Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive222

This is an archive page, last updated 21 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>, <221>, <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)

Electoral Math Fail

"Are there enough votes for Barack Obama to be re-elected president if he can only run in 38 states?^img" asks JPratt, before answering himself with "Unlikely is the answer."

First, 38 plus the 11 states that have passed / are considering proof of eligibility legislation = 49 states, and I'm pretty sure there are 50 (plus DC).

Second, look at the list of states concerned: Tennessee, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Third, look at how those states votes in 2008: McCain, McCain, Obama, McCain, Obama, Obama, McCain, McCain, McCain (oh, with 1 vote for Obama but they're changing that), McCain and McCain.

Fourth, look at the electoral votes the GOP would pick up if those Obama votes were lost: 7, 11, 4, 1 = 23.

Fifth, look at how this would have affected last time's result: Obama: 342; McCain: 196.

Sixth, realise that Obama can still win by a landslide even without those states.

Seventh, realise that JPratt is a moron. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

JPratt is widely regarded as one of the bluntest knives in the drawer. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt is a parodist - even Kowardjerk spotted that - and by far our most senior one since JakeyB, so please don't highlight this kind of thing here, only his OTT hate rants. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL good post SR Senator Harrison (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This was a good post, and I'm against the idea that we can't discuss parodists because it's too difficult to figure out who is and isn't a parodist. I'm not here to support parody, I'm here to discuss what is going at CP. --Leotardo (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we know for sure that TK was a parodist it does not harm to discuss the obvious ones. However, any noobs or longstanding parody should be left to stand. We are not patrollers of their editors nor should we be proofreaders of their articles (barring the odd grammar or spelling mistake). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How do we know TK was for sure a parodist? --Leotardo (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He's fixed^img the first problem.

Pointing out that JPratt is a dickhead would pass unnoticed. Diving in and calling him a parodist is what will alert the swabbie. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The rule of thumb shouldn't be, "Don't even mention someone you think is a parodist" it should be "Don't debate whether they are a parodist" because the less we discuss someone doing something stupid, the more obvious it is to CP that they are a parodist. --Leotardo (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're aware that Karajou at least has a mini-obsession with this page. You're also aware that Schlafly is one of the most paranoid people in the world. You don't have to imply anything, merely bringing it up for discussion here will set them on edge and you don't even need to sign up to CP to do it! ^bomination 19:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right Jpatt is high enough up that we can discuss his work openly. He played an excellent game, going more for Kowardjerk/Assfly style hate screeds against anything 'liberal', rather than a Bugler/TK/Jake style direct bullying of other editors - this drew him admiration direct from the Assfly and earned him more and more rights. I thought he'd pushed it a bit far with his "Conservapedia four years on" essay a la Bugler, but one thing we all agree on is that Andy doesn't learn from his mistakes! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt's not a parodist. There are people from this site who have communicated with him and he apparently believes everything he says. Jpatt is precisely why we don't straight out call anyone a parodist unless he outs himself as one or does something that demonstrates it objectively (like a certain recently blocked member). 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 19:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think we all (myself included) should stop telling each other what we should and should not talk about on this forum. Will we out parodists at CP if we call them parodists? If we don't mention them at all? If we talk about them as if they are serious? Not serious? Do we call people who aren't parodists parodists hoping it will hurt their credibility? Vice-versa? Any of these arguments has an equally valid counter-argument. Everyone should write what they want on here; trying to keep up with the rewlz and the reasons for them (and whether those reasons even make sense) are a little much. Ignore what you don't like (again, myself included) and let everyone else get on with an open discussion. --Leotardo (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I already ignore most things that you write, Leo. I have also been in contact with one of the persons who run the Jpatt account (the one who makes the stupid articles, rather than the one who does the MPR screeds) and I trust the info they give me. You are correct though that people should be free to expose any parody they wish, although I don't think they should do so. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You just gave me a sad :-*( I will work hard to win your love. --Leotardo (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

*cue porno theme!* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Aww. Gives Leo a tissue. I read everything you you write Leo and you're very smart and going places in life. Arbo (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Did everyone suddenly forget who Jpatt is? Fun OP, weird thread. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 07:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

According to DeltaStar, who doesn't think we should discuss nor out parodists, Jpatt is a master parodist. Just don't mention that Jpatt is a master parodist, because Delta, who said he's a master parodist, said we shouldn't say who is a parodist. --Leotardo (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

rofl, you people are weird. Lets not out long-standing parody. Lets play secret contributors. Lets have fun but what have you really accomplished? What is your goal and how do you measure success? My views are different than yours, gasp. I don't care as much about Cp as you all do but i am happy to be a contributor. Shocking? Hardly. I despise liberalism with a passion. I like to see face palms. I can still be your buddy but i just don't care. TK was my buddy online regardless of how you felt about him. He and i were thunder and lightning. Now i am left to pick up the slack. Enjoy the ride because before you know it were gone. The truth is Jesus and i fear no man. My contribution will continue no matter what you call me. If i start making sense to the left,then i have utterly failed. So i end this word salad with a thanks for noticing. Yours truly Big J --208.54.38.63 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, foiled again! The above exposé by Jesus H. Patti has skewered the sacred cow of our indentation liberalism. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously JPratt and TK were as thick as.... Well, just thick.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I sort of think Jesus H. Patti has a point ("Lets not out long-standing parody. Lets play secret contributors. Lets have fun but what have you really accomplished? What is your goal and how do you measure success?") I don't understand the point of parody with the 2011 CP. I could see it would have been fun in 2007 or so, but today? Seems like a waste of time to devote so much thought and energy to a dying website whose only serious contributors do a better job at making CP a laughingstock than anyone else (I still love AmandaBunting). Some non-CP watchers on RW have essentially made the same observations. --Leotardo (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe his point was that we're all obsessive parody-hugging atheists, but yeah, I don't particularly like the "go out of your way to conceal it" stance. It's a long-standing debate, though...some people enjoy the stuff.

As for Bunting, she was a bit over the top, especially in the end.^img I was surprised she lasted that long. (Andy personally flagged her a week earlier, too.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

True, Amanda did go OTT, but much of her work still stands and was blessed by Ken, so that was quite a coup for her given some of the hysterically strange things she put up (e.g. unicorns are real). That was sort of her brilliance. --Leotardo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems like nobody was sure what to do until the last bit, despite the unicorns, sasquatch, etc...and there's still a lot of (top) in her work. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I wasn't even in favour of parody in the first place. What I was a fan of in the early days was seeing people fight the good fight on the talk and article pages, trying to penetrate the screen of ignorance and crazy with facts. That was fun to read, parody was more "it's okay, I guess, but who cares?". But what have we accomplished? We've had fun! That is an accomplishment! Seriously, this place is a hobby, not a lifestyle, and while I think this place has done some good in the world I'd say most of our real accomplishments have been elsewhere. This is where we go to laugh at the clowns, and CP obliges by putting on the rubber noses and floppy shoes. Everyone's happy, except the kids whose education Andy's trying to ruin. --Kels (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

+1. I don't mind parody, but this is why I loved CP. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shame Andy's talk page archives are inaccessible now, there was lots of wonderful sparring with folks like Sid, AmesG, Human, PalMD, Hojimachong, JoshuaZ, and many others to be found. At least we still have stuff like this^img and the Evolution talk page archives (by the way, has someone mirrored those just in case?) to remember when CP in its glory days. --Kels (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Idle thoughts

I wish I had the swabby's talent for drawing

• Karajou: an eighteenth century (vice)admiral stamping up & down the quarter deck: "Keelhaul him!"; "Clap him in irons!"
• Ed: Uriah Heep: "Ever so 'umble, Mr Schlafly."; Might I lick your boots if it please you sir?"
• Rob: Senator Joseph McCarthy: "They're all around us!"
• JPatt: nonentity: invisible man
• Andy: St George half eaten by the dragon. Or an court drama as the losing lawyer.
• Ken: Loathsome thing sitting in front of a keyboard in a dank, dark basement muttering like a traditional evil mastermind(!): "I'll show 'em, they'll have to admit that I WAS RIGHT ALL THE TIME!!!"

23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CP: The Movie: Who would play each role?

• Karajou: James Mason, as noire as he can play it.
• ED Poor: Ed Wynn, playing "straight" not for laughs.
• Rob: Bruce Dern.
• JPatt: The Wiz (who knows he's a fraud).
• Andy: Jack Nicholson, over-the-top insane.
• Ken: Peter Lorre, creepy, a bit sad with a comic aire about him.
• TK: David Leisure playing his "Joe Isuzu" character.
  • 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Geoffrey Rush at his creepy best would do Ken excellently, imo. Blue (pester) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Hugo Weaving to play one of them, then remembered that he only really plays intelligent villains.AlexR4444 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I never thought of Andy as crazy in a deranged Jack Nicholson-esqe way, even after watching the videos of his farcical encounter with the NJ Supreme Court. I'd be more inclined to go with someone like Will Ferrell even though I can't stand him. Plus, we need someone who can do Andy's robotic monotone laugh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I started thinking along these lines earlier, but was somewhat handicapped by the fact that, apart from Andy and Ed, I don’t know what any of them look like. Anyway, I thought that Steve Buscemi would be hard to beat as Ken, with Frank Langella at his most menacing as TK. My selections for Karajou and Ed are problematical insofar as the actors concerned are no longer with us, but I envisioned Harve Presnell as he was in Fargo for the former and Lon Chaney Jr., in Of Mice and Men mode for the latter. Andy is difficult, but I thought that Greg Kinnear might rework the tragically baseless optimism of his Little Miss Sunshine persona. I shall steer clear of trying to cast Phyllis again, but somebody else might want to give a certain 90-year-old Broadway legend a mention for Leotardo’s benefit. Tylersboy (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy gives a low Mark

Finally a student received a mark of 12/90^img. I thinks is the lowest thing Andy has ever given. I have to admit that the answers are really crappy, but it seems that the low marks came because Andy disagree with them. They are not much worse than other anwers in which Andy just gives a minus one. --Tlaloc (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One student skipped questions 2 and 3 and got a grade of 59/60. In related news, just finished grading a stack of papers and feel pretty damn good about myself. Half of them got B-/B/B+, and as many got A's as did Cs. A perfect curve, and I wasn't even trying. P-Foster (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Interesting argument, but doubt it was less expensive than telling unhappy citizens to shut up." I'm failing to understand how having someone pay you to go to New England would not be cheaper than keeping them around. It's like saying it's cheaper for me to keep my cookie rather than sell it to you. The gov didn't care about how much it would cost the unhappy citizens to get there and survive... or even particularly if they disappeared... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Student 4 is clearly not a paid member of Andy's basement Bible study group, and as such has not earned an automatic >95% grade, despite answering more questions than several other students. Andy's responses are quite interesting as well. Let's look into a few, shall we?

1)'Jefferson's DOI was not gutted.' OK,here's a letter from John Adams to Timothy Pickering. This is a sincere letter. This is not an attorney arguing. This is, this is like writing to his diary, ok? And he's telling you this is the way it is: "Congress cut off about a quarter of it, as I expected they would; but they obliterated some of the best of it, and left all that was exceptionable, if anything in it was. I have long wondered that the original draft had not been published. I suppose the reason is the vehement philippic against Negro slavery." Now.. In sort of, weighing the evidence, historical evi-; wouldn't that have tremendous evidence?

2)"The King didn't deal with the Indians either." No love for the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which forbid expansion west of the Appalachians in response to Pontiac's Rebellion?

3)"If the colonies thought England had more to lose, then they would have feared England trying harder to keep the colonies!" Totally bassackwards. Why would you try to change the status quo if you thought you had more to lose than your opponent? --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How the hell can he give zero marks on the first two questions? "I expect to enjoy studying the colonial period." - "No. Wrong. I deliberately make that section boring as shit, so everyone will enjoy the Civil War era and the Current Events section much more. The first thirty years or so after the Revolution is a good section as well, but I rewrite it to suit my agenda, and that leads to a lot of unenjoyable arguments." The second question just isn't phrased worth a damn. The second part is pure opinion, but the way the first part is posed, it's just as valid to say that the Natives were always here because they arrived via time machine from the 80th century, and plopped down populations in random centuries until the Super Friends put a stop to their time-line monkeying.Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Those answers came from DevonJ, the author of this^img page in his userspace - the "I'm not sure it's a serious place, it looks as if it might be a put-on...like the Colbert Report." one. His/her answers are at least as good as Andy's homskollers, but Andy has to punish him for showing independent thought. Note the two "Failure to follow directions" responses. Andy is a fucking disgrace as a teacher. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the real offense.^img (See edit summary) C®ackeЯ

Wow, do people actually pay for this guy to act like his stupid opinions are Truth? I wonder if there is not some way to contact the parents of these kids with some of the more obvious examples. Arbo (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Might be time to take screenshots and add this point about the first two questions to Andy's serious page under marking practices. No teacher worth their mortarboard would mark down any student on an opinion based question just because he'd disagreed with them elsewhere. Future prospective home schooler parents will want to know.

Have we all noticed his new tactic BTW? Stick them all on one account so altruists can't email the parents in question and expose Andy's many failures and shortcomings as a teacher. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 16:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can kind of see being a hard-ass like that, but it has to be consistent. The grading of the first question is just asinine. As to the others, Andy routinely gives 9/10 for blatantly incorrect answers to questions of fact. Marking someone zero for an opinion isn't something he can get away with, even if the opinion is based on a wildly incorrect set of facts. The same goes for question 6 as for 2. He asked for the student's view, so any serious attempt at an answer will satisfy that. Based on his usual method of grading, the student deserves full marks, or close to, for successfully combining letters into words beneath the question.Ellipsoidal (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the jungle.......

Just when you thought it was safe, Jinx pops up![1] Mick McT (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yay! I see our fave penis-bone fancier is still living in 60s Alabama "Businesses have a right to refuse services to whomever they wish." Maybe a drunk puking on the restaurant steps, or a Hare Krshna selling you flowers, but any business discriminating on race, colour, creed, orientation, etc, must be run by fundie bigots. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 10:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh god no...not Jinx..*sighs*. BTW, I had a look through Amazon.com, and read some reviews by Jinx. Amusing, really.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 10:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What's amusing is not just that he reviewed the princess bible just as an excuse to lash out at PZ Myers, but that almost all of his reviews get near-unanimous unhelpful ratings. Junggai (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Have you seen his blog recently? He's spent the last 3 years basically blogging about nothing but that shitty left behind game. I can understand people getting hooked on big social games like WoW, but this is just creepily obsessive. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

His Amazon reviews boil down to Evolution bad, Christianity good, and in typical wingnut fashion (I always love when they claim to be former Atheists, as Jinx does) he sees everything in black or white (5 stars or 1 star). His Left Behind game comments were mostly defensive. I liked this one: "Some have complained that female units can't become builders and this makes the game sexist, but they ignore the fact that only female units can become the most powerful units in the game." Not allowing people of a particular gender realize their potential simply based upon their gender is one of the primary definitions of sexism. Apparently this game does it to both genders, so it's inherently sexist. --Leotardo (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

According to JPratt, the female units can become the most powerful unit in the game: The Prayer Warrior! They certainly scare me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, Jinx must be one of a few that still plays Left Behind. Hell, the game is still warming the store shelves everywhere...I actually bought it for 50 cents new once, played for 30 minutes then threw it in the shredder. Yes, it really is that bad.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

user:Deborah

This reminded me of CP's redirect queen and general odd-bod (didn't she have a post on her user page, or some talk page about how she overcame the evils of masturbation?) The Powers That Be were always suspect, cos she used a proxy to edit, because her uni blocked CP. So, the question is, was she one of us, or not? --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 12:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was fairly sure that Deborah was one of us. Was hoping for an outing. That never came.Buscombe (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Countdown to Andy finding out about this...

3……2……1……. (For those who don't want to follow the link, Gay Republican Runs For Presidential Nomination).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenner says he calls RINO, provided he doesn't ignore it FairyCupcake (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Jpatt will write up something to call him a traitor or a RINO who only seeks to disrupt. Wasn't there a similar news item with the gay group at CPAC or so? I'm too lazy to verify... --Sid (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Kara's blog

Sorry if this is really old news, but has anyone seen it? It's pretty much what you'd expect. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To reply to myself: what's interesting is that Trent's good friend Denyse O'Leary is one of the authors. Again, apologies if this is stated elsewhere. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, and the fact that the number of contributors outnumber the number of followers tells it all really. My God! It's mini-CP.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's personal blog has undergone some changes since we found it. It now has a light background with dark text. Patches of it are still unreadable because of the trees, showing he still didn't learn his lesson with the flames. - π 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Urgh! The more I read his "Ms. Uncredited" the creepier it becomes. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 09:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd second that - but I also pick up a bit of projection: all that “probably has no talent whatsoever . . . always . . . in the background . . . And always, always, uncredited” stuff. A bit too close to home? Tylersboy (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Has he deleted the "Ms Uncredited" post now? I can't find it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncredited and Ms. Uncredited. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You know I looked at Conservapedia and nowhere can I find anything credited to Brian Macdonald. What a failure he is as he takes his own government handout to pursue a university degree . Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FOX News is liberal!

Yeah ok Andy...^imgQuackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 08:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, CP is much more entertaining... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's slammed Fox on a couple of occasions for not being conservative enough. There's a quote on here somewhere along the lines of "Fox has liberal bias, they're not nearly as conservative as they pretend to be." --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 09:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The artical Assfly links to is about talk radio. Rush dosnt have a news show because NOBODY wants to see that in HD. But as to his belief that they need conservitive facts, that might be the problem.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rush doesn't have a TV show because his last one flopped, massively. He tried doing one in the early Nineties, when he was first becoming popular.

The problem was that he wasn't doing TV, he was doing live radio. It was thirty minutes of him pontificating, just like he does on the radio. The only difference was that he had a live studio audience instead of callers.

Most stations that aired it put it on in late-night hours. He originally insisted that was what they designed it for, but when ratings tanked, he blamed the TV stations for putting it on too late.

It also become infamous for one thing he claimed was a mistake. He was discussing the Clintons moving into the White House and showing "moving day" pictures. He showed Socks the cat, and then added "did you know the Clintons also have a dog?"... and the control room "mistakenly" displayed a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was barely into her teens at the time.

As I said, he claimed it was a mistake. But the show was not broadcast live, so it could have been edited out. MDB (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy posting this was the most striking example yet of how he lacks self-awareness for himself and his website. The reasons for the drop-off in ratings is not only that only old people listen to talk radio, but also it's message: “They're thinking ‘this conservative thing is kind of running its course. We're saying the same things from morning 'til night and yes, we've got a very loyal core audience—but if we ever want to grow, if we want to expand, we've got to be doing more than 18 hours a day of ‘Obama is a socialist.’” That describes Conservapedia perfectly, so I really enjoyed that Andy posted the link. --Leotardo (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I use made up shit for it's "moral implications"

I just love our favourite swabbie, still defending his "Einstein was a Christian" garbage. "Never mind that it didn't happen to the guy they say it did, and that he probably never wrote the book, I use made up shit for its "moral implications" because that's the way I roll."^img Here's a hint Karajou - attribute the debate to a Christian scientist (preferably one with the same stature as Einstein) and your problem is solved. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 10:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If he wanted to claim ol' Al was a much more devout Jew than usually believed, that would be one thing. But claiming Einstein was a Christian... that's not even wrong. MDB (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

TK and the leaks

I am a bit confused here. I have not been following the events regularly. But if TK passed away in mid December, how come we have leaks upto early Feb? Am I overlooking some obvious facts? Buscombe (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that you've just blown the cover operation to protect Jpatt. --Ψ GremlinHable! 13:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Yes. It would appear that the leaks were not actually in the form of forwarding but allowing others access to his account. So access was still available after TK died. TK had many different email accounts so allowing someone to access just one of them was probably not an issue. However, I'm sure some conspiracy theorist will try and prove otherwise.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to our one remaining man in the inner circle this is how he did it. mb 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a conspiracy theorist and realising the facts don't fit the story :) MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 16:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what a conspiracy theorist would say. --Kels (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Where's the death certificate? Hateboy (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Long form? --Kels (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

At least. For all we know, the Kenian Islamocommunist Terry F. Koeckritz is alive and well and currently infiltrating the Palin campaign from the safety of his Norwegian homo commune. Hateboy (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, a real conspiracy theorist would be asking questions about stuff that was posted to CFF at the same time as being posted to WIGO talk :) MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Buscombe PJR? Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you see a wall of text self-righteously disagreeing with everything everyone says? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Speaking of which, why hasn't anybody created yet the PJR Text Generator? It should be easier to do than the Schlafly one. Maybe less funny though. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We have one. It's called "a Stronghold of igKnowledge". ħuman 07:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this was mentioned anywhere yet or not, but....

The Assfly Permabanned^img TK's account. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me. I clicked on the link and got the blue screen of death. Spooky.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it just be for security reasons? Or could they be unpersoning TK for his conservyleaks? Senator Harrison (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I clocked this the afternoon after TK got whacked. 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Andy never threatened to report anyone to the FBI and certainly didn't have relations with that man, TK. Any claims to the contrary are liberal deceit and grounds for permanent and instant blocking, as well as being reported to your public school along with a complaint about how you were never taught that deceit was wrong and so this is all Muslim Hussein Soetoro's fault.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it was obvious on anything but a cursory look at things that Terry had been sharing the password to that account for ages. Blocking it was a wise move. I'm surprisd it didn't happen in 2009. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah weird, I get Internal Server Error. That's some pretty deep memory-holing. So long and thanks for all your help TK.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he's excommunicated Geo.Plrd^img as well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's standard CP practice to permaban accounts that are deemed inactive, so... yeah, no surprise there. Also no surprise, but somewhat sad is that they still refuse to even acknowledge his death on CP. TK helped build the place. He shaped it. Now he's freaking dead, and CP's reaction is silent memoryholing? YEGH.

Geo's demotion is extremely puzzling, though. Especially when you consider that several admins have been inactive for far longer than him (and still got their rights). --Sid (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, TK shaped the place. BOY did he shape the place. He must have done about as much damage as the Lenski dialog and the CBP together. Sorry, Andy, but this particular banhammer comes about four years too late. Mountain Blue 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand his demotion strategy. Two thirds of his sysops are deader than tank tops, but he demotes the true believers before he demotes the presumably more volatile ex-homskollers. I suppose if he was consistent, the sysop list would look very sad indeed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Geo.Plrd should have been demoted ages ago for his pisspoor attempts at acting as TK's parole officer. His only act on that job seems to have been to ask TK whether or not he should try to tighten his anal sphincter more. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's typical CP, especially back in the day. Pretending that the rules meant something, but in fact barely paying lip service, if at all. The words "Student Panel" come to mind. --Kels (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that his last contribution was a day before his rights were increased. He was only infrequently active during the whole of 2010. But why is he demoted now? Has it got anything to do with his subservience to TK and the leaks?Buscombe (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious to everyone that Karajou is the stoolpigeon? Or, well, he's some kind of stool anyway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, geo hasn't edited since July last year (altho Jallen hasn't edited since July 2009, and she still has rights). It's also fairly clear, from the leaks that Geo, TK and Ed are as thick as thieves, and appointing Geo as TK's parole officer was a pretty transparent attempt by Ed to get TK back into CP. Geo didn't even have the guile to lie about his cover-up, as seen from the UCLA debacle. It makes one wonder, just why Ed was so keen to have TK around? --Ψ GremlinSermā! 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it's fairly easy to get on Ed's good side: just praise his brilliance at WP and tell him how useful his stubs are and you're there. We know that Ed and TK talked on the phone fairly often and I imagine that TK buttering up Ed was a large fraction of those calls. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got an old IM from TK (or EWig as he liked to be known) where he discussed that he and Ed had a plan to become bureaucrats. I think Ed misses his status at WP - you can see that from the way he says that he should have been greater access to the MW software. So anything which flattered his ego that he was smart and a great Wikipedian was always going be be mutually reciprocated. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Examining TK's block I can understand why Andy might block the account in case somebody used it - especially if they already had the password. But why also prevent account creation; in case somebody tries to logon from TK's IP? Does he think that perhaps TK is not really dead and is therefore just punishing him for the leaks? Or does he think that TK's ghost will try to log-on, or even send him emails as he's disabled email as well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Most likely this is a reaction to TK's treachery (and Geo's perhaps unwitting hand in it). Both RJJ and DuncanB made their last edits before Geo made his, but their rights remain. Once again, Andy punishes others for mistakes he himself made; he didn't have to let TK back in, but he did, and he could have ended TK at any time via a quick demotion and block. But how much easier to do nothing and hope everything turns out all right! Another example of quality leadership. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Just to add to the rampant paranoia at CP. TK stopped editing on December 16th. A month or so later we learn he died on the 17th. RobS stopped editing on January 16th. His fate is as yet unknown. Who will go on February the 16th when the RationalRipper strikes again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol. Yes you. You made me laugh. From afar. ħuman 07:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I point and laugh, you hear my laughter 4 seconds later due to the distance between us. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, at this rate there will be nobody left come spring! Nobody, that is, except us. --Leotardo (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have alibis for both dates. I was climbing Mount Everest. 00:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Isn't that where Rob and TK's secret love den is? Vulpius (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Willminator plays with deadly fire

Hey Andy, is it true that TK's dead?!!?^img P-Foster (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE--> Liar^img. P-Foster (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Update Redux--> Bye Will!!!^img Also, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.^img P-Foster (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat surprised - surely Andy doesn't think he can keep it a secret forever. What's he playing at? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Top notch. Unless Willy was a dedicated parodist, he was exactly the kind of young bible-bashing republican CP was after - and now he's blocked! The site is growing rapidly! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah wait, I see it's Jpatt who's the lying sack of shit over there. "Deliberate insertion of false information; lying." Just when I think they couldn't stoop any lower. I don't even understand the thinking behind it. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 09:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel bad for the memory of TK if I wasn't so certain that he'd do the exact same thing in the exact same situation. SJ ^Debaser 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this is a warning story for anybody who wants to really get involved with the place: The moment you're gone, you're gone. Once all is said and done, the CP Hall Of Fame will only have Andy's portrait. Everybody else - no matter what they did or how much they gave - will have been memoryholed. --Sid (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. As somebody so rightly said, TK has become the new FBI. --Ψ Gremlin講話 09:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. My first thought when I saw the edit yesterday was, uh oh, mentions unpersons. Mountain Blue 11:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Willminator was pretty much JPatt junior in his attitude and outlook - exactly the sort of editor that you would think they were wanting. So to block the kid for such a mendacious reason is really a despicable, uncharitable and thoroughly un-Christian act by JPatt. Of course Johnny X-Ray then compounds his vindictiveness by lying to Andy to get Will's blocking and editing rights revoked. What a steaming turd he is. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Willminator was asking if Andy knew anything about TK dying of coronary heart disease, not necessarily whether Andy knew if he died. --Leotardo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Willehmina might have shot himself in the foot there. I didn't the cause of death was common knowledge. --Ψ GremlinFale! 05:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm the source and I stand by it. But I'm a libul liar so who knows if Willy came upon her special knowledge by independent means and somehow managed to stumble upon the TRUF! By the way, when do I get to leak all my CP chat transcripts? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk–

There's no time like the present Nutster! Get 'em leaked! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Model Answers

With the grading for Homework One out of the way, Andy has decided to release his favorite answers^img. They're not as bad as the questions for previous (ahem) classes, but most of them still have that "I don't give a shit" feel and some of them were brazenly kissing up to Andy. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 03:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of them aren't half bad, considering

1. They're written by high schoolers.
2. They're likely to be sharing Andy's viewpoints, anyway.

MDB (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's quite useful to learn that “Christopher Columbus was a human being who actually existed”, that he was “part good and part bad”, and that he “simply did what he did.” Tylersboy (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Take this Ken!

Turns out Google isn't even accurate about the number of search results it finds. So your entire argumentative strategy just went down the drain. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

How is he wrong in his strategy? He is trying to get to the top of the Google ranking, not trying to get more responses to the search. The only person this affects in Monroe and his stupid graph comics made from Google results. Ken on the other hand is trying to play the algorithm so it puts his pages out first, what comes later be damned. - π 09:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Andy and his goons believe that a high G-ranking translates into more responses. Ken's crap only tolerated so long as Andy thinks that he is drawing in traffic. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I recall at least one occasion where both Andy and Ken were comparing the number of results for things like "Obama and failure", etc. and used it as an argument. That's what I was referencing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Language Log wrote about this at some length, and Google has a heuristic, which sometimes does things that are obviously inconsistent (e.g. a search for X Y might get more hits than searches for X or Y separately) and thus indeed you can't trust the resulting numbers to be factual and should be wary of treating them as even indicative. It's probably best to treat counts in excess of the few thousand results Google are actually willing to return as all just meaning "lots".

Google do provide other tools that (claim to) present actual occurrence counts, but not for web search. Although those tools have plenty of problems too. For example the Google Books stuff is often confused about when something was written or published. It can assign modern dates to reprints of famous older works or worse, assign ancient dates to texts which are associated in some way with an older work (e.g. giving the 1611 date of the KJV as the date for a 19th century dispensationalist Bible concordance is... unhelpful if you are trying to track when the word "rapture" acquired its present association). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... Ken

About that oh-so-busy 90 day break that was happening immediately...

You pathetic, lying sack of shit. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 09:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh poor Ken, not only did no one reply to your wailing cries for assistance, they aren't helping you at all, either. Didn't you tell me more than a year ago that atheism was going to die? How's that going? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He won! He won! Oh...

Clearly Andy has hitched his wagon to Mitt Romney's star, having been a Huckerbee man last time round. Have to laugh at his borked news post^img "Rommey trounces all competition!!!! Um... except for Ron Paul, who beat him by 7 percentage points."

Btw, is it compulsory for a US politician to have a weird name before they can run for office? --Ψ GremlinSermā! 13:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird like George, Bill, Ron, etc.? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And wasn't he rooting for the Pauls not too long ago, or was that just the one with the really weird name? Röstigraben (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Andy...

I find it funny when people do this for Christmas; I guess you had to go take it to the next level. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Making Saint extra large is certainly the hallmark of a parodist. However, I do miss TK's addition of some plagiarised piece of clip-art to ram home the "we is encyclopedia" credentials. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, Andy is railing against atheists not using the word 'Saint' in St. Valentine's Day. Atheists somehow always remember the 'Saint' in St. Patrick's Day though, don't they? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 14:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day? Is that anyway related to Guinness & Green Day?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, TK now plagiarizes harp solos. It's OK, they have no IP lawyers up there. Hateboy (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that the article says V-Day has been increasingly commercialized in recent years, as if the evil atheists at Hallmark discovered it in 1990 and started to make money off of it, but before then it was just a solemn Catholic observance. And according to WikiPedia, it's not even on the official Catholic calendar of saints anymore, but it's observance is "allowed". I'd interpret that as the RCC saying "we don't consider it a holiday anymore, but we don't want to piss off the flower and greeting card industries". Heck, it appears as if Saint Valentine himself was one of those semi-mythological figures that got canonized during early church history anyway. MDB (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Andy and Co. are really objecting to the regrettable trivialisation of the sacred festival of Lupercalia. Unkind to a certain breed of ruminant I concede, but the CP crowd might appreciate the apparent pro-life angle. Tylersboy (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

More World Treasure fail

Why is a view of concrete houses and blocks of flats considered to be a world treasure - even if it is taken from the Acropolis? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And is he saying all of Athens is a WT, or the Acropolis is a WT? He also has it pointing to the wrong gallery since he has Europe (and every other region) spread out amongst all three. --Leotardo (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anybody Angry Bear hasn't reported someone to?

All without success, of course. But reading the leaks, makes for funny reading - from librarians, to company IT managers, to commanding officers of military bases, to IT companies, to Google security (whatever that may be) to the FBI, Popeye has been dispatching missives screeching "Somebody's said something nasty about me on the internet. Tell them to stop!" No wonder it hasn't worked. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Usenet Central Administration, which, as per the old alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ, is located here. MDB (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My favorite was him reporting someone who was creating rude usernames to their ISP describing it as a "break in" and stating that they were committing a federal offense. The reply was a bog-standard "we'll take steps to sort this out" which probably consisted of sending an email to the user saying "Look, can you stop this shit, because we're getting harassed by a fundie nutjob about it". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you would even get that. Jinx reported me to my ISP in September 2009 and they are still yet to give a fuck. Really who matters more to them, some random blogger or a person who gives them money once a month? - π 00:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a large stack of letters in a certain other central administration building... a certain angry sailor complaining about certain officers neglecting to promote him. Hateboy (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Especially after all the "favours" he'd performed for them. --Ψ GremlinParla! 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for him to report someone to an entity like the FDA or something equally as unrelated. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's delusions

I'm finding endless funny in CPLeaks. Andy is convinced that cp:Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge has successfully converted many atheists and has an enormous reach! [2] Given that no one aside from the rare parodist ever shows up at CP to say "good article," where on earth does this man get the idea that anyone is seriously reading this drivel? 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh - because the page had 34,000 hits, he feels it has surpassed New York Times bestsellers, that only sell 30,000 copies. Really, how did this man even graduate high school, not to mention Princeton and Harvard. --Leotardo (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost every time Andy chips in on the list at all, it's to display one form of colossal hubris or other. He really does seem to think CP is important and contains useful information. I guess that's what happens when you spent your entire youth being brainwashed every sunday to believe things that are impossible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - his website is never praised by anyone but marginalized individuals and people in Ken's Spam Circle. Somehow he thinks it's so influential and useful, but he can only point to webhits - hits gained by people coming by to laugh at them. --Leotardo (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

0.21

Conservaleaks 0.21:

• By Eira's suggestion, links on index pages now appear each on their own line, with headings to separate days.
• Also by Eira's suggestion, we are back to using the full sixteen-digit basenames for links again. Existing links using eight-digit basenames remain operational thanks to the unholy power of mod_rewrite.
• Suggested improvements to the typography will be implemented when kitties can fl^W^W^W^Was time permits.

User:Mountain Blue 15:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Very nice job. Not sure if this is 'typography' but some quick fiddling with CSS suggests that you can (to my view) make quite a difference to the readability by putting a muted background colour on the 'post' DIVs, which with some fiddling with margins/padding can make the flow of posts very obvious. Just my tuppence. Worm^{(t | c)} 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sure there'd be a lot one can do with just some quick fiddling... if one has the talent and the taste. Me, I suck at these things. It will take me some time. I still appreciate any suggestion anybody cares to make; the more specific the better. Mountain Blue 09:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland, the liberals' backyard

I know I shouldn't expect Andy to exhibit any accurate knowledge about the world beyond the shining sea, but his comment^img implying that Switzerland is somehow a stronghold of liberalism is so wrong that I just have to set this straight. By Western European standards, Switzerland is one of the most conservative, traditionalist, nationalist and parochial societies around. You wouldn't guess that from its level of wealth, education and technological development, but it's true. Nationalists are regularly able to muster majorities whenever issues that somehow touch upon Swiss identity are concerned, be it European integration, dealing with foreigners and refugees, religious minorities and now this army weapon insanity. The country's largest party is openly nationalist and xenophobic, and it has consistently managed to exert a huge influence on policy through Switzerland's instruments of direct democracy. They've been very succesful in exploiting the people's concerns and stoking fears about external threats like losing their national sovereignty and internal ones like being outnumbered by Muslims. Never mind that these scenarios are completely ridiculous, they've resulted in a mindset that imagines Switzerland as being under permanent siege by the outside world, and it's regularly stunting rational policy reforms. Anyway, in order to end this rant on a positive note: Americans, don't feel too bad about the insanity in your political system and the unsubstantiated myths that are given preferential treatment to reality. Other places have to deal with that problem as well. Röstigraben (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd also think he'd be in favour of the Swiss because of their rather un-European attitudes to gun ownership. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In Andy's mind: If it's a) Not the US and b) doesn't conform with his image of the US, it's liberal. Or atheistic. Or both. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 11:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't he just implying that Switzerland is a haven of conservatism compared to the rest of liberal Europe? Cantabrigian (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on rereading it, that is the (misguided) point he's trying to make. And I doubt very much whether the liberal masses were shocked by the outcome. It would have been a bigger shock if the gun-happy, Nazi-gold-hiding Swiss had passed gun control legislation. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 13:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I misunderstood what he meant and he was actually right for once. I can't imagine him falling in love with Swiss-style conservatism though, as it's completely lacking the religious angle. Röstigraben (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Swiss, so I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Swiss had this rather paradoxical thing where vast swathes of the population were required, by law, to own weapons, as part of their compulsory military service, but there was strict rules about things like keeping these weapons safely tucked away under lock and key, with sealed boxes of ammo that can only be used in the event of an invasion, and that guns can only be transported with the gun unloaded, and that any ammo sold at a firing range has to be used at that firing range, etc, etc, etc. In addition to that, the compulsory military service will obviously include training to safely use and store these weapons. 86.162.90.155 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're in the army, you were supposed to take your assault rifle home. You can, not must, also leave it in the arsenal now, but that's a very recent reform. Swiss conscription consists of a few weeks of basic training and then periodic short training sessions that are sometimes spread out over a decade, so you can keep it around your house for a long time. They don't give out ammunition together with the rifles any more, but it's not very hard to just buy it in a store. The whole scheme is a relic from back when Switzerland was in constant fear of invasion, and all recruits were expected to fight independently if need be. The new law would've repealed this nonsense and, among other things, required all army weapons to be stored in the barracks. Röstigraben (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you know: Andy Schlafly's ethnically Swiss? The more you know... Happy rainbows and stars. Fade. Cut. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The central problem is that this is just a declaration of Andy. He provides not one example of a "shocked liberal" surprised by this vote. One of my political science classes in the 1990's compared Switzerland--the most armed populace in the world--with Japan, the most disarmed. Both have very low rates of gun deaths and crime. The Swiss vote was a surprise to nobody except people like Andy, who have little understanding about the world beyond the U.S. borders. --Leotardo (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I was actually more surprised to hear that they were having the vote at all. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too! --Leotardo (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, I learned something from CP

We were playing a drinking game (get a question wrong, take a drink, get it right, questioner drinks), and a theology student asked me the greek for 'word' in connection with the biblical phrase 'in the beginning was the word'. After racking my brains for a few seconds, I recalled that this section was the subject of one of Andy's bizarre little ideas, that it translated as 'truth' or something. And then I recalled from that that the greek for 'word' was 'logos'. So thank you, Andy; it was not I who lay upon the chunder step that night. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd been completely clueless (eh? eh?) that continental drift as a mechanism (or whatever) was only discovered in the mid-20th century. I honestly thought Wegener had sorted it all out.AlexR4444 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the earth was billions of years old until I read on Conservapedia that it was onl… that one's not right, is it? – Nick Heer 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Only if you don't open your mind and accept that you will lose all credibility. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy vs. Eminem: who has the bigger ego?

When a couple of guys who were up to no good startin making trouble in my neighborhood!!

Andy disses Eminem^img and proves he's a hater^img. Which got me wondering, which of the two is more egomaniacal? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Two threads start at same time - combining) Andy's MPR criticism of Eminem isn't just from a conservative perspective, it's from his own perspective as an aspiring rapper^img. Do you see what he did there? He took sourced material that supposedly comes from somebody named Guerilla Black who supposedly wrote a book called How to Rap, and changed it with Andy's name-calling. So now, it looks like Guerilla Black feels Eminem's music contains "moronic subject matter, dimwitted rhyme schemes, usage of multisyllabic rhymes, pedestrian rhythms, and syncopation." That's apparently the opposite of what Mr. Black thinks. Trustworthy encyclopedia with multiple perspectives indeed. --Leotardo (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Who needs parodists and vandals when you've got Andy? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Eminem has "dimwitted rhyming schemes and pedestrian rhythms" while presumably Lady Antebellum is awesome (because they won?) So now! A totally unbiased comparison of lyrics from two number one singles each artist has recently had. First, "Our Kind of Love" by Lady Antebellum:

1, 2, 3, here we go
Ooh, yeah
That's our kind of love, girl
Don't ya know it?

And then Eminem's "Not Afraid":

It was my decision to get clean, I did it for me
Admittedly I probably did it subliminally for you
So I could come back a brand new me, you helped see me through
And don't even realise what you did, believe me you

Dunno what point I was making here but I guess the main theme is that Andy is dumb and he's pushed my buttons on this one. X Stickman (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Eminem is that he's a horrible person who promotes homophobia and phenomenal misogyny (hooray for rape!), not that his lyrics are poorly-constructed. Their engineering is fantastic, their content is not. -- λινυσ^(☮) 03:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is classic Andy. As usual, his mainpage news item trumpets something as triumph for conservatism, while citing an article which says pretty much the opposite - in this case, describing the Grammy results as "depressing", and modern country music as "a guilty pleasure" and a "a return to the processed 'cheese food' that was ‘70s soft-rock", a music whose fans are "either older or just slower with technology". Could Andy really not find an article that was positive about the results? & Then his all-out vandalism of the CP article on Eminem is hilarious. "His lyrics are commonly praised by easily amused liberals for their moronic subject matter, dimwitted rhyme schemes, usage of multisyllabic rhymes, pedestrian rhythms, and syncopation". Better than parody. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He did the same thing with the Daily Beast story^img he linked to (discussed above). He doesn't seem to recognize that focusing on a singular point he wants to make, he often relies on sources that discredit his overall view. --Leotardo (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy critiquing rap is one of the funniest things I've seen all week. The man clearly has no grasp on reality and no discernable understanding of skilful rapping. Ugh. What's to bet he thinks Run DMC were bad rappers too? – Nick Heer 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that Terry's dead I wonder who will pick up where he left off with mass deleting pop culture articles. Imma edit some hip hop articles on CP and find out. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought DouglasA was doing that? --Leotardo (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"praised by liberals", "praised by easily amused liberal" - "critized by conservatives, liberals and feminists". This doesn't even make Andy-sense: They praise him and critizes him at the the same time? "if his work can even be called music. / He is promoted for his rap music" Oh, com' da fuck on! {throws chair away, walks out} --Ullhateme (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He also revives an Old White Man argument I haven't heard since the 1990's, which is if rap "can even be called music". --Leotardo (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the grammys are bullshit. Clearly, Airbourne's No Guts, No Glory was the years best album, but nooooooooo. Its all pop, rap, and country. the only rock music they like is this wierd indie rock crap by bands no one has ever heared of.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about the Grammy, but I'm quite happy that "Baba Yetu" won one. :)

Funny that Andy's not orgasming about that one, though: It's the Lord's Prayer. --Sid (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the theme for a game that can lead to other civilizations beating America, that has good things resulting from the United Nations, that suggests life is possible on other planets and fails to mark the year 1 with any kind of fanfare. Clearly it's a favorite.... with liberals. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Positive if you have a Nation that grows under modern democracy - if you play one were that isn't working fine, well then the UN can be a real pain in the ass. --Ullhateme (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I seem to remember that the original version of Civilization did make some slight notification of the transition from BC to AD. I don't think any of the later versions did. (And I've played them all. I love the Civilization series; easily my favorite game series ever.) MDB (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As a Civilization-phile, I can tell you the original game just jumped to 1 AD from 100 BC when the time came and made no special note of it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of (un) Association

I was going to WIGO this but I'm not sure it's strong enough... Suddenly the block policy at CP makes sense: the Freedom of Association is about who you can exclude. There was me all confused because I thought it was about ensuring the government couldn't ban me from being part of RW because we're all goat-fanciers, but in actual fact it's about protecting the right of the cabal (there is no cabal to kick out whoever they want. Wow. The things you learn on CP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did I hate TK WIGOs? Because Andy's crazy enough without some nitwit mucking with things. It's been a magical stream of New Andy nonsense since Terry's been gone and I'm loving it. I mean, I find the place positively dreary when it's parodists and troublemakers trying to make their own mark. But Andy on his own? That's the kind of pure wholesome batshit crazy that drew me to CP in the first place. His mother must be mortified at what a fucking moron her "successful" son turned out to be. Keep it up, counselor! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I done it. (I swear I hadn't seen this section till just after). I let Andy do the talking. 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

It's true actually - there have been far fewer WIGOs in recent weeks, but the ones we've had have been brilliant almost without exception. Of course, it could just be typical liberal grade inflation on the WIGO voting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's just a question of supply and demand?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to wet your apehole...

From the soon-to-be-released summer blockbuster, "The Zeuglodon Blues II - The Missing Year" we have a wonderful, bigoted rant from Johnny X-Ray, after the Christian Post slams Andy's Conservative Bible.

“”This guy from the Christian Post really ticks me off In a nut shell, he calls us crazy - from our own supposed Christian brothers. I am ready to investigate all his prior work and expose him as a fraud. He acts like every translation before ours had no individuals on the project that had any idealogical upbringing. I am telling you that CP will be closer to the Truth than any of these other new versions. Is Aaron Leichman even Christian? Sound like a Jewish name to me.

Extra lulz for Johnny pointing out one of the comments on the post: "The Liberals are really against this project so it must be a great idea!", to which Andy replies "That comment by GraceMan is compelling!" Whee!

also

"I do feel that God works through me and that I have an edge against deceit." --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 12:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn you! Are you trying to get people to spend 100% of their time on this site???

That first quote is classic - a lovely medley of indignation, anger and racism. Typical Conservapedia really. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why summer? We want it now! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I wonder how that fraud investigation is coming along? Did they call the FBI? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Conservapedia link here that makes this thread make sense to those of us who are lost on what this is about? --Leotardo (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

what's there to be lost about? It's Jpatt ranting after another negative review of the CBP. As for links, well no, not yet. That's what the "whey your appetite" and "so-to-be-released" bits are about. --Ψ GremlinFale! 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the rant, I just see a 2009 Christian Post article. What am I missing? What is your source for a new rant over an old article? --Leotardo (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The rant is in inverted commas above. It's from an unreleased ZB post, made around the time the CBP went public. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 16:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I don't know what ZB is. I'll just leave the thread alone. --Leotardo (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

ZB = The Zeuglodon Blues = the super secret chatroom used by the CP sysops, the contents of which have been leaked, courtesy of the late, great TK. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. --Leotardo (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to 2011, Sklerotardo. Mountain Blue 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another ref lost on me. You kids and your rock music. --Leotardo (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good old Hollywood again

Ah yes, once upon a time conservative role model, Miley Cyrus, has been found to have feet of clay. Guess whose fault that is.^img Of course it's not Daddy's, and Jpatt thinks it's this invisible beast "Hollywood values." Then again, wasn't Britney also a conservative pin-up chick at one point? I haven't checked, but any bets the creepy Debbie Gibson entry just above was written by Uncle Bad Touch? --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Billy Ray Cyrus is the man who when he saw his 16 year old daughter giving a 44 year old man a lap dance at a party he said, "It's what people her age do." But because this washed-up one-hit wonder who used his daughter for fame and fortune is attacking a major Hollywood company, it fits the CP meme. --Leotardo (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Debbie Gibson section was added by jpatt. I think that whole section was, which is interesting. I was expecting to find that the section was an Ed-stub within an article at some point in the history. Ellipsoidal (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How could there be no Whitney Houston? She started as a Christian pop singer who turned her bathroom into a crack den. --Leotardo (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Ellipsoidal: But Ed was unable to resist adding his twopennyworth about Miley's controversial Annie Leibovitz shoot^img to her entry. Tylersboy (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But wait, there's even more stuff about Miley and family! I hope Andy finds this article, it fits in with his belief system perfectly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over the Germaine Greer piece which Ed provided a link to, I can see why it might have appealed to him. . . . Tylersboy (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she looks remarkably dewy in that picture for a woman well into her teens... we know Ed doesn't usually have a thing for crones this old but you can see why he made an exception here. Mountain Blue 16:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So let me recall:

1. Posing semi-nude in a magazine -> "bad behaviour"
2. Grinding a 44-year old -> "bad behaviour"
3. Danced sexy in a music video -> "bad behaviour"

Can somebody tell me why this is bad behaviour when she liked what she did? I don't see the problem here...

Also what in the name of everything that makes sense is a "destroyed family", are they killing each other? Are they all whoring themselves out for drugs? Or does daddies girl not do what daddy says anymore? So and a girl that got rich, lucky and seems to love what she does is "destroyed"? I'd call that fucking great. Somebody with American morals help me here! --Ullhateme (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is bad behavior from the perspective of most Americans, especially conservatives. And that's all there is to it. That's all it takes to have moral outrage. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So the opinion of the person actually doing it is of no concern to what that person should do? That's very paternalistic - actually it's very much moving in the direction of fascist thought. --Ullhateme (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That rather depends on whether you are actually controlling – or trying to – or merely commenting. I’d agree that the self-righteousness and/or hypocrisy of the “moral majority” generally stinks. But I’m not sure that “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is any too preferable an attitude. Tylersboy (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not subscribing to “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” either, actually I subscribe to J.S. Mills view he professed in "On Liberty" with an extra slice of freedom on it. --Ullhateme (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - perhaps I misinterpreted "Can somebody tell me why this is bad behaviour when she liked what she did?" Tylersboy (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks 0.2

Conservaleaks 0.2 is up:

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

• The collection now includes every message TK has ever leaked. There is one index per month now instead of one index per group, ie. CG and FF messages posted the same month will be listed on the same page. I believe the whole thing is much more navigable and easier to follow this way.
• Index pages have nav bars at the top that let you quickly move between months.
• Pages with threads have larger nav bars that also let you quickly move between threads in a month. There are "previous" and "next" links now with fixed positions above the fold, meaning you can rifle through large numbers of threads without even moving the mouse. This should remove the necessity to backtrack that people were unhappy about.
• It turns out that (with very few exceptions) the first eight hex digits of every page name are sufficient to uniquely identify the page; page names have been shortened accordingly, and the .html prefix has been removed. This means that cp.noym.net/first_eight_digits will (almost always) work as a link to whichever discussion you are looking at.
• I know it still looks like shit. If it looks unbearably crappy in your browser please mail me a screenshot. I also know some of the pages still contain some garbage. The gunk remover will probably be improved at some point, at least slightly. No promises though.
• Suggestions continue to be welcome.

User:Mountain Blue 00:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You magnificent bastard. Nice work!! I guess the next step would be to reroute all leak references on RW to this website. – Nick Heer 00:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FUCKING superb MB. I'd give you a barnstar or an internet or a cookie if I could! 00:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, but that's fine work! Does suggest a user with far too much time on their hands though…time to contact BadTouch to arrange a writing plan for you methinks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions (these are nitpicks, it's absolutely awesome on the large scale honestly): you list each day as a single line with all the threads concatted together, I think it would look better if each thread had it's own line, with a header sort of thing that divides each day from the others. Also, some sort of indication of which source the thread is from would be awesome as well, so at a glance I can see that "please tell me TK did not pass away" is from the CP source. Other than that, it looks really nice, except that everything is awash in a sea of whitespace, which is really weird for me, because I'm on a Netbook. (How do I have enough screen real-estate to even get stuff lost in?) The original HTMLs put each response to a thread in a separate visible box, which would be a nice start to break the various threads up into their component elements. And really make it clear where one message starts, and the next begins. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, while only 8 of the characters is necessary, this kind of drops off some of the random information. The whole value has some sort of hash significance. Sure it's "junk DNA", but it's still potentially kind of important. And adding an additional 8 characters to each link is not particularly a bandwidth hogging alteration. Basically, is there any particular reason to truncate

the hash IDs or is it "just because I can"? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a search feature for the entire archives, or is a Google custom search (as in keyword site:http://cp.noym.net/) sufficient? α^Talk 09:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Quagga Prime was not leaked; TK was not a member of Quagga Prime was he? Perhaps you should point that out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point! I think that all we know about Quagga is a very early ZB mail between PJR and Kara, where the latter's paranoia led him to believe the site had been leaked, so he shut it down. Then again, knowing Smeg Ed, he probably invited TK in, after all, the blame lies squarely on his shoulders for bringing TK back for round 2, with predictable results.

Also, did anybody else notice their habit of naming their groups after extinct creatures: quagga prime, zeuglodon blues, conservapedia group? --Ψ GremlinTal! 10:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TZB/910/d79a71f2d6b33f91.html is where there's a bit of a spat over whether QP was open or not. A couple of other early TZB emails were CCed to the QP list (all also in the 910 folder), so there was obviously a small amount of crossover. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I was CurtlyAmbrose. They were using a group called braintrust-cp on freelists.org after TK opened the SDG. Posted summat from that on Andy's talk page in March '08 and they thought (incorrectly) that QP was compromised. Random sample:

Re: [Fwd: TK & the Discussion Group]
From: Temlakos <temlakos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: braintrust-cp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:11:05 -0500

Philip R:

You asked a good question, and you deserve an answer.

But I must emphasize the extreme sensitivity of what I am about to disclose, and that it not leave this circle. I am not planning to sue TK over the SDG.

I believe that my explicit threat of legal action, together with some link-gathering activities that he just /happened/ to take the group private in the middle of, convinced him to withdraw the list from public view. I have never heard a cyber-peep from him since.

Andy and I agree that the case is now moot. I think we can all agree that TK has crashed and burned and is now a nonissue.

As for AmesG: I don't plan to respond to anyone with whom I have had more than my share of dustups as an administrator of CP and of CW. I have plenty more on my plate--like seeing how to tweak Semantic MediaWiki for CW, for example. (I still think that CP could use SMW.)

If Ames Grawert or anyone else over there wants to go one-on-one with me on matters of faith, I might welcome the opportunity to witness to such a person. But I will not respond to any of them /in their capacity as administrators of RW/. Nor do I recommend that anyone else do likewise.

TerryH

--Robledo (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Temlakos is Chuckarse? Mountain Blue 00:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 01:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One day I will find out that my mother is also Denise O'Leary. I will be mildly disconcerted for a few minutes, then go back to work. Mountain Blue 12:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay conservatives? Ha! Says Uncle Bad Touch

Ed "Now its my turn to seduce YOU tonight" Poor hits another one out the park^img! Thank goodness Conservapedia exists for Conservatives wanting to know more about what gay conservatives profess to believe after the CPAC/GOProud controversy. --Leotardo (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay ... like in Iran?^img Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

… of liberals? «-Bfa-» 21:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

<noun ellipses non-sequitur?> is a pattern we should consider adding to the Assquote. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A non-sequitur ... of liberals? (Btw, I still like "Predictably, the White House denies responsibility.") Blue (is useful) 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of adding them to Assquote, there should be a "Schlafly headline generator": <random/insignificant occurrence> <something about Glodal Warming, atheism, or something> <bragging about Conservapedia, "… of liberals?", denies responsibility, etc.> «-Bfa-» 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see that the Andy Schlafly method of defining conservatism is spreading: "You claim to be a conservative? Well, do you agree with me on this? Yes? And this? Yes? [repeated several dozen times] And this? ...you don't? Well, you're a liberal then. If you were a conservative, you'd agree with me on all issues." --Sid (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means that there are, what, 20 conservatives in this world? ~SuperHamster Talk 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's one of things I like the most about these guys because it keeps them so marginalized. A person can be no choice for abortion, want to dismantle the entire social safety net, mandate school prayer, tattoo the 10 Commandments to the palm of every child, want nothing but regressive taxation, want to throw out all the illegals, teach evolution as nothing but a flawed belief, demand people own guns, but then if they also are gay, then they are a liberal. These gays exist to varying degrees and they have earned all the scorn that is heaped on them. They are Republicans because they still think it's the "Daddy party" and these sorts of beliefs help them feel masculine. --Leotardo (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't remember where or when, but a while back there was an argument between Andy and (IIRC) Phil Rayment in which Andy insisted that Margaret Thatcher wasn't truly conservative because she didn't actively oppose abortion. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So gays are rational, open-minded and compassionate - oh, wait that actually works. --Ullhateme (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You will find very few gay social conservatives (for obvious reasons). Most gay conservatives are more in the classical libertarian conservative mode, just believing in small government. They also tend to be the ones that are fiscally better off. The founder of the popular hook-up site Manhunt got quite a bit of flak from the gay community for being a big Republican donor. I've read the book by the founder of the (now largely defunct) Log Cabin Republicans, and his argument was essentially that, if the Republican Party became a party truly devoted to a small government that didn't interfere in private lives, then it's the logical choice for gays. (The example he used was "do you want a national health care system with Jesse Helms making AIDS treatment decisions?") Now, that is a valid point, but I think he's hopelessly naive in believing that there's any chance of the Republican party abandoning the "get the government out of the boardroom but into the bedroom" crowd. MDB (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jesse Helms thing is not a valid point because it's an absurd argument, and the issue was people were dying, too weak and sick to work. Liberals have fought for privacy in the bedroom and the Republican Party never has. These kinds of arguments by gay libertarians are "what if" fantasies that they sell themselves on when this will never be the Republican Party. As opposed to wanting to be Republicans and try to get them to give up their Big Government intrusion into people's private lives, why don't they join the Democrats who support their basic human rights and try to sway them to give up some of their Big Government attitude? It makes no sense why they choose one, when the other is more compelling (and the Democrats actually care what they have to say). --Leotardo (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is just my own suspicion, but I think a lot of gay Republicans are just wealthy gays who think the Republicans will cut taxes so they can spend spend more on their in-home dungeon. (Okay, that last part applies to one couple I know...) MDB (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that's one reason, and I debated a friend's Republican boyfriend over that since the data over the last hundred years over who handles the economy better is really on the side of the Democrats. Republicans say "look at Carter" and Dems say "look at Bush". The masculinity thing is a big deal to gays, though. While many gays just want to serve their country, many join the military because it makes them feel like tough guys (and therefore less gay). While many gays feel a calling from god to join the priesthood, many think it's an easy way to escape their sexual urges. --Leotardo (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Moonie is so much less oxymoronic. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.80 / talk / contribs}

But wouldn't "smaller government" fit better into bedroom doorways!? 21:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The usual fix for "Jesse Helms making AIDS treatment decisions" is that the government recognises it is simultaneously not competent to make these decisions AND it would get in political hot water constantly so it gives the authority to an expert agency. Unfortunately, as we saw with the "independent" central banks, political meddling happens anyway. But that's the best we can offer.

I would rather have a government official subject to re-election "making treatment decisions" (what does that even mean?) than a corporation that has no accountability to anyone except to its stockholders, who want profit. There's this weird myth that people with insurance have so much freedom to run with their healthcare. People in the U.S. with Medicare sure don't seem to have a problem with the government "making treatment decisions", so these arguments rarely make any sense if one puts two bits of thought into them. --Leotardo (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This time I mean it!!!!

Captured for posterity,^img Ken once again says he's going on vacation. I'm not buying it. P-Foster (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry his sock User:Freedom777 might be around! Ace McAwesome 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you just get married? What are you doing out of bed? also, Mrs. Foster saw the pics on FB. She thinks Mrs. McWicked is a very beautiful woman, but that Ace could've used a shave. Congrats!!!P-Foster (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Got married several days ago and now back at work. Indeed, Mrs. McWicked is an extremely beautiful woman (I don't think those photos do her justice to be honest) but I detest shaving (as I am sure you'd agree going by your Facebook photos) and like to keep a rugged-esque appearance. You'll note that for a pair of atheists neither one of us suffer any weight issues. Ace McAwesome 03:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaand another user's talk page nuked to hide his ramblings. I love that he might be taking a break, but perhaps someone else might be along.. someone zealous who might do lots and lots of minor changes to articles, but who is in no way related to Ken DeMyer. Is he actually going to attempt to burn himself now to rid himself of the stench of the past 4 years going increasingly insane? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-posted but you'll note he burnt any reference to the appearance of "another user"^img Ace McAwesome 03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You can imagine him sitting there in his dank basement, pounding his meaty fist on his already beaten up desk. "SHIT! How do those damn rats always seem to know my plans? There must be a leak in my organisation somewhere. I bet it's Mr. Bulgy. Damn hamsters can't be trusted!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hamsters can always be trusted. Trust me. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought Ken beats something else when sitting in front of his PC.--Ψ GremlinTala! 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha Mountain Blue 09:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely he has a gerbil?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think anything warm and breathing would be a challenge for Ken to connect with. He's in penis pump territory. --Leotardo (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's for liberal judges. (NSFW)This seems to be more Ken's métier. He gets the added guilty pleasure of it being black, and therefore atheistic.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh - I'm just gonna assume that link is NSFW. --Leotardo (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry - yes. Keep on forgetting that one.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough he seems to be holding to it this time (at least for now). He hasn't posted in almost 13 hours, which I'm sure is some sort of record for him CowHammer (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's back

At least try Ken^img. Jeez. Ace McAwesome 20:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, nobody was coming along to fix that blatant problem! We couldn't have thousands of viewers to CP thinking that lesbians and/or obese people only choose to BECOME atheists despite evidence for Christianity. No no no, that'd be FOOLISH! Viewers NEED to know that lesbians and/or obese people choose to become OR REMAIN atheists despite the evidence. Now, with that clarified, Ken can take his much anticipated vacation. 64.30.2.130 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously 13 hours in Ken years is equal to 90 days. He realizes we are bored with him because he has no new ideas, so this is the only way to get our attention. --Leotardo (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the white hole kensmology theory, 13 hours real time is something over 2 years in Kendoll's reality. You have to admire his self-control. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this is kinda pissing in a lake here, but Romans 1:27 doesn't say anything about lesbianism, just male homosexuality. In fact, the bible in general doesn't have a problem with lesbianism, that I'm aware of. Though I guess fixing that would be probably the least of the problems with his "articles" --CowHammer (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But 26 does. I think that's the only bit though. The old testament doesn't address women, since it's pretty much taken for granted that their rulebook is "whatever your husband/dad says goes (delete as appropriate)" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that he was obese when he started cp:evolution his OCD over all things CP took over and he lost bunches of weight and now he's a rail. Hence he feels free to mock (us) fatty-fatty-fat-fat folk who also happen to be atheist. One hopes, though, that his 90 days meme is from a pledge to his therapist to cease editing CP in order to deal with his anorexia. (He's really not a (mentally) healthy individual and we should really cease and desist our focus on him.) 21:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

While I myself tire of the "retarded Ken did something retarded" threads, one could argue the only thing that keeps him from going to a lesbian bar named Clitty Litter and unloading a round of bullets is that we talk about him. We are his mental health. --Leotardo (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The preceding comment simultaneously scared the shit out of me and made me howl in laughter. Thanks, Leo. P-Foster (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken would euphemistically "unload a round of bullets" if he went to a lesbian bar called Clitty Litter. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing you said in your previous comment, "He realizes we are bored with him because he has no new ideas, so this is the only way to get our attention," made me think in that direction too. We're quite possibly the closest thing to friends he has. At least the contempt we hold him in is a lot let aggressive and malevolent that that of his notional allies. If he actually stopped editing I would probably miss him much the way I miss TwinKle now. At least I would be vaguely worried. Dear Leader and Haterjou would just be glad to be rid of him. Mountain Blue 22:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree (my point with this post). He's pretty harmless, just annoyingly stupid. --Leotardo (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, 3:15 in the morning and we have a cameo! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gah! You've stirred him up! There's a whole new screed!^img –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish Ken would give us a chance to miss him. --Opcn (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Socialistic" England

So what happened to the Conservatives' "landslide" victory? I guess that their CINOs, seeing as they didn't immediately scrap the NHS and give everybody a gun. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly has stated that the Tories are liberals and no different than the U.S.'s Democrats. He has stated that he is more of a BNP man, at least as far as education policy goes. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well its obvious that a "socialistic" country can't run the olympics - what you need is a fully communist one like China! ^{— Unsigned, by: BoN / talk / contribs}

And what does Conservapedia^img have to say about the last time London hosted the Olympics – in 1948, when there really was a Socialist government in power and the economic outlook was far from bright? “The press and the public generally saw the project as a success, one that reasserted Britain's international importance.” Tylersboy (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't super-conservative Utah almost run its Games into the ground? AFAIK, rescuing them was Romney's first foray into public service. But I agree with the BoN, control-happy China organizing the smoothest and most impressive Olympics in recent memory is the best counterexample. Röstigraben (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Socialistic England." He still doesn't know the difference between England and the UK. World history teacher my scrawny, white arse. SJ ^Debaser 12:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What a muppet. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's spelling [sic] mistake

Just updated the Wigo with this. Read it and weep, Andy. Rule 5: "When adverbs not ending in -ly are used as compound words in front of a noun, hyphenate. When the combination of words is used after the noun, do not hyphenate."

Anyway, fucktard, hyphens are not spelling errors. Junggai (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch; but, for more bonus pedantry, "never mind" is two words. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, should have guessed it. Isn't there a named law for the danger that when correcting someone else's grammar mistakes we will surely find ourselves guilty of one as well? Junggai (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was sure there was, so I did a search and behold: Skitt’s Law ^{ONE / TALK} 12:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps Ken's obsessive editing and re-editing can be put down to his suffering from a congenital and incurable case of the galloping Skitts? Tylersboy (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright clearups?

I noticed that Andy has been "trimming" which is usually a euphemism for removing something of embarrassment. However, it would appear that he's been removing pictures from articles after going on a deletion spree. Has someone been complaining about copyright again? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he finally heard from the FBI...

Phone voice: "Yes, Mr. Schlafly, this is FBI Scpecial Agent Sculder."

Andy: "Oh, you've finally gotten around to responding to my complaints about liberal vandalism against my web site? It's about time. I was afraid I would have to wait for the Romney administration to start defending conservative values."

Phone voice: "Uh... no. We've received several complaints about copyright violations on your site..." MDB (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to believe.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A Time Cube article on CP

The Internet stupidity singularity.^img P-Foster (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why, but the bit which made me laugh the most was the sudden change of beat paragraph ("Precursor") about marbles. Tylersboy (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

. . . which turns out, like much of the rest of the article, to be ripped off from WP. Tylersboy (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Gene Ray has wagered $10,000 that his theory cannot be disproved. Till date, no scientist has attempted to disprove his theory." reminds me of Ken-Opcn (talk)

I love the part that explains how Gene Ray advocated playing marbles before he invented the Time Cube - does that mean he... *puts on sunglasses* ... lost his marbles? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Anger Bear deleted it b/c it came from Wikipedia. Does anyone know why they refuse to use Wikipedia articles and edit them to be "conservative"? Is it because they find the sourcing to be a problem since facts don't support their views, so it's too much trouble? --Leotardo (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(changed position of Tet and Leo's posts for ease of flow) The answer to the "Why don't they copy from WP and improve that?" question has many answers:

1. Copyright. From what I remember/know, they can't copy from Wikipedia because they don't use the same type of license. (The exception is material the author wrote on Wikipedia since they can apparently re-release their property under a different license if they like.) CP's wishy-washy "You can freely copy unless we tell you otherwise" copyright mess is not compatible with GPL/CC. Andy claims that GPL/CC are too restrictive, but... yeah... it's weird...
2. Pride. According to CP, WP is so unreliable and full of liberal bias that it's practically never of any use to copy an article because you'd end up rewriting the entire thing anyway. This is also why the exception to (1) is generally frowned upon unless it comes from somebody who is automatically 100% trusworthy (read: senior sysops).
3. SEO. Now, this is a complicated one since SEO in general is a non-trivial affair. But from what I gather, the main idea is that if CP copypasted WP's article on... *random article click* Camden Military Academy, Google would filter the lower-ranked site (CP) from their results for "Camden Military Academy" because they want to present the user with a wide variety of articles and not just the exact same thing over and over again. You can see this mechanism in action if you google for something highly specific (such as a full sentence from a WP article in quotation marks): "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the X already displayed." Of course, this does assume that they only copypaste and don't edit. But... they're lazy (just look at the current CP sysops and check who actually generates content of acceptable quality and quantity - who would bother with such a project?) and it's not really clear how much you'd have to change for it to bypass the filter. So they avoid the headache and just don't bother.

It's quite possible that there are more factors, but these are the three that I could readily think of. --Sid (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good post. --Leotardo (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Ed Poor!

On Christwire, no less. I haven't read it yet, I just found it and wanted to post it here first. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, that was fucking hilarious. I can't decide whether I like the part about "two meters" or "Wikipedia = Wikileaks" more. And RW was mentioned! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware that it's parody. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my favorite was "anti-US atheist Muslims like Osama and (Hussein) Obama"--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Iceland is a province of Finland. I added that myself to Conservapedia." This is awesome! --Ψ GremlinParlez! 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dammit! My work blocks Christwire as tasteless! --Leotardo (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoever wrote "Well, I was a choirmaster for 25 years: being around young impressionable boys give me so much pleasure. It was so exciting teaching them how to tame that ring of smooth muscle – and the serene angelic sounds they make the first time!" deserves at least three Internets. Brilliant! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Their reaction to this will be amusing, I would say someone tell them, but they read this page more than their own wiki. It's definitely more active. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Either someone here had a direct hand in that article, or ChristWire used RW heavily as a resource. MDB (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Either way, Mega-Meh. (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article did link to RW several times, so I'm guessing it's the latter. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems the most plausible explanation - but didn't somebody slip up a bit on the research by emphasising little boys? Tylersboy (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wikia haluaa jäätelöä" == "Wikia wants ice cream", in case anyone is wondering. Well played. (I have no idea why the hell they'd want ice cream, when the temperatures were dropping near -30℃ in the beginning of the week. OK, now I'll read the article...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The more I wander around christwire, the more I wonder wether they're serious like CP, or a parody like Stephen Colbert--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Christwire is a satirical website that publishes blog style articles that highlight perceived excesses of Christian conservatives." Christwire is very good at what it does, though. NBC Los Angeles and The Huffington Post were both fooled. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute...the Wikipedia article on Christwire, in order to cite the statement that Christwire is satire, cites both an Atlantic Wire article that states that Christwire is satire and a Cracked.com article that states that it is unknown if Christwire is real or not. Uh-oh. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, it's obviously parody - look at the article titles on the sidebar. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think SH was disputing that; I think s?he was suggesting there's a problem with the WP article on Christwire. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Filthy Cnuts

Stop it, okay?[3]

Stop posting stupid shit about TK, posting as TK, or asking stupid questions about TK. You obviously need something better to entertain yourself with. Yes, the man was a cunt, but so is the child who can't stop poking at him even after his death. 83.142.230.176 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that it's us doing that rather than, for instance, ED or 4chan. --Kels (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the BoN fails to realise just how widely TK was loathed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If any editor here admitted to "posting stupid shit about TK, posting as TK, or asking stupid questions about TK" we not approve on it. We think disgraceful post. Please don't assume that we're the only people who on the internet who have heard of him, and please don't assume we're the "filthy cunts" responsible for it, when for the last three years we've publicly discouraged our editors to vandalise. SJ ^Debaser 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Quaru^{oddball - You can't explain that!} 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure it's not someone who is a "RW poster", the audience for this page is probably wider than that, and there's a decent chance that the person who is posting this nonsense is reading this, not that it'll probably do any good.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to keep the scum in line. Ty --193.200.150.152 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

17 February 2011 (Logs) . . 21:23 . . TerryIsACookin (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

15 February 2011 (diff) (hist) . . Talk:GOProud . . 14:39 . . BryanR (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked)

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

(Logs) . . 14:38 . . BryanR (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

11 February 2011 (Logs) . . 17:28 . . FabFiveSecretFiles (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

8 February 2011 (Logs) . . 23:06 . . CowardKenWontDebate (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

6 February 2011 (Logs) . . 11:06 . . KenCantLeaveCP (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

4 February 2011 (Logs) . . 21:25 . . TakeTimeOffKen (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

1 February 2011 (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 11:57 . . PhineasR (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked)

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

(Logs) . . 11:50 . . PhineasR (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

25 January 2011 (Logs) . . 00:51 . . MarchForMorons (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

18 January 2011 (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Hollywood values . . 23:28 . . GuntherP (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked)

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

(Logs) . . 23:27 . . GuntherP (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

16 January 2011 (Logs) . . 16:21 . . NoRealUsers (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked) New user account

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

15 January 2011 (diff) (hist) . . Talk:Main Page . . 14:01 . . StevenR (Talk | contribs | block) (Blocked)

       IP: 65.184.85.100   Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13

Sorry guys, didn't mean to genuinely anger anyone, only pester. I just saw this as a case of trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls. 95.154.230.191 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting…

83.142.230.176 is a PHP proxy. Wonder which CP sysop this is. – Nick Heer 03:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Karajou would be my first guess. C®ackeЯ

Actually, I won't be surprised if this was a CP sysop.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, I had assumed it was MC. - π 08:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if Angry Bear does beat his chest a great deal, he's not one for swearing, even in private mails. I could have been Rob except he's "MIA" for a month now. --Ψ GremlinParla! 08:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a CP sysop. Why would they care how we appeared? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'Yes, he was a cunt'.... Yeah, this isn't a CP admin, just a troll FairyCupcake (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unfair to call him/her a troll. Sure, their anger's misguided but they do raise valid points. That is 1)TK was indeed a cnut and, 2)The person/people posting the ridiculous stuff are themselves cnuts for doing so. Also, we can blame ED and /b/tards as much as we like but there's still a chance that it's someone from here even if the mob doesn't support it. Hell, the mob doesn't support wandalism of CP but I think we have to concede a lot of it once came from RW editors and some probably still enjoy doing it. No matter where it's coming from, this page is probably the most frequented CP-related site on the net (aside from CP itself), so it makes sense to post a message to CP observers here. Let's just assume the message is directed at the cnut/s actually enjoying the TK situation and not at RW itself.
TL;DR, just because you disagree with someone doesn't automatically make them a troll. Even if they use naughty words. 60.229.239.166 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC) (another BoN, but not the BoN above)

You are correct. I agree with the original poster (if it wasn't a Yorkshire IP it might have been P. Foster), it's dickish behaviour. The problem is that when we get an anonymous poster calling us out (even if they might be wrong) some people assume that it's a concern troll. Concern trolls are not necessarily wrong, it's just that they like to stir the shit kettle for their own amusement. We are RationalWiki and I imagine that most of us like to think of us as being thoroughly rational. However, we are also all human and therefore prey to hormones and emotions; none of us is perfectly rational otherwise we wouldn't fall in love or support Kidderminster Harriers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.}

Yorkshire is actually quite nice this time of year. That being said, while I think that taunting CP about TK's death is pretty classless, "cunt" isn't really in my repertoire. (...and that being said, I've cracked wise about TK dying a few times on these pages, as many of us have, so yeah, I'm a giant hypocrite, too). P-Foster (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Heaven 17, soundtrack to my friggin' teenage years. (They came from Yorkshire for those too young, furrin' or unaware of PlusNet's adverts).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A thought

I was just thinking that whilst TK was trigger-happy when it came to the banhammer, he was also damned good at routing out parodists. What I can't decide, is whether this was due to the sheer number of blocks some had to be parodists, or whether he was just an awesome troll hunter. FairyCupcake (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He blocked lots of good-faith editors, and turned some of them to trolldom... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

TK had a foolproof plan for identifying trolls and parodists: He'd pick on an editor at random, and declare that until proven innocent, said editor was a filthy, librull, baby-eating, atheist, troll. The catch was that only TK could prove you innocent, and he never quite seemed to get round to that part... --Ψ Gremlin講話 12:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Set a thief to catch a thief... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ban the world, and you ban all the parodists. Quaru^{oddball - You can't explain that!} 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy's NOAA map on MP

Andy put up the the snow covered northern hemisphere map^img on February 15, when it was almost 50 degrees in New York and had not snowed in New York in weeks. Today it is 60 degree outside--very much spring weather!--and having that map up just makes their site look pretty stupid. Where's a World Treasure when they need one, Jack? --Leotardo (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Eastern Mass was in the 50's today. I'm lovin it--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's sooooo awesome! I've lost 20 pounds since Christmas from working out, so I'm looking forward to swimsuit season. --Leotardo (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

60 F in Chicago. I'm wearing a mankini. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I know, it went to 66F in Pittsburgh today, so I had to take the walk outside that I couldn't do for the last few months because of Andy's map. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 02:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In Regards to a Certain Gentleman at a Website that Starts with "C."

When you say you're going to do one thing--like take a 90 day break from editing--and then do another--like, say, keep editing--that is called "lying." When you lie, you go against one of the basic tenets of the faith that you are maniacally trying to promote. I would love to see you justify your public mendacity. PolarBear (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The corollary to the first rule of religion strikes again. ... of liberals? (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's also the first rule in the CP admin handbook. --Sid (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More snippets

Yes, we're well under way with producing TZB II, but just to have you all champing at the bit, here's a few more snippets.

Remember that letter from a mother complaining about her child being a victim of conservative homophobia? Remember Karajerk calling her a "hate-filled bigot?" Well, it seems as if Kara and TK couldn't help having a chuckle about it behind the scenes:

• TK: Sorry, Brian….I couldn’t resist the opportunity to answer the purported mother!
• Kara: It's ok...I kind of expected one of us to give that individual an answer...even if it was a ten year old brat! :)

Stay classy guys!

And Rob swings into action, as news of the Gulf oil disaster hits:

“”We can do redirects from [Gulf of Mexico oil spill], etc. and a page move in the future if a better name develops. Right now, we have to get the img of the oil soaked duck nexted to Obama's statement together with links to Greenpeace's site and other environmental groups condemning Obam's decision. Then link the Obama and Obama administration's page to the main article.

--Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 10:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's classic - so, there's no agenda with your news reporting, eh, Conservapedia? No intention to do anything other than just report the news? YOU DECIDE! DogP (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not mention all the background behind Rob & TK go to White City Wikipedia. --Ψ GremlinPraat! 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the relevant block comment from Karatard. He really is a total asshole. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More funny from Jpratt: "[User:Myrobi's] user page says all the right things- clearly parody." Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 11:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hah. That's a quote that definitely needs to go on any articles concerning parody and Poe's Law. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a cracker! Reminds me of a guide in the respected UK publication Viz a few years ago, aimed at helping employers avoid hiring terrorists. It roughly summarised: "Terrorists will go to great lengths to appear normal and respectable, they may appear to be highly qualified and exceptionally experienced. Terrorists will fabricate a full background and verifiable history to trick you. They train hard to appear and sound legitimate. Don't be taken in! If a candidate arrives who is well dressed and polite, with gleaming references and a glittering CV, comes across well in interview and appears to be exactly the employee you are looking for; they are almost certainly a terrorist!" (Coming soon, Viz's "how European are you" survey circa 1990) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Karajou spies Operation Undercover on Human's page and immediately falls for it hook line & stinker.

“”Anyone know anything about the brute force dictionary? RW has a team ready, some with several spare terminals, ready to begin a brute force attack. Bad news here...it's a passwrod cracking device that uses "brute force", which in our case will compromise every password available. If you notice the RW posting on tailoring the program to MediaWiki use, which means they now are going to seize control of Conservapedia. I suggest shutting down access to the site and the servers for the time being.

--Ψ GremlinZungumza! 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead all Christians, Andy, no matter how much they ridicule your bible.

Oh dear - it just gets better. Andy, speaking on how the religious differences of the GoP candidates could split the conservative vote,

“”The CBP could build a foundation of unity. It could address and patch up differences to "make way" for a more unified conservative movement in the future. If everyone accepts a particular Bible, then it's awfully hard for them to engage in religious conflicts with each other.

--Ψ GremlinParla! 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Think that last one might just be the best, most staggering illustration I've yet seen of Andy's folie de grandeur and stubborn refusal to open his mind. Tylersboy (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the sense that everybody with serious aspirations for political office has put so much distance between themselves and the CBP that it has to be measured in parsecs... YES, it has managed to build a more unified conservative movement. Everybody thinks it's utter insanity. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If Psy had told me that quote in person, I would have been left speechless for 5-10 seconds, trying to stammer out a response to the idea that Andy actually thinks the CBP would be anywhere near that influential. MDB (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Andy has more than five of the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. But go on, Andy, lead like Moses the Protestants and Catholics and unify them around your wikiBible that has been ridiculed by virtually all Christians. --Leotardo (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether Andy delivered himself of this gem before or after he locked horns (as it were) with Douglas Moo. Tylersboy (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Weirdest juxtaposition goes to Jpatt, when speaking about updating CP's spam filter:

“”I mentioned nigger, not sure if it was added but haven't seen it lately. Also add Kunt and Fuk Love of Jesus, John

--Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 08:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mystery explained

Remember when Johnny X-Ray started doing weird things like redirecting Gay Bowel Syndrome to Michele Bachman? Seems he was trying to beat the clickbots and was choosing targets that would "annoy Ratwiki the most." Sure, Jpatt, seeing Palin's mug come up after typing in Gay Bath Houses, was really annoying. After he'd cottoned that the bots were clicking to 'no redirect' page, he then took to renaming the actual redirect, so you had things like "Bluetooth" suddenly becoming "Obama birth certificate lawsuit." --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 07:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting tidbit - keep them coming! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've counted at least or six instances so far of Andy begging his sysops "So-and-so is a legitimate editor, please do not block," clearly indicating that a) they're block happy and b) in their eyes, nobody is a legitimate editor. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 08:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So anything for today?

Just asking :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked so nicely, here's a little gem from Andy:

“”It dawned on me why there are so many vile people on the internet. Pornography addiction is a problem for many internet users. It wouldn't surprise me if over 50% of our vandals are pornography addicts.

Which leads to a Jpatt rant:

“”I fear for the younger generation. Liberalism and porn will create them into monsters. When a kid, you could have been fascinated if a friend got a hold of a Playboy magazine. As a kid today, you are two clicks away from the most outlandish porn on Google and you don't even have to be searching for it. Talk about quantifying abuse, deviance, homosexuality, drugs, treating others as trash. God help us all.

and a not-too-creepy non-sequitur from Smeg Ed.

“”Serial killer Ted Bundy was a porn addict. He granted an eleventh-hour interview to Christian psychologist James Dobson.

So there you have it. The reason atheists are all lardarses, is that they spend all day, when not vandalising CP, sitting on couch, watching porn, shovelling in crisps one-handed. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 14:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken has conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder

And managed to restore this^img. Rationalize (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that there are now effectively additional conditions. Something's wrong with Ken's brain. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"I do plan on being extremely busy these next 90 days and probably for the next few years or so." --Leotardo (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting funnier by the moment. Pretty soon Ken's going to ask Ace to do his grocery shopping and jump through some flaming hoops. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The next few years? Well, that should give us a few hours to scrape ourselves off our respective floors. Mountain Blue 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"A few years" = "a couple of hours" in normal time. Indeed, who plans what they are going to do on a wiki years in advance? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Ken, firstly I don't know what is wrong with your eyes but my user page at aSK is not pink. Perhaps, like always, you haven't had enough sleep? Secondly - I answered your challenge, and agreed to your terms. You failed to respond and I withdrew my offer because you were obviously not serious. You lost. Deal with it. Ace McAwesome 20:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Even Ken must know how stupid he appears now (aside from his imaginary victorious debates he boasts about); he was offered the $20k, with the Assfly as an intermediary, and all he had to do was sign an agreement and turn up to a live debate. He bottled it (maybe that's the wrong phrase as it implies he had some intention of actually going through with it in the first place), yet still goes on about it. Ken, you are a liar and a coward. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you lost.^img Ace McAwesome 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks Ace is Teh Asp, whose user page is in fact pink ... Because Phiip placed a "Message from site owner" there inside a pink box! I agree that Philip lacks machismo, however, so there's some common ground if anyone was looking for some. Other than that I just wish Ken's caretaker was doing a better job. He'll never be able to live down the shame of being exactly who he is. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken, why don't you just agree to an online debate (like the one Ace had with Phillip) to be held here, at CP, or at a neutral website of your choosing? That way we can skip this nonsense and have some fun. Unless, of course, you're afraid of debating entirely. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My take is that a few years is a period of 5th dimensional time, that only intersects with our four dimensional space time every time Ken thinks about how it would feel to be intellectually raped in an honest debate where an opponent gets to voice their opposition to his bullshit. --Opcn (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh I read that entire "debate" and if I cared about any of your opinions it might have rocked my faith in science to the very core! Luckily it still works for most things. The painful fact is that science has become a religion for most of you (especially the most of you that don't understand it) where you blindly repeat scientic proverbs and psalms that, as yet, have no substance. That entire "debate" page is a perfect example. "God did it." "No, Science did it." "Prove it." "No. You prove it. I don't have to prove anything." "I already did prove it." "No way, you can't invoke the supernatural to explain something that provable." "You only offered theories which, by your own admission, are unprovable." "No way, my untestable theories haven't been tested by the best in their field, you can't disprove them." "My religion isn't supernatural, it is natural, so there." "No, mine is."

That's some debating skillz right there. Take your head out of your ass for five minutes tho and you might realise that you all sound as desparate as each other. D.T.F. (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm, yeah. Science hasn't 'done' anything, and no-one's claimed it has. We just claim that your magic sky-daddy is a load of bollocks. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"While I certainly don't claim to have to have reached perfection and still press on to become more like Christ" Ken gets scarier by the hour. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Beavers vs. Badgers

I'm not well versed in the subject of official state animals, but according to wikipedia, The Beaver State is Oregon, while The Badger State is Wisconsin. But Jpatt knows better^img, so calling Wisconsin the Badger state is deliberate insertion of false information; lying, a blockworthy offense^img. OTOH, ignorance and a failure to google for the simplest facts seems to fit into the job description of CP's sysops. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As the Christwire interview says "Iceland is a province of Finland, I put that in myself." Jpatt is seriously dumb and is now also making his power play to fill TK's shoes. It's also possible that due to his general thickness, and weird, twisted fundie morals, Jpatt a) doesn't know it's the Badger state and b) can only assign naughty meanings to the word badger. Either way, the editor must die. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 12:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On a real wiki, that would have been an ideal entry point for a new editor: he spots a small problem with an article, takes up the effort to create an account and corrects it. He sees that his edit is welcomed, and starts editing for real...

Of course, Conservapedia isn't about content, it's all about motives: it is telling that in CP's discussion groups comments of editors seem to be always discussed in light of the (imaginary) intentions of the editors, and almost never on the merit of the facts presented. It's a version of this liberal insertion to the Bible: All the stones thrown by those who are with sin can be ignored...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Put "Badger state" in Google and you get all sorts of links to Wisconsin. JPratt never ceases to amaze me with just how dumb he is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to apologize to Jpatt: I misread the edit - history: indeed: his Wisconsin is populated by badgers larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case I must also apologise for not following your links to verify the edits. However, he's still stupid.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No biggie we all make mistakes. [G]od knows us dumb rednucks can't spell 'cuz we're too busy fiddlen. You missed my block reason comment for some reason which I attribute to the Diceman.--76.241.145.190 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Go easy on yourselves. We're a chat room; they're an "encyclopedia" that puts forth the insane fantasy hope that Michelle Bachmann is the 6th most likely person to become President in 2012 (actually, they moved her up to 5th now). --Leotardo (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the ghost of TK! The phantasm is werking havoc with your ability to read diffs, something the living TK never quite mastered. 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Huh? --Leotardo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the most well-known factoid, but TK occasionally had trouble with figuring out who added what to an article. Memory's a bit fuzzy, but it went basically along the lines of person A adding something idiotic, person B removing it... and then TK ranting at B for adding idiotic stuff just because he had trouble with working the article history. And then there's the stuff where his browser tended to add Skype tags to certain number sequences. He always denied it, claiming that it was someone else or that he ran into some magic edit conflict that made those numbers appear in his edit. TK proved to be very capable of handling CheckUser and Oversight, but some basic stuff always remained prone to minor accidents. --Sid (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On that subject the funniest bit of TK what-the-edit-fuckery was the whole thing about the Skype number / ISBN number in the Palin article. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 07:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)