Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive225

This is an archive page, last updated 11 March 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>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <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)

Moar Sexularized Wurds

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Johnny, sweetheart, in your mind maybe, but nowhere else is "dishonest" a substitution for "diabolical".^img Although... "Andy Schlafly is a diabolical cunt" does have a certain ring to it... --PsyGremlinFale! 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn’t looked for a while, but wow! The phrase “Anti-Christian bigotry” preceded “Separation of Church and State”? “Chosen lifestyle” is now a term of venerable antiquity? And yelling “Jesus!” is still regarded as morally preferable to “Gee Whiz!”? I keep thinking that they can’t possibly take any more “dishonest/underhanded” liberties with the English language than they already have, but, “miraculously”, they prove me wrong every time. Tylersboy (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The persecution complex is astounding. --Leotardo (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note how "one nation under God" precedes "one nation." Why doesn't anyone give me advance notice that Queen Carlotta is going to declare backwards day? ... of liberals? (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Reverend Martin Luther King Day" - it's never been called that. Ever. First, that's MLK Jr's father. Second, the official title has been since enactment "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day". --Leotardo (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The godly "Possessed" has been replaced by "crazy" and "influenced"; apparently they still see demons and ghosts at work in the brains of the insanepossessed. I don't get "influenced" though - as in, "Sarah Palin's followers are possessed by her"? --Leotardo (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sarah Palin's followers are possessed by her" would explain a great deal of things, actually. MDB (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sarah Palin's followers are possessed by her, and have become possessed as a result." ^{ONE / TALK} 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

By Jove, I think ONE's got it! MDB (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, the Secularized Words list on CP is the best comedy gold that has come out of that site in quite some time. Just when you thought the place was becoming too boring, they bring out of the conspiracy-laden paranoia and self-deluded fundy persecution complex! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a fun gimmick, and it should be because that's all they do there. --Leotardo (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

They keep the conspiracy-laden paranoia and self-deluded fundy persecution complex in a container with a sign that reads "In case of liberals, break glass" ^{ONE / TALK} 16:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Going back to square 1, equating the Golden Rule to Altruism speaks volumes about their un-understanding of intellectual thought - also, it makes the philosopher in me die a bit. --Ullhateme (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of the ebil secular words are straight off of the bestest conservative words making conservatism secular! C®ackeЯ

I like how he thinks Xmas is a secularized version Christmas. Nothing to do with the Greek Chi, being the first letter of Christos. Rookie mistake, Andy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How can a word be conservative and secular? What god would allow that? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar = Civil calendar^img??? Does this make me religious? I've never even heard of a "Civil calendar"! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Western World, we just use 'calendar' to refer to what day-of-the-year it is, just like we normally use, '1pm' without qualifying what timezone is being used. In Israel and most of the Muslim world, the religious authorities use the wp:Hebrew calendar or wp:Muslim calendar to determine when festivals take place, but most of civilian life uses the western Gregorian calender. Since there are two (or more) calendars in use, you need to specify which one you are using (if it is not clear from the month names). Thus most things use the civilian/westerner/Gregorian calendar. CS Miller (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it referred to as anything but the Gregorian calendar before either. These are great too:

Pagan=Secular - Memo to Bill O'Reilly, they're really called "Pagan Progressives."

Islamic terrorism = Man-made disaster - A bomb plot by two man-made disasters was foiled yesterday... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem!

The heathens over at CP were all up in arms about Saint Valentine's Day. But not a word about Saint David's Day. And he was a real saint. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Take your logic and leave FairyCupcake (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There were like 14 Saint Valentines. --Opcn (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab revolutions

AT the day of writing (March 1st) Ben Ali is still president of Tunisia, and Mubarak is still president of Egypt. http://www.conservapedia.com/Tunisia http://www.conservapedia.com/Hosni_Mubarak ^{— Unsigned, by: 80.200.233.209 / talk / contribs}

Open your mind! Just because the lamestream media is reporting that those countries have changed their leaders is no reason to believe it. Just as Karajou once demanded that someone personally scour all Turkey to verify that no trace of Noah's Ark can be found, I'm going to demand that you personally visit the capitals of Tunisia and Egypt and come back with written proof that there's been a change. Which part of "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" do you not understand??? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Either that or we've finally gotten to the point where CP sysops believe that can change current events by editing CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear God, I had completely forgotten about that Turkey thing... truly one of the most baffling non-Andy moments of CP. --Sid (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just that they have a sense of nostalgia, not that they fail to be a useful encyclopedia with only five contributors who are more interested in writing gimmicks. --Leotardo (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Obama remained president-elect for a while too. Vulpius (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So what? Castro's still DEAD ain't he? (They're ahead of the curve on THAT ONE!) 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Not updated yet.

Not that we needed it...

...but here is another reason Andy is such a shit teacher:

Andy - Who do you think is the second most influential founding father after Washington?

Student 14 - I like Jefferson because he drafted the deceleration of independence.

Andy - OK but next time explain your answer better^img

Student 16 - I like Jefferson because he drafted the deceleration of independence and was a two term president.

Andy - OK but next time explain your answer better. (Minus 1)^img

The guy is so fucking inconsistent. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I thought that Andy had permitted egregious typos go unnoticed but the slowing down of independence was introduced by Ace. Pity.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Shut up. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson wasn't influential since he "wasn't even at the constitutional convention", while technically correct leaves out this ineffectual founding father was being effective getting moar! money outta Louis XVI, having taken over from Franklin as ambassador plenipotentiary in 1785. (Hint: the correct answer to this "who do you think" query is Saint Benjamin Franklin.) 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Nah, we've already seen Benjy isn't the right answer, 'cos he's NOT A CHRISTIAN^TM. I notice though he didn't comment on the assertion that Benjamin Franklin "invented the almanac." *facepalm* --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The deceleration of independence happened because light travelled much faster back then, thus proving that the universe is young and that the constitution is a Christian document. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If independence travels at the speed of light... it must have no mass. The insights keep coming! ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Arsefly likes the first guy better 'cause he's a Tea Partier (see his userpage) or some BS like that. Why does Arsefly "educate" these "students" anyway? It is just because he has no valuable "insights" for us all?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor's movie habits

Normally he watches "movies about coaches with 11 year old daughters" and the like but today he is watching one of my personal favourites^img. Nice one Ed! Ace ^{of Spades} 20:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

has he ever answered for his taste in visual media?--Brxbrx (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, he says somewhere he watches movies to see if they'll be suitable for his children. Can't see Colors being one of them though. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

*gasp* Mention that this is a film, and not a street mime show or something? Check! Information about the subject of the film and significance of the title? Check! Year, director, lead roles? Check! ...Is Ed not entitled to the sweat on his brow? This is a quality stub. Yes, it's always heartwarming to see that some admins in Conservapedia realise that work has to be done if they intend to ever regain the old readership figures. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the PoorTwitaPedia still being updated? Also it needs moving to CP space. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not been updated for a year, mainly because it was a one-off, but I can dig into the code and run it again to check for new entries. The page probably needs some tidying up to check for template issues etc, which I can look at this evening, but if anyone wants to move it then feel free. PoorTwitaPedia Worm^{(t | c)} 09:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't expect a reply so quickly! I had already started digging and found a list of mainspace articles he's created since January 2010, but I haven't filtered out the redirects or the non-stubs. Would that be useful? I'll stick it on your user page's talk. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All information gratefully received :) I have got some Perl code to do it automagically though :) Worm^{(t | c)} 10:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh god, he has kids? Webbtje (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So *that's* what it means!

Finally, I've learned that "Godspeed^img" is a calendar term meaning "Be good". Who knew? Phiwum (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No shit? All this time I thought it ment Action-at-a-Distance--Thunderstruck^{You've Been...}

I thought it was more of a fuck off. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "be good" is a curse? Phiwum (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was a sort of "Vaya con dios" phrase, just intrinsically less cool sounding. --Leotardo (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sex class having sex

I totally let out a laugh when I read this MPR at work^img:

Professor values: Psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey of Northwestern University gives his human sexuality class the option of attending a live-sex show. “We’re not just talking about it. We’re actually doing it.”

I didn't click on the link to see the context of the quote because it was just too enjoyable as they presented the story. Jpatt posted this, and I can imagine the thought of him seeing a pair of juggling tittays would be terrifyingly corruptible for his virginity. It would be a slippery slope: First the jugs, then the drugs, then the gay hugs, right Jpatt? He still doesn't know what is the goo that comes out of him when he rubs against his body pillow. --Leotardo (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest - I found the story a little weird and perverse. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read it, and it does sound a bit strange. The quote was classic, though. Maybe it's the class's tag line. --Leotardo (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote is good yes. But it is kinda weird to invite a class to watch an exhibitionist masturbate on stage with what was referred to as a "fucking saw". Ace ^{of Spades} 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like good, clean, educational fun to me. Plus it gets JPatt's knickers in a twist. Where's the downside? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing's more family-friendly than a front page link describing sex toys and exhibitionism. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all fun and games until someone catches an STD. Endometriosis is a result of many STD's. What is really sad is that their internal link to their article on sex is so devoid of, you know, information about sex. TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church Secularizing Language in the Bible?

I guess this is only nominally a CP thread (so if it's moved I won't care), but this story that the Pope is "removing the term 'booty,' as in 'stuff you steal after a war,' and replacing it with 'spoils' of war" made me think about Secularized Language.:

Proverbs 31:10, the ode to "The Ideal Wife," is now a "Poem on the Woman of Worth." "Women will like this: being measured by their own accomplishments, not in terms of a husband's perspective," says Mary Elizabeth Sperry of the Bishops Conference.

I wonder how this would be treated on the CP article. Isn't 'booty' more Christian, particularly since they only go missionary? --Leotardo (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilariously, I think "booty" was actually suggested as a replacement for a word (can't recall which) that described the arse during their conservative bible project. Perhaps others can remember? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick search suggests I'm mistaken. Either they vaped it, or I'm recalling a similar event (possibly concerning a word used for "prositute" or "woman" ^{ONE / TALK} 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That was "bimbo". StarFish (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, replacing "damsel" with bimbo. The prostitute/women thing was creepy Uncle Ed, who doesn't like lurid things.^img --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that difflink survives to this day. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on! You know Smeg Ed's edits are carved in stone and thou shalt not revert the Moonie. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Good God that was a stupid edit comment. And creepy - could you imagine being Ed Poor's child? --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, somewhen he claimed to have two daughters and implied that they were approaching puberty. 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It was on here wasn't it during a discussion about his fixation on films about young girls. IIRC he said that as his daughters were getting to that age 'we could look forward to articles on cp that would be of interest to pubescent girls' or something similar. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: "expect more movie articles about teenage girls rather than preadolescents." --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I suffer for those girls once they realize that their father is for eternity a documented idiot. --Leotardo (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

do Andy's children know about rationalwiki?--Brxbrx (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably. If it ever occured to them to google Andy, CP or any of its sysops, anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Now the real question is, do they know about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the real question is if Andy allows them to know about anything. «-Bfa-» 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I really hope they don't look at Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on 'Andy Schlafly'. (No, I'm definitely not going to link to that. If you wanna have a look feel free to, but I'm not responsible for whatever happen. You've been warned.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Li'l Phyl have an account here at one time when Kettlechickens was hanging about? Or does my memory fail me (yet again)?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Phynix --Robledo (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

how much you wanna bet

that this would be front page conservapedia news (with a snide comment about intellectual superiority) if it was a republican and not a democrat who beat the supercomputer?--Danielfolsom (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"... an immensely powerful computer which can understand language,..." ? 17:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but only liberals care about trivia in the first place. Conservative intellectuals of Andy's caliber can't be bothered with silly, confusing facts that just get in the way of brilliant insights. That's something computers will never be able to...oh. Never mind. Röstigraben (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Answering in the form of a question is a great example of Jeopardy's liberal bias. Conservatives answer in the form of an answer, as God intended.

Anyway, isn't it interesting that this physicist/congressman ended up coming across as smart? Alex Trebek (who is Canadian, which is kinda like British/English, which means he's an atheistic liberal) programmed Watson to lose in order to give the false impression that Democrats know things. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't really know what "understanding" is. What Watson is doing is not exactly like the human contestants, but then what one human contestant does is not exactly like all the others. The most compelling defence of the "No" position on AI understanding is that a Watson-like system, which isn't able to explore the world for itself, definitely lacks understanding for that reason which is called lack of "symbol grounding". For those who hold that position an AI installed into a robot with adequate sensors and ability to explore the world could potentially understand. The robot equivalent of putting everything in your mouth to see what it's like could be rather destructive though. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Holt is one the few pols worth a damn in DC these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

andy is an odd catholic

[1]^img Isn't one of Catholicism's premises that you can't do too much interpretation of the bible on your own?--Brxbrx (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether Andy is a practicing Catholic or not is open to debate. MDB (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Im just waiting on him breaking off and starting his own cult sect of christianity.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Church of Catholobaptism sounds good (no thanks needed, Andy).--Brendiggg (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hell, we all know he's waiting for Reagan to rise from the dead so he can officially deify him. MDB (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Ronald Reagan is a kind of Saint. --Leotardo (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's take on Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular can be described as "odd". However, I will grant that his "My Jesus is about hELLFIRE" stance is at least in lockstep with the bad tempered, jealous, vicious murdering bastard of the Old Testament. --PsyGremlin講話 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's catholicism is in line with mainstream views circa 1490. Clickbot (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "Virgin" to "Young Woman" is liberalness. Changing "Prostitute" to "Woman" is just plain conservative sense. X Stickman (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's scientific knowledge is also in line with mainstream views circa 1490. Perhaps he was just born in the wrong century. Danoso (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't, but Andy can, because he knows and is right about everything. Cantabrigian (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk here a while ago about getting Andy in trouble with the Catholic Church (maybe even excommunicated) for his Conservative Bible Project. Now that would be fuckin' hilarious. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

is there a papal 911 number we could call to ruin his life? the inquisition still around? actually, a few fundies have risen up in protest of it, haven't they? but I believe that they were protestants--Brxbrx (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember when I first heard of this, I thought it had to be a Poe even by Conservapedian standards. Usually the fundies are happy enough to just ignore the parts of the Bible they don't like, not rewrite it. So if the Bible must be rewritten to live up to conservative standards, the literal words of god is not even the holiest scripture. So does Andy worship at the Church of Liberalism Conservatism? If so, who is its god? St. Ronnie? But he's only a saint. I'm dying to know the answer to this question. Nebuchadnezzar

Also, did even part of this thing come to fruition? I don't follow teh Assflypedia as much as alls y'alls guys.(talk) 01:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take as a cradle Catholic. Catholics give lip service to the magisterium of the church, but in practice, they tend to be fluffy bunnies who make up their faith as they go along, call it Catholicism whether it is or isn't, and happily ignore the doublethink. ... of liberals? (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Grassroots exposed

in all it's......"glory". Ace ^{of Spades} 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say implementing that would take one person, oh, say, 90 days? Maybe this is his "other commitment"? TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this discussion absolutely hilarious: What do Andy and my fellow sysops think of publicly inviting Stephen Colbert to be an editor of Conservapedia in order to help keep the Colbert publicity going? A lot of people already think CP is a hoax. What would they think if they knew Colbert was an editor? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

LMAO at Ed Poor:

Meanwhile, our experience with liberals has shown them to be exceedingly troublesome. Many of them are more clever than we are, and it's a shame that they are wasting their intellectual talents on hiding the truth rather than presenting it to the public in a helpful way.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good god, those archives are more addicting than TVTropes. I just kept clicking and clicking until I finally hit this gem and realized that 20 minutes had gone by. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty funny. I like how Ruy Ken Conservative777 thinks he is getting to us. Bonus points for TK thinking that I am one of the worst. Nice. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The stuff on there about JacobB is really something. From Tetronian's link:

I would also say that I think it is time to retire the name rule as far as blocking and just have a rule that inappropriate names will be blocked. The name rule gives too much opportunity for infiltrators to block good editors.

That was Ken. Really, his occasional flashes of rationality are downright frightening. It continues with this post, in which Andy and Ed reveal that, indeed, blocking the world is a feature and not a bug. It really seems like at least some of the sysops really wanted to improve CP, but none of them could explain it such that Andy would understand. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ed Poor, Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM:

At some point, Conservapedia will start attracting high-profile conservatives."

Spit take! --Opcn (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Malkin referenced it once. And I think Phyllis Shlafly and Stephen Colbert definitely count as high profile conservatives.--Brxbrx (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I rather enjoy Jpatt's logic for outing parodists: "he has just 8 measly comments directed at him on ratwiki, raising much suspicion with me." Ok, guys - you know the drill. They're on to us, so from now on don't comment about anybody except the Senile Seven. It'll drive Johnny X-ray mad if nothing else. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So now the people we don't discuss will be regarded as parodists. Well, that can be arranged, his own endgame should provide more than enough fodder. Seriously, people with JPatt's mixture of idiocy and paranoia should definitely not engage in counterintelligence-style mind games - and Rob will get jealous if another incompetent sleuth tries to take over his job. Röstigraben (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Perversity/Diversity WIGO

Isn't what's-his-face basically agreeing with Andy&Co.? In context, the quote reads as a jab about how being gay is perverse and "diversity" is the wrong way to describe it. The Secularized Language™ page says that "perversion" such as this has come to be known as "diversity" instead of by its supposed true meaning. The phrasing may be somewhat contradictory, but it's pretty much the same message: Teh gays are perverts. «-Bfa-» 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Secularized Language page is stating that the two words mean the same thing. What's his name is stating that there's a difference. True, both groups are anti-gay bigots but that's a different matter. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong...

This may well have been covered way back, but I was just looking at Andy's 'Essay' "Greatest Mysteries of American History" (I know most of it is utter nonsense) and he mentions "Why did the U-2 spy plane crash-land in the Soviet Union?" Did my history teach lie to me or has it been accepted for decades that it was shot down? Jammy (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember, in Andyism there is a conspiracy against God in every American setback; this is a basic tenet of the religion of Andyism. Everyone else though says it was a Soviet S-75 Dvina SAM missile.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick: The word you want is 'tenet'. Here are two example sentences: "It is a tenet of Christianity that Jesus died and was raised" "The new tenant is paying $100 per month more for two bedrooms". Linguists seem to have accepted the word 'eggcorn' for this type of mistake, you can find a database of similar errors online. Many, perhaps even most fluent speakers of English will find one or more eggcorns in their vocabulary, I hope you won't be offended by my correcting this one which was bothering me. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

changed. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Eggcorn? I thought it was officially known as a malapropism. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You would of thought there time would be better spent elsewear. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

An egghorn is also known as a mondegreen. There's a old Scottish song called The Bonny Earl o' Moray (I can sing it to you if you like...) which has the line "They hae slain the Earl o' Moray and laid him on the green". An American singer (early C.20?) heard it but she didn't fully understand the words and sang it as "They hae slain the Earl o' Moray and Lady Mondegreen". Oh look, here it is in an unreliable encyclopedia. The Real James Brown (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Borked again? RC doesn't seem to be loading, just get a blank page? --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All part of the boycott, nothing to see, move along... Totnesmartin (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware they had that script up and running over there yet. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

it was installed ages ago, but since our server upgrade we can turn it on from here. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Try adding &limit=35 to the page's url. 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

wait, what exactly are we talking about here??? LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 11:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This Which works this way at least for me. (But we're boycotting so we're not actually LOOKING at it when it does come up. Please for to try to pay attention in future. Thank you. 11:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Bleh. thanks for the de-noob-ification. i feel really stupid now LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 11:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. I'm a bit ornery this AM. Both links (above) should be werking now, 12:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

One thing I don't understand is why they never just cut RC (and Special:contributions, etc) off anyway and have it be an admin-only function. It would ruin us. Can you imagine? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because they have no clue how to accomplish that? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure if they just gave Uncle Ed access to the server and database... --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"The year that never was." Mountain Blue 14:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe during your little boycott you will put the minds that God gave you to better use than vandalizing and spewing hate. Conservapedia has seen a massive increase in traffic lately, so a few liberal trolls not viewing us isn't going to make much of a difference! Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you, pervert. And your diverse and far-reaching definitions of vandalism. You're growing rapidly! lol. That's my favorite and most blatant lie. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Ed, I should think most of us would prefer not to vandalize Conservapedia, since the actions of the "legitimate" users there is such a good freak-show that it would be a real shame to interrupt it. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not Ed. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody actually steal his password? ListenerX^TalkerX 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. He published it and then never changed it when he was on notice that it became public knowledge. That's how you do computers when you're an expert like Ed Poor, doncha know? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a very rational way to respond! Thank you for proving my point. Since recent projects and insights caught the attention of the conservative blogosphere, our pageviews have gone through the roof. Unfortunately for liberals the stats don't lie! Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 15:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

People come to laugh at you, you idiot. Nobody takes you or your pathetic hate blog seriously. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Still fantasising over small children the conservative masses joining CP, Ed? Still, I suppose you have to justify your existence somehow, right Ed? Shame, it's as bad as Ken with his pathetic "soon 100'000s of people will become aware of Conservapedia, as atheism dies on the internet." Although, on the subject of the Conservative blogosphere, here's what a member of your target market thinks of you. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and on the subject of spewing hate, you might want to ask Brian to tone down his language a bit. You know, the whole pot/kettle thing. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Not substantive enough"

Mr "I heard it at dinner one night" and "this really happened" feels that PZ Myers' blog - which just happens to punch holes in one of his insights - "is not substantive enough to be included."^img Wow, now to start a search for "substantial" conservative blogs CP uses as references. The man can't even be honest when it comes to removing things he doesn't like. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"substance" is definitely an undefined escape hatch for teh Ass. As bad as this is, it isn't as bad as the type of dishonesty Phil churns out. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers is an intellectual non-entity. He churns out the same evolutionist hoaxes and falsehoods post after post, and the brainwashed fundamentalist atheists that comment there believe every word their fat beer-drinking 'deity' says. It's pretty sad really. Uncle Ed ^{bug me} 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So did someone steal "Call Me Uncle" Ed's password? It doesn't really read like he normally does. --Kels (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly somebody woke up with a sore bum this morning. Grouchy old man is grouchy. Of course, a bottom-feeder like Denyse O'Leary is a million times more substantive than a professor. Also Ed, I wouldn't be calling people fat, if I were you. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's okay for Ed to call people fat. Ed isn't fat, he's morbidly obese. There's a difference. DickTurpis (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

wow, just wow. Talk about your drive by attacks. --Opcn (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FFS It's not Ed. It's someone who squandered to opportunity to test whether Ed is as flaky with his passwords as everyone else is. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate ignorance in the editing of the deliberate ignorance article. There are no words to describe how awesome this is. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For Schlafly, "not substantive enough" means "too much evidence for me to be able to refute". It's happened repeatedly - e.g. see the Roger Mason correspondence, where he flipped between "not substantive enough - you lose" and "too much detail - you lose". The Real James Brown (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else check up on this?

whenever i go to http://conservapedia.com/Special:WantedPages - not only does the page fail to load, but the entire site stops loading for a brief period because of a "busy server".--Danielfolsom (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help you. My solar system is 403 blocked. Mountain Blue 02:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Should be "Special:WantedNerdTechnicians" Rationalize (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a weekly occurrence when somebody brings this up. Just google "proxy site" and access CP via one of those. I've been doing it for months.--Brendiggg (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting Andy?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WantedPages fails for me, too, but the rest of the site loads okay. Odd, though: I vaguely recall checking that page not too long ago (like, within the last 1-2 months, I guess); I still remember my amusement at seeing some invalid title being the #1 result. --Sid (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy probably screwed something up in the database and won't give Ed access to fix it. or Andy gave Ed database access... oops. Or it could just be a deceitful attempt to hide the fact that Terry Chuckarse still hasn't written all the articles on obscure Bible people that his template threw up. (almost 2 years and counting. tick. tick. Terry) --PsyGremlinParla! 15:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When I posted earlier I was able to load the page but am unable to do so now. The most wanted pages are actually Civil War battles linked by several templates. It would appear that they were mass deleted by Andy undoing the work of a vandal - most of the Civil War shit is copy-pasted by unable-semen Karajou and I think that Andy might have overdone the deletion. I don't know what's going on over there at the moment the RC is taken up by vandals and many of the logs are unavailable.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scrub that last bit, X-Ray johnny has wiped them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.}

Now here's a funny thing^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The first result is the one that's the problem. Try using one of the following URLS to bypass the problem: http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&offset=1&limit=20 http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&offset=1&limit=50 http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&offset=1&limit=100 http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&offset=1&limit=250 http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages&offset=1&limit=500 .   — Jeff G. ツ 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was the first result which I thought was funny. I appreciate your links but I really couldn't care if their wiki is falling apart.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The World According to Conservapedia

In one of the earlier threads it mentioned that, as of writing, Hosni Mubarak is still President of Egypt^img and Ben Ali is still President of Tunisia^img.

• Joe Miller is still running for the Alaskan Senate Seat^img
• Christine O'Donnell is still running for the Delaware Senate seat^img and her opponent still "has a socialist mentality on par with Obama's radical agenda."
• Outside of MPR blog items, there is no article about any of the revolutions in the Middle East, which is without doubt one of the stories of the decade.
• The most interesting aspect of Gabrielle Giffords is that a Latino [unmentioned - gay] man saved her life^img. They devote half the article talking about the Latino (hat tip to Jack Martinez), with virtually nothing about who is Giffords and what are her beliefs.
• J.D. Hayworth is still running against John McCain^img
• Conan O'Brien's new show is to premiere on November 8th^img

Just a few. You know, if they actually had standards that they applied they might attract more contributors who can keep this stuff up. The only thing not in a state of decay on CP are their gimmicks and MP (which relies on wikilinks to decayed articles). --Leotardo (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cry me a river Retardo--193.200.150.82 (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How would Sarah Palin and her Down Syndrome baby feel about you calling me Retardo? God made all of us, Jpatt, in all of our beautiful forms. --Leotardo (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. You're a liberal. You don't deserve to be treated like a human being. Welcome to the conservative mindset. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But Sarah Palin's baby could grow up to be a liberal so why does she get to be considered human until we know her politics?! She could end up the Down Syndrome Meghan McCain. --Leotardo (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We really need a template for JPratt, along the lines of Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. HI JPRATT! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a basic one - Hi ^JPratt!. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically the problem with CP is that the chiefs chased away all the Indians and now there is no one to help out anymore. - π 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What Pi said. Also, look at the Pratt's recent contributions. Virtually everyone related to blog-topics and none to building an encyclopedic home-school resource, even after some major errors have been pointed out here.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, one of the more prominent CP editors response to Leotardo is "Cry me a river, Retardo". Not like, you know, fix his shitty wiki he's so proud to be a part of. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

it's a small wiki. give the bastards a break--Brxbrx (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's just say that Retardo points out errors on CP. I chose not to fix.... I don't think any less of CP. In fact, we all know there a number of errors within all wiki's. As you pour over every word posted here, there, everywhere- my 'new' contributions are adding up. I love it when I wake up in the morning and Conservapedia is still there. You know my IP is blocked so I must comment by proxy- AskJeeven. --193.200.150.152 (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi ^JPratt!! Would those errors include grocer's apostrophes and malapropisms? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

But Jpatt, just imagine how much more you'd love it, if your beloved blog was being used and quoted as a reliable source. Instead, you're being derided and laughed at by all sides of the spectrum. Still, if that's what makes you happy... --PsyGremlinSiarad! 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems to make Ken

happy, but then those of low IQ are the most easily amused.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought name calling was a liberal trait yet here we have JPatt calling someone "Retardo". Besides, what gets you smiling in the morning is Conservapedia?? What would you do if its gone? Be depressed? Commit suicide? That blog is all you have??--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See? That's what I don't get about CP's attitude. They read this page religiously and often perform the updates we suggest. Unfortunately they fail to give credit or even do the Christian thing and say thank you. Take JPatt for instance, he'll quickly remove Vincent Gallo from his list of Conservative Famous People or whatever it was called, but hides it in a minor edit and doesn't even have the common decency to thank us for pointing out the mistake and improving his resource for free. Now, I'd be happy to tell him the two other names that really shouldn't be on that page, if only he'd man up and thank us for our help.

Another thing is the typos, that they'll fix when pointed out on obscure pages (again hiding the change) but when we point out something that makes the site look bad for obvious reasons or because the mistake's in a prominent place, they do nothing. It's a real case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Take KJ's toon for instance, within a day we pointed out he'd spelt the name of famous band wrong, has he fixed it? No. Is it still on the front page? Yes. All that does is breed doubt in the minds of their readers, if they can't get a spelling right (particularly after Andy criticised the mainstream media for apparently making a spelling mistake) then what else are they wrong about without even realising it? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember an occasion on which Andy put an embarrassing error on the front page (like wrongly accusing a liberal and gloating about it, or something). A parodist pointed it out politely. Andy removed it. My only wish is that the parodist had, instead, really rubbed Andy's face in it so that Andy would batten down the hatches and turn the error into reality. What a missed opportunity that was. Someone else remarked on it here on TWIGO, too. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This site and its members have probably done more to improve CP than any of the sysops on their volition; their pride however will never allow them to thank us but only to see us as "enemies". People like that need "enemies", least of all so they can continue to fuel their persecution complex to fulfill their need to feel like victims. Also, isn't pride the worst sin? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, CP's single biggest problem is that they've starved themselves of any wiki's lifeblood - editors. In the past, they've had more than their share of people who specialised in certain fields and were prepared to write about it. However, a combination of Andy and his cronies' inferiority complexes, fear of the unknown (i.e. just about everything), believing an ignoramus like Ed knows anything about maths, and TK's long-term game plan, has made sure that all that's left are a bunch of parodists, and sysops, who either write about blogs, copy/paste stuff from government sites, write about ponies and flying cats, or who just make shit up. I also smile each morning when I see CP is still up. But for totally different reasons. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

CP is entirely responsible for creating a thriving, friendly community. The sad irony is that that community is here on this site, and the community they tried to build over there was ripped apart by their short-sighted policies, paranoia and abrasive personalities. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt, nobody cares whether you feel better or worse about CP. I don't think anyone here cares for the pride, boasting, name-calling and harsh view of humanity that you all espouse on that website and are not interested in seeing you improve to be more influential. Please, leave in the typos, mistakes, wrong names and outdated information and continue writing gimmicks like St. George Washington, PZ Myers is a fat pig and flying kitties. Continue to care more about who is writing and not what they are writing. Most of us are here to gloat and ridicule your failures, of which there are many; whether you choose to address them is irrelevant. --Leotardo (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia's biggest shortcoming is that it's pure ideology. It's so ideological that it loses sight of everything else. On CP, ideology comes before honesty, ideology comes before decency, ideology comes before understanding, ideology comes before integrity, and ideology comes before common sense. Why is the-world-according-to-CP so flawed? Because CP's sysops have so little interest in the world as it is, and instead report the world as it appears through the lens of their sad bubble of paranoia.Apokalyps2547 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Iscat, Iscat, Iscat "they fail to give credit or even do the Christian thing and say thank you. Take JPatt for instance" you know that is not true. [4] Now go back to playing with your sack. --[[User:--193.200.150.125 (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)|Wee Wee]]

Must have missed where the words 'thank you' were in that edit summary. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you missed "fail to give credit" but still looking for a thank you. I don't have it in me. ([[--193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)| block ID is #27224]])

With all this name calling I feel like joining in - Conservapedia once had enough boring, page updating, sensible editors to allow the sysops' (look at that apostrophe JPratt) crazy edits to go unnoticed my many casual readers. Now they have all been banned or driven off, an only the insanity remains; the site has been distilled to its (no apsotrophe here) pure form. Now I've said my opinion, please, insult me. Make me bleed inside. Turn my username upon itself in a subtle and invidious mockery. Noodledicksissypants (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey noodledickless, subtle mockery is what makes the rats'world go round. Hey BMcP, I see that creating pages was more fun on CP then on RW [[--193.200.150.82 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)| block ID is #27224]]

But if I have no dick, how is said dick noodle-y? Or do you mean that I have no noodledick. Am I (noodledick)less or noodle(dickless), to use the language of math(s)? Noodledicksissypants (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When I renamed your account I sort of had in mind a dark-haired, scowling, overweight Italian guy in his early 40's wearing sweatpants with a H&K .40 cal tucked in the waistband to conceal that he's self-conscious about his spindly peen. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Like this [5]? A Yao Chi Celestial whatnot is what I get as first result. I'm not sure if I should be gratified or mortified. Noodledicksissypants (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

So I've been away for a month and haven't checked in with RW the entire time. I just got back and was about to ask what I missed, but decided to check RWW and a few other things first. But now I have to ask, did TK really die? That came out of nowhere. Has CP acknowledged it? What the fuck? I guess this ends the potential pool on his date of return. DickTurpis (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, TK is a goner. CP really hasn't acknowledged it publicly. The closest thing would be when Andy didn't deny that TK died when Willminator asked Andy on his talk page if he had info on TK's death^img, and Andy said no. Karajou and Joaquín Martínez also left purty flowers on TK's userpage. As for Conservative, he wished TK farewell by, well, deleting and restoring his talk page by the looks of it.

If you want to see some of the CP sysops' reactions in the recent leaks, go here. ~SuperHamster Talk 07:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome back by the way. ~SuperHamster Talk 07:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Jpatt was planning on mentioning both Regan's 100th birthday and the passing of TK in honor of their contributions on the main page (see the leak). Andy objected to it, however, because "posting about [TK] might just bring out abominable, sick comments by liberals." ~SuperHamster Talk 07:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

so i assume that covering the event up ISN'T gonna cause the liberals to wonder why TK has just... vanished??? brilliant logic as usual Andy LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 08:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SusanG found out about it and posted a screencap from US Social Security (?) website. The Conservagoons read about it here. They knew that TK had had some major medical problems in 2009 but apparently none of his alleged fab-five friends bothered to call him up to see why he had dropped off the radar. Yes, they posted a few flower gifs on TK's user page but that is redolent of Facebook sloganeering. I guess that's all you can expect from every-man-for-himself Teabagging sympathisers. Once Andy knew he locked down TK's account. In other news; Geo.plrd got desysopped for "inactivity". WTF?!?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I know everybody bad-mouthed TK but at the end of the day if it wasn't for him then I think RationalWiki as we know it would never have been founded.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget our buddy Rob, classy as ever, turning up and trying to blame me for TK's death. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"none of his alleged fab-five friends bothered to call him up to see why he had dropped off the radar." How would that work, exactly?

• (phone rings)
• TK:hello?
• Andy:Hi, TK, what's up, you haven't edited in a while?
• TK:I died.
• Andy:OK then. Bye!

For all we know they did try to contact him, but without success. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude did have family. Just sayiing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They hated him to. He lived with his elderly and barely coherent mother and was mostly estranged from his brother. He probably had more contact with his cousin than anyone, but it was only through her lawyers and if anything the final topic of conversation would have been Terry delaying her getting her own money in a family lawsuit shortly before he died. He was a miserable person online and off. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

maybe we snoop a liiiitlle too much--Brxbrx (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could Nutty's post be memory-holed? I don't feel we should have this level of personal information on here, even about someone who's died. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Despite your good intentions here the policy doesn't cover non-living persons and there's not enough information to identify his family members. Terry was reviled on both sides of the screen. People need to know that. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because your post also relates to living members of his family. The Real James Brown (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

public domain and conservapedia

looking at joaquin's recent contribs - it's really surprising to see how much of a anti-government website is built on government articles - see the template here - virtually every article on a country has it.--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajuju's pretty good at ripping stuff from the gov't; all the ships & battles & similar stuff. (403d so can't pick any samples) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't TK try to claim copying-and-pasting government sources isn't plagiarism becuase tax payers paid for the work? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much like saying that its okay to pirate a game (or other electronic media) because somebody else payed for its development. The only reason for pirating something is usually because you are as poor as shit, like I am. heh. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 03:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. All works of the US Gov't are public domain (doesn't mean it's not plagiarism to copy without attribution, though). ħuman 05:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it was TK. Also claimed it's only plagiarism if there's academic gain. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

His rant here^img is especially good, given how it followed on us highlighting yet another copy/paste effort on his part. I like how he defends his posturing by saying "Anyone who argues differently is either a troll or liar, most likely both," which means "disagree with me and I'll block you." Typical coward behaviour on CP. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Encore de Roger Mason

Remember Schlafly's tantrum about a teenager called Roger Mason who discovered the first fossil known to be from pre-Cambrian rocks? (A genuine case of a teenager not being prejudiced by scientific orthodoxy, only his discovery didn't fit Schlafly preconceptions.) David Attenborough has made a short radio programme about the Charnwood fossils. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's toon ... of himself?

Just saw Karajou's cartoon and it reminded me of an email interaction I had with...Karajou (quotes from emails):
First, you call them filthy names

• "stupid"
• "gutless coward"
• "rat"

Then, you make up lies and believe they are true

• In the discussion group, Karajou boasted about promulgating my personal communication with a CP user, but in emails to me, he seemed rather convinced by his lies:

• "there was absolutely no input from me whatsoever."
• "I had nothing to do with posting anything from you on any other site"

If you're caught at it, you whine, deny everything

• From the beginning, Karajou had been demanding I bring litigation against him with his classic "orders"

• "you're going to get a hold of your local police department and file a report"
• "You're also going to explain to them - as well as a JUDGE - how you got a hold of "discussiongate," which is a private web-based group meant for others to discuss the ways and means of protecting Conservapedia. You're going to do all of that whether or not you like it. And I do hope you know the local laws pertaining to filing a false police report."
• "you WILL file a police report."
• "See you in a courtroom."
• "I'm demanding litigation. You're going to face me down here in a courtroom; you're stuck with it now whether you like it or not, and whatever I have to say from this point on will be said directly to a judge. I'm calling your bluff, stupid."
• "Better start filing those papers. I'm not kidding, Jeff. You're going to court."
• "File the court papers. I expect a subpoena to be placed in my hands within a week."

• But he quickly changed his "toon", vehemently refusing all attempts to obtain contact information for his legal counsel and denying everything:

• "I'm not cooperating with you."
• "this conversation is over"

I guess it's what you can expect from someone like Karajou, but it was amazing to watch it unfold right in front of my face. JeffT (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic Popeye! I'll bet he even swears under his breath. But I err, Popeye, for all his faults, was noble and true; Karajou on the other hand is just nasty and vindictive simply because you're not on his side. 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Karajou is such an angry sonofabitch that I suspect he'll have a heart attack and join TK within a few years. The re-election of Obama might do it. DickTurpis (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

...of liberals?? SJ ^Debaser 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Upon posting this, Karajou has blessed me with more idiocy. He told me that he won't identify himself (or his lawyer) and that I'm the coward for not filing a civil suit against him...whoever he is...all in the same sentence!!! JeffT (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What is it with this guy and his enthusiasm for lawsuits directed against him? Usually cranks will threaten to sue everybody else, but he's somehow getting a rise out of being dragged to court? Röstigraben (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

His lawyer? More like some toothless crank buddy of his who looked at some law books while he was in prison. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

brilliant. I just read it and was offended, but reading this post made me feel all better--Brxbrx (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

he may as well be scratching down stick figures with speech bubbles saying "liberals suck"--Brxbrx (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I've given up on expecting him to man up. Now, I'm playing his small man card by saying that if he doesn't respond, I've won. I can't believe he's still going. And it just keeps getting dumber and more hateful. And I just keep asking the same question..."Are you afraid to put me in contact with your lawyer? If so, just don't respond." We're on like round 6 of that with no end in sight. JeffT (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just be pleased that you're such a strong focus in his life that he's willing to give you credit for "tipping the balance of the November Election more in our favor." That's some pretty heavy shit right there. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I used to think Ken was the looniest of the bunch, but after paging through the super-secret discussion group archives, I'm not so sure that it isn't Popeye.Simple (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken's just "simple", Kajagoogoo's psychotic (?) 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, throughout all the discussion groups, from 2007 to present, Karajou continues to try and bring lawsuits upon everyone, gets into a complete froth everytime anyone disagrees with him, spins tales of abusing people that come into his shop and spews non-stop hatred. One of the most crazy moments was in ZB2 early 2010 (can't recall the exact one) where his goes against EmersonWhite. He thjinks EmersonWhite is Icewedge and his reasoning was "EmersonWhite, Immerse in white, dive into snow, cover in ice....you see where this leads?". No shit. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

i have to admit that i actually like the toon. the bit about call collecting is absolutely hilarious. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 22:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Awe, they love me...Too bad I was in colorado when Icewedge was doing his thing.--Opcn (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a crime to threaten legal action and then not follow through? Something about the defending parties (potentially) spending money on consulting their lawyers in preparation etc... X Stickman (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, public policy favors people not filing lawsuits precisely because they're a lot more expensive and disruptive than bluster. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers can get into trouble. Unlike a layman they (ought to) know whether something is actionable and so if you have evidence that an actual lawyer is sending bogus legal threats you should complain to the jurisdiction in which they're licensed to practice and to their bar association. There is an excellent chance you will hear nothing but the threats will mysteriously stop as someone "has a quiet word". But yes, for laymen you should just treat legal threats as bluster until you get contact from a real lawyer. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Karajou has been dreaming about a dramatic courtroom battle for years; perhaps it would be turned into a major motion picture! Unfortunately for him it's just a dream, though he continues to think that it may one day come true. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All this is law talk is fucking boring. We need action. I am going to Tennesse, right to Karajou's home town. Then I am gonna kick his ass. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going down Karajou...

Whilst you're there, nip up to Buffalo and debate Ken on his Mum's doorstep. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajou being a spineless coward, and gigantic hypocrite? Nothing new, but this bit is good enough to put in a fancy frame and hang above the fireplace! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

GO ACE! Senator Harrison (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah good old Karajou's projection comes shining through again. I still can't get the image of him, clad in camo pants and a vest, a couple of days' stubble on his chin, swigging from a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20, as he rants and rails against the world. Also, I notice the response to the mail he sent all those media people was.... silence. Maybe they took one look at his "I demand that you drop everything and write a piece on how these Rats want to steal my kidneys" and chucked it,. or he's as bad as lying about actually reporting stuff as Andy is. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest though, Karajou would be the only CP sysop I wouldn't approach in real life. I would introduce myself as an RWian to Andy and he'd just "ha ha ha" his funny laugh but I am sure he'd be polite. As would Ed I am sure (though he'd probably ask for a life plan) and Ken would just run in fear and deny all knowledge. RobS doesnt get out and spends his days in a bunker and JPatt would just swear and yell. Karajou though - I can see him actually getting physical. Detaining you at gun point while waiting for the authorities to arrive...just daring you to move. Ace ^{of Spades} 09:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Karajou is the only sysop who remains as belligerent and threatening in off-site e-mails as he does in his backroom rants. Problem is, he wouldn't have the guts to do it alone. No, you go down to Hicksville, Tennessee, and the minute he learns you're in town, you'll find yourself surround by a posse of good ol' boys going "You ain't from around these parts, ain'tcha boy?" --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And worse still I gotta real pruddy mouth. And I aint no good at squealing. Ace ^{of Spades} 10:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Any real life meeting with Karajerk should be quoting line for line from 0:50 of this video. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The thought of turning up at Karajoke's house and offfering him a six-pack and a box of smokes is actually quite an amusing thought, i must say. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 10:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if things got physical with Andy I wouldn't be worried. He looks like he has the upper body strength of a toddler. --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to whether Ken or Karajerk is the biggest loony I think that they are all mad but in different ways. There is quite a selection of delusions on show when you go through Conservaleaks. Geoff, Dean, LearnTogether and TK all come over as the most sane (if you make allowances for TK just playing a Walter Mitty game for his private fun). Andy genuinely believes that if people just read the Bibull and Conservapedia that they will be saved; he and Karajerk still labour under the delusion that they are creating an encyclopedic resource; Karajerk wants to throw everyone in the brig or give them a good spanking to whip them into line and make people follow orders unquestioningly; Ken has a childlike idiocy with his silly 'man of mystery' persona and the belief that he is massing unnamed forces to fight his ideological crusade against the godless; Rob is a chilling 1950s McCarthyite throwback, seeing reds under the bed, the sofa and everywhere else; JPratt appears as one of those low-IQ bigots with an arsenal in his basement thinking that he is doing the Lord's work; Ed exhibits hyper-inflated delusions of adequacy and modesty but genuinely believes that he is a nice and fair guy while exhibiting bipolar character reversals, I think that he is probably deeply tormented by his inner demons, fighting worldly temptations.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good analysis Lily. Only one you missed is Terry Chuckarse, who falls into much the same boat as Karajerk - dimwitted bully, relying on bluster and threats to get his point across. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I was going to cover him but I got distracted during my post. Yes, Temlakos is seriously spooky especially with his hard-core creationism. Andy is an idiot-creationist, he doesn't really understand any of the science he just feels that as a literal Bible believer the Earth must be only 6400 years old. TerryH consciously rejects the secular OE evidence and accepts all the wacko hydroplate theory (it's only a theory!) and other made-up creation-science as fact. Coupled with his Tea-Bagging and Digg Patriots malarkey he's probably the most dangerous one over there. But then stereotypical villains are always mad doctors.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention what we've learned from the leaks about his Ignatius-like loyalty to Andy. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 19:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Lily, brilliant. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken's socking up

It's sad really. Not only is his "90 days' absence" a complete farce, he's been reduced to creating socks, in this case Anupam, to cover his tracks. Luckily Ken is as likely to change his editing style and writing style, as I am to grow a pair of 38DD beauties and make page 3 of the Sun. [2]^img Anupam also seems to editing around exclusive Ken territory, and Ken even unsocks himself, to create the impression of 2 editors working on the article.

What a sad, pathetic little man to go to such lengths to dance for us. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I wondered but not too sure though. Ace ^{of Spades} 11:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

He claims^img to edit WP under the same name, and the Anupam over there seems to be an established editor with lots of knowledge about India. Unless Ken's been plagiarizing his work in order to establish his cover, it would mean he had one hell of a long-term plan for sockpuppetry. On the other hand, his talk page comments on CP do look suspicious. Röstigraben (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone ask straight up on the WP user's talk page? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no, but I was suspicious. Nonetheless, Ken aint the only weird fucker out there. Ace ^{of Spades} 11:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if he had found someone who could teach him about writing and referencing. What I don't get is how an experienced Wikipedian could look at that trainwreck of an article and decide that he'd like to cooperate^img with its author. Röstigraben (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I just took a peek at some of his stuff, and I really don't think it's Ken. For one thing, he seems coherent, and you can read his writing without stopping every sentence to say "ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?" Goodness knows, all those Ray Comfort/atheists control science/YEC is true/whatever lies are believed by more than two or three people out there. Maybe this is just one of those otherwise intelligent people who believe a batshit insane set of ideas, that isn't interested in any of the site outside a narrow focus. --Kels (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is Ken then he has gone to extraordinary lengths to create a character. Because of the better English and better wiki-fu I believe he is the genuine article.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me what mixed everyone up is (a) Ken's history of socking up and talking to himself, (b) the extreme unlikelihood of a real person wanting to and succeeding at actually engaging Ken, and (c) the similarity of material these weirdos are interested in. I think it's the real deal too. And as I read this person's attempts to communicate with Ken I see the same pattern of non-responses only Ken can muster. It's only a matter of time before this editor comes to the same conclusions about Ken everyone else does and just walks away shaking his head. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Anupam's wikipedia page indicts someone with a wider range on interests than Ken's

. Ken's monomania tends to prevent him from having ideas outside a narrow scope. Unless he was once interested in Indo-Aryan cultures, I can't see it being him. - π 23:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Anupam's did do Ken's smiley face thing, on his talk page. I mean, does anybody else find this disturbing:

I have enabled my conservapedia email as per your request. Feel free to send me an email. conservative 06:19, 5 March 2011 (EST)

Thank you! I have sent you an email now :) With regards, AnupamTalk 06:35, 5 March 2011 (EST)

i mean, an high-powered idiot sysop ACTUALLY agreeing to an editors request??? It does not really add up. Also, the following comment is hillarious:

Anupam, please tell me how you got a message to this sysop? I've been trying to figure out how to talk to him since I got here. DevonJ 07:24, 5 March 2011 (EST)

I have a feeling someone's about to get banned for no reason. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 00:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this proves without a shadow of a doubt that Anupam is Ken [3]^img. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 00:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I believe you. Others would know better than me, but your evidence seems good.--Brxbrx (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, as of now, Ken's email is active, whilst he is waiting for "DevonJ" to send him an email. anyone with a sock on CP at the moment; here is your chance. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 01:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you going to say? Attempts to engage Ken in discussion have proved futile in the past. He shown that the very concept of conversation is alien to him. He is also intellectual dishonest and will use his little shadow puppet games to distance himself from his own poor behavior. He has 100s of email accounts he will just abandon this one if he gets spammed or flamed. You gain nothing by sending him an email. - π 01:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything, im just pointing it out. LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I just let the real Anupam (the Wikipedia one) know about the situation (Ken stealing his identity) on his talk page. Advisements? LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The mystery deepens. If it's indeed plagiarism, this is definitely the strangest action I've seen out of Ken so far. Why on earth would he steal someone's stuff and engage in identity theft like that, instead of simply setting up a regular sock account without a backstory that could be checked? As it stands, he can consider himself lucky that Anupam's cool with what he's done. Still, he's taken his strange behaviour to a new level. Röstigraben (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lachybus! [yes, that is me on WP (don't ask)!] Thanks for your concern, it is fine for that account to be using my work here on Wikipedia. I do not mind if anyone uses my work. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 4:06 pm, Today (UTC+11)

Okay, kinda creeped out now... LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 09:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Secularized Language Again

As I write, MPL still boasts that "Google ranks us #1 for listing examples of Secularized Language", yet that rank has plummeted to #5 (at least on Australian Google). Some scallywag with too much time popped Andy's hubris bubble.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd. That'll show him. He should try figuring out how to google bomb.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone who who is running "secularizedlanguage.info"? Is it one of us? After all, the site does quote RW. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It is now gone from the main page, with the edit summary "trim a bit"^img. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not gone, but shrunk. It is still there. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 19:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, now I see it. Too bad he doesn't link to the search result itself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Searching for "seculariSed language, CP is nowhere. This proves CP's point because 'ise' is British and therefore atheist and liberal, whereas 'ize' is American and therefore god-fearing and conservative. QED. If anyone can refute this argument, they're obviously condemned to eternal damnation already. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "one of you" per se but I sporadically follow Conservapedia's idiocy. I've been pouring myself into the art of SEO lately, and when I saw Schlafly's ridiculous boast about ranking for a practically nonexistent keyword I knew what I had to do. -- Some scallywag ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.17.201.251 / talk / contribs}

As I'm an 403-outcast I'm not entirely sure if this is old or new (I can't look it up that way) but, sodomy = relations? So I've gotta ask, how's the public sodomy department of your church doin'? --Ullhateme (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC) ===Ken

to the rescue===

They are still no. 1 in two Googles that are not English.^img Even though the article is about English, you dumb fuck. - π 23:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"nice try gentlemen, but no cigars! Back to the drawing board :) LOL" How could he possibly view this as a victory? does he think spanish and mandarin (or whatever they speak in Hong Kong) will be googling secularized language? What a dumb fuck. Talk about denial.--Brxbrx (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is tempting to do a Spanish and Mandarin version of the page... - π 00:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Andy to come in and say: "Rational wiki is why we can't have nice things"--Brxbrx (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He only says that in the private discussion groups. - π 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That is pure awesome. Ken, I will never tire of you. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken is like watch Little Britain. You know what is going to happen, it is the same joke every week, you are sitting there waiting to see how it is going to come about this time. - π 00:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

[6] here's a start. google translate isn't bad. my Spanish is far from perfect, but there aren't many glaring errors here--Brxbrx (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken's your attempts to be a Google wanker are laughable. Is secularized language the No. 1 trending term on Twitter? You do know that RationalWiki is number one for Poe's Law in Indonesia, Argentina and Russia and many others? Do you think that the locals in Cuban, China and Hong Kong are flocking to Conservapedia because of a search term that none of them would think of using? Mr DeMyer, your actions are risible and are no more than the childish boast of "my dad's got a faster car than your dad".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, kinda getting tingles here. seriously. Badass Boast ftw! (damn you TVTropes!) LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the two Googles they now reference are Cuba (communist) and Hong Kong (part of communist China). The Cuba one doesn't rank CP first anyway. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like secularizedlanguage.info has overtaken CP in Cuba and Hong Kong as well. I guess all those Hispanic and Asian ladies won't bolster CP's ranks after all. Röstigraben (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's red telephone time^img. Fuck, he really is a total moron. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And burned. Along with Karajerk's talk page. What I love the most, is even if it comes up tops in Cuba or Hong Kong, let anybody try and edit from there... Still, it's comforting to see Ken still masturbates himself to sleep with wild fantasises about the imaginary debates he wins. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that's proven himself once again to be an out-and-out liar, suffering from OCD and delusions of grandeur, whose sole purpose on CP is to make people point and laugh at him. --PsyGremlinHable! 10:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, my first shout-out. Doesn't that just depend on the language set in the preferences, though? Google Hong Kong has CP ranked #1 only for searches in traditional Chinese, while simplified and - more importantly - English have the other site as the top result. While Chinese speakers in Hong Kong use traditional characters, I doubt many of them will search for "secularized language" in English. So Ken, if you'd like to see search results that are more flattering to CP, I suggest you set your Google preferences to one of these languages, then you'll rank higher in .com searches, too. Röstigraben (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Hong Kong was also a former British colony so any English speaking natives would use the UK spelling. Also, I now use Chrome as my browser and you can include the &pws=0 parameter in the search string options without resorting to fancy add-ins. I'm afraid Ken lacks machismo in attracting Anglo-Saxon ladies.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'm disappointed. I was hoping you'd be using your 90-day editing sabbatical to seek some help. Please, please do. It's gone from the stages of laughing at your stuff to worrying about your really, really weird editing patterns. I've noticed your edit count has gone down in the last week or two, but it's still disturbingly high. Andy and the other CP sysops obviously don't give a fuck about you (genuinely sorry to say), so sort it out yourself. SJ ^Debaser 11:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm, Ken, before you boast^img to Andy about your awesome SEO skills, make sure that your tricks actually work. Go on, try adding that parameter to the results and see if anything changes. Röstigraben (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's wonderful to watch them getting into a circle jerk, because ONE item - and that a made up phrase by Andy - makes it to the top of Google. What about all the other entries for the Trustworthy Encyclopaedia? You know, the one that was going to destroy Wikipedia? Talk about grasping straws. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

they've hidden Ken

's edit. luckily we screen cap everything--Brxbrx (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

On an extremely tangential note

I noticed that Generalissimo Fransisco Franco Fidel Castro is still dead.^img - π 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

For quite a while, it seems Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dammit I was doing so well, or least I think I was. But now I can't tell when my true and verifiable addition was removed because Kenny nuked the edit history as usual. I had conflicting information toward the end of the article pointing out that Castro met with Da Silva and Chavez while he was supposed to be dead. It now reads that this was likely a body double. I can't effectively parody that. It's too fucking stupid. Cheers Ken. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Conservapedia's reach extends beyond the grave. 68.147.147.118 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

English, Andy, do you speak it?

I was looking through the talk page and noticed this gem^img from Andy:

“”I'd be inclined to leave that in for informative purposes, even though you're reason for deleting it is probably. Perhaps with a footnote?

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Open your mind, Lily! He does teaching writing so must know what he's talking about. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy is a "Drunkard". Senator Harrison (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

TK, is that you?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but TK's theory makes sense to me. He writes things that are so non-sensical you can't figure out what the hell he's saying. I haven't seen anything like that since peer-editing in elementary school. Andy is a drunkard. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's certainly the explanation we'd like to cling to, because the thought of Andy spouting the things he does, while stone cold sober, is too frightening to contemplate. Of course, if we were to apply the same standard to all sysops, then Terry Chuckarse is taking CIA-stash LSD intravenously. With occasional breaks for DMT. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't kettleticket say Andy didn't drink at all? How frightening is that? Sober and so maniacal. 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that Andy fits the mold of your average fundie, but secret boozing isn't exactly all that uncommon in that crowd. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been mentioned here before, but the most annoying part is that when someone else makes a spelling or grammatical error he makes a big deal out of it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy makes an issue of other people's spelling but then he relies on the FF spellchecker which, unfortunately for him, doesn't do grammar. Here's another example from American History Homework 6^img: 6. Robert E. Lee. Who was his, and what's your view of him? Silly twit (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When test scores seem too good to believe

I don't have time to find the necessary diffs, but this^img should test the WIGO code in terms of "how high can the vote go?" Andy whining about test scores being implausibly high has got to take the biscuit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was about cricket. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he started grading 20 minutes after he wrote that. None of the seven students got below 95%. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes it especially delicious irony, is the Assfly himself cheated. Aran M's [7] score was 57/60, whilst everbody elses marks were out of 90. He reduced the fricking marks because he didnt do 2 questions. If that happened in real life, Assfly would be investigated and inevitably fired. The bastard. I COULD JUST OM NOM NOM ON THIS IRONY/HYPOCRACY ALL DAY!!!!:):):) LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Something I noticed - Each question counts for ten points - appropriate for essay questions, but not for the short-form questions Andy is asking. He rarely marks off more than one point, though, as if he were grading them "correct" "incorrect" or "partial." As a result, a student won't get less than 80/90 unless he just leaves some of them blank (and apparently not even then). In short, it's impossible for one of Andy's students to get less than a B+. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He did give a student 12/90^img, but he rarely gives below 90% and that low mark was given more because he didn't like the answers than anything else. Also, his grading is like his worldview: everything's either black or white. Out of ten possible points he awards either zero/one or nine/ten. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That grade is making me RAGE!!!! "failure to follow directions". Andy, following directions means doing what someone tells you to do, not answering a question correctly... LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

When I saw that one of the grades was out of 60 instead of 90, I thought that that was a girl being given an easier assignment. But removing a question from grading if a student doesn't answer it? I'm not sure which is worse. Syndrome (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the assignment^img, the first part says answer 6 out of 8 questions (60 points). The second part is called "Honors Questions" and asks to answer 3 of 5 questions (30 points). It looks like some students weren't suppose to do the second part. Maybe the "Honors Questions" is just a way to hide his sexism and in actuality all the boys are honors and all the girls aren't.

Anyways, he's marked a few more. Five of them got 89/90. Out of 18 students, only one got below 95%^img and that's only because they answered 5 questions instead of six. The average for the assignment was about 97%. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycott?

Who slapped the boycott on? Ace ^{of Spades} 02:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

hmm... my name is slugboy 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

wat?--Brxbrx (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Goonie. Blue (pester) 03:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Did he mention this to anyone? LordSlug ^{All Heil Me!} 03:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? No discussion? I boycott Goonies boycott! Ace ^{of Spades} 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm holding a counter-boycott to Ace's boycott of my boycott. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 14:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's only advisory, no? Clickbot (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in. Fuck all of you. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with the discrimination? There should be a Girlcott, too. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that, I wan to know what they've got against the other great Yorkshiremen. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycott? Thanks for telling me! I've just been editing over there! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"boycott"

There's no reason we should deprive ourselves of lulz. For boycotts like this, could we take advantage of capturebot to do the visiting for us? That way each page would only have one visit from RW. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to boycott because if AS doesn't reboot his server soon it'll all come tumbling down. It's slow and pages aren't loading very 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Is it something they did that's causing some sort of resource leak? It seems almost periodic. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycotts of CP are silly and pointless liberal self agrandisement. Why boycott something that is marginal, has no influence and subsequently affects nobody? CP is a source of entertainment I refuse to do without. What's the point of a boycott? Auld Nick (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

CP may have influence among schoolkids and among credulous adults from the religious right. I'm not Jesus (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It could also be argued that as (I assume) most of us read CP via recent changes and diff links these days, that we don't really affect page view stats anyway. Besides, my latest sock might be getting rights soon, so not going to give that up. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What, you're Anupam? My you're good.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Resisting urge to post Rick Astley video... SJ ^Debaser 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Do it an die. Just sayin'. PsyGremlinPrata! 12:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, it's Housemartins and Beautiful South all day with you but when someone else wants to have a go you get all huffy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, just because you know all the words to Rick's songs and like to dress up as Bros and admire yourself in the mirror... --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Economics fail

You'd think that somebody who taught an economics class would know that economic indicators are released a month or two in arrears.^img --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I just love how conservatives think spending cuts are good for the economy. Why don't we just cut the budget by half and watch the economy take off and unemployment plummet? I'm doing my part for the economy by spending as little as possible. DickTurpis (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't quite the conservative argument. The conservative argument is that they should cut taxes and hence spend less, because the private sector can spend more efficiently than the government. MDB (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the conservative argument, but it got too complicated for the Twitter age or something and it got simplified to "spending is hurting the economy", which I've heard numerous times from all sorts of politicians. That's the argument the Assfly made above; he's not arguing that the GOP House cut taxes, just that they cut spending and magically reduced the unemployment rate (which has been dropping slowly for months). DickTurpis (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Silly me. I was thinking of the days when conservatives actually used reasoned, rational debate rather than sound bites. MDB (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see it now, Interstates built by megacorps: You get on Interstate 3000 and there will be a guy in a Walmart vest, driving 35mph, with his left turn signal on since the stone age, this though will be a good thing as Walmart would have it's subcontractors cut 20% off of their bids (making up for this hit to their profits by using cheaper and cheaper materials), so driving at a safe, sane, 60mph would put your life at risk. 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I love Conservanomics because the Repubs don't have "policies" so much as they do a collection of cover stories and justifications for unloading more money to their campaign contributors (read: financial elite) pulled straight out of their asses. (Same goes for Dems but at least they're a bit less nakedly shameless about it.) It's only going to get even dumber over the next two years because some asshats decided to elect a Randroid sound money crank whose batshit insane "Roadmap" gets lauded by the press as "a bold plan" and "getting Serious(TM)." God, I love American politics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Keynesian stimulus is based on the idea that aggregate demand is the coordination of people who desire things with the means to acquire them. the notion behind government stimulus is that it can be the agent that coordinates them. The problem is that government can only get money in two ways. Either it can tax people (including inflation) which removes the means to acquire from people who would otherwise be counted in the aggregate demand column; or it can borrow, which draws desire off of contributing to the economy and instead focuses it on getting financial devices called T-bills. There is no way that the government can add to aggregate demand, all it can do is shift it from the private sector to the public sector. The value in govt spending comes from the things they spend on, not putting money into the pockets of workers. If the govt could build roads with robots and not pay any workers that would be even better. --Opcn (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the "crowding out" theory definitely belongs under the heading of "economic fail" in a fiat currency system. Can you explain how net financial assets increase if the government can't create money? I wonder if my local bank would be willing to sell me that printing press they're hiding in the basement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I addressed Inflation, did you read what I wrote? Expanding on the point: Inflation is a tax on anyone holding dollar denominated assets. A printing press doesn't increase the real value of assets, however a tax (inflation) or borrowing is just a way for the government to manage to lay claim to capital (both in the form of physical goods and in the form of human capital) and the government competes with the private sector for those things. This shifts the demand curve to the right (which you would think would be a good thing, boosting aggregate demand), but that raises the price point too which stretches all the supply curves up. The higher supply curve means that less efficient firms get locked out. As part of creative destruction this is a fine thing to happen, but when they are competing with the public sector the entity crowding them out of their markets doesn't actually have to be more efficient or deliver a better product, because they are run on taxes or debt, and taxes have to be collected with an implicit threat to liberty or property. --Opcn (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Inflation is not a tax, period. We disagree because we are working from different definitions of money -- I'm talking about net financial assets (NFA), not real assets. Taxes destroy NFAs. If inflation were a tax, the US economy would have had negative value a long time ago. This post can explain better than I can: The Myth of Crowding Out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Taxes work on a subtractive basis, inflation works on a divisive basis. The financial assets remain out in the world, but inflation in the money supply lowers the real value of the money. Imagine that the people in a mythical nation called moneyland had a pool of 1000 moneybucks. divided evenly among 1000 of them, and that was enough that they could buy all they needed for 6 months. Then the money land govt. decided to fire up the printing presses and crank out 1000 more bucks. With twice the supply of money in moneyland and no real increase in resources it is not long until the inflationary response drops the value of a moneybuck to half what it was before. Now each person in moneyland still has 10 moneybucks to their name, but if anyone decided not to work they would run out of money in 3 months, not 6, but the government has the money required to feed 100 people for 3 months. As I said, it's a tax on people holding dollar denominated assets. I arrived at this conclusion myself (and learned economics as a furtherance of my study of evolution) but I am more convinced after hearing a 2006 interview with Milton Freidman in which he said that "Inflation is really a tax". --Opcn (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Inflation is not a tax, any more than pressure is a machine. Inflation could and did occur in societies which didn't have fiat money. You do NOT need to increase the money supply for prices to rise. All of your examples are muddled because you can't do arithmetic. 1000 people who have 1000 moneybucks "divided evenly" does not result in 10 moneybucks each. Moneyland is an unhelpful caricature, you can use it to draw myriad insane conclusions, like everyone in Moneyland starves because there's no way for them to earn enough money to stay alive any more. Rather than thinking of inflation as a tax, I recommend thinking of it as like water when you are a salmon swimming upstream. Salmon who stop swimming are immediately swept downstream. Inflation ensures that sitting on piles of money is a bad thing. A person with money will immediately want to invest it, we can't ensure they invest it wisely, but at least it isn't sitting around in a vault. Since the purpose of money is to facilitate such transactions, this is a good outcome 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Until that stream of inflation becomes a raging torrent of hyperinflation or even flows the other way into deflation. In times of crisis people have even been satisfied with a small negative rate of interest just to keep the bulk of their capital in a bank vault where in real terms they might actually end up with greater purchasing power even though they have fewer units. It's stupid to claim that people should invest for the sake of it even if they end up losing everything. People who have invested in government bonds which were regarded as safe have been ruined by inflation.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if the currency isn't fiat then inflation isn't a tax, but when it is fiat then inflation becomes a tax. That is one of the key differences. I think your claim about everyone in moneyland starving to death is a strawman. As inflation raises the prices rise, but so do wages as that money is returned to the economy. However, imagine a moneyland had strictly enforced laws preventing anyone from selling any food for anything but money, and making sure that they sold food at market value. The govt could print 10^9 units of money and buy all the food and stick it in a hole in the ground and then everyone would starve. No tax would have been passed, but still everyones stuff gets taken away by the govt in exchange for paper. --Opcn (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic, Andy claims that silly bills passed only by the House that are not yet law, and likely never will be, somehow finally got unemployment down to 9%? How about, UE is finally down to 9% (and hopefully headed lower), whatever may have helped? LORD knows it couldn't have been anything Obama did, but it sure as hELL wasn't anything the current House has (not) done. Does Andy really think employers went on a hiring spree (meaning consumers went on a buying spree) because of some GOPiot grandstanding in the HoR? ħuman 05:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the "Don't tax" plan under Bush clearly didn't work. I can't believe that anyone thought it would work, but they wanted to spend big money as a favor to political connections probably. --Opcn (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Human makes a good point, the legislation only passed the house, it doesn't affect anything unless/until it does, (which isn't likely); I think Jammy should rephrase the WIGO to reflect those facts as I won't change another's WIGO 'cept to add updates and speleing airs. 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

What?

Ok, I know it's Jpratt, but this borked news makes no sense^img "Human remains discovered in a Florida yard date back 2400 years, or 200-440 years Before Christ." a) So what? b) Just how long does he think Christ lived for? c) Human, how many times do you have to be told to clean your shit up when you're done? --PsyGremlinFale! 09:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep thinking he's trying to make a clever "WE RIGHT YOU WRONG" statement --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe its one of those young earth creationist things. Rationalize (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just quoting the linked article "...the results of radiocarbon dating tests are in and the bones are much older -- about 2,400 years -- placing them in the time period of 200-440 B.C." 212.90.69.65 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't radiocarbon dating persona non grata among creationists? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they really like it when it's Carbon14 dating to confirm an age that's consistent with creationism. Go figure. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not been to CP for a while but this inspired me to read their article on American Indians. It's kinda weird in places and sorta OK in others.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some especially dreadful commentary on Native Americans from Ed Poor and RSchlafly can be found on the Trail of Tears talk page: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Trail_of_Tears It's not new, but it's an antidote to the notion that Ed Poor is a pleasant duffus.--Simple (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I never see "Call Me Uncle" Ed as pleasant in the least, much as he wants to promote that image. Hell, he probably sees it himself, and can't figure out why we object when he speculates about how many little boys a Nazi can rape in a day. --Kels (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed is the sort of person I'd be worried about if I saw them hanging round a school gate. Very creepy! 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

FFS, not this again. You're basically accusing the guy of being a paedophile. On the grounds that you find him a bit creepy with some stuff he writes on a website. Get a grip. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you let him babysit? 19:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone would have to be a complete idiot to let him babysit.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I don't actually think he's a pedophile, but he does come off as a creepy mofo regardless given his focus on little boys and girls, to say nothing of how he approaches things like reproductive rights and homosexuality. His paternalistic "I'm the wise elder you should all look to for common sense" schtick (which, again, he probably believes) really doesn't help, since it slots into a pretty nasty paternalistic structure that comes from his cult. As to babysitting, I wouldn't let him. The kid wouldn't get molested, but you'd probably come home to find it on the roof or something. --Kels (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that I know a couple of people who always said of their dog: "Don't worry! He doesn't bite." right up until the dog did, indeed, bite. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What Kels said. 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't let anybody babysit whom I know only via the Internet. That is, if I had children in the first place. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Susan - had to step out there. Would I let him babysit? I wouldn't let any random guy I've read a little bit about on the internet babysit. Would you?

Look, I've done this before, I know. Ranted against these ridiculous accusations or implied accusations that he's a paedophile.

So you find what he says a little creepy. He seemingly has an interest in young children and, I agree, a rather strange way of expressing himself.

Let's set aside for a moment the actually grievous nature of the accusation and all the bullshit snide nastiness of "adults who like children must be paedos" implications that are such a disease in our society today.

Instead, how to you get rationally to your view that he's a paedo? By making that accusation you surely have some pretty solid evidence, right? Because, you know, it's quite a big thing to accuse somebody of being. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I don't think he's actually any danger to kids. I've said somewhere that his preoccupation with a certain type of film is due to his (over?) protective attitude to his own daughters. It's his whole internet persona that creeps me out. For a start Uncle Ed: what's that all about? His self opinion: a balanced, more than competent person who's a MOONIE? The guy is just not the sort of person I'd want anyone, let alone kids, to have anything to do with. 21:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. But I maintain that accusations (implicit as well as explicit) of paedophilia should never be made without very good cause. It's a seriously shitty thing to accuse someone of without grounds. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a society we usually don't punish people for their private thoughts, it's only when they turn them into actions that it becomes an offense. I'm sure many men might fantasise about physically coercing a woman into sex but withhold from actually doing it. That's not to say that they may not derive a degree of pleasure from thinking about it. Also paedophilia is usually concerned with pre-pubescent children rather than post-pubescent young women who may or may not be over the statutory age of consent.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am with Ajkgordon on this. Accusation of pedophilia are not good. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, hebophilia (sp?) is well inside the normal range for humans. Many (I've forgotten my psych notes, maybe 10-15%) men find girls in their early teens sexually attractive. It can cause anxiety, like various other normal psychological phenomena that we don't talk about much (e.g. some notice that they have a brief urge to do obviously suicidal things like throw themselves under a train or off a cliff, etc despite being generally happy with their life). Obviously acting on any of these things is not normal, and if you found it hard to resist that would be a reason to seek immediate psychiatric referral. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you point it out, it is hebephilia, from Hebe the Greek goddess of youth.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn you, Nabokov! -- Kels@school

AddisonDM playing with fire?

• (Deletion log); 14:08 . . AddisonDM (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Images needing sources" (content was: "Please help us by finding a source for these images." (and the only contributor was "Ed Poor"))
• (Deletion log); 13:55 . . AddisonDM (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Emoticons" (content was: "Emoticons are (usually) animated smiley's." (and the only contributor was "TK"))

Yes, the categories seem to have been empty, but deleting the creations of administrators - even senior administrators - can't be allowed. Can it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've got to love the deletion of "Condom Promotion". Presumably you could tell the rank but the number of ridges *boom* *boom*.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 03:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a nosebleed atm and that made me laugh and now I have blood on my monitor. Thanks a lot. X Stickman (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is former SNL Victoria Jackson not editing Conservapedia?

I don't know if any of you have semi-followed ditzy blond Victoria Jackson from the 1980's Saturday Night Live, but she's a worshiper of Glenn Beck now. I've seen her talk about it before, and she is veeeeery incoherent (a laughing stock, actually). She literally believes that Obama is the Antichrist. Andy Schlafly, always desperate to showcase any Hollywood conservative, posted on MPR a link to Jackson's WND column, and it's a doozy! It rambles. She complains that she has no health insurance and her union's health insurance is too expensive, but that she also hates unions and healthcare reform. My favorite parts were:

1. Last time I visited my grandchild a car followed me. Someone is spying on me. But, that's next week's column. This week I want to address the rash of press that just came out about me at CPAC.
2. Then they call my evidence that "O" is a communist "less than convincing "proof"! My evidence isn't proof?! I got a Facebook comment the other day from a woman who said "Jesus loves communism – everyone is equal." I wrote back, "Then why do all the communist countries kill Christians?"
3. I'm listening to Beck radio. A caller just said that his friend, a farmer, is being paid by the government not to grow crops. Food prices are rising. Shouldn't we be planting more crops?

I dunno - I could post more b/c the whole thing is hysterical. Andy should be sending her an invite to edit Conservapedia since she clearly would fit. --Leotardo (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she's been writing "articles" for BigHollywood for some time about how Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are ZOMGZ TEH AWESOME and Barack HUSSEIN Obama is teh CommuNazi! Some of them are awesomely paranoid ravings about Reds under every bed. Good stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I still have an appreciation for her SNL work because I liked it when I was a child and, you know, nostalgia. But she's really as stupid as her persona, which I used to think was an act. She typifies the brazen ignorance of some on the right. --Leotardo (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/File:Healthcarerage8.jpg --Brxbrx (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think she's fvcking brilliant. She is so committed that she lives the life of a crazed, right-wing whacko, whereas Stephen Colbert only plays one on TeeVee. Both, though owe a long ton of gratitude to wp:Andy Kaufman who broke the fourth wall to pieces. 20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

She does represent the average Teabagger, which is why she writes schizophrenic comments like, "There are no more turnpike tolls! Only electronic "Sun Pass!" I guess those toll booth people are out of work now too." Is she complaining that the government saving money by automating jobs is bad because it puts people out of work? There's no consistency in the way they think. --Leotardo (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That's lesson #1 when it comes to wingers or any other cranks: Don't look for logical consistency unless you want your head to asplode. Anyway, Ms. Jackson's greatest hit: There's a Communist in the White House! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

latest dump

This discussion was moved to Forum:Latest dump discussion. 10:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Conservaleaks III

Moved to Forum:Conservaleaks_III --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 15:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please

Explain this? I am no fan of Richard Dawkins. Even though I am an atheist, I think he's a prick. He's arrogant, smug, and unnecessarily confrontational. Honestly, I don't know what his purpose is. But this essay (and it's not new, sorry about that) is just (excuse my use of the word) retarded. It really is. Why Asian women? Why bring it down to sex appeal?
As to Conservepedia's other atheist=unmarriageable, atheist=obese, etc crap, someone should provide him the counter-example of Brad Pitt: an atheist, quite fit, and quite desired.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. As for your question: you're looking for a reasonable explanation where there really isn't one. This is Ken

we're talking about - he thinks that linking to YouTube videos "refuting" atheism will somehow cause atheists to convert by the millions. Tetronian you're clueless 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

He has one for Hispanic women, too. It's rooted in Ken's ongoing obsession with Quantcast and Alexa. The "logic" is: Alexa shows below average visits to richarddawkins.net among Hispanics and Asians = Hispanics and Asians dislike Richard Dawkins = Hispanic and Asian women dislike Richard Dawkins = Dawkins lacks machismo. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Even though I am an atheist, I think he's a prick. He's arrogant, smug, and unnecessarily confrontational." Cripes, don't go over to PZ Myers' place then, he'll give you a heart attack. --Kels (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins is an asshole. However, I went to a lecture of his a couple years ago and there were many ladies in the audience. If I believe my own lies correctly, some were not wearing panties and a heavy vaginal sweat hung in the air. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if that might have been me but then I remembered that you are in the antipodes.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Dawkins gets all this abuse. Everything I've heard him say has been most reasonable. He certainly says what he thinks and that annoys some people - but I'm still not sure why the abuse is necessary.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

we have no need for militant atheism. we don't need people saying religion is evil. he isn't exactly making the world a better place--Brxbrx (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

His academic credentials are fairly dubious. Nothing that would make you yell at some friend who'd squeezed through a PhD and was now off in industry, but if you're going to keep yelling at people about reason and science then it helps if you're more Feynman (and notice plenty of scientists have unpleasant things to say about Dick too) than showman. It's like Susan Greenfield, to people who actually work in her field she's a joke but she's famous and so for plenty of girls and young women she's a role model. So, do we tell them Susan has become a woo-meister, spewing unsupported claims about the dangers of video games and Facebook ? Or do we pretend it's all above board so the role model image is untarnished ? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't tell me that we're back to "not a professor"? :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)There's nothing "dubious" about his academic credentials - I don't think you understand what the word means.

While I think The God Delusion was a mistake, his other books are excellent. The first three (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker) are particularly good, and I thought The Ancestor's Tale was also brilliant.

I don't agree with Brxbrx's comment either. I think we do need militant atheism. Religion is evil, and I don't see what's wrong with saying so. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's a question of whether you go with new atheism or accommodationism. Do you want to call a spade a spade or an historically useful digging instrument.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Greenfield and Dawkins are professors. But having a chair does not academic excellence make. The head of my old research division was a professor too. Professor of Computer Science. Couldn't write more than a few lines of code. Couldn't follow technical conversations in their own speciality. Wrote a book though, like Dawkins. No-one I know has read it, a few people had copies on their shelves, unread. That professor had a chair because they like titles (Professor is a good title, but they got a better one in the Honours List, now I've probably given away who I'm talking about, sorry) and they were excellent in the advocacy and management roles. Dawkins did not get his chair from being excellent in his research either. He got the chair because he's outspoken in support of an important cause. We do need to ensure nobody is trying to pretend that the Bible is science, whether as Creationism or in any other form. But it's understandable if people doing actual science feel that he's an asshole. Especially when some of the scientists saying this have really worked with him (not just met him on a book tour). Have any of us? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about Grenfield please do so.

Please look at our article about Dawkins which mentions his qualifications. If you think he got to be a professor at Oxford (Oxford!) because of his views on religion then you really don't understand the process. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is you think you're arguing with someone who has strayed from CP? Your article about Dawkins more or less endorses everything I've said except the stuff about people not liking him, which I got first hand from academics. Look at the list of major works - the early stuff is pop science, and the later stuff doesn't even raise itself to that level. The way he got the chair is very, very simple, the sponsor of the chair chose him. Oxford's choices are: accept the chair and the money that comes with it, suggest someone else and hope the offer isn't retracted, or say "No". I'm sure if you proposed to give a chair in Anthropology to Nick Griffin they'd say "Keep your money". But giving this chair in "public understanding of science" to Dawkins, a noted pop science author who has a PhD and so on? Why not. The only people it would anger are the Creationist loonies and I'm sure Oxford has no love for them. Of course there is no way to prove one way or another exactly why Simonyi chose Dawkins. Simonyi is a fairly private guy, very few people had even heard of him before he went into space. It is notable that Oxford itself didn't feel "Public Understanding of Science" needed to amount to "ranting at crazy people" and chose someone who takes a less combative approach as the next holder of the chair. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if your logic were valid - how do you explain Dawkins' multiple professorships prior to 1995? I mean Oxford and Berkeley hardly give them to unqualified non-entities.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure those jobs are explained by someone hiring Dawkins in the usual way. Academia is not so very special, you need still people who can communicate, manage a budget, and so on. Not every hire is the next Einstein. And some of those jobs are only "professor" under the US system where basically any guy teaching your undergraduate class has to be a "professor". Nobody's saying Dawkins is a fraud. He's no Awful Poo Lady. We're just reporting that (a) he's not a big hitter in academic biology; (b) plenty of people who've actually worked with him don't like him and use words like "asshole". Maybe I shouldn't have written "dubious" earlier, and substituted "mediocre". His academic work is just nothing special. There are probably thousands of biologists whose research was more profoundly important to the discipline and who nobody has heard of. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In your view, his academic achievements are mediocre. So what? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So now you've been forced to abandon "dubious" and you're saying instead that you can get to be a professor at Oxford with "mediocre" qualifications and that your evidence for this is some unnamed people allegedly said it to you. It sort of sounds like "a man in a pub once told me ..."--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes mediocre. Not worth mentioning. Go ahead, fix it. Edit the RationalWiki article to list his academic achievements. List all his top cited scientific papers. List the scientific prizes he's been awarded by his peers. Cite important biologists who found his scientific insight invaluable. It's not hard to find such material for a Hawking or a Turing because, although they were public figures, that was secondary. I'm not proposing to write "Dawkins is an asshole" in the encyclopedia so I don't need to reveal my sources. FWIW setting Oxford on a pedestal is unwise. It is not in the nature of the enterprise for a University to be pre-eminent in every field, nor for every hire to be superlative. I've worked in a #1 rated university research department and the staff were as variable as anywhere else. Hell, they hired me and I wouldn't think it unfair to label me "mediocre" in this context. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of his papers. Oxford is ranked as the sixth best university in the world. While there may be a scientist called "Hawkins", I think you probably mean "Hawking", and if you make elementary mistakes like that I really don't see why the rest of your drivel should be taken seriously. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo in Hawking fixed. Did you really just cite a single ranking of the entire world's universities and assert one of them was sixth best without any criteria at all? I suppose you did. Nothing about that idea strikes you as absurd? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not Dawkins' job to be "liked": I find him extremely uncharismatic. As far as "The public understanding of science" goes: he's probably done more with his "pop science" than anyone else in the late 20th century to communicate evolution to the masses. point made! 15:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't believe that religion is evil. I have met many, many religious people. SO have you. Were they all murderous bastards? No. Some were nice, some were mean; some were in between. Militant atheism serves only to antagonize the religious, and certainly does not "convert" anyone.I think we're better off making friends than enemies. Now, I draw the lin eat teaching intelligent design in school. A science class is supposed to be scientific. Intelligent design is not scientific. But to tell people that they're stupid or crazy for what they believe is just rude. --Brxbrx (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We have different definitions of "evil". For me, a concerted, organised campaign to fill people's heads with lies and superstition is evil. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't think that anyone's said that religious people are evil. Some are though and religion itself is. As SR says the filling of heads with superstition is plain wrong! 19:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC EC)While Susan has quite firm opinions I don't see the words "murderous bastards" in her post. I've also never seen Dawkins use those words. Buy this is typical of the criticism of Dawkins. People put words like that in his mouth and than criticize him for them. It's all straw man and ad hominem.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Did you really just cite a single ranking of the entire world's universities and assert one of them was sixth best without any criteria at all?" Did you really just ignore every other university league table? Did you really just try to claim that Oxford isn't one of the best universities in the world? Christ. Webbtje (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

breather

I have to say that just about the only person who would question Oxford's place as a pre-eminent university in the world would likely be someone from Cambridge. Or a troll. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (who is a graduate from lowly Brunel university.)

Actually, I said it was unwise to set Oxford on a pedestal. But several RationalWiki users have now insisted on doing so. Dawkins' work is no better for him having done it in one place or another. Either those wasps do what Dawkins' says for the reasons he says, or they do not. "But he was an Oxford Professor" makes no difference to the behaviour of wasps, any more than "But he was a US President" makes any difference to whether atheists are American citizens. Oxford is not Hogwarts, it's a real place and it has all the inconsistencies and variability of any real place. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If I say that Pele is one of the best ever football players, it's not putting him on a pedestal it's stating a widely agreed opinion with plenty of evidence to back it up. Oxford is unquestionably one of the world's best universities based on study after study and opinion after opinion. Much of Dawkins' work was done before he had any association with the place but you seem to find it necessary to smear both purely because you disagree with him. Now stop trolling and fuck away. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in smearing anyone. Dawkins' work "before he had any association with the place" would have been school work. Maybe he wrote a really, really good A-level essay. But I'm pretty sure that's not why we're talking about him now. Dawkins studied at and graduated (Zoology) from Oxford, something you'd know if, rather than insisting that I'm a troll because I don't idolise this particular atheist, you did some research. Oxford is like every other major British university, it has strong subjects and weak subjects, it has some brilliant people and some crackpots. Why not ask Dawkins himself? I'm sure he has a list of Oxford personalities who he thinks shouldn't be teaching science in high school let alone working as professors in a world famous university. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant his later work as I'm sure you well know. The papers he wrote that you dismissed. Now, off you fuck. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your case that Dawkins has "fairly dubious" credentials rests on two points: a) Dawkins is unlikable and b) some people with professorships or academic chairs are cranks. The first point has no bearing on his credentials whatsoever, not to mention that Dawkins is pretty mellow compared to the rest of the new atheists (compare him to Hitchens, Harris or Myers). The second point only opens the possibility that Dawkins is not an academic; it is not proof in and of itself. I think Satoshi Kanazawa is a crank, but that doesn't mean his credentials are invalid. For your argument to work, you need to either prove that Oxford is dramatically overrated as an institution of learning (good luck with that) or that Dawkins is not as knowledgeable as one would expect of a professor. If your only means of achieving that is to dismiss out of hand his many academic papers, then you're a long ways off. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 18:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The first point is actually nothing whatsoever to do with the second. I understand that it's in the interests of those who don't want a bad word said about Dawkins to pretend they're connected but they aren't. Some people do think he's an asshole. Some RationalWiki users (apparently) don't believe anyone thinks that, or believe that everybody who thinks that is a theist or a pseudoscientist. I know that much is wrong.

OK, the remaining point isn't that Dawkins "is not an academic" which would be a vague and pointless claim - but that he's being made out to be more heavyweight than he is. You mentioned Myers. Notice that (a) Myers actually is research active and teaches classes (b) Myers rarely misses an opportunity to point out that he's not a big deal, just some guy at a relatively minor US university who has a blog. Back to Dawkins, "His many academic papers" are worth considering, so let's do that. His publication history can be roughly divided into two parts, before and after widespread interest in "The Selfish Gene".

Before The Selfish Gene we see the work of a competent but ordinary scientific researcher in a field that few people know exists (insect ethology). But it turns out Dawkins is a good communicator, and unlike dozens of other pop science books written by actual scientists which sit unread on people's shelves (see "A Brief History of Time") quite a few laymen read Selfish Gene, and it popularises a somewhat more modern understanding of inheritance as well as the word "meme". The publishers ask for a second book. After, Dawkins writes less actual research papers (and presumably does less actual research) and more and more pop science, opinion pieces and other non-scientific output. The science trickles to a halt. And why not, you can have a far bigger impact writing pop science than discovering why insects do what they do. But that's no longer science. I feel this undermines his message. I actually suspect lots of people here agree if only they took a moment to think about it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and I don't especially care if he doesn't spend 14 hours a day in the lab. I have enormous respect for people who popularize science, especially if they're good at it. When I was a kid, I thought Isaac Asimov was the shit, and I was right. He was awesome and then some. Did he spend time in the lab or equivalent the way a full-time researcher does? Of course not, that'd be stupid. His job was understanding the science and writing about it, and that's Dawkins' job now and from all accounts (Selfish Gene, etc.) he's pretty good at it. Filtering the science and the work of countless researchers, himself included, is an important task, and I don't see it or the person doing it being diminished in the least because they're not some star in the labs making great discoveries.

You want to think Dawkins is an asshole, have fun. But if you're getting the vapours over someone as mild as Dawkins of all people, then you must run for your own personalized fainting couch at the sight of the real firebrands. I get it, you're a delicate flower, and your nerves would be much more soothed if there was more ass-kissing given to religion, which hasn't really demonstrated it's deserving of such respect and gentility. Certainly not more than anyone else. You've definitely got the right not to like him, nobody's universally liked, but don't expect The Tone Argument™ to really sway anyone 'round here. Personally, I've got a fondness for firebrands, probably the Canadian in me (which is the whole thing).

Oh, and I read A Brief History of Time cover to cover and loved it, and I'm probably more of a layperson than anyone on the site. Hell, Ed Poor probably knows more about theoretical physics than I do. --Kels (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, someone seems to think I want religion's backside pampered. Not so. Considering that I'm told I am very abrasive it would be unfair for me to go around insisting that messages I agree with should be unnecessarily tempered in their delivery. I do wish Dawkins stood upon a firmer foundation when wagging his finger at the men in silly hats. So I prefer PZ Myers (of course we don't see eye to eye about everything, but I have my own reasons for liking cephalopods which helps) because of that firmer foundation of science. It's also why I liked Gould. In between arguing with Dawkins and writing pop science books of his own, Gould seems to have spent a fair amount of time actually doing biology. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

second breath

Ok, bob and sr: I was not replying to susan's comment. I can see how you'd think that. It's just that this talk page has become contorted and bloated, so in my simpleton's confusion, I left my comment in what must have been the wrong place. Now, let' be honest, can criticism of a person be called anything BUT ad hominem? I mean really. But you were right about my using a straw man argument. There is a difference in perception between religious people and religion itself. A religious person, in the paradigm of new atheism, can well be a good person. But if I had been clearer, you would not have leveled the accusation of fallacy against me.
What I meant was that in and of itself, religion is not evil, and this is because religion's constituents are not inherently evil either. Some are nice, some are mean, some are in between. You say it is so because religion spreads lies, but that is where you are technically wrong: religion spreads faith. Is faith a fallacy? Sure, why not. I don't think so, but there are compelling arguments that it is. But so long as it's kept to oneself, or kept to sermons, what is the harm? As long as god is not ordering people to kill themselves, who cares? Is this simply because you're annoyed by it (another straw man, probably- I'm annoyed every time someone wears a Hawaiian shirt, does that mean these should be banned?). You can cite history, but here I say that religion is not the cause of atrocities committed in it's name. Religion is a mere excuse! Humanity will always come up with new reasons to commit genocide or other atrocities. Removing religion will not change that. I dislike Dawkins because I find him rude, and abrasive. Sure, he hasn't intentionally blasphemed for kicks, giggles, and arrogance, but his rhetoric is nevertheless offensive to me, even though I do not believe in any god either. He fights a war that is completely unnecessary. Honestly, I couldn't care less about this academic credentials. He cold be Socrates and Plato blended together into a greek-shake, I still wouldn't like his attitude. And I'm a little tired of being associated with him...--Brxbrx (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've totally lost track of this conversation, largely because of Trolly von Trollmeister up there, and because of several comments going in the wrong place. If only we had some kind of properly threaded discussion system...

I'm just going to reply on the Religion = Evil line, and I'm going to stick to Christianity because that's what I know most about. Let's skip the basic tenets of the religion because we could argue all day over whether the concept of a big beard in the sky is necessarily a lie. If religion were just a matter of "God created everything - praise be to God!" I would still disagree with it, but it would be largely harmless and I'd leave it alone. Probably. The problem comes with all the concomitant bullshit. If we truly follow Christianity's teachings, we have to accept that homosexuality is an abomination, that women are inferior, and other such reactionary crap.

Now, you're probably going to tell me that you don't have to support those things. Well I'll admit that the church has come on in leaps and bounds since it actively protected slavery, but ask most catholics whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, or whether women should be allowed to preach in church and see what reaction you get. Look at official pronouncements from church leaders on the subjects.

What's really scary is how insidious it is. You can watch religious parents bringing up their kids and never spot the evil being passed on, but by the time the kids are old enough you can be sure that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and "A wife should respect and obey her husband" will have been firmly lodged in their brains. When religious people are stopped from discriminating against others, the news is filled with people claiming their views are being oppressed, and we hardly ever hear the sensible point of view that your bronze-age prejudices have no place in the modern world.

You'll notice I haven't even bothered to mention the real, hardcore nutters like Andy Schlafly and Philip Rayment who take the bloody bibble literally. It doesn't happen (much) in the UK yet so doesn't affect me, but the sort of anti-science crap being peddled in the States is really scary. There was that awful, truly awful post from Terry Hurlbut a little while ago where he claimed that everybody would be better off if we abandoned modern science and went back to the bibble's message. This isn't just evil, it's evil and dangerous.

I'm not going to deny that the Christian church has done a lot of good things around the world, but that doesn't really matter. The same sorts of good things are done by several charities, and the charities won't spend their time filling people's heads with lies.

Some people would argue that I'm going too far and that religion is simply a symptom of mental illness rather than an actual evil. I have some sympathy with that view. Certainly I know several people who "came" to religion through depression and similar mental conditions. Note, however, that I'm not calling the individuals evil themselves (although some clearly are). By and large, it's the meme-complex that's evil rather than the carriers.

In the light of my lack of knowledge on other religions, I suppose I should really change my original statement to "Christianity is evil" and leave it to others to add in other religions. But on that point, I personally have no doubt. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IF religion was just about having some view on whether there was a creator and being able to worship it in one's own way I doubt that the likes of Dawkins would mind. But organised religion is never satisfied with that; it has to impose its beliefs and customs on others and then requiring sanctions to prevent others them from criticising or mocking them. It is the demand for, and exercise of that power which makes a religion evil not the belief system per se.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually when I made my straw man/ad hominem retort the "ad hominem" bit was in respect of the BON's comments. You are not quite right when you say:

• Now, let' be honest, can criticism of a person be called anything BUT ad hominem? I mean really.

It depends on where you are going with it. If you say something disagreeable about somebody then that is just your opinion. If you say something disagreeable about somebody and then use it as an excuse to reject their arguments than it's an ad hominem. For example "Michael More is overweight therefore he is wrong." would be such an example.

Most criticisms of Dawkins seem to focus more on alleged personality defects than on any alleged factual errors in what he says.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)