Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive227

This is an archive page, last updated 26 March 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <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)

Charles2

Homeskollar?^img True believer^img? One of us?^img P-Foster (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like parody, or at least not typical parody. I have no idea what his deal is, but it's pretty fucking hilarious. DickTurpis (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

if conservepedia had more editors like this, it would be worth it more than just our laughs. less shlafly, more charles2! did you see the edits he made to the welfare page? a civil conservative.--Brxbrx (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, CP finally has an editor who writes worse than JPatt. Although, the Animal cruelty essay is truly a thing of beauty. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The essay on Hannity is so bizarre that I don't even know how to react. Oddly enough, though, it isn't even remotely conservative - if I understand him correctly, he wants to coin money and give it to the poor. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Motorbikes

Ken's latest "essay"?^img You decide! Ace ^{of Spades} 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Um Ken... you might want to rethink that. Still, it's good to know Ken thinks men in black leather are dead butch. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 23:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also this guy. MDB (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on Ken, you know you want to feel something that powerful between your legs. ;) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Terry Chuckarse at it again.

Japanese earthquake proves the Flood happened. Or something. It seems that in Terry's mind soil liquefaction and tsunamis how have something to do with the Flood, and not 40 days' rain. Also, in true conservative fashion, he's disabled comments on his blog, because he's a whiney-assed, thin-skinned manchild baby, who can't handle questions or criticism. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to click the link until I read that he's disabled comments; no point going there if I can't leave some good ol' redneck sycophantic comments. </troll> DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I at least see the option to comment with Faceboob/Yahoo/AOL, and several people have left comments. The comment section just loads a a bit later than the article itself, so maybe that threw you off? --Sid (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just a truckload of stupid: "The geographical center of the Ring lies directly opposite that of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This is no coincidence: the Ridge formed in the initial outbreak of the Global Flood, and as it did, the ocean floor opposite the Ridge caved in, forming the trenches."  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Today's earthquake pales in comparison to the Global Flood, which featured magnitude-10-to-12 earthquakes and tsunamis of tremendous amplitude. Liquefaction on that scale is what sorted the earth's sedimentary rocks, and also sorted the fossils into their various layers." I hate reading his "column" 'cause it pays him, but that is BEAUTIFUL! 13:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the flood was just a lot of rain, geysers and whatnot coming out. when did world shattering earthquakes happen? --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus motherfucking fuck. Is that guy for real? Are all his 'articles' like that, ie prattle on making various outlandish assertions with nothing to back them up whatsoever, mangle some basic science, then conclude that it perfectly matches the bible; and refutes the combined conclusions of hundreds of thousands of scientists in dozens of fields over hundreds of years? What a fucking grade-Alpha tool. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. And the more baffling thing is why he allows comments at all. He has like 2 suckass pals who come on to spam their on Examiner pages and say shit like "Hrm Terry, very interesting article. As usual, spot on with the facts, old chap!" and the overwhelming majority of people just mercilessly heckling him. I wonder if it makes him feel badly to be such a goof that he seems incapable of opening his mouth without uttering the kind of rubbish that encourages people to openly ridicule him. I'd guess it's like all creationists viewing themselves as martyrs and their detractors as satanic. All that weirdo Calvinist epistemology shit about only saved people being able to access Truth™. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It helps that all the hecklers are basically giving him money just by being there. --Sid (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heres the fucking stupidest part - Watch footage of the Japanese tsunami...see those wooden houses being blasted to bits? See those concrete and iron structures being torn from the ground and being chucked around? Now, increase the magnitude to a global event, add 10 - 12 Richter scale earthquakes and a worldwide tsunami. Into this introduce a wooden boat....see where I am going with this? Ace ^{of Spades} 20:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But but "the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres." User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know why they bother writing things like this - if you actually questioned them on the details of this they'd just fall back on Goddidit in two seconds. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberal propoganda Ace, lies spread by atheists. goat protected the ark and all right thinking people know this to be the truth. Deny this and lose al.......... Oldusgitus (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To argue the other side in the MR. Kent Hovind and Nephilim Free models the water rushed from below the firmament but comes down as rain. Since the earth is relatively smooth in their story the ark would have been lifted up by the rising water levels and held off of the stones below until after the land started to rise and the flood waters to lower. If a tsunami did come it could come in waves, a biblical ark could theoretically withstand a tsunami the size of that experienced in Japan and if it were parked facing straight towards the incoming wave and had the stabilizing stones in place then the relatively fragile hull of the boat would be safely on top of quite a bit of water as well away from the dangerous debris filled leading edge before it became free moving. If it were built in an area with relatively little debris and a gentle slope it might be hundreds of yards away from the edge and might have much of the water pass safely below it. I think the story is crap, I'm just not convinced that this ranks among its many many many failings. --Opcn (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the ark just go deep and then sink after the wave passed? An unrelated point I've never seen anyone address, wooden boats leak constantly. Someone would have to bail water out at all times even if it wasn't raining. How long doyou think someone could keep climbing up 50 cubits with buckets of water? CarlV (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they got the animals to help. They could have formed a bucket line. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't leak that badly, 8 people could take care of a well built boat of that size. I say this as a big boat enthusiast and the son of a man who wrote a book on wooden boats ---Opcn (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify I did some quick and dirty math and figured that the ark was roughly the same dimensions as the Edmund Fitzgerald only half as long. I know that they didn't have to bother with things like propulsion or navigation but 8 people sounds like a really small number for something that large. Especially considering ships a tenth that size required larger crews. CarlV (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. Crewing a sailboat or even a barge of that size 24 hours a day would take a fair old crew even without the animals to care for. Oh, sorry, the animals take care of each other, don't they. In inclement weather (rain, wind, tsunamis, etc) it'd be a mammoth task. 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The mammoths helped out during inclement weather? Ba-doom, tish! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As the ark was only bobbing around like a cork with no sails it wouldn't need much crewing. However, a wooden vessel of that size would have been far from rigid so would have leaked. Of course all those animals would have required a lot of looking after, after all we're basically talking about the world's largest zoo, replete with hundreds of dinosaurs, giant sloths, mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers. How many keepers does a moderately sized zoo have? A damned sight more than 8. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You forget, the animals were all veggies back then, plus the fact that they fed off the radiated glory of Noah or something, and God kindly bunged up their various orifaces, to save Noah having to literally shovel seven kinds of shit overboard. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with veggies is that they produce a lot more shit and tend to eat more frequently than carnivores. The whole "they were all vegetarian back then" thing also raises the issue of exactly what veggies lions and wolves consumed, because their teeth just aren't cut out for chewing the cud - I must remember that when the JWs next come knocking. Генгис^{Gum disease} 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading a thing a while ago where someone worked out that to feed, muck out and water each animal on the ark would've taken about 26-27 hours a day for each person on the boat, which is, you may notice, more hours than are in a day. It's pretty annoying that anyone has to put this much thought into what is obviously a ludicrous idea! It's a goddamn giant wooden boat with at least two of every single animal on the planet on it. That the reaction of everyone on the planet to this story isn't "haha how silly" is a serious blow to my mental health. X Stickman (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bible denier thinks otherwise. Auld Nick (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

impending ban

User:Brit1909 is gonna get banned soon, probably for all that reason and logic he's so fond of flaunting. Or the 90/10 rule. [1]^img--Brxbrx (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No surprise there. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a motherfucking second here. "Right, MaxFletcher. Brit1909, two articles were cited, and read together they demonstrate that the dogma of earthquakes occurring at faults is simply not true. But don't expect liberals to admit that, because plate tectonics is used to pull students away from accepting the Flood." What in goat's green earth is he talking about? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If Andy accepts plate tectonics, that means he accepts that the Earth is older than the Bible says. Hence, the only logical alternative for him is to deny the entire field of geology. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the subtext here? He denies plate tectonics? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Continental drift? It's in the Bible!!! Plate tectonics? Evil liberal lies! 05:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I'm just here for the food LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, that was my reaction a few sections up. I had no idea that some cretinists went this far. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Liberals are pulling people away from the Flood with science. Andy has outdone himself with what I'd consider one of the funniest lines ever uttered by his keyboard. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

“”Bible deniers -- such as atheists and evolutionists -- engage in liberal denial about the many truths in the Bible. Their irrational closed-mindedness against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science.

You can just imagine someone frothing at the mouth as they type this, can't you? --Kels (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

backtracking

all over mpr, about the reactor issues--Brxbrx (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. They go nuts trying to defend nuclear powerplants, now that one is falling apart, they need to slowly make it seam like they were anti-nuclear. Im waiting for the inevitable "ITS THE LIBS FAULT."--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The "Chicken Little"^img one is still there at the bottom while the "OMGZ FREAKOUT IT'S SPEWING EVERYWHERE, iz comin; to 'Merka!" one is at the top. Lovely and credible that. DogP (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

it'll be easy to "backtrack" since their page^img on noocalar reactors is so lame. 04:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ !

I like the way it uses manly conservative capitals for $E=MC^{2}$, that fundamental result of the theory of ... hey, wait a minute! Cantabrigian (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see backtracking, they're saying that the Japan reactor problems are a result of an outdated design and have no bearing on the safety of any new reactors that would be built in the US. They're still pro nuclear.^{— Unsigned, by: some conservepedo / talk / contribs}

backtracking on the chicken little accusations--Brxbrx (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing that amusing me more than anything is JoJo's headline "Radiation spreading in Japan. 3d explosion damages containment vessel at nuclear plant; most workers evacuated" 3d? So you need special glasses to see it? Or did he mean '3rd'?

A typo in itself wouldn't be bad, except for the fact it's been on the front page for more than 14 hours now and Andy (who we are told does "teaching writing") came along and edited the same template and couldn't even be bothered to read what one of his other editors put. Not one of them cares for the quality of the place or what the other inmates are doing provided they aren't knocked off their personal soapboxes. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that an Americanism? I remember seeing '2d' and '3d' in newspaper headlines (usually about baseball) while I have been visiting and it always struck me as weird. Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how they're raping my beautiful language, but WP knows nothing about it. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 04:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comprehension fail. "Ordinal numbers are alternatively written in English with numerals and letter suffixes: 1st, 2nd or 2d, 3rd or 3d". Генгис^{Gum disease} 04:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoisted by my own petard... wait, no, I shall not admit error, I do teaching reading don'tcha know! -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright redux

Anyone think that Reuters are as protective of copyright as AP? Генгис^{Gum disease} 14:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've sent maybe 50 emails notifying copyright holders of Joaquin's bogus fair use claims. Nobody cares. I'm only aware of 1 company sending a takedown request, which was ignored. If anyone's in a position to do anything it's obviously Reuters but im not holding my breath it will actually happen. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Countdown to Karajou (who never reads us) rant about rats and copyright and theft of bodily fluids in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinParla! 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

FrancisG had one or two successes 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

F u k - u

With all the Japan fervour at CP I notice that Joaquin (or JMR10 to his friends) has created F u k u s h i m a^img to get round the spam filter^img so if anyone want to link to it they need to put in all the spaces. I think Scunthorpe also fell foul of the naughty word blacklist. Генгис^{Gum disease} 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember when little Jess had 'Hajimemashite' as a part of her sig over there. All well and fine until they updated the spam filter, suddenly any talkpage she'd used, whenever somebody else edited it, they couldn't save until they removed all the instances of her greeting. remember having words with Johnny X-Ray over it. --PsyGremlinHable! 16:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But they do have CP:Wankel engine. no CP:Matsushita though. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's going to really help people search for that article when the usual hordes of people show up looking for trustworthy information. DogP (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, seriously. How does this^img happen, yet they can't even create "Fukushima? Really? Rationalize (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

if there is spam filter, then what is this? I notice a lack of spaces, which means that he got past the "spam" filter. LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably doesn't affect titles, just content. However, having a "Fukushima" page that you can't link to anywhere is sort of pointless, and the filter also keeps him from making a redirect to it. H e n c e t h e s p a c e s . «-Bfa-» 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing is c r a z y. They appear to have two almost identical articles created by Joaquin. But what annoys me most is that amongst all the tragedy and devastation Joaquin thinks it's nice to add some pictures of 'Swans and ducks' and 'A family'^img. Генгис^{Gum disease} 04:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Insensible Japan WIGO

Sorry, but this last WIGO sounds as jerk as Karajou comments on Stephen Hawkings, or even worse. The original message was posted by a newcommer, so either he is trolling, in which case do not deserve a wigo, or he is telling the truth, in which case mocking him is just pathetic. --Tlaloc (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what the red arrow is for. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with OP. I think the WIGO is pretty low - it reads like racism to me. StarFish (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything below -20 and can probably be commented out without much ado. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

damn. here I go making an idiot out of myself again. should i remove it?--Brxbrx (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Occasionaluse. I wouldn't worry Brxbrx, I've posted some stinkers in my time. StarFish (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

well, glad that's over. I'll be under a rock now.--Brxbrx (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god!

Oh that fucktard JPatt^img Does he not understand the connection between cutting taxes and reduced federal receipts? If we hadn't extended the Bush tax cuts then the amount of money taken in would be larger! --Opcn (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not dumb, he just wants to starve the beast! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

i don't understand the connection myself. hell, to me, you are speaking Double Dutch. But then again, i don't go around writing about shit that i don't know, like Andy wants us all to do. LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deficit=revenue-outlays Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When pressed on this the right usually point to the Laffer Curve - this is basically common sense. At the two extremes you either have zero taxes and therefore get no revenue or you have 100% taxes which means that nobody bothers to work and therefore you end up with no revenue; somewhere in the middle is an optimum point at which the tax rate produces the maximum revenue without being too much of a disincentive. On one side of the curve it is entirely possible to reduce taxes and get an increase in revenue; the only problem is that Laffer's back-of-napkin sketch has no scale and in the real world the optimum tax rate varies with economic conditions, the curve is not symmetrical. In conservative la-la land we are always on the side of the curve where a tax reduction generates more revenue. The counter to this is that the far-left inhabit the other side of the curve. Генгис^{Gum disease} 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)1)Obama did exactly what Andy&JPatt wanted him to do with tax policy

2)The tax policy directly reduced receipts (money taken in through taxes)

3)Reduced receipts no longer cover the mandatory spending

4)JPatt attacks Obama because the receipts no longer cover mandatory spending

5)JPatt is attacking his own plan as irresponsible.

6)The law of non-contradiction is now violated. --Opcn (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Laffer is that it's worthless in the current economy because it's only looking at federal taxes. The stimulus is a good example of the situation: tax cuts made up something near 40% of the stimulus. But what happened at the state and local level? Taxes went up and offset a good deal of the benefits from the federal cuts. With continued budget shortfalls in nearly every state, spending cuts/tax hikes are on the way. You can cut fed taxes all you want but it won't do much good when it's just going to be offset at the state and local levels. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Man-Child

Hi Jpatt, I am really enjoying doing the complete opposite of what I am doing right now!^img Ace ^{of Spades} 21:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I do have some future material in mind to post. I thought he had some software program that helped him write. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing"? LordSlug ^{Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008} 21:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Ace, he managed to stop editing for a whole 22 hours and 48 minutes^img before he posted that. This is Ken we're talking about here - that is the same as a three month holiday for anyone else. 86.173.222.153 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So...did he just redefine "holiday" to mean "no new articles"? If so, I've been on holiday ever since I first got here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite funny that he now has so much bullshit on JPratt's page that it takes him THREE goes^img (so far) to hide it all. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So this^img is what vacation looks like? I see what you're doing there Ken. Get it? I can see that you're editing consistently while on "vacation" and that you oversight most of what you do to hide whatever it is you think you're hiding. Hi Ken! You spastic weirdo! I see you! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You ever think JPatt gets sick of having his page nuked all the time? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He's probably more afraid of talking to Ken than he is annoyed about the page constantly being vaped. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am reminded of Jasper Carrott's 'nutter on the bus' anecdote - "Please God don't let him sit next to me." The problem is that JPratt once responded to Ken and now he's saddled with him for eternity; this alone is enough to demonstrate JPratt's stupidity. Генгис^{Gum disease} 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt responds to every other person on his Talk page but Ken. Poor Ken - unloved. --Leotardo (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they nice people in real life?

I wonder sometimes whether Andy and co are really nice people apart from the deep political convictions they harbour. For e.g, if you are a neighbour or a co-worker of one of these guys, would you particularly identify them as bigots? I guess we would..what do you think?--Buscombe (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Theyre nice I bet... just plain ignorant. Rationalize (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Karajou would be a complete cock in real life. Same with Jpatt. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that neither Karrot nor Cowpatt interact with anyone but like thinking tossers. Those who they do deal with probably just humour them out of self protection. 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is a probably a lunatic. I picture Johnny as someone you'd get in a bar fight with. Andy would probably be superficially pleasant and just mind his p's and q's. Ed would be nice, but creepy. Joaquin seems like a nice old guy. Hurlbut might be a little intense and annoying, but nice. FOIA would be a creepy. Bert's probably cool. ..PJR would probably give you the shirt off his back. I bet Brad is a square, but a nice guy. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have said before, I'd never approach Karajou and identify myself. And I have had many pleasant interactions with Brad - he's a nice guy. PJR is a cunt though. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: PJR is a total dick, but I bet he'd be really nice to you in person if you weren't attacking the Bible with dendrochronology. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't count it out. I know quite a few people who are friendly enough but really batshit when it comes to some issue. I remember seeing Andy on Colbert, though, and he came off as so anal retentive I thought he was going to suck the funny out of the Report. Considering how CP is run, I think it's safe to say he's probably a humorless asshat. Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

Get most of them face to face and they will probably lighten up. This is the internet people. people act different here--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Except Karajou - just read about him on conservaleaks. He talks about abusing some guy who walked into his store because his army hat was on funny or something. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, allow me to clarify: Andy im sure is nice in real life. Karajunk and Jpatt are probably just old asses. Rationalize (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

JPatt's always loads of fun when we get together to talk about the latest information he's leaked to us. And WOW can he do karaoke! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sure JPratt is tons of fun. If you enjoy that ignorant yokel with automatic weapons vibe. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect Andy is mostly nice, but a bit goofy and quite stubborn. Ken, well... I'm sure a few have walked away thinking 'that boy ain't right'. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, really. JPatt is great, except when he has one too many ginger beer shandies and starts telling us all how much he loves us. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Dlerner or DinsdaleP who have met Andy and identified themselves as from RW and they said he was very polite. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's really good to be able to talk about this now that all the CP sysops have stated they're not going to visit this site any more. Mind you, they never believed us when we told them TK was a parodist so even if they were still reading this page they probably wouldn't believe that JPatt is feeding us information. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember when the princeton alum magazine interviewed Andy? I remember a commenter who was a former classmate pointing out that it sounds like he is STILL an arrogant jerk, implying that he always has been. I'll bet that he is nice if you are completely deferent to him. --Opcn (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean this interview? The responses are pretty funny:

"Having read the interview with Andrew Schlafly, I find his replies such total nonsense that I have to ask: Is this a leg pull?" [7]

"The interview with Andrew Schlafly ’81 (A Moment with, Feb. 24) shows once again that even the best education is no guarantee of good sense."[8]

--Night Jaguar (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

They are probably nice people if you only know them for a short time, in the long run on the other hand you might see their inner demons. Andy is probably a nice guy until you come to some issue regarding something about the people he hates - or shorter: Sports yes, politics no. Karajou probably will pee his pants when you openly come up to him and attack him verbaly - most of these people like to say they'll sue you and as power is only a click away from him at CP he likes it there. JPratt, I haven't read enough, but he comes across like one of those fanatic atheists that will slip something politically in a conversation about golf balls. Ken is hard to see, either he's a normal guy without a job releasing his stress on CP or he is just a crazy ass weirdo all the time. Ed is probably the nicest of the guys, also it has become obvious too him that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and so he makes seldomly something constructive (and when it's something small), but he complains a lot, this way he is heard but doesn't hurt anything or anyone - basically a guy that needs more love then he get's. Catch him on the wrong topic and you'll get a load of creepy (see what I did there?).

I think most of them will be nice because they normally consider everybody they meet a christian, just as I consider everybody I meet an atheist until I hear different. As I live in an enviremont where 70% to 80% are atheists that works just fine. --Ullhateme (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine Andy to be the type of person who just plain won't talk about politics in real life in a non-official situation. So like in an interview, teaching a class, sure he will there. But say he's out having a drink with someone, and they get on to a topic, I think he'd be the type of person to drop it once he realises you don't agree with him, and then back home he'll write a scathing attack on liberals and upload it to CP thinking "that'll show him!". X Stickman (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Andy loves Orwell's quote "All issues are political issues" (ignore the context, and also, did you know Orwell was a secret conservative?). That's why even reality relativity can have a liberal bias. He politicizes EVERYTHING and I doubt he has the self-restraint from making jabs at liberals in front of others. Hell, he doesn't even seem to care/notice that he's the laughing stock of the internet, so a blank look from an acquittance probably wouldn't stop him. Since most the people he talks to are probably Christian conservatives, it wouldn't be a big problem.

But that's just my guess. Really, it's a shame we only get a tiny slice of Andy through CP. There's probably a lot of hilarious stuff that we're all missing out on. He really should have his own reality show. ConservaReality. (Oh, did you know reality shows have a liberal bias?) --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to watch Andy's Colbert interview again, but as far as I remeber, he didn't even use the word "liberals" once. Even Andy must be dimly aware that his rants make him come across as totally unhinged, so I guess he's deliberately keeping it down when facing an audience that doesn't share his ideological convictions. And since he can't silence his opponents in real life, he'll think twice before revealing his ideas and being challenged on them. Röstigraben (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah like the time he refused to give a smoker 10¢.^img I can't imagine what he would have said to him but it really happened! Ace ^{of Spades} 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to original point. I meet many people from most walks of life in many different countries and most of them are superficially 'nice'. It's only when you tackle them on specific issues that you may think that they are not. Our interactions with CP editors are largely confined to these issues in a non-personal arena. I'm sure Andy is a loving husband and caring father and widely seen as pillar of the community, albeit a tad humourless. TK was largely reviled but he was looking after his aged mother so do we judge him for his rangeblocking and insincerity online or how he interacted with the real world? Also, most of us exist within groups that harbour similar values to ourselves, so within those groups we are not seen as being eccentric. The view from the other side of the fence is that we too are nasty and horrible. Генгис^{Gum disease} 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not true of a number of religious fanatics, who have a reputation for being cruel to their own children. The proportion who actually are thus is exaggerated, but they are around. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What? I don't deny there are nasty religious people, all I'm saying is that we are not in a position to judge how unpleasant they are in real life. Генгис^{Gum disease} 07:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

...and you were doing so well.

Why break a winning streak for this edit?^img P-Foster (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That is clearly a cameo appearance on one of his projects. Stop with your liberal deceit! Web (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

that one is fine, he was just removing a typo. Typo corrections are always allowed. How else would someone correct a typo if the page is perminately lock, and the talk page redirectes to athiesm? LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Karatoons

Seeing this new toon made me realize just how forced the dialogue is in all of Kara's "art". It's like he draws the picture and then tries to make the dialogue to match. If you go back and read pretty much any toon of his, it's almost exactly the same - the dialogue just doesn't sync at all with the rest of the comic. (Plus, the writing itself is so bland and stupid that it doesn't even work effectively as satire. But we knew that already.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure part of it is down to a desire to screw our efforts at Making Karajou funny. The early toons were filled with potential, and PsyGremlin's "Internet Dating" is easily the best parody toon ever done (bastard). The latest toons have largely been utter shit, with no real message from his side and no real way of parodying it from our side. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Kara proves that he can draw cute animals but not much else. Vulpius (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I just improved on my previous effort. All I had to do was open my mind. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He frequently tries to cram too many points into the one toon that's why he ends up with either over-detailed drawings or too long speech bubbles. Just too much damned anger trying to get out. Very few cartoons work with long speech bubbles. The ones that people post here generally ork because they are parodying the original rather than trying to make a new point.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How did Andy miss this?

Fox suspends two employees with deadlines on them to announce their intentions to run if they want their jobs. There's literally a thousand angles Andy could impotently rant about on this subject, the most obvious being that Fox thinks Palin, Huckabee and Bolton aren't real contenders. For them supposedly covering what the MSM media doesn't, they aren't doing a good enough job. How am I supposed to be informed about the trivial issues of the great unwashed when Andy won't tell me? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious parodist is obvious

Yup.^img Oh, dear^img.P-Foster (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Been watching this go on but isn't WillS the real deal? Ace ^{of Spades} 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, I thought he's been around since 2008. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many other examples as well. But we should be wary of calling this a parodist, it might be enthusiastic Poe. My only concern is that the word "liberals" is used indiscriminately when "Darwinists" or "evolutionists" would be the more appropriate term. Генгис^{Gum disease} 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[2]^img--Brxbrx (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Iduan is not convinced^img. I can't be bothered to check the chronology but we know that Id reads us. Генгис^{Gum disease} 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He went overboard, pissed everyone off, and got blocked by Creepy Uncle Ed. As usual, Ed issued his standard mantra about a writing plan^img. All in all, it was a mildly amusing episode. Gauss (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

christ! sorry if I'm derailing things here, but I just looked at Ed's talk page, and that guy is so full of himself it's coming out his ears!--Brxbrx (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. —A douche

Na the best is One of the greatest and most influential Conservapedia sysops: Anon Ace ^{of Spades} 06:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are good, but I also like, "But I didn't see the anti-elitism creeping up and choking the life out of [Wikipedia]." He's on a website that specifically says elite members of a particular field are worthless next to the "best of the public". --Leotardo (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I love Ed's talk page. Every time someone comes to him for help, he basically just blows them off. Even the guy who prepared a writing plan based on vague request just got a PFO response. --Kels (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

happy SAINT Patrick's day!

Yeah, liberals are really really upset we have to use the word "saint" once in our lives^img. I just might cry. Wait, scratch that i get as much beer as i want today, he is a saint! Rationalize (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck calls it "Patrick's Day"? Did he just make that up? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

He might actually have something vaguely resembling a point if he argued that Saint Patrick's Day has been changed from a religious observance to a day generally commemorated with drunkenness. MDB (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, exactly. He left out that little detail. Typical deceitful assflys. Rationalize (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one of my work colleagues here in the UK HAS just called it Patricks Day instead of saint Patrick's day or the more common paddy's day. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but you like in atheist Britain anyway. Shouldn't you be off celebrating Saints Darwin and Dawkins Day, and commemorating them by having an abortion? MDB (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I saw the Wizard of Id in this morning's IHT and a financial newsletter I subscribe to call it St. Patty's day. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm tempted to secularise it to Drink Like An Irishman Day, just to piss the Assfly off. What an arse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm down. Rationalize (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm basically an atheist and I've always called it "St Patrick's Day", as well as pretty much everyone I've ever met, religious or no. Andy's an idiot, etc. SJ ^Debaser 14:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mwahaha. Eat it, Arsefly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here in NJ, home of Andru The Great, I have never, ever heard it referred to without the "St.". He's can't tell the difference between his ass and a pineapple. Help him, please! Jimaginator (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fools, don't you know that the mere invocation of religion causes atheists to melt? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

lawl. ima using that one IRL--Brxbrx (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was sunlight. I became a computer dude specifically so I could work at night and generally stay indoors at all times without raising suspicions. Mountain Blue 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I never met an atheist or anyone else who ever referred to the day as "Patrick's Day", so to answer Tetronian, yes, he indeed pulled that out of his scrawny ass.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing shows off Andy's mindset perfectly. I'm an atheist and I really don't mind saying "Saint Patrick's Day" because that's what it is - we only celebrate this day because of the Church's designation on this day as belonging to St. Patrick, and because the Irish has him as their patron saint. I imagine, though, that if I said that to Assfly, I'd be accused of being in denial and that really, deep down, I was seriously pissed off with it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of many times when I wish I casually made the acquaintance of teh Assfly so I could say shit like "Thanks for your business, sir, have a happy Paddy's Day!" Occasionaluse (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andru: Please add the following to your list of all the liberal words: "St. Patrick's Day" should be replaced with "St. Patrick's Day", "Ramadan" should be replaced with "Ramadan", "Hannakah" should be replaced with "Hannakah" (spell as you please), "Diwali" should be replaced with "Diwali", and "Winter Solstice" should become "Those atheist bastards stole back our holiday after we subsumed it into KKKristianity to suit our own purposes". That fix those atheist bastards, what?

What is hilarious is their "Secularized language" list originally claimed teh evil atheists managed to make St. Patrick's Day into "Patty's Day"^img, but loyal acolytes had to remove that "fact" to be in line with Il Duce's mainpage proclamation.

I must have missed something. I've always understood "Paddy" to be the contraction of Patrick. When did it get corrupted into Patty? Or is that the fault of rampant feminism again? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I really wanted to sock up and post this over there, but I couldn't be arsed in the end. But let it be known that for my entire lifetime in Ireland, amongst my peer group anyway, we always knew it as either 'Patrick's Day', or 'Paddy's Day'. Also note that 'Patty' is a complete and total Americanism - no Patricia or Patrick in Ireland is EVER known as Patty or Patti. Trish, Pat, or Paddy, yes. DogP (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I now believe that Ken is a parodist

because of this^img--Brxbrx (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone's said that at some time or another. Sadly, he's proven himself to be the real deal. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the question as to whether or not he's a parodist keeps on popping up time and time again, and he has posted far weirder things than that. One of the main reasons why he isn't considered a parodist is that he spends an enormous amount of time working on his entries on flying cats and fat men. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's just a sometimes-unstable weirdo with a big mouth on the internet. Remarkably there's lots of those. Who woulda thunk it. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

but this^img!!!!!--Brxbrx (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally like how the war in Afghanistan is somehow Obama's fault. --Kels (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's Hussein Osbamas fault. If he had concentrated on Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq based on falsified intelligence and lies then the US would likely have won the conflict in Afghansitan by now. Oh, wait a minute...... Oldusgitus (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that Afghanistan is Obama's fault is old news. That effete liberals are thrilled by the war (bloodthirsty femmes!) is the new twist. These are probably the same homosexuals that want to ruin the army by enlisting and fighting alongside real men. Phiwum (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I like this^img more; don't you love being told by others what you have to believe? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's effing hilarious. I think if I were a Christian, that article would actually cause me to de-convert - it literally says that you can't call yourself a Christian unless you believe in a talking donkey. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"God (or the Bible, same thing) said it, I believe it, that settles it" is the fundamentalist creed, anything they say past that is just an attempt at justifying that proclamation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Ken has written MUCH weirder shit.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

I could keep going, but I think you get the point. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken is defined by his gibberish. If he only harped on about his pet topics then he would just be another internet bigot. Oh wait, he is just another internet bigot. Генгис^{Gum disease} 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken might be working under the assumption that satire converts their targets, or at least increases pageviews. He hasn't figured out the difference between good and bad attention, much like a puppy, or a very young child. -Lardashe

I've always assumed that, like other CP editors, he sees our reactions here (and other people's reactions elsewhere) and assumes that he's beating us. I mean, someone says "damn it ken this is ridiculous" and/or "that's stupid" and such and we understand it to mean that the person literally can't believe how stupid and wrong Ken is being, but he sees it and thinks "aha! I've got those damn atheists all riled up and unnerved! Look how they're not intellectually challenging my points! Operation stupiddumbshitontheinternet is finally taking off!" X Stickman (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Or there's Occam's Razor's explanation: Ken is retarded. DickTurpis (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And therefore unable to be a parodist. Rationalize (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mensa bait

Per the sooper seekrit discussions (conservaleaks), a la Ken's claim of being smert enough for membership in Mensa: I can buy that; I have known people who're absotutely fucking brilliant in their chosen niche. Get them out of that niche they're total idiots. Ken is of the variety that still thinks they're being brilliant; they cannot see the difference. Unless/until I meet Ken in person to do a fuller assessment I'm going to go with this hypothesis: oh and Demyer is not his surname. 15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

his genius has yet to manifest. I say he's not just stupid, he's also full of himself--Brxbrx (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Mensa charge to take the membership test? can we get him to try and join? It's possible that Ken is an otherwise smart enough guy who is just obsessive to the point of stupidity, and hell 1 in 50 qualify for mensa. --Opcn (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jpratt losing it?

I'm a bit worried about Johnny X-Ray, following his WIGOd post^img to MPR. While I can accept his ignorance of reality in slamming Obama, his rampant homophobia and even his acceptance of a 10-year-old war as suddenly being Obama's fault, it's his channelling of Ken in the last part that worries me. Even for a First Class Conservative Fuck-head, I thought he had more sense than that. Clearly I was wrong. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold up. The section above has a screenshot that shows Ken making that homophobic news post. And he definitely made that CMI post. I suspect the subsequent vaping of the evidence has borked their MPR history somewhat. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)The gay military piece was actually posted by Ken, it's just that he keeps oversighting his cameos. Capturebot got it though, his original edit is visible in Brxbrx's link in the section above. Röstigraben (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I guarantee this sissy could kick either Jpratt or Ken's ass. --Leotardo (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

God forbid a homosexual man fights and dies for the politicians that go around starting wars his country while Jpatt sits at home editing a blog that holds homosexuals in the same light as murderers and rapists. SJ ^Debaser 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Afghan War

Obama's treasury draining Afghan War? Um, wasn't it the greatest thing ever when Bushy was in charge? Czolgolz (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also, criticizing The President in a Time of War was treason. Mountain Blue 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But remember, since no true conservatives witnessed b. HUSSIEN obama being born, he isnt really the president.--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We've always been at war with Eastasia opposed to the war in Afghanistan. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the war's fine until such time as you have to pay for it. In the Bush years they just did emergency appropriations so that the war money wasn't included in federal budget deficit data. Now that the Obama administration is actually paying for the wars properly, Rob can stuff his graphs up on MPL showing how awful that nasty Obama is at running huge deficits and the teabaggers can suddenly be concerned about big holes in the budget. It's funny how they didn't give a shit about Bush turning the Clinton surplus in to a deficit with his reckless tax cuts. How's that laffer curve working out for you boys? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Andy losing it?

[pun intended]. Ok, so um what the fuck^img. 4 days and he's already got block rights? Rationalize (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably a student of his. DickTurpis (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know I was thinking maybe it's also cuz he's from New Zealand? The time change might be beneficial? Rationalize (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it is the guy must impressed Andy as a good contributor because the only other person to get block rights more quickly was his son. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Or somebody who's stroked Andy's cock ego enough to earn rights in his meritocracy. CPalmer must be thrilled. 3 years and still no rights. No wonder he gave up on CP. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor Iduan. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What "poor Iduan"? He's got a banhammer Jr too, a full MINUTE before the n00b. 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Yay meritocracy! Andy is oh so just. Rationalize (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I recall reading in conservaleaks about a time where Andy awarded rights to a user essentially because the user was the only one around when a vandal started attacking pages; that seems to be his only requirement for awarded blocking rights - you have to happen to be the only one (or one of two) reverting a spree of vandalism--Danielfolsom (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The guy is from NZ? Shit man, I am suprised he wasn't blocked, banned and ranged blocked on the spot as "Sock of Ace McWicked".....I just sang "Blocked, banned and rangeblocked" to the tune of "Signed, sealed, delivered" by Stevie Wonder. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Has he ever had it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New user joins, few days later new user heroically fights off vandal attack and asks for block rights. Just a coincidence im sure. Oh look, the vandal even targeted new users talk page in addition to the more well known contributors. Similar thing happened with the guy fighting off the 'anon' attack recently, I'm sure that was just a coincidence too though.^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.80 / talk / contribs}

what are you implying?--Brxbrx (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop exposing my socks you arsewipe. I need a fourth sysop. Mountain Blue 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Something fishy in the state of Oregon

This is the second time^img that Assfly and Co. have been trumpeting this story on the CP front page. But take a look at his complaint. Doesn't it seem like there's something missing? You know, like perhaps the substance of the actual problem Joshua and his sister are having.

The facts we have are as follows:

• He's apparently been conducting research at OSU for more than 4 years. His sister for longer.
• His sister has yet to even complete a masters degree.
• He has apparently only just passed exams that enable him to actually begin a Ph.D.

To me, it sounds like he isn't getting a good research topic out of what he's doing, or perhaps isn't pushing hard enough to find one. If there were something more to this than just a couple of researchers getting chucked out of their research programme for taking way too long to even begin writing a thesis, you'd think they'd be publishing all the letters back and forth rather than just one form letter looking process document.

As it turns out, the dad has been making trouble since last autumn and the "militant feminist" he blames for this horrid discrimination is in fact a Republican. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

From the OSO link you provided "probably because Bethany – a brilliant but very mild-mannered, conservative, homeschooled Christian young lady" Jackass doesn't realize that you are supposed to maintain a veneer of objectivity when you write about your own family. --Opcn (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this is the Art Robinson of Oregon Petition and orthomolecular medicine fame, right? If so, it's just another "academic freedom" story about how the evil liberal science conspiracy is oppressing the quacks/global warming deniers. Art Robinson doesn't belong teaching in a pre-school. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Yeah. Wow, it's a small world for nutbars. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Swabby's latest masterpiece

He's not wrong, you know^img, loathe though I am to say it. DogP (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Which part are you referring to? The lazy caricature or the casual cruelty to animals? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Covered above in the Karatoons section. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes but as with all his cartoons, what point is he making? Movie stars will promote their newest movies; adopting kids and being aware of the environment are bad things? (obviously they are in Kara's world - yes another anti-abortion fucktard who won't adopt an unwanted child). I assume he's having a dig a Hollywood values, but fails dismally. Any decent satirist would at least use Charlie Sheen as a basis to attack HV. He's too generic, too vague and tries to cram in too many points to satisfy his own inner anger, to make a clear statement. --PsyGremlinHable! 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be that she professes to care about all those causes, but doesn't care/notice that she's strangling her dog. CS Miller (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Or the fact that celebrities, no matter what they say or what they do, are recorded and published all over magazines and internet to the point where complete idiots misunderstand all these publications and begin drawing cartoons (probably out of jealousy as well) about them. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Welfare Queen

I was cruising recentchanges on CP and found this comical gem. Some new guy wrote an obvious parody conservative article and Iduan removed most of the content. See history of this.^img I don't believe he was even blocked.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the original^img, actually. Perfect for CP! άλφα^Talk 06:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

facepalm

This picture [3]^img is in their "Atheism and Obesity" article. lol facepalm--Brxbrx (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He is suppose to look despondent. - π 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, but the first thing that came to mind was *facepalm*--Brxbrx (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Penn Jillette: "I love this "overweight Atheists" list. I'm on it. http://bit.ly/hVsc4v God hates us, making us tubby. Also 1 pic of me is a drawing!" --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What kind of powers does "Desperation Man" have? Barikada (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

the power to turn to conservepedia in a futile attempt to add purpose to his pathetic existence. --Brxbrx (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And the frankly bizarre ability to write wiki articles in tongues. And then edit them. And edit them again. And a bit more. JumboWhales (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What's really funny is looking at the pages that use that pic - CP has "Atheism and obesity", "Atheism and self-esteem" AND "Atheism, obesity and self-esteem" Nothing like a good old Ken double down. Also in the "Atheism and obesity" article, Ken displays his inability to stay on topic by suddenly having a pic down the bottom, captioned "Homosexuality is rare in Orthodox Jews". --PsyGremlinFale! 10:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fitting. It's a facepalm picture, called Desperation Man, and uploaded by Conservative. The circle is complete! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ken has multiple personalities and one of them is a parodist. It's a saner theory than most of the stuff CP comes up with. X Stickman (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Precise moment

There's something wonderfully funny about AndyPants having his Bibbel say that the 'precise moment' was 1pm, then saying in the notes "well, I assume the sun rose at 6, so it must be 1pm." Still, nice way to prove that he's using his Bibbel to put words into God's mouth, just to prove his own disbelief in relativity. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd think that as you get older you'd begin to, i dont know, start some sort of introspection and intellectual curiosity as opposed to a strict "interpretation" of an old fairy tale book. Rationalize (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's odd that he's interjecting his own ideas about action at a distance into a bible passage that basically already says what he wants it to say, just without the bizarre precision he requires for the gospel writer to have been fully aware of and endorse that physics concept. Weirdo. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole "signs" instead of miracles thing is getting disturbing, and, speaking as a Christian, blasphemous. How long before his Bible is edited to say that Jesus hibernated for three days after the crucifixion and then woke up full of energy? --TinOl (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Martyp pro-union

I give him another week. Assfly doesn't care what Reagan says if it goes against what he wants to hear. Rationalize (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Any context or just his general comments? I'm sadly one of the users behind the 403 wall so I can't peruse CP myself. άλφα^Talk 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

From his userpage, in <big></big></big> print:

"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." -Ronald Reagan (former president of a labour union), 1980. "Collective bargaining in the years since has played a major role in America's economic miricle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of a participatory democracy to be found anywhere." -Ronald Reagan (former president of a labour union), 1980.

Also note the heathenistic non-American spelling of "labour union." PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 21:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, St. Ronnie was the head of SAG. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He was in charge of Servicio Agricola Ganadero? I knew he didn't have a birth certificate! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

check this out [4]^img. so cash--Brxbrx (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried that...

one day, the list of best new conservative words will encompass every English word and, as a liberal, I'll be unable to communicate effectively! If the "remarkable pattern" continues to grow there won't be any words for me to use. Looks like Andy's found a doubleplusgood way of getting rid of us pesky liberals. (Really though, "god fearing?") I guess it's better than some of the others he's come up with, but still... άλφα^Talk 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry, as he rejects words on the grounds of not being conservative enough. 'Deference' and 'patriarchy' were excluded in favour of 'atheistic'. Which words would you prefer to have in your vocabulary? RagTop^{Gone sailing} 23:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fret not, my liberal friend. The greatest liberal scientists have long toiled to solve this problem and have come up with a morse code using the word "socialist" for dots and "marxist" for dashes. Even in 2274 when the conserva-horizon bars us from forming a complete English sentence, we'll still be able to spread atheism and abortion. Huzzah! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Saved for posterity

Andy is an asshat^img big surprise -Opcn (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservative reaction to the Libya situation has been idiotic even by their own high standards of idiocy. There's the obstinate refusal to spot the difference between W's illegal invasion of Iraq and the imposition of a no-fly zone requested by many of Libya's inhabitants and the Arab League and also sanctioned by the UN. Then there's the weird way in which Obama both managed to wait too long and act inappropriately. I think Tom Tomorrow summed it up perfectly with this cartoon. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Obama has no chance on this one. He has, in some respects, played a master hand by holding off on a US reaction and thereby forcing the UN, albeit lead by France and the UK, to take a lead. France and the UK seem to have themsleves played this one quite well, making the right noises and then getting the Arab League to come on board. The fact the UN had Russia and China not voting and the Arab League in favour of the UK/French resolution will simply prove to the wing nuts that Obama is a muslim, socialist peace nic whereas bush was of course a peace loving patriot who purely co-incidentally avoided the draft and lied to enmesh his country in a hugely expensive and ultimately futile war. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just ... this^img. We're sure he's not a parodist? Godspeed (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Iraq had WMD, so they were a threat. The WMD are all in Syria. Everyone knows that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What do I think of Obama's actions concerning Libya which I can't coherently condemn? Well, here's my opinion on domestic issues. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt's response in the original post is some of the most disjointed English grammar EVAR! Hooray for sentence fragments! Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 02:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WAR!!!!

That still makes it 2 - 1 for your side on the issue of starting questionable wars.^img P-Foster (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're intervening in Libya. I say we should have done so long ago.--Brxbrx (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

psst. The last time Congress officially declared war? World War 2. it doesn't happen anymore.--Danielfolsom (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that Dennis Kucinich is the other one complaining about the lack of a declaration of war. Teh Assfly's goin' LIE-beral on us! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps he's turning into Gaddafly. Their incoherent rants are converging!--Night Jaguar (talk) 02:51, 20 March 201

Has anyone ever seen Andy and Gaddafi together at the same time? The absence of any evidence is telling. Simple (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No one has ever seen Gaddafi and Schlafly in the same room together. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). One explanation is that they're the same person.^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the hypocrisy of the post below that: "US Congress, not the United Nations, should be the arbiter of whether the United States goes to war in Libya." Then again, there were the same people who basically told the rest of the world to fuck off (except for such power houses as Estonia & Guam) when they wanted to go in after Iraq's oil. Clearly Haliburton hasn't been able to conclude deals to rape the collective Libyan population, so the war is a bad thing. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to be on CP's side or anything, but really, we do not need to be intervening at any military level in this civil war; Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous enough. I will admit I am disappointed Congress wasn't even consulted about it. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's not war: it's enforcing a UN resolution. UN members have an obligation to implement its resolutions, so no consultation with Congress (or Parliament) is necessary as the necessary authority has already been granted by signing the treaty. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two things here:

How on earth is the war in Afghanistan questionable? The US is hunting down the people responsible for 9/11 and trying to weaken these terrorist organizations - there nothing questionable about it (but some tactics are questionable).

I, as a European, would say that the US should keep out of Libya - let European forces do that, we can. --Ullhateme (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's questionable because these things do not end well, and there has been no planning as to what the west wants to achieve militarily, or how to go about it. And starting an international war to prevent the carnage of a civil war, srsly? -- 13:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

After that argumentation American intervention in WW2 was questionable. I think the term "international war" overdramatizes the situation: Every war between two nations is international and it makes it sounds lika a world war, but we all know Gaddafi would be done in a week if the NATO went in there full force. --Ullhateme (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It gets compared to nam lot. And wait wait wait, not having congress say we can go to war? it's been 70ish years since that's happened. --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SR (who also has the best username on RW). The UN convened, came up with something, and for once it's being carried out. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"but we all know Gaddafi would be done in a week if the NATO went in there full force." And peace and stability would immediately ensue. Is it nice and warm, there, with your head up your ass? P-Foster (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi would be gone in the week. Who said anything about peace and stability? Those things take time AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem with that is the idea that "Gaddafi being gone" isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself if a decade plus of civil war, ethnic strife, lost development, political instability and corruption is what ensues. P-Foster (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a situation like Afghanistan or Irak were change came frome the outside - this comes from the inside - god damn it, they have made it to control half of the country, parts of the military - other nations accepting that council as the official government. It looks like the people are behind them, there won't be a power vacuum as one can see that vacuum is allready filled. For the second part now: the idea that "Gaddafi being gone" isn't necessarily a good thing - there's the basic difference, I'd rather live free and poor (and maybe under constant danger of getting murdered) than under a dictatorship. I could call the opposite position cowardly but I'm not going to, because I get were the others are coming from. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a peoples uprising, so I suspect that dropping a few bombs on the people killing the uprisers will help them along a bit, and maybe result in something like a new country, or maybe just lead to long civil war. I just don't want US boots on the ground, if we can avoid that we will be good. --Opcn (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I don't go fully in to it's all about the oil, the cynic in me can't help but wonder why "we" in the "west" have intervened to help a poor oppressed people of a dictatorship in many other countries that happen to lack massive oil reserves, or those that do have said petroleum but are happy to do convoluted business with us. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The selective enforcement of UN resolutions is my biggest problem with the organisation. This is always a good read. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"trim"

Andy just oversighted some simple trimming. Can anyone figure out what it was? I assume it's straight up revisionism of his incoherence. Occasionaluse (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We might never know since you omitted the capture tags. 04:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

He didn't notice the "trim" until after it was oversighted. Adding capture tags would have just captured the over oversight screen. 66.68.151.114 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The patrol logs reveal that Kendoll made an edit (or most likely, many edits that he oversighted) last thing before the Assfly did his trim. My bet is that he posted something more than usually embarrassing that needed to be expunged. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The beauty of the patrol logs is they show the existence of an edit even if the corresponding diff was vaped. So Ken can hide the substance of his edits but not their sheer number. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This^img is what being on vacation from CP looks like. Jesus fuck he edits like a drunk and retarded chimp. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Innovation is a conservative concept"

A classic case of Andy being Andy: Liberals are for government control, government control is the opposite of innovation, thus innovation must be a conservative concept.^img Maybe he should start an article on cp:Best conservative innovations? --Sid (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Create a parodist account and suggest it. God I love watching this nutjob. Rationalize (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Damnit I was beaten to it. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gives the word "oxymoron" a whole new meaning. And government control is the opposite of innovation? --Ullhateme (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seal of approval^img for RW-suggested article. P-Foster (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[9] was fosbury even conservative?--Brxbrx (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Lemme see, he used things like the conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum, and since we know that the theory of relativity is tied to moral relativity (because they use the same words) ipso facto Fosbury is a conservative. 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

What is an insight if not an innovative way to look at things? Andy has lots of insights. There for insight is conservative₢. Since an insight is conservative₢ an innovation must be conservative₢. Andy if you'll buy that logic I've got a story to tell you about Andy's bowel movements... --Opcn (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's greatest insights. Somebody please add 'Invisible Hand of Marriage' as a conservative innovation! --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HUSSEIN OBAMA's Afghanistan war

Surely nobody is stupid enough to fall for this? Some people rewrite history when history is long since forgotten. Schlafly wants to rewrite it as it happens. – Nick Heer 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I assure you people are in fact that stupid. --Opcn (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Congress, not UN, must declare war" is pretty rich considering one of the arguments the chickenhawks were using before Iraq was "We're just enforcing a UN resolution that the UN won't enforce itself." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, I think a case can be made that to a certain extent, Obama took ownership of the thing when he decided to double down, and to escalate it through the radically increased number of drone attacks in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, when he could have done like he did in Iraq and declare partial victory and move to at least give the appearance of wrapping thigns up. He didn't start the war, but he did decide to keep fighting it in a really nasty, if not illegal way when that wasn't the only option on the table. P-Foster (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I think we should have been out of there a long time ago. Obama mostly just shuffled forces around into Afghanistan. Of course, there was zero criticism of Afghanistan from the right until Obama took office. Back then, the line was "It'll become a terr'ist haven if we leave! New 9/11!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fosbury flop

I quite liked the use of the term 'hidebound'^img to describe liberals' thinking, particularly as the first definition that comes up with a Google search is: stubbornly conservative and narrow-minded Jammy (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, didn't think even CP could politicize a high-jump maneuver (not that I knew what the hell a Fosbury flop was until a second ago). What other "conservative innovations" did liberals try to steal? Four-slot toasters? Velcro? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you! The Flop™ has been known to be conservative since at least 2008.^img Similarly, liberals have always been conservatve elitist. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes feign an inability to understand "conservative positions" so as to create lulz by forcing dummies to explain things to me, which is always fun. But I genuinely don't get this one. Why is it "conservative"? Why?! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, stick with me here. Innovation--like the Fosbury flop--is conservative because liberals rely on outside authority like government (especially) or professors to tell them what to think. Conservatives are not hidebound by dogma like liberals are, and are thus open minded and can think in new ways. That's what drives the free market, creates wealth, and betters humankind. P-Foster (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

the hideboundedness for conservatives is social. they are mired in tradition and fear of change. when the government funds somehting, btw, it opens things up. the internet would not exist without government funding--Brxbrx (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Conservatives are not hidebound by dogma like liberals are, and are thus open minded and can think in new ways. That's what drives the free market, creates wealth, and betters humankind." Conservatives would read better as anarcho-capitalists there, then. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not in Andyland. Conservatives are also all about law and order, which is given by God. No room for anarchism of any sort. P-Foster (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but law and order arise naturally from the power of competition in a free market, which is also given by God. A state is unnecessary when competition between private defense agencies will create the best code of law. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Except when that State was Ordained by Our Maker as a City on the Hill. P-Foster (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not worth a WIGO

Dude has owned a wiki for, what, four years, and still has no idea what a disambiguation page might be^img. P-Foster (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

i lold. clearly a fucking moron--Brxbrx (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god. "you mean this, idiot?"^img Rationalize (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the word disambiguation implies a less than black/white concept. In fact it seems a bit relative, Terry Jones would depend on the person's perspective. Take your claptrap elsewhere hippies.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Andy's making it sound like Terry Jones is a member of The Watchmen. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember Andy quite a ways back arguing against disambiguation pages since, like templates, he considered them ugly. I think he also connected them with WP since other encyclopedias didn't have them, and he wanted to do opposite of them regardless of how stupid it was. --Kels (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This sort of mentality is also apparent in the official way people are supposed to create accounts: your first name and first letter of your last name, how many JohnS's could there really be, anyways? 05:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Andy's suggestion for a page title also shows that he doesn't really have a clue. It's not specifically about running a wiki, it's about organisation in general by anyone with pretensions of being an educator.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Paper encyclopædias don't need disambiguation entries as articles with the same title will be listed next to each other, sorted by year-of-birth/foundation etc. If the first article isn't the one you're after, you simply scan the article titles until you find it. MediaWiki doesn't support Next/Prev article links, so that method doesn't work, and would be stupid anyway. CS Miller (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On the rare occasions when I've found myself wondering what CP thinks about something or other, I find their search is nearly useless. If you type in the name of an article that exists, you're stuck with that result, even if what you want should be through a disambiguation page. So you have to search for a less-accurate search term, hoping that will find it. Even then, it seems to be hit or miss. I just found myself wondering what they wrote about the Triangle Fire. I found two references to the fire, but both under a slightly different name of Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Ideally, I should be able to search for either term and find the page. Andy needs to man up, and accept the importance of disambiguation pages. If he doesn't like it, maybe he should INNOVATE, and find a NEW, CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION. -Lardashe

Didn't Wiki Master Ed argue against disambigs at one point, claiming it was a mistake to start using them at WP? --205.211.50.10 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. They have in excess of 260 disambiguation pages. That's one for every 80 or so actual articles they have. There's even an official manual page on what to say on disambiguation pages. You'd think the good captain would be aware of that. Mountain Blue 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they got created. Excellent. And the dismabig page made it too. DogP (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

wrong initials?

Is this just a stroke of bad luck for this user^img? I mean, the odds that a user makes an account on CP and isn't a vandal are slim, but this seems rather paranoid on Karajou's part--Brxbrx (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you have to remember that once upon a time there was a junior thug, called RodWeathers, who was much loved by all the sysops, because like them, he wielded the banhammer freely, and took pleasure in abusing editors. Then he took off his mask and showed them what ignorant aresholes the sysops really are. Thus, by implication, from that point on, any editor who uses the initials "RW" in his name, is clearly a member of the vandal site and can be blocked until the entropy death of the universe. This is especially true where Popeye is concerned. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Ron Weasley was trying to open an account and with his anti-Christian magic influences would try to usurp Lord Volderfly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how long RWarren^img will last.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If not even the good pastor is allowed to carry on, I'd fear for the fate that would await Roger Waters and Robbie Williams at CP. Röstigraben (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet their article on RWanda remains. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 21:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw

Can somebody with more wiki-fu than I, please turn the boycott off. I think that's long gone down the tubes. ktnxbi. love you long time. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. This seems to be where the magic happens. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed, why are you such a predictable perv?

Creepy 'Uncle' Ed creates another worthless stub about Denial^img but links to a site for people living with sex addiction in the New York area.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Things have never made so much sense, nor felt so dirty. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The world is a giant rorschach test for Ed. Whether it be a tree, a cow, Microsoft Excel, or a kettle - all Ed sees is loli. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is his cry for help, and like Ken's, it will go unanswered and blow into the winds of the ether. Ed Poor is a future Law & Order:SVU episode. --Leotardo (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that you have to be remotely fuckable for sex addiction to be a problem. --23:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Leotardo, well said,sir. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

CP makes my head asplode on global warming

Not new, but skimming through their page on AGW I see this: "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)." Old Earth is an invention of evil liberal scientists, but we can use temperature data from before the Earth existed to disprove AGW! HEAD ASPLODE! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocat: If a hypothesis is based on an hypothesis (or theory on theory), which they probably understand it to be so, it makes sense that hypothesis 2 can be rejected if hypothesis 1 has a statement that inherits hypothesis 2 or speaks against the possibility of hypothesis 2. Although in this case it can not be excluded that global temperature change can be caused by humans once but all the other time before had a "natural" source. Or to say it easier: That Jimmy fell from the ladder 300 times before does not mean that when you start throwing stones at him before he falls for the 301 time he is naturally destined to fall all the time - the rock-throwing might still be a factor. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic Ed

The funniest thing about this diff^img is what the article used to be. Another job well done, Ed.--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed's version^img really deserves a cap of its own. --Sid (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we not shine a light on Ed's work after a night of Nati Light, a Shirley Temple marathon, and some poppers. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Poppers is something I'd associate with the likes of Ken. Then again I'm in my thirties and therefore clearly out of it. Mountain Blue 06:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Spiderman 3 plays like a sci-fi version of Harry Potter. The aerial battles between Peter Parker and the villain are reminiscent of Quidditch" is a little like saying "Star Wars plays like a sci-fi version of Casablanca because both have scenes in bars with people from out of town."

Oh, and as a pedantic comic book geek, I must point out that it's "Spider-Man", not "Spiderman". MDB (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's such a wonderful Ed-ism for an encyclopaedia. No mention of cast, director, year of release, or the other two movies for that matter, just a reference to a sport played in some other kiddies movie. That the man actually believes he adds valuable content to CP, is a clear sign of how delusional and dim-witted Edmund is. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And Iduan isn't exactly au fait with what eponymous means.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Shoot. I was basing that usage on usage I had seen on Wikipedia - a la Romeo + Juliet ("It was directed by Australian Baz Luhrmann and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in the eponymous roles.") - but I'll admit I have no real clue. It's not a word I use frequently at all.--Iduan (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, Romeo & Juliet are the eponymous roles. However, Peter Parker is not the eponymous role, Spider-Man is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahh I see, so Peter Parker is the secret identity of the eponymous role, but you can't just say "Peter Parker" is the eponymous role. That makes sense. Thanks!--Iduan (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant to include all kinds of useful factual information but of course once he started to think of the Potter movies he got distracted. Emma Watson was such a sassy little brat just a few years ago. Mountain Blue 22:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

CP goes cynical

This just in from the CP newsdesk: Libya is obviously about the oil^img. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This one's^img also nice, especially when contrasted with the original article. Somewhere along the way, Western leaders turned into liberals, a UN-backed intervention became an attack on Libya, and Andy decided that he'd rather side with Russia and China than with Obama. Röstigraben (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy would side with the devil himself rather than with Obama. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Now Andy's quoting Ralph motherfuckin' Nader^img. CP is not becoming cynical; it's becoming liberal! Let's see if we can get Andy to cite Noam Chomsky. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF?! Guess Andy is a big believer in "the enemy of my enemy." Either that or he's playing it from the "Look, even a liberal doesn't like him" angle. Either way, the reaction to Libya is entertaining. Conservabot is shorting out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I almost wish Obama would declare himself to be 100% opposed to abortion under any and all circumstances, just to see Andy's reaction. MDB (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What must make Andy really uncomfortable tho, is the fact that the liberal masses aren't all chanting "War! War! War!" like Andy and his cronies did, urging Dubbya on. Given his black and white view of the world, it's going to take some cognitive dissonance to realise he's on the same side and the baby-eating atheistic liberals. *sigh* I wish Rob was around, so we could hear all about Obama's Afghan war. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Simplest of experiments

After reading this from Ken^img it got me thinking. Creationist's often talk about how carnivorous animals can live quite well on all an vegetarian diets but I have never heard of them testing this idea. Surely it would be the simplest thing to test. Get a bunch of carnivorous animals, supply them with only vegetables, milk and eggs. See what happens. Even Philip Rayment couldn't deny the simplicity of this experiment. Someone should ask him...I am of course blocked. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

err.. ok sorry, I'm still in shock from Ken's latest MPR--Brxbrx (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Ken, your reference talks about big cats but what about Spiders? Dogs? Bears? Necrotizing fasciitis? Ace ^{of Spades} 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Though admittedly there is a spider that eats vegetable matter it is also observed eating meat. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The lioness Little Tyke did die at the age of 9 due to contracting the virus pneumonia while spending three weeks in Hollywood to film a show". It only died early because of Hollywood Values! --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda thinking that a single carnivore would starve, while a group of carnivores would consume each other in this environment, but that is just a hypothesis. PETA would be up your bum if you should try this experiment though, I fear. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey's cat is vegetarian. Not by choice though, I should imagine. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I always heard that while a dog can be fed a veggie diet, cats will die if they only eat veg - they need taurine, which is only found in meat or fish. Was what I heard woo? DogP (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing, and I think it's woo. Yes, cats need taurine to survive, but commercial taurine is synthesized, so they can still be vegetarians. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then it's not really a vegetarian diet imo. It's a diet with enrichments to allow carnivores to survive and such a thing would not have been possible in bibul times, ergo the cats can not have been vegetarian. There are animals that CAN live on a totally vegetarian diet without scientific enhancements, including humans like me, and there are animals that are physicaly unable to, like my little pussy cat. She HAS to eat meat (or artifically enhanced food which essentially contains a meat substitute) to survive. I do not have to and I do not. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No you're right. I kinda went off-topic there for a second. I did mean that modern cats can technically be vegetarian, but I realize that they wouldn't be able to before synthetic taurine. I'm on too much caffeine today... (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have they ever explained how they think seabed flora and marina animals survived the flood? Mountain Blue 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Though at least the part about cats needing it isn't woo - they do need it, and if they didn't eat actual meat or fish flesh, they'd have to eat prepared pet foods containing taurine, not just a bunch of old carrots that you'd slung their way, which was kind of my point. So I think I consider myself to be woo-free again. DogP (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Creationists can go and create their own vegetarian cat. First, take some cats and put them on a vegetarian diet. Breed the ones who can best handle the diet. Repeat for several generations. Eventually you'll get a vegetarian cat to show those evilutionist! (And maybe some weirdo asking to see the data.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

lawl--Brxbrx (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The lion was raised by a theosophist, one of the tennets of theosophy is that you can intuit something and it is absolutely iron clad proof. So if the woman who raised it intuited that the lion didn't want meat she could raise it to not eat meat and then claim that is refused meat. Theosophists suck and ruin so much with their stupid instadogma. --Opcn (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cats were perfectly able to survive on a vegetarian diet until The Fall, which God so didn't plan. I still wonder how Noah and family got on with the whole syphilis thing? Given the the Biblical hero habit of ploughing the kids, I think they found a way. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that the syphilis was in a farm animal. --Opcn (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help thinking of that aussie woo merchant who claimed she lived only on air few years ago. But who others claimed ate regularly in secret and had a kitchen full of food should anyone who did eat ever want to stop by and have a feast. Can't remember her name and can't be arsed to go find it, sorry. I suspect that had anyone done an independent autopsy on little tyke, the 'vegetarian' lion they may have found some meat in it's guts.

And I also thought that cats are unable to synthesise the protien mentioned above and have to source it from meat, the only place it exists naturally. Dog's however can live on an entirely vegetarian diet. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That was Jasmuheen and we has a snartickle.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that a big cat could live off of grain, milk, and eggs. However, take away the milk and the eggs and you have a dead cat. --Opcn (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is patent bollocks that carnivores were veggies before the flood unless they have seriously mutated. They don't have the same digestive tracts nor the right teeth and feet. Also they would have had to learn the skill of how to catch prey. Even grains were not the same in ancient times, they were mere shadows of what man has developed by selective breeding. Dogs can live on a human-supplied vegetarian diet because we add fats and proteins but not in the wild. Can you imagine the pre-flood landscape with great herds of lions and wolves grazing the savannah or tundra? They're all bonkers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's bollocks. I remember an ex girlfriend once dragged me along to a talk by ken ham at the university of Reading many years ago, it was the first I'd heard of this fucktard so I didn't really know what to expect except I knew he was a biblical literalist and ye creationist. I have never sat through 90 minutes of so much complete and utter crap in my entire existance. The best part was he was talking to graduate and post-graduate level geologists so he could not do his usual crap of 'were you there?' call and response he does with children. He had to at least try to present a gloss of scientific basis.

He failed. My ex stopped me walking out when he said t-rex was vegetarian because she wanted to stay and 'debate' with him at the end (I wanted to go spend my time usefully by getting drunk) but I did guffaw so loudly that the yec's in front of me turned round, tutted and told me to wait until I heard all the 'evidence' and that ken would convince me. He didn't. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC) this was probably about 15 years ago.

There's also the problem of population dynamics and nutrient cycles. No carnivores means no predators, which removes the most important check on animal population sizes. Instead, the now-carnivores would've had to consume vegetation as well, adding another burden that plant life would've had to shoulder. Such an ecosystem would most likely not have been sustainable at all, and it's totally impossible that it would've consisted of exactly the same species that we see today, carnivores and all. Not that creationists would ever let biological and ecological facts get in the way of a good theory myth, of course. Röstigraben (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On the flip side, green iguana's, which are 100% vegetarian, will DIE if they ingest any more meat that the occasional accidental insect. Keep trying Ken. Senator Harrison (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Gay "people"

Apparently, in references to gay "people," the quotes around "people are entirely necessary^img. ... of liberals? (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

meh. generally you don't change other people's comments on a talk page.--Danielfolsom (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaks volumes about Karajerk tho, that he puts it back in, thereby letting everybody know he doesn't think of gays as being people. And this is the same cunt who keeps accusing us of being hateful? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Purely on etiquette grounds, Karajerk did the right thing. Editing other people's comments on a wiki talk page for anything other than technical reasons is pretty much a no-no on all wikis. Having said that, I'd personally have let the removal stand, and I'm sure Popeye wasn't thinking about wikiquette when he did it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait I know that pattern, but from where? Ah, right: "black people aren't humans, they are animals" - way to get around the 10 commandments. --Ullhateme (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

another jaded conservepedo

[5]^img and this [6]^img. he won't last much longer, I thinks--Brxbrx (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

on a side note, has Ken ever lost his smug? Not even for a minute?--Brxbrx (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of cameos^img!! Big news week! Enjoy the break! P-Foster (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And Ken replies^img . After deep burning the page in the first place naturally. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've removed the link and the capture tags as it was not capturing the burnt page but showing the original capture.

Let's not forget ASoK, where Ken's also been a busy little beaver, whilst illustrating he has no clue how browser bookmarks function. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be working (damn you, Psy!) but looking at Ruy's user page I notice a blatant copyright infringement^img and some unthinking stupidity where Mensa-Man copies Andy's CP image upload entry complete with the lawyerly "no endorsement implied". More proof that a high IQ does not necessarily equate with high intelligence.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ooh Ken, that's gotta hurt.

So Andy trims down^img the Obama article, removing quite a few negative pictures, as well as all of Ken's dribbling about the treatment of his half-brother, charitable givings and social Darwinism/liberal elitism. Maybe Andy doesn't like references to lack of charitable givings, seeing as he probably doesn't donate to any charities himself. --PsyGremlinHable! 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised. I mean, Andy has said that Obama hasn't done anything that can't be attributed to affirmative action. Senator Harrison (talk)

Gone is the "no hand on heart" picture and a 'stolen-from-Reuters' picture of Obama in Egypt uploaded by JMR. I checked the deletion log to see if Andy had been forced to take it down (the answer's no) and noticed that Andy had deleted the talk page for Carbon^img. Now what was that all about?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fidel Castro still dead

Despite another column by Fidel Castro, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia still conjectures^img (gossips? rumors?) that he is dead. --Leotardo (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it. The BBC have the same story. Typical atheist leftist nonsense. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a body double. I've never understood why Andy sticks to his guns on unimportant assertions that make his own website look stoopid. It would be easy for him to avoid such stupid if he didn't feel the need to document every suspicion/notion he has as something to add to an encyclopedia. --Leotardo (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Castro and "Humor" are two things I'd like to search the leaks for. I really have a hard time believing Andy isn't joking/contrarian. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It goes back to the early days of his claims about abortion causing breast cancer. After 4 years of having his ego stroked by the echo chamber, he now feels compelled to utter every thought and conspiracy that comes into his head, knowing that the goons will ensure Andy's Word is the One and Only Truth. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's some shit about liberals being in denial that Castro is dead because he's their favorite dictator (behind Chavez/Mugabe/Stalin/Hitler/whoever). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the leaks about Castro, except a jokey one from RobS that he's alive and part of the RW cabal (here). I can't find anything about humor either, although that's a trickier one to search for. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Only newer reference is to karajou blocking somebody for creating a dummy edit on WP, then using that to update CP's "Bias in WP" dirge. This, of course, in Kara's mind, means they'd be liable for a libel suit from WP. No sign that Andy is taking the piss. Very little humour at all in those chat rooms actually. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate ignorance

That talk page^img is pure gold, especially the section on the evolution of the whale. Karajou's "we're not going to accept the so-called "proofs" of whale origins, nor anything else related to evolution" couldn't be a better example of the article in question. Same with his "it's evolutionists saying it happened; they're not proving it happened".

Hey, Popeye, how about swinging past here and proving how the world is only 6,000 years old, and how Noah mucked out the millions of animals in his Ark. Can't wait to see you prove these, instead of just talking about them. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And while you're at it, show us Noah's ark. You did search all of Turkey until you found it, the way you once demanded of someone, right? (Someone must be able to find the cite for this.) Or are you just saying that it existed? Gauss (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's here^img. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's in the Bible. That's proof enough. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I've said it before (and I'm the only one who thinks it's clever, so I'll have to say it again) CP is the pot calling the bone china black. --Opcn (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground before you carry on with your opinion in this website. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist."^img

Hey Karajerk. Guess what you're going to be doing, if you want to prove the Ark does exist. Run along now, little man. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist." More deliberate ignorance. Awesome. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is such a silly clown.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saying it does actually amount to proof according to an archaeologist who simply said "fossil" one fine summer's day.--Brendiggg (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk doesn't^img quite get^img the concept of proof. Auld Nick (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They might as well just change Deliberate Ignorance into a redirect of its talk page. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nuh-uh, you guys are all wrong, look Andy is keeping an open mind, he looked at the links just long enough to find something to complain about on 3/4ths of them^img--Opcn (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Why would you link Andy to Wikipedia? The entire point of CP is to combat WP's liberal EVILutionist bias! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"openminded, rigorous science" - oh, Andy... do you ever think before you press save? --Ullhateme (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I love this site. Rationalize (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

They're still at it. Cecil^img has not yet realized the futility of bringing up facts, and Andy^img continues to be the nemesis of irony meters everywhere by ignoring any point he makes. Beautiful. Röstigraben (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Goon's New Toon

ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

What point is Karajerk trying to make in his new toon^img? Surely Dr. "Professor Values" Frankenstein's creation is an example of intelligent design not evilution? Auld Nick (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's his worst cartoon ever. It implies all conservatives are creationists, and all liberals are evolutionists, which is obviously not the case. It doesn't even make any sense. SJ ^Debaser 19:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I especially appreciate God citing his "own" (and to that point unwritten) "work" as he creates light. Flubber (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(double ec) I could live with the "All conservatives believe X, all liberals believe Y!" view since that's par for the course at CP. But... the liberal view of "creation" is apparently that Darwin claimed that man can create life from scratch? ...what? The last panel is funny on its own (as is the first one when you consider that God is hiding in a cloud right next to the sun he creates by pointing at it... and by citing his own words with Bible verses...), but the message is... odd to say the least. --Sid (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(triple ec) Worst Karatoon yet. Drawing in the left panel is so lazy, I thought the hand of god was a cock and balls at first. What on earth does this mean? --Marlow (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to fix the capture? For some reason it doesn't work on my end (something about a zero or negative image size) and I don't see anything. Sadly I'm in southern Europe and permanently 403'ed, it seems. άλφα^Talk 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. It's implicated in the right panel that the Frankenstein-looking thing is the result of EVILution (there's a time lapse, so you don't see that the experiment started off with a single-celled Franken-prokaryote and the monster is the end result). The process of EVILution ran its course until the Frankenstein was created. If EVILution can only create a Frankenstein-thing (evil) but not man (fallen, but capacity for good), EVILution thus cannot produce good. Because good exists in the world EVILution is false and the only explanation is goddiddit (and the scientist also fails to find a way to make his Frankenstein good because Darwin is also evil and not god). (Gotta admit, sometimes I impress even myself with my own bullshit.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Rules - and this site's upload page sucks so much ass it's gonna cause a felching problem. This toon is so bad it's Not Even Wrong. The implication is that Liberals believe somebody created life. Ummm... no. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Karajou is going to have to swing by and parse this thing for those of us with public school educations. --Marlow (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Really is an embarrassing "toon", and one that will likely piss off conservatives who don't believe a magic hand appeared out of a cloud (in space?) to create everything. I personally like, though, the idea that the hand-in-the-sky theory is inferred to be so much more plausible. --Leotardo (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the cartoon correctly, conservatives believe that god created the sun by pointing a finger at it, while liberals believe that Darwin created a monstrous form of humanity by pointing a chair at it. Sees perfectly understandable to me.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On the basis that this mess is based on Frakenstein that simply means that we can add karajerk to the ever growing list of people who have not read, and do not understand, Frakenstein by Mary Shelly and have had their 'education' on the subject from a hollywood film. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. I would bet that most of Anger Bear's literary knowledge comes from Hollywood movies. --Leotardo (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So creationists believe that a giant finger came out of a cloud and start making light out of nowhere, while evolutionists can answer for the majority of their subject matter's history and admit not to have an opinion regarding the bits they don't have positive, observable scientific data for? Sounds about right to me. Sen (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what is supposed to be going in Karajou's new toon. Totally beyond me. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, in most of his previous offerings one could at least see the (undoubtedly ridiculous and bizarre) point he was trying to make, but this? More seriously, is the confabulation of conservative=christian (or rather YEC) non-conservative=atheist simply a CPism, or does it hold water in US politics? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I've got a dirty mind but is that a hand or a cock and balls? Also, the guy with the brush-cut at the back actually looks like the picture that Psy posted of Karajou.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All this reminds me of is the YEC's typical, fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, one they perpetuate often out of ignorance, but just as often out of deliberate deceit. Many YECs, including many of the syspos at CP, know that evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, let alone the Earth or the entire universe, but they push this lie that it does anyway in order to attempt to discredit the theory in front of the gullible masses, who are ignorant of science and beholden to their dogmatism. They do this for the sake of dogma, but they do it more for bilking money from the "faithful". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a CP-ism with a grain of truth. Seems like most surveys always come down to about 50-50 evolution/creationism, but hardcore creationists tend to be conservative and YECs are hard right. However, I'd be willing to bet YECs are a small portion of creationists here and even other creationists tend to see the YECs as a bit nutty. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Polls have consistently found that in the US, about 40% of respondents adhere to YEC views. What Gallup labels "Creationist" is YEC, while its "Theistic Evolution" is probably the most widespread form of OEC (other belief systems do not get polled). Anyway, I also don't have a clue what Karajou's latest effort is all about. Being misunderstood is a hallmark of great artists, but not that great if you're a political cartoonist. Röstigraben (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This cartoon is really bad. Even for Karajou. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you all for getting my hopes up. I saw this post in recent changes and thought you were discussing my newest tattoo. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's Frankenstein's left... everything? Barikada (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on guys, obviously "magic man dun it" is the more reasonable option. By the way, I had no idea Darwin published a handy monster survival guide, who knew? Jaxe (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW Weaseloid's caption to the toon doesn't make much sense.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So once again Kajagoogoo spouts forth, illustrating not only his complete ignorance of Darwin's theory and evolution in general, but also one of the classics of English literature. Why am I not surprised. We should start compiling a list of things Karajerk doesn't understand. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's play the quote-mine and rotating attribution game:

"I at once gave up my former occupations, set down natural history and all its progeny as a deformed and abortive creation, and entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge. In this mood of mind I betook myself to the mathematics and the branches of study appertaining to that science as being built upon secure foundations, and so worthy of my consideration." --Francis Darwin, in a letter to his sister on his conversion to credobaptism

Put this in the cp:Evolution article and or lose all credibility. Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I've been trying to parse this, and I think I may have it, but I'm not sure, as my reasoning means that Karajou is accepting something as true that many YECs say is untrue. My thinking is that the guy on the right is supposed to be Frankenstein, who needs a lot of knowledge of biology in order to create his monster, and therefore accepts evolution, as major parts of modern biology come from understanding evolution (which is the part that contradicts what many YECs say). Therefore, this evolutionist, who is therefore liberal, is trying to find out how to deal with his own creation by reading the works of Darwin, which is where he got the knowledge of biology necessary to create the monster in the first place. He would fail, so this means the YEC, and therefore conservative, version of creation is more sensible. Of course, to sane people, that means Frankenstein's just stupid, as he would know more about his own creation than somebody who wrote about something that is only indirectly connected with this monster, if at all, so he should review his own notes, not the work of Darwin. 81.151.247.103 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the other possibility is that Karajou simply knows absolutely nothing about evolution, biology, and liberalism, so is just randomly doodling something pulled from what could loosely be called his mind that makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who does, but is intended to make some kind of connection between evolution and liberals, and make both look silly. 81.151.247.103 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Saved for posterity

Name calling^img Ken has been scrubbing the history, so I figure it's not long for this world. Quick before he get's banned can someone with an email account email AlaskanEconomy my facebook profile? Thanks! --Opcn (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the huge img capture! I thought I saw capture bot recognize sections. :/ --Opcn (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That section is comedy gold on so many levels. And wow, Ken actually burnt down Talk:Main_Page to hide his editing binge. Because fuck, preserving history is liberal, right? --Sid (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this is the most bizarre behaviour Ken's yet displayed. The whole charade of "90 days' leave" followed by wide scale deletion of talk-pages and over-sighting comments, is not just dishonest, but smacks of something seriously wrong. Ken's become like an alcoholic, or somebody into cutting, unable to stop themselves, but trying their best to cover up and hoping that nobody notices. He's gone beyond pathetic, into pitiful. Especially as he's clearly only doing it for our benefit. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So is MartyP actually Ken's sock or is it someone taking the piss out of ken and him just not seeing it? Because if it is his sock... damn. X Stickman (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Martyp's comments made me laugh. It reminds me of something Chief Wiggum said in the Simpsons once which I think can be applied if when Marty gets blocked; "You just bought yourself a 317, pointing out police stupidity!" SJ ^Debaser 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My money is on cp:User:MikeOxlong being Ken's sock (not that he uses only one, of course). --Leotardo (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Obvious parodist. Surprised he isn't banned yet. DickTurpis (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

saving the rest^img rhis is absolutely comedy gold.--Opcn (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless Ken's trying super-duper hard to use that li'l preview button, I wouldn't think MikeOxlong's him. SJ ^Debaser 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just got it, wow, Need to spend more time with my head in the gutter. --Opcn (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Outing parody

I know it is bad form to point out parody but at what stage are we allowed to out it? I was looking at creating a few pages earlier, just to get a sock active tbh, and noticed a belter on one page which has been there for nearly 3 years. Is there ever a time when we can let others here know so they can join the lul's? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of us have no problem pointing out parody, particularly since it's indistinguishable from non-parody. --Leotardo (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that everyone here, being broad minded porn surfers people know what a sybian is then? Well according to cp it is also apparently a well known brand of something else. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't approve of outing others' parody or discussing sockpuppetry here. I'm fairly sure I'm in the minority. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC - I'll get you, Roux) Ah well, at least that's there. I see Mr Adams deleted the long-standing reference to masturbation tucked away in an innocent article. Bastard. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I specifically started a debate on this so that we could come to some sort of consensus or - at the very least - have some reasonably lengthy discussion to point people to instead of havinng them start a new one here. Sadly not many people got involved. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it becomes more acceptable to out parody depending upon a) the influence of the person doing it at CP and b) upon the nature of the parody itself. For example, if it's a new user doing the parody, ignore it unless a sysop joins in; if the parodist has block rights or more, however, it's alright to out his parody PROVIDED he is parodying one of the sysops at CP, or the general CP culture. For example, I would never consider it alright to point out that the bromine article says that bromine is extracted from clams via 'clamscrubbification' - let CP reap the benefits of blocking every user with an ounce of knowledge who might look at the bromine article and remove it. However, it's fine to laugh about Bugler's 'Conservapedia three years on' essay. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The spoof articles or jokes hidden is otherwise serious articles are nice little easter eggs for the discerning CP reader. The problem with drawing attention to them is that CP sysops watch this page & one or two of them who aren't too stupid may notice & remove the joke content. But if you don't highlight them, the joke may sit there indefinitely, unnoticed & unappreciated by anybody, so sometimes it's just too tempting to let others know about it. A further problem with having a policy against outing parody & vandalism is that we're implicitly condoning vandalising CP, which is something we as a site try not to do anymore. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Secularized language - Holidays

On Secularized language "Easter Holiday" is the Christian version, and "Spring Break" is the secular version. Yet a few lines down "Easter" is the secularized version of "Resurrection Sunday". Makes no sense. --Leotardo (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Resurrection Sunday -> Easter -> Spring break Occasionaluse (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC x) Your last 3 words could be CP's motto. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well given that secular is a secularised word of pagan, that whole paganised language article is secular! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)