Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive226

This is an archive page, last updated 5 January 2012. 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>, <225>, <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)

Debate, CP style

Dear Gentlemen at a very liberal site! In regards to Anupam's latest edit^img to Conservapedia's "Atheism and the suppression of science" article, I have reverted^img Anupam's latest edit to Conservapedia's "Atheism and the suppression of science" article and have now <capture>protected^img Conservapedia's "Atheism and the suppression of science" article so that nobody who is not an administrator of Conservapedia may edit it! The irony of protecting an article about suppression will soon destroy atheism on the Internet! Olé! Olé! Olé! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Another debate won! --Willfully Wrong (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this Anupam shit is really starting to piss me off. (did i mention that Anupam is probably one of Ken's SockPuppets) Ken should be charged with identity theft if it turns out that the CP Anupam is not the same guy as the WP one (who seems to have a almost completly different style of writing) LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess this episode should settle that question. At least I sincerely hope Ken isn't getting into an edit war with his own sock now. Röstigraben (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks that Anupam is some elaborate plot to give Ken TWO sysop accounts. CP is so fucked. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have at least half a dozen sysop accounts at RW. I forgot all the passwords though. And the usernames. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rep, you missed the "I am a senior sysop here"^img. Also with Freedom777 Ken already has two sysop accounts. Reading Conservaleaks he also threatened to create Freedom76 or Freedom1776 accounts and asked for them not to be blocked.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The 90 day clock starts now

After all those false starts Ken

finally says bon voyageimg and categorizes Anupam as an old Earth creationist. Is Ken just being devious? Silly twit (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

wow, NOW everything suddenly falls into place. namely, Ken was planning for conservative to take a break, NOT himself. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear goat, this is hilarious. Kendoll is actually switching socks in the most obvious manner possible. It reminds me of 'Allo 'Allo where Rene convinces everyone he's been shot, and that his twin brother is now running the cafe. Whereas Rene then had to marry Edith to get his cafe back, Kendoll is now going to have to suck the Assfly's electronic cock to get his sysop bit back, and equal hilarity ought to ensue. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

im sorry, this is redickulous^img, seriously, Ken is saying that Spock(!) is "Definitely a nerd, yet too logical to be an atheist. The only indications that Spock may have been an atheist is that he was a famous, white, nerd who had lady problems." Im sorry, what lady problems? Wasnt Uhura mooning after him for like, the entire show!? perhaps ken means lady problems like in, PMS or something?!? Plus, Spock's entire race is Atheist by nature. how come spock is the only person of his race who believes in a god(s)? this is just so fucking hilarious LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 08:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

also, shatner quote mining ftw "GET A LIFE" (1-UP?), next to a "redudancy department of redundancy" pic oh look theres the obligatory hitler pic, hooray, right next to that same fucking picture of Richard Dawkins, you know the one... im not boring you now, am i???? LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 08:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Using Star Trek TOS references and then accusing other people of being nerds made me laugh. X Stickman (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I say again that Anupam is not Ken's sock. Anupam at WP is quite a busy editor; looking at his contribs there is a matching gap of three days when he first posts at CP. His style, wiki-fu, use of English are all superior to Ken. So, please excuse the wiki-stalking but here's my take - Anupam is probably a US-born United Methodist of Indian decent who lives in the same city as Ken and knows him through his church - Ken has never specified his faith other than generic protestant but Methodism would seem a reasonable fit rather than happy-clappy evangelical. I don't see an obvious showing of Anupam's old-Earth beliefs so Ken probably knew of them off-wiki. I expect that Ken has encouraged Anupam to edit at CP and that is why he was so quick to open up his email to him. Anupam's edits at CP seem to start on Friday/Saturday unlike his everyday editing at WP so he probably sees Ken in a church social setting. I wouldn't be surprised if Ken has contacted Andy and vouched for him to be a sysop.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Anupam told me (on WP) that he did not mind people copying his articles (my emphasis, not quite the quote, but you get the gist). He did not state that he was the one who did the copypasta... i dunno... it still feels really fishy. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 11:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that Ken would have warned him about RW. Saying that he did not mind people copying his articles is quite non-committal. Oh, by the way Ken, on your user page^img you have misspelled emigration. How could you embarrass Andy so?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that was quick^img. Shouldn't he be thanking you for your help? CowHammer (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He obviously suffers from RationalWiki Compulsive Disorder and cannot refrain from reading us. I like that he also wiped^img the reference to RuyLopez from his user-page; proof that his 'man of mystery' mask is slipping. Having revisited CP do we need to reset his 90-day clock?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He admits to being RuyLopez in the discussion groups - he also admits to spamming the Irish Atheist forum. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see his current 90 day vacation is going well. What is this? The sixth or seventh he's declared now, and never followed through on? At least he's stopped claiming it's because he's an uber successful writer with many commissions to attend to. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's being very clever. He says he's taking a break, waits for a RWian to post about it, then kinda says "Ha, fooled you!". It's a highly developed method of..... erm..... method of.... .. . of something. Yes, that's it. Something. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a wiki version of Peek-a-boo. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see he memory-holed his spelling correction. It may not be a lie Ken but GOD knows what a deceitful little man you are. Anyone with a shred of machismo would man up to correcting a spelling mistake. By the way, how's it going with the Asian and Hispanic ladies, because you obviously aren't married to one - or a lady of any other ethnic grouping come to that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

does his left hand count as an "ethnic group?"--Brxbrx (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

CP traffic

I've been thinking, would it be wise to actually HELP conservapedia improve their web traffic? My reasons for this: 1) more people would see the site and realise how bad it really is. 2) There will be more editors who actually want to improve CP (increased level of parodists as well, but whatever) 3) We would have a reason to agree with Ken in regards to his gloating over a certain site begining with "g": this might actually shut him up (might). 4)It would force all the sysops over there to increase their productivity, in order to quickly bring out more "exciting new developments" (a plus to this might be seen as the higher edit rate would mean that it would be more likely for a person to add facts to an article undetected, which is a good thing, right?) 5) It may result in Andy appearing more frequently on TV, which is always hilarious, especially on Colbert. There are probably many more reasons, but i cant think of them right now. Anyone else got any other reasons/ideas??? LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No. No. A thousand times "no". Barry Goldwater would now be a "liberal", Reagan, (yes the anointed one), would also be a liberal. The right has moved so FAR right that it's drug the center with it. As scary as CP's rhetoric sounds to you and me, you'd be surprise how many people will think "Hey, this makes great sense!" So no. 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

if there's anything to conservepadia's brand of conservative wackaroo, it's our place as humans to herald any and all potential knowledge found within. In fact, bringing conservepedia fully into the light would better help combat any evil it represents.--Brxbrx (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a matter of contention here at Blue Manor.

I want Conservapedia to be popular for the same reason I gave money to Birther groups. I want America strong and energetic, which means I want the right to be dominated or at least severely distracted by the lunatic fringe. If the Palinists or the Randroids or whoever sink the Republican party then the Democrats are free to bring America's public schools forward into the 20th century and America's health care system forward into the 19th. The US would be so much more powerful if they finally had the social mobility of 1890 England and the infant mortality of 1970 Cuba. Naturally I'd love to see Conservapedia become more influential.

My inlaws, who are Chinese and fiercely nationalist, want America to crash and burn, so they want Republicans elected, so they'd want sites like WND or Conservapedia to disappear, if they knew about them, and the sooner the better. Mountain Blue 00:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we (and others) have improved their web traffic. The original clickbot campaign which put nine homosexuality articles in the top ten created quite a stir and brought CP to a wider audience. Since then, parodists have encouraged Andy with things like the Lenski letter, Bible-retranslation project and secularized language have all boosted visits. They think that they are getting attention for their "insights" but it is just more people gazing at the car-crash.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia already has traffic, what it doesn't have is editors. And that's not a bug, it's a feature. Rather than argue about content, Andy prefers sitting on the crumbling shell of what was once supposed to be an all-purpose encyclopedia, proudly announcing his latest insight, while his sysops ignore him and tend to their personal fiefdoms. They made that choice long ago, their total disdain for even highly-skilled editors who would've been a huge asset is evident from episodes like the KSorenson saga. And for a similar reason, Conservapedia is not a player even just within the right-wing fringe. It completely fails to reach out to anyone and will never accomodate an editor who's not on board with Andyism. There simply are next to no people who fit that profile, so the vast majority of the traffic they get is made up of visitors who are just curious about the crazy ideas they keep coming up with. Increasing that further wouldn't change a single thing. Röstigraben (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Recall Time

This time, its Jan Brewer's head possibly on the chopping block. We must get Andy on the case. His failure is our only chance.--Thunderstruck (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I live in AZ. I've heard nothing of this. I do sorta live in a cave, but really, she's become rather popular here. Napolitano was a lib though, and she got elected a lot. We'll see.--Brxbrx (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I live in AZ, too, and haven't heard a word of this. Which is a shame, because I'd love to put my signature on that. Unfortunately, I don't see this going too far, since as Brxbrx pointed out, she's pretty popular here. There are an insane amount of rednecks here in Phoenix that love her and SB1070. I need to move... CowHammer (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Boycott

I'm going to begin a campaign of ignoring CP. I very rarely look at their silly website, and having looked at it for the last time today I am of the opinion that it's just a little piece of nothing. There's nothing there that's relevant to us, nothing there that can be used by anyone. As someone said, they crave attention like little whiny babies, so let them get someone else to change their diapers...not us. --- Rationalwiki is moving forward and upward. Let CP stew in the toilet they created for themselves; they are not relevant anymore. Etc 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of my faves. Mountain Blue 01:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty specific thing, but I don't think I've heard the word "silly" used anywhere near as much outside of CP. Why do they love that word so much? X Stickman (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kowardjerk is excellent value in those discussion groups. Here he deems that we must have been at the forefront of the DoS attacks on paypal, because, erm, there's no evidence about it! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So... Kowardjerk thinks that we are Anonymous... as we all are. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 07:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Shit, he's onto us. He's figured out that whenever RW doesn't comment on something, we're the culprits. And of course the true aim of all those conspiracies is to piss off those damned Conservapedians, the last bastion of righteousness on the internet. Well, maybe Operation Ballot Box Stuffing 2012 will put an end to that. Röstigraben (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK.. that is now officially the funniest thing ever seen in connection with CP. I love the idea of someone giving the police a tip based on the information that certain people were not talking about something. "Officer, I need to report a crime. I think my neighbour might be Jack The Ripper because he hardly ever mentions the murder of prostitutes in Olde London Towne!" ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.24.115.232 / talk / contribs}

What I find amazing is the idea at CP that they are "moving forward" when in every measurable way, CP is slowing down. Even ASK is far better, as an encyclopedia. Etc 09:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoah! I wouldn't go that far! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, aSoK still exists? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sort of....my general understanding is that ASK is the same thing as CP but with less asshole sysops. The fact that the ASK project goes even slower than CP, only shows that a deliberately biased encyclopedia is a bad idea anyway you try to implement it. The only way to make the project last is to have a gang of obsessive users who keep running the show even when nobody is watching anymore, which is where CP excels. But in terms of actual real-world information, ASK is far ahead. Etc 12:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a given that the bitterest arguments usually occur at the extremes where they try and maintain some "ideological purity", and personality clashes are legion. So yes, if you try to organise any project with a deliberate bias rather than a neutral stance then you need to be more authoritarian in order to maintain the party line. Despite being a social conservative and Bibull literalist PJR is more economically liberal. This means that there is some overlap between the fundies and the RW editors who edit there. At CP the extreme views are more wide-ranging so there is greater scope for conflict with moderate editors. The only thing that keeps the remaining nutters together is a bunker mentality; they've backed themselves so far into a corner that none of them can get out.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Satire is Working"

Relevant

"The satire is working, but they don't seem to realize it yet. Some also don't want to see just how evil and despicable atheism is. But this subject needs to be expanded in detail, beginning with Madalyn Murray O'Hair. You can find an interesting reading by her son ... part of this actually confirms user Conservative's satires about fat atheists..." Oh my! I used to think it was just Ken and everyone put up with it; turns out he is mainstream on the site! I wonder how Anger Bear measures that "the satire is working". Their measure of success seems to be a singular focus on hits to their website, and not in signing up new members or having anyone take them seriously. If it was just liberals deriding them I might understand, but they are ridiculed by conservatives and Christians with actual influence. --Leotardo (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure that out, since reading that Kara & Co weren't treating Ken like the embarrassing cousin he is. I can only put it down to 2 things: 1. They genuinely see page views as a good thing, and that everybody who visits CP, walks away full of conservative good cheer and goes and bombs an abortion clinic. 2. Despite what he says, Karajerk and his cronies watch our reactions, and mistake our (and the web in general's) cries of "WTF?" for cries of moral indignation, followed by an acceptance of teh Bubba Jebus, anorexia and bombing an abortion clinic. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy's completely hung up on that page views thing. I just came across this gem. The extent of that man's delusions is truly staggering. Röstigraben (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All of our traffic sees the conservative message, and with our high volume, our site could be the single biggest reason American culture is moving to the right.

Wa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god! I mean, really, you think that web hits equal influence that much?! How in the world can they ever believe that? Totally unhinged from reality, which makes them all the better to watch. --Leotardo (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to compare their number of hits to that of lolcats or 4chan. What would that tell us about the development of American culture? Röstigraben (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's put this into perspective. Alexa ranks Encyclopedia Dramatica 4,051 worldwide and 1,729 U.S.; they rank CP 61,352 WW and 17,840 U.S. --Leotardo (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

damn right!--Brxbrx (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more perspective, Alexa put lolcatz at 1931 globally and 840 US. Methinks Andy has his work cut out for him. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Assfly here; my clickbots have became noticeably more conservative of late. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more US rankings that spell doom for conservatism - richarddawkins.net #25293, barackobama.com #6500, gay.com #3947, Scienceblogs #2206, Daily Kos #853, Huffington Post #31, and of course...*drumroll*...Facebook #2. Röstigraben (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Though there's no way to verify it, I really want to know if Andy actually believes shit like this is true. Can he be that delusional as to really think that his shitforbrains blog has any effect on politics, let alone the most influence of any site or organization? Though he'll never admit it he must know his influence is minimal, if it exists at all. If not he is truly mentally ill (which is not in the least out of the question). DickTurpis (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Another possible explanation would be that he's just boasting to his lackeys, trying to convince them that they're making a difference so that they'll stay on board. Of course, they need CP too and will cling to the tiny measure of power he's granted them until the end, but maybe he doesn't realize that. Either way, he's fundamentally mistaken about the nature and importance of his project. Röstigraben (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The same circle-jerk has been going since 2007.

Andy: Our Page views are amazing, we having a huge impact!

Karajou: We need to get out message out to the radio, the press and the blogs! I just mentioned CP on insert radio show and wrote a letter to insert newspaper

Ed: We need to attract more high profile conservatives from Townhall and the like

This has been going on for nearly 4 years and the net outcome? Nothing. Ace ^{of Spades} 19:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

God-fuckin'-damn I love Conservapedia. Whatever makes them happy I guess. SJ ^Debaser 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Even Among Conservative Sites

CP is a blip. US Rankings as per Alexa

• WorldNuetDaily: 567
• The National Review: 1266
• Michelle Malkin 2,393
• Ann Coulter: 12,890
• Conservapedia 17,840

And I think it says something about the American conservative movement that WorldNetDaily beats the National Review. MDB (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Errr rrright. You're expressing surprise that there are more rednecks and hillbillies interested in the facile lies on WND than there are people capable of reading at an 11th grade level who enjoy National Review. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. The National Review is simply not targeted at the average conservative, any more than Mother Jones is targeted at the average liberal. MDB (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They're both hugely popular sites that I suspect cater to markedly different cohorts. :) User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about that -- maybe when Bill Buckley was around. K-Lo can barely spell at an 11th grade level. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

At least the National Review doesn't publish Victoria Jackson (see earlier thread) or columns like Soy is Making My Kids Gay. Jus sayin... --Leotardo (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the quotes he puts around gay so his readers know he's not complaining about his kids being happy and carefree. Mountain Blue 21:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk's ADD

I see now that he's filled up Wanted Pages with dozens of Civil War battles, he's forgotten all about his little project. Maybe the National Parks Board doesn't have info on those battles that he can copy/paste. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that a couple of days ago when people were complaining they could see RC. It looked as though someone deleted a bunch for being copied by a parodist. Talking of deletions; what on earth is AddisonDM doing? He deleted a template created by TerryH which is now wanted on 350 pages. You have to love it when those guys start cleaning up without knowing what they are doing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Addision gets a little bit too carried away at times. I remember just after we were promoted, she and I went through and cleaned up the "move requests." Didn't have a clue what we were doing - deleted stuff, moved pages over existing pages, moved Ed's articles to essay space... but as it was actual work, none of the other sysops would go near it, or check it. On another note, what the hell would that template do? --PsyGremlinFale! 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was used as an alternative to • on navbox templates. See the effects of the deletion on CP:Template:Solarsystem--Danielfolsom (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Who ...

... is this? 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A SEO spammer who has had enough of that "Ole" business, most likely? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Could be somebody trying to take Wikipedia down on the search results for CP since it's a direct copy, and Google tends to mark sites down for that. That would suggest Ken

. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How it that supposed to work? Doesn't Google just mark down the copy? Why would Google dock points from the original? Mountain Blue 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming this blog was created by someone who's both sane and intelligent. This is not necessarily the case. 86.164.12.216 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are enough wiki-mirrors out there already; I don't see how one more will make a difference. DickTurpis (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like SEO spam. And like most SEO spam, it's fairly stupid. Free hosting, just enough content to pass as more than a content-less linkfarm (I guess), a subdomain that more or less matches the likely search query, and then it just uses the blogroll (or whatever it's called) to whore out its links.

Of course, we can bet on Karajou going apeshit in the Secret Discussion Group right now, flinging out the usual accusations of the rats trying to impersonate CP and/or destroy its Google rankings and/or smear CP by spreading the WP article (which we of course own and which is full of lies and misrepresentations). Followed by him writing an angry mail at Google (since they own Blogger), demanding an instant take-down and full identification information unless they want to be dragged to court by Andy. Followed then by him actually realizing that the account is obviously stupid, which will lead to him claiming victory over the rats because our secret plot to [whatever] backfired. Blah blah blah. --Sid (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sid, please don't spread our soopah-sekrit Cabal analysis outside the listserv. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Shit, I'm sorry, it was late. :( --Sid (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sid, you should see what's going on in the CP discussion group now. It's pretty hilarious. P-Foster (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What gibberish is this?

I have never understood the point of CP boycott's so I ignore it. And I am glad i did because I get to chuckle over this new gibberish.^img Ace ^{of Spades} 00:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just like it was prophesied in the Good Book, right? Get your guns, refried beans, and gold bricks, the End Times is here! Yeehaw! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, we're back to "Science can't explain these dead animals!!!", aren't we? First the birds, now the fish... *sigh* --Sid (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I know my bible, sorta well, Where does it give mention to random killings of animals with no purpose shown? --Mikalos209 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what Andy is trying to get at: Mass deaths of animals = a mystery = the bible is correct. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, you forget that we live in the age of discovering new Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge and that CP is one of the leading sites in the field. Did you already forget the tale of how Quantum Jesus defeated Relativity? The fact that we haven't found the proper Biblical evidence/foreknowledge yet simply proves that we need to spend more time with the Bible and less time praising the False God that is Atheistic Science. --Sid (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The news stories give a reason for the fish dying. Idiots. sterile ad 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of dissolved oxygen, which is pretty easy to measure. But its even easier to say Jesus. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's God's retribution for the secularization — sorry, "paganization" — of the English language (which is God's chosen language; why else was the Bible written in English?). It's the start of a global cleansing like the Great Flood, except much slower and with seemingly obvious answers. This, of course, is just to distract the liberal atheistic scientists so they don't notice the largely supernatural weapon of divine judgement until it's too late. «-Bfa-» 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow these God of the Gaps are getting shorter. --Ullhateme (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Andy's thinking these events have the flavour of Exodus about them? I hope so. Nothing like a Godsent Plague to sort the men from the boys. MtD (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We should kill teh gheys first! TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

All of them or just those we can't cure? MtD (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Leave Rob Halford. I love me some Judas Priest.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, killing them is the cure. And, y'know, hell. --Kels (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Really what this is about is Andy's stark black and white view of the world. For him it is either Biblical Literalist Christianity or Atheism. If you seek to find a naturalistic cause for this incident then you are an atheist. Never mind you could be a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, humanist, Unitarian, etc, etc, etc scientist, if you are not automatically assuming some mysterious supernatural cause as a divine message from the Christian god, well you must just hate religion, and America. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken's vacation

It seems like Ken

can't stop fiddling. I see that he spammed MPRimg again with the old (February 1) forced mention by Denise O'Dreary at Uncommon Decent about his Atheism and Obesity article. Pathetic! Clickbot (talk)

No, it's just a "cameo" appearance. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As he said "goodbye" he said he'd be back for "news" items. --Opcn (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how andy will react to this story.

Or Ken

for that matter.  People in the atheist UK are healthier then their US cousins. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Only by atheistic standards. No doubt these liberals didn't include the mental health and obesity problems associated with atheism. Jaxe (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the conundrum. We already know how Ken reacts to facts. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Ken here's a fun quote from the SDG:

“”I would never join an organization that would take me as a member. :)

Good on you, Ken. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was funnier when Groucho Marx said it. (Hhhhmm.... does this make Ken

a Marxist?) MDB (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

His iq is high enough to join mensa???? In your dreams Ken

, in your dreams. Mensa may be peopled by nerds but they can at least hold an intelligent discussion and know how to use preview so they don't need 800 edits to say one thing. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In that thread I had to laugh when Karajou said "Suppose we use a different tact with RJ". As a former swabbie you would think that he knew something about sailing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the US population is considerably more diverse than the UK population, so a lower health overall doesn't surprise me in the least. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN just talked about "Fat Tuesday" and showed a graph of the United States (can't seem to find it online at the moment), which showed the most and least obese/healthier states. They didn't say it directly, but it was obvious that most the states with the highest obesity statistic were along the bible belt and SE part of the country (in other words.. republican). I'd like to see Andy try to quantify health as liberal and conservative without PIDOOMA statistics. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BMcP, in what way is the US more diverse than the UK? I suspect the UK is at least as ethnicly diverse as the US if not more. And anyway, wtf has that to do with health of the populus? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not even close Oldusgitus, the UK is about 90% white while the US is about 65% if you don't count Latinos. --72.208.138.197 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

America has large pockets of traditional and immigrant poverty whose populations tend to be in lower health than the average. Some of that is racist legacy, some of that is people immigrating here from much poorer regions of the world. According to the 2001 census Besides, 85% of the population is "White British", America isn't close to be that homogeneous. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obesity by state and the red/blue/purple state divide. Kinda goes against the idea that conservatives are slimmer. The Bible Belt is the fattest region, as Norseman mentioned. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I was thinking more in terms of the number of different ethnic groupings in the population as opposed to the outright number within those differing ethnic groups. However to me I have to say that the differing results are possibly more to do with the way in which our socialised atheistic government and it's death health care system seek to improve the populations health through intervention as opposed to only treatment (and then only if you can afford it) than anything else. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Think like an idiot.

• P1: Liberals are fatter than conservatives...accepted.
• P2: Conservative states are fatter than liberal states...I don't even know if Andy would (I know he could) deny that.
• QED: Liberals in conservative states are fat, probably because they're depressed because the truth of conservatism is constantly surrounding them.

That's the only way I can imagine they've rationalized it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Add to that the following and you've got Andy's thinking down pat:

• P3: ????
• P4: PROFIT

Deny this and lose all credibility. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No it makes sense. Atheists in the bible belt have to be atheier to combat all the bibleness, and this increased athiestness fats them up. Atheists in unenbibled states, however, don't have to be so athy, so they're less prone to fatitude. That's why bibley states have fatness - the atheistest residents drag up the fatty averages. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘While the obesity statistics for the Bible Belt refute Ken's

chatter about atheism and obesity, they do not say anything about the weight of fundamentalists or Republicans in general; concluding that would be an example of correlation does not equal causation (on the other hand, Ken

does not even have any correlation to equate to causation). ListenerXTalkerX 15:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a map on Boing Boing just yesterday that showed how Red states and regions have the highest diabetes rates. The same regions (the Deep South, West North Central, Arizona) also have the lowest rates of people holding passports. The fewest diabetics and the most passports are in California and New England.

The map was couched as a snipe against armchair quack sociology ("Junk science from Boing Boing! Passports prevent diabetes!") but yes, voting the Republican ticket does correlate with being obese and parochial just like it correlates with being poor and stupid. Mountain Blue 15:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

@LX: This here mentions a positive correlation between participating in certain religious activities and body weight. If I recall correctly from looking at the paper itself it surveyed others that also find a connection between higher BMI and religiousness. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You can find a fairly direct discussion of obesity and religion at this article. It is a fairly complicated picture, as indicated by this excerpt:

"He analyzed the religious practices and body mass index, often referred to as BMI, of more than 2,500 people during an eight-year period from 1986 to 1994. He found that the use of religious media resources, such as television, books or radio, was a strong predictor of obesity among women. The incidence of obesity increased by 14 percent for this group. At the same time, the more often women attended religious services, the less likely they were to be obese."

See also Faithful states also the fattest and an article in Nature saying the same. Of course, all of this evidence is from atheists and/or scientists (which CP would say is redundant), so it can't stand up to Ken's rigorously made-up correlation.

(NOTE: These were just a few of the top hits when searching "obesity and religion" at Google. Ya think Ken did the same search and ignored the results?) Phiwum (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Passports prevent diabetes" sounds like something Andy would actually conclude. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see something really horrifying, check out the CDC's maps showing the spread of clinically obese people in the USA over the past 40-odd years. I saw it for an article I was writing about diabetes and I was dumbstruck. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh

Maybe because of the likes of those like OpenYourMindAndy and others, Conservapedia, I believe, has gotten rid of open registration again. I don't even believe the email is still open for those who would actually want to contribute there. Further proof CP is not a real wiki encyclopedia.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

and further proof that the place is a decaying imploding miasma. they really need some fresh blood--Brxbrx (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "Open Your Mind", I saw this Onion article and immediately thought of Andy: Open-Minded Man Grimly Realizes How Much Life He's Wasted Listening To Bullshit.

According to Richman, he started thinking about how much time he's flushed down the toilet being an approachable person after a work meeting in which he let a coworker, David Martin, ramble on and on with an idea everyone knew was "total shit" the moment the man opened his mouth. Richman said that a single glance at the clock made him realize he had just spent 14 minutes of his finite time on earth not playing with his kids or being with his wife, but listening to garbage.

--Night Jaguar (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

fat tuesday

Does anyone say fat tuesday? Mardi Gras redirects to fat tuesday. conservepedia has never seemed particularly anti-french to me.--Brxbrx (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term, but according the ever-reliable Wikipedia's entry Catholics have called it "Fat Tuesday" since before the reformation. So it's Protestants that are getting it wrong by calling it "Absolution Tuesday". However, I've always called it Shrove Tuesday, and for a long time known that Mardi Gras occurred on the same day, even if I didn't know what the literal translation of Mardi Gras was. CS Miller (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have heard Fat Tuesday on occasion among Catholic friends but even they pretty much use it and Mardi Gras rather interchangeably. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're all wrong as usual, it's called Pancake Day. DogP (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

T.G.I. Fridays used to have "Fat Tuesday" at their wild n' crazy chain restaurants. Since the "G" stands for "God" I am surprised they don't have Shrove Tuesday celebrations. --Leotardo (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure Karajerk

For all his bluster and posturing about how we're trying to destroy CP and steal his bodily fluids, I see our favourite swabbie isn't above admitting the vandal attacks are the work of Anon. Safely behind the scenes of course, because he's got a bunch of rats to rave about in public. Idiot. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

w/ tk dead, will we ever get more leaks like this?--Brxbrx (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The stuff JPatt has been feeding us has been quite useful. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's really more of the same over there these days. P-Foster (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know we had more leakers. Is jpatt still an editor? can he keep it coming?--Brxbrx (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt's still editing^img at a good pace and with all rights^img intact, so why would he not be part of the current group? --Sid (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The hilarious thing is that by talking so openly about JPatt being a double agent, we make it less likely he'll get booted because (1) they think we wouldn't out our spies and (2) they think we'll try to 'out' genuine editors just to get them booted. The paranoia must be intolerable over there. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You must remember that by Jpatt's logic, the less we talk about somebody, the more likely they are to be a RW mole. Sadly, since they've booted Geoff too, we are reliant on the continued nobless obligese of Johnny X-Ray. At least until the next sysop finally wakes up and realises what a twat Andy and his fellow sysops are. However, with this group, I don't think it's going to happen. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Kara is the next likely candidate for leaving the Inner Circle (but not for leaking). Yes, he's a die-hard supporter of the "Liberals are Nazis who want to burn down churches!!!" view, but he already was slapped down over the Obama article and also shook his head at the CBP. He's a radical conservative, but he's not one of Andy's mindless minions, so I wouldn't be surprised if he left after one or two more batshit insane stunts by Andy. --Sid (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More Koward

I think this belongs here rather than on SB...

Koward's latest post on what he actually calls a blog is as incoherent as ever, but one thing that comes out is the way he bigs up Willminator - remember him? Apparently, in Karajerk's world, Willminator was a lone warrior, fighting against some guy called Jeff. Of course, in the real world, Willminator was blocked for 5 years with the comment "Deliberate insertion of false information; lying: I'll be watching to see if you try to unblock yourself again". Better luck next time, Kowardjou. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"A place called a 'trash heap' by one, and 'inhabited by thugs' by another."

Karajou really thinks we're some sort of small-scale Anonymous, doesn't he? Bonus lulz for the sentence that goes from DDoS to... porn links (and worse!). Though I guess he's still hoping for us to go "HOW DARE HE? WE'LL SUE HIM!" as part of his really crazy master plan... --Sid (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps ironic that the man calls someone else a coward yet has comments disabled on blog. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't even notice the "Only a member of this blog may post a comment" part. Well, alternatively, he'd enable and moderate, letting only the glorious praise by his buddies through. But I find it curious that "[t]here are no followers yet" (not that anybody can read that since it's black writing on the dark background...). Not even his "Comments on our Republic" buddies can be arsed to follow his rants? --Sid (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What glorious praise by his buddies? You've seen the mailing list. They barely even address each other. It's mostly just sort of hollow echoes and harumphs from a bunch of cranks. They definitely don't treat each other like they give the least shit what the other thinks. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Like anyone gives a shit, this is what the coward is referring to. The initial email to Will (the one that Karajou sent to every conservative he could find) was legit. Subsequent emails "from me" posted by Will to his userpage were obviously fake. You can tell because he would edit the email after he already copy/pasted it. Unless Karajou thinks I am Will, which is something I'm not denying. Me and Will are cool, and now and then we still share a laugh about Karajou and how small of a man he is. JeffT (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow me!

On the subject of Karajou's page design, the left-hand side links are completely illegible against the picture background except for the headings; to coin a phrase, you can't see the links for the trees. You can only read them by selecting them with your mouse or making the browser window very narrow. So, who's following him? Nobody! Ah, now I understand why the trees are there.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's typical of KJ just to be brave in his own echo chamber. Anyway, let's look at the following:

A place called a "trash heap" by one[1], and "inhabited by thugs" by another[2]. They're on record as using "cyber-terror tactics"[3] in an effort to remove Conservapedia from the internet; they're the ones who employ DDoS attacks...[4]

Four accusations, no citations. "by one" - Which 'one'? "by another" - Which other? "on record" - With the FBI? "employ" - where's the link to this irrefutable proof?

Jeff didn't lose KJ, you did, are and will continue to do so. Or you could provide proof beyond reasonable doubt for your claims, but like the FBI report, it just doesn't exist, does it?-- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at his previous blogpost and found this stereotypical comment:

“”Unfortunately, he's nothing more than a silly little girly-man craving attention. A wanna-be bully who is nothing more than what he called me: a coward. And since he decided to be stupid as well, his little threats have been reported to whomever runs Blogger.

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

my reaction to karajou's blog: lolwut--Brxbrx (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Telephone is GO!

Blog post now has an "Update" section. And of course, Kara's courtroom fantasies come up again... --Sid (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, courtroom. The hell is the matter with this guy? Does he realize how costly it is just to sue?? And what does he think he's even going to sue for? Seriously Karajou, what are you going to sue for? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

At least his blog is finally readable - still ugly as sin. - π 03:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh this is so funny, someone shoud WIGO it. The man who said I'm going to begin a campaign of ignoring RW. I very rarely look at their silly website, and having looked at it for the last time today I am of the opinion that it's just a little piece of nothing. There's nothing there that's relevant to us, nothing there that can be used by anyone. As Andy said, they crave attention like little whiny babies, so let them get someone else to change their diapers...not us. immediately changes his own diapers blog theme after we point out how soiled unreadable it is and then Iduan sucks up by becoming a follower. Dance for us little men, dance! Clickbot (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If Karajou is ever man enough to stop hiding behind his disabled comment section and having no way to contact him, he may want to read up on something called THE LAW. He may think it's okay to make up slander and harass people anonymously, but the moment he stops hiding he'll have to explain his actions.. TO THE JUDGE! Better stay in your dark basement, Karajou! It's the only place where you'll ever be safe like the vermin you are. :-) GTac (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Iduan... still desperately trying to suck up to the sysops. *sigh* I guess that coming here to call us vandals and to defend the "Andy said it, so it doesn't need sources!" stance wasn't enough to earn him a pat on the back... But don't worry! I'm sure Karajou will approve of you once you parrot the "Yes, RW are cyber-terrorists!" line in the comments! --Sid (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone who's boycotting RW, Karajou is awfully fast in responding to comments here. It's almost as miraculous as Ken's ability to maintain hyperactive status even when on vacation. Röstigraben (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, who else is ever going to read his blog if not the people here? He has to respond to us, we are his entire audience. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When's the last time this happened?

When's the last time that Andy felt a piece of news was so important that he needed put it top dead center^img on the main page? I guess this technically wouldn't qualify for Mainpageright since that's only for "what the MSM isn't fully covering," but there have been headlines on Mainpageleft too. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an all-time high for gloating far-right-wingers! Let's hose those Dems! (Five years from now - "Where have all the teachers and firemen gone in Wisconsin?", scream local headlines). Fucking eejits. DogP (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It might not be legal under Wisconsin's constitution, though, so it could be a big self-pwn in the end anyway. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find myself thinking about is the negative connotation that Conservapedia has placed on the word "ram" for me. Before Obamacare passed, Conservapedia had stated things like "Obama's and the Democratic leadership’s stubborn determination to ram their socialistic health care plan down America's throat ..." and "... Barack Obama and the liberal big-spending Socialists in Congress are ramming socialized medicine down the throats of Americans ...". I think it was an interesting word choice of Andy's to say that the GOP rammed the anti-union bill through, considering that the term "rammed" was used so much against Obamacare. I guess it's just another word that CP has ruined for me. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy means "ramming" in the sense of "passed legislation despite objections". In the case of Obamacare, the legislation was passed despite the very sensible objections of conservatives(death panels), whereas the anti-union bill is being passed despite the clueless objections of atheist unions. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. In the case of ObamacareAnything the Dems ever do, it's ramming down our throats. If the Repubs ever ram, it's just normal, colloquial ramming. Now I know what you're thinking: what about Repubs in an airport restroom? Yes, throats may again be involved, but these are always RINOs. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Heres what I think. From what I've been reading, a majority of people in WI are siding with the unions and started recall efforts on those who can be leagaly recalled BEFORE this kamakazi by the GOP. Going back to what Nebuchadnezzar said, it may not be legal and the AG might reverse the decision but it would still look bad in the eyes of voters.--Thunderstruck (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep - even going by CP's own source, many, many, many, Wisconsin voters see this as EXTREMELY shady, if not outright illegal, so the GOP there could suddenly find their numbers dwindling, at the first opportunity given to Wisconsin voters. 81.151.240.53 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But that will only be because of voter fraud and atheistic lies spread by democrats. We know that because andy will tell us so. So the wing-nuts win QED. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Accept the premise that conservatives are always right.

2. Interpret reality such that it satisfies the premise. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

3. ????

4. Profit

Has this gotten old yet?

But in all seriousness, this could be a tipping point. Conservatives have been putting libs in there place since the Tea Party started. But in this case, people are seeing the GOP for the corperate owned minions that they are. I have renewed hope for 2012.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, did anyone see the speech Mike Moore gave to the protestors? Say what you want about his movies and politics, but the guy was on fire that day. Not enough quality oration in politics these days, we on the left (in North America, at least) need more good, passionate speakers like that. --Kels (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it on youtube or a news website? Sounds worth watching. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

America is not broke. It is awash in cash. It's just not in your hands. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone from Wisconsin I can safely say people are mad at this legislation being pushed though, but at the same time there is considerable anger towards the "missing" Senators who people here are starting to feel are not doing their jobs. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from Wisconsin, but everything I've seen or read about it seems to suggest that the Senators are "missing" in an attempt to actually do their job - they knew the people of Wisconsin did not want this, so went "missing" in order to try to make it impossible for the Republicans to push it through. Unfortunately, they underestimated the lengths they would go to in order to push this through, and thus their attempt failed. I do have to say that, frankly, it was a bit naive of the Democrats not to see this coming, as all it required was for the Republicans to do an abrupt about-face on the entire basis for the measures detailed in this bill, and conveniently ignore their own arguments, and it's been my experience that Republican politicians these days, in general, have no qualms about being the lying, gutless, amoral bastards that such a thing requires. 81.151.240.53 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Evilution at Work

Genetic mutation allows Hudson River fish to adapt to PCBs, dioxins. Quick, someone tell Andy and, uh, the other remaining editor. This could be a second Lenski. Mountain Blue 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is a perfect story for Andy. You see, the fish adapted, thus proving microevolution, not macroevolution. In addition to that, it also proves that animals and humans can adapt to copious amounts of pollution. Wanna blast the atmosphere full of CO2 and methane? No problem, we'll adapt! Adapting is a common natural way for people to adapt to their environment. Therefore, global warming is a hoax and creationism is science. All right, I think I've been hanging around the deniosphere too long. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy, if you're readying, this reductio ad absurdum is right up your alley: Considering the fact that 99% of all global warming alarmists are evolutionists, why don't they believe life would just 'adapt' to warmer temperatures? Open your mind and the truth will set your free ... from liberals??? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure PJR will happily explain to us that this represents a LOSS OF INFORMATION^TM. Or at least he will once CMI tells him what to think. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Like, the fish forgot they were supposed to die? Makes sense to me. Mountain Blue 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Even conservatives adapt. Quick Andy! Adapt! --Ullhateme (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Jeeves, it is neither a LOSS nor GAIN. All it is change in the information the fish already had. Let's add meaning also. Ace ^{of Spades} 19:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

bonus points for any who can get PJR to reference this (nsfw science article - sorry about the m. link) for loss of genetic information. --Shagie (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what the author says, but I'm not sure that's what he means. I'm also not sure if he still holds that belief, which is something you've failed to demonstrate. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Anupam must be a sock

I mean, his conversation with Addison is either pure Kendoll or pure parody. Google-obsession? In regards to? Use of her his name in every message? Obvious typos that have gone unfixed (an attempt to disguise?). Attacking the same articles without communication, then asking "how can I contact you?" Note also that their big contribution sprees don't overlap in time. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addison is a male. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? I'd never figured that out. 21:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addison sounds like a girls name to you? Crap, no wonder Emerson is becoming a girls name... --Opcn (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like? It was the #12 girl's name in 2009 in the USA! [2]. 21:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the only person I know named "Anupa" is a chick. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addison is female. Just saying. It's true. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a male, dude. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Psy claimed that Addison was a she rather than a he. It's not a common name in the UK but Google searches seem to indicate that it is one of those boys' names (Son of Adam) that in the US seems to get taken up in the naming of girls. The fact that Addison was #12 girls' name in 2009 is irrelevant as I'm damned sure that AddisonDM is older than 2. Personally I think that "his" editing style looks more male.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am telling you guys, Addison is a he. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea. On 99.999% of things I'm liberal, but when some total fucking idiots call their kid Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake, I find myself supporting those countries where there's a list you have to pick from. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The people that pick a name and then spell it incorrectly on purpose should be shot. - π 03:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Addison is definitely a dude. Ketrtrttlckt can confirm. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addison is a cunt either way. I've hated him/her ever since he/she blocked the person who wrote "I'm glad your wife is dead" to Dean with the comment "liberal vandalism." A true prodigy of Andy and a true fucking idiot. SJ ^Debaser 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting pretty certain that this Anupam is a fake. Notably, look at their talk page on CP. Pretty standard stuff, but now look at the user's WP and note how they never reply on their own page. They always ping-pong conversations, an annoying trait at best, that the CP version seems to have abandoned. --Kels (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

and we all though sluglord was crazy. here he stands vindicated at last--Brxbrx (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

a crazy person now, am i? LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 03:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That is clearly, clearly a Kendoll sock. In regards to a shite new article regarding quote mines appearing on searches regarding a search engine beginning with G? I've only just read the article and fuck me, the irony of such claims is just astounding. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps

Maybe Ken finally got the message that multiple edits is not a Good Thing? Maybe he got told to use previews but couldn't get that through his OCD so he creates this a-here sock that can operate under different rules. Further speculating: He's installed some wikiware on his box so that he can edit to his heart's delight and when it's all a nice shiny brown turd simply copies and pastes to CP?
Occam's Razor says "no".
No: I'm going to go with: Ken

pays some poor schmuck to parse through his droppings via email and write a coherent (if laughably wonrg) posting, which he also does post on CP. 17:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

In one of the leaked posts, Ken claimed that his rapid-fire posting was related to some health problem that he was treating. Not sure if I buy that myself - he kept up the usual routine after he got "better" - but there you go. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 18:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Karatoon

And it's pretty pathetic^img. I'm sure someone can make it at least slightly funny.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A talking fart and a house shaped like a tooth. It's... funny? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This ties with the flying kitty for my all-time favorite MPL feature. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"MOMMY, WHY CAN'T I LIVE?"

"Because you type in all caps, and I've read enough Live Journal posts to know that the world doesn't need any more of that shit."

The guy really needs a basic course in lettering. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Toon reminds me of one of my grandmothers' favorite childhood books. It was about a species of tiny magic people who live in a city of hollowed-out magic mushrooms in the forest. Nobody saw anything potentially problematic with that back in the early forties. Mountain Blue 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In some of his early toons he actually went to some trouble with the drawing. That looks like something he scribbled on a piece of toilet paper while taking a dump. Clickbot (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is how much research goes into creating something that is neither funny nor convincing: "Moloch, Molech, Molekh, Molok, Molek, Molock, or Moloc [...] is the name of an ancient Semitic god, in particular a god of the Phoenicians, and the name of a particular kind of child sacrifice associated with that god." Seriously, I'm baffled. I guess Karajou has decided that since he can't be funny if he tries, he should stop trying. --Sid (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly an obscure Biblical reference. There's a brand of trash containers named after him (I guess). (ETA) Does Gehenna ring any bells? A valley where people burned trash and made offerings to Moloch? ...1 point clue: the place which was a remarkable inspiration for the Christian concept of Hell? Yeah, that Moloch. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

kid, you cant live because your thought bubble is coming out of your moms ass. seriously. Not from the stomach, the ass. Karajoo, You Fail Biology Forever! LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes one wonder if Karajerk even knows how kids are born. He's probably dimly aware of some vague region below the belly-button, labelled "Here be naughty bits." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminds of the scene in Like Water for Chocolate. Based in catholic Mexico I have no idea how true this scene is but when a husband wants to do naughty things with his wife they have a sheet with a slit cut in it. The wife lies under the sheet, the husband on top. That way the husband never even has to look at the naughty bits where he does the naughty with his wife. I see karajerk and the other cp'ers as something like that to be honest. I doubt assfly has ever seen a vagina and that all his activity takes place beneath the sheets with the lights off. ^{— Unsigned, by: Oldusgitus / talk / contribs}

Never seen a vagina? I am tempted to work that into a mirror joke.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure any american knows where the lady garden is. You americans seem to think a fanny is an arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

...isn't it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not. Fanny refers to the vag. And while we are at it, you americans put some trousers on over your pants, you god damn perverts. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's only viewing of vaginas are the ones on Wikipedia. You know, the one he COMPLAINS about! LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuck me Slugboy, move that fucking apostrophe to the correct place in that sentence _{(two letters to the right)}, and I'll forget the fact that (in this instance) 'fanny' is not a proper noun. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

User:History

User:History seems to be doing a lot of homework. It's a single login for the whole class or one person pretending to be many. Ace ^{of Spades} 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that it was a single login, or does someone here have socks submitting bogus HW?Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed Andy types those up himself. Probably because homskollar parents found out how horrible CP is (because of the liberals, of course) and don't want their kids having to edit. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just silly. If Andy were doing all the answers then the class average would be somewhere around 110%. 20:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

No, I'm saying student submits homework to Andy, Andy copypastas on CP and wiki formats. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen edits where "someone" didn't know why his answers^img were all screwed up^img, unless this is schlafly-fuge, I suspect a chil'ren was doing it. 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

It's a communal account set up by Andy. The students have the login details and use them to post their 'work'. It's a reaction to us, Andy controls the contact email for the account (if he's even left it turned on) and it stops people educating the children and their parents about just how unqualified, unsuitable and petty Andy is. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also it keeps trolls from socking up and trying to cut into the student stream, and keeps him from accidentally mistaking a real student for a troll and snaping at them. It's legitimately a good idea for a number of reasons, not as good as having the students submit homework straight to him, but still good. --Opcn (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bastille Day?

I'll let someone with more experience (and time) to WIGO^img this gem. I think The Schlaf is missing the history here: there could be a revolt in progress, all The Schlaf can do is g(l)oat. TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberals run amok? Isn't that the subtitle of a Michelle Malkin book? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The cognitive dissonance is wonderful to behold. Tea baggers protesting are loyal and patriotic Americans, opposed to legislation they don't like being passed, but liberals protesting against legislation they don't like, are filthy scum. I think the one advantage of all this is that as more and more elected tea baggers begin to show just how monumentally stupid they are, the backlash against Republicans as a whole could be quite significant. Which could, of course, drive them to even greater heights of insanity. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

College admissions and even scholarships begin to arrive for Conservapedians.

I can't link to this because 403'd and behind hidemyass but this lastest story on the mainpage - College admissions and even scholarships begin to arrive for Conservapedians.' More good news is expected in the next three weeks as colleges send out their annual acceptances. sounds awfully exciting. Ace ^{of Spades} 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Ace. So am I, at the moment. But you can still copy the link/diff from the HideMyAss URLbox rather than your browser's. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

linky^img No doubt some homskollars got into Oral Roberts, or Libery U, or maybe even Princeton, if they took other courses besides Andy's. I wonder if Mama S gives scholarships? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. We're going to hear about a few unnamed, unknown kids who have had proper educations getting in to college in spite of being on one of Andy's joke courses.
2. The Assfly is once again getting confused between homoskoolers (imaginary or otherwise) and people who edit conservapedia.

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He certainly does seem to believe an awful lot of people who have never edited CP are somehow conservapedians. Two buses full of zygote fanciers for a start. In actuality, you could fit all the genuine conservapedians in a mini cooper without anyone having to sit on Uncle Ed's lap. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that he'd insist on it and refuse to get in otherwise. Also, aren't universities full of liberals and professor values? Why is sending a proud, strong, independently educated conservapedia homeschooler to one of these liberal brainwashing institutes something to brag about? X Stickman (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of adults who have been bullied as a child but still say "Ha! Ha! (insert persons name), who is (insert adjective) now!", when doing something they think was the opposite of that. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay! if it's anything like last year, we get to find out which schools are no longer evil because a homskollar got in. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if UNC at Chapel Hill^img is one of them? Andy's adding its liberal credentials and its over-abundance of the fairer sex. Or perhaps one of his boys has been rejected? Clickbot (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say, it looks like somebody got rejected by UNC, but you beat me to it. P-Foster (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"...with a leftist tradition that goes back at least a half-century to a time when communist speakers on campus were accepted." Wait, Red blabbermouths are unwelcome on campuses now? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Resetting Ken's clock

He's at it again, so I have reset the clock. This isn't something we can overlook as a "cameo appearance". This is pure vintage Ken, near the top of MPR, about his friends' awesome YouTube videos. Ole Ole Ole! Gauss (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does that really count? He did say he'd be back for "important" news items. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Shockofgod on creation.com? Holy shit....a new low...even for those guys. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the content is pathetic spamming of pathetic people on pathetic websites; it's not vintage Ken

. Fuck, he even posted ALL THAT to MPR in ONE EDIT! Anyway, his clock was already behind the rapture clock, so we'll never see the end of his holiday whatever. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless he doesn't get raptured... ^{ONE / TALK} 15:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news!!!^img «-Bfa-» 23:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should have been reset. He mentioned that he would still do news, and he thinks this is what news is, so he is doing what he thinks he said he would do. --Opcn (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Truly it is breaking news of equivalent importance to the largest earthquake in Japanese history; priorities, CP has them!. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news!!!P-Foster (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Burnt already. Oh, and DeltaStar, he didn't post all that to MPR in one edit - his edits from 7:06, 7:07, 7:20, 7:22 and 7:22 (again)^img were just oversighted. Nice burst of activity there, Ken, mostly hidden by oversight and page deletion. --Sid (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Curious

I see borked news has the headline "63% Say U.S. Should Stay Out of Libya Crisis." I seem to remember them being suspiciously silent about, or critical of, opposition to the Iraq invasion. Obviously, the only good wars are those started by Republicans. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

War is great and just while Republicans are in charge. But when a Democrat is President, it's HIS war^img - even if it started almost a decade before he assumed office. --Sid (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To be slightly fair though even most Americans can see the monumental fuck up their country has made in Iraq and Afghanistan so I'm not surprised that 63% of them want to steer clear of another one. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed the bleeding-hearters here in Britain are very confused, poor dears; they want to shout "why aren't the evil west helping these poor muslims?", but they have been shouting "why are we interfering in foreign countries killing innocent muslims?" for the best part of a decade. The "Obama's war" thing on CP is superb. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, CP's officially gone pacifist^img now. Nice flip-flopping - I remember the time when TK fantasized about nuking the Middle East, and Ken was the only one willing to confront him over it. Röstigraben (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the only time i had any respect for Ken

, ever. And then it dissapeared by his next edit. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? His next edit? That was probably just adding a comma to his "Don't Nuke Mecca" position. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

God created global warming for the elderly

The most fundamentally stupid thing I have ever read. And when you have been following CP since 2007 that's saying something. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

--Ullhateme (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am amazed that this isn't the stupidest thing on that page. That takes skill. --Kels (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed once again shows us exactly why he's Conservapedia's biggest idiot emeritus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's almost a bingo in one go! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did God hate the poor and elderly so much up until now? I guess I should just open my mind. ... of liberals? (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Because old people never die from heat right? --Opcn (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And if Dogma taught me anything, it's that god hates central air. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the funniest/weirdest/stupidest part is that this page exists. I mean, come on, a DEBATE page on 2011 CP? If 90/10 doesn't get you, disagreeing with a senior sysop will. Meaning that only blatant parodists will bother to-SEE?^img --Sid (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear God, please stop fucking with the Air Conditioning. Sincerly, LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 00:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

With my latest sock I considered suggesting that the Debates be removed (or at least most of them) but decided it wasn't worth the effort. --Opcn (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of things I begin to do with my sock but stop after a minute when I realize that I'm investing real time into Conservapedia. Thus, my sock sits inactive, watching and waiting. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the same problem. I have written decently long articles from a conservative perspective (because I'm pretty conservative) and not posted them because I don't want to give them much of value. One of the insights I was going to post on conservapedia I posted elsewhere, and received praise from a prominent conservative academic and was included in their testimony before a committee of congress last month (not attributed to me). Could have been on conservapedia before that but Andy is a horrible manager and no one wants to contribute... --Opcn (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So back in 1995 when I was in Chicago and over 500 mostly elderly people died from that July's triple digit heat wave, that was God's way of saying he loved them? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That was God's way of ridding us of the people who are obviously not good christians. If they were good christians, they'd have enough money to buy a damn AC. Quaru^{fiddle - You can't explain that!} 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's this smarmy smart-alec condescending attitude of Ed's that makes so repugnant. "Oh, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so let me make some inane facetious comment, that makes me look clever to the other morons inhabiting this place and which I can defend with the banhammer. I'd love to see Ed repeat that comment out in public, so we can watch his face get punched in. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't he just ask?

Why is Ed speculating as to why global warming is happening? He's a moonie. He personally knows Korean Jesus, who presumably knows for sure. Why not just drop the king of kings a line and have it explained to him? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Korean Jesus is too busy designing boats, he is a fisher of men isn't he? --Opcn (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tzoran

Has just gone on a an ANON vandal spree.^img. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

5 bucks says that when I have a chance to look at the most recent Fab Five emails that just got sent over we're suddenly in cahoots with Anon. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we are, aren't we? I mean, Anon are a very secretive group, so we wouldn't even know. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This link should last longer than a link to the RC (though yes, CaptureBot of course got it). Some of his later edits really make me wonder WTF was going on, though. For example this^img seems to be Andy's talk page, pasted into Ed's. And this^img looks like some sort of "Somebody hacked my account, but I noticed it within minutes even though I haven't edited since Jan 6" - I wonder if the Fab Five will even bother to discuss it now that he's banned. (Though as a hilarious side note, open vandalism in the name of Anon nets you a shorter ban than being a member here and never vandalizing CP.) --Sid (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because anybody can commit "open vandalism in the name of Anon". Only we however have the mod codes to the backroom IRC channels and the keys to the ion cannon. Mountain Blue 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your not supposed to talk about the ion cannon! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I don't see what the big deal is, I could never get that damn thing to work right. Well, there was that incident in Paris, but that could have been anyone's ion cannon. --Kels (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The ion cannon was in the Guardian and on Boing Boing. Just this week it was in Vanity Fair, and the article got linked to from Hacker News. Oh, and it has an article on Wikipedia. If Andy still doesn't know Trent controls Anonymous he's virtually the last person on the planet. Mountain Blue 04:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like it on the record that I am not in cahoots with Anonymous. Just sayin'. DogP (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixed messages on Libya

Not really worth a WIGO, but, from the CP news desk: "63% Say U.S. Should Stay Out of Libya Crisis." Scroll down a little: "Obama: Military action against Libya possible. Speaking after a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, President Barack Obama said the U.S. and its NATO allies are still considering a military response to violence in Libya. [33]Is this the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize?" and then: "Barack Hussein Obama made time for his first game of golf for the year. [41] Maybe he's done fixing the economy, winning the war in Afghanistan and helping to end civil war in Libya?" All right, I'm confused. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Very simple. Anything Obama does in any situation whatsoever, he's wrong. And a mooslem. --Kels (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, almost forgot this is CP. Is Obama's foreign policy to blame for the potential nuclear meltdown in Japan? More at eleven. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been quite surprised by who is saying what in the debate over Libya. Ironically, many of the same factions who were yowling like banshees against the invasion of Iraq are now exhorting the U.S. to jump the gun in Libya's case. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't look for internal consistency in partisans opinions. I love the shift in opinions on the Australia Card when it went from a Labor Party proposal in the late 80s to the Liberal Party of Australia's proposal in early 00's. I remember seeing a collection of quotes from various pundits of both stripes 180 opinion rotations. - π 05:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not partisans so much as ideologues. As any astute observer can tell, the actual aim of the ideologues in question in any given conflict is to throw as much support as possible behind the side that seems the most opposed to the Big Evil Oppressors; international law is merely a pawn in that game, to be appealed to or disregarded as the situation warrants. Everyone does this sort of thing, of course, but it is amusing to watch. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The anti-Iraq war people now want to strike Libya now Obama is in charge. One the other side look how quick some on the right wanted to abandon Iraq, and even Afghanistan, after Obama took over. - π 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. The commentators I read were not quite so shallow and partisan in their thinking, but I suppose there are all kinds. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible to oppose an attack on Iran (a state that's relatively at peace with itself and showing no clear, obvious and present danger to its neighbors that can't be handled by diplomatic means for now) and to some support sort of humanitarian military intervention (a la Kosovo, or at least a la stated purpose of the Kosovo war) against Libya (collapsed into civil war/failed state/predatory state status, using brute military force against civilians) with not too much cognitive dissonance. Liberal interventionists who have read too much Michael Ignatieff and have fallen for the R2P/W2I doctrines are a particular breed of hawk, not necessarily the "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb bomb Iran crowd. P-Foster (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those leftists who opposed the Iraq war but would now like to see at least a no-fly zone established over Libya, and I don't see what's inconsistent about that. I've never been an isolationist or pacifist, you'll have to look at each case and decide whether or not it's both justifiable and a good idea to intervene. The latter point quite obviously did not apply to Iraq, and while we can't be sure about the extent of an eventual Western commitment to Libya, nobody is suggesting a massive invasion followed by long-term occupation. I understand the concerns of those who don't want to be pulled into another Middle Eastern adventure, but in this case, it's not like the initial aim is to take over the whole country and see how things turn out. Regarding the justification for this, well, the removal of an entrenched dictator is only going to happen at the cost of significant civilian casualties. Outsiders can't make the decision whether that's an acceptable price to pay, only the people themselves. In Libya, they've already made that decision, the war has already started, and there'll be bloodshet either way. If NATO can at least prevent some of these casualties at relatively little cost, it should be done. Röstigraben (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in Iraq, we shouldn't have gone in like we did, as, based on the evidence, or rather lack of it, that we had for the reasons given, those reasons were simply not true, and we totally fucked up the aftermath of actually taking down Saddam to boot. In Libya, there is already an uprising going on against Gaddafi, so I would have no problem with direct military action, in order to support that uprising, as that is actually a legitimate reason for going in. Contrary to what ListenerX believes, it is perfectly possible to object to the Iraq war, whilst advocating action in Libya without being contradictory or hypocritical, and I wouldn't give a flying fuck if it was McCain in the White House, and not Obama - I'd still be saying this. 86.173.220.56 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Homework Five Answers

Is it an actual rule that we can't laugh at teh homskollers? Some of the homework answers are taking me past facepalm into headdesk territory. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an unwritten rule we don't WIGO them, but I don't think there's a general no discussion policy. MDB (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that if it makes you laugh, post it. Etc 17:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! ...wait, what? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL wut is pretty much my reaction too; I want in on this joke! :D --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The rule has a pretty good ring to it, doesn't it? :) Etc 13:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone say m'name?AlexR4444 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, sure why not, I will keep that in mind. :) --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely want to know if that was a dig at me or something now! I don't think I've ever posted a homework answer on here so not sure what Etc is getting at here. Unless he means that I have such a great sense of humour that any posts on the topic should be according to whether I personally laughed at them, but somehow I doubt that...AlexR4444 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get so paranoid, you're not a CP sysop. If you look at what Etc posted you will see that s/he used the old "myName" trick. We all saw our own names when we read it. These things catch us out periodically.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a CP sysop, eh? I'm tempted to delete this talk page and recreate it without my embarrassing ignorance of what Etc had done.AlexR4444 (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some aren't too bad, but Student Four and Student Seven... wow. Okay, #4 isn't finished but you have to love the answer about avoiding the civil war. Addison's answers are better, but I'm afraid I have to call anyone who can write "I’m not sure why. It has always struck me as rather silly to remember our defeats, e.g. Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Alamo. Why not remember our victories?" an idiot. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So what's all that July 4th nonsense about then?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed some good marks for homework four assignments with some neo-secessionist rhetoric in them. Does teh Assfly endorse The Lost Cause of the South theory ass-pull? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I never laugh at the "student" answers, unless, of course they're my socks, in which case I don't laugh at my own jokes unless/until I'm drunk. 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

It's much better to wait until the Arsefly awards appalling answers 9/10, then you can really laugh! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, is homskoll where Homsar goes to school? Now I can't go on CP without reading it in the Homsar voice in my head. It's terrible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What a huge surprise: student four gets 57/60^img. This is the student who in answer to "The biggest question in all of American History is this: Do you think it was possible to avoid the Civil War? If so, how?" replied "I think that it was impossible to keep the country together and avoid the Civil War." Result? "OK, but give reasons. (Minus 1)". And Andy has the gall to complain about liberal grade inflation? The man is a fucking idiot. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Arsefly must be the only "educator" around who works on the premise that a student starts with 10 marks per question, and is deducted one mark per 'error'; as opposed to the liberal/atheistic/evolutionist/etcist policy of there are 10 marks available, ergo the student needs to make 10 points in their answer. Also the premise that not giving any information or reasons whatsoever is only a single 'error' and thus only deserves the docking of one mark. Also also, does he really think this is fooling anyone? Himself? The homoskoolers? The homoskoolers' parents? Isn't it a (genuinely bleeding-heart) liberal position to not criticise and let thick kids know they're thick (as in don't mark them down, it's unfair, etc)? Fuck me, the more I think about this, the more it hurts. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember that Andy cannot abide any criticism of himself, or his beliefs. If students were to get bad marks, then it would be an indication that either he's ab terrible teacher (we all know the answer to that) or homskollars aren't as clever as he'd have us believe. Thus it's vital for him to give high marks, to stroke his own massive ego. Unless, the answers disagree with his worldview, of course, then he mark savagely, to show how dumb liberals are.

Just a thought - if students are submitting their grades for Andy's "courses" to colleges as part of their admission - the colleges would only be looking at the grade, not the standard of the test? So Andy is deliberately inflating grades, to give his students a better chance. Fraud, surely? --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, until those unis see the homeskoooolers' SAT scores and read their SAT scores and notice the profound gap. That's why most of these kids end up at Liberty and other nonsense institutions, and why UNC just got slagged by Andy.

zomg! muslims and atheists and bears!

[1]^img Because obscure groups prove a wide conspiracy in which all atheists and Muslims are involved. --Brxbrx (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you know that atheists and Muslims are brothers in arms against Christianity? My enemy's enemy is my friend. Yeah, right. Clickbot (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I just mentioned when this same topic came up on another page, there is a document, the Euston Manifesto, objecting to just that sort of "brothers-in-arms" attitude. Of course, that only applies to atheists of a particular pinko stripe (and specifically excludes Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and many others), but Conservapedia sweeps that inconvenient fact under the rug. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

My guesses, in order of confidence, are that (a) the article is a parody, (b) the article is wrong and the rally was parody itself, or (c) this is just some small but bizarre fringe group. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like about a dozen people from the pic. - π 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Click the link on the article. These people are protesting Peter King's (Wingnut-NY) new Mooooslim witch hunt hearings -- Park51 is a tarr'ist command center! While I wouldn't have put "Atheists for Islam" on a sign, I support people telling this asshat to go fuck himself. Get this, King is a supporter of the Irish Royal Army. Jon Stewart nails it: "Oh that's right! He's a Republican. They don't fold, they double down! 'Oh I see your charges of hypocrisy, and I raise you a go-f**k-yourself.'" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Irish Royal Army? Shome mishtake shurely?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the way the wingnuts always think they know what atheist think - as if they are some kind of homogenous mass. No wingnut has ever asked this atheist what his opinions are - how do they know? Divine inspiration? Or are they just imbeciles? Auld Nick (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's that black and white thinking that does this. I'd consider it the first sign that somebody is lost in the world, desperatly trying to put everything in categories instead of analyzing it. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I reckon all athiests want to say this to the wingnuts: "Shut the fuck up and let me rot in hell in peace!" LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 10:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What's wonderful about this is Jpratt's knee-jerk reaction. He doesn't stop to consider for a moment what the likelihood is of people who don't believe in religion, suddenly taking sides against different religions. Then again, if it wasn't for people like Johnny X-Ray, Palin wouldn't be in the news and could give Bristol her eldest child back. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

oh come on. liberal cosnpiracy theories are almost as bad as conservative ones--Brxbrx (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Name one? --Ullhateme (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's child--Brxbrx (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Who takes that one seriously? There are people brandishing guns over the rumors about Obama. --Opcn (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

apparently psygremlin takes it seroiously. also, truthers.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Brxbrx. I'd poke my tongue out at you, but it's too firmly wedged in my cheek. A bit like your head up your arse really. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 10:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't see that as a conspiracy theory but as speculative gossip. A bit like "Is Actress X pregnant? Because she appears to be fatter than 4 months ago." --Ullhateme (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's (bitchy) gossip. Surely a conspiracy theory requires there to be some element of conspiracy involved? Like glen beck and his insane connections on his scrible board. Or sarah palin and twhat she and her husband did to exact revenge on someone who had the cheek to divorce a relative of theirs. It's the conspiracy that makes it a conspiracy theory. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Irony meter smashed

"A visitor here posts that "Wikipedia just admitted that its retention rate for editors has dropped from 40% to 12%. What they won't admit is that they have allowed politicized cabals to systematically drive off any editors that don't agree with their ultra-liberal world view!" So some random person who's made less than ten edits in the last year^img is worthy of having their opinion quoted on the MPR? He's lucky he wasn't blocked for his account being static so long. SJ ^Debaser 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this calls for our own statistician to the stars, Larron, to pile on? DogP (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense that its retention rate would drop precipitously, and it is hardly a sign of failure as the overall number of active editors is much higher than in the earlier years. Back in 2004ish and earlier Wikipedia was much smaller and not well known. About the only people involved were quite devoted to the project. Now that its taken off and become a top 10 website, you get a lot more casual people who make small changes and additions here and there, but don't hang around or really join the community (or whatever you want to call it). It reminds me of when Andy cited another sign that Wikipedia is close to failing, that its rate of new article creation had dropped off. Of course, its inevitable that it would; it's probably pretty hard for the average person to come up with a subject that is deserving of an article but doesn't have one yet. Speaking of which, I remember Andy in the past years making all sorts of predictions about the imminent demise of WP and it being overtaken by CP. Can anyone find links to some of his old statements about this? I'm sure his timeline of Wikipedia failure has come and gone, and I'd be curious to see how far off his predictions were. DickTurpis (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Andy's cognitive dissonance is astounding, I mean how many editors do you need if all you create is 'concise' stubs? Wikipedia has become a huge resource but most of the mainstream work has surely been done. New stuff is continuously happening but adding that takes a lot less effort than the original compilation. Gaps are apparent mainly in small niche areas, things that CP would regard as unencyclopaedic. So only an obsessive is going to want to check every comma or rephrase the majority of content. For the average drive-by editor there is less to engage them than when the project started. On the otherhand CP has enormous gaps and contains few articles of substance. Ken's projects are useless as encyclopedia articles, they are only quote-mined polemics. Alger Hiss and KAL007 are about the only things that are covered to the same level as a WP article. As for the number of articles, WP now has 3.5 million compared with CP's 35,000. Which one has the greater need for additional content and more editors? At CP there are 438 'active' editors who have edited in the last 91 days but only 40 with more than 39 edits (3 a week) and if you remove TK, Willminator and Tzoran from that list you get 37 out of a total number of 38750 registered users. If even only 1 percent of those were genuine that gives you a retention rate of less than 10%.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Retention rate: rate of editors who made at least one comment one year after their first edit. Breaking news: Retention rate at Conservapedia dropped from 31% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2009

Year of First Comment	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010 *
Number of editors	54	7492	5757	3753	1737
Still Active after One Year	17	319	138	60	2
Retention Rate	31.5%	4.3%	2.4%	1.6%	0.1%

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (^*: while the retention rate for editors of 2010 is quite meaningless, it's interesting to see that there were only 1737 editors starting in 2010....)

(BTW: the retention rate at RationalWiki dropped from 20.1% in 2007 to 16.4% in 2009. The sky is falling!) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LArron wins teh internetz! What's really scary is that if you showed these stats to Andy he'd just claim it was all down to liberal infiltration or something. The fact that nobody wants to edit his blog - or is allowed to - slips past what counts for his brain. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And here^img is the response. I'll let Andy speak for himself: "Don't have a numeric answer, but based on experience our retention rate of quality editors is quite high. For example, there were three quality editors who registered at Conservapedia at the very beginning of the massive publicity in February 2007. Two of those three (none of whom I have ever met personally) are still frequent editors today." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And a quality editor is defined as one how hangs around. Ergo, Conservapedia has a high retention of quality editors. - π 22:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Who are the three? I guess the third (who's not around anymore) one was PJR? The other two... Ed and Ken, maybe? That'd be some definition of "quality" we'd have then... --Sid (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken most likely, Ed no, he has met him at some university talk thing, they took pictures of each other and uploaded them. - π 22:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh please dont encourage them. You know they're gonna use that as an excuse.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, TK signed up right at the apex of the Feb 2007 humiliation conga... I mean publicity torrent. TK must be the quality editor who doesn't edit any more. It can't be PJR because PJR has publicly disagreed with Andy at some point and therefore was useless all along. Mountain Blue 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajou or RobS maybe? Andy is probably defining 'quality' as 'is a sysop' here. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seems like Karajou^img is one of these mythical heroes. And while I'm sure he wanted to be nice to JPatt, this^img description of his activity sounds like a polite way of saying he's a moron who is only copypasting right-wing soundbites to the main page. Which is, of course, accurate, but no wonder he's soured to Andy. Röstigraben (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Only on Conservapedia is the number of people you've blocked considered a badge of honour. Fuck content, as long as you can block vandals. No wonder Andy sees it as the Holy Grail of rights to hand out to minions. --PsyGremlinTal! 11:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought Andy and Karajou went to March for Life 2011 together? I'm sure the photos they were uploading and very aesthetically putting at the top of the mainpage were taken by the good sailor. SJ ^Debaser 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah that was Terry Chuckarse and JPratt. Karajou's too far south of the Mason-Dixon line to make the trip. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Right so. SJ ^Debaser 13:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia and Chernobyl

Of course they go over the top and accuse the wrong people, but this is actually a case of the stopped clock. Chernobyl really was overhyped, and most adverse health effects in the affected population were psychosomatic (e.g. due to fear, not radiation). See this summary of the WHO report. The situation in Japan is not as bad as portrayed in the media - there was no meltdown, no "nuclear tragedy", and it's not even remotely similar to Chernobyl. See here. The scaremongering of the anti-nuclear movement about U.S. reactors is rather predictable. --Tweenk (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are legitimate criticisms of nuclear energy - cost of plants and waste would probably be the top two - but this isn't one of them--Danielfolsom (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So there's no need to worry about a meltdown, ever? P-Foster (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say there's reason for caution, but the technology has advanced enough that it's not really a worry, no. And I believe I read that Japan's newer reactors were not threatened, because they had technology that would shut them down in the case of an earthquake.--Danielfolsom (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that the evacuation of 170,000 people is probably completely unwarranted. P-Foster (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean, to be honest I don't know too much about recent nuclear technology, but again, i'm pretty sure I read that the only reactors facing consequences are the old ones with older tech. Then again, I'm not researching it. Though I am considering socking up, creating a conservapedia article that repeats my claims, and then citing that as my source.--Danielfolsom (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember here that however little you know about nuclear technology, Andy Fuckwit Schlafly knows considerably less than you. He's a fucking nitwit, and just pretends to know about stuff. No need to stress about this one. DogP (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"We are assuming melt down has occurred", says a Japanese official. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I do have to say that, whilst CP is technically right in saying the Chernobyl disaster was overhyped, it's not exactly a minor incident - 200,000 square kilometres of Europe was irradiated (albeit most of it to a relatively minor degree), there's a 30km area around Chernobyl that's still restricted due to heavy radiation, even 25 years later, and an estimated 4000 people have or are going to die due to the meltdown, even according to that WHO report. Also, contrary to CP's page on Chernobyl^img, the evacuation of Pripyat and the surrounding area was done very quickly and efficiently (even if it was done by lying to people by leading them to believe they were only going to be away for three days, not forever), thus Chernobyl was actually an example of the USSR managing to provide quick and efficient transportation in crisis situations. The real problem regarding the evacuation was that it was delayed by about 24 hours, as the authorities saw fit to try to conceal the scale of the disaster, and therefore did not evacuate until it became absolutely clear it was necessary. In contrast, Japan have done an evacuation pretty much straight away. Another error is the claim that the city of Chernobyl is still inhabited by about 10,000 people. There are people who refused to be evacuated, or have re-entered the exclusion zone, but this population is currently estimated to be about 400, only half of whom actually live in the city of Chernobyl itself. It should be noted, though, that page is actually a case of almost plagiarism, as it more or less mirrors this, except for a few alterations to change it from being a huge disaster to being a minor, but massively overhyped one, plus a couple of other minor alterations, and these errors are from that page. 86.161.41.209 (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ever since radiation from Chernobyl rained down on the UK 23 years ago, sales of sheep in affected areas have been restricted." [3] Tell Cumbrian sheep farmers it was overstressed. 13:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Those farmers would appear to *agree* that Chernobyl was overstressed. They think that the restrictions are too stringent. Chernobyl happened the year I was born, so I can't say much to whether it was overstressed, but "farmers affected by Chernobyl who express the opinion that their sheep are fine" would say that Chernobyl9or maybe more to the point, radiation) is being overstressed, so it's not a very good argument, I think.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was born in '86, so I obviously don't remember it, but I'm told that there was a major panic in Kodiak and obviously it turned out to be nothing. There is a map circulating that shows a hypothetical radiation plume beelining it for kodiak and spreading radiation that would kill half of Alaska.

is iduan conservative?

besides for one sentence bashing the New Deal, he seems to have written an article praising a liberal (has he ever written like that on a conservative?) ... and his userpage once looked like this. .. could IDuan be a liberal? This would explain why schlafly has never given him rights.--Danielfolsom (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out those userboxen. Definitely a lie-ber-rul troll from a vandal site. -- 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a member of Anon--Danielfolsom (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he does like Macs, so he's probably a flaming liberal. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily -- Rush Limbaugh is a big Mac fan, too. MDB (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

*throws his Mac out of the window in disgust* --Sid (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieve your Mac Sid, honey: Limbuagh is a Big Mac fan, the cancer burgers from MacDonalds. 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

"Just because the world's biggest fool says the sun is shining, that doesn't make it dark out." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretzel WIGO

It's not really news, and I'm pretty sure it is a christian symbol. The Jewish bagel was originally made to represent a riding stirrup. --Opcn (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And a bit about the history of the Pretzel [4] [5]. I'll point out that the pretzel article on CP is one of the few that has any references - and it would do well to read them. --Shagie (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Puts a whole new spin on Dubya almost choking on one, eh? Vulpius (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing something they do in fact have right is hardly something to crow about. DogP (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Iduan sucks Aschalfly's dick

Here^img. And here's the money shot^img. And swallow.^img DarkStar (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

wigo? i'll vote up. i love how he used to have ambition - like wanting sysop rights - whereas now it's "i want to be symbolically listed on a page that you will remove me from the second you inevitably block me again"--Danielfolsom (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That list of influential editors on CP is lame. One is dead, one was 'retired' by the dead one (before he died), one hasn't edited for over a year, one hasn't edited for nearly a year and the rest are congenital imbeciles who simply add unencyclopedic whackery. Auld Nick (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That page is actually full of fail. The Testimonies section contains no testimonies, the reference to Google actually highlights how badly CP features on the search engine. The Cardinal Mindszenty blog is dead. no mention of the 2010 and 2011 buses to walk for life. Which never travelled under the Conservapedia banner anyway, and were peopled by members of Andy's church and family. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone's been reading this thread^img. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone notice this? Recognition of TK

JM makes a little noise^img--Opcn (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oxymoron is the new Secularized Language

That is all. DogP (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment on the WIGO here: Classic rock is afusion genre you shithead. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I love "conservative professor." In Andy's world, the word "professor" carries such an absurdly strong negative connotation that he can't even think about education without foaming at the mouth. I wonder what he thought of his professors in Harvard Law, or was that before the "all professors are degenerate liberals" meme? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet, there are three instances of "Professor Schlafly" on his talk page. I wonder what college Andy is associated with, or is it just that he's a "senior lecturer at Schlafly Bible Basement Discount School?" --Shagie (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the standard is simply "has at some point taught something to children", the same standard that apparently led to "Professor Poor"^img --Sid (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Win

This conversation^img is so full of win. In fact, it's bi-winning. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

" I'd like to learn more about the tragedy in Japan but doubt we'll be asking for money to support over-hyped media claims about nuclear power plant meltdowns.--Andy Schlafly 17:42, 13 March 2011 (EDT)" Andy, what about the 1200 dead and rising???? and all the destroyed homes, building, mass flooding, natural disaster, e.t.c. not about wheather (sorry my spelling) or not liberals are overhyping nuclear shit. Seriously. Wait TILL the thing actually goes off (god forbid), see what happens. GAH! LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It all shows him up as an uncaring prick. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

also, Karajou just deleted the parthian shot at the end... but i like peanut butter and Chuck Norris...

Ha, andy's response to "thousands dead, show some sympathy, plz" : "This is not a blog, bitch"... uh... WHAT!?!?!... what the fuck does that even mean??? LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 00:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Be a little sympathetic, please. If all he's got is his homeskollars fees, a retainer of $1.00 from AAAAAAPS and whatever his mommy lets him have, he's probably strapped for cash himself. Let's have a whip-round for Andy! 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's so easy to be noticed on both sites. The same person who riled up Andy and Karajou is the same person who trolls about TK being dead. Both websites are trolled so easy, just understand how people think and what gets them to react in a certain way.193.200.150.82 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, really? Is that what trolling involves? I glad we have got you here otherwise we would never have known. - π 02:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably like many here, I've been surfing news sites like crazy since the Japan tragedy struck looking for the best source, and re. Andy's claim of "over-hyped media claims about nuclear power plant meltdowns", it's been VERY obvious to me that Fox News's site is the ne plus ultra in promoting armageddon (although they've often had the best photo coverage). For the past two days, it's been plugging "meltdown" on its front page like mad, while at the same time you have the NY Times, Wash. Post, Guardian, London TImes, Al Jazeera, Le Monde, Daily Yomiuri, Asahi Shinbun, Hindustan TImes, Deutsche Welle, The Age have been much less panicky. At the time of writing, Fox has "Japan Fights to Prevent Multiple Nuclear Reactor Meltdowns as 180,000 Flee" as it's giant headline, as against the LA Times' "Engineers work to contain reactor damage". Just sayin'. DogP (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy tried to drum up support for things all the time, but I don't think he has ever tried to raise money, maybe he is too proud to ask for a handout. --Opcn (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

looks like our samaritan got Karajouked [6]--Brxbrx (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy has already gone out his way^img to help the victims. What more could anyone ask. Meanwhile Jo the art thief keeps uploading more pretty pictures^img. Clickbot (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake! Even Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica would care more about this than Andy. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel a Penny Arcade style gesture is imminent, since Andy Schlafly doesn't seem to ever use the all powerful Conservapaedia for charity work. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

makes me wonder, how does Andy have the basic living amenities, since conservapedia is pretty much his job (does he have an actual one???) and all but refuses donations (not that anyone would THINK of donating). simply put: how does he live? <insert lame Homestuck joke> LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 08:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He is a lawyer with strong connections, which means he can get paid (as a write off) and only occasionally do some light duty lawyer work. His life is a handout from the ideologically blinded and greedy. --Opcn (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so surprised at Andy's reaction. Ghouls like him and Karajou wait, salivating, for the next shooting, or disaster, so they can score cheap political points. Andy is incapable of showing compassion, remember, for him all matters are political matters and that's what comes first. I'm just surprised he hasn't jumped on the "the earthquake is payback for Pearl Harbor" bandwagon, that some American fucktards are spouting. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

you forgot to say "...IN AMERICA!" (im looking right at you, bandit keith). LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 09:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I like his "Conservapedians did donate time and effort" in regards to Haiti. I don't remember there being any specific mention, also how does he define "Conservapedian" anyway? People he knows? I'd love to see any concrete proof that Andy or any other of the 'Conservapedians" (i.e. sysops and editors of CP) donated time or money to Haiti. --PsyGremlinSermā! 09:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Face it, assfly and his merry little group of fucktards are the sort of people who would have sent bibuls to Haiti and will send them to Japan instead of anything remotely useful. Like money, food, shelter or the like. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aschlafly doesn't want to send any money to Japan because he's skimmed the news and seen houses with several cars and even boats next to them. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, they sent prayers to japan. didn't you read the mPR posts? All you need to solve any problem at all is wait for god to solve it for us. --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Haiti the instance where he promoted his local church or something as a recipient for donations? My memory's fuzzy. --Sid (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow Andy, that's really sympathetic for my home country. Yeah, right...it's pretty apparent that you don't care about the people that have lost their families, pets, and important items.

Fuck you Andy, fuck you.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a first

I actually learned about a legitimate news story, not some right wing propaganda piece, by seeing it on CP for the first time.^img

Japan's Shinmoedake volcano has gone active. MDB (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are photos of Shinmoedake erupting dated January if you Google it. Can anyone clarify? Jack Hughes (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can gather it started erupting sometime early Jan but the debate I guess is did it start erupting because of the tectonic movements taking place that ultimately led to the quake. And has the quake caused further disruption which will cause the eruption to increase in intensity. I'm no vulcanologist so I will leave it to those of you more knowledgable to answer those ones. Or we could ask terry chuckarse, no doubt he can explain it all. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a friend who lives in Miyazaki, not far from the volcano. It's been sending out ash for a couple of months now, he mentions it on FB fairly often. He also says the most recent activity did not break windows like some news reports are saying, but rather it was mixed up with stories about the initial eruption, which did. --User:Kels@school

Wherein Andy Schlafly proves once again what a cunt he is

Yes, Andy, predicting earthquakes is an inexact science,^img but unlike you, scientists don't go gloating when they get it right. How typical of you to dance on people's graves, while crowing how right you are. Also, if atheists are so bad at predicting natural disasters, where are the creationist models for predicting them? --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not only that that face palms on this but the earth quake took place at a known subduction zone where just shortly before a sizeable tremor had taken place, as predicted by the theory of plate tectonics. He really is a fucking moron isn't he. 'Oh look, it didnt happen where they thought it would happen but instead happened at a point which demonstrates plate tectonics in action therefore goddit'. Shitehead. Of the highest order. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Psy, you haven't been paying attention in class. "Natural disaster" is a secularized term for "act of God". As for models of prediction, just look at the Bible...or, um, postdiction's good enough.--Brendiggg (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't realise that any 6000-year-old-universe-creationists denied plate fucking tectonics! Mr Schlalfy, I appear to have misunderestimated you, I obviously hadn't realised that Noah's impossible flood was an alternative to plate tectonics. How the hell does that 'theory' even work? Are they (or is it just he?) really saying that the continents floated apart on floodwater after it pissed down for 40 days? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the crap Chuckarse has written above, that's pretty much it. Not only did it rain for 40 days, but there were huge earthquakes, releasing all the subterranean water, plus the Earth turned into a giant nuclear reactor for a few days, which is where all the C14 comes from and after all that, the continents drifted apart. And you'd be a liar and a baby-eating commie to suggest otherwise. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Take a sub and go a few miles down. You'll find continents floating on water ancored down by god (thats also where you'll find noah's ark, shhhh) and the shift was clearly caused by fat atheists. Now please open your mind, read a bible, and build a hospital, only then can you continue to debate.--Thunderstruck (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deltastar, have you never watched the crap that nephilimfree comes out with on youtube? You are seriously missing out on lul's if you haven't. Some of those morons are now claiming that the craters on the moon were caused by water expelled from the earth when it split apart to cause the flood. pcs is another good one for luls. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the lunar bukkake theory stuff, right? Good stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and no matter how often thunderfoot shows him up nephy keeps on coming back to display some more his money grabbing idiocy. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling Andru a "cunt" does a horrible disservice to the word.Jimaginator (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it make up some bullshit theory-day allready?

Well, then I'm gonna join in:

• Outside of our solar system nothing exists, God just constantly makes light appear.
• The Sun is actually hell, made out of burning souls. When The Sun becomes The Supernova it's judgement day.
• Andy Schlafly is the second coming of Jesus Christ™. But evil liberal atheists have medically suppressed his superpowers.
• Eurocommunism was a try of communists to appear more Christian.
• God created money, so capitalism is the only god-fearing system. (And the poor are poor because God hates them).
• Property is a basic human right. Oh Wait….

--Ullhateme (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Day's name was changed to "Bring an Evangelical to the Lab" Day in 2009. Or are you denying that? Jimaginator (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, of course, I have fallen victim to the betrayalic forces of foolish atheists and used the secularized version of it. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk, talk, talk. Please make substantive edits or you will be banned for an infinite number of years plus 6,000. Jimaginator (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the woman of Ragnorak is trying to confuse the issue. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Ides of March!

Your cook wears no hairnet! Caveat emptor!

I'm cooking the traditional wildebeest with yak-jowl sauce. I'd invite everyone over but I had to get a wildebeest that would fit into carry-on since they consider it "poaching", (heck I didn't use no boiling water!). Seriously though STAY AWAY. 04:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Andy's megalomania, a recurring feature

No, not nearly enough said^img. I've got no idea how a frickin' website is supposed to have that kind of local effect, so I can just assume that Andy's personal charisma is apparently driving down abortion rates in New Jersey. I just hope he's too lazy to actually harass patients and abortion providers in person. Röstigraben (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is one the funniest things ever to appear on CP. It's also one of the most convincing arguments for abortion. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Even better, according to his own statistics^img, New Jersey is leading the nation in abortion rates...maybe they won't call it the "Conservapedia state" just yet. Röstigraben (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely deserves a WIGO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, according to their statistics, Michigan has reduced abortion rates. Now, I have no clue what the current policy is, or if it's state dictated, but when I was in school (about 10 years ago) there was no such thing as "abstinence only". I had a very good education (in school) about birth control, and how to properly use all of the methods on the market at the time. Just saying. Quaru^{fiddle - You can't explain that!} 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, between this and Conservapedia being single handedly responsible for the US's cultural shift to the right, Andy's ego knows no bounds. Amazing what can happen when you place yourself in an echo chamber, surrounded by spineless toadies... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does he think Conservapedia directly contributed to the decline? Or is he trying to say that the same state that played maternity ward to his cyber brainrot will naturally show a decline in abortions? Grumblejaws (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

lol...even with the devastating blow to abortion dealt by conservapedia, they're still #2 in abortion rates. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Moar!

Cable news viewership drops; unique visitors to Conservapedia has increased.^img Coincidence? --PsyGremlinFale! 16:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes: Yes it is a coincidence; everybody knows cable news viewers cannot read, (that's why they're cable news viewers). 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ