogs because Ken's spam circle is limited to Atheism. But your scenario that they are at the center of a cultural zeitgeist was hilarious! --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, now I have an image of Andy's semen filling some dainty panties. There goes any erection I might possibly have for a week. I guess Andy can always make more CP with so much seed (reminds me of this, lol). Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bleh. --Meh. (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you like put spoiler tags around that so people dont have to read it??! Pegasus (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NO! MY GRIEF SHALL BE YOUR GRIEF! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruh-roh, looks like Andy's fapping over Rand Paul is waaaaay too early. Looks like daddy Ron might be more likely to make a run for President. If so, I seriously doubt Rand will compete against his dad for the nomination, or vice-versa. --Leotardo (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear Racism

"Another liberal double standard: Racist comments by the lamestream media are quickly forgiven and ignored. [7] "

Which is ironic because it was mainly the leftists over here getting outraged and the right wing defending them. It's even more ironic when you consider that if you want to find someone who dislikes Jeremy, Richard and James you look among progressive liberals, not conservatives. Raging (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Whats amazing is, the people of top gear really dont fit in with "Lamestream media" (what is he, fuckin 5???). They're not a news program, they're a program about cars. Once more, they apoligized. Isn't christianity about forgivness?--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Christianity is about being greedy of your possessions, and stock piling guns. Maybe you read the wrong translation of the bible. Quaru^{snake - You can't explain that!} 01:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Death and revenge. Popular Christianity today is based on fear of death and desire for revenge. The PMDs in particular get to believe, as a religion, in the ultimate revenge fantasy. Jesus turns up, sends them to heaven without even the painful and messy business of dying - and then everybody they don't like suffers, dies, and then continues suffering for the rest of eternity. Nice. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgiven by who exactly? 86.165.17.82 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Angry Bear's rantings

Yes, everybody's favourite swabbie now has his own blog. --Ψ Gremlin講話 13:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. It's thrilling stuff, isn't it? Slightly more literate than his CP stuff though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do like the light-coloured text on a background that has splotches of light colours. - π 13:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the vile spit coming from him because some girl he knew more than 17 years ago thought he was a bit of a creepy stalker (couldn't imagine why) is kind of disturbing. - π 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Posting 2: "But, it seems, I'm just an "uncomfortable presence" to someone who would rather blame everyone else for her failures except the one in the mirror." Posting 3: "A bunch of liberals is what happened. It's what you get when you put the thieves in charge of the bank, when the inmates run the asylum. In California, the state legislature controls the purse strings; they control the spending; they control the money."

Oh, and Karajou fails the practical design course ("Do it better then!" Allready did do it better once.). --Ullhateme (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

lol, "A bunch of liberals" repeated over and over. I bet if he named individuals, they'd be Republicans. I can bet the comments section is heavily guarded, 'cause hey, you can't have anyone proving you wrong. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sad bastard: spurned by someone he fancied & rants about it. He must have a really depressing life. 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to be the first person to feel uncomfortable about the above sneering at this individual's sincere, very personal writings.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... sincere, personal writings that he put out in the public domain? --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. Saying something in public doesn't exempt anyone who hears it from having good manners.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Face it, Psy, he's better than you. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Get off your moral high horse and fuck it. (Ok, I was being deliberately rude there.) ^{ONE / TALK} 15:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah. From Popeye's profile I found the CP group blog featuring Popeye, JPratt, Hurlbutt and guest staring the ubiquitous Denyse O'Leary. Note that Kendoll was not invited to play with the big boys. Maybe we ought to suggest that he ask. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that one of the Jerk's posts is pro-environmental don't shoot endangered species. Is Brian Macdonald a closet liberal? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is the theory that he's a furry... Vulpius (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

From Karajou's blog: "During his period of time in the governor's chair, [Schwarzenegger] also failed to get new power plants built to served a population that increased by about a third over the past decade. The failure to increase the power grid led to some well-publicized blackouts in major cities. Who prevented the power plants from being built?" Reality: there were no blackouts during Schwarzenegger's term as governor due to the lack of sufficient grid, and he attended as governor the commissioning in 2004 of the Western Area Power Administration plant. The WAPA fixed the hole in their grid, and that was 2004. Proposition 13 plays a hand in their disastrous financial state. Anger Bear's embarrassingly ignorant rantings are hilarious. --Leotardo (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious rant about global warming

From their shared blog, I really had to laugh at Karajou's post concerning global warming. It's filled with little gems of bile and idiocy, but I'll let you discover those yourself. One thing I do wonder about is when they're going to make up their mind whether global warming (regardless whether it's man-made or not) exists or not. In his post Karajou argues that Mars got hotter too.. so he agrees that the global temperature went up on earth? Then it's doubly retarded to keep pointing out that there has been a snow storm somewhere on earth.. GTac (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a pithy WIGO for this

How many users are editing for this account?^img Somebody else can steal this one from me. 22:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Don't WIGO this--if it's what I read earlier today, there's at least one reference to "in class," meaning it's from an IRL kid and off-limits to decent folk. P-Foster (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is true, the poor dears, I suppose having to suffer Ashfly's "teaching" is punishment enough, being held up in public about it is beyond the pale. My thought was, though, that if the PW could be guessed...23:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Whoa, RW has standards?? Syndrome (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So, all of Andy's pupils get one account to publish their work at Conservapedia? Wouldn't it be easier - and less creepy - if they mailed their answers to Andy? I can't think of a single reason in the interest of the pupils why it is sensible to publish their homework. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's all of Andy's students on one account, that's still only four of the little brainwashed dears with two days to go until the deadline. Hardly 'record breaking' as he often trumpets from MPL. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Really makes you wonder how the fuck a guy like Andy is allowed to brainwash kids under the guise of "teaching." SJ ^Debaser 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proof of the impending doom of civilization

Someone on YouTube is citing Conservapedia unironically. --Gulik (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

D. O'Leary does so on Uncommon Descent. Twice. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a former acquaintance who pulled out a member of the Summa Homosexualita on me in a Facebook debate at one point. It was pretty amusing. -- λινυσ^(☮) 07:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That same user has two other accounts, one being captamerica (the other something spelled like "phuk0bama" or something). He does nothing but upload Glenn Beck shows, spamming youtube search results when you search Conservapedia. Hundreds of uploads on each account, barely than a few hundred subscriptions on each. He tries too hard. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bow-Chicka-Wow-Wow

I think even Ken

realised this section titleimg was a bit too risquéimg for family friendly audiences. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Curse you! Now I have to go and watch Red v Blue again. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 13:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Was that something like a freudian wiki-slip? --Ullhateme (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to see his 90 day break is going well. Why does he even bother posting stuff like that? Nothing he ever promises ever, EVER comes to fruition. I'm still waiting for the Ides of March from about 4 years ago. StarFish (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In his defence, he didn't say which March. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) There's a great bluegrass song titled "The Little Girl and the Dreadful Snake", by Bill Monroe. It includes the chorus

I heard the screams of our little girl far away

Hurry, Daddy, there's an awful dreadful snake

I ran as fast as I could through the dark and dreary woods

But I reached our darling girl too late

But, before you sully his fine reputation, ain't no way that was symbolism. And leave your Freudian gutterminds out of this, too. This is Bill Monroe we're talking about here. (The song really is a tearjerker about a little girl dying from poisonous snakebite.) Phiwum (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Once you get that black snake semen venom inside you then you better take your own life because the pain will be unbearable.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no-one's yet alluded to this - though maybe it's more Ed's sort of thing than Ken's. Tylersboy (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

STORY/INNUENDO TIME!

I was bitten by a long, black snake years ago. I found it, saw it hiding, reached out and grasped it firmly and yanked it out. I had grabbed it around the middle, so it was flopping around all mad-like... and that's when it happened. It bit me, thrusting its venom deep inside me. I was panicking, thinking I'd start swelling up, but after browsing around online I discovered it wasn't poisonous. I was already coming back the next day, trying to find and molest Mr. Snakers again (once you go black...). Ironically, my mom knew about the snake there too. Makes me wonder what her experiences with it were. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Countdown to Armageddon

The End Times are upon us! Andy gives his blessing^img to a MPR entry that is lucid, reasonable, factual and that doesn't demonise Obama, Obamacare, Liberals, RINOs, Atheists, Foreigners, Homosexuals, Ay-rabs, the Democrats and everybody who isn't St Ronnie, or Mama S. Now... WIGO it, peons. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 14:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'd think Andy would despise Jules Verne for helping to create science fiction. Could it be Andy is a closet fan-boy? MDB (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

One wonders if he got the idea from liberal Google's nice little act of homage. Tylersboy (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I saw the Google tribute, I immediately thought of Andy, and was expecting to see a rant on MPR saying, "Google can find the time to honor some obscure French author, but will never honor the birth of Jesus Christ!" Junggai (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Much of sci-fi deals with society, and tech stuff takes a back seat. I wonder if Andru knows that authors have often turned to sci-fi to make statements about past/current/future societies which they would be hesitant or foolish to say in conventional writings. What an ass he truly is. Jimaginator (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was on his "books are liberal" kick? This doesn't compute at all... --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Only modern books. Old books were written when humans were more intelligent. Jules Verne was also probably a teenager. Open your mind. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Jules Verne died at age 77, so yes he was a teenager. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will never understand why they don't just swap "teenagers" for "children" when that is clearly what they mean, but anything that makes them look like idiots makes me happy. --Leotardo (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

CP <-> RW

This^img typical Andyism made me wonder, specifically the bit "We'd invite the bloggers to join us, but before long they wouldn't be liberal anymore." We've seen several CP editors jump ship to RW (MarkGall and DanH being probably the two highest profile) and even excluding the parodists there are many others who edited at CP before coming here. Can anybody think of someone who left RW to edit at CP? I know RonLar made a brave attempt to disprove Andy's idiocy about conservative words, but excluding one-off exceptions, has there been anybody? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember his statement: We welcome liberals as long as they do not violate basic common-sense rules as outlined in Conservapedia Commandments. So, my question is: has any liberal staid long enough at Conservapedia to change? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the "Hello???". Very encyclopedic. Also, how he manages to get 'liberal' in there four times. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy is confusing a selection effect for a conversion effect. --Opcn (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Can anybody think of someone who left RW to edit at CP?", Well, I haven't left RW to edit CP, but I regularly edit CP making productive, non-parody, non-vandalism edits. Least I could do for all the joy the website brings me. P-Foster (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you do that; I would think that there would be more productive uses of your time than helping CP. There are so many examples of polite liberals and center-lefters being banned for that alone that they are too numerous to mention. --Leotardo (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did that for a while, actually...until I was banned. I think Ed was upset that I was expanding his stubs. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hell, I made a ton of edits at CP in between my stints here at RW. I just couldn't take the full-on left bashing and shit. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did some serious & half-serious editing for a while, but I couldn't resist a little parody here & there. In the end it wasn't either that I was banned for; it was querying other people's blocks. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think that of all the RWians who edited CP, I was the most serious. I was certainly the cutest :) --Ψ GremlinPrata! 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

HeartofGold, didn't he/she have both accounts at RW and CP? Or was that a fail troll trying to troll? Honestly though, of ALL users who signed up at CP willing to contribue less than 1% remain. Nice conversion rate there, Andy. Might as well ad a few links to Ken's articles and call it a day. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

One dumb liberal in the Daily Beast article wrote, "“[It’s] like Carol Channing taking over for Fergie in the Black Eyed Peas. Legendary, but past the expiration date by about 10 years..." lol - I don't think Carol Channing was "fresh" 10 years ago, or even 30 years ago. --Leotardo (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

She (Carol Channing that is) just turned 90. Tylersboy (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Best part is that Andy's complete lack of reading comprehension kicked in, too (emphasis mine):

Andy: Liberal bloggers are "downright livid" that the Huffington Post sold them out for $315 million.

Article: Some of Arianna Huffington’s most-devoted users are livid about the sale of their favorite news site to AOL, according to a Daily Beast survey of their commenters.

So I guess Andy is inviting hundreds of commenters over? In the hopes of converting them to conservatism? I'd ask how he'd plan to do that, but I still remember his "Convert people to Christianity by telling them that they'll burn in Hell for all eternity unless they convert, embrace guns and hate the gays!"^img plan. Yeah, CP's many things, but it's not good at converting people. At least not intentionally. --Sid (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I would argue that Conservapedia is a fundamental factor in my deconversion. (Perhaps not the website per se, but phenomena that it created, at least, likely combined with CP.) I didn't drop Christianity until after I had ceased to be really involved with either CP or RW, but my time here was what destroyed my erstwhile religious orthodoxy and political conservatism. -- λινυσ^(☮) 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

After finding myself disgusted with the New Age movement, annoyed by students demanding free education without saying why and facepalming when people trying to sweep the deficits under the carpet, I may be lurching to the right. So perhaps I should take Schlafly up on his offer and sign up. The (mostly rhetorical as we all know the answer) question is, would he actually accept? ^moral 18:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly. The sole defining characteristic of a Conservative is whether they agree with the Assfly on classroom prayer. All that other ideology is just window dressing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

CP looks like The Colbert Report

Devon's mummy says so.^img -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Devon's mummy is now memory holed. Jaxe (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, not "memory holed", the kid just deleted (the content on) his own subpage. "Memory holed" only applies to an admin vaping (deleting or oversightin') stuff. here's the diff^img. 01:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Oh Yeah, I know, I was exaggerating. But it does look to me like words were had behind the scenes; although I could just be being paranoid? Jaxe (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Devon's a parodist. In his few edits he's hit some of the most retarded CP pages. --Leotardo (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On the ball

In response to this^img on 2 February, Ken chips in with a helpful reply^img, six days after he blocked the unfortunate^img. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a complete asshole answer.

From the same diff, re: him deleting the Evolution article: "Plus, I accidentally erased the evolution page, but recovered a back up copy so the page is up again intact." I honestly can't tell anymore if this is incompetence or malice speaking. Did he really delete the page by accident and doesn't know how to even attempt restoring it, or did he sacrifice the inflated viewcount to hide the history (which showed him editing the article fifty bajillion times in a row)? --Sid (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He knows how to restore pages. If he deletes a page and recreates it, it's always to hide something. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Douglas who deleted and restored the article. Is Doug a sock of Ken? I see's also taken to burning Karajerk's talkpage. Is nothing sacred with that man? --Ψ GremlinFale! 13:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Doug being a sock of Ken would make sense. Ken could be trying to slowly remove all the articles that aren't his. The age of Kenservapedia has begun. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no. Douglas Adams did away with the homosexuality page, for reasons I don't remember now. Kendoll himself did the the honours for evolution. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

These guys are like kids in a sandbox playing fantasy with each other. Has Ken ever deleted and re-created Schlafly's talk page? --Leotardo (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On User:Conservative

I'm not a regular on Talk:CP, and this may well have been discussed a few times, apologies if so. I realise that a regular theme of conversation is that Ken may be mentally ill. But after the Ponies and Atheism article, I simply can no longer convince myself (or my housemate) that Ken is not a parodist. Do we have any reason to believe he's sincere? TL;DR Poe's Law on Kendoll. ^EXTERMINATE 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If he's a parodist, he's a lousy one. He's basically repeating the same joke over and over again. He also lacks any form of subtlety. MDB (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

His fourty-hour edit runs? Hateboy (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that he put too much effort in to not be for real. I actually think the pony article is quite funny in places.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken DeMeyer has a long history as a troll, so if he's a deep cover parodist then he started developing his cover years before CP even existed. Unlikely, no? His behavior is more likely explained by his mental state. I suspect that Ken has Asperger's or some other form of high-functioning autism and genuinely believes that other people find him clever. That would also explain the patterns in his writing, the obsessive editing, the fixation on certain topics, etc. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that "Ken is a parodist" and "Ken is mentally ill" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. He could be obsessive-compulsive about parody. MDB (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still holding out hope that a computer scientist among us has created Ken. A lot of times it does seem like AI. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence? I say natural stupidity. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn. My secret project rumbled. Yes, I admit it, Kendoll runs on a 486 in my garage. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

486? I'd taken it to be a spectrum! 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kriss - I liked Ponies v. Atheists. Who wouldn't root for ponies?! --Leotardo (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But the ones Ken's provided pictures of seem to carry a fair amount of weight in the abdominal area. So might they not be atheists - or agnostics at the very least? Or are ponies supposed to look like that? Tylersboy (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what Ken's pony would look like. --Leotardo (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever met a pony that believed in god. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. Tylersboy (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought I had some more evidence, but it turns out to be the verb pony, dammit. Tylersboy (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the general consesus is that if he is a parodist, he's still mentally ill just by virtue of putting so much effort into parody. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point! --Leotardo (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the old BBC Colditz episode Tweedledum where an RAF officer pretends to be mad so that he can be repatriated. Unfortunately, the effort of pretending to be mad actually ended up with him being psychotic.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading an article right now on State Propaganda and Mental Disorders in wartime Japan. This is somehow relevant. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we don't have his CP IP log, there is a small chance that he could be multiple users....Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone going nuts?

People need to calm the heck down. --Opcn (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Jack Hughes (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, why? Assuming you're talking about the latest leaks... there's so much funny there! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit about "everyone"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Occasionaluse (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm genetically predisposed towards manic-depression? An unexpected effect of global warming? An unexpected effect of modern 3D movies? 21 years of The Simpsons indoctrination? Peyote in the water? You might need to be a bit more specific.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking primarily about the wandals over on CP. --Opcn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Only an idiot would think that was anyone from RW. We're too busy reading CPWikiLeaks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was chuckled at by SJ ^Debaser 21:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, whats going on???--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's at least one person from RW, there have been a few comments about RW and RW stuff. --Opcn (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Or it's their counter-to-intelligence guy pretending to be a wandal from RW, or possibly a wandal pretending to be their counter-to-intelligence guy pretending to be a wandal from RW, or possibly a wandal from RW pretending to be a wandal pretending to be their counter-to-intelligence guy pretending to be a wandal from RW. Or it could be a dick.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuts and bolts of this FabFive/Conservapedia infodump

All right, I'm a stone age dumbass when it comes to these things, so someone help a caveman out - I'm trying to read these files, and it's rough going because the fucked up formatting, cut off margins, repeated/overlapping blocks of text, etc. are doing a number on my old eyes. So, am I doing something wrong, or are the files inherently this unreadable? For what it's worth, I'm on a Mac and I've tried viewing the files with Safari, Firefox, textedit, and Word. If there isn't a way to separate the wheat from the chaff a bit better, it's not worth it to me to slog through this stuff. Feel free to heap abuse on the Luddite, but somebody lend me a clue here.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The inherently unreadable option. It's what google pages would look like if they didn't have CSS. You can read them reasonably well though, though the lack of a left margin can be a bit of a pain --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Fixed. See above. – Nick Heer 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively for those without regexp foo, you can save the file locally. You'd need to create a dir /groups/ and save this stylesheet as style.css in to it. Similarly on windows, that would be c:\groups\style.css. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks to nickheer for the improved version; I can read again! Go ahead and help yourself to some of that ribbon candy in the glass bowl on the side table, young man. Or perhaps a Werther's Original?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Did TK finally just completely ignore Kendoll?

I've noticed that in a few of the dumps, things Kendoll say in the thread don't show up the list. You can see from the quote from the next reply in the thread, and from the context of the discussion that Kendoll had interjected something, but the message is missing from the main view. They're obviously being sent to the list, rather than Kendoll doing the newbie thing of replying off-list too.

I think there's a point at which TK just gets disgusted with Kendoll's jibberings and adds him to the killfile. Ah, what love they have for each other at CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They always ignored Ken's "input" on every seekrit forum they ever had. Wouldn't you? What's odd is they still let him wank all over MPL. ħuman 03:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

TK's story

I remember chatting with TK once and he had just put up a cross hair on an abortion story; I suggested that it was a little violent and made them look bad, he told me that he didn't care and wanted them to look bad. --Opcn (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Creepy Ed is creepy

"As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions."^img Thanks, Ed. P-Foster (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"My turn to seduce *you* tonight"

Since we're on the topic, User 188, in his edit summary on an edit to "seduction", has recently given an example of how one might approach his or her spouse in order to seduce them. Ed seems to be quite the knowledgeable man when it comes to foreplay and seduction. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, that's just fucking weird. Ace McAwesome 23:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes Baby Jesus cry... ^moral 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

He's not really married, is he? Wasn't he living with other cultists in his cult's culthouse in New York? I cannot fathom how awful it would be to be a woman (or a man in Terry's case) in a relationship with any of those CP admin. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If Ed can get someone, so can anyone FairyCupcake (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I know I'll get laughted at for this question but, can someone tell me why this is supposed to be weird? I mean ok, the wording could, with much willingness, be understood completely wrong, but except for that I don't see anything in there. --Ullhateme (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See here..... He has a history of this sort of thing. Ace McAwesome 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. Still with this one it's just not getting me. Maybe because I'm a happy, liberal, sexually-freed sinful person. --Ullhateme (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why's Ed talking to Amanda anyway? She's been blocked for nearly a month. Tylersboy (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a member of the Unification Church, so his spouse was chosen for him by the Rev. Moon. That explains the how. 166.137.136.13 (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ed's spouse, would, of course, be named OfEd, ala the Handmaid's Tale. I can't wait for her autobiography once she gets out from under Eddy. All will be revealed. Jimaginator (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Ed has been renting movie again^img. Ace McAwesome 00:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Ullhateme: Ed clearly has a preoccupation with sex. That's fine. What makes it creepy is the breathy, repressed way he indulges it on CP. He almost always tries to take a moral or matter-of-fact tone when discussing this kind of thing. "Oh, aren't these panty shots and lesbian kisses in Sailor Moon just awful." "Oh, did you know another unsafe sex practice is rimming?" and so on. He's turned CP into his online jizz-rag, but tries to make out the stains are just toothpaste. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I miss Jinx. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me? I've not been around here long enough to understand the reference if it was. Did I do bad? Grumblejaws (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how that was supposed to apply to you either. Jinx was a CP sysop who had some...fascinations...with certain...anatomical members. You, on the other hand, are doing just fine, n00b. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything Grumblejaws said about Ed Poor applied doubly to Jinx. this and this should fill you in on the basic details. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I preferred being confused. Grumblejaws (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

North American Man-Boy Love Association

I just had a peak at the CP article for this wretched group. I have no problem with them slamming NAMBLA. Harry Hay was an absolute fruitcake in every sense of the word. Instead of keeping the article about NAMBLA, they throw in two unrelated topics: John Maynard Keynes and Sam Harris's opinion that in American society "atheist" is only better than "child molester". Kenspam muddies their articles so that they look like a collection of irrelevant information. I don't see how Harris enlightens the topic of the organization NAMBLA, nor Keynes, who died 30 years before NAMBLA was started. --Leotardo (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality is obviously the same thing as pederasty. All gay men fuck little boys. And they're atheists, who, even if they don't fuck little boys are still only slightly better than the pederasts. Glad to have helped. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For Christian conservatives homosexuality is pederasty. That's why we hear so much about priests shagging choirboys and Boy Scout leaders molesting their "cubs".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

this tosser being a prime example. how did he get appointed in the first place? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mr. Hay was not personally inclined to pederasty, but in keeping with his Stalinist background was adamant that gays should not go mainstream and was consequently ready to align himself with every crank, fanatic, and wretch working to upend the sexual status quo. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

i wasn't meaning to say he was doing it - I was commenting on the people who link homosexuality to pedophilia. I blame lack of tea for my lack of clarity. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot has happened...

So I was in Thailand and Cambodia for three weeks on my honeymoon, and I return to find that TK is apparently dead, Ken

embarrassed himself in hilarious fashion thanks to the astonishing generosity of Jeeves, and that there's been another leak from the SDG.  Did I miss anything else big?--talk 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's about it. You probably should have skipped your wedding for RW though. I'm sure your honeymoon paled in to comparison with the fun we've been having here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey..I am getting married in two days and heading to Cambodia and Thailand also. Ace McAwesome 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They had a minor conflict over the past few days that left ten soldiers dead, but I think the borders will still be open. Be careful, though. Oh, and congratulations! I strongly recommend this place in Bangkok if you don't already have reservations someplace.--^talk 01:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was on a tube the other day opposite this stunning Thai girl wearing a seriously skimpy outfit. I kept thinking to myself "don't get an erection... don't get an erection..." but unfortunately she did. Ba-doom, and indeed tish. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm a complete letch when it comes to pretty Japanese girls... but put a pretty Vietnamese girl in an áo dài... *sigh* Oh and congrats to Ace & Mrs Ace doing the knot tying thing. --Ψ GremlinTal! 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the little stuff, the big picture

There's a lot of little gems in the leaks, and they're enjoyably bizarre to read. It reinforces that they have a really advanced sense of self importance, and resulting paranoia.

It also shows that they can't really relax. They try so hard to prevent themselves from looking bad, that they ignore the obvious solution - try backing away and letting the project work naturally.

But enough of that. They all come across as being insanely childish. A lot of them are desperately crying for attention, although in different ways. They all have delusions of grandeur, in one way or another. Ed Poor comes out with false modesty, Karajou wants to be tough, and tries to puff himself up. Andy seems reasonably reserved, but still has a healthy dose of a superiority complex. He's a true believer in his own importance.

I don't see any empathy for one other, I see a lot of contempt for everyone else. Imaginary enemies. Particularly their fixation on RW. While I can't say that everyone involved in the site has done nothing wrong, ever, it's mostly because I can't verify. But I know that when RW users create a sock on CP, it's more akin to tossing a ball of yarn for a cat. If you guys would quit dancing, RW users would stop socking up.

To clarify, I'm not clever enough to do any enjoyable parody, and I take matters too seriously to enjoy 'debate' with CP. So, I haven't been on CP in several years. -Lardashe

All I can say is, CP was a lot more fun to read in the early days, when most folks (except Icewedge and a handful of others) didn't need to sock up. Andy was available and willing to debate, which resulted in some wonderful lunacy. Same with Ken, to a degree, at least he'd be there answering people on the talk page, same went for the others. There were cool little jousts, and active debates, and battles over page contents, all of which was great fun to read. People were practically scandalized when the Evolution article was perma-locked to prevent facts from getting in, since it wasn't SOP at that point. But then the Night of Blunt Knives happened, and the only way anyone could stay involved was by socking, and while that was fun to watch it wasn't as good as when there was active involvement. You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle though, and the stuff that happened as a result of the purge can't easily be undone. Even if they went back, the game of Conservatroll would still exist. eBaums and Ed and 4chan would still exist, knowing CP was there. CP would still be actively vilified by the conservative movement, rather than just seen as an annoyance. The CP Bible would still be a huge lightning rod. So no, going back to the way it was won't solve anything, even if RW suddenly ceased to exist and we all forgot the URL. The only sane thing to do now would be delete the whole site, put up a placeholder for a year or so, and start 100% fresh and try to distance themselves from what went before. But that won't happen, for the reasons above. The old days are gone for good, and honestly it's a pity. -- Kels (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Amen sister! The first year of CP was interesting; there was still a large degree of homeschooler involvement and Andy would promote his "teacher's pet" to sysop after encouraging them to up their edit count slightly - DeborahB. was a blatant example of Andy's "meritocracy". However, Andy soon discovered that trying to run a controversial website (as any fundamentalist site must surely be) with a bunch of naive kids, was not a great idea. So he brought in the reactionary, bitter, middle-aged men who got promoted to sysop within a few days. Completely lacking in any social or wiki skills they proceeded to bludgeon everyone into submission and largely frightened off the homescholars. Karajou still espouses this viewpoint with his "giving kids a good spanking is not child abuse" line.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll aborts the 120 day pro-life challenge

Only half way through his breakneck article creation drive, Kendoll abruptly gives up on his pro-life challenge and attempts to burn all the evidence. Sadly, he still hasn't mastered oversight^img and while he may nuke some pages we're watching. Always watching. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting with bated breath for the Conservapedia anti-Socialism porject to start. Or for the Richard Dawkins project to complete. --Ψ GremlinParla! 07:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for a 90 day Ken vacation. Think how much better Less fucking terrible CP would be in a post TK post Ken era? If the wandals would let up and everyone relaxed their banning fingers some productive work might actually get done. --Opcn (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Did he say that he would actually be leaving CP for 90 days or that he would be very busy on CP for 90 days?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Leaving for 90 days, but we know his mental illness doesn't allow him to quit his addiction. What surprises me about Ken is he makes these boasts that he never can live up to (such as finding more manpower to help him with his retarded projects). I love Ken because he's such a boob, dancing, dancing, prancing for us. --Leotardo (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Superbowl Non-sequitur

I can't understand the connection here^img. Some people who had tickets weren't able to use their seats because they were unsafe and are now launching a lawsuit... and that's all because a "Christian" ad was rejected by Fox? Is there a US connection that I don't get or is this just Andy being a fucking moron as usual? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No he really is that stupid. - π 05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The timestamp on the edit shows it to be 11:16pm, Andy's well into the second fifth of the day. So it goes. 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Really, you librulls are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. God decided to punish the people running the SuperBowl, because they wouldn't allow a Xian advert to be played. He did this by preventing some people from watching the game. They will then sue the football people, thus punishing them for displeasing God, as well as making some lawyers rich, because they are God's representatives on Earth. Now you might think that in order to punish them, God could have just blanked out the entire broadcast, but you forget, He works in mysterious ways. --Ψ GremlinTal! 07:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they tried to run the ads on the Super Bowl, but several years ago, the liberal United Church of Christ tried to purchase ad time on the major networks for some "we welcome everybody, including teh gheyz" ads, and none of the networks would accept them. I wonder if Andy got up in arms about that... MDB (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia FB page goes from weird and funny to downright stupid

[www.facebook.com/pages/Conservapedia/48164162694u Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.]Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 08:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given up. Doug seems to think that Ken's Flying Kitty essay actually refers to evolutionists coming up with flying kitties. His brand of parody / stupidity isn't even amusing anymore. --Ψ GremlinFale! 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just stupidity, probably not parody. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust nobody

The levels of paranoia over on CP are incredible. Seriously, nobody is above suspicion. From a snippet TK sent me from a chat between him and Karajou:

Jpatt is another to consider; it just knaws on me, about his damn email address, though I can't remember where I remember that buy-sell-xray address from!!! i keep thinkiing it was brianco or one of them oh well

It makes you wonder who they do trust over there. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 08:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In the word of X-Files: TRUSTNO1 --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

WHY does it make you wonder, "Psygremlin"? Don't you realise that your name is an anagram of "lying sperm"??? I think we've seen enough. I have passed your details onto the FBI, the CIA, the BBC and the Whitley Bay branch of the Womens' Institute. I foresee a rapid end to your liberal lies and deceits now! Ha ha ha! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Jeebus. I can see me being subjected to WI waterboarding - tied to a doily-covered chair and fed tea as they warble "Jerusalem" at me. The horrors! The humanity! --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 09:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would at least seem from SR's list, Mr. Nigel Spy, that you needn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Tylersboy (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquis- --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone has to do it:

MDB (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel sorry for poor Brianco, TK stitched him up as being Fox, me, Auld Nick and now even Jpatt. Admittedly we did lead him on a bit but the thing is that none of the other sysops ever questioned him about how he knew, so he could blithely make assertions and knobble anyone before they became a sysop. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Creationist Science Fair

Oxymoron, amirite? Follow the link, "They do good science." (It seriously says that).--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A creationist science fair is like... damn. The best analogy I can come up with is "a library for the illiterate", but that one seems lacking.

And I personally find it amusing that they hold it at a mall. MDB (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Spookily enough, a link which I put up yesterday, simply for the sake of a silly joke about atheist ponies, really does have something to say on this subject. And it connects to another link which adds still more. Tylersboy (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clickbots?

Can someone explain clickbots, how it affects CP's page views, etc.? 12.16.112.2 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

MOLE! We're onto you, assfly. I kid. FairyCupcake (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clickbots are children's toys. They're like a cross between Lego (hence the click part of the name) and Transformers (hence the 'ro'bot part). Because we atheists created the dark art of relativity we can alter the flow of electrons in the series of tubes that is the internet. When we notice someone reading a page on CP we send forth a clickbot. This then downloads through their USB sockets and creates a small dancing robot in front of their monitor. It is in this way that we distract people from reading CP (because dancing clickbots are very cute) and therefore CP isn't allowed to sit at the grown ups table of the internet.

The only defence against clickbots is to completely fill your USB sockets with smooth peanut butter. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clickbots are a gift from God. How else could Ken's "articles" achieve any notoriety? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Judas might have got things a bit wrong. I just filled my USB ports with smooth peanut butter and the robots are still dancing. Am I using the wrong sort of butter? Mick McT (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Y'all lack machismo, crunchy or gtfo you atheist. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly Trent, everyone knows that clickbots are designed to defeat good honest crunchy peanut butter by using the variable texture to climb out of the USB socket. The lack of traction from smooth peanut butter is the only way they are defeated. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I would say that Iscariot has just won the internet, but it sounds like he already controls it anyway. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

All awesome answers...but can anyone give a serious explanation? Are clickbots malicious, do they drive up pageview numbers and are thus welcomed by CP, is it something they could inadvertently block with their huge IP blocks and kill CP's traffic?64.30.2.130 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly computer savvy, but someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Firstly if the clickbot is set to view the page lots of times it can use up plenty of bandwidth and potentially take the site down like a baby DDoS attack (like Anonymous used to take down... well anything they've ever wanted to). The second 'reason' you get from the leaked email conversations is that the CP Admins think someone, or a group of someones, is trying to engineer the top ten articles at CP for their own gain.

Now someone who actually understands a computer more than my 'hit it until it works' will come along and say everything I've just said is rubbish. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both. A click bot is a program that emulates a human reading a page. It downloads the page, locates the links (with a bit of clever programming, the article's links are in a different CSS Div). It then waits for a while (ideally how long it'd take human to read the page), and then follows one of the links, repeated for however long it'd take a human to get bored (for ever in the case of Ken

). One bot on its own isn't really noticeable, but if there is a a horde of them then they are indistinguishable from a DDoS attack. CS Miller (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Clickbots are also used either to generate revenue from pay-per-click ads, or to drain a competitor's funds who is using pay-per-click ads like Google Adwords. Although that's not what they are referring to on CP. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So the "Over 206 million" views claim by Assfly is mostly actual humans, and not clickbots or spiders? 64.30.2.130 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "mostly". I've seen some charts here which show some accelerated page views during the early years and the 17+ million page views that Homosexuality had before Douglas Adams vaped it must have been 98% clickbots. Law Terms D had several good runs and Goat made the million mark more than once I think. So I reckon probably about 1/3 of the page views are clickbotted.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're write in general, but not for the Homosexuality article. It's the second hit on Google. I wish I knew how to complain that it's a ridiculous second hit. --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're falling for Ken's SEO bluster. Since the page was deleted by DouglasA 3 days ago it has got 1900 hits, about 600 a day. The 17 million page views it had prior to that averages nearly 12,000 hits a day since the article was first created.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Because, lets face it, who searches for "homosexuality"? I think most people have a pretty good idea what it is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No they don't. That's why homosexuals have to practise.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think "Homosexuality" is a heavily-research term, possibly one of the most searched terms. --Leotardo (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't breach the fourth wall

I know we shouldn't breach the fourth wall into RL, so I won't link, but, man, one of the US History students said something really offensive in his/her homework assignment. A real teacher would see it as a "teachable moment." I'm pretty sure that won't be the case here. PolarBear (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well now you have to link it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not ploughing through regurgitated Andyisms trying to find it. However, I have found so far that Native Americans were hanging around the US 19,000 years before the world was created. And something that probably came straight from Andy's mouth "...without the consent of the Native Americans (something that can be obtained frequently by a few beads or trinkets.)" --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's it right there^img, Mr. Gremlin. Beads and Trinkets. The colonial mentality still thrives in a church basement in Jersey. PolarBear (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2) The beads and trinkets thing jumped out at me as well. Oh and "World War Two, because it was somewhat recent, and has a lot of interesting things about Judaism involved in it." Nothing more interesting for a homeschooler than attempted genocide.-- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 15:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's true. Beads and trinkets make a great pick-up line when one is looking to get laid with a native american. They'll consent to anything. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sacagawea, thou shouldst be living at this hour. I like our student's observation that European contact with the indigenous Americans was "not beneficial but commendable". Tylersboy (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean I can buy weed on a reservation for a couple of necklaces and shiny fishing lures? --Leotardo (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And yet still a thousand times less inoffensive compared to the article that the bigot (dictionary definition of “bigot”: “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.” “Bigot” is not name calling, it is truth-telling - if you read Fishbait's rantings, you'll get that joke) Bryan Fishbait published on AFA two days ago. Sorry for the cache link. Even AFA managed to realise, after it got hammered into them by every conservative commentator out there, that Fishbait had crossed a line.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The inability of CP to confront conservative scandals

Unless the Republican is what they consider a RINO, CP shows it's intellectual vacuity every time they ignore a "Hollywood Values" story about a conservative. You can see it with how they treated diaper-wearing, prostitute-hiring Senator David Vitter^img. In the CP section about the amoral personal life of Newt Gingrich, it's almost entirely quotes by Gingrich defending himself^img. Where's their famous name-calling? But what's the likelihood that Craigslist Conservative Whore Representative Chris Lee will make it on MPR or anywhere on CP as an example of "Hollywood Values" or "DC Values" or whatever else they call this stuff? None. I hope they don't wonder why people call them conservative cultists. They take common human flaws and politicize them into being traits of liberals, unable to face that such a proposition is ridiculous. --Leotardo (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the only one curious^img. No, that's not me. --Leotardo (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Their standard line for this kind of thing is "Conservatives accept that humans are a sinful bunch and are therefore allowed timeout from moralising for the occasional amyl nitrite-laden tryst." Grumblejaws (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Anger Bear decided to prove me wrong^img. Jerk. --Leotardo (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trusworthy breaking news!

Real news: Mubarak refuses to step down[5]

Conservapedia: Mubarak steps down![1]^img

Thanks, JPatt. 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How the hell does he get that from that Fox article? Even the headline doesn't say he stepped down. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I looked at the referenced article earlier and it did say essentially what it says on CP. A lot of the news organisations seem to have got it wrong. Jammy (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's different now? I suppose it's possible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, CP didn't have their head in the crapper this time, although they should remove it so they--heavens no!--embarrass themselves. Leon Panetta at the CIA was the one suggesting this earlier today. Sigh - it's a sad. I'm really hoping this thing doesn't turn massacre-level bloody. --Leotardo (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I was listening to it on the Beeb. The Army had put out a statement implying that Mubarak was acceding to the protesters' demands; The Beeb (and C4, and it seems everyone else) thought that Mubarak was going to resign, and hand power to his (newly appointed) deputy, or the parliament's speaker (as per the constitution). Turns out that Mubarak is as intransigent as ever, and is deputy is, if any thing, even more so. Mubarak's speech was 45 mins late. I wonder if there was a last minute complete re-write? CS Miller (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, one of our TV News channels ran "MUBARAK ABOUT TO STEP DOWN" in their ticker yesterday evening, so this is really a case of the news themselves doing a 180 in the last minute. --Sid (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

More like Mubarak himself. The army announced to the protesters that all their demands would be met, which everybody assumed included Mubarak going. When he announced in his speech that he was staying on, pretty much everybody was caught by surprise. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy's in his eighties, he has enough fuluus to be very comfortable until he eventually snuffs it. It's just downright obstinacy and vanity that's keeping him there. The problem is that when people have wielded absolute power for so long they think that they are irreplaceable. Having believed that he was about to step down people are now going to be pretty pissed off. The longer it goes on the more likely it is that he will be carried out rather than walking out. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's finally done the honourable thing [6]. (Was CP just ahead of the game?) However, the new leader, Suleiman, as former head of the intelligence services, might be worse... CS Miller (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It was Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge™. «-Bfa-» 19:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Right in the middle of watching news from Germany on this. The reporter directly said, "He says he will meet the 'will of the people', whatever that means." And then proceeded to explain how it might not mean that he will be stepping down. It appears that Americans are so vacant of cynicism that we jump on wording like this with our optimistic sunny rose-colored glasses and report what we think the person said. (Note: the reported stated that Mubarak will (future tense) speak live about his clarification, so no, he didn't have the 20/20 hindsight that the Americans are now correcting their reports with.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 12:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this WIGO is wrong, and Fox had an early scoop, much as I hate to admit it.

Did we miss this one?

Doomed user, mentions that Ken is quote-mining Eugenie Scott in the evolution article. After Andy replies with a snarky "You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone," said user posts^img all of Scott's article, highlighting the bits Ken quoted out of context. Andy's reply is a doozie^img

“”You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website.

Um, so if it's that bad, why is Ken allowed to quote-mine it? Hey, Andy, here's a hint - maybe you should submit some of the papers you set for your students for grading at a college. The results should be illuminating, if not hysterical. I can only guess that hearing Mama S and Daddy having "communication problems" through the bedroom door, numbed Andy's irony nerve. --Ψ GremlinParla! 12:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn you. I was looking for other post-Lenski Andy quotes demonstrating just how butt-hurt he is over the whole debacle and that was one of the good ones. Looks like we both found it thanks to Ken's

ramblings too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Andy, did anyone check out his hilarious suggestion that the State of Florida start teaching its students on Conservapedia^img? I mean, who wouldn't see the value of teaching students on a website that calls people fat pigs, cites the existence of unicorns and dragons, and calls 7 year olds teenagers? --Leotardo (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I was reading Encyclopedia Britannica the other day, and I found a hilarious satirical article. It was about flying kitteh cats! No, really! (JOKE KILLING EXPLANATION: Encyclopedias don't have satire in them. CP is a failpedia.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How awesome would it be if they penned one of their famous collaborative letters to Rick Scott making such a proposition? --Leotardo (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering some of the shit that Andy accepts from his students (and indeed awards them grades in excess of 95% for) I can only assume he's lying. Andy doesn't give a rat's arse about quality in education. It's all about volume, volume, volume for him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And classroom prayer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Does Andy actually lead his classes in prayer? He goes on about classroom prayer all the time but I've never seen him mention that he does it at all (other than the implication that he does). X Stickman (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't get paid to fail students... and if all of them don't make As, then it makes homeschooling look no better than public schooling. They obviously have to be superior, because they're being homeschooled! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how I live in FL, it's funny about Rick Scott being mentioned. Phyllis Schlafly endorsed him during his campaign. He just recently started making plans to bring in tax cuts that directly cut funding from education - to the point where they're considering cutting school lunches. Still using blackboards and textbooks from 1970's... Andy should be proud. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 18:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No Access to CP?

is it just me, or is convservapedia shutting off access to view their pages? i keep getting a 'forbidden' page when i try to access from my work network. the only way i can access the site via work is to fire up tor and come in anonymously. my home ip is still ok. this ruins my enjoyment of wigo because i can't see the actual nonsense being posted. is there some bot at play? hey, there's a liberal over there looking at our pages, we must stop him!!! Diavolos (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the CPG/Fab Five archives and you will see that they deliberately have shut off access from certain IP ranges. I couldn't access from the University of Guildford a couple of weeks ago. If you need to see what has been WIGOed then click the image tags. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Join the club, Diavolos. That's why we want <capture>...</capture> used. 17:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, inter alia this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm having a DJ view. Or whatever it's called. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, well thanks. Diavolos (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous suggestion for RW editors

At the time of writing, Sunday the 13th, Hosni Mubarak is still the current president of Egypt. At least, according to Andy's Trustworthy Encyclopedia. <capture>http://conservapedia.com/Hosni_Mubarak</capture>

This whole crazy story would make one hell of a This American Life piece. Someone email Ira Glass.

I've often thought the story of Conservapedia would make for an excellent book, in all seriousness. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A Bob Woodward trilogy, perhaps? Tylersboy (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The 4th installment of the border trilogy by Cormac McCarthy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would Karajou favour a puff piece from Tom Clancy? Tylersboy (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Constructing wiki-politics into an interesting narrative is difficult. The story can often get bogged down in process issues and pettiness. --Leotardo (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to explain the whole TK-died-but-before-he-did-he-leaked-some-internal-CP-stuff-to-us-even-though-he-hated-us-and-wouldn't-let-us-edit-CP-but-he-hated-CP-too-even-though-he-basically-ran-the-thing situation to Mrs. Foster. Her eyes glazed over pretty quickly. P-Foster (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that sounds like the stuff of Shakespearian tragedy to me. Tylersboy (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A movie about Conservapedia would be like The Social Network done by Will Ferrell. Now I think of it, Ferrell might actually make a good Andy Schlafly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.}

With Meryl Streep as Phyllis? Tylersboy (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting into Conservapedia:The_Musical territory and Phyllis is played by Carol Channing. (Funny, that was the first name that came to me without having to look it up.)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A sublime parody which I had forgotten, and whose master strokes of casting I shall not further attempt to match. Tylersboy (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Second Carol Channing ref this week! The first being in the Daily Beast/HuffPo article that CP put up. If you search "Carol Channing" on this page, you will get two hits! Go Carol Channing! You still got it, babe! --Leotardo (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Only a minor point, but I note that the predominantly adulatory 90th birthday piece that I posted a link to on her previous appearance here commits the horrible howler of referring to her as an "inimical Broadway personaity". One assumes that "inimitable" was meant. Tylersboy (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a book about CP is that it would have to come with sound effects, an increasingly shrill and annoying soundtrack and the occasional custard pie in the face. Can such a thing be made? Darkmind1970 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Or at the very least, it should come packaged with a soft, but sturdy, pillow, to protect readers against the inevitable headdesks that would occur while reading it. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy gets a positive(!) mention re Lenski

On "Evolution^(sic) News

Dawkins ... allowing the editor of a website, Conservapedia's Andrew Schlafly, to stand in all by himself for those who doubt the relevance of Richard Lenski's E. coli experiments to the debate about macroevolution.

"Schlafly," remarked Dawkins in disgust, "a lawyer, if you please, not a scientist at all."

18:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I do wish you hadn't led me to that cesspit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Heee! Serves you right for stalking me :) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a positive mention to me. Indeed the author goes on to ask "then why not pick on someone your own size, like a pro-ID or Darwin-doubting scientist?" I actually agree with the author of the article here: picking on Schlafly is not a strong point at all. In fact, despite agreeing with many of Dawkins' basic ideas, I'm underwhelmed by some of his appallingly lazy arguments. But then I'm just an idiot... --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just the fact that it's such a fun story that pushed Dawkins to publish it. --Opcn (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My personal take-away on this is that this is at least the third time (the others being somebody accusing Dawkins of attacking a straw man and Farah's CBP article) where "Andy's side" openly dismisses him and The Truth. Just look at it - they don't even try to defend Andy. They're just giving off the "Why are you picking on an obvious idiot, Dawkins?" vibe. --Sid (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

but Andy is also a sciency type guy, an electronics engineer or like that. He designed ICs before he went to law. Hamster (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Engineers and scientists are two different sorts of people. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Martinez and his 'World Treasures'

Joaquin Martinez is the main custodian of CP's "World Treasures". How does he pick them^img? Not through the Museum of World Treasures; not through UNESCO's World Heritage list; nor through the World Monuments Fund. No, like all things CP it just takes a dumbass bumbling on to the site and deciding what he wants something to be. Entire countries (Kuwait?), cities, oceans, rivers, etc. While many of the things on Jack's lists are important, or pretty, if you go through his three galleries you start to sense that, well, "the world is a world treasure" because his brush is so broad and without any discernible standards.[2]^img[3]^img[4]^img. --Leotardo (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, don't flame JM. He's just an old guy who likes pretty pictures, and apparently doesn't realise you can get free web hosting on any street corner now. He doesn't really have anything to do with CP in it's frothing at the mouth, kill the liberals incarnation. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

True, Jeeves, he is the least objectionable member of the website, but I am not one of the RationalWikians who has some bizarre warm spot in my heart for CP that makes me want to fix their typos, add good content and celebrate the people who do unobjectionable work. The critique here, though, is more about the lack of any discernible standards on CP than it is about ole' Jack. He could still try to organize his galleries more logically by combining all the regional world treasures together, instead of spreading them out on each gallery page. --Leotardo (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The only affinity JM has with CP is that he is Catholic and probably socially conservative. The fact that he can stick his pretty pictures all round the place is justified by Ken doing the same thing with his potty "essays". They like to keep him around the place because he's the only one who is adding stuff which isn't hate-filled bile and is generally non-political - unless it's promoting Mexicans in some way. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with him just wanting to list things that he likes? It's a mildly unencyclopedic approach at worst. --Opcn (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just had a look at his talk page – something I’d not done before – and was intrigued by his standing up to Andy^img over the latter’s boneheaded insistence that you shouldn’t translate “Allah” as “God”. Eventually, however, he loses interest and leaves Andy to his own devices, fighting one of his trademark one-man wars against people who’ve read more than one book. Apologies if this is all familiar stuff to the old hands. Tylersboy (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that we don't enjoy being reminded of one of the Assfly's better moments of soaring stupidity. That's definitely a classic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Awww, and I was there for that. Yes, that was definitely one of the best moments I've had on CP. Andy won't admit that he believes Muslims worship a different god. Precious. NB On a moment's further though it occurred to me that his unwillingness to actually even address that issue head on even when asked point blank by young Cambrian there stems from his shame in advocating such a loony idea, though it's clear that even though he knows it's fucking insane to take the position, it's exactly what he's going to publicly do because that's the conservative thing to do. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If there ever was an indication that Andy reads these threads, it's this^img. Hey Andy: You enjoy basking in your buffoonery, and I enjoy watching it! Carry on. --Leotardo (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Atheists and plate tectonics.

Erm, I don't know anything about this subject, but am I correct in assuming that Schlafly has got this absolutely 180 degrees arse-about-face?^img Thank fuck he's got a website where no one can question his facts or ask for (liberal/atheistic/etc) references. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly is just so stupid and ignorant, it's no wonder that he always gets humiliated when he enters into a debate with people who have a modicum of knowledge or expertise. Let's look at the Atlantic Ocean, which is from where the concept of continental drift arose. In 1912 Wegener first suggested that the Americas and Europe/Africa might have been once joined together solely on the apparent fit between the continental shapes and some geological similarities. It was merely an hypothesis because at that time no mechanism was known which could cause it to happen and they didn't even know that the continents are still drifting apart. There weren't groups of creationist geologists shouting "Aha! This proves that there was a cataclysm at the time of the global flood which wrenched the continents apart". Any geologists (or non-geologists) who still believed in the Flood at that time still thought of it as a lot of rain rather than all the sub-crustal pressurised water and hydroplate nonsense that has since been dreamt up by the modern YECs, post-Morris. There were debates about mechanisms during 1920s and 1930s and they started to match up fossil evidence which linked the continents. It is only during the 50s and 60s that they surveyed the oceans in any detail and discovered the bigger picture of sea-floor spreading, subduction, plate boundaries and geomagnetic reversals. Currently we know that the Atlantic is widening about an inch or two a year; faster in the south, slower in the north. The South Atlantic is much older than the North Atlantic. although dating when each started to open up is obviously inexact. So let's do a few calculations, at an inch a year it would take 63,360 years to split a mile, Lisbon is about 3300 miles from New York so we're looking at a time scale of 210 million years; maybe 50 million if we go with a really fast spreading rate of 4 inches/year. So on a geological time-scale of 4500 million years this could be considered recent, on a YEC scale it's out of the stadium and half way round the world. There was really only a serious debate about it for about 40 years but this was a period when the evidence was being amassed so getting it took a while to find all the pieces and assemble the puzzle. Of course, many of the geologists who contributed to the theory and amassed evidence were Christian, not atheist. It's just that they had forsaken the idea that the stories of Genesis are a literal account of the Earth's history. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The NOAA has a map of the age of the ocean floor.

No no no... it's out of the ballpark, and all the way back around the world, so that to an idiot it looks like it hasn't gone anywhere. Seriously though, after reading Schlafly's BS on this, I couldn't help but grasp my head in pain, because the stupid burns so bad... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If the speed of light was much higher 6000 years ago, then the continents were definitely drifting apart much faster back then. Duh! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok... there are times when Andy's sheer stupidity makes my head hurt too. But if you dare confront him with, you know, actual science then all he does is bluster, blather and finally stick his fingers in his ears until one of his minions drops the banhammer on the blasphemer and their inconvinient facts. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Does he? I never noticed. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I'd like to challenge him on this but I'm afraid that I'd get stumped by the classroom prayer question. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm so used the the Arsefly that I simply ignored the outright lie that continental drift proves a 6000 year old universe, I was rather picking up on him saying that atheists rejected plate tectonics - where as bible-thumpers accepted it from off knowing it proved their dogma. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So if the Atlantic had spread in 6000 years, Lisbon would have been moving away from New York by over a half a mile per year. You'd kind of think the early dinosaur riding humans in Portugal would have noticed the bright advertising hoardings of TImes Square rapidly disappearing into the distance - "Ah son, 'tis only two years ago I could read the big Sony ad like it was down the end of the street, but now, lo, it is gone speedily away from us across ye large lake which hath suddenly appeared". Fucking numptys. DogP (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the angry tundra mammal up to with all these astronomy articles?

It looks like he is going through and resurrecting all the astronomy that Douglas Adams deleted, what happens when he stumbles on the other stuff that got swept under the rug in the torrent? --Opcn (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume that he doesn't think references to "billions of years" is atheism posing as science, as does Dear Leader. You should know Kara is an all or nothing bloke - he's not going to check for parody, so it all goes, or it all comes back. Clearly words have been spoken in the Fab Five. Who knows, maybe if he carries on CP might get all their excellent Japanese articles back. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 09:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What's this? My ghost may once again walk among the halls of CP? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Between this and his earlier copypasta spree, it seems that Karajou is trying to add more content to the site. It may well be that he has some actual pride in this project (It'd make him the only one) and wants to improve it. Not enough to fix any of the structural problems, though... 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 15:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the CPG & FF archives it's evident that Karajerk still harbours the delusion that CP is an encyclopaedic project rather than a wingnut hate-blog. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. So far, the only articles getting restored are stars that are less than 6000 ly away, and a suspicious lack of mention of billions of years..-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CP dump on the web, browsable

All threads from the recent CP dump, sorted by date of first post: http://cp.noym.net/. The layout of the index page may still change but the URLs are stable, ie. threads can now be linked to. Comments and opinions welcome. Discussion over in the dump forum. mb 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Really nice work! Huzzah! --Leotardo (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Now make an Android app. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What would a RW Android app be like? Hm... that sound like an interesting project... Blue (pester) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have enough space to add all the various discussion group posts, the SDG, ZG, CP and Fab Five all in one big honking database? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Easily. mb 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Zeuglodon Blues and Fab Five now on the web too. Have fun. mb 03:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work! Now all you have to do it grep the previous discussions on RW and update all the 3456565894384848.htm references to link to the new online version. Mug. :) Worm^{(t | c)} 09:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks to all concerned. Now I know who to turn to when "The Zeuglodon Blues: The Missing Year" gets published. --Ψ GremlinTala! 10:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It would be awesome if the posts opened in frames rather than having to backtrack all the time. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I know it's not perfect yet. It was more important to me to get it up and running before everybody had dragged themselves through the sucky offline version. mb 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I would greatly appreciate suggestions as to how to make this thing as navigable as possible. We could glue short threads together, split the huge master indexes in sections again, eg. one index page per month; we could do some combination of these... ideas please. mb 12:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A search function, they're all plain text now, so an off the shelf plugin should be able to handle it. Should make it easier to find when they're accusing people of things or to find all the information about recalls quickly. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 13:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother with a search engine on site. Just stick a google site search box up there, that'll be more than good enough. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)