Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive228

This is an archive page, last updated 2 April 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>, <227>, <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)

Hot Alaskan MILF Sarah

Ken needs to adjust his pants^img, I think. DogP (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well we know Rob lusts after the Coultergeist, so Ken has to have somebody in his life. After all Andy and (I assume) Karajerk are married, JPratt is and TerryH is just too creepy and Ed thinks fondly of Bethany. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think 'svelte' was today's entry in Ken's Word-a-day calendar. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Ken

on this; Palin is pretty hot in a dumb-redneck-MILF kind of way... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You missed the part where he tries to make it seem like he could be female. «-Bfa-» 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He's used it before when he was gushing about Chuck Norris^img, in a very macho, manly way, of course, not homoerotic at all. Röstigraben (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Palin is the kind of woman that'd I'd only have sex with if it wasn't consensual. Megyn Kelly too. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The teabaggers have all the hot women, which obviously makes you socialists feel threatened. (BTW, the MILF factor exists, it's science!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is super hot, even better looking in person too.--Opcn (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, and may goat forgive me for this, but there is definately something about the coultergeist for me. As long as she kept her mouht shut, or opened it only consensually. I really don't know what it is, she is not really my sort at all but there is something. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of semi-consensual sex, I fucked Ann Coulter in the ass, hard still makes me LOL years later. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

He reprised that with an AGAIN version later but being at work I have no intention of looking for the link from here. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh you mean Back in Ann Coulter's Ass-Saddle Again? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Way to ruin everything by bringing Coulter into this. :P Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Megyn Kelly - women, I wouldn't touch even if my hands were made out of acid. --Ullhateme (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

well look at mister dickproud... --Opcn (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not pride it's simplest unattraction. Palin isn't my type anyway (and even then not my age). Coulter and Kelly look too plastic for me. But what do I know, I don't think Megan Fox is hot at all… And after all that I don't want to do crazy bitches (the bad kind, not the good kind), if something goes wrong you're stuck with them for a lifetime! --Ullhateme (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that Sarah Palin borders on burly rather than svelte. not that I wouldn't do her, jk--Brxbrx (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is not Burly, she is toned, big difference. --Opcn (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Im gonna leval with you. I'd hit Sarah. She's a crazy chick, and they're fun. You just have to keep an eye on what they're hands are doing. Particularly one as well armed as Palin. But back to my last point: Sarah Palin = rawr 8D--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

August O.

Over the last days, I followed August's attempts to show how Andy Schlafly mistranslated a verse (John 4-53) to fit his agenda (see here^img and here^img). The back-and-forth now found its logical conclusion with August being banned for liberal trolling. I was quite amused by these dialogues, and the wisdom shown by Karajou - but perhaps I'm just easy to be pleased. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Easily amused liberal. Sometimes reading Andy is like reading English words, but they don't actually form English sentences. Except instead of sentences, for him it's thoughts. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish I'd used the Schafly approach when I did Ancient Greek O-level (showing my age there...) Decide what you want it to mean in English, make the Greek words fit your chosen translation and blast the teacher to kingdom come if he shows his ignorance by correcting you. Simples. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And we see Popeye the "la or ta" Karajou delivering the coup de grâce. I bet he thinks along these lines whilst he's blocking people: "It's the little things that count." 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Andy's at it again^img, and, wouldn't you know, this "more accurate" translation (apparently) fits in perfectly with his agenda^img. But seriously, this is a stretch in so many ways. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's Andy's favorite approach to well-reasoned criticism: Get the editor blocked, wash your hands (it's not before dinner, is it :-) and pretend that nothing ever happened. Or, as August O. said in this self-fulfilling prophecy:

I'll revert your reversion of my edit - and perhaps I get blocked for this, though I am giving ample reason for my acts. Thus you could avoid to address my points, and ignore them like quite a few arguments against items in the list of counterexamples. As Rschlafly said: All of the other items also have explanations that do not contradict relativity. But I hope that you just answer the following questions: [...]

Needless to say that the following question were never answered - and won't be anytime soon....

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Liberals think that Jesus lived 30-something years at all. His entire life happened in one instant. This is why before the year 0 is BC and after the year 0 is AD. AD doesn't start at the year 37 or whatever. Deny this and lose all credibility. X Stickman (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness, "AD" does not stand for "after death," rather "Anno Domini." So you're chasing a bit of a strawman there. Never mind though that Jesus was probably born 4 BC. Junggai (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm, for truth's sake there is absolutely no historical basis for the belief that anyone known as jesus was ever born at all. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, I graduated high school with about 10 guys named Jesus. Junggai (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Srsly just pick up the San Antonio phone book and open it to Martinez if you want historical evidence for enough Jesuses to fill a school bus. Suck it, Tacitus and Josephus! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 15:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Retention Rate

I added a new section on the retention rate (remember this?) to Conservapedia's article of Conservapedia:Active users. But perhaps the information should be put somewhere else? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, excellent work Sir! --PsyGremlinFale! 10:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW: here is a byproduct - the active editors at RationalWiki and Conservapedia calculated according to the definition used in WikiMedia's survey.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh no!

"young adults who frequently attend religious activities are 50 percent more likely to turn into obese middle-agers as those with no religious involvement"

Chicago Trib --Gooners (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful! That's a find! StarFish (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LIBERAL BIAS. Read a bible and build a hospital you close minded trolls. Godspeed.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're citing a study done by professors from a university? You mean a liberal done by a liberal from a liberal ... of liberals? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gooners" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), you won't deny it, but you won't admit it either. Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself. I looked at your contributions and all you do is repeat liberal deceits, so clearly you're not here to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that childbirth prevents Hollywood values. In sum, Vikings didn't take their wives and children on long voyages. How about learning first, and then preaching second? Help yourself by opening your mind, before it's too late.--aschlafly 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Greatest Conservative Movies---Qualification

I was scrolling and trolling through the list of Greatest Conservative Movies. First, I was annoyed to crap about the 87 different styles they use for the movies...some have: Title (Year). Description...others have: Title (Year), Description....or Title (Year--sometimes no year) - Description (or no description). FIGURE OUT YOUR FORMATTING AND MAKE IT UNIFORM!
But that's a side annoyance...currently #60 is Courageous^img with the description: "Upcoming Sherwood Pictures film focusing on the role of fathers." Now, Jinx added this back in April of 2010, and the description still hasn't changed. But SERIOUSLY?! It's one of the Greatest Conservative Movies, without ever having been watched? Just the fact that it's from a Christian production company means it's going to be one of the Greatest? Why not just admit that as long as it claims to be Christian, it's the Greatest, and be done with these fake "reasons." I wish more awards were given out for movies that hadn't come out yet.64.30.2.130 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You, 64.30.2.130, are going to scour the film known as Courageous, and I don't care how you do it. You can use a DVD or take a jet to attend a screening, but you are going to go over every frame of that movie 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 film Courageous isn't one of the greatest conservative movies of all time. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it's almost like he's right here on the wiki! 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

A disproportionate number of them star Ronald Reagan, including the most likely apolitical Knute Rockne, All-American, which is about college football. Maybe Assfly isn't aware that Reagan starred in a movie with our distant cousin, the chimp, and attempted to teach it to be like us. I demand that all of his films be taken off the list immediately. Flubber (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deny it all you want "Flubber" , (if that is your real name), but Reagan's body double did all of his acting until he got into the White House. (The body double then went on vacation to Florida and got caught in a rip tide and was lost at sea. We now know he became Castro's body double and has everyone [including Fidel's brother Raul] fooled into thinking Che's lover is still alive!) Oh and prayer in schools, blah blah blah. 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

There is a 95% chance you support liberal causes. Deny this and lose all credibility. Flubber (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"64.30.2.138" (welcome and hello, but abide by our rules or else your account will be blocked), moral decay is so prevalent among environmentalists that no further talk-page debates about it are necessary or will be tolerated. I looked at your contributions and there is an anti-Christian tone to your postings, so let me guess: you're trying to spread socialist propaganda. Like all atheists, you deny that the best of the public stops Wikipedia bias. Nobody seriously doubts that Robert Oppenheimer was the manager at Los Alamos who made sure people got their mail and had a room to stay in. --Aschlafly 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alert- The Lion King is now conservative, because Scar pushes Liberal Values. Of course. Flubber (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservapeda's law

has got to be one of the most ridiculous^img politicotheological conversations I've ever read. Someone needs to make this a funny WIGO. --Opcn (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone was doing math homework and then Mad Libbed in the words "conservative" and some Biblical figures. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Andy know what a limit is? Or does he think mathematical limits are too close to government regulation? Flubber (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

“”Right before the Great Flood it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.

Oh Andy you card. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in conservatism since Jesus." Wow, Andy. All that's missing is "culminating in the creation of Conservapedia." However, I rather agree with his geometric growth - it wasn't long between 0AD and the Dark Ages, Inquisition, witch hunts. Luckily around that time, God created liberals, to instil some balance. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black? P-Foster (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How's that math course going by the way? You know, the one where geometric series with ratios >= 1 always converge?^img Occasionaluse (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the most amazing CP convos I have ever read. Corry (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Just checked this convo for the first time since there were only 3 posts...I'm not even sure what to say anymore. Obviously there exists some hypothetical amount of possible conservatism out there! Flubber (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future"^img. Excellent. ħuman 03:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up folks, this conversation appears to be trending asymptotically towards One Of The Greatest Andy Conversations Ever. Truly amazing signs of actual, real, failure to cope with the real world here. Someone ought to call social services the cops now and get those homeschool students away from this demented individual. --DogP (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't expect a future with Andys disjointed and schizophrenic policy suggestions. --Opcn (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if Andy deserves his own class of logical fallacy. He has basically redefined the word "logical" to mean "agreeable to Schlafly." Corry (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is worth a WIGO because Andy essentially said, "When everyone was dead we had perfect conservatism^img". --Leotardo (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's amazing coincidence

In fairness to Andy (did I just type those words?), theists in general interpret their religions' holy books to back up what they wanted to believe anyway. Andy isn't the only one to follow the first rule of religion; he's just one of the more brazen about it. ... of liberals? (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's even more brazen about it than most theists. It's just the things he wants to believe are exceedingly weird. Jesus did action-at-a-distance magic, therefore relativity is false? That's 1 in 10^10 level kookery right there. Most other theists are just trying to convince themselves that ancient Jewy slavery was nice slavery, or that god is down with you eating prawns. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And he had to make up an archaic meaning of the word "behold" - which just meant "Lookee Here!", and if you want to get archaic, meant at one time "to hold". All this info is available in the dictionary. Gooners (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I always found it weird that there was so much anti-relativity crankery on CP. Usually I think of Petr Beckmann or Time Cube types who think they disproved relativity and found something new and revolutionary to replace it with. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just Andy's desire to be a little creative and explore new paths of insanity. He simply took the Creationism/Evolution template and forced it on other unsuspecting scientific theories, even though nobody besides him sees the "controversies". And once Andy has embarked on a particular course, he'll defend it to the end, no matter what. If some parodist socks open-minded, legitimate users keep inquiring about his unusual views on plate tectonics, I bet he'll make this a central part of CP doctrine, too. Röstigraben (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's real religion is conservatism. If God personally told Andy He was liberal, Andy would become a satanist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to separate Andy's politics and his religion. But given that he invariably bends the religion to fit his politics I concur that 'conservatism' is his real faith.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, that's something that many theists do. I've known enough who have contorted or outright dismissed any parts of their religions that conflicted with their secular politics. I've seen people of a wide variety of political persuasions do this, and, of course, they're all sure that God or the Gods agree with them. ... of liberals? (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind...

...that 8 years out of those ten the country was ruled by a Republican right-wing hypocrite, that were several economic crisis hitting the country hard and that the auto industry in Detroit was and is not up to the international competition. It's all the liberal's fault!^img --Ullhateme (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GM, however, is a case where labor did help to create the problem -- the joke was that GM was a pension plan that just happened to make cars. UAW did offer a number of concessions after 2008, though. Not to mention that GM was run mismanaged by Rick "just build more SUVs!" Wagoner. Of course, that translates to "liberals blew up the city!" in Andyland. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the execs should have cut their salaries to pay for the workers' benefits--Brxbrx (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Brxbrx - it's always the workers, never the management that get hit. But really - do they really believe the bullshit spin they put on things? I mean, I'm glad that they post dumb shit like this because it keeps the intelligence of CP low - no thinking person would read that and go, "Well, sounds like these guys know what they are talking about!" --Leotardo (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that the managers get rewarded for cutting costs (laying off workers or cutting their benefits).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's simply not true that it's "never the management". At my company senior people have cut their own wages, some board members have agreed not to draw pay, and two executives have effectively fired themselves (recommended to the board that it made more sense to terminate their position than try to save the same money by firing less expensive staff who were more vital). I miss those people, they were really good at their jobs and hiring replacements when things pick up will be difficult.

Unions are a problem. They were once a huge step forward, but today as often as not they represent the most selfish and thoughtless ideas of their members, plus a hunger for political power from their leaders. Enough that I would now not join a union. In my country the railway workers union wanted to authorise strike action over working time for a specific type of safety-critical worker. Similar workers exist in other industries, and there is a restriction on their working time, they should do no more than six hours per shift, with eight hours as a legal maximum. On the railways these workers had been working 12 hour shifts.

You might think the unions wanted the shifts made shorter (note that this makes no difference to hours worked and thus pay). That would make sense right, the long shifts are known to be dangerous, and the unions are all about safety for their workers and for the public, right? No. They wanted a firm commitment that their members could work 12 hour shifts. Working this way means more "off days" for workers which they enjoy. Sure, there may be more accidents, but that's a small price to pay for an extra day off work apparently. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There are unions that go too far. For example in France this seems to be case - first they go on a warning strike complete with demonstration in public and then they say what their demands are. And some managements actually care about their company that's why they cut down their own wages and what not. But let's be honest, that's mostly smaller companies and not the big multi-national conglomarates of globalized capitalism. Weren't there various studies that showed that the rate of sociopaths and psychopaths in management is way higher than the average workers? It explained a lot to me…

(And one for the way: I can't say how much I enjoy the country pushing for globalized capitalism for 20 years now getting basically fucked in the ass by it's own creation - it's like seeing a hillbilly shooting himself in the foot and the best idea he has is to shoot his other food too, because it's the only medicine he knows. Yes, I'm looking over the big pond at you America.) --Ullhateme (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And if I take the spelling of "authorise" to mean Mr. 82.69 is British, there is a strong social safety net you guys have that make many of the extraordinary demands made by British unions to be exactly that. Here in the US, it's eat or be eaten, and the unions are one of the few protectors of a middle class way of life for workers who otherwise have virtually no safety net. Do they go too far themselves? Sure. But here in the U.S., that management gives themselves huge raises with the money from the salaries of those they fire is odious. --Leotardo (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Now we know where Andy got this retarded idea. --Leotardo (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Martyp

I think Martyp may be on to something. I don't think they are looking for yes-men anymore. In the old days, all you had to do was agree with everything. Now, if you don't disagree with something, you're suspect. Marty has disagreed with CP on the labor unions (prominently quoting former saint labor union president Reagan on his userpage) and has mocked/ridiculed Ken

. In this new era of hyper-paranoia, your concerns must be voiced, but not pushed once the cabal waves their hand. Otherwise, you will be the subject of concerns. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So the new plan is to agree with Andy on everything except for one issue and constantly concern troll on that issue? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If it leads to hilarious consequences such as this^img, I'm all for it. Andy channeling Ken is definitely a special moment. Röstigraben (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

they suspect him of being one of us.^img And with that whole "reasonable" thing he's got going on, he may well be.--Brxbrx (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that would be JPatt trying to bolster his own credibility, he's got a different approach. Maybe he's the one running Martyp anyway. Röstigraben (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I like being Martyp. Further, I like using proxies that don't show up in your primitive blacklists. They're proxies I've used for years. I've got a long list. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

do they, or do they not, read this site?--Brxbrx (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) We should compare notes so that my sysops don't accidentally use a proxy one of your sysops is using. I'm posting my proxy directory to the mailing list. Mountain Blue 04:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I'll move my guy over to a different IP. P-Foster (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Put the bots on the Dutch proxy dude. Shit I'm gunna get whacked. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. I just did a ώ-scan and can see that basically all the European proxies are compromised. Thanks guys. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused--Brxbrx (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's what happens when behind-the-scenes becomes in-front-of-the-scenes, Brxbrx. SJ ^Debaser 09:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

they aint even looking for Solvenian proxies at the moment. Go nuts everyone. Ace ^{of Spades} 10:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody mention any proxies anymore! It's sucks enough to have to use one when I just want to read the insane, but then searching for another one is a pain in the ass. Stop it! We know they read us, block IPs that they see and try everything they can (happy for us that isn't much) to get rid of us - don't make it even harder. (Sayin' nothing about parody here btw) --Ullhateme (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Get ready for a flood of activity

Andy is expecting 10,000,000 new users.^img - π 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I guffawed when I saw that.. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw that but didn't highlight it here because of our rules against outing deliberate parody. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

His servers would crash. even more.--Brxbrx (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What I also like is how Andy thinks that people are leaving MySpace in order to "turn away from gossip and liberal claptrap," when in reality, a lot of them are simply switching over to other social networking sites like Facebook, which just keeps on growing and growing. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"SuperHamster", I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and found liberal opposition to chivalry, so I'm confident you're an agent provocateur. You also refuse to accept that capital punishment helps resist research into gravitons. Believe what you like, but if you're not open-minded about prayer in the classroom, then it's futile to expect you to be open-minded about these other issues. Deny this and lose credibility. Come back when you can learn out to spell "superior".--aschlafly 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A flood of Biblical proportions, perhaps? /bad joke quota for this week is now met. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad joke? FUCKING AWESOME JOKE YOU MEAN! I'm going to use that every time I want to signify a fictional flood from now on. --Opcn (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again Andy's self-aggrandisement comes to the fore. There are simply millions of people just waiting to be bathed in Conservapedia's glory, and this alone explains America's lurch to the right. If only there was some tangible sign of these millions, like account creation... The more Andy's subconscious tells him CP has failed, the more he retreats into fantasy land. --PsyGremlinFale! 09:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy sez "No religious animal behavior"

Wrong. Skinner's superstitious pigeons. That is all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But it has already been proven that pigeons navigate by the direct and divine influence of God. So for pigeons to be religious only makes sense. Evolution destroyed. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand the point Andy is trying to make:

If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.^img

So if something is dumb, then animals would do it. Funny, I've yet to see an animal drinking and driving. Or appearing on Jerry Springer. However, I love Andy's "There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion." Oh to be able to sit down and talk memes and memeplexes with the man. In fact, I'd say there is an evolutionary explanation - group identity; who belongs in our tribe and who doesn't. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've got an infinite number of monkeys who have managed to set up a pretty good right-wing encyclopedia wiki... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's partially consistent, of course. CP doesn't like the old in-out-in-out outside of marriage and it's one of the things animals do most frequently. Therefore it is foolish. ^gnostic 13:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, in the Paleolithic where groups were small (about 100), the community can be self-policing - everybody knows what everyone else has done, and can shun people for crimes. Being banished would mean certain death from starvation. In bigger groups you need to say man-in-the-sky knows what you've done, don't be naughty. CS Miller (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I really want to create a sock and ask Andy; "How do you know this mantis isn't praying? It sure looks like it is" ^{ONE / TALK} 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bering's latest "Princess Alice" experiment is about God-as-supervisor. In a task where it's possible to "cheat" will children who are told they're supervised by an imaginary "Princess Alice" act like those who are unsupervised, or those supervised by a human adult? Children who don't express scepticism of Alice's reality behave like the supervised group. This has an interesting consequence if we assume adults are somewhat the same: If your god's rules are good rules on the whole then he's much cheaper than real supervision and this is a win for believers even if their god isn't real. But if they're bad rules the non-believers benefit by cheating, that is, disobeying the bad rules because they know they aren't really being watched. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Chimpanzees and elephants bury their dead; reverence for the deceased is widely regarded as the most basic form of religious expression; ergo Andy is primitive. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Say it ten times fast, loudly, preferably near children and policemen.

I expected something to come (should that be spelled with a "u"?) of this already, but since he hasn't been snatched up yet and has annoyed me I'm outing MikeOxlong for his vulgar user name. Now, how long will it take for the conservapedia sysops to do my bidding? --Opcn (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one before. Is he related to Hugh G Rection? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We've got a user on UESP called Alpha Kenny Buddy... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:) When I lived in Stafford there was a driving instructor who used to take pupils round my estate called Chris Peacock. I always wondered why he didn't go by "Christian". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahah, how hilarious that the CP sysops didn't notice this obvious parodist and let him carry on shitting up their blog. Goes to show what fucking idiots they all are. They had to wait for us to do their investigative work for them! How does it feel, CP, to be so reliant on us rats? Now that I've said that, watch them hunker down and insist it's a genuine user and never ban him. *eats popcorn* ^{ONE / TALK} 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

my cock's long. I never noticed...--Brxbrx (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you also shout out how magicians do their tricks? Really it's not at all funny when you have to explain it in detail, especially for the benefit of CP sysops. Now, has anyone seen Mike Hunt?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I user to work with a woman whose named was Beatrice Horney. She went by "Bea", and thought it was hilarious. MDB (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A while back I had a sock called Mike LaTorres, who was banned for multiple accounts, but not his name, as I thought he would be. DickTurpis (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, forgot: I went to school with two brothers, George and Richard Saul (Can't remember how his surname was spelt, but as you've probably guessed it was pronnounced "soul"). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And the less said about my client, Alan Niss, who has two children - Andrew and Paula... the better. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

this guy's a buzzkill. reverted a funny edit, though it may not have been original--Brxbrx (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

woops look what we did^img. hi andy! though I'm not sure you caught on...--Brxbrx (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

wow, they deep burned an edit to schlafly's talk page where he complained about a vandal--Brxbrx (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That might have also been MartyP narking out "MyCock'sLong" to Andy. P-Foster (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Science steps up to the plate

Yes indeed. Mr Two Meters single-handedly deals a crushing blow to atheists and evolutionists everywhere. Ken must be so jealous! It's the old thermo-dynamics hum-drum again.^img You know, "How do evolution's advocates (especially the atheists) explain the increased complexity and organization which we see in the fossil record, when the theory which all scientists accept predicts instead an increase of randomness and chaos?"

Anybody have the strength to explain it to the moron again? Remember, pictures might be required. --PsyGremlinTal! 10:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, where no energy can enter or leave the system as a whole. There the system will tend to equilibrium. However, creatatards tend to forget about that glowing yellow sphere, which provides 1 kW/m². HINT: Your God claims to have created it on the fourth day. CS Miller (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad; I meant an isolated system, not a closed system. CS Miller (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of my favourite FSTDT quote[3]:

“”One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope that poster was being sarcastic. CS Miller (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed that one was a Poe. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's awesome either way. Mountain Blue 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if only we had a gigantic miasma of incandescent plasma nearby. Corry (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun's not simply made out of gas, no, no, no.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

This is the drawback of basement dwelling--Brendiggg (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it normal that while reading what Ed wrote I lost all faith in humanity and regained it by reading the comments? Just wondering... --Ullhateme (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Andy:

To answer your question^img: no, it won't.

Facebook could conceivably go from boom to bust. However, it will not be because people abandon it for Conservapedia, any more than people abandoned Wikipedia for your insignificant little blog. MDB (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as about the only people using MySpace for the past few years have been indie bands, I wonder where they all went to. Certainly not CP, nobody's going there. --Kels (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Facebook will do ok until the Next Big Thing comes along (which won't be Diaspora - their last blog update is 31 Jan), or they sell to MS / Google. But if Andy's thinking he's going to pick up all those people (most of whom will be banned anyway for being furriners), then his delusions are reaching dangerous levels. Maybe he's bi-polar and this is the manifestation of his "up" swing. How long before he's walking on roof tops, al a Richard Gere? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You really wanna kill something dead, sell it to Yahoo. --Kels (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck Andy; if you type 'conservapedia' into google, the second and third possibilities that appear are 'conservapedia 403' and 'conservapedia down'. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think Andy has even considered that you could be on Facebook and CP? I didn't realise it was an either/or situation. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably related to his binary worldview of liberalism or Andy-conservatism. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Small nitpick: It's very refreshing to see that Diaspora guys have quit blogging and blowing money on publicity and are actually coding. Don't look at the blog - look at the code repository instead if you want to see how they're doing. Lots of commits from last few days. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why lie Benp?

"Government threatening to deport 94-year old native American WWII veteran^img". I was unable to find one source that supports that statement, including the one Benp uses. Pants on fire Ben! But I do support your argument that illegals who do military service should be able to stay in the country - you do realize that's your argument, right? You can't just argue "Old white men get to stay, and wetbacks got to go!" --Leotardo (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Good right-thinking conservatives think he should be allowed to stay, so liberals must want him deported post-haste, because liberals oppose everything conservatives support. This is why liberals prefers lacrosse to baseball, eat hoity-toity sausages rather than hot dogs, pick creme brulee over apple pie, and drive wimpy Toyota Prii over good American Chevrolets. MDB (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MMMMmmmmm - crème brûlée. Please don't offend my hoity-toity sensibilities by leaving off the accent marks! --Leotardo (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsk, We all know what kind of "crème" you like, cockboi. 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

No shame in my game, but is liking crème brûlée mutually exclusive with liking "crème"? --Leotardo (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. My husbands bought me a chef's blow-torch (butane) for crusting teh crème brûlée some years ago, I don't think I ever used it as I took slight offense as if they thought I wasn't able to properly flambé the ramekins. And, of course I had been enjoying a good crème for many a year before ye. C®ackeЯ

How do you know that last statement is true? --Leotardo (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was reading through the comments in the original article, and the cognitive dissonance is so strong that I can't believe it doesn't cause the people writing it seizures. They are all along the lines of "If you fought for the US, you are automatically a citizen - now government, get back to keeping the brownies out!" I imagine this is what most people at CP think...Sometimes I just want to grab these people, shake them, and shout "Don't you realize you're being a moron??" Anyways, I gotta get back to drinking my tall half-skinny half-1 percent extra hot split quad shot (two shots decaf, two shots regular) latte with whip one Splenda one sugar and just a sprinkle of cinnamon. Carlaugust (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else find the irony in this? This veteran's story, and Obama's citizenship? Stay classy, CP. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

CP's intellectual predecessor.

Is this Ken

's 19th-century self? P-Foster (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't believe in reincarnation before this. --Opcn (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fat Atheists

CP's line has been picked up by Pharyngula, which will probably have Ken

spontaneously creaming his pants. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

More important, it's a study that wholly contradicts Ken's use of a robopoll as a scientific study. The more religious you are, the fatter you are. Thankfully, the superstitions and mythology that CP believes in are going extinct. Ha ha. Keep worshiping your magic man while the rest of us focus on reality. --Leotardo (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The spin from one of my favorite writers:

Well, here’s a shocker: America’s most deluded religious group, the fundamentalist Christians, “are 50 percent more likely to turn into obese middle-agers as those with no religious involvement.” Being dumb and poor and racist and homophobic apparently wasn’t enough for Jeebus’ true children here in America — now they’re doomed to fatness, too. Again, this is according to Scientists who studied people who go to church all the time. There are many theories, including one by Purdue University sociologist Ken Ferraro that “churches are a feeding ground for gluttony and obesity.” But what about religions and philosophies that demand moderation in eating, like Buddhism? Not so many Buddhists in America, we guess! What about Catholics? They are mostly alcoholics, plus they rarely go to church except for the big holidays because they’re scared the priest is going to rape their kids again.

Oh, and fundamentalists are most likely to be the lardiest of the religious lard asses, according to the study. --Leotardo (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy is so stupid, he thinks you're that stupid

Andy^img, slams HuffPo for removing Breitbart from their front page for comments he had at another site. Andy criticizing punishing people on a site for actions on another site. He even quotes that it's "arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness". He then wraps up the ironygasm with the statement that Conservapedia HuffPo "will likely lose more contributors the more it censors". Occasionaluse (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely WIGO-worthy, if it hasn't been posted already. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at that...he wrapped it up with a nice little bow.^img You literally have to go back days into the block log to find an example of someone banned for being a member of another website. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's times like this I seriously question whether CP is real or not. Andy's actions are baffling. I am baffled. He *really* doesn't see the hypocrisy? I have trouble buying that. X Stickman (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It specifically specifies "Legitimate" contributor. Go build a fucking hospital, Occasionaluse. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn Andy as his ingenious escape hatches!! Occasionaluse (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ace gets a vandal tribute

[1]^img --Leotardo (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How very kind. (it weren't me - for the record). Ace ^{of Spades} 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the beauty of being in control of Anonymous, no? It could have been any member of your personal army. Hateboy (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rule 44 that is all.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

why you gotta hurt me like that? why couldn't you link to ED?--Brxbrx (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

JPatt is damn near functionally illiterate

It seems like JPatt's posts are getting more and more nonsensical. I can usually figure out what he's getting at, but he constantly omits words, uses the wrong word, mixes tenses, misspells shit and has no coherent grammar or syntax to speak of. The latest exmaple:

• The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell has it's first causality: Army Chaplains. They are told resign from service, or face court-martial for their “religious, conscience” objections.

Jpatt, I know you're an avid reader: if/when you proofread, try focusing on reading one word at a time and actually "say" it in your head and pause before continuing. It will help you catch all these mistakes. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Occasionaluse (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have inadvertently included the words "damn near" in your heading. You should fix that. DickTurpis (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And "functionally" - I think he just rubs his face against the keyboard. --Leotardo (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The twitter version is particularly tactful: "Homos are a threat to all people of faith. The repeal of DADT is forcing Chaplains to retire or face court-martial [link]" Webbtje (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservatives are creatures of subtlety and style, yes. Mountain Blue 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, what would the military possibly do without chaplains? They do such an important job. DickTurpis (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dick, how could you. Chaplains wave the poor on their way as they die to maintain the rulers power. How would goat know they were coming if there wasn't a chaplain to wave them goodbye? Oldusgitus (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They should be forced to retire if they can't live with the repeal of DADT. How fucking awful would it be if just before some major engagement or such like the chaplain decides to bless(if you believe in that sort of thing) or put some folks mind at ease but not others because they are gay? If they can't put aside your petty hatreds for people who may be about to be killed or maimed in the name of their country, then they can just fuck off. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The only sad thing about this story is that the chaplains aren't being forced to marry gays. --Leotardo (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Chaplains should only marry gays if they truly love them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let us not forget: "God is With Us"! God is never with THEM! You wouldn't for example catch something like "Gott mit uns" on a Nazi belt buckle or some such. Jimaginator (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think Jpatt's news item is illiterate, you should check out his source:

"Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, should have stayed in place and wouldn’t have the mess they have now!!!"

Junggai (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I mispell shit and make bad grammar on occasion sometime, but damn. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's just the first paragraph. Junggai (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember taking him to task once in one of our infrequent e-mail chats and he blamed his poor English on his liberal public schooling. He couldn't explain why he hadn't subsequently gone on to better himself. Blame is easier than action, I guess. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never really understood the DADT thing. I mean, there are still gays in the military but the straights just don't like to think about it? Is it a case of "I don't mind another guy seeing me naked in the showers so long as I don't know that he might be fancying me"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This just in

Apparently, in Andyland, the Prime Minister of Canada is a Republican in Name Only^img. What a fucking moron. DickTurpis (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And in his classic rubbing his face against the keyboard manner of typing, Jpatt's sentence "Opposition to reverse his corporate tax cuts and overturn plans for more military spending was a driving factor." makes little sense, except to Andy, who left it alone. "Opposition...was a driving factor": he means it as a noun, but switches at the end of the sentence so that it signifies a verb. --Leotardo (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's decided that Conservative is synonymous with Republican and that therefore any Conservative who doesn't subscribe to Republican ideology is a RINO. Raging (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's silly because they are defining other countries' politics through an American lens with American political party labels. To dumb it down for the teabaggers who they think read, but never join, Conservapedia. --Leotardo (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought my explanation of their thought patterns was ludicrous anything for me to not bother adding a note about how silly I find it. Raging (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Stephen Harper thinks he's a Republican too. --Kels@school

apparently, in andyland, when someone fails they can't be conservative (or in obama's case, it's foulplay)--Brxbrx (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What a dick

I'd sure hate to be an awkward overweight kid in one of Andy's homeschool classes.^img What a shitty role model for teenagers. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 02:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I never understood why conservatives are so hellbent on making people self-conscious and when you call them out on it they scream about political correctness and freedom of speech. That's not what it's about. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FUCK ALL OF YOU YOU ALL HAVE THINGS WRONG WITH YOU THAT I WILL NOW MAKE FUN OF TO COMBAT MY CRIPPLING AWKWARDNESS. Freedom of speech. Flubber (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is one thing but Andy defending crap like this^img on a supposedly christian website that is intended to be an educational resource for schoolchildren ought to make any parent think twice about what he's really teaching his students. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What the shit. *stares at that "essay"* (<capture>Cap^img of current version just for the archives) The best part of course is that CP, this fine bastion of free speech that appreciates witty satire... has an explicit rule against saying anything remotely bad against CP sysops or CP itself, so calling PZM a pig in mainspace is fine, but saying on your user page that Jesus disproving General Relativity is an absurd notion will get you legally banhammered. --Sid (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Because they are sadistic little fucks with the empathy of a half eaten sandwitch. Their misery and self deprecation driven ideology doesn't give them many avenues of guilt free pleasure so they just channel all that in hurting other people (whom they also hate for having more fun than them). Which is a type of pleasure too but they can disguise as "helping people find the right way", thus not really self driven. Its the same reason the inquisition's tortures were unesseserily cruel and how the "thou-shall-not-kill/turn-the-other-cheek" Christians have somehow ended up masturbating in their little forums about how they would "carpet bomb" this and "nuke" that, and that collateral damage doesn't matter. That's my theory and I stick to it. Sen (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

all that is below

This discussion was moved to Forum:Obesity in a modern society. 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro

Andy just can't help being a classless jerk, can he?

After a reasonably (for him) decent entry on MPR^img, he adds bullshit to her article^img, and the ERA^img article. Can't he ever report a death without making it into a political story? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing that for every point he brings up presumably in outrage, I ask myself "Well, whats wrong with that? It sounds awesome!" Hey Andy, your mom's a jerk. --Kels@school

Jesus, b/t Ferraro and Disney princesses as emasculating bitches who don't know their place, Andy is bringing the misogyny to a whole new ugly, scary level. Someone might want to ask him why he lets his daughter go to college if she should be at home raising kids. Oh, yeah, it's because he's a giant hypocrite. P-Foster (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's because he's an asshole. That's all you really need to know. I wish I had something clever to say, but I can't; he's just an asshole. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 18:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He learned from the best. Oh, and the icing on the Disney Princess cake is he implies that he's never seen the movie, and is just going on "what he's heard". --Kels@school

It's times like this that I feel pitty for his family members - especially for his wife. I hope she put him in his place a long time ago and that's why he's going bananas on CP. --Ullhateme (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. You know someone is going to do the exact same thing when his mother dies (hopefully no one here), but he'll call it an outrage. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Kels, if that's true then Andy should borrow Ed's extensive collection of Disney princess movies. I assume he has them filed under F for faptastic! Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they're filed under AD for ANIMATION, DISNEY, except for the Lion King, which technically contains a princess but is filed under N for NO LOLI. Mountain Blue 04:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"MPR"

Might people consider not using "MPR" as an abbreviation for Template:Mainpageright? There are certain other entities that use those initials. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I give you my word that if I ever refer to Minnesota Public Radio, the Mongolian People's Republic, or Minkowski Portal Refinement on the WIGO-CP talk page, I'll be especially sure to do so in a non-ambiguous manner. P-Foster (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We could use fancy formatting to allow us to distinguish between all of those things. MPR ,_MPR, MPR and ^MPR. I began doing this and almost immediately I became less confused, and I'm fairly certain that I lost a bit of weight. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Woo, I'm from Minnesota! Post over. Carlaugust (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"I don't recall..."

"PJR? Never heard of him^img, but I'm sure he's a swell guy." P-Foster (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Andy Schlafly, I don't think that's what he was actually saying to me. I think he was just saying that he sees no obstacle to copying content between aSK and Conservapedia (which is what I've been doing). And, I also take him to mean he wants to let bygones be bygones, and whatever disagreements there may have been in the past he doesn't want to bring them up again. That's actually a fair enough attitude, I think. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He and PJR had their tiffs, but I do not think he has any issues with aSK. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Myspace

TK once told me that he was also a moderator on myspace. --Opcn (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that why everyone went to facebook? --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that he was also so pally with Jimbo Wales I'm surprised that he wasn't a 'crat at Wikipedia. How come, that someone so well connected in politics and the internet ended up effectively as a doorman on a minor right-wing fundie blog is one of the great mysteries of the last decade.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

At times I felt like his goal was hurting conservapedia. I think that's why he never went after Ken even though he hated him. Ken is like the WBCof the internet. --Opcn (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"I felt like his goal was hurting conservapedia." No, his goal WAS to hurt conservapedia. Hence the driving away of editors, wild range blocks, plagiarism, wild lies and the leaking of the sysops' discussions. All this while whispering sweet nothings in Andy's ear, which allowed him the free reign to run amok. Terry was the troll of all trolls. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Free rein. That's when you give head to a horse give a horse the freedom to control his own head. Sorry, I'm seeing too much of this error lately, and I tremble, lest it become the new correct. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Although in my defence, I have been drinking since 11am, as I watch MY TEAM KICK ACE'S TEAM'S COLLECTIVE ASSES!!!!! --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy for you, and for all those asses as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Psy - that prediction is looking worse and worse as things go on... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaand New Zealand win by 49 runs. In case you don't have one, here is a recipe for humble pie ;-) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom. Serves me right for thinking we'd actually dumped the "chokers" tag. Sigh. Back to watching Tiddlywinks, I guess. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kajagoogoo gets on the "PZM is fat" bandwagon

Wow, that actually took longer than I thought it would^img. P-Foster (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Karajou retarded? I think a 5 year old could write a better cartoon. He's not even trying anymore. DickTurpis (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the worst Karatoon so far. It's not funny on any level. I can't even work out what the joke is supposed to be, unless it's as you say: PZM is fat. Popeye must be pissed off that PZ is laughing at CP again. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does that say "Insurance-pithecus" on that sign? What does he have against insurance salesmen?! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine it's an unfunny Geico pop culture reference? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with this, also is the caveperson a bit Don Martinish? C®ackeЯ

I thought it was an Obamacare "joke." P-Foster (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. PZ Myers just posted about Ken's fatty-ding-dong sharticle. When will he learn that even acknowledging Ken's existence only serves to encourage yet more outlandish flailing about for attention? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nutty - why does PZ give them any mention at all? We all know Anger Bear is an old coot idiot, but even I would think he would realize he embarrasses himself with these "toons". I mean, really embarrasses himself. The drawing is crap, and they have no wit. --Leotardo (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Already noted above... Latest toon Now open for parody! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this could be a contributing factor to conservepedia's scarcity of contributors. their obesophobia (I may have made that word up)! Since so many conservatives are fat, they won't want to help out a site that constantly ridicules them.--Brxbrx (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're totally right. They seem not to care that so few people ever join, even as they thump their chests about how awesome and influential they are. So why not make fun of their fat base? They probably feel jilted. --Leotardo (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever trolled Karajou? It's a blast. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Man, he's starting to steal jokes from Ken?! How pathetic is that? --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not PZM in the toon, it's PJR. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody on the Internet has a beard. Corry (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, a creationist moron fails to grasp the concept of a common ancestor. He might have well make a crocoduck comic. Corry (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Addendum: I should also point out that Karajou's understanding of evolution betrays a Lamarckist bent. Is Karajou a neo-Lysenkoist? Does he despise the bourgeois science of genetics? Corry (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A word to the wise Kara - I've seen the YouTube video you posted. You are the last person who should be making fun of fat people, you hypocritical cunt. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video by Anger Bear? Please share. Junggai (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll mail you - don't want to start a HCM on here. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would posting a link cause HCM? DickTurpis (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Because family are off-limits on-wiki. --PsyGremlinTal! 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there, Psy. P-Foster (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Cacomorphobia - fear of fat people. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah those were the days

Among others I was cp:User:SamF, cp:User:JimPT and cp:User:BrendanW at various times. As SamF I organized the counterexamples and was blocked when I tried to label those that needed sources. JimPT I inserted a counterexample to evolution that was in conflict with Andy's counterexamples such that not both could be true, I forget what I got blocked for. As User BrendanW I tried to remove the obvious parody that I had inserted, I explained why, and I was blocked for it. The story (lie?) I told TK, Ed, and Andy was that I hadn't ever inserted parody, I had, it was pretty mild, and I was blocked when I tried to fix it, does the fact that they like it so much that removing it with clear explanation is a block worth offense get me off the hook morally? --Opcn (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Does your mother know how you spend your free time? And is she as proud of the outcome as you apparently are? ħuman 06:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day

And Andy is prolly right about this,^img especially given that the Times paywall will cost 5X what a Netflix subscription does. I hate it when people make stupid decisions that even bigger idiots can then crow about. P-Foster (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. The ones wanting people to pay for net content fail to realise the audience is many many times bigger than the traditional one, so charging a very small sum is what would work; 200 people paying 1 cent each is better than 1 person paying 1 dollar. Then again, people actually use iTunes and pay for songs there, despite the fact it costs more than buying the CD... O_o Dendlai (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with that. If I buy 10 songs on iTunes it is ten bucks; whereas I well remember buying CDs that had 10 songs on them (including ones that weren't good) for $18.99. The price of music has vastly declined in the last 10 years, particularly with the ala carte model of iTunes. --Leotardo (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

$18.99 for a CD??? I just remember checking Bowie's 70s albums, and it was basically $1 per song on iTunes, and NOT including the extra tracks, while the CDs cost about $8-10, and included the bonus tracks (like all releases since the 80s except the iTunes one) meaning it was 15+ songs for 50 cent each compared to iTunes 11 for a dollar each... I decided iTunes was a rip-off after that. Dendlai (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on where you buy them. Good music stores have CDs for $10 or so, but electronics outlets and book stores that still carry CDs inflate the price dramatically. 江斯顿^{What is it now?} 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thing is. Many people don't actually like all songs out of a CD/Band. Rather they just like a couple of tracks (often from different CDs), in which case iTunes ends up cheaper. Sen (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look into it, CD prices were kept artificially high. -Lardashe

Indeed. And a buck a song - if it's good - is a really good deal. 45s used to cost a buck 30 years ago. And most bands struggle to make two good songs a year. The only exceptions are the really good "albums" where you get 14 great songs for 8 bucks (old money) or 18 bucks (digital money). ħuman 06:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I'm pretty sure that JPatt^img thinks that "secularized" means "stuff I personally disagree with." P-Foster (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's extremely confused, it seems. He went from Patriot -> Extremist^img to Founders -> Extremists^img to Founders -> Dead White Men^img (CP also has an article on "dead white male"^img thanks to Ed, which of course makes the connection to Liberal [Noun] in the very first edit...), all based on this discussion^img it seems... I really think Jpatt kinda got lost somewhere while editing this... but hey, looking at the article, this degree of idiocy seems to be par for the course. --Sid (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the secularized language thing jumped the shark before it was born. Edit: I see they've predictably jumped on the Allen West: American war criminal hero bandwagon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, so does Andy. Vulpius (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The shtick about "extremist" meaning "patriot" is very old, having come out of the Second Red Scare, when communists and anti-communists were hurling all sorts of abuse at each other. "Extremist" was used, sometimes accurately, to describe certain anti-communist groups; the anti-communist groups responded by stating that they were merely "patriots," and that the communist traitors were using "extremist" as code for "patriotic American." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I always thought the "patriots" thing came from St. Regan's military adventures in Central America. --Kels (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" -Barry Goldwater Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmhh, in my mnd every "patriot" is an "extremist" (btw, "extremist" only makes sense if you have people that aren't that extreme) - they would die for their country what's more extreme than that? Also I'm going with John Stewart on the name-calling thing: "reputations have to be earned and these people (extremists) worked hard for them". --Ullhateme (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Allen West, it's a good example of what Bob Altemeyer talked about in his book -- as long as they espouse the same set of values as you, they must be totally awesome. Just totally ignore the fact that he let his troops use torture, has a debt trail that he bullshitted his way out of using his trademarked "appeal to security clearance," and has ties to a biker gang. If he wants small gummint and promotes Christian values, he must be good! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Forget the 90 days...

Ken is at it again so I think we can shelve the "90 sabbatical" bullshit. His latest pus-filled utterings (which is basically the wiki version of vomiting faeces and pretending your talking) barely qualifies as english^img. Oh yeah, Ken if you check the latest statistics you'll see religion declining in the western nations but I don't expect honestly or integrity from you anyway. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

aah, Ken. editing drunk isn't very smart^img--Brxbrx (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just throw in Generalized linear model a few more times Ken^img, you might convince someone you know what that bit of jargon means. - π 10:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'm lost about Ken editing drunk, Brxbrx? Is there something I'm missing in the capture? άλφα^Talk 11:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think our vowel-challenged friend isn't familiar with Ken's "it takes me a gazillion edits to move a full-stop" editing style. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

weird. the capture is different than the link. I meant ot point out that Ken

is sticking to his "preview is for pussies" method of editing--Brxbrx (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

CaptureBot won't re-capture a page, so things like your link had once been captured in the past, and that's it (even though the content changed). You can work around this by appending something like "#2011-03-27" to the link (like this^img). But yeah, Ken needing a ton of edits (and never marking them as minor or using the Preview button) is par for the course, so he's either sober or always drunk. --Sid (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That atheist population drivel is Kentastic! Three 'atheist' and three 'resect/regards' in the first rambling sentence! Oh, if you're reading this Ken, please do give my regards to the atheist population - the word you are looking for is regard. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Ken's editing at baseline is equivalent to that of a normal person after six beers. 2. Whether belief in a deity is on the rise or on the decline has nothing to do with whether or not it exists, unless, of course, you happen to worship Tinkerbell. Corry (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT TINKERBELL!

For posterity.^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Going to church increases odds of obesity

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29208

Regular worshippers are 50% more likely to be obese by middle age

Going to church may be good for a person's soul - but it is not so beneficial for their waistline, it has been claimed.

U.S. researchers say Sunday worship can be just bad for your health as burgers and chips.

Experts at a Chicago university found those who worship regularly were 50 per cent more likely to be obese by middle age compared to non-religious people.

They are not quite sure why, though some say that because eating during church services has traditionally been allowed, worshippers were inclined to munch their way through the sermon.

The study into obesity and churtchgoing was led by Matthew Feinstein, a fourth-year student at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

It looked at the lives of 2,433 people in Chicago, Minneapolis, Birmingham, Alabama and Oakland, California.

He said: 'We don’t know why frequent religious participation is associated with development of obesity, but the upshot of these findings highlight a group that could benefit from targeted efforts at obesity prevention.

'It’s possible that getting together once a week and associating good works and happiness with eating unhealthy foods could lead to the development of habits that are associated with greater body weight and obesity.'

Some church-goers believe there might be a historical link between tucking into too many burgers and praising the Lord.

Courtney Parker, the catering manager for the 20,000-member Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn, told the Sun Times, in the past, church services were long and eating was one of the few things that was not taboo.

He added: 'So the first thing you do is go eat, and then you go to sleep.'

--69.149.249.149 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here, here, and here. - π 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eat this, Ken!!!

Researchers from Northwestern University have found that going to church, not being an atheist, causes obesity. Eat that, Ken

!!! Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the evening's ABC news which concluded that those attending church are 50% more likely to be obese. [4] Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Did they control for geography and income and education level? --Opcn (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid questions, and I'm fully confident that Ken will ask these as he impartially evaluates this study. I look forward to, if justified, him correcting his articles. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He knows the Gallop poll doesn't support the conclusion that atheists are more likely to be obese since it focuses on healthy lifestyle habits. He also knows that there are real scientific studies in addition to the new Northwestern study proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that religionists are more likely to be obese. We know that he'll ignore this evidence because it's contrary to his mission of smearing atheists. That's his apologetic style in a nutshell. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Did any pictures of Ken ever surface? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do any of these studies control for anything? I'm guessing religion-fatness connection is an artifact of location, i.e., there's higher rates of obesity and religiosity in the south and midwest than the coasts. Urbanites actually have to walk places. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

They controlled for race, age, income and geographical location. For instance, the south is one of the fattest regions, but even amongst fat southern women, religious southern women are fatter. --Leotardo (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No, Ken

. We're not offended^img. We're laughing at you because after years on a wiki you still can't edit properly and because your data has been proved wrong. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(pedantry) Data are plural. ^NoodleDick_SissyPants^Talk! 06:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

singular is datum--Brxbrx (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's Hatred of Books

Andy has stated several times that he thinks books are filled with "liberal claptrap" and generally shows contempt for books.

I had a thought, this chilly Sunday morning... I wonder if he's written a book that's been rejected by every publisher to whom he's submitted it. Considering his mindset of "everything bad is because of libb-burr-ulls", perhaps he's decided that the publishing is just chokc-full of liberals rejecting his brilliant work. MDB (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You might be on to something there. We all know that Andy can hold a grudge for a long, long time. Plus his past is littered with failures, for which he no doubt blames somebody else, i.e. librulls. Let's have a quick look at possible scenarios:

• Failed to become President of the HLR - Obama's fault
• Failed to win GOP nomination to House - RINO's fault
• Failed to earn full professorship at wherever he as an adjunct prof - the fault of Professor values
• Been ostracised everywhere on-line (like talk.origins & WP) except CP - evil wikipedia and social media ganging up on him

I'm sure if we dig deeper, we'll find a failure corresponding to each of Andy's crazy toes. --PsyGremlinTala! 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That would make a lot of sense. From a look at his "classes" you can tell that the guy likes to write and to write a lot (I'm not the one to talk on that one btw). But for it to be rejected it had to be something amazingly insane. Of course his whole "books are bad accept that one GOD wrote" attitude could just simply stem from his experience at college. If college is the same as over here, the people that are the most liberal read huge amounts of stuff. So there you go too: Liberals read books → books make you liberal → liberals are bad → conservatives are good → conservatives do good → conservatives don't read books → book stores closing down makes the world more conservative → Less books make the world a better place → Andy is a teacher → ///SYSTEM FAILURE/// --Ullhateme (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, you know how he loves conciseness. His book would probably be:

Chapter 1: Why Liberals are Evil

I don't need to provide evidence for this because it's clearly true.

Chapter 2: Why RINOs are Bad

There's no need to provide evidence for such a clearly logical insight.

Etcetera. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If he had written a book he would have self published and it would be available for sale on CP with the line 'not availabe in any stores'. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a possibilty that Andy's hatred of professors, aka Professor values, is due to an utterly loonie PhD application he made being rejected? Auld Nick (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it. His Engineering degree from Princeton (cum laude, no less) would be a ticket to just about any reputable grad school. P-Foster (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

He might have been expecting a magna cum laude or even summa and been pissed off that he didn't get it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I, myself graduated from college "magna justa barely" and "summa cum lucky," and somehow managed to get into one of the top grad schools in the country. Liberal favoritism, I guess. P-Foster (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Colleges as liberal indoctrination camps is old, at least going back to the '60s when all the colleges were run by DFHs (Dirty fucking hippies), so I don't think it has to do with Andy getting rejected for some position. The funny thing is how professors are all just liberal propagandists but Andy is proud of his students when they get accepted to whatever college. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that Andy's hatred for professors stems from his college days. It is hard to say what he was like back then, but if his arrogance and intellectual stubbornness was even a fraction of what it was now, I would imagine he would have butted heads with a number of professors. To get an engineering degree you have to take some classes in humanities. Even in the 80s I imagine those classes would have conflicted with the worldview laid out by his mom and led to conflict with his teachers and fellow students. Give those experiences 25 years to stew around in his skull and you have "professor values." --Marlow (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but like I said, "professor values" is old meme, Andy just gave it a handy nickname. I went to a fairly conservative high school and there was talk of professor values. Read some wingnut sites and they all hate universities and professors. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Andy didn't invent "professor values", but I do think his disdain for higher education is in part due to his experiences in college. --Marlow (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The wingnuts hate education period. From early days they wanted to stop people reading their bibul themselves in case they misunderstood what was written. assfly is merely taking that to a whole new level in his hatred for real learning. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wingnuts do not hate education, at least not all of them. Some merely dislike education that prompts too much independent thought in the tender young innocents; others adhere to Ayn Rand's statement in For the New Intellectual: "Our present state of cultural disintegration is not maintained and prolonged by intellectuals as such, but by the fact that we haven’t any." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Education is like science. The relaxed people in touch with reality will sit back and let the good times role, but ideologues will happily say "go do it, and come back with this result!". As for books, if Andy wrote a book mommy would pay to publish it. --Opcn (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Opcn-- this would make sense if he didn't have the money for a vanity publisher, but he almost certainly does. Barikada (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh, sure, refute my mockery of Andy with your so-called "logic". MDB (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rise and Fall of Andy

This has probably been brought up before, but what happened to Andy's career? It starts out so promising with serious degrees and honors from some of the best institutions in the world. He has major political connections through his mom. It was like he was being groomed for high political office, but now he is at best a private practice lawyer with a blog (I'm skeptical about how much work he gets). What brought on this downfall? I know some people have speculated that he is an alcoholic, which might explain it, but there might be other factors. To me it seems that he has become increasingly delusional overtime. Any thoughts? --Marlow (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't believe the alcoholic nonsense. He's just got an incompetent brain and (very) poor relationship skills and a feeling of hereditary entitlement which is greatly disappointed. If he hadn't been born with money he'd be working in McDonalds - as a floor sweeper. --Scream!! (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess the issue is whether he could graduate with honors in his current state. I say no. While I'll be the first to admit that plenty of intellectually lazy people graduate from colleges like Princeton, Andy has a certain delusional arrogance, that I think would be a big handicap. Something has changed since his college days. --Marlow (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of Andy having an income outside of the AAPS, except unless he's being paid for the courses he runs over at Eagle Forum U. Wingnut welfare at work. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!}

Don't his homeskollars cough up $250 per session or some such? --Scream!! (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, I hope not. I thought that his homeskooling business had pretty much fizzled out. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 18:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Andy did once run for a political office of some sort, but came 5th in the Republican primary. As for his current state of mind, I have a hard time believing that he was this unintelligent when he was younger. I think he did speak of having an epiphany of some sort in his 30's that made him more conservative and Christian. At present, he's simply very intellectually lazy, has a strong sense of victimization and a VERY (at times) strong sense of importance. On a few occasions, Andy has given the North Korean propaganda arm a run for their self-delusional money. @CR - there was a lot of speculation on his homeschooling business after a couple of courses fizzled out after a few weeks last year. I think the general conclusion was that he's moved them off CP, which is a great blow to the 'family friendly encyclopaedia'.EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTEddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If there was a time when he was borderline sane, he probably lost it in 2000 when he became a young-earth creationist. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if his homeschoolers ever saw this guy? C®ackeЯ

Well everything we can do is speculate because we'll probably never really know what goes on in his head. Maybe something happened to him in 2000 for which he had to find an enemy/guilty party/some comfort. Anyhow, the worst thing about it is that Andy seems rather intelligent (relatively speaking - of course besides Ken, TK, Karajou and Ed a stone looks very intelligent too), just to keep believing and getting out of all this what he needs, he has to be delusional, throw logic overboard a.s.o. If he his not so stupid, it's a tragidy of how his psychological deficits (maybe his strong and independent and at the same time strict mother caused this, so that he now has to grap every single chance of acknowledgment?) fucked-up all his chances to be somebody slightly important. If that's true I'd even feel empathy for our little batshit insane fuck-up. --Ullhateme (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy deliberately surrounds himself with congenital failures. A one-eyed man is king among the blind. Auld Nick (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

^The truest thing ever said about Andy at CP^ EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Adny's wife does not practice medicine, and he has a big ass house, I think he is making more than the $65K, heck I'll bet he made a lot of money off his recall exploits. --Opcn (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt he made any money off the recall stuff. Those were vanity efforts to raise his stature. Andy's goal with those is to argue before the Supreme Court, so they fit nicely with his hallmarks: delusion, a mythologized view of history, vanity and ideology. Very little money involved in teabagging. --Leotardo (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He surrounds himself with an echo chamber in Conservapedia, which does nothing for his intellectual growth and only feeds her paranoia fantasies and his deluded self-importance. This is reinforced by the Stalinist like regime he has built there where people are monitored even in the talk pages, and thus forced to use all the right buzz words and appropriate praises or face exiled; the dialog there is so forced. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like what happened to LRH and a lot of other cultists. The craps rolls out your mouth again, haven't changed, your brain is still gelatin, little whispers circle around your head… Gossip is burning on the tip of your tongue. You lie so much you believe yourself… Before you judge me take a look at you. Can't you find something better to do? Point the finger, slow to understand; arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself! CS Miller (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm always kind of surprised to see the speculation about Andy. He seems to be very open-and-shut. He came from money, he went through the best education money could buy. He resented some - probably most - of his teachers. However, he had been taught to not start fights with those in authority. He was willing to give them answers they wanted on tests and such. His is not an alcoholic. I suspect that he treats his family fine. In real life, he's kind of skittish. His persona online is very different, and it's a consequence of 1)his personal echo chamber egging him on, and 2)constant internal anxiety that someone is out to make him look bad. Although I don't think he thinks he can be made to look bad. The reason he wouldn't be working in a more prestigious occupation is because first, he doesn't actually have as much interest in engineering. It was a means to an end. He has more interest in the law, but I don't think he's interested in putting the time and effort into working in a real legal practice. However, he is interested in pursuing legal actions that are of interest to him. The homeschooling thing is something that I think he just fell into. He didn't want his daughter going to public school, so he looked into homeschooling. He saw how much it cost to hire outside teachers, and figured that with his credentials, he could do it too. He probably enjoys it, although it's hard to get a sense of how much effort he puts into it, since I think CP only reflects a tiny portion of what goes on.

I would say that Andy is a typical evangelical conservative, he's just one who has given himself the means of presenting himself as a force bigger than he is. - Lardashe

AFAIK, Andy's children weren't homeschooled; I think they went to public or private school, though I could be wrong. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 23:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, at least it makes him look good as father. He cared enough about his children not to teach them himself. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you search the netz you will find that Andy's kids went to private schools. What nobody has pointed out here is that Andy was a corporate lawyer for AT&T and fucked up.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to love the hypocrisy of the man - promote home-schooling, while slamming public education, then pack the kids off to private school. I wonder if he mentions that little fact to the parents of the kids he abuses in his church basement (abuses from an educational POV, of course). The man really is scum. Altho, wasn't lil' Phyl taking some of his home-skule classes? I seem to remember Ketetetetikkkit sitting in on some of them with her. Or am I mistook? Oh, more info on Andy's AT&T fuck-up please. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The salient details are on RW's Fun article on him. Basically he used deceit after-the-fact explanations that ended up costing AT&T money. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The AT&T stuff is very interesting because it shows Andy's flawed intellect effected him professionally. I only read the bit on this site, but this quote speaks volumes: "The scenarios that Schlafly describes....do not involve situations in which the AT&T customer uses AT&T’s service..." Lawyers are creative thinkers because they have to imagine scenarios that might arise and then come up with ways to protect their clients against those possibilities. This is why people say lawyers complicate everything. At the beginning of a transaction often everyone involved thinks everything will work out awesome, so why do the stupid lawyers have to plan for failure? They think that until those scenarios come up, and then they are glad. What is being said here is that Andy took strange scenarios that were irrelevant to AT&T's service and argued that they could be problems. In other words, because he could imagine something he felt it was reality, but his scenario didn't match reality-reality. --Leotardo (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy probably screwed up at AT&T because of his black and white or them and us take on reality. He worked for AT&T so 'us = good" and concluded AT&T must be right. He didn't look at the case at all. A proper lawyer would have concluded AT&T didn't have much of a case and would have likely suggested an out-of-court settlement thus saving AT&T a lot of money. Auld Nick (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I've seen worse statements about lawyers in court opinions that had little or no effect on the litigation. As long as there's some frivolous bullshit to hang on lawyers will do it. They're fucking scumbags. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A new conservative word!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Announcement:_New_word_needed^img

Personally, I vote for reapercrat, maybe because the chain of acronyms was getting derivative. And sorry about the image capture, not sure what happened there. Flubber (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is ESPL'r (pronounces Ess-PLUR) stands for Election Season Pro-Lifer --Opcn (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

LIBRUL: Lardass Atheist Birth-hating RINO Until eLections. «-Bfa-» 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reapercrat all the way. I might actually find other uses for that gem IRL! --Leotardo (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Maximum Age

Just had a chuckle reading the WIGO about the Bible setting the maximum age at 120 years. Did anyone else notice that the citation is Psalms 90:10? So, one could say that one cannot live longer than 120 years because to do so would violate the 90:10 rule. Stile4aly (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, it's men, not woman. they are allowed to live to say, 126. men on the other hand...--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome catch. --Opcn (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

el oh el

does karajou have a sense of humor[2]^img?--Brxbrx (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No. --Kels (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

well he laughed at the pun name...--Brxbrx (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Michele Bachmann

CP has 3 Bachmann stories on its front page and is touting her as "long ranked here ahead of Sarah Palin." Is this a new love affair for Assfly and Co.? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann's star is rising fast, she will be to this race what O'donnel was to 2010. --Opcn (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to Bachmann, I can't help but think of the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn:

MDB (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever is most popular with the CP bunch is the one I want as the nominee. Seriously. Whoever they support is most likely to be the one to most embarrass the Republicans and pave the way for the re-election of my favorite Muslim leader. --Leotardo (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IIRC Andy was all for Huckabee last time round. I also seem to recall some snotty comments between him and TK when Huckabee lost one of the primaries. TK was pro-McCain I think, although we all know he voted Obama. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately said

Is it me, or does that^img sound different from this? Thank god for euphemisms. --Ullhateme (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Ken not know how to use google?

Why is he asking someone to find the study for him? --Opcn (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What mostly confused me is that the second link of the WIGO item makes it look like DevonJ posted under Ken's name - Ken actually oversighted ALL of his edits for that post (but the Patrol Log shows that he indeed made it). And more on-topic, Ken's internet knowledge is highly specialized - he had been rambling about SEO before he even understood how to upload an image on the wiki. I wouldn't be surprised if he genuinely didn't know how to search for anything or how people use Google (which would explain why he constantly brags about how CP ranks highly for [English search term] on [non-English local Google]). --Sid (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Notable by its omission

CP has a pretty comprehensive list of potential Republican candidates for President in 2012.

They don't even mention the only Republican who's actually formally declared he's running.

Gee, I wonder why they're ignoring him.

(Okay, yeah, he's an extreme long shot candidate. But so are several others on the list. Heck, it even includes ones who have explicitly said they're not running.) MDB (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

He'll probably get a "RINO" jab on MPR if they notice a few articles about him, but yeah, that's about it. I doubt he'll make the list (or the nomination, really) even if nobody else applies. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget about Jimmy McMillan. Rent is too damn high! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger & PGP

Has this been mentioned before? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

different schlafly's--Brxbrx (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in his article. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

woops--Brxbrx (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy doesn't understand the concept of the "revolving door"

When people speak of a "revolving door" between government and the private sector, they mean that people who held government jobs then take private jobs where they lobby the government, and vice-versa. Andy thinks it means that a person who worked in government gets a private job^img, even when that job has nothing to do with lobbying the government. He also repeats that Facebook breaks up marriages, when the source for that argument was a preacher who was found to be having orgies in his church (often with another man tag-teaming his wife!). --Leotardo (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I just realized why Sarah palin has decreased in popularity at CP. Her extensive use of facebook--Brxbrx (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just liberal deceit, spread by the CIA and George Sorros, because the preacher exposed the secret mission of Facebook, to destroy marriage on the internet, before Ken can destroy atheism. Also, the writing was on the wall for Palin, the minute The King's Speech won the Oscar. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note how weaselly the MPR article is^img. It says Facebook plans to "give a chunk of stock potentially worth millions" to Gibbs, as if they're just going to hand him the stock as a reward for being a good fellow traveler.

They're talking about hiring Gibbs, with stock as part of the compensation package. MDB (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What I find most bizarre about Conservapedia is that it shows how on the extreme right they have so embraced victimization that they blame others for their own personal problems. So it's not the weak ethical character of the individuals who are sleeping around or having orgies, it's Facebook that causes it! It used to be that the right wing were the biggest proponents of personal responsibility. --Leotardo (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I love the irony of people who rail against governmental intrusion in to their lives, while taking stances in which they clearly wish to abdicate personal responsibility for the actions to a higher power. I suppose it's more about surrendering freedom to the "right" people or body. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That concept is a bit old and was introduced with "the devil". He wants you to sin and you have to resist it. We can find it again and again (very much like a trope) in christian conservatism: They want to make our children sin → FCC/PTC and a shitload of censorship, Hypocrisy → Satan, Facebook, Video Games, Marilyn Manson and all that stuff, Economy's bad → liberals are holding it back. They have to keep up their delusions and paranoia because they'd loose everything they believed in if it weren't true - it's pathetic. But the worst thing is that the old part of them actually sinning (fucking it up) isn't mentioned anymore - it's there when they need it (economy) but not if they could keep others involved in their rage. They have given up their ideals to support their ideals with technisques that their ideals forbid. It all manifested in the patriot act, take away freedom to uphold freedom - it's really messed up. --Ullhateme (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. --Leotardo (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cracked

Ah, if only I had a sock, I'd love to see Andy's reaction when faced with the female Paul Revere, who was out rounding up troops, instead of baking cookies and having babies. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And bonus she is a teen. --Opcn (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure once you mention that it has a teenage girl and a horse Ed will be interested. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ObamaRail

Jpatt delivers yet another trustworthy, just-the-facts, not-personal-opinion encyclopedia article: "[ObamaRail is] another liberal boondoggle that is paid for by stealing from the taxpayers."^img Bonus points for having a special "Criticism" section right under the paragraph that is nothing but criticism. --Sid (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

wiki vampirism

It seems that in order to stay up, RW had to suck some of the lifeforce out of CP. Conservepedia is currently down for me.--Brxbrx (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell. I come home after a long day only to find one of my top resources for lulz education not working? ~SuperHamster Talk 20:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Predictably, the White House denies responsibility. Doppelheuer (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine how it feels to be 403'ed all the time. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

back up! Rw too. the circle is complete--Brxbrx (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@EddyP: Not good. Thank goat for proxies! --UHM^harass_me 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's the droves leaving facebook

CP is still down for me :/ --Opcn (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

CP's also down for me and quite a few others. Were we both DoS attacked, but we have people who actually know how to run a webserver? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Down for me too. If only Andy had given Bad Touch server access this would never have happened. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It came back up for me just a minute ago, but then it went down again. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Tantric web hosting? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

why ddos RW?--Brxbrx (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Most likely some idiots decided to DDOS CP, and from there decided to DDOS RW as well. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Awww, it's down. Sad face

I'm feeling ambivalent. I like comedy. But then again, some idiots think it's a legitimate site. Meh. Rationalize (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Back. P-Foster (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so. But some pages are still not working. What a site. Rationalize (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Games fend off intimacy and isolate us from the strokes we really want"

What in the hell is Uncle Bad Touch writing about here^img? I can't make out what this "pionerr" advocates and what it has to do with "the strokes that [Ed] really wants". This somehow seems to be related to alcoholism, and the voice--Claude's? Uncle Ed's?--sounds like that of an AA sponsor. --Leotardo (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"I have never been able to help anyone who didn't sincerely ask for help and who wasn't willing to recognize and analyze his own behavior honestly. " - If this wasn't Ed, we'd be screaming "parody!". --Ullhateme (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgh! "games "intimacy" "strokes" and Ed, all in one sentence. I now need to stick fondue forks in my eyes. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed is on a Steiner bender today. Creating Ed stubs on junk food and negative reinforcement. Ed's editing and its relationship with his life is pretty transparent. I guess they wont be playing "whose turn is it to seduce" tonight in the Poor house tonight, no more games. --Marlow (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this Steiner guy writing about Andy? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but think Ed's interest is connected to anti-homo therapy somehow. --Kels@school

Nah, the 'game' is alcoholism^img. Recovering straight alcoholics are often incredibly annoying Christians. --Leotardo (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

martyp bloxsorred!

Guess^img they finally had enough of his reasonableness.--Brxbrx (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So I guess Conservatitia was up for a few seconds? Cause it's still down for me. Anyway, MartyP was sort of asking for it. He got bored and wanted to get blocked. This is why I have invested literally no effort into my sock. I'll wind up the same way and all that time will be wasted. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see Ken even took time off from his 90-day vacation to wield the ban hammer. That's dedication! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I agree with anger bear on something

read this it is very reasonable. --Opcn (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Shit. It really IS reasonable. I agree with Karajou. I never thought I'd say that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, lucid prose urging restraint for the purpose of conservation. I agree with you, Karajou. Could we now interest you in the potential benefits of a functioning and properly funded EPA? Corry (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Shit, Anger Bear can't actually be a conservative who wants to conserve our environment instead of allowing corporations to rape it like they do in China and India, can he?!?! Dammit! Why do I have to re-think him even just a little bit! --Leotardo (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't get Conpedia

Is it down for everybody or just for me? I'm not Jesus (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

See above thread. SJ ^Debaser 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you walk in and click "new topic" without actually reading the page, or even the ToC for that matter? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I just get, "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage" and when I asked the computer to diagnose the connection problem I was told the host may be down. In due course RationalWiki will find out if it's down for everybody or if conservative parts of the US can still get it. I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

that is due to the DDoS--Brxbrx (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So I'm retarded. Is that some sort of attack? Does anyone know who perpetrated it? Rationalize (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just saw the blog above. Awesome. Rationalize (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In case you were wondering, it's AmesG. It's always AmesG. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ed reaches a new high (low?)

Wow. Now Ed stubs only need to contain a link.^img At least the lazy cunt admits he's a lazy cunt: "just a link ... needs someone to write the actual article." I wonder who's going to write about Japanese humour Ed? Have you just made Jessica's picture all sticky again? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

ooh! Ken gets brave.^img How will Ed respond? 10/1 says the big lug does nothing. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor should he. It's pretty embarrassing when even Ken finds something you created to be moronic. Ed Poor is such a bumbling idiot. --Leotardo (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if Ed notices the death of his latest creation. CP has become to Ed what posting comments on random blogs is to most people. He bumbles around CP, pausing occasionally to pull apart his cheeks so another Edism can fall out behind him. Yup, it's a very bad sign when Ken "Does x have machismo?" DeMyer has to step in to remove pointless crap. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply like Ed's delusion that someone was actually going to improve that article. Who's unblocked that's got the knowledge or inclination? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And he'd probably block and demand a 'writing plan' if they tried to start it. --Leotardo (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How to handle sources CP-style

Andy ignores one event that isn't good publicity and missinterpreds the French Front National as conservative^img. --UHM^harass_me 16:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's the BNP blunder redux. Andy sees the word "conservative/right-wing," figures it means what he wants it to mean, doesn't bother to read past the headline, makes an ass of himself. Awesome. P-Foster (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What? FN is right-wing, but in the economic nationalism Pat Buchanan sense rather than the free trade neoliberal sense. Though I imagine Andy wouldn't like FN's pro-public sector stance on a number of issues, he can just selectively ignore those because conservative = good. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

as a frenchman, I must say that the national front is quite far-right--Brxbrx (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

" FN is right-wing, but in the economic nationalism Pat Buchanan sense rather than the free trade neoliberal sense." You should prolly read about the party's founder's stance on some non-economic issues. P-Foster (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

see, this shit makes me glad I'm living in the states now. You can't get away with that shit here. On the other hand, maybe she'll end up getting arrested by anti-racism laws... mmm... that would be a GOOD violation of freedom of speech--Brxbrx (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, raging xenophobe, just like Pat Buchanan, which is notably whitewashed out of Buchanan's CP page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's say it this way: If Andy actually supports what the FN and BNP blurb out, it's ok for me. But then he's not a case for an asylum but for Homeland Security.. --UHM^harass_me 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"On 21 June 1995, he attacked singer Patrick Bruel on his policy of no longer singing in the city of Toulon because the city had just elected a mayor from the National Front. Le Pen said, "the city of Toulon will then have to get along without the vocalisations of singer Benguigui". Benguigui, an Algerian name, is Bruel's name at birth." Andy loves that kind of shit; just ask Barack HUSSEIN Obama. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DDOS--Anger Bear is Angry

Also, he's the reincarnation of Thomas Nast. P-Foster (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So DDoS attacks are like... a superpower that Liberals have? Awesome, I guess. I'm gonna go use my powers on some choice websites. Also this line: " It's no different then when someone comes into your room and changes the channel from the TV program you were watching, just to force you to watch what he likes." made me laugh. It's totally different than that! It's more like blocking one channel, not actively forcing you to watch a specific one! That's a terrible, terrible analogy. X Stickman (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Never knew that blog existed. I think I just found about the only site in existence more retarded than Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I like how Boss Tweed was somehow a Liberal, based on the tried-and-true metric of "he did something bad". --Kels (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He was a liberal because he was a Democrat, and all Democrats, even the ones 150 years ago who were pro-slavery, are automatically liberal. As are about half of the Republicans (who are actually RINOs). Yet somehow conservatives still outnumber liberals by something like 5 to 1. Conservapedian mathematics. DickTurpis (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, why does he think that his cartoon was the cause of the DDOS exactly? Phiwum (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He needs to feel important, so he makes things like this up. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, because he is a CP sysop, so he has massive delusions as to the impact their pathetic efforts make. To Kowardjerk, "liberals" are so pissed off that he's elegantly exposed to nonsesne that is their religion of evilution, that "liberals" have attempted to shut down his operation because they can't stand to be shown up like this. The fact that it's a bunch of script kiddies fannying around doesn't occur to him; in fact by his reckoning he is right, it IS liberals doing this; as anyone who does something bad (or merely something they don't like) is a de facto liberal. It's like us whining "We took the piss out of Kowardjerk's cartoon, and now the conservative young universe christians are attacking us!" Phiwum, I would highly recommend browsing Conservaleaks to get an idea of just how deluded they actually are. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a bit like Ken in this regard - he can't understand the difference between "ridicule" and "anger." He mistakes us going "WTF?" with moral outrage. The only thing his cartoon offends is the viewer's intelligence. What really offended was the rank hypocrisy of the douche. Still, I see it's got them bleating again in the Soopah Seekrit chat room. And, of course, we are Anonymous. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is partly because for him/them ridicule stems from their anger. They are in the main deeply and abidingly angry people. Angry with the world, angry with their imaginary friend, angry with the government but basically the root of it is they are angry at their own impotence and inconsequence. So they ridicule that which they blame for their own failings - in this case libruls. So they assume that for all of us ridicule stems from anger and they simply do not understand that ridicule can come from a different place entirely, a place which will be forever foreign to them in their impotent rage. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

--PsyGremlinSprich! 11:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

--Leotardo (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Winning" Charlie Sheen and RatWanker. Ange, grrr. {{User:--193.200.150.125 (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)| block ID is #27224}}

English, motherfucker, do you speak it? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

sooooo, its MY fault im getting "Internet Explorer Can Not Connect" message? --Thunderstruck (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Script kiddies vandalize websites both for the thrill of it and to increase their reputation among their peers.[4] Some more malicious script kiddies have used virus toolkits to create and propagate the Anna Kournikova and Love Bug viruses.[1] Script kiddies lack, or are only developing, coding skills sufficient to understand the effects and side effects of their work. As a result, they leave significant traces which lead to their detection, or directly attack companies which have detection and countermeasures already in place, or in recent cases, leave automatic crash reporting turned on. [5]

I'm not Jesus (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As soon as you all admit that I'm l33t, I can see about calling the DDoS off. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Karajou know that a DDoS is not to our advantage because it stifles the lulz? Corry (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, all of this "LOL!!!" stuff is just a guise. Underneath the uncontrollable laughter, we're all seething with rage, deeply embarrassed by the systematic dismantling of our worldviews. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Having had my empirical outlook on the natural world and my secular humanist approach to ethics and morality utterly destroyed by the defense of the most logical book in the world, a compendium of a Bronze Age Levantine tribe's attempts to make sense of the world around them, I am convulsing with rage and confusion. Ergo DDoS. Corry (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I love this blog post he wrote! He sounds absolutely retarded comparing Boss Tweed to liberals DDOSing Conservapedia. Anger Bear doesn't realize what an effective tool for liberals that CP has become in making their ideas seem unpalatable. I would never want them shut down, for the same reason I never want to see Westboro Baptist Church go away. --Leotardo (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised we weren't compared to Nazi's and book burning, especially as Kara sees us all as fascists. The fuckhead must be losing his touch. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine how big their liberal hate-on will have grown by the time they get the site back up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally! More banning, bile and name-calling. Love it! CP's mistake is assuming that the people on this chat board are representative of liberals, and by nature of our love of watching CP, we are very much not typical liberals. That they play to us instead of making themselves seem reasonable and respectable is one of my favorite symbiotic relationships on the Internet. We get to laugh and ridicule them, and they make themselves more wild-eyed and offensive just to piss us off. --Leotardo (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

when they are faced with an idea they don't like; they try to shut it down. - Yes, he is right. That's why the ultra-liberal Obama has shut down all churches and conservative projects since he got into office. That's why the Tea Party demonstration are all ended with police throwing people into jail. That's why there simply weren't any churches in communist countries. That's why we have a whole freaking site that is dedicated mostly to "conservatives" topics pushing the popularity of CP up through in Google. That's why we evil liberals do not allow normal sexual habbits even if we find them pretty uninteresting. That's why you're blog isn't online anymore with thousands upon thousands of readers. That's why you did not just write a blog entry from your confortable home or work (which you have - of course - lost) but out of a prison cell for a blog that has of course been shut down long ago because it was so extremly influentual. That's why we evil liberals have let you do your cartoons for various months now with our raging comments of shame on it. That's why Ken does not delete stuff to keep somebody from seeing it. That's why televangelist are banned into the night and don't have their rightfully place in the prime time of every major network. That's why FOX News was shut down forcefully. and of course does not make millions with spreading a conservative propaganda news. That's why the evil social networking sites - such as the marriage destroying facebook - have driven the possibility of communication back ten years. That's why we all keep a burning grudge inside of us because the light of these blatantly brilliant insights gives our worldview - which has been supported by corrupted science - a wedgie all day long. That's why all these things have actually happend. Yes you are right. I'm thankfull for such insights, as they surely are my way to find a truly logical and reasonable ideology.. I confess, we are evil heretics. --UHM^harass_me 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am completely bemused by the irony. Karajerk bemoans that liberals are trying to prevent people from reading Conservapedia yet at the same time they are creating enormous range blocks to prevent people from reading Conservapedia. Is he saying that Andy Schlafly is a liberal?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocat for a second: No. Schlafly is keeping people from getting access to something he wiches to be spread, not something he doesn't like. That point we can make with banhammering people. --UHM^harass_me 16:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The motives may be different but the effect is the same.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

sup?

Okay, so the trusworthies are being DDOSed, fine. But why does this here web shite keep disappearing intermittently? Mountain Blue 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because it causes everyone to lean on the captures instead of actually going to CP? Or since people can't get on CP, they just lurk here? Usually it happens when someone important mentions "Poe's Law", an article on a wiki starting with "R" that has top placement in a certain search engine ending in "E". Occasionaluse (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Down for Everyone?" says that RW's down (not now, obviously): it doesn't say that if it's a DDOS. --Scream!! (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c * billion) It's a DDoS attack here too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a DDoS attack but I know tricks other than 403 blocking the planet. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Phear. Trent knows Kung Fu. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

wait... so is CP still under DDOS for how long now???? and i am still 403'd? shit. this sucks. LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 05:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't expect to be un-403'd anytime soon. Those blocks are forever. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there any other websites that have arbitrarily server-side blocked so many IP addresses? In fact, other than for copyright reasons, I can't think of any sites that block any ranges from seeing them... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, some Japanese game producers have been 403ing non-Japanese IPs, due to vague concerns about foreign pornography laws.^[6] "They might sue us" is a bit more relevant than "they're all liberals", though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing of any great import

....but it's been a while -- not anything near 90 days, you liar, but a while -- since we've gotten an "ole ole ole" shout-out^img. P-Foster (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Ken know that by now a good number of us wouldn't be able to follow his dick-swinging even if we tried? Or is 403 CP's way of saying that we lack macheeeeesemooooo? --Sid (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

403d here. Does this make me special, or is CP in some sort of death throes? ħuman 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy's frame of mind this evening^img should tell you all you need to know. P-Foster (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That deserves a WIGO, (if I can steals it and think of a snarky delivery). 05:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

All that needs is for Andy to pull on some sunglasses and shout YEAHHHHHHHH!!!! LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 06:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

i don't get it--Brxbrx (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)