Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive234

This is an archive page, last updated 9 May 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>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <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)

TriWikiTournament April 2011

We win:

	Conservapedia	Citizendium	RationalWiki
editors by group
editors by account creation
active editors over last twelve months (sames scales)
edits per month (different scales!)
editors per month (different scales!)
boxplot: edits per editor (logarithmic scales!)

Trivia: Conservapedia and Citizendium had virtually the same number of edits (well, after Ken

's usual deletions): 4830 vs. 4778. Thats the number of edits en.wikipedia.org generates on average in a single hour...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome work as always! Does anyone know what caused the massive active editor drop in December editors at CP? NDSP 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff! I imagine the large drop was caused by the 403 blocks - that was when they first put them on, and it took a while before everybody managed to sock up in some other way. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it was the account-creation-by-email-only-strategy...

account creation at CP

last twelve months

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work once again Sir! I also thought the 403 was later. Interesting how that didn't seem to have an impact on the number. In other news, if we won the TriWizard Tournament, do I get an hour with Hermoine and the implements of my choice? --PsyGremlinParla! 16:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to win the tournament for that, you just need to put the appropriate search terms into DeviantART. ADK^{...I'll xerox your Cadillac!} 16:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is truly excellent work, I take my hat off to you sir.Infoseek (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I love this.

Hey Schlafly- what about that cp:liberal deceit nonsense you like to promote? From your own source: "... the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious. " God (pun intended) you're a waste of oxygen. Rationalize (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That may very well be the most sensible piece that has ever appeared in the Op Ed section of the Washington Times Post - usually their commentators are frothing at the mouth. Will Andyland ever acknowledge the studies mentioned in the article? Survey says...bzzzzzt. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You know they will either just completely ignore that or attempt to spin it with something like "but, but, but, atheists have no hospitals!" You don't actually expect them to show enough integrity in their reporting to the point where they ever criticize the religious or give any credence to "teh enemy" atheists, do you? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? From their source: "On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious. " The only things in there CP doesn't support is hitting children (I think they are only afraid they might punch back), racism (well, not officially) and anti-semitism (which is just a specific of racism). No wonder, if this was a simple equation the more religious you are the more perverted you are on such matters. Look at CP - Q.E.D.? --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy's still a tit

"I don't what you facts you throw at me peon, "behold" means what I damn well want it to mean."^img Also, can somebody fluent in crazyspeak please translate Andy's last question, which seems to be his usual style - unless you answer my question, there's no more debate. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I like how he says probably.---brxbrx 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Properly. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

you're right. Well now he just seems pompous.---brxbrx 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I'm fluent in crazyspeak, but I can read it occasionally. I think that Andy is trying to get AugustO to say something along the lines of "Umm...I guess the laws of relativity would govern any relative simultaneity in the two events," to which Andy can spout "Aha! Well, liberal, why don't you check out this list of BS counterexamples to relativity. Deny them and lose all credibility in your translation work." Nice little trap, really. 1. Try to get your opponent to admit to something "liberal" (where "liberal" is the set of all x such that x is declared by Andy to be liberal). 2. Declare that this admission destroys their whole argument, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand. 3. Declare victory. 4. Block.--RedSmurf (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It blows my mind that he's asking for a physical mechanism for a miracle. In fact, he's already claimed there is one. The miracle defies physics and disproves relativity because it could totally occur as action-at-a-distance in the real world, without any kind of divine rule-breaking. So once we reach a level of technology where we can build Jupiter-sized graviton detectors, we should also be able to transmit healing radiation anywhere in the universe instantaneously. That ought to prove handy, assuming it can serve as a carrier for other things. Yep, tit. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

AugustO is relentless, too: I think that such a question should be answered after translating the verse, as we don't want to fit the translation to our explanations or expectations!^img

--larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting themselves into a real frothy

Have to love Johnny Reb Sedition adding^img a cartoon to the Obama birth certificate controversy clusterfuck, that brilliantly sums up the right's attitude that it was never about the birth certificate in the first place.

But I wouldn't expect him to catch such subtleties. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As subtle as a sledgehammer between the eyes that comic. - π 14:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty," John Adams. ツ --76.205.114.186 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF has that to do with anything? Stupid comment that has no bearing on the idiocy of the 'cartoon' that johnny fartpants pratt posted. Are you really that short on any coherent ideas or arguments that you have to resort to that kind of crap in order to try to make your point? if so then really, give up now and leave it to trump and wnd. They are far better at the lunacy than you will ever be (and Obama still owned them big time at the dinner). Oldusgitus (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do these people really want to see his kindergarten records or is this some weird USA joke that I don't get? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Whirled Nut Dairy do. oh wait, you said "people"... --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All records relating to the president, and certain relatives, (including incredibly enough their kindergarten records) are sealed when they becomes president and are not released until five years afterwards or something of that nature. Back in the Clinton days someone (I think Bill O'Reily) had a weird obsession with wanting to see Hilary Clinton's college senior thesis. WND just likes to pretend that Obama is keeping and unusual number of secrets by listing every document that is now classified. You won't get to see George W or Laura Bush's kindergarten records for another few years. - π 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't even know if they are sealed. Looking into Hilary Clinton's college senior thesis things it just looks like the school was uncooperative about making it available. They are just fishing for anything I guess. - π 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I love how things like Kindergarten records and parents' marriage certificate are somehow under the heading "Presidential Eligibility". DickTurpis (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Methinks they've been Poe'd. Nobody who really invested himself in that birth certificate nonsense could be stupid enough to think all those other documents have any impact on a candidate's eligibility, or not to realize that the Senate is a part of Congress. Plus, these guys seem to be pretty new, and advertising their "unbiased conservative" viewpoint also reeks of parody...like JPatt himself, of course. Röstigraben (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, "congress" is often used as a synonym for the "House of Representatives", hence the "Congressman Bonehead--D MA", when talking about a member of the house. So this point is somewhat pedantic. 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I agree, I read it straight up as lampooning the idiocy of certain sections of the public. The list is such a parody.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's a Poe, it's a subtle one. And they need to be careful that they don't suffer an "Archie Bunker effect" when the people they're mocking declare them to be heroes. MDB (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Definite Poe. Read some of the recent stuff on Whirled Nut and American Stinker -- they really do want to see all these documents. It's part of their "culture of secrecy" meme, because Obama is supposedly trying to hide the fact that he's a Kenyan crypto-Muslim. It's also part of their "Obama's dumb" meme. A Kenyan crypto-Muslim, you see, couldn't have possibly graduated from Harvard (so he's covering up his transcripts) nor could he have written those books, so obviously the terrorist he pals around with, Bill Ayers, ghost-wrote the books for him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you catch Rob on CP saying with a straight face that Ayers is the author of Dreams? The part about Rob caring about CP is a lie. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How unoriginal. I already clogged that a while back as American Stinker's Bayesian conspiracy theory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

no, no, you see...Ayers actually admitted it. Granted, it was a fucking joke, but he admitted it. Therefore it's true. At least on CP. Occasionaluse (talk)

Well, it's his fault that he forgot to put sarcasm tags around his "admission," right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ayers also made the offer that he would split the royalties if anyone could prove it. I wonder if Rob is seriously considering it... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think the expert Bayesian analysis makes it an open and shut case. Prize money here we come! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

*shudder* That may be the single worst abuse of statistics I've ever seen. There are so many things wrong that we can put them in a giant list. Let's do that, in fact:

• He claims to be using a prior of A1 = 1, yet he somehow has a posterior not equal to one. But it's mathematically impossible to update a prior of 1, so he made a glaring error somewhere.
• He is not incorporating all of the available information into his prior - he just says "the publisher says so" and leaves it at that. But he is obviously not ignorant of the other information that he could use, such as writing style, since he then uses that information when updating.
• A1 and A2 are not the only options - someone else could have written the book. He fails to incorporate this into his calculations by having the denominator equal P(A1)*P(B|A1)+P(A2)*P(B|A2) when it should be P(A1)*P(B|A1)+P(~A1)*P(B|~A1). Likewise for the numerator, which should be P(~A1)*P(B|~A1) not P(A2)*P(B|A2). These two don't look very different, but when you crunch the numbers it's obvious that they are not at all the same. (He actually makes this error four times, since he does the same when trying to update A1.)
• He conditions on event B, which he claims has a high likelihood ratio ("strength of the evidence" in layman's terms) for A2 and a low one for A1, but he never tells us why. Figuring out the likelihood ratio is 90% of the work, but he craftily conceals what the values of p(B|A1) and p(B|A2) actually are or where they even came from.
• He mentions the number of similarities between Obama's book and Ayers' book, but he doesn't explain how this is quantified into the likelihood ratio. To do this you would need to compare the number of similarities to the base rate of similarities between two randomly picked books; not only does he not do this, he doesn't even mention it.
• He ends up with posterior probabilities of 0 for A1 and 1 for A2. This is blatantly wrong. You can't update on a piece of evidence and be infinitely certain in your posterior belief in A2, especially if you had a prior that was weighted against A2.
• He later contradicts this by saying that the posterior of A2 is "100% out to many significant figures." If this is his result, why didn't he write that in the line where you calculate the posterior? It's almost like he's trying to deceive the audience....oh wait, he is.

Jesus fucking Christ, stuff like this makes me mad. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, that's why it's my new favorite American Stinker post of all time (probably). It's so amazingly fucking stupid that it makes me think the author himself isn't stupid, it's that he just didn't care. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The comments are even more horrible. Not only does everyone fail to notice these glaring errors, they make fun of liberals for "not being able to understand such sophisticated arguments." My favorite comments, though, are the ones that openly admit that they don't understand the argument but then go on to agree with it. I think it is possible that the author just didn't know what he was doing - it's like those people who discover Bayes' theorem for first time and say "the prior probability that God exists is 50%!" (But that doesn't excuse the downright deceitful concealment of the likelihood ratio.) I guess he just knew that his audience was completely stupid so he didn't even bother to think it through. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I like the one talking about getting an NSF grant for further "research" on this topic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only imagine the staff at NSF reading a grant request like that - I think that would be one of those letters that gets photocopied and pinned to the wall for nostalgia. Also, is that our friend Terry H. in the comments, or just a coincidence? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to something up there somewhere) Personally, I am overjoyed that the right is suggesting that the academic record of an individual is something that should be examined when considering the president. Never again will we have someone who graduated 894 of 899 in a class run, nor someone who had to switch between half a dozen colleges without any entrance requirements to get a bachelors degree in a liberal arts subject (no advanced degree). I hope this means that they won't support someone who flunked out of seminary school (though, frankly I would be more concerned about someone who didn't). In writing this, I hope that those who are asking now haven't changed their standards and have long held these beliefs that some of the people alluded to above were not and are not qualified to be the President. --Shagie (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My God

Andy is a sad, embittered old man. Criticizing Obama 24/7. My God, you're 50 years old, Andy. Get a freaking life. JJ4e^talk 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is Andy's life. His "job" is on it, he spends most every waking hour on it, etc. I've always imagined Andy to be that guy who can't hold a real-life conversation about anything apart from politics, and if you try to speak to him about anything that isn't politically charged, he'll quickly fix that. - Jpop (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama Derangement Syndrome. We need a page on that. BTW, kudos to who ever read through the whole speach and counted everything to prove andy wrong.--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See the page on Bush Derangement Syndrome. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden's death date

JM puts it originally as "May 2011"^img before changing it to April 24th^img with no explanations/citations and no one's bothered correcting it since. I'm far too lazy for the tl'dr stuff above, so if this has already been mentioned I don't give a crap apologise. SJ ^Debaser 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinda odd to see JM not only adding this date, but also inserting such heavy doubt about whether or not he's really dead. --Sid (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that anyone actually reads CP for information, but what was Bush doing for the three years between 9/11 and 2004, since "He remains at large to this day despite seven years of the United States military and CIA searching for him"22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The 24th of April was the early rumour date for when he died, as information came out it was clear that he was killed 2nd of May. - π 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing

Yay. T'would appear capturebot is fixed---brxbrx 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wanted: Inspiration

"Conservaleaks" is a stupid name. The collection needs a better title. Discuss. Mountain Blue 09:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like "Ship of fools". Oh, while you're here, please can you have a look at the "Progress in NPOV for WP's CP related entries" post (TZB http://cp.noym.net/127df53e14b111fc) and add in the text of the Icewedge archive, that was probably redacted at extraneous text in the conversion. Anything to stop Rob being a whiney-assed little bitch for now. Although, I'm sure he'll find something else to bitch about. --PsyGremlinHable! 09:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ship of fools" is a start. As for the Progress thread, I'll look into that.

You people are not very inspiring this week. Mountain Blue 06:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"The self-importance society" (sang as if in the Italian Job) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like we think it's SERIOUS BUSINESS. Analyses in the New Yorker have titles like that. We don't have an analysis, we just have an amorphous pile of stupid. I'm looking for something cheerful and whimsical... kind of like "Conservaleaks", only less bulky and grandiose. Mountain Blue 12:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Poopagon Papers. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Amorphous pile of stupid" is not that bad. --79.31.30.160 (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just capitalize the L. "Leaks" is perfect. ħuman 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You think so? Why? Mountain Blue 18:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be so terse. Call it ConservaLeaks. Look, you folks did an incredible job of loading and formatting all that stupidity, and came up with a good name for it. Why the second-guessing? ħuman 04:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They are leaks, aren't they? It's the most descriptive portmanteau I can think of. Can you throw out an example of what you're looking for? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They're leaks, sure. It's "Conservaleaks" you think is the descriptive portmanteau, right? What I was wondering was if Human thought "Leaks" by itself was "perfect". Apologies if I'm missing something hugely obvious here. As for the example, I'll try to come up with one. Mountain Blue (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I rather liked "Amorphous pile of stupid" too. However, we want to keep it relevant to CP - especially in search results. How about something like "The Conservapedia Papers" "The Schlafly Files" oh I dunno. I'm too broken drunk to be creative. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I love "ship of fools." Pithy. Also the original book was an attack on religious bigots and hypocrites. Awesome. There is, however, this:

I'm currently working on a sort-of documentary about the local gun nut community. They're pretty much what you'd expect: lots of short guys with failed careers, lots of militia-type conspiracy nuts, lots of hypertension, lots of angsty masculinity; the usual Holocaust deniers, the usual SS admirers, the usual would-be immigrant exterminators, the usual generic unemployed wifebeaters. The draft I'm happiest with is the one that's exquisitely polite and bone dry -- the one that doesn't call the incompetent crank lawyer an incompetent crank lawyer but simply notes he holds heterodox legal opinions and has a case success record with, uh, potential for improvement.

I'd like to try the same style on the Conservatards, just to see if it works. I'd like to try to not call them fools, or stupid, because I suspect it could be much more effective to treat them with mock respect and neutrality, oily but not too much, and let readers facepalm at their own initiative. Andy's and Anger Bear's batshit insane delusions of relevance are so obvious and so completely fucking bizarre, if we just play along they do all the work themselves. Besides, parsimony of means is the root of all true art, right?

One idea I have is Council of Champions, because that's what they think it is and because of the mildly topical allusion to Vonnegut. The article on the armed alcoholics will be called Winners. Mountain Blue (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea. Paint Andy as a Harvard-educated lawyer, who's argued cases in the Supreme Court, then cut to the "But you Honor, this letter is heartfelt!" plea, add he served alongside Obama on the HLR, then cut to 'Obama doesn't dance, ergo is a Muslim" crap. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you like where I'm trying to take this. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be working in the style of Louis Theroux who's done a documentary on Phelps and other hate groups.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ship of Fools"? Nah, how about "Busload of Conservapedians?" 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Shouldn't that be "Three busloads of Conservapedians"?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Phelps related material

Here's some material; it contains some discussion on Phelps. I think DanH is one one participant with Icewedge. And this transcript predates the earliest postings in Conservaleaks by about three or four days. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I just found 44 e-mail exchanges between me & AmesG on Fred Phelps; some material then was exchanged with TK, and TK responds. Quite lenghty. And it leaves me wondering if Dick Turpis is AmesG. Forwarding this to the SDG group could take sometime. I don't want to do it incrementally. How should I proceed? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I started reading the second post and thought it was a parody of yours. WTF, Rob? ħuman 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you live in a little world of non sequiturs and non-comprehension. We don't give a toss about email/IM exchanges between editors about Phelps. I only mentioned Phelps in regards to the style of a documentary.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lilys are my favourite flower. But I like daffodils better, even though I saw some pretty flowers I didn't know about in someone's garden. I don't know much about flowers. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's some of the exchange here. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am AmesG! C®ackeЯ

I thought you were the author of Pommer's Law; AmesG works on Wall Street. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's right I'm not AmesG, never was. Sorry. I was conflused by your begging the troll question. 22:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Ames made most of our private e-mails on Phelps public [about a] year ago; I just released the late TK portions. This is how cp:Fred Phelps article, and the intro to RW's Poe's Law came about. It seems to be a subject that won't die. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So I'm Ames now? Heh. I'll take that as a compliment. Ames is a pretty sharp cookie, though I can't say I necessarily agree with him all the time. Anyway, sure, yeah...I'm Ames. That's right. Ames Fucking Grawert. That's me. DickTurpis (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm Spartacus AmesG! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm Brian and so is AmesG. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I like Ames, I was his probation office and argued for his unblocking. [3] I unblocked him so he could enroll in Andy's Supreme Court class. Who knows, maybe someday Andy's student will argue a case before the Supreme Court just as his teacher did. TK opposed me nblocking him. It's all here. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"I was his probation officer." Wow, everything that's wrong with Conservapedia in one short declarative sentence. Rob, I know I'm probably wasting my time, but:

• "Officer" is a title given to trained professionals by large bureaucracies.
• "Probation officer" is a title given to trained professionals dealing with people guilty of life-altering crimes, the kind of crimes people go to prison for, on behalf of real-life communities of at least a few thousands of human beings, human beings bound together by real-life houses, real-life jobs, and real-live families.

You, dear boy, are not a "probation officer", you're an amateur editor on an amateur web site. Do you people have absolutely no appreciation of how pathetic you look being that laughably full of yourselves? Did it never occur to you that part of the reason your Encyclopedia has failed so hard was the fact that it issues hugely self-important "commandments" instead of having plain simple rules? Are you people completely free of any hint of social intelligence? Mountain Blue (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read what Rob wrote MB; he didn't claim to be Ames' probation officer, he claimed to be his probation office. You are trying to attach some intelligence to a non-sentient object. And Rob, I don't believe Andy did argue a case before The Supreme Court just the NJ court where he became an object of some derision; although he has filed amicus curae briefs with The Supreme Court that's not the same as arguing a case in open court so don't try to make that big a deal out of it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was User:RobSmith/Fred Phelps deleted and oversighted?

Why was User:RobSmith/Fred Phelps deleted and oversighted? User:AmesG made the same e-mails public 3 years ago; User:TK is now deceased. Can anyone respond and explain why this materal should not be merged into Conservaleaks? nobs^{don't bother me} 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you haven't misplaced it? It does not seem to have a deletion recorded. - π 01:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the only edit to the page has been suppressed. I'll ask Psy. - π 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1. It contained personal information that had not been redacted. 2. It's got fuck all to do with Conservaleaks (that's for the sysop chat spaces only) 3. If you want to carry on your futile 4-year mission to get Simon's newspaper report expunged from the record, do it on Conservapedia. Last time I checked, we aren't a clearing house for your paranoid delusions. --PsyGremlinHable! 08:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if you want to go that route, we do have all TK's IM chats with people like Karajou, Jpatt and Geo.plrd that are quite enlightening. I'll be happy to publish those too. --PsyGremlinParla! 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Publish the chats, racial slurs and rape jokes and everything? Well, I'm in Europe and if anyone decides to act on Anger Bear's suggestions it's not going to be from any rooftops in my neighborhood. The leakarator is pretty good by now, just don't expect me to know what to redact. Mountain Blue (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Rob even realize that he's trying to set off a firecracker in a TNT factory by lobbying to have private 1-on-1 discussions included in Conservaleaks? Just saying, he's hardly the only one who still has a few gems in his inbox. I'm really not in favor of this, but if we do, let's include a large disclaimer stating that CP Senior Administrator Rob Smith was the one who suggested it. --Sid (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm also not really in favor of this, but if they insist... disclaimers are cheap and the Googlebot is a hungry critter. Mountain Blue (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

TK in the Spring 2010 WP dispute

Here's an idea: forward TK's private chats to SDG and the members mof that group can vet that information there. Didn't we already agree on that? nobs^{don't bother me} 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea of a bunch of proven compulsive liars with a long and colorful history of burning records and falsifying history "vetting" TK's documents is amusing, I will admit that much, but I don't actually remember agreeing to it. Please show me where exactly you think I agreed to let Andy and his merry gang of fabulists "vet" the record. Mountain Blue (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's "only" Rob and some random RW people, I would epically question this. Since when do we let Rob Smith decide or even pre-screen what gets added to Conservaleaks? I too would really like to see where this agreement happened. --Sid (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yah well we've showed enough where Conservaleaks has been doctorred and altered -- that's why I was readmitted to the SDG group to vet the information. Christ, I can't remember who readmitted mne -- no fucking way can I keep up with all the sockpuppet names; I think it was PsyGremlin who redmitted me, or maybe Sid.

If who ever edited Conservaleaks (Mountain?) wishes to preserve the integrity of the many long hours put into the work, you had better work with me; if not, it's plain for whole world to see you're just manufaturing lies and slander and spending countless hours destroying your own reputation and credibility. This is so fucking simple I don't doubt even you guys can figure it out. nobs^{don't bother me} 11:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At least your agenda is now visible to everybody: "The Conservaleaks site is nothing but lies and slander unless you work with me and jump through my hoops!". MB's script or whatever auto-cropped things that looked like quotes (and in some cases WERE quotes), and you try to frame this as some sort of conspiracy to alter the leaks, all just to move yourself into the control seat. Thanks, but no thanks - one TK was enough. I won't even react to your usual "Ohhh, everybody is socking, I can't even tell who did what!" bullshit. You can't even remember who was dumb enough to support your powertrip so far. --Sid (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Sid, considering it was spelled out in point blank language November 19, 2007, three and one half years ago. How long have you had access to Conservaleaks? How many years have you had to review this material? How much of your time did the Wikipedia dispute occupy your time last Spring? How long will it take for you to brush up on Wikipedia policies? Is TK around now to interfere and disrupt Wikipedia again? Who is slow to comprehend, me or you?

Now, we can begin by correcting errors here, Conservapedia:TK#Behaviour_on_Wikipedia based on material from Conservaleaks, or we can take a few more months & years resolving issues in other forums. One thing is for sure, TK is no longer around to fuck up my plans and objectives with his interference and disruptions. Let's get the ball rolling. nobs^{don't bother me} 17:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you have exactly three patterns when responding to anybody about pretty much anything: (1) You rapidly switch the subject, (2) you leave less than subtle threats, (3) you try to force everybody into your negotiations. Here, you did all three. Congrats. The only result is that ultimately, nobody will have any idea what you want - and after a while, they will simply stop caring and assume you're just trolling. Do you know why your Wikipedia Crusade turned into such a trainwreck? That's the reason right there.

Here, you started with trying to put yourself into a controlling position over Conservaleaks (trying to add your own private discussions and asserting that new material would have to be vetted by you first), and the moment people are pointing out your bullshit, you switch from "You must negotiate with me about Conservaleaks!" to "You must negotiate with me about the TK article!" (patterns 1+3) and add another layer of "OR ELSE!" by leaving not-so-subtle threats about trolling Wikipedia again (pattern 2) unless we all play along nicely.

Why? Oh, right, to tie up our resources (posting from Apr 10, 2010 at 1:49 AM) so we are too busy to actually get shit done. Nice.

But hey, I can try to rework the TK-on-WP section this week. I guess your main gripe is the first paragraph? --Sid (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. Either write me out completely, or tell how he totally screwed up what I was trying to do by just being himself. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, writing you out completely would be a serious challenge, considering that he jumped into a stream of events you were heavily involved with. However, I do think that the entire section can be made clearer. I'm sure you'll agree that the entire incident had been a complicated mess, so give me a day or two at least to review the various events (it's been a year, and it had been a long high-activity phase) and think of a way of phrasing it in a way that would make sense to somebody who hasn't been there. But hey, we do agree that he screwed up, and we quite likely agree that he screwed up through his WP:OUTING hissy fit, so that's a good start. =P --Sid (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Absolutely. Here's some sources: , RobSmith to ZG, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:22 PM

contact an Admin somehow quietly...Explain you would like your name removed from XXX's posting. Tell them you've known XXX along time, have discussed RW & CP business with him, and you honestly think XXX did this to hurt you. Ask the neutral Admin to be fair. Don't make threats or anything, et seqq.

and the following posting from TK's Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:13 PM. Then the response from Oversight-I (availabe here), and of course [TK to ZG Apr 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM subject:[7288] With both barrels....], unavailable at Conservaleaks, but originally posted here (signs it "Respectfully." Ha!) It all went downhill from there. nobs^{don't bother me} 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Whine

"MB's script or whatever auto-cropped things that looked like quotes (and in some cases WERE quotes)"

Dude, you're being harsh. The median message consists of about four lines of meaningful body text and about forty lines of Original Message: gunk and Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos crap. If I hadn't pruned rigorously the whole thing would be virtually unreadable. I know we have some nasty false positives, but not actually that many. The next update will fix essentially all remaining problems although I can't promise any specific release date yet. Mountain Blue (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I admit that really could have been phrased better. My sincere apologies for not being clearer. Yes, having looked at the raw archives, I of course understand and completely approve (and appreciate!) that you cropped out the endless fullquotes. It greatly enhances readability. The two complaints I had in mind when writing this had been the Icewedge archive thingy (which likely was parsed as a quote though it wasn't one) and that "RW in a panic" (IIRC) case where the pruned part WAS a quote - just a quote of Rob and TK's private mail conversation that didn't appear in the regular thread. That's what I meant with the line you quoted. :) --Sid (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I accept your sincere apologies, but it's still your fault I had to cry myself to sleep last night. Just don't you forget that. Mountain Blue (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Flail

Rob. Once again you're flailing wildly. Let's get one thing straight. You were NOT invited back to the SDG to "vet" ConservaLeaks or personal IM chats, so that "agreement" is another lie you pulled out of your arse. You were also not invited back to vet ConseraLeaks, nor to contribute your own material to them. You were asked back to double check the missing text on one message. That has since been done and the reason for the original omission explained to you.

All I see at the moment, is yet another pathetic false flag attempt at discrediting CL, so you can crow that the posts don't matter. Here's a newsflash - nobody gives a fuck about you. And for abusing a privilege, you lose it. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I to understand from this post that we actually have control over the actual Special Discussion Group? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Certain people outside the CP cabal always did thanks to TK. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So show me where this thread is in Conservaleaks?

• TK to ZG Apr 15, 2010 at 4:37 PM subject:[7288] With both barrels...

and tell us it's "another pathetic false flag attempt at discrediting CL"? It ain't there Rob says to himself, "Restrain yourself. Be calm. Don't call a spade a spade or a lying piece of shit a lying piece of shit. Restraint. Resraint. Have a drink. 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me where this thread is in the original dumps that TK has chosen to forward. I never had any thread named "with both barrels". In fact I never had any thread even just containing the phrase "with both barrels". The only thread I ever had containing even just the word "barrels" by itself is this one, "Oil Everywhere". Mountain Blue (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll forward it to SDG (I'm assuming you have access t it?) nobs^{don't bother me} 06:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tried forwarding to SDG - it bounced. It's here: User:RobSmith/With both barrels.... nobs^{don't bother me} 06:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, can you read? Show me where this thread is in the original dumps that TK has chosen to forward, the dumps that Psy has announced here on the WIGO talk, the dumps that have been discussed here on the WIGO talk, the dumps that have articles here on Rationalwiki, the dumps that Conservaleaks actually covers. As is clearly stated on the FAQ page, a resource that literally every single Conservaleaks page links to, Conservaleaks includes messages from the Special Discussion Group, the Zeuglodon Blues, the Fab Five, and the Conservapedia Group. Conservaleaks does not and did not ever purport to include messages from anything called the "ZG". Mountain Blue (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, Rob, but I've been through every mail we received from TK and there's no such post. So it was either never forwarded to us, or it never existed. Also, this seems to be more about you distancing yourself from the clusterfuck you and TK initiated on WP, than ConservaLeaks. And you calling CL unreliable because of a few missing mails that may or may not have existed, is laughable. Doubly so coming from you. At the end of the day Rob, all you can do is bluster. The CL posts aren't changing, aren't coming down, just to cover your ass for a situation that most people have forgotten about.

We don't care about your totally ineffectual attempts to restrain, or monitor, or whatever it is you claim to have done with TK - none of it worked. You can carry on as much as you like, but nowhere does CL purport to be a complete record and if some posts weren't sent to us, then so be it. But to reiterate Rob - wail all you like, nobody cares. This is what you get for crying wolf for so long and not once answering a direct question. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

ZG = Zueglodon; my fuck up, should read ZB. Sooo, it's more evidence of what a deceptive little prick TK was, withholding evidence damning to himself in which both me & Karajou reprimanded him for his actions/conduct. And as I said on Conservapedia talk:TK page, I should be thanked, not vilified. "I'm trying my best to warn (User:Tmt), just back down and don't get real life identities involved, " (Rob Smith to ZB Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM). So, either TK was covering his own ass, or Tmt's, or trying to make me complicit in his stupidity. And withholding the With both barrels... thread shows, I suppose, he knew he fuck up. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I've got no objection to including the post you mentioned, seeing as you have made it available here. However, isn't that going to leave you in queer street with your fellow sysops for aiding and abetting a vandal site? --PsyGremlinTala!

Not really, Psy. I'm showing how TK was responsible for poor state of RW/CP relations from the early days on. Andy was often reasonable in allowing certain editors back, even after they diplayed bad faith. I consistenetly warned that RW editors needed to be engaged openly, and have been questioned here numerous times how I could maintain my position at CP despite being an active editor at "the vandal site." It's a new era. nobs^{don't bother me} 13:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to run that last bit past Karajou - I don't think he's read that memo yet. So, with your permission, I'll get the minions to add that missing post then to CL. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I think few people doubt that TK's actions are the biggest single reason for the poor relations, but keep in mind that he didn't operate in a vacuum. He found fertile ground to plant his seeds in, and nobody took decisive action to stop him. Or rather: Whenever somebody tried, somebody else actively defended him, giving TK enough time to turn the tide against them (PJR and CPAdmin1/TimS come to mind).

Even if we accept for the sake of the argument that you're genuinely here to make things better for everybody, you're going to sail through rough waters. Andy probably still thinks that TK was the most helpful and loyal sysop ever, Ed has his own odd ideas of cooperation, Karajou genuinely seems to believe that liberals are out to actively destroy religion and the American way, and Jpatt is so out of touch with reality that the only thing that keeps people from calling him a parodist is his hyper-active (Conservapedia-branded) Twitter feed.

Don't get me wrong, I want to believe. Just... watch your back and take a closer look at the active people around you there. --Sid (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy kept TK around cause he devoted countless hours to vandal patrol. That he was overzealous to the point of being counter-productive is another matter. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: no objection to including the post: who decides what does and what doesn't get included anyway? I know ultimately there's The Cabal, but is there also something subsidiary, something more immediate? Some kind of Conservaleaks steering committee? Hateboy (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Rob thinks he's on it. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Complain

Oh, about the "aren't coming down" thing: about a month ago I get an email from my hosting provider's support ticket system; there were two open tickets that nobody had looked at in several weeks and could I please check? I go, WTF?, because I never filed any support tickets, but of course I do log in. Turns out that two complaints had been filed about Conservaleaks by what would appear to be angry Americans of less than extravagant formal education. The hoster guys didn't want to bother me about a pair of barely comprehensible flustergrams but also didn't want to just delete them without trace, so they left two one-line memos in the ticket system. Mountain Blue (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting - any idea who the individuals were? I'm guessing Karajerk being one. I can't see somebody without CP affiliations wanting to have the chats taken down. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'd had any idea who it was I'd been here two minutes later heaping ridicule over them. All I know is their threats were unimpressive enough for some sales guy to have dismissed them out of hand 30 seconds after clicking the message. Nobody even remembers if there two complainers or just one complainer complaining twice. For all I know it might have been Ames. Mountain Blue (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see it now: "You WILL remove this tissue of lies and liberal deceit and you WILL ban the user from your network, or you WILL be explaining to a judge why you didn't." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course any transparently absurd threat of legal action is something easily construed as pointing in the general direction of Commodore Macdonald's USS Failerophon, but... to borrow from Ken

's dictionary for a moment, I don't just don't have any evidence, I don't even have proof. Mountain Blue (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"TK blocking explained for new members"

Here's another complete thread from 11/26/07, begun by Andy, that is missing from Conservaleaks. This narative, and the 8 numbered reasons Andy desysoped TK, seem at odds with other renditions in Rationalwiki and Conservapedia:TK#Conservapedia. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

excerpted:

2. He blocked, without justification, many new editors, even after I warned him....

6. He seemed to rely more on RationalWiki for information than our own site.

7. Several Sysops insisted to me privately, with lots of alleged evidence, that TK was an enemy.

nobs^{don't bother me} 22:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet he took him back. Rob are you now quote-mining Andy? I know this confuses you, but half sentence fragments without context is not helpful. - π 22:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, if the conversation took place after TK was kicked out of the group, then of course it's missing from ConservaLeaks. As Pi has already pointed out, it's not helpful to pick and choose the bits you're going to share. Post the whole email or Give it up, Comrade! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Still reviewing that material. Conservapedia:TK entry still makes TK & me appear in cahoots, whereas, the Timeline cites, fighting between RobS and TK continues at a riotous rate. Also, the timeline makes no mention of the Kevin Conley letter. Maybe, just maybe, TK got desysop for reasons other than has been alleged these many years. Look at the private chat I just released,

me: On the Cocaine entry....

Terry: Mr. [Joe] McCarthy, please stop 3:43 PM I already hold in my hands documented proof of your involvement, and my retribution won't be net retribution, but real life-legal kind

3:44 PM

me: what did I write here..... http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS/archive3#My_apologies

3:45 PM "References to chemical compounds are not necessary, particlularly since we are a family friendly site, "

Terry: You will need to connect the dots, as you see them, Rob....for all I see is a post I don't remember, made some time ago

me: You added the compound with less than one day....

Terry: so?

me: Let me quote the [Kevin Conley] email.....

Terry: its a chemical compound not a way to make cocaine, and included in most all reference works and encyclopedias stop with this nonsense

3:47 PM me: " his plan is to try to drive a wedge between the boss (andy S) and the Sysops."

Terry: I am not intrerested in having anything quoted to me, that you havent bothered to give me the benefit of the doubt on, like i did you, in asking andy to restore you before

3:48 PM me: I wrote a policy directive on entries on illegal drugs, you contrmanded the policy directive.

Terry: I find it very insulting that those of you I have always gone to bat for with Andy, keep this kind of thing from me, and instantly believe it, and never offer your support, or at least inquire of me I have no knowledge of any "policy directive" Rob

3:49 PM Please show me Andy's approval of it......And please show me your email reminding me of it...

me: Why did undercut me on the Cocaine entry, nullify my psoting, and post the compound?

Terry: I never knew it was your decision and sometimes you are too paranoid

3:50 PM and sometimes i do things, have done things, at Andy's direction, as you well know.....

me: You did not have to post the compound, you never showed any interesrt in that area, then you undercut me

Terry: and you never just messaged me, and asked; I am not a mentalist

me: deliberately, it would appear. less than 24 hours later.

3:51 PM Terry: I'm sorry if I have done anything to make you feel that way. In spite of the very clear record of supporting you.

me: only one reason I can think of, and kevin [conley] explained it to Andy pretty good. Terry: Yes, Kevin I assume you did.

3:52 PM me: Kevin nevers mentions the Cocaine article, but it is supporting evidence to his conclusions. Need other examples?

nobs^{don't bother me} 23:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The points Andy raised can be found here and here in posts by TK, spouting moral indignation, as well as the text of Andy's e-mail stripping TK's powers here. The full list (as per TK) reads:

1. He antagonized and nearly drove away some of our very best editors, while contributing few edits himself.
2. He blocked, without justification, many new editors, even after I warned him.
3. In general, he simply seemed to constantly demand attention from many of us with little productivity.
4. He claimed to know Jerry Falwell and Ed Meese; he claimed to dine with Mary and Jim Carville; he even claimed to have fallen on Nancy Reagan during an assassination attempt.
5. He failed to answer simple, direct questions.
6. He seemed to rely more on RationalWiki for information than our own site.
7. Several Sysops insisted to me privately, with lots of alleged evidence, that TK was an enemy."
8. Blah, Blah, Blah...lies, lies, lies.

Ironically, exactly the same behaviour he exhibited upon his re-promotion at CP. I think you, as Director of Counter Intelligence, need to be investigating just why Andy allowed his project to be sabotaged. Again. What was the link between TK and Andy? What hold did TK have over Andy? People want to know. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WHAT THE FUCK

I don't even know anymore.^img - Jpop (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's Rob, he's just fucking with us. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yea. Its imposible for Obama to have done anything of value. You were to easily bought in by Obamas mind control. Its obvious Bin Laden was long past dead. Godspeed.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I supposed Osama was killed sometime in late 2001, because Omar Sheikh has been in prison since early 2002. Amazing how Osama prerecorded all of those audio and video messages in anticipation of this random betrayal! - Jpop (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's a really old troofer PRATT. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Most importantly, this is effectively positing that invading Afghanistan was a misled endeavor. Clearly that is somehow Obama's fault. - Jpop (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for those not familiar with this troofer quote mine, if you actually watch the interview, Bhutto is talking about Omar Sheikh, who killed US journalist Daniel Pearl. She accidentally switches the names of OBL and Pearl in that one sentence. As if this point weren't dumb enough, it's impossible for Sheikh to have killed OBL anyway since he was in jail at the time for the murder of Pearl. Plus, Bhutto referred to OBL as living in a later interview. At this point, I'm waiting for them to post links to the Journal of 9/11 Studies (It's peer-reviewed!) to prove Osama had actually died in 2001! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The current MPR is a thing of beauty: "Osama's dead! Rejoice! Erm, this was all Bush's accomplishment - Obama should shut up about it already! He's not really dead anyway! WHERE'S THE DNA ANALYSIS?!" It's fun to watch Andy frantically try out different lines of attack until he's found something that lets him criticize Obama, inconsistency be damned. Röstigraben (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's such a wonderful example of Andy's (and by default Conservapedia's) attitude that "anything I don't like is all bad all the time." Even if he has to resort to pathetic attempts to avoid giving even grudging acknowledgment to Obama. Once again it shows that Andy has a major hang-up with Obama (did you want to be HLR President so much, Andy??) and he is one of the most mean-spirited individuals it's been my misfortune to stumble across. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 07:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories abound on the trustworthy encyclopedia

And you wouldn't believe the crap people were calling in on NJ's radio station, 101.5.

• 1.) It's all fake (How do you fake this?)
• 2.) Osama's been dead since 2001, Israel will go to war with Iran, all to raise gas prices (haw?)
• 3.) The Bhutto thing (See above topics)
• 4.) 9/11 was an inside job and Osama was innocent (Just... no)
• 5.) Obama just wants to get re-elected (It's 1.5 years away. Bush Sr. had sky-high ratings after the Iraq war and lost to Clinton).

And what the fuck is CP getting at by saying "Questions are emerging now from liberals, libertarians, Tea Partiers and even a relative of a 9/11 victim about whether the killing of Bin Laden happened as claimed".

BTW, sea burial isn't prohibited. Not burying within 24 hours is. I think I have more fingers than the collective IQ points of the people in this country. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

then you have at least seven fingers. Seven and a half if you count Puerto Rico and the Philippines.---brxbrx 04:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could Andy be any more predictable^img?. Seriously, read the comments above. People saw this coming a mile away. All that's missing is a "Give it up, Obama". Bonus points: the HEADLINE of the linked article describes the skepticism as "conspiracy theories". --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

First, it's truss-worthy, not trustworthy. Second, it shows what we all knew all along -- CP will latch onto anything, no matter how batshit crazy, to "discredit" Obama. Third, there are already assloads of conspiracy theories on CP, mostly of the birther and evil liberal science variety (see EVILution and global warming). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This man is a FUCKIN' RETARD^img:

"The government claims it was a "virtually 100% DNA match";[2] another report said there was "99.9%" certainty it was Osama Bin Laden. But real DNA matches are 100%, not "virtually 100%," with certainty of identity of 4 billion-to-one rather than merely 1000-to-1."

--Night Jaguar (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Andy is about to embark on another "release the data!!!!!!!!" binge... Next we'll hear that Professor Lenski faked the data. Or that Professor Lenski is bin Laden... (even though that's more of a Rob-ism, I know). άλφα^Talk 06:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Obama have an identical twin? That would explain the DNA match.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Obama... but bin Laden has family all over the place. άλφα^Talk 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to start a thread on this. If CP editors need any more evidence of how extreme they are then they are mentally challenged. They are absolutely rushing to entertain conspiracy theories about bin Laden's death, and it's kind of sad. They have lost any modicum of temperance; bin Laden's death isn't a conseverative v. liberal thing. It's a human thing, and polarizing it says more about what kind of people they are than anything else I've seen. --Leotardo (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is becoming painful to watch^img:

"When someone claims that DNA was a "virtual match," then the obvious implication is that it was not a real match."

Seriously, this guy has a law degree from Harvard. Actually, if he wasn't there while Obama was, I'm pretty sure he would be questioning whether Obama ever went there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Where did all these liberal vandals questioning Andy's conspiracy theories come from? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In other news, ColinM commits Wiki suicide^img. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

RELEASE THE DNA!- OF OBAMA AND OSAMA!!!. What a wonderful new call for Teabaggers to howl! I'm loving this! God Almighty, I can only imagine how the elite echelon of reasonable Republicans with a brain are unable to sleep these days. --DogP (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexa: RW vs. CP

I know alexa is shit, but CP's obsession with it makes it fun to announce that our 1 month alexa rating now tops CP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

lol. I hope Ken

reads this---brxbrx 05:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All he would do is simply ignore it or fall back on googling obscure terms in even more obscure google localities. These are the same people that claimed a "record number of visitors" after a DDOS attack... άλφα^Talk 12:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to look at the long term trends you need to add rationalwiki.com to the list to compare it to. We'd need another few months to see the "hockey stick" graph produced continues upwards or tails off. ADK^{...I'll execrate your snorkel!} 12:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is ever going to believe a 'hockey-stick' graph after Al Gore invented the internet, or bought that big house or whatever it was he did. Donate his sperm to Obama's Mum? Kill John Lennon? --DogP (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Emmerich de Vattel

Hi all,

So this is a pretty small thing, but it now has a pride of place on mainpageleft: Wikipedia removes Emmerich de Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen"^img

The WND article linked to gives a nice little link to the Wayback Machine, to prove that Wikipedia "shows a reference to de Vattel on April 10 in an account [...]". But look! On April 29 it mysteriously wasn't there anymore! Obviously it was removed because the WP liberals didn't want their article to cast doubt on Obama's citizenship, right?

Well sure. Except by "April 10", WND meant "April 10, 2010". The particular paragraph had been removed from the article some time before the White House released the President's long-form birth certificate, and there was a discussion on the talk page dated November 2010 about whether or not the passage was reliable. When you actually look at the history of the page as it appeared on April 10, 2011, there's no mention of de Vattel at all. The paragraph was subsequently re-added for some reason after the long-form birth certificate was released. So yeah. The opposite happened.

Just another case of liberal bias at Wikipedia, I guess. Lamy (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that the mention of Vattel is there now. That's the beauty of wikis that Andy can't appreciate: you can edit stuff yourself! - Jpop (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia editing locked?

Is it just me or is editing at Conservapedia locked? I don't think my account there has been banned. Infoseek (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They lock the database at night (their time) and when there isn't a sysop around to keep tabs on recent changes.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I didn't realize they were so paranoid. You wouldn't think a few malicious edits persisting for a few hours during the night (in the US, the only place that matters to them) would represent such a large problem. They keep such a close eye on changes that everything that ends up in the articles must really represent what the senior admins think. Infoseek (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Given how paltry their policing is, the paranoia is almost necessary. During the hours of the night, a group of users could easily make thousands of malicious edits before anyone noticed. 08:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You are speaking of Ken

? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

that was pretty funny---brxbrx 19:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible policy. Should we consider implementing it? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shoplifting

Oh yeah, right. Only Liberals steal^img.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Only Liberals shoplift. Conservatives wouldn't stoop to that level: they'd rather swindle millions out of pensions. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've ceased to be surprised by any negative trait/characteristic CP throws at liberals. To date, these include but are not limited to, bullying, racism, shoplifting, positive discrimination (or "affirmative action" as you yankees call it), uncharitableness, mass murder, causing breast cancer through abortion, whining, atheism, lying, censorship, communism, stupidity and obesity. Apart from finding a link between liberals and rapists, there's not much else they can call them. SJ ^Debaser 09:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the proven FACT that lieberals cause miscarriages and crop failure and raining toads through their evil witchcraft? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided a long time ago that unless an entry is made by one of the subnormal six, you can write it off as parody. Even if DM is being sincere, his edit only serves to make CP look sillier. Also don't forget bedbugs, they're the fault of liberals too. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the bedbugs. My pubic lice can only be due to a female with a prior sex life. Harlots like that wouldn't be allowed in the Republic of Gilead Andyland so this is clearly the fault of those who oppose Andy. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

CP (more specifically, TerryH) got this one right: bin Laden died a coward's death, hiding behind a woman.^img Werll, that assumes you fell for the official story that he's dead.^img MDB (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pah! Don't you recognise chivalry when you see it? In true conservative style, he was saying "ladies first." --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard a report on radio 4 from an American security agent that this story is completely untrue. He claimed to have seen the footage of the raid (and sorry I can't recall his name but I will try to find a link) and he said that the woman was not his wife and OBL was not sheltering behind her when he was shot. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical about people who claim to be "American security agents" (especially if they actually used that particular term.) MDB (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

However, I will trust it when the White House says the same thing. MDB (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, that's the report I heard quoted by the bloke. It was a name I recognised, I just can't remember it. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shout-out to AugustO

Oh, you poor innocent noob! When an edit disappears without a trace^img it has nothing to do with a data glitch: it has been oversighted, probably by the same person you are asking for help. So, no, DouglasA hasn't answered your questions - and he has not the slightest intent to do so. He just wants to get rid of your comments - and of you... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Something's wrong

Is it bad that I heard about this^img on CP before any... um... more legitimate news outlet? - Jpop (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We're on it. You heard it here first, folks.,.. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that darkie can do something right, huh Rob? Why wasn't he mentioned prominently in the headline. This is definitely a great triumph for Negroes everywhere. Seriously, it's affirmative action in action, according to a racist cunt like Schlafly. Why not trumpet that from the highest mountain? Nutty Roux (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oughta do wonders for his 41% approval rating (we'll know in days the bump; typically about 10 pts). Maybe can even disentangle now completlely from the Afghan war and give it back as a safe haven for terrorists. Too bad the 2012 elecwetions aren't next week, it'll be forgotten by then as America is strangled by $6 per gal gas. Obama speaks in 2 mins. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

6 Americans killed. Could've been done with a predatore drone, but had to send in ground forces to get the body. 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory Rob. - π 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How the fuck can you retrieve a body with a predator drone? By shooting missiles at it? - Jpop (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob is a truly disgusting person. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I got it on the local news first. And I think it was on the Saloon Bar before it was on MPR... Quaru^{idiot - You can't explain that!} 03:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted on it a full 9 mins before MPR.. See what you get for only reading the Conservapedia space? Quaru^{idiot - You can't explain that!} 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone should change the WIGO to reflect the fact that they made things up like 6 Americaqs dead and that we've known for months. --Opcn (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If I didn't restrict myself to the CP page, I would lose any remnant of free time I may have. - Jpop (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

just listened to prexxy, no Americans killed.---brxbrx 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) No Americans harmed apparently. Fuck you Rob. - π 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Put up a fucking source for "ABC News reports 6 Americans killed." Nutty Roux (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Until he gets that source that is mysteriously absent from the ABC News homepage, I think the updated WIGO pretty much sums it up. - Jpop (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching ABC News now, and they're bragging "no US casualties, no civilian casualties" Quaru^{idiot - You can't explain that!} 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

atta boy, rob [1]^img---brxbrx 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, your typing randomly gets atrocious. Do you drink? Senator Harrison (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, since the obvious needs to be pointed out - it's not just about getting the body (and who'd have believed he was truly dead without one), but the intelligence from raiding the compound. Even with the distributed organization of Al Qaeda this is the leadership compound, and going in with special forces means we likely came out with data and high-value captives that will lead to more arrests and thwarted attacks.

Guess it's too much to expect that you'd congratulate the troops who risked their lives before focusing on the downplaying & negative spin, and all because it happened on Obama's watch. So far we have:

"Well, they didn't get the #2 guy"

"We knew for months but didn't do anything"

Coming soon:

"The cost of the operation wasn't offset by other budget cuts"

"Obama allows the body to be buried by Muslim protocols instead of stuffing & mounting him"

"Where's the death certificate?"

--DinsdaleP (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you know what's important and what isn't, Rob. I'm sure this insignificant piece of non-news will soon be buried under much more exciting new developments, like some guy on YouTube mentioning CP or ZOMG WHERE ARE THE COLLEGE RECORDS??? Röstigraben (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They could've hit him August but he waited til his poll numbers were in the dumpster. Meatime he had more important things to do to clear the decks for his 2012 bid, like, kill the birthers, Oprah's final tapping, ignore his own debt commision to posture for the budget debate, and a major cabinet shuffle. Gates goes out with a big win, but in the Libya deal, Obama didn't have a clue. Hillary says hit em with a no fly zone, but Gats said that's crazy. So Gates is out the door and Panetta, the utility man, is called in. Now we have to wait a few years years for Gates' tell all, but by then nobody gives a fuck. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you really are the most stupid man it's been my profound lack of pleasure to encounter. Do you really think it would be a better idea to storm into an enemy headquarters straight away instead of waiting until you're sure you can get the target you're after while gathering more intelligence on the organisation itself? The allegation that he waited for political reasons is so stupid it makes me wonder whether you type my consciously pressing keys or by mashing your face on the keyboard (although since you originally reported that "Ladedn" was dead and that "Americaqs" were killed, I'm still not sure). Luckily, the huge crowds of people cheering outside the White House aren't as stupid as you. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} Röstigraben (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's strange. I didn't see Rob's quote in this round up. StarFish (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait til reality sets in. He'll get a 10 pt blip in the polls in three days, but as American's pay $600 to $1200 a month, month after month, to drive to work, and when Obama has to explain why we're still in Afganistan, and Libya, people will say, "bin Laden who?" Both had thier 15 minutes of fame. The crowds outside the White House remind me of GW Bush with the bullhorn at groundzero. The public's fickle, and lives on gasoline. That's all you can take to the bank. nobs^{don't bother me} 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... $600 - $1200 per month to drive to work? Okay, take the low end of that, and assume a 30 day month. That's $20/day to commute. Assuming $4.00/gallon for gas, that's five gallons a day. Unless you're driving some behemoth-mobile that gets atrocious mileage, or you live fifty miles from work, that's a ridiculously high estimate for the commuting costs due to gasoline. MDB (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I live in a Western state were commute times are much longer than back east or the midwest. And per capita income is only 3/4 of the national average. For exmple, Moriarity to Albuquerque is 40 miles, not a large distance by Western standards. A coutry hick with a pickup truck and low mileage, who moves to Moriarty cause rent in a trailer park is maybe $250 per month compared to $500 in the city, drivces 80 miles a day and gets maybe 10-12 mpg. He could easily pay $250-350 per week commuting cost -- and public transportation is not an alternative. Also, there are no jobs in his home town, so he has to commute. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an extreme situation and you darn well know it. That's no more typical a gas usage pattern than mine (I live three miles or so from my office, and drive a Prius. I put ten gallons in the tank every 2-3 weeks, and probably spend less than $100/month on gas, depending on how much driving I'm doing other than going to work.) MDB (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Extreme my ass. Just cause some bum-fuck hillbillie with 1968 Ford pick-up truck and a Ron Paul bumpersticker doesn't wanna live around dope dealers and city folk, but has to commute forty miles, is no reason to treat him as subhuman or extreme. He can't afford a Prius. And this is the American west. People in the east don't know people three blocks from them, wheres people who live 175 miles apart here are 'neighbors'. Hell, there are people out here with diveways thirty miles long (see Hwy 285 Vaughn to Roswell, NM; it's a 97 mile commute and there is nothing, I mean not a fucking thing in that stretch. Better hope you don't break down without water when it's 100 degrees out, it's a long walk up one of those driveways to ask for help). nobs^{don't bother me} 01:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the hick should get a vehicle that has a better fuel consumption than the one he is driving then. he doesn't need a 12mpg pickup. The hick has chosen to drive a fuel guzzling vehicle and now he is having to pay for it. Tough shit. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That hick is too stupid to live if, to save $250 per month in rent, he choses to live 40 miles from work and pay over $200 per week in fuel. Bondurant (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not go the whole hog, Rob, and change the CP story to "Black illegal immigrant in Washington kills elderly man in violent attack"? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen a map of the area where he was killed. It's a typical built-up, urban area so a predator drone would have caused huge civilian casualties. I know you don't care about darker-skinned people, Rob, but most people would regard avoiding civilian deaths as a "Good Thing". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like to think Rob also doesn't believe what he writes, but simply does it because he wants to stay in Andy's good books. That said, making up unsubstantiated shit about soldiers dying, is a new low - even for Rob. Oh, and harp on the high petrol price while you can Rob - because it's almost the US summer. And guess what happens when the US stops guzzling all the oil it does in winter? Prices come down. Still, I guess any straw will do. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

we just been there, $2.59 per gal & 10% unempoloyment. Now that people go back to work they drive more. So yash, Obama can get unemployment back up to 12%, sure we'd have $2.39 a gal gas again. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill Osama under Bush and it's a great victory. Kill Osama under a black man and it's not enough. What does the negro boy need to do to earn your approval, strangle every muslim personally with his bare hands or just do a Michael Jackson and bleach his skin white?? 08:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, they didn't know where Osama was back in August. August was when they first learned of the possible lead. From there, they gathered up info.

Also, Rob, I've never seen so many non sequiturs in so few sentences ever before. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Personally I am enjoying the morning of May 2nd's WND's main page headline in big bold letters about the possibility of "Online 'birth certificate' document 'was changed", along with the next several main page links being associated with various Brither conspiracies and accusations. Oh the new that Osama is dead? That is just a little side link, no big deal, I mean Obama's dad was kicked out of Harvard, WND reports, now that's big news!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"They knew for months" Wow, for a self-appointed director of counter intelligence you don't know much about intelligence gathering. However, I can reveal the truth now (and all it took was a special handshake with Barry) - he deliberately waited until the 8th anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" clusterfuck, just to rub his nose in it. --PsyGremlinSprich! 09:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You really are a fucking moron aren't you rob? Considering all the intelligence fuck ups under the previous republican administration you would think even a fucking plank like you would applaud someone holding off until they were certain the intelligence was corect before decisively acting. But no, you have to twist and distort the news to fit your sick little mind and it's sick little agenda to attack Obama for everything he does. You are worse than the shit on my shoe quite frankly. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of the Press Conference where details were announced. I think this is where Rob got his "August" line from, but you'll NEVER guess what! Rob didn't read the article properly! I know - I can scarcely believe it myself. August 2010 was when the residence was first identified. It was home to an Al Qaeda courier and his brother that they had been tracking because he was believed to be "one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden" and that he "he might be living with and protecting bin Laden". It wasn't until the last couple of months that it became clear that bin Laden might be in the compound. Note that even today, they only thought it was "probable" that bin Laden was present. In other words, the President waited until he was as sure as could be before giving the order. So once again, learn to read Rob. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that Rob like's to think of himself as some sort of McCarthyite head of counter-intelligence but I'm afraid that he's countered intelligence so much that he's now as thick as pig-shit.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How long before Andy starts asking to see the death certificate? :) JumboWhales (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What they really needed to do was put his head on a spike on London Bridge (apparently they've already got one).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the notion of retribution and payback is not very Christian. Perhaps more evidence of Islamic-style justice. nobs^{don't bother me} 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points, Rob. I can't wait until Jpatt adds "killing Bin Laden" to the "Obama's Muslim agenda" article. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yo, bobby, dont strain yourself moving them goal posts. They do get pretty heavy.--Thunderstruck (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"I think the notion of retribution and payback is not very Christian". Oh really?

Let me know when you've got the "Conservapedia Anti-Capital Punishment" started up, and we'll spread the word, Rob. --DinsdaleP (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, Occasionaluse, that's so funny. But not even Jpatt would be retarded enough to add this to the "Muslim agenda of the Obama admi-OH FUCK OFF!^img --Sid (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That may just be the stupidest thing on CP, ever. Even worse than the flying kitties... thing. Does this mean that we actually have a conservative agenda for making fun of conservatives? Or does this mean that Jpatt is a fucking idiot and doesn't know what agenda means? Does that mean we have a fucking idiot agenda? Makes you think... - Jpop (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Further Andyland conspiracy theorizing: Liberals are whitewashing Wiki again, plus Al Gore thinks he invented the internet.^img Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it's fairly clear from their condemnation of Obama's attack and the lack of even a single patriotic "Go, America!" comment, it's clear that Conservapedia is actually a front for an Al Qaeda cell, with Andy and Rob as its leaders, both of whom are now in mourning. We know Andy is teetotal and has never been seen to dance, and Rob's poor command of the English language, clearly indicates a hurried crash course in the language, prior to going forth to do Allah's will. Thus, I can with 95% confidence that both are Muslim extremists.

Deny this and lose all credibility. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless they release the long-form certificate saying they're not a front for Al Qaeda. ADK^{...I'll bake your zealot!} 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Rob, the raid on bin Laden's home recovered ten hard drives, five computers and more than 100 storage devices. Such a shame they didn't just fire a predator drone at the compound and blow the whole lot up, eh? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Go Andy Go!

He's on a roll now: Was Bin Laden even there?^img Another to add to his witty collection of rhetorical questions. Alongside "Global warming?" --PsyGremlinTal! 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it so much to ask that the US government lets me conduct my own DNA analysis? Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And he's citing that LIEberal rag, TPMuckraker. Osama was always dead! Building 7! Fire can't melt steel! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And he's left the other mpr comment slightly further down shouting out that OBL was a coward and used his wife to shield him. So he's now contradicting Robs on mpr. Go on Rob, go give him hell. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that Andy can't be convinced about something if it has proof or arguments other than "Read da Bible!" Carlaugust (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He'll literally believe anything as long as it's not good for Obama. Andy is totally defined by hate. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A little logical analysis

There is simply no way it makes sense for the killing of bin Laden to be fake.

There's two possibilities:

1. bin Laden is still alive. The Obama administration would be insane to announce his death in a US raid if he was really alive, considering he could easily humiliate the US by posting a video of himself holding a newspaper announcing his death (kind of like the picture of a laughing Harry Truman displaying the "Dewey Beats Truman" newspaper.) Unless you want to go down bat-shit crazy conspiracy lane (Obama the seekrit Mooslim terrorist conspired with bin Laden to fake his death and allow him to go into hiding... oh, hell, in a hidden bungalow at Camp David where Michelle Obama services him in lieu of the seventy-two virgins -- if you're going crazy, might as well go all-out) that would require the complicity of a huge number of participants, it makes zero sense to claim bin Laden is dead if he's still alive.
2. bin Laden was already dead, Obama is just taking credit for it. This is slightly more plausible, but... why do it now? If he died during the Bush administration, they would have dearly loved to announce in Laden's death, even if they couldn't take credit for it. If they had, for some reason, decided not to announce it, that would require two administrations with widely differing viewpoints to keep it a secret. If he died earlier in Obama's term, the time to announce it would have been shortly before an election, not at a point where none of the major Republicans have even formally declared a candidacy. At most, you could argue it was a distraction from the birth certificate issue, but Obama had already sucked the wind from those sails by releasing the "long form", and it was only the extreme birthers holding onto the issue at that point. MDB (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Often conspiracy theories only have motive to go on. But considering those two points, they don't even have that to go on. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your infinity!} 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why Andy is crazy. If bin Laden was alive, he would have released a video right fucking now. He loved him some video releases, and this would be such a blow to America, it would be impossible to resist. I would almost imagine if bin Laden did release a video saying he was alive and that his death was a fake, that Obama would almost certainly have to resign. But, since the right can't think past "I hate Obama -> he's lying", they don't get far enough down the road to realize that bin Laden is living in a pineapple under the sea. Carlaugust (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be shocked if Al Quaeda were sitting on a video just to stick it to the West world in the case of Bin Laden dying---brxbrx 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"it makes zero sense to claim bin Laden is dead if he's still alive" ---> Well, I've heard the conspiracy theory that Bin Laden is still alive, but was captured and is now being "questioned" ("burial at sea" was a *wink* *wink*). They just said he was dead so there wouldn't be any attempts to rescue him and also so that they can torture him all they want. Of course this very far-fetched and extremely unlikely (something this big would be hard to keep secret and absolutely disastrous for Obama if it were ever revealed), but at least it makes some (a very small amount) of sense. However, since it still means that Obama captured Bin Laden, Andy is definitely not going to endorse it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That, at least, is conceivable, though still, as you said, far-fetched. (My scenario was, admittedly, designed to sound ridiculous. The realistic version would be that Obama the seekrit Mooslim terrorist conspired with bin Laden to fake his death and allow him to go into hiding in a hidden bungalow at Camp Davidat his Kenyan birthplace where Michelle Obama services him in lieu of the seventy-two virgins. MDB (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The best part of OBL being captured, would be to watch Andy & Co suddenly railing against the evils of special rendition, Gitmo and water-boarding. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The only other reasons I can think of for throwing the body in the sea (rather than handing it over to Conservapedia for expert DNA analysis) is that the body proved the official story wrong, somehow. Like he'd surrendered and then they executed him, which a decent autopsy would show, or the body was otherwise brutalised in a way that'd make the US look bad. Other than that, MDB is right. Claiming he's dead when he's not would be a really, really stupid thing to do (unless they're hiding him somewhere for torture or whatever, but even that has ridiculously high risks; Obama's administration would be humiliated if it ever came out) because it's so easily proven wrong. Osama being already dead makes slightly more sense but it's a really bizarre time to announce it (other than the anniversary of Mission Accomplished, I guess, but that's a pretty petty reason to hide something so important for so long). X Stickman (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perspective

Just to give Andy's latest insights some perspective, let's look to WND polls, which is a barometer for crazy. Only 7% of WND kooks are skeptical about Bin Laden's death. Contrast that to Obama's long form birth certificate, which over 80% believe is a forgery. That's how crazy Andy is. Crazier than WND. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"The timing of Obama's order was perfect to distract from his eligibility trouble" is the top answer, so I think we can say that the 'craziness' is just subjective here, they're just one-track minded. And the second top answer isn't much better, as I haven't read anything to suggest torture did find Bib Laden, mostly the opposite, in fact. ADK^{...I'll burn your catamite!} 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the first answer still implies that Obama had Bin Laden killed, they're just questioning the timing (as opposed to, say, March). Your second point is just wrong. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Even more perspective: "I think Obama's telling the truth on this one as well."^img - Karajou (technically on the DNA question, but that is directly tied to the "Did he or did he not?" one) --Sid (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That made me feel weird. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised by Karajou not hopping on on the tin foil hat bandwagon as well. But most hysterical was JanW's histrionics of what would happen^img if it came out that we thought we killed him when we didn't. Essentially, all of western civilization collapses, greatest scandal in US history, US government collapses, Obama resigns, and the terrorists "total victory against the West" if OBL is still alive! Who knew everything was so fragile! --Leotardo (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

άλφα totally called it. Andy seems to be going all Lenski on Osama's DNA^img. He's become so, so predictable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are still some blood stains in Abbottabad. Go collect the shit yourself and get all CSI to your heart's desire, Andy. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Even his inconsistency is predictable: "Osama died, but it's to Bush's credit. No, wait, he was killed in 2001 by Omar Sheikh. Oh, I mean he isn't dead at all, duh." - Jpop (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was even wondering when he was going to get all excited about the Conservative victory and Liberal defeat in Canada^img. Ignore the fact that the even more-to-the-left NDP saw its greatest victory and that Canadian Conservatives are closer to being Democrats than Republicans. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

JDWPianist seems intent on committing Wiki suicide by injecting sanity into the discussion, but RobS saves the day with a new conspiracy theory.^img. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy goes full Deather

"How is a new video released in the likely event that bin Laden died years ago???^img" Man! it must be embarrassing to be affiliated with Conservapedia! --Leotardo (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anyone left at CP has no sense of shame. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is brilliant. The birther movement has gone racist nutty, we have the new deather movement, and meanwhile, people who don't drool are accepting that Obama is a natural-born citizen on whose watch Osama was killed. Nate Silver on Five Thirty Eight has been stressing that bin Laden's death doesn't make Obama a shoo-in for 2012, but the longer lunatics like Andy force the GOP to focus on batshit crazy stuff like this, the more likely it is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bible Benazir Bhutto said it, I believe it, and that settles it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just visited Planet Conservapedia for the first time for a few weeks. Truly, utterly insane! It confirms my view that Andy must be a deep, deep troll. Surely...??? The Real James Brown (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's give Andy the benefit of the doubt here. Keep in mind he was the first one to break news of Castro's death. DickTurpis (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He's an Alleger. Obama allegedly born in Honolulu. Osama allegedly killed in Pokistan. UPDATE: Who's' reading over here?!^img --DogP (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fun to see Conservapedia trusting the word of a Muslim woman above that of the US military. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that speculation about Andy's sanity gets tossed around a lot here, but this is one of the few occasions where I've really felt like he's descending into madness. It was easy to be dismissive of most of what Bush did, because of a few horrible decisions, and his refusal to acknowledge any errors. Andy has similar qualities, except he never learns from his mistakes. There are a few people on CP who keep on pointing out that these things make them look dumb, and it's in their (and the site's) best interest to go after policy. These things are getting sort of creepy. I used to be able to usually understand Andy's perspective, but he's trying harder than makes sense to discredit Obama here. Lardashe 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The worst part, to me, is that they think they're making some kind of difference. Andy's not some guy ranting in a small room to himself, he's ranting on stage in a theatre, only he hasn't noticed no one's in the seats. Poor lil' guy. X Stickman (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted to note that the only people insisting Bin Laden may not be dead are Andy, Glen Beck, the WND'ers and the rest of their kind and The Taliban. The silence of the Teabaggers on this issue is deafening. As is normal, the opposite ends of politics form a perfect circle and you can see no light between both sets of extremists. They are truly brethren. at this moment. DogP (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits such as this one^img also make me wonder whether he's losing his last few scraps of sanity. I'd always thought it would be Obama's reelection that would finally get him checked into a mental asylum, but apparently this event was already too much for him. Röstigraben (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Castro is dead and Osama is alive

Maybe they're being body-doubles for one-another!!! 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

O_O MY MIND!! IT'S BLOWN!!!!!! Carlaugust (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hurting Muslims' feelings

CP is suddenly very concerned about it.^img - You can't explain that! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I know, right? They'll do anything to smear Obama. He could abolish taxes, cut public school funding entirely, and make homosexuality illegal and they'd be so stuck in their inertia of hate they'd defy their own Conservative beliefs and complain that he's infringing on American freedoms and is violating Christian principles of social justice. Only fucking Conservapedia.---brxbrx 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt will add that to the "Obama's Muslim agenda" article in five… four… «-Bfa-» 00:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait... would a Muslim allow another Muslim to be buried in a non-Islamic way? --PsyGremlinHable! 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Current Theory

OK, so if the current theories of the lunatics are correct, Obama was born during the Cold War a Muslim in Kenya (or Indonesia) and secretly brought up in Hawaii by an undercover Muslim agent doubling as a white Mid-Western woman under the influence of her emigrated (and dead) Kenyan ex-boyfriend who was influenced by a Egyptian writer from the 1940s so that nearly fifty years later he could rise to power to become POTUS, destroy the US economy and then pretend to kill the world's most notorious Islamic terrorist while secretly hiding him so that he can bring him to the US, then stand down and let Bin Laden become Grand Mullah of America and bring in Sharia law to the US so that a New World Order can arise and finally turn back the defeats of the Crusades? Am I missing something? Help me out here, I'm having a hard time detailing this story. Perhaps this should become an article?--DogP (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that he's simultaneously an evil genius and really dumb (which is why Bill Ayers ghost-wrote his books). He also has a sooper-seekrit Obamacare army, which is probably made of ACORN (which secretly still exists) and members of black nationalist groups that Obama definitely has ties to like the New Black Panther Party. He will work with Osama to use this army to steal everyone's guns and to lock up white people in FEMA death camps, leading to the Obamageddon and economic collapse through his intentional devaluation of the dollar and banning offshore drilling. His secular-socialist machine will then impose Sharia and martial law on the US. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...Obama Cube. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We can just combine all the conspiracy theories into one giant Obamageddon article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to mention his centrist tendencies EVIL OBAMUNIST plot to support for the economic stimulus BANKRUPT AMERICA by printing money to spend on BLACK HELICOPTERS for the FEMA SHADOW GOVERNMENT. -- 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

don't forget the FEMA concentration camps--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't even make sense

Not that logical consistency is a noted trait for conspiracy theorists, but note that many people who believe Obama is a secret Muslim who plans to implement Sharia law throughout the United States are simultaneously outraged about his support for gay marriage (which he doesn't - at best, he's not frothing-at-the-mouth opposed to it.) Do they ever even stop to think devout Muslims are as opposed to same-sex marriage as they are? MDB (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike birtherism, I can actually sympathize with "deatherism"

If we do not have a skeptical minority who demands proof for a claim by the government on an issue that theoretically could be manipulated, we can easily go down a dangerous slope where we blindly trust our government over any claim it makes. Bin Laden's photo should be released. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

so we can masturbate to images of his corpse?---brxbrx 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So, CE, when was the last time you (personally) trusted a claim by the Government of the United States of America?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure I disagree with ye, but if we don't trust anything then we're going to be spending a lot of time checking up on things instead of getting things done.

Now, this is a BFD, Osama's death, one would think we could trust the government on something like this because it'd be a nightmare if the government was lying about this...so much of a nightmare that the nightmare would stave off the possibility of the government lying to us. 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Trust but verify. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with skepticism or keeping the government honest. He's only demanding evidence because this event makes Obama look good. When pictures or video are released then we'll start hearing about photoshopping and staging. However, if there were an event that made Obama look bad Andy would be totally credulous and believe every word of it. This is pseudo-skepticism. He's ultra-skeptical about claims that are politically inconvenient, but credulously believes anything that fits his agenda or preconceptions. When asked for evidence that certain college majors existed (e.g, Comic Book Art, Parapsychology, Surfing Studies) the fact that they sounded absurd was enough to satisfy him they were real^img.

You see this pseudo-skepticism in a lot of people. The only distinction about Andy's is how blatant it is. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume of course CE that you were at the forefront of those asking for solid evidence of the non-existant wmd in Iraq used to justify the invasion and you were resolutely opposed the treatment of Valarie Plame because of her husbands exposure of the lies of bush and his administration? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If we do not have a skeptical minority who demands proof for a claim by the government on an issue that theoretically could be manipulated, we can easily go down a dangerous slope where we blindly trust our government over any claim it makes.

Wow, where were you during the "Iraq has WMDs and links to al-Qaeda!" days. oh right. It was a Republican saying those things, so they must have been true. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone loves McDonalds!

Someone loves their McDonalds. Very encyclopedic.^img. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To bad Jpatt-down does not.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This could have been directed at Andy personally

Obama said the photos of bin Laden's body will not be released, and added "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway."

I doubt Obama even knows CP exists, but really, he could have been talking about Andy directly. MDB (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, Andrew Schlafly is a pathetic little man that Obama couldn't care less about. Rationalize (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant -- Obama was speaking in general terms, but what he said definitely applies to Andy -- you know darn well if they did release the photos, Andy would claim they were photoshopped. MDB (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, obviously. Rationalize (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy (and most conservatives) Hatred of Obama is so massive, that Barry O could show up on andys doorstep with the dead terrorist, the DNA results and facial recognition results and all andy will say is "Show me the kindergarden report card"--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Obama thought Andy was a giant asshole when they were both at Harvard Law and this whole Presidency thing has been nothing but an attempt to piss off Andy. It's worked tremendously. Source: too absurd and useless for someone to make up with a straight face. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rational Wiki has been great in these post OBL days, but Night Jaguar's post above really made me laugh. --Marlow (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia More Accurate For Political Information Than In The Past

It's so typical: Andy reads an article about how accurate and unpartisan wikipedia has become, and the only thing he quotes is that he himself was mislabeled. He should ask the obvious question: how would conservapedia fare under the same investigation, i.e.:

Brigham Young University political scientist Adam Brown focused on past and present candidates for governor across the 50 states. Brown fact-checked biographical information and voting statistics and found very few inaccuracies. When Brown conducted the study, Wikipedia contained articles for 230 of the 246 major-party candidates that ran for governor between 1998 and 2008. Brown found that all of the verifiable biographical information in those articles was completely accurate.
Even though election statistics can be tricky topics as well, Brown found that most were trustworthy. He found only four articles that reported a difference of more than 1 percentage point from the actual election result.

Not so well...^img

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The irony is, of course, that Andy is absolutely not a conservative. He has defined a conservative as being someone who thinks like he does, but his libertarianism, birtherism, deatherism, stance on Biblical rewriting, beliefs that Biblical miracles weren't miraculous but just "signs", etc, etc place him on the extreme fringes of American political beliefs. He's a radical, not a conservative. Definitely right-wing though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As always it's the bits Andy leaves out that are illuminating. Immediately after the headline "partisan" sentence, we get "Not so much now." And yes, if CP had to be measured on the same basis, they would fail dramatically. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, not sure about Schlafly not being conservative. One definition is the desire to want to go back to a mythical better time - probably some sort of 50s where everyone knew their place. Radical in how to get there but conservative nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what you'd call "reactionary" - which is also a fitting description for Andy. "Conservatives" are supposed to be the defenders of the status quo, not in support of turning the clock back a century or so. Röstigraben (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By that you mean the 1350s, before all this pesky science stuff came along to mess with his mind. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Apart from keeping women in their place, none of Andy's views were mainstream in the 50s. His curious mix of biblical literalism coupled with his desire to rewrite the Bible to ensure it says exactly what he wants it to would have horrified 50s conservatives. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Small C conservatism is all about not wanting change to the established order. It's a human cognitive bias (doing nothing is irrationally considered to be a safe default) made into a political philosophy. It literally doesn't matter what the established order is. In this sense all conservatives are reactionary, although they wouldn't define themselves this way. Schlafly is not conservative, in the same way that many of the people he labels "liberal" are clearly not liberal. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, obviously whatever perfect time he imagines never existed. But that doesn't stop him wanting to go back to it - which equals conservatism of a sort.

The re-writing the Bible and all that malarkey isn't anything he particularly believes in. It's just his incompetent way of trying trying string along the peons.

And the word incompetent is key here. However we try to describe Schlafly's political stance and his methods, it always basically boils down to that word.

The man is an incompetent fool with delusions of grandeur born from his family's moderate success. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Rost got it right - he's not a conservative, but a reactionary. Conservatives don't deride book learning nor support any of the other things SR mentioned above. Most conservatives find what Schlafly and the rest of the CP crew believe in to be objectionable, and that's born out all over the Internet when conservatives and Christians with actual followings discuss CP with derision. --Leotardo (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

When Joseph Farah thinks you're batshit crazy, you know you're doing something wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Or you call Farah a liberal and keep right on with the crazy. 86.157.97.15 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

CP's not above that. I seem to remember one of the sysops essentially called Bill O'Reilly a liberal because he was "hiding" Obama's having multiple Social Security numbers. - Jpop (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a finance professor who insisted that Bill O'Reilly is a centrist who "really presents both sides of the issue. He's not 'right-wing' like people keep making him out to be." Now of course, compared to this professor, maybe O'Reilly is a centrist, but still. άλφα^Talk 08:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

While O'Reilly is generally right-wing, I believe he does have some views that are generally considered left of center. He's also not an ideologue the way some of these others guys are; his first priority is not necessarily to toe the party line. DickTurpis (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember, CP's default position for "somebody who said one thing that I disagree with, despite how much I've agreed with him in the past" is "liberal" - so take it whence it comes and with several truckloads of salt. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Birthers & Deathers: Will Conspiracy Theory Mania hurt CP?

I ask this as a question but it's difficult to imagine CP being any less influential (nobody cites them as a source outside of Ken's spam circle, and I don't believe there is one mainstream conservative outlet that has praised anything about them). But over the last four/five months I've noticed an explosion of conspiracy theory. The latest shows how far they have gone - they have on MPR a Birther story^img from the oft-ridiculed WorldNetDaily that boils down to "The birth certificate gives the name of the birth doctor, but some random person somewhere said it is somebody else so now it's difficult to know who to believe." Is there anyone left on CP who is even slightly hinged that the site's sharp turn into a conspiracy website will make them throw the towel in? Joaquin? --Leotardo (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy is like a pet, or a little child. While he understands the difference between positive and negative attention, he thinks that both of them ultimately help achieve his goals of spreading conservatism. If people look at the site, dismiss it, and never come back, he thinks he's winning because of the page view. If people see it, think it's hilarious, and decide to keep watching, he wins because of the page views. The only way that Andy loses is by preventing page views at all. - Lardashe

Joaquin's the only one who might leave, but he's already put up with a load of shit so it seems unlikely that this would be the final straw. What's interesting is the number of parodists people being allowed to point out what an idiot Andy is on the talk page. It lets Andy look even more stupid, but is more likely to benefit CP because more parodists people will come along to feed the lunacy, hence more page views. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin must be so mild-mannered as to be pathetic to want to be part of CP. I don't like that they are allowing so much of the "Andy is an idiot" discussion because it makes them appear that they are actually an open forum for discussion, when we know that's not the case. --Leotardo (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It does seem as if these constant conspiracy theories are creating dissent in the ranks. Apart from one excited new user, Andy is the only one who gives a shit about this deather BS. - Jpop (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The only time Joachin threatened to leave was when he was admonished over his copyright vios. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Birtherism/deatherism can hurt Conservapedia in the same way a bullet can hurt a corpse.

Sure it can make the rotting remains look chaotic and even more disgusting, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's already dead and the maggots have taken over. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well put. --Leotardo (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New parodist?

AzadJ "outs" a liberal after noticing said user's love of that "socialist" sport soccer.^img Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty new, but isn't this against the rules? - Jpop (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So few people give a fuck about CP anymore I don't think it matters if we violate those rules. Outing "parody" usually refers to stuff in articles anyway, speculating on someone's comments is alright. SJ ^Debaser 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Azadj is trying too hard as a parodist. He's no TK. Rationalize (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you could be less crazy than Andy and still be an obvious parodist, just because no one else would ever come close in a sane world. - Jpop (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Azad's a parodist. as for the rules, it's only the wigo's that can't out them. it's fine to discuss parodists here.---brxbrx 22:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. The convention is that we don't reveal parody in articles even on this page. WIGOing parodists is frowned on because it's only crazy when the regulars do it; some arriviste parodist writing something ridiculous and us then mocking it isn't funny. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"How liberals denial and downplay" sounded familiar. - Jpop (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Phail^img. Rationalize (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I like how he says we blew his cover, as if he wasn't being extremely obvious anyway. The only reason he wasn't blocked right away is Andy probably liked having someone on his side in the deather argument. - Jpop (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Azadj is also breaking the first rule of good parody... don't make all your edits Talk space... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Any time Andy makes a complete ass out of himself, he will accept anybody who agrees with him. Remember that time when he openly embraced a Holocaust-denier and gave him edit rights within two (talk!) edits just because he happened to agree with Andy? Sure, Karajou tried to enforce 90/10 (three days later - days filled with nothing but talk edits) and gave him a three-day block... but that was shortened to just a few hours later. Current status is that he's unblocked, but without edit rights (which he only lost half a year later). --Sid (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I CANT BELIEVE HE'S NOT BLOCKED. Rationalize (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER, EITHER! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ME NEITHER BUT I SUPPOSE IF YOU MIX A BUNCH OF OILS WITH SOME YELLOW FOOD COLORING AND A LITTLE CREAM IT CAN RESEMBLE BUTTER BUT NOTHING WILL EVER COMPARE TO FLAVOR OF HEAVY CREAM CHURNED CONSTANTLY TO MAKE REAL NATURAL ARTERY-CLOGGING BUTTER THAT WE ALL LOVE. Rationalize (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

he's blocked. also, if you look at Dmorris' recent blocks, I think it's safe to say he's an idiot.---brxbrx 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For people who are arguing that the convention is we don't discuss parodist, that is not the convention, parody is fair game to discuss, and there are no good arguments for not discussing parody. --Leotardo (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares anymore? Who the fucking fuck fucking cares? Mountain Blue (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the only person who brought that up, and I was merely asking, not arguing. - Jpop (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

another one

JimmyRa is def. also a parodist, though only slightly more subtle than azad---brxbrx 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[2]^img---brxbrx 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

FSM fail

In other news, CP attempts to parody the FSM with unsurprising results^img Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying too hard...of liberals? Carlaugust (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who's the author? Stupid "parody/satire" essays are normally Ken's realm, but this has actual writing and no images, so I'm confused. --Sid (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DMorris. The guy has no sense of humour at all. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Just a quick rebuke, in case they start to think we're ignoring the point they're trying to make:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster religion attempts to point out the flaw of creationism and intelligent design by saying that if we are to believe in a creator without evidence from the natural world, we may as well believe in any creator. This cannot be applied to Dmorris' essay simply because the theory of evolution was conceived entirely on evidence form the natural world, without jamming in any religious texts. However, I must say that this attempt at parody and satire is much, much better than those many barely coherent and repetitive ones by Ken

---brxbrx 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's some faint praise. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article started off as something that I thought could be totally funny, and hilarious, and actually be good parody... but then it ends the first paragraph with: "We know this because science can't explain God, and anything that science can't explain simply does not exist."... which then requires you to claim that science can prove a plate of spaghetti started the universe. :( --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a funny premise, but the execution fails epically, and not just because of the complete lack of comedic timing or delivery. Effective satire requires some level of understanding. Without even the most basic understanding, you will end up looking like an idiot, and the only people who laugh will be the ones mocking you or the ones who also don't understand the subject. And if you take the supernatural out of a supernatural plate of spaghetti and use that as a basis to mock "evolution" (read: origin of the universe, origin of life and some side-note mentioning of actual evolution), you'd be fighting an uphill battle even if you understood the subject. --Sid (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sid, DMorris wrote it. He is quickly learning the ropes ova there- kens protege. Rationalize (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia: Ok, one more time- Just because science can't explain something, does not make another suggestion valid. For example, scientists say they don't know what came before the Big Bang. That does not mean that any other proposed suggestion becomes valid. It means scientists don't have evidence for anything before the Big Bang. That's ALL that is being said. Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Leak question

If I wanna leak the chats and emails I had with TK (that weren't off the record per his paranoia) who do I forward that to? --Opcn (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Psy. If you need his email address hit me up on email. - π 08:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did somebody call? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in copies, too. nobs03@gmail.com thanks. nobs^{don't bother me} 21:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now don't everybody send all your videos of Kara Duhe to that email address! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK so who is

Brian here^img and here^img. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My first assumption was that it wasn't someone from here. I'd hope that we're all a bit more subtle than that these days... although recent events lead me to believe otherwise. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same SR. I actually beleive the guy is genuine having read his struggles with the karajerk over time. Sadly he thinks that andy will notice and/or care. Perhaps someone can sock up and invite him over here so at least his criticism of cp and the karajerk wil be noticed by cp sysops. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And can I just point out that you lose 2 internets for (being the first person to reply) not saying I am Brian and so is my wife...... Oldusgitus (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn. They were my last two. I smoked the others earlier :( –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, you get one back for that reply which made me smile after a REALLY shitty day at work. :-) Now, use smoke it carefully. 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help, but I can't claim credit for the joke - it's a variation on an old Goon Show joke. Search this for "gorilla" and learn how "No thanks - I only smoke baboons." can be a killer punchline :) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that everyone over there except Andy Schlafly is a parodist. Seriously though, I am starting to think half the editing over there is done by Rational wiki members. Given that our traffic equals Conservapedia's, I think it is safe to assume over half the traffic to Conservapedia is from people going there to laugh at it. We'd probably deal Conservapedia a mortal blow if Rational wiki ever shut down and we started ignoring Conservapedia. Not that I am for such a merciful death. Infoseek (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Concept: The Christian god is like Andy

So, here's the concept... it is common to assert that no god would be so cruel as to make the world the way it is... but then we see how Andy runs his little world... uncaring and apathetic about the atrocities wrought upon users by those in power... perhaps this is why people like Andy and Kerajerk, and Ken

like the Christian god so much? It appeals to their ego, and they self-identify with him... ---Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 01:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just the opposite, I'd think. It's Cafeteria Christianity. Andy and co. pick the parts of the Bible that agree with them and throw the rest out (cf. battling "liberal bias" with the Conservative Bible Project). Part of my family is very into the social justice side of the religion and they're heavily involved in church charities and things. All you hear from them about the Bible is about the rich man, camels, the eye of the needle, and bullshit about how the fire-and-brimstone of the Old Testament was overridden by the New Testament or some such. Man makes god in his own image, as some guy once said. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell, you've given me a scary thought to consider: just how fucked up would the world be if teh Assfly's version of gOD really had created the world? You're right, though, that it's interesting just how many commandments Andy breaks while running his own little world. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly Toilet Paper fiend

For^img posterity^img as it will soon disappear (even though it has been there since 2008! lol). --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Who the fuck cares? --Kels (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

STFU 3 years and no one noticed? Pathetic, + its funny. Rationalize (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So them not noticing an article that none of them (or anyone else) would be likely to search for is a big deal? Sounds like Ken being impressed by coming in #1 for his own obscure searches, right down to the maturity level of the "jokes". --Kels (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that it only exists in the revision history there is not a lot to hide. I would guess that the editor who pointed it out was probably the one who posted it in the first place. If you look at the history you can see that JPratt deleted it back in 2008 but his claim to have blanked the revision is a source of lulz because it's another Johnny Xray fail. Let's see how long it takes for him to get it right (no clues now, folks). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Likely a rat-sponsored sock elevating nonsense, no further action will be necessary. (Fuck you, Jpatt) --76.205.114.186 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean "Fuck you, Jpatt" or "Fuck you. Jpatt"? You are a moron, Johhny. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

With Pratti's levels of literacy it could even mean "Fuck? YOU, Jpatt!" Although that thought will give me nightmares... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully ken mk2 has screenshotted^img the offending page in case the assfly wishes to see how nasty the lieburul was. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh - he probably just used our screenshot. I got a kick out of the joke of Andy being so full of shit he holds the world record for toilet paper usage, and that it was there almost three years - those guys are sitting on top of a garbage dump that they can't maintain. Haw haw haw. --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What a bunch of haters. Good, keep a permanent record of your despicable practices, ill intent, inability to debate issues, ad hominems, and proof everything Andy says about liberals and liberalism has a solid basis in fact. nobs^{don't bother me} 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Rob, I realize you are an egregiously stupid person, but come on! "Inability to debate issues"? This coming from a guy whose never been able to debate a single thing in his life? And please tell me how one guy vandalizing one CP article somehow proves every attack on liberals Andy has ever made is somehow correct. DickTurpis (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Haters. What a peculiar word coming from a sysop at conservapedia. Yes, your site is so welcoming to everyone, and by everyone, I mean everyone who is white, male, American and christian. Do go fuck yourself. Rationalize (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with your point, Rationalize, but let's not personally attack Rob, or any other CP sysop who chooses to post on this site, for that matter. Isn't it enough to pointing out their closed-mindedness / logical fallacies / lack of critical thought? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break Tabrcg. Rob's notion that somehow we have an interest in trying to tailor ourselves on a chat board to convince wingnuts 'liberals ain't so bad' to curry a favorable impression from people like Rob made me laugh out loud. Particularly considering the bile, name-calling, gossip and conspiracy theories you guys traffic on Main Page and throughout your blog daily? When are you guys going to start tailoring yourselves to prove us wrong about you? Oh, right, never. Your or any CPer's pronouncements as to our disposition go in one ear and out the other, because you guys don't live what you preach, particularly His TPness Andy. --Leotardo (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)