Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive241

This is an archive page, last updated 7 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <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)

Is Conservapedia Funded by George Soros?

I can't wait to see what direction this proposed new essay^img goes (and if it really is tolerated by CP admins). It does kinda make sense — Soros is supposedly a liberal hero, and anyone outside of Andyland can see that CP is only hurting the conservative cause. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I would estimate a survival window of 14-32 seconds before it gets memory holed, regardless of quality. But I sure hope it happens anyway! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's noted that Rob is being less and less of a dick on the site. How long before the tide turns against him? He posts here regularly, he has confronted Ken about his stupidity, and he's actually encouraging the site to be a living, breathing place where discussion can take place. None of this is good from CP's perspective, nor from ours. So - how long before Rob goes down the memory hole himself? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob will get smacked by Andy and he'll go back to normal. That's my bet. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's plausible; Soros created & funded CP with parodists to discredit the conservative movement. And this reasoning givs everybody cover, CP Admins, RW editors, etc. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, wait... Does that mean I'm actually conservative? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob is raising the possibility that "CP is the Westboro Baptist Church of the Internet" is the angle of the Soros essay. It couldn't be anything else. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but what he's proposing, contrasted with what you just said, just warped my mind around the axle of the universe trying to contemplate/comprehend some strange Bizarro-World scenario where the Westboro Baptist Church is really a bunch of deep-cover Christians posing as deep-cover atheists posing as over-the-top extreme fundamentalist Christians... Because of their deep-seated hatred for themselves? Holy crap is this confusing... I need a beer. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's right. In case anyone is unfamiliar, there are quite a few evangelicals who think the WBC is really a liberal conspiracy to tarnish the more reasonable, common sense homophobia that evangelicals espouse. They point to things like Fred Phelps supporting Al Gore in another era. And WBC has been a gift to the gays: we could never have asked for better from a group that is primarily anti-gay, to also celebrate dead soldiers at funerals and all the way to the Supreme Court. It has forced bigots in small towns everywhere to re-think their beliefs, because who would ever want to be associated with that?! In my opinion, WBC is awesome for the same reason I think CP is awesome. So if Soros is funding CP: awesome. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The flaw with the "Phelps is a liberal conspiracy" thing is that there's a good deal of evidence he's mentally unstable. Which still doesn't rule out some kind of plot, but it seems to make it less likely. MDB (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And also that forming a family cult to take religious "parody" to this extreme would mean the entire clan is sick in an even more bizarre way than religious zealotry. It's like what we were saying about Ken if he was a parodist - it would be more sad if that was the case than he's just a mentally disabled conservative weirdo. Phelps also has children who have denounced him, so they would surely expose that "it's all a big goof on extremists" if that was the case. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the denouncements are part of the hoax itself. If Phelps is a hoax, and I don't believe for a moment he is, then it's probably one of the most successful hoaxes ever. MDB (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Soros founding of Conservapedia is another examle of Ratfucking. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not WIGO'ing Ken, but...

... this^img is flat-out slander. MDB (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

his reference is dubious, too [3]--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, the linky has been deleted/oversighted. Thank goodness for CB. It's fun watching Ken run amok over there. It's as if he's finally realised he's never going to be smacked down for anything. I also like how half the refs in an "encyclopaedic" article on the Trussworthy encyclopaedia are from a Wordpress blog. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The linky may have been deleted, but the article still says he's a pedophile. MDB (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Legally it's not possible to defame a deceased economist; they're exempt. CPfan (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And now there's this^img. Aurélie wanna talk to me? 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful crap. MDB (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Virtually anything Ken does I support because he degrades CP so much. The suggestion was swatted down at WP. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec x 2 bastards!!!!) Fan-tastic!! Seriously, who needs parodists, when you've got Ken. Countdown to appearing on the main page in 3... 2... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the "Keynes at Harvard" hitpiece Ken cites and cannot find any reference to Keynes himself being a pedophile. The author is careful to imply but never openly assert it. The closest the screed comes are mentioning that Keynes traveled to places allegedly known to be frequented by homosexuals and where children were sold for sex; and that Keynes recommended to a friend that he travel to Tunis, where "boy and bed" were available. I'm sure all of us have traveled to a place well known for something or other and not participated in it. When I go to India this winter I promise I will not attend a single cricket match. This "boy and bed" quote is given without context. In the sexual parlance I'm familiar with it more likely simply means that there are plenty of young men to have sex with. Straight people describe places they pick up sexual partners similarly. As with cp:Atheism and Obesity, Ken misreads his source to draw unsupported conclusions in order to sate his depraved need to slander all ideological opponents. He's a thoroughly dishonest man. I believe men like Ken Demyer and his fundie ilk are examples of very religious people who jettison every last vestige of innate human morality in favor of uncritically obeying the mandate of a fictional sadist. 15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And he shits all over the main page.^img As expected. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

of course, he locked and redirected the talk page, so we can't remind him that "voodoo economics" actually refers to St. Reagan's supply-side bullshit --User:Brxbrx/sig 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear god what a terrible essay. The opening paragraph doesn't make any sense, which is bad enough, but then it quickly goes into accusations of pederasty by Keynes, as if that has anything to do with economics. It really saddens me that people as stupid as Ken DeMyer exist. I thought, as a species, we had progressed beyond this. DickTurpis (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He's obviously just trying to provoke us. And it's fun to see him try and get our attention.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wonder, do stupid people know they are stupid? It seems Ken doesn't, but surely he must have an inkling that he has some sort of mental deficiency. DickTurpis (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a meme here that Ken

has bipolar disorder or OCD or some kind of epilepsy for which the medication has weird side effects.  It's also a meme that he's just a parodist.  We will never know unless we meet him IRL--User:Brxbrx/sig  17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's clear Ken's just jumping up and down, begging for a WIGO. I'm sure we can expect this paedophile meme to spread through CP over the next few days. Also, the sad fact, especially when you consider how he replies to questions, is that Ken thinks he is immensely clever. Even sadder is that Andy thinks the same. --PsyGremlinFale! 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's nonsense aside, I thought Keynesian economics was the cornerstone of capitalism? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that we've got such a cracking "featured essay" and "article of the month" combo, does anyone wish to upload the cap of the current mainpage^img for the WP article? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

fucker that screen cap nearly crashed my browser!--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Way ahead of you, sunshine. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well played Sir, well played. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Between paedophile economists and atheists unable to explain the eclipse, thought a new screenshot was needed. --PsyGremlinHable! 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@brxbrx -I think it is beyond a meme that Ken has psychiatric problems. OK, we may not be able to make an accurate diagnosis but he has admitted that he has some 'medical' problems and his 30 hour editing marathons are certainly  not indicative of a normal, sane human being. (It's  only a wiki!) Also he does have a high regard for his intellectual ability. While claiming to have a Mensa level IQ the quality of his writing and the standards of his essays show that he has little creative flair of his own; perhaps more Rain Man than brain man. Генгис^{Gum disease} 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken and resources

A technical question: According to this^img, Ken

's obstinate habit of ignoring the preview-button is not only uncivil, but wastes resources, i.e., disc-space.

How much space are we talking about? And shouldn't Ken

be encourage to keep up his modus operandi in this case? By trying to talk sense into him - his reflexes always kick in when someone tries to be rational with him...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It could get significant when you're talking about some of Ken's

magnus opera but it would be hard work, for example his homosexuality article is almost 200K long. It'd take about 5500 revisions to fill a gigabyte of storage space. Given terabyte hdds are pretty common these days, you'd have to do a lot of work to make a serious dent, but given his many revisions to get picture sizes just so he could do it. As a side note to ken, oversighting the revisions won't help. They still exist in the database. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems that WikiMedia is tailored to Ken's use: "Empirical evidence shows most revisions in MediaWiki databases tend to differ only slightly from previous revisions Therefore, subsequent revisions of an article can be concatenated and then compressed, achieving very high data compression ratios of up to 100x." He would probably understand that as a validation of his piecemeal editing habits. Gomer (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I really know nothing about MediaWiki's underlying software, but one of my major professional skills is software source code control.

If you're dealing with a version control system for files that are largely ASCII test based, which is what a wiki is at its most basic level, then the system is probably only storing the differences each time. Thus, each of Ken's micro-edits is only using up a small amount of storage space; it's not storing a complete new copy of a given page for every edit.

Now, Ken is still wasting resources -- the proper way to go about it would be to do one "significant change" at a time. For instance, let's say he was editing an article on Hillary Clinton. The proper way would be to add "proof that she is a secret lesbian" as one edit, using preview as needed, save that, then add "Marxist ties", save that, and then finish up with "proof she murdered Vince Foster", and save that.

By doing that, each major change is a separate entity, and, with good version control software, a given change can be reverted without affecting the others.

By contrast, Ken is adding a few bytes of storage each time. It's a little more space than if he was doing what I describe above, because each save takes up a little space, just due to saying "hey, there's a change here." But it's not like each edit to his 200K homosexuality article represents adding 200K to the database.

Admittedly, this is all supposition on my part. It's possible MediaWiki software really done store each revision as a complete copy every time. But it would surprising to me to find out that what's a generally well written piece of software, designed to store large amounts of data, would be as inefficient to store each revision as a complete copy of itself. MDB (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, you'd think it isn't storing a complete copy of every page per edit, but you'd be wrong. Expecting the designers of MediaWiki to have done anything the right way is pretty much insanity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? They story a complete copy every time? That's just stupid. MDB (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Diffs are generated dynamically. The resources issue is why liquid threads gets floated for pages like this and Saloon Bar. 12:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the total resource use of Conservapedia is relatively low, Conservative must still be using a disproportionately high amount of it, right? If Andy was only paying $1 a year in hosting fees, Conservative would be costing like $0.60 by himself (these statistics brought to you by Schlafly Statistics. X Stickman (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I hate lazy programming, and that's what that is. It's the philosophy that disk space is cheap, so we don't need to write efficient code. The proper way to do it would be store the individual diffs, and have the current full version of the page stored separately. That way, you easily display either without a lot of processing overhead, and you get efficient disk space usage. MDB (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the best way to store it would be diffs and keyframes. Most revisions are stored as diffs from the last keyframe, but you're reasonably proof against data corruption. It'd probably make the sense to store the last x revisions as keyframes too, to make access to the latest revisions fast. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

From a talk by Mark Bergsma, linked at the source given by Gomer above:

• All revisions of all articles are stored
• Every Wikipedia article version since day 1 is available
• Many articles have hundreds, thousands or tens of: thousands of revisions
• Most revisions differ only slightly from previous revisions
• Therefore subsequent revisions of an article are concatenated and then compressed
• Achieving very high compression ratios of up to 100x

It would be interesting to know how many revisions are concatenated: I assume that this depends on the length of the revisions.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That only applies to wikipedia, the default MediaWiki storage backend just stores them in a MySQL table, one row per revision. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a layman who doesn't know what a keyframe is, but from the way you use it, it sounds like a bookmark or a snapshot. Is it that? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought disk space is cheaper than the processing power needed to do it the other way. 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a keyframe is essentially a snapshot. It's a term from video compression. Digital video is a series of still frames shown one after another, and to help compress it down to a reasonable size it'll generally be stored as a series of keyframes, which are the whole picture, followed by a sequence of changes to be applied to subsequent frames. You can see it in mildly corrupt movies, the picture will go all munged and static-laden for a second or so, then sense will reassert itself instantly. For the same reason, you can happily drill 2mm holes in a DVD and still play it.

As for the running time required, it's something of a trade off. The number of times old revisions are accessed tends to decay exponentially with its age. The latest revision is accessed frequently, and should be stored or cached as the complete article for short run times, but older revisions are probably worth compressing to prefer space saving over time. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On the "how to store changes to structured but human readable text" thing you probably want to look at systems like git or Mercurial which do this on an industrial scale although they also do a whole bunch more. Getting one or two serious God-level modern revision control hackers to look at Mediawiki would probably pay for itself on a Wiki the size of Wikipedia. Maybe they'll do it one day. As to keyframes. Yeah, they are called I-frames in the video industry. There are actually two other kinds, P-frames can be turned into a finished image working from the preceding I-frame, and B-frames can be turned into a finished image working with either the preceding or succeeding I-frame. B-frames make it possible to run a digital video "backwards" in a way that's convincing enough to be somewhat useful, yet realtime on modest hardware. But a B-frame uses more storage space, and makes no difference to the fidelity of a video played in forward direction, so B-frames are often not used when space is at a premium. Actually the shiny new codecs you use on Youtube or the latest generation of online movie services, don't care about "frames" any more anyway, so this whole discussion is like explaining a two stroke lawnmower engine to someone who drives a Prius. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Moon == Undeniable proof of God!

So we had a total lunar eclipse the other night, and sadly because of my physical position on the globe, I missed it. Of course during such events, the Moon doesn't become visually black and completely obscured by the surrounding night sky, it instead appears to us with a deep red hue. According to Andy there is no natural explanation for this regular phenomena, ergo it must be my supernatural design^img; perhaps to remind us all of his god's perpetual bloodlust (or his religion's perpetual bloodlust). Of course if Andy spent, ohhh, five seconds on Google, he would learn that astronomers long ago explained why the moon appears a deep red color during such eclipses because of purely naturalistic reasons. Yawn... This was hardly worth writing about, but this is the guy who thinks the universe is no larger than 12,000 light years across, and the Earth is at the center. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he's more aiming for the usual "This is beauty -> beauty doesn't just happen by chance -> God exists" angle. Kinda depressing, really. --Sid (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose? If a blood red Moon is associated with beauty. In Christianity it doesn't appear to be. Really its hilarious to me because the actual explanation is so simple, and has been known for so long; it just feels like Andy is grasping at straws. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's just the attitude you have to adopt to be a creationist. No matter how well known, elegant or simple the explanation that exists for any phenomena, just close your eyes and scream "GODDIDIT!GODDIDIT!GODDIDIT!" until you've convinced yourself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Starts With a Bang is my fav blog. That article made me wish I was anywhere but North America when it came across my aggregator yesterday. As an alleged engineer, what would Andy's response be to that hyper-lucid explanation? It couldn't be any simpler... and yet it's unexplainable! Fuckin' creationists! 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like how when Andy says "atheists can't explain" he means "scientists can't explain" - which speaks volumes about what a prize douche he is. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that a great deal of time coming from creationists, especially in dealing with evolution. I often wonder if they understand that they regularly equate science with atheism; also, if its intentional or just a knee-jerk reaction to anything that brings their religious beliefs into question.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I was reading PZ Myers' take-down of Hurlbutt's "creation science" stuff - it was a good read. One of the comments was great: "What's always striking is that they never invest in the tremendous "possibilities" of their pseudoscience. WTF are they waiting for? Going to let others reap all of the "rewards" of discarding science? No, instead they invest in companies that utilize evolution and the old earth, never bothering to start up their brave new science. It's almost as if it were all about religion, and not at all about science..." Highlights mine - excellent point. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a great point. For all their carping about being shut out of mainstream academia yet having real "creation scientists" pursuing real "creation science research," what are they really doing? Where's the substantial research? Where are the innovations that naturally follow from real scientific innovation. Some of these creationist outfits have shitloads of money - more than individual principal investigators get in real laboratories. You'd think if their sweeping theories of everything were true they'd be able to come up with something. Nope.

What else shows the dishonesty of their beef against anything that conflicts with their religion of biblical literalism is that, while they bitch endlessly about the so-called failure of the ToE to produce anything of value and the lack of transitional forms, etc., they're never critical of the far longer periods between significant advancements in other areas of science. The modern evolutionary synthesis is, at most, like 60 years old and it's almost entirely dependent on technological innovations. Given the recency of even being able to probe the inner workings of the genome along with all the other methods of testing the ToE's predictions, the science is developing at a truly astonishing rate. But what about the 220 years between Newton's Principia and the Special Theory of Relativity? Or the 275 years between Galileo's relativity and Einstein? What about scientists having the basic observation that the speed of light is constant since 1676? Everything after that was confirmation, dialing in for accuracy, and the bounty of some thought experiments done by very smart people. Are creationists critical of 19th century physicists for taking so long to make accurate calculations of c? No. What about Einstein, Poincaré, or Lorentz? Nope. They like the Special Theory of Relativity when they can use it to prop up their weird cosmologies. 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I like the point about investment because if you were to look at the investment portfolio of any Young Earth Creationist who owns stocks, I bet you that most of the companies whose stock they own employ science, old Earth (haha) and evolution in some way along the chain of their products/services going to market. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Like always, there's an XKCD post that explains it well. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recap, please?

Hey guys, I'm back from my little two-week vacation, so what'd I miss? From what I see, Ken is still being Ken (dear God, I check CP and literally don't see a single edit until I deactivate my no-Ken script), TerryH is still linkwhoring his blog...

...oh, and Rob made a Community Portal, with predictable results. *laughs*

So that's my big-picture first impression. What details did I miss? Any new Andy Insights? Awesome Jpatt essays about how the US needs to arm itself and prepare to take down the Anti-Christ Obama? Yet more bird stubs? New toon, maybe? --Sid (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The only really interesting thing that happened is that Rob actually tried to talk sensibly to Kendoll, which revealed he doesn't just do his idiotic non-answer thing with us, but also with his fellow admins. I guess this means it isn't an affectation that he thinks makes him seem clever, but actually makes him look insane, but rather how he actually is. Other than that, Andy is still wanking, Chuckarse is still spamming, Ed is still being creepy, JPatt and Karajou are still being morons. Another couple of weeks in the "life" of Conservapedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also someone (forget who, but it's WIGOed) called ken out on his not using preview for his micro changes. There's comment above, several times. Apart from that there's nothing new. Pippa (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

CP is on a pedophile kick with 2 new essay's trying to link liberal economic solutions to pederasty. Its really amusing.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor that called him out was our good friend AugustO, he of the CBP "at this moment" translation discussion. Also, Talk: Main Page was deleted and recreated with *poof* all the talk gone! Jdellaro (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In Andy's imaginary 2012 Presidential race, Tim Pawlenty (Running), finally overcame Rand Paul (Not Running), as most likely to win. Most exciting was that Jeb Bush (NR) is now at #2, even though Jeb's Florida political operation is working for Pawlenty (R). Donald Trump (NR) is still ahead of Rick Santorum (R); Mike Huckabee (NR) is beating Trump (NR); Herman Cain (R) beating Huckabee (NR) but bested by Chris Christie (NR) and Marco Rubio (NR). It has been something of a nail biter since you left. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump is still running as a Republican, that's funny because I always thought he was running as a joke. 14:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Ken still loves deleting shit. For instance, he just deleted talk:main page. - Jpop (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Only Ken, who has good reason to hate edit histories, deletes a page when archiving it instead of just cutting text. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

somebody needs to call an ambulance.

Right now, it is almost 11 in the morning on 16 June, Eastern Daylight Time. If my skimming of the logs is correct, since 1:55 on the afternoon of 12 June, a certain editor whose name begins with C has only taken a couple of 5 hour breaks and a handful of 2 hour breaks from editing at a website that also begins with C. P-Foster (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what he does during his breaks. Perhaps a nap on a cot. My mental image of Ken is Philip Seymour Hoffman's character in Happiness. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously these are the times he has NOT been editing for gaps in excess of an hour (checked by hand so I might have missed one or two

• 10/6/11 - 04:24 - 14:42
• 10/6/11 - 15:36 - 22:20
• 11/6/11 - 01:26 - 04:09
• 11/6/11 - 05:44 - 16:27 (with one at 12:12)
• 12/6/11 - 02:17 - 13:55 (with one at 06:43)
• 12/6/11 - 14:44 - 18:02 (with one at 16:49)
• 12/6/11 - 22:41 - 00:19
• 13/6/11 - 04:12 - 12:13 (with one at 08:10 and one at 10:37)
• 13/6/11 - 13:03 - 17:12
• 13/6/11 - 22:51 - 00:40
• 14/6/11 - 01:37 - 04:45
• 14/6/11 - 06:06 - 20:41 (with one at 13:17, one at 15:39 and another at 15:41)
• 14/6/11 - 20:49 - 00:55
• 15/6/11 - 04:46 - 08:17 (with two at 06:08)
• 15/6/11 - 13:03 - 16:48

He really doesn't sleep much. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he just passes out on the keyboard for an hour, then takes a few minutes to erase the "eraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaovnoavno;avno;aeoibnppfeomwevopevskm;kldfvkmqvfiombfer" X1000 from the menial edit he was attempting when he passed out. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nahhh, he'd leave that in, post it, go back and edit it out, oversight it, then burn the whole thing down, recreate it, redirect it to his talk page, and then protect it. Jdellaro (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is obviously a bot.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true. Ken is a bot. My fave is when it goes on edit binges on Conservapedia OCD. Zero mental problems! Occasionaluse (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

( block delete move patrol (i.e., comment) protect upload)

Just to illustrate your points: The pic shows Ken

's edits according to the logs, so his deletion sprees have no effect on the graph (though oversighting has). Obviously Ken has very variable periods of sleep, and there is nothing which indicates such a thing as a day at work... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously because Kendoll is a great writer, whose work is very much in demand right now. He had to take a 90 day sabbatical from CP to deal with his huge workload. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pearls of Wisdom

Coke eyes makes the conclusion that global warming doesn't cause earthquakes^img. I bet you'll didn't know that! Fortunately he does tell us what does: Plate techtonics supernatural curses upon humanity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the strangest part is his weird quotation of revelation 9:21. Where the bible reads "sorceries", Chuckarse interpolates "drug abuse." How the fuck does that work? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this guy really an MD? Pippa (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, I was just looking that up. According to a few sources, "Only here, Revelation 18:23; and Galatians 5:20, where φαρμακεία sorceries, A.V., witchcraft is enumerated among the "works of the flesh." Used in the Septuagint of the Egyptian sorceries (Exodus 7:22. Of Babylon, Isaiah 47:9, Isaiah 47:12). From φάρμακον a drug, and thence a poison, an enchantment." And also: "21. sorceries-witchcrafts by means of drugs (so the Greek)." From Terry's handy-dandy Greek-English pocket dictionary is where I assume he got this. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he's a vet. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems I still have noob questions

Why are we removing capture tabs?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because all CP links on WIGO are captured automatically if you use the "votecp" and not just the "vote" tag. --Sid (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly CP, but...

Read this Chuckarse section on "Biblical support for Israel [sic] oil" and facepalm. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gold coins. Israeli oil. Too bad for the Nigerians Terry would have nothing to do with them. - π 05:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I read this yesterday (I see Hurlbut as CP-relevant). If this turned out to be true, it really would change geopolitics, Israel and the west. I had trouble finding mainstream articles about it. I found an op-ed in the Financial Post from "Lawrence Solomon", whoever that is. Daniel Pipes of anti-Muslim hysteria, wrote a column about it in the National Review. What I found so distasteful about Coke Eyes' column was the bloodlust he--and evangelicals--continually display. He'll take any positive Middle East news and start salivating at the prospect that somehow it could lead to war. In his ramblings, the prospect of war often outshines the news itself. I also think he's a big fat liar about his educational background. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He at least repeatedly claims to have gone to Yale undergrad and Baylor medical school. I don't know how to confirm that, but it's what he says. If it's true he is decently educated, and I tend to believe it's possible from seeing the breadth of his interests and the quality of his prose (content notwithstanding), something truly terrible happened to him since he finished his schooling in the 80's. I usually chalk the kind of pedestrian creationism you see in your average fundie up to their cultural milieu dogmatically reinforcing ignorance. These more zealous advocates, who clearly have enough literacy and facility with the science/ancient languages/history/politics to read and misrepresent them, make me wonder if they had some kind of brain trauma or organic deficit. Nothing else adequately explains the incredibly high levels of deceit, or disconnection from reality, pick one. 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I go back and forth on the education thing, but you could be right and he suffered a stroke or some kind of accident. I mean, for a man to seriously talk about "pods" of dinosaurs using lake monster myths, with no hint of embarrassment, is pretty stunning for someone with even a community college degree, and far less with the top schools. At least with Andy you could see he has some sort of family brand he has an investment in propagating. Coke Eyes seems to live in nothing but a fairytale world to a degree I find alarming, perhaps because he writes well enough. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's because an all-out war in Israel is required for the End of Times/Rapture/PreTribulation (forget which crazy Christian theory calls for it). I think Terry seriously believes that's going to happen, and thus is actively calling for all-out war in Israel to begin the Last Days. Jdellaro (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote: In the article, I can understand translating Rosh Ha’Ayin to "head of the spring" as that may appear *relevant* to the article. But WHO CARES that the Israeli newspaper Ha'Aretz translates to "The Land"?! It'd be like writing "Al Jazeera ("The Island") reported today..." It's a fucking newspaper, you moron, you don't have to translate the name of it---IT DOESN'T MATTER! Jdellaro (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In the light of eschatology you're right, which is why "Biblical support for Israeli oil" now makes more sense. [note to self: end times people inject that into everything] I thought it was funny he pulled a bunch of random quotes that mention oil out of the Bible. There are quotes in the Bible that support rape and pedophilia, too, according to this Islamic critique of the Christian Bible. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of eschatology--Terry throws some more Revelation quotes into a new article about global warming and earthquakes. This dude is SERIOUSLY clamoring for the Rapture! Jdellaro (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to read it later because the first paragraph was annoying enough. He wrote that critics blame Bush for letting Hurricane Katrina happen, because of global warming, but his own source doesn't support that. Bush was criticized for his dithering and ineffective leadership in responding to the aftermath, not because he can't stop hurricanes. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to old Chuckarse, that rapture is approaching piece is written by his chubby partner in grime, Roseanne Salanitri.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Phonics

I'm not up to speed when it comes to the debate about "phonics", but Andy is confusing me^img here because his note basically grinds down to "If you read it wrong (by not noticing the "e"), you'll read it wrong" - how would magic phonics help me when I miss a letter? --Sid (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it surprise anyone to know know that blow head is full of it once again? we do NOT read by phonics. we may LEARN to read that way, but linguists studying the cognitive skills of the mind assure us that we read by pattern recognition. it's why we can read something with a typo in it, and simply not "see" the typo. we assume that what we are reading will follow patterns, and the mind is often words ahead of the eyes, depending on what we are reading. If i write "How now brown" your mind will assume the next word is "cow", so if i write "cat" you may just not see it. but that would mean that Andy pants actually READS something beside his own excrement that is spat all over the pages....En attendant Godot 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

EC Man, Andy hasn't brought this up in ages. It's like back in the day. Phonics is conservative. Whole language learning is liberal. That's all you need to know, really. P-Foster (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect phonics is conservative because of this and this. But hey, who knows. 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

one more rant cause the guy fucking annoys me when he goes off on shit he does not undersand -- his example of using phonics for "pro and pre scription" fails because phonetically, we often say "per" in every day speech, so we confuse ourselves about it being per or pre. (granted, pro is quite different, but almost no one talks about proscriptions anymore).En attendant Godot 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (ill stop ranting now). (ed con)

Clearly, i'm not done ranting. so how the fuck does "phonics" work when English has f and ph, ough in thought, bought, fought, brought; enough, rough, tough, slough; through; though, although, dough, thorough; cough; bough, doughty ---En attendant Godot 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have a brother who is severely dyslexic, and really does have to read everything phonetically? The middle range of words are impossible for him to spell correctly. He can spell the simple stuff ("cat", "dog", etc) easy, and he can spell the complex stuff ("hyperbolic", etc) easily, because they all follow phonics pretty well, but everything else pretty much falls into that range of "I don't know why there are silent 'e's at the end of words, and so I just randomly pepper them around." (I'm serious, he does this.) Also: he reads crazy slow, reading a book 16-7 he can't go through a book much faster than a month or so. Most of us could manage to finish a book in a couple days. Also, he takes equivalently forever to write anything out, because he again: has to spell everything out phonetically in his head. The only reason he can really chat a lot online is because he does it all the time... thus raw brutal experience. Just like a two-finger hunt-and-peck typist can eventually get up to non-debilitating typing speeds. And as you note: English spelling is horrible because of tons of issues, especially vowel degradation to schwa, and schwa sandhis. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(c) Ironically "read" is an example of a word where phonics may not be much help. "If you read it correctly in the past you'll read it correctly the future". Cantabrigian (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly is no stranger to pseudolinguistics. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There's more about Andy's pseudolinguistic bullshit here. Apparently, "English is unique among world languages in its ability to incorporate and adapt words from other tongues". Arghhhh..... --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Je vais dire ca a ma femme ce weekend. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy, one word: pokemon. rolls eyes. And as for french, well hell, i guess L'Academi hasn't been whining for the last 50 years about english creeping into their language. muwhahahaha... En attendant Godot 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Germanic tribes settled in England as long ago as about the time when the Roman empire fell, around A.D. 450." Oh, i remember this now. his "history" class. what fucking idiot writes like this - the fact that it's historically innacurate aside. "as long ago as about the time when"? My first year students did better than that, and they were coming out of Colorado Highschools. sheesh. En attendant Godot 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Godot, your language rant up there brought back some memories, and sent m e on a Youtube hunt. Finally found what I was looking for, Gallagher! (Best part starts after the 4 minute mark.)

Junggai (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also enjoy ghoti... guess the pronunciation before you know it, and you win 10 internets. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I met Gallagher at a restaurant I ran one time. He's a total dick. Fuck him. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That I can believe, having read his wikipedia page. It seems he's gotten bitter with age. Junggai (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I met him at a show when I was much younger. He was a dick then, too. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hackers

Looks like Andy was wrong about hackers. According to this BBC article 29% claimed to be Christian where as only 28% said they were atheist. StarFish (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

20% of hackers are also Angelina Jolie. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The other 80% are looking for the pool on the roof. --Sid (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, no basement jokes? 08:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Blast from the past continues

After phonics, Andy digs out his list of people who graduated from public school after the prayer ban. I like especially this edit: "improved"^img --Sid (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You can almost hear him saying "Still too impressive, let's get rid of those liberal experts..." Röstigraben (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, man. He is consciously cherrypicking the data, but still insists on the conclusion. How totally dishonest do you have to be to do that? It's like at some point in the reasoning process his mind just shuts down altogether and some preprogrammed truth asserts itself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Goin' way back Sarah P was added by DMorris & later removed as a"liberal slur" by WillS. Pippa (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How can that "improvement" possibly be justified other than in a blatant attempt to purposely, and dishonestly, rig the data to fit the preconceived conclusion? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"[C]onsciously cherrypicking the data" and "a blatant attempt to purposely, and dishonestly, rig the data to fit the preconceived conclusion" are pretty much Conservapedia's SOP. ... of liberals? (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question, but what the fuck? i mean, you go in and randomly say "this guy is good, did he go to highschool?" Neal Degrasse Tyson isn't there, damnit. and um... (when did "school prayer go out of schools" anyhow...), nor is PINK, or you know, Bill Gates. sighs... this guy is such a f, my blood pressure goes up each time i read himEn attendant Godot 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the "Potential Republican Candidates"^img (according to Andy). Looking at WP and doing some Googlin', the follwing graduated from a public high school after 1962: Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio , Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels ....to be fair to Andy, that is a very unimpressive list. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"to be fair to Andy, that is a very unimpressive list" - that gave me a laugh. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy has never felt that cherry picking the data interfered, ever hear about Conservapedia:Conservapedia's Law? --Opcn (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean ken has no machismo?

[1]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, you linked to Ken wittering on about how we don't "know" his gender, but what you should have linked to is Ken's entire edit history, where he has shown conclusively that he is a complete coward who hides behind wiki walls and doesn't face any challenge like a man. Admittedly linking to that little bit was easier... --Opcn (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're more likely to find a openly-Lesbian Syrian blogger than you are able to find a girl in CP's admin corp. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User 188's latest

[[4]].

Thank goodness for that helpful redirect. Burndall (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who looks up gism in anticipation of reaching the punk band is in for a surprise. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand not anymore, I turned the redirect into a disambiguation page. How does Ed know all this stuff anyway? Looks it up? Gism is a completely new term for me, I've never heard it used in place of semen. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think he just misspelled jism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ewww! --Opcn (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Man Im not gonna be able to eat for a week!! 08:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily a mis-spelling. @SuperHamster - You've seriously never heard that term before? I would think semen before I thought punk band. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine two possibilities: 1) Ed's daughters asked him what "gism" is. 2) Ed doesn't just randomly create these articles - he only does it after first searching (on WP or CP). Ed is sitting around somewhere searching blogs for entries on gism. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jism --User:Brxbrx/sig 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Ed's had a spellign fail - I Googled "gism" and besides references to a Japanese punk bank all I found was a site "Being the adventures of a young man in the midsts of technical onanism"... which does explain a lot now that I think about it - oh, and the unfortunately named Global Institute of Strategic Management. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary.com lists gism as a slang alternative. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As does Urban Dictionary, though I doubt Conservapedia's going to be getting their sources from there. Facepalm (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess again.^img ~SuperHamster Talk 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Ben Johnson's (I could be wrong) early dictionary, for which a group of local ladies came to him to complain about all the dirty words that were in there, to which he replied something like "Thank you ladies, for knowing which one's too look up!" Jimaginator (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ben'd have been too doped up, it was probably his brother Sam. Pippa (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just had to google a dim distant phrase in my brain "O rare Ben Jonson". Thanks, Jimag. Pippa (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and man procreated

I wonder how long this supposed grammar fix will go unnoticed. Facepalm (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Clearly, not very long. It got reverted. Facepalm (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I just love that the refrence that, by linking to another conservapedia page.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Another Conservative Bible translation

Here. P-Foster (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

rather unrelated to conservapedia, given they rejected him too...--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Stubby birds

How come Karajou's bird stubs - mainly just a template - refer to phylum, class, order, family, genus and species? They tell me nothing about baramins. Is the old swabbie inserting evolutionism by the back door? We should demand answers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See here--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Global warming totally, I mean totally, DEBUNKED!! (Yet again.)

Jpratt posts the latest denialist piece from Faux News accusing scientists of "fudging" sea level data.^img This piece cites the Heartland Institute shill who just last week claimed that NASA satellites showed no warming over the last 10 years. Apparently, he never checked NASA's site because it says the opposite. But the ever-reliable John Christy is on hand to lend this latest conspiracy theory some "scientific" cred. Amusingly, these people NEVER consider the fact that things like sea level data are not "owned" by one university, but multiple independent sources, a point U of Colorado makes in their debunking of this piece. Never mind, any adjustment of data is proof of the conspiracy (especially when a research group funded by the nefarious NASA does it). I'm expecting this to rip through the deniosphere by tomorrow morning, the only uncertainty being whether it will appear first on LOLWUWT or Climate Fraudit. Ooh, I also feel a good (read: idiotic) nickname for this coming on...Seagate II: Electric Boogaloo! /Warmist rant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

空穴來風未必無因

Groundless, not without reason. P-Foster (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

何? --PsyGremlinTal! 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Kendoll's lips are syncing with his words. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

我不要批准，我觉得客气的信. Röstigraben (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese proverb: I want not approve on it. I think polite post. 15:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

When I checked here I got the following:

"wind does not come from an empty cave without reason / there's no smoke without fire"

So I can take the response to mean that from Ken's perspective, there's always a reason when wind blows from the empty cave that is his mind. --DinsdaleP (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Or that all the smoke rising from his repeated reference to homosexuality as a slur (even conflating it with pedophilia) means he's a flamer? 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So this proves it. Ken

is insane, right? --Roofus (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wind comes out of a cave because there is another entrance to the cave. Thus, caves don't have a wind without reason (another entrance). As a gloss of the translation 空穴 (cave) 來 (come) 風 (wind) 未必 (not necessarily) 無因 (without reason). Even though I understand the idiom, and the "true" meaning of the sentence, I have no idea why he's posting it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

He probably thought it meant "olé". 99.50.96.218 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice that after the talk page was mysteriously burnt to the ground, Ken's message became "開閉只眼". August isn't fooled either.^img--PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The classics never die

• Andy: "Humans are becoming dumber! This proves a Young Earth! Also, humans are becoming more conservative!"
• People: *get into a merry discussion with Andy and likely parodist(s) about whether or not this means that conservatism is making people dumber*^img
• Andy: "Oh look at the time, it's 90:10^img already! So either continue to question my infinite wisdom or be blocked!"

I guess this counts as a form of the good old Schlafly Rearguard, seeing how Andy suddenly pulled out and let others do the defending... --Sid (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What an idiot. Andy, just because you throw around words like "continuous," "differentiable," and "step function,"^img that doesn't mean your argument is mathematically correct. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the derivative of the inverse is proportional to the integrand of the piecewise quotient, thus disproving evolution. Deny this and lose all credibility. «-Bfa-» 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"high quality works and reading abilities of common people centuries ago" - clearly some of us are getting dumber by the minute.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 03:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The conversation linked to on the CP talk page is such horseshit. They are assuming the flawed premise that declining SAT scores in the American school system is some sort of measurement of world wide human intelligence; its so ridiculous its preposterous. At best it says there is a decline in the quality of the American education system, and nothing more. Andy's quip about the quality of writing is pure bias and opinion with no grounding in research or evidence. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It gets better.^img "compare Civil War to what the average person produces today" Ignoring how the language has evolved and become more conservative since the Civil War, just how many soldiers in the Civil War could read and write to begin with? --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It really is a brilliant example of a claim that gets dumber the longer you look at it. How long until we get the inevitable conclusion that all the miracles described in Exodus are actually technological feats created by civilizations that were much more intelligent than present-day societies? --Sid (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Creation "science" discussion

A "logical thinker^img" (possible troll) vs. Conservative. I don't know what the policy is regarding pictures from over there, so I haven't taken any. Oh, thanks. Wish I'd known earlier. Anyway, the whole discussion got deleted, but I was able to save it since I had it on a text document.

Essentially, the argument is:

• User: This can't be science.
• Conservative: Prove what science is first!
• User: By your own definition of science, this isn't science.
• Conservative: YOU'RE AN ATHEIST!
• User: No, I'm not. Get back on topic.
• Conservative: YOU HAVE TO BE AN ATHEIST, SNIDE PERSON!
• User: I'm not atheist just because I can think. Get back on topic.
• Conservative: OK. It's science because it fits into a made-up category. And your beliefs are illogical. :)
• User: That made-up category is made-up. =)
• Conservative: DELETE! BAN!

I don't know if this merits a spot here or not, but I just thought it mildly intriguing that we were having an argument between a Conservative and a Logical Thinker. Facepalm (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean captures when you said pictures? We've never had an issue with screencaps of CP pages so I've added the necessary tags for you to do it automagically.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

More deflection and dissembling from this dickless swine. You know, Ken, it's easier to feel sorry for the mentally ill when they're not impertinent and arrogant to the point of delusion. You might actually find someone interested in helping you with your obviously profound personal problems if you don't act like such an asshole all the time. Why can't you answer a single question on the merits? Are you really implying Catholics are faux-Christians or that Catholicism is any more illogical than any of the horseshit you Calvinist fundies believe? Get a grip man. 04:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I have noticed a distinct change in Ken's manner recently. Either he can't afford his meds and has taken a turn for the worst or he as become possessed by the departed spirit of Terry Koeckritz. He certainly is manifesting a more aggressive side of his personality and it is not attractive. Living on his own I fear he could actually come to some harm if he continues to deteriorate. Генгис^{Gum disease} 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What a badly written article that Creation science is. Describing Richard as an "atheist evangelist" means something quite different from what I think they mean. Perhaps Andy is right about IQ and Ken is getting dumber as we watch. Генгис^{Gum disease} 08:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Beauty Queens

I think Ken is mixing up his own arguments. The argument from beauty means things are unnecessarily beautiful, therefore Goddidit. But now he is implying^img that it means that beautiful people's opinions are the argument from beauty. It does add up with other Ken-postings, none of the beauty queens are overweight so they don't suffer from those obesity-related mental diseases. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he's trying to make a joke or something..... like a pun on "argument from beauty" with beautiful people making it. 14:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Beauty queens, those notable intellectuals. Good argument, Kendoll, well done. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Way to go out with a bang.

AugustO continues to fight the good (linguistic) fight, by creating an article on "ἰδοὺ^img", which is, of course, the Greek word for "At that exact moment, regardless of distance or fuzziness in measurement." Phiwum (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence

Is there a way to shorten that, or have a tl;dr version and then click to reveal the full thing?? It looks massive as a WIGO and even though it's great, I think people will vote it down just on that, which isn't really fair. 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a bit long for a WIGO, but it really showcases The Arsefly at his best. "Compare civil war letters with what the average person writes today"? The average American during the civil war was illiterate. If you wanted to do a fair comparison, you might compare the output of the smartest 10 or 15% of authors or orators today with historical writing, and even then you're still cherrypicking since for the most part bad historic writing has been discarded. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As the author, I sympathize, and was reluctant to post it. It's way too long. Maybe a separate article, (like "Conservapedian Relativity", or the Lenski stuff) is the right thing. Maybe just showing the whole talk page is the right thing, though I think the interpolated commentary is illuminating. Any ideas? Gauss (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is really long, but I think that's the only way to catch the beauty horribleness of it all. When I see a long WIGO I don't feel like reading, I just skip over it and maybe come back to it later. Hopefully others will do the same and not vote it down just for being long. If we must make it shorter, I like Pegasus's tl;dr idea. We could have the tl;dr version, which could just be a link to the talk page, and then have the long WIGO collapsed. The WIGO is long, but it's very short compared to the entire talk page discussion, so it's still important to keep the WIGO summary that is much more easily read than the entire talk page. ~SuperHamster Talk 15:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Push the Best of Conservapedia button and have a look at some of the other long WIGOs harkening back to a time when people let stories ripen before reporting. Sid is particularly good at this. So Gauss' is longer. It's a great WIGO and as Jeeves says a perfect illustration of Andy Schlafly's asshattery. At most tighten up the prose, but don't cut anything. Who cares how people vote on stories worth telling. 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The graphs that obvious troll respected sysop Jcw put up literally made spit my coffee out, I was laughing so hard. P-Foster (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare cases where the length of the WIGO is essential to capturing what's going on. It's like watching a train wreck that takes place over a number of miles - leave any out and you miss the spectacle of it all. --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a tick, I want see if I can work this out:

- Per Andy, society is getting more Conservative as time passes .

- Also per Andy, people are getting dumber as time passes

Now apply a bit of same "type" of logic CP does about atheism and...well, anything and we can extrapolate that people get more conservative as they get dumber. *insert cheap laugh here.* Ah, but wait. If we open our minds and accept the above premise as true, we also need to account for:

- Per Andy the reason they are getting dumber is teachers are liberals and...

- Replacing liberal education with conservative sources (like CP) will make them smarter.

So by instituting conservative education people will get smarter and therefore...LESS CONSERVATIVE! Holy Shatner! Conservapedia is a conservative education tool! That means Andy is trying to make people less conservative! QED!

There you have it folks, uncontested proof that Andrew Schafly is as deep cover liberal running a convoluted Xanatos Gambit to destroy the Conservative movement. I knew it! I knew it all along! You covered your tracks well Mr. Schafly, but now the game is up. Rob, Ken, Kara, I know you are watching all this. I demand you remove Andrew Schafly immediate as a liberal troll and a danger to your organization and movement. How you let this spy run for so long is beyond me, but now swift action must be taken to avoid further liberal contamination of our precious fluids. --Tygrehart

TVtropes ruined your language skills i see--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of my health, both mental and emotional, I can't read anymore of that "debate" lest I literally bash my head into my wall. I still cannot understand how someone who was an editor for the Harvard Law Review can be so fucking stupid.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he was hired to write satire but not told so. --uhm, t! 19:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this chapter of CP history deserve its own article? --Max Sterling (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And with no sense of irony, the day after pointing out that language skills are a sign of decreasing intelligence, Andy posts "Give it up, liberals: language is becoming increasingly conservative, and politics is the product of language"^img

A parodist, or just that dense?

Nope, it's not a song about gays. It's a heartfelt tribute to a charitable Christian organization. Let's look at the lyrics: "You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find/Many ways to have a good time." "They have everything for you men to enjoy/You can hang out with all the boys." "You can do whatever you feel." P-Foster (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Next you'll be saying that "In the Navy" wasn't a heartfelt tribute to those brave serviceman, but actually implying that some sort of deviant sodomy goes on aboard naval vessels. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I wonder what it's like going through life never, ever being wrong. That's got to feel nice. P-Foster (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

oh my god. ANDY said this? see , i figured that andy would be teh first to recognize the joke ... but he's really that... well....fucking retarted.En attendant Godot 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC) oh, unless andy himself is the world's best poe. it would explain his obsession with "absolute proofs" and language.

Sorry to play the pedant but there's no 'r' in poofs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And the Village People themselves: church choir members, every one of them.--Simple (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Either Andy's suddenly developed an entirely new sense of humour and is being sarcastic, or it's just further proof that the only criteria something needs to have in order to be considered "conservative" is "Andy likes it". And now I can't get the image of Andy singing YMCA in the shower out of my head. God damn it, internet. X Stickman (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Teabaggers and Robin Hood

Of course they're the same. Teabaggers steal from the wealthy royalty (welfare queens) and give to the poor (those making $250,000 a year). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, Barftuchis titled his article "Robin hood misidentified today" and he himself identifies a bronze statue as the real robin hood. His is a stunning tale of standing frozen near Nottingham castle for many years. Internetmoniker (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

250,000 per year isn't wealthy? Really, Rush? You're betraying your own disconnect with the rest of the nation. - Jpop (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's not Rush, that was just the conservabot talking point at the time. See Jon Stewart's takedown. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy takes a dump on the source

So, Andy says environmentalists are in despair and have no clue what to do but the source says they don't need to do anything and the are pretty sure what caused it. ^{Bonus: the whole thing was probably caused by high temperatures.} If you even fail at lying good enough, you can still trust your followers to be too lazy to read. --uhm, t! 19:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They could kill the pests with a good blast of DDT, but the enviro-weenies are just too wimpy to do it because they hate African people...or something. Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

The best part of that edit is Andy blasting "underachieving liberals" in the summary. Andy, you run a wiki-blog and teach kids in a church basement. You have degrees from Princeton and Harvard, and edited the Harvard Law Review. With that pedigree, you should be a full partner for a high-powered law firm. Or a judge. Or a Congressman or State Senator. But you're not. You're a tutor who does some freelance legal work for a fringe medical association. You, sir, are a classic underachiever. P-Foster (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

He be grassrooting with the best of the public--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All aboard the Andy Bus... --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Haven't been looking at CP for a while so it's great to see that Andy's focussing what's left of his mind after his lobotomy on the great issues of the day. If he wants to see seaweed flies, he should try going to the west coast of Scotland any time between ooh at a rough guess let's say May and November. I can't make up my mind if we're girly lib'ruls because we don't spray them with DDT or he-men conservatives because we trample recklessly over the Satanic Swarm of Very Mildly Irritating Creatures. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We get it, Ken, you don't like anybody using Talk:Main_Page...

• 19:52, 18 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Main Page"
• 19:41, 18 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Main Page"
• 06:21, 18 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Main Page"
• 04:28, 18 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Main Page"

I guess Ken's wet dream is a MediaWiki that keeps NO article history at all. --Sid (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's biggest problem is he barely knows how to edit, he still doesn't know how to link to the subsection of an article without using the the full url. - π 02:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You mistake Ken for someone who might give a shit about anything other than himself or his own pet articles. Although he harps on about atheists and charity he really is a self-centred, egoistical little prig who cares nothing for Conservapedia or his fellow editors. What he singularly fails to appreciate is that the most important aspect of charity is concern and respect for others, a characteristic that is obviously lacking in someone who spends all his time editing and tweaking an obscure wing nut blog. Генгис^{Gum disease} 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy scares me at MoMA

I'm at the Museum of Modern Art photographing a big party, I go down the escalator to the theater, and just as I arrive down what smacks me in the face? Andy Schlafly.

WTF? I couldn't bring myself to even look at the artist's name...but could it possibly be....? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

modern art is liberal you homosexual muslim communist fascist fatty!--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

True! But with Andy's embrace of devastating satire, it's possible he is now also working with heat pressed krypton tubes to get the 'give it up, liberals!' message out. And what better place for that than MoMA? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, but how the fuck does that qualify as art? It's a fucking sign. I'm kinda with Hitler in the school of "artists who envision the sky as green and the grass as blue need to be sterilised." --PsyGremlinFale! 08:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You should stick to being a good leftist and endorse socialist realism, comrade. MDB (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't question whether it's art, I question whether it's good art, and it's not. I'm guessing the ghostly pale of the light is supposed to represent someone going off to heaven, or god or something? Death? Who knows. -Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not art. If it was, it would be shit art. And you're overexposed by a stop or two buddy. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to have your opinion as an expert on art and photography, though you more-or-less said what I said. The light is exactly as I intended. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem Leo - I am an expert on most things. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't hard people. If it's unnecessary and was done on purpose it's art. That you don't like it is not related. "It's not art" is Daily Mail bullshit. If you're thinking like the Daily Fail that ought to be a pretty broad clue you're Doing It Wrong™ 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A submarine made out of car tyres isn't art. Nor is a room with a light going on and off. That's pretentious wank at best. Modern art is about conning people into having to say 'Oh my, that's amazing' when they look at hold chipped in a wall. Now the Hay Wain... that's art. --PsyGremlinSermā! 10:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I also say sorry for some reason and counter that a submarine made out of car tires would be so awesome that the universe would implode under the sheer gravity of its majesty. Now that's art, bitches. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Edit: And here I thought you were being facetious... I still think it's rad!

when obama took office...

gas was $1.79, oh and we have to fund 4 wars, china isn't^img where the hell was gas $1.79 at in 2009? I live in the middle of the country where gas prices tend to be lower then the coasts so...--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been below $2.50 for a looooooong time. I'm in NJ which is slightly below the national average. Senator Harrison (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya....Which war am I missing? Korea (still a lot of US troops massed at the border)? Counting Pakistan as a separate war? P-Foster (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You missed Jemen, the seekrit war. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My, but they do pile up, don't they? P-Foster (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

War on Christmas, duh. Vulpius (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

War on atheism and obesity? 17:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There was actually a precipitous decline in oil prices in 2008, at about election season in the US. So gas prices, which peaked at an average of about 4 dollars, declined to less than 2 dollars briefly. The cause of the decline was reduced demand due to the economic slowdown, and now the economy is recovering demand has picked up and thus oil prices are picking up towards their previous norms. So, by ignoring what gas prices actually were while Bush was president, CP and Bachmann who presumably supplied this bullshit to them have reality 100% reversed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, gas prices driven only by supply and demand? Don't bet on it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember when hating the wars ment hating troops? Does this mean conservatives hate the troops now. What a group of scumbags.--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No they don't hate the troops, they hate everybody who wants to change their comfort zone or not put the furniture back to how it was when they felt good the last time. If the troops are controlled by somebody like that, no matter what they are used for, it's bad. And of course because simple utilitarianism is not always doing the best the voice of the majority has to be ignored sometimes and "the good thing" (a.k.a. "what god wants") has to be done.

I'm not an economist, but I'd guess that the market was hoping for Obama to end the wars in oil heavy regions, because the costs would drop then. Or all the oil companies like BP are actually lead by liberals who wanted to favor Obama, so they kept prices down, so that Obama would have had it easier to fire up the economy using conservative™ economic policies while actaully advertizing against those and for the socialist tactics of known pedophile Keynes. See it's all connected! --ǓḤṂ^³ 19:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, they are correct as so far gas prices did dip to around $1.61 a gallon in December 2008, a month before Obama took office. What they fail to mention is that this is the climax of a six month slide in gas prices from an all time high of $4.12 a gallon that previous June. Gas prices did peak at just under $4 a gallon in May of this year but has since declined slightly to $3.65 as of the middle of this month. So although we are in a peak in prices of gasoline, it isn't as bad as the peak in the summer of 2008. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Nothing makes me happier than seeing free-market fundamentalists bitch and whine that the state isn't doing enough to keep prices at what they see as their "correct" level. Nothing. P-Foster (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are taxes, and I suppose the ultra free-market types would say that they should be gotten rid of. 18c a gallon in federal tax, and it looks like between 6c and 51c a gallon in state taxes, though, that's not going to massively reduce the price of gas. And of course, anywhere else in the world would say "Paying between 25c and 70c a gallon in taxes? You're complaining about that?". And of course, there's always the "taxes pay for services" side of it, too. So, while yes, I suppose someone could say that the government is "meddling" in the price of gas, complaining about it is...pretty stupid, methinks.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

oh shit

Andy admits he was wrong^img. This is a sign of the end times, right?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What's totally adorable is that the argument that convinced him is utterly silly. It would be easy enough to come up with an exponential function (more complicated than 2^x, of course) that matches the data better than the quadratic shown. It would be trivial to come up with a polynomial that matches the given data perfectly. The graph doesn't prove a damned thing. Phiwum (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fail!

• cp:User:Aschlafly: The growth in conservative words on an annual basis (red), compared with a perfect geometric growth rate
• cp:User:Jcw: The red line is the data from this page, the green line is a quadratic curve.

quadradic ≠ geometric!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, logic and sanity aren't the only things that Conservapedia ignores...

...It's statistics, too. Here^img, Conservative claims that the site is the 39,640th most popular website in the world according to Alexa, clear evidence that "people want truthful information rather than the liberal claptrap found elsewhere." Yet, on Alexa, Conservapedia is *ahem* 48,187th, meaning that Conservative deliberately fudged the numbers.

Although this isn't really surprising to me at this point, I still find it pretty sad that he's raised an insignificant statistic in order to inflate his own ego only for the statistic to remain insignificant. That's Conservapedia for you. Facepalm (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I just had a look and CP has zoomed back up to 47,394 - higher, faster, stronger! So it is on the move but those moves can be both up or down and the rankings are rarely stationary. What is funny that despite Ken's efforts with SEO, atheism and evolution account for only 1% of their search traffic while Sarah Palin and John Edwards give them much higher throughput without trying. What idiots like Ken can't appreciate is that when you are out on the fringes it only takes a small spike to move you up the rankings; just like clickbots it's easy to move something from 5000 to 500 but the rankings tend to be exponential so the higher you are the harder it gets to make changes. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

With the number of sites on the web, I'd suspect that Alexa has umpty-seven articles at any particular position, CP being one of the sites at 47,394 (or whatever). Pippa (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Further, it all depends on the sampling period, doesn't it? at one particular microsecond CP might be in the top 100, the next down at 1,000,000. What period do they average over? Pippa (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You can check for yourself by downloading the top 1,000,000 which is updated daily.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting note: Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women. (Supposedly.) So does Conservapedia. (Statistically.) Facepalm (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Incoherence personified

During the course of two sentences from the Arsefly^img we get this train of thought: Atheism -> Cosmology -> Al Gore -> Global Warming. Didn't they teach him argument at shyster school? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm doubtful that Andy actually went to school. I really can't see how an Ivy could produce this stupidity. How did he even pass High School with his blatant disregard for facts and books? - Jpop (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am curious why Andy dislikes the very concept of Black Holes so much. I am guessing he cannot accept the idea such wantonly destructive, chaotic, matter and energy absorbing eerily black phenomena could possibly exist in an ordered universe created by a benevolent god who designed it all for the benefit of one species on one small world and his own glory.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's just the idea of the "moral relativism" present there... Facepalm (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that is why he has a hate boner for the Theory of Relativity but why Black Holes? Maybe because how they work is tied to the aforementioned theory? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The new TK?

Freyja: "Hey, I got a really uncritical question about the Lunar Eclipse thing..."

Ken: "No questions!"^img *oversight of Freyja's post* *5 year ban*^img

TerryD: "Karajou, I made this new account (old one being 'SadSadSad') to obey the naming rules, I'm sorry I didn't read the rules before."^img *also creates a new article called "Trivia": "Trivia is random knowledge about a person or object."*

Ken: "Can you hear anything? Me neither."^img *5 year ban for "poor editing"*^img *deletes article*^img

Is Rob still around? Does he still claim that CP is heading towards a more enlightened era where new users and opinions are embraced? If so: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! --Sid (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, there is somthing wrong with that guy.--Thunderstruck (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken: *unblocks Freyja* *re-adds post*^img *re-blocks Freyja* *re-removes post*^img

I guess this is the part where TK Ken drops all subtlety and just pisses all over the wiki in the open, daring anybody to oppose him. --Sid (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So is Ken adding schizophrenia to his extravagant list of madnesses now? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference between TK and Ken is that there was a sly intelligence behind TK's actions - everything he did had a reason, from encouraging Bugler, to his plagiarism, to blocking everything that moved, to leaking the chats. Ken's only doing it, because he's too stupid to defend the crap he writes. His OCD doesn't help things either. --PsyGremlin講話 12:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ironically it was TK who kept Ken in his corner. Since he's popped his clogs Ken has become emboldened and started to affect the machismo of a cowardly third-world policeman knowing that the plebs can't do anything and the other sysops won't. Rob in particular is looking foolish after all his bluster about making CP more open post-TK. What really irritates is the number of smileys that Ken uses when he makes all is smug replies; previously he engendered a certain amount of affection as a loveable nutter but his change of direction has now rendered him particularly unpleasant. Of course I'm not really complaining as it is pushing CP backwards. Finally, I can't help but be amused that someone who has repeatedly called leading atheists cowards and attacked them for refusing to debate as well as criticising their stridency and rudeness, is actually outdoing everyone. Генгис^{Gum disease} 14:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I like to think that the usage of his own smileys against him is part of the reason he banned this guy. In addition to the fact that he was actually producing a coherent argument, of course. Facepalm (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful crap

Andy actually^img thinks^img that the Village People's YMCA is a "legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association."

I'm speechless.

Are we sure Andy isn't a parodist and CP isn't a hoax? MDB (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Silence liberal!! The song is all about extolling the virtues of exercise and close quarter living by buff young men. Look, even the video from the movie shows this:

PS "In the Navy" is there too - lauding the "brave men of the US Navy." --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's conservatism, then where do I sign up for the Tea bagging Party? MDB (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Theory: Andy _{tried to} dance to YMCA once at a completely heterosexual wedding once, and can't bring himself to admit that he danced to a gay anthem.

As for In the Navy, the US Navy was actually going to use it for recruiting, until they were told that... well, the Village People wouldn't be eligible to enlist. MDB (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Vote now! ^{(self promotion warning)} --PsyGremlinFale! 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet merciful Mcgillicutty! I spittooned my coke when I read that! Sir, you own me one new coke! HAHAHA! Wow... I love it; Andy's pride is so great he has managed to back himself into a corner defending both YMCA and In The Navy as songs of "conservative virtue" rather than what everyone else in the world realizes when listening to them. I am curious how long can he keep up this charade in the vain attempt to never admit he was mistaken about anything? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My god. Andy himself added Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Car'. It's about the cycle of poverty, you pillock. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Awww, Andy deleted In the Navy and Macho Man^img from the list. YMCA is still there though. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He's hit the entrenchment point.... Some guy posted the video and made a comment about how nonconservative it was, I didn't cap and don't remember the exact words, something about co-ed orgies in the hot tub. Andy oversighted and then lied about why on the talk page SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 02:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor's Missed Masterpiece

Here it is...--69.14.249.149 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Classic Ed, three red-links of which two are sexual references and the third is a pop culture reference that if submitted by a basic editor would be deleted as being non-encyclopaedic. Генгис^{Gum disease} 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ed so creepy? Was he born that way? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Even moar geniass!--69.14.249.149 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Prurient's the word for Ed. (To save looking it up: "having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc.") Pippa (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Most humans are extremely lustful, except for a selected elite, so Ed is nothing new.--69.14.249.149 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How's this grab you then, BoN: "unusually or morbidly interested in sexual thoughts or practices" (all defs from here) Pippa (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to love the fact that whenever Ed adds a category (movies about joining a clique) it is always a masterstroke in it's own right.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, that man doesn't edit, he just takes a giant shit all over the "encylcopedia" SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Capture tags

Don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, but the capture tags don't seem to be working for me... Facepalm (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, so I see. Is there a problem? Pippa (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Trent was fiddling with the server the other day, so I guess the upload directory got set to read only. Doubtless he'll fix it when he gets round to it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

he's got flair

We can give him that^img. Of course, this highlights the fact that if anybody comes on Conservapedia saying anything half as batshit as what the admins say they'll be blocked for being parodists.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

something about Gerald Celente

what we need is gold, guns, and a getaway plan! cause economic collapse, it's a comin^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2011 (UT

Gerald Celente predicts the past, as usual. (This time it's 2008.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No responsible nation would ever allow Kendoll to have even one gun. Also, DOOOOOOOM! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting, this is what people like those who run CP are hoping for. They want to see America fall. All their claims about loving this nation is a load of crap, they hate it, they see it as too secular, too materialistic, too multicultural. They have a dream that if America falls apart, they can pick up the pieces and reshape the nation in their theocratic image with themselves at the absolute apex, ruling over the "misguided sinners" with an iron rod in some sort of Calvinistic wet dream fantasy.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Like the Republic of Gilead? -- CS Miller (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it more that they want Jebus to come back and do the rebuilding, so they can live happy ever after in the millennial kingdom for 1000 years until for some reason it's time to have another war with Satan? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like Gilead, although of course Gilead begins with what is essentially a coup d'etat or perhaps a violent revolution. America doesn't fall apart, it is blown up by people who claim they're acting in its best interests. And it's not just the usual suspects. Gilead's foundation owes as much to anti-porn feminists as to the religious right. As an SF story I found it rather unsatisfying, but I'd still recommend people read it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending Conservapedia per se, but this argument that those who perceive America on the economic decline as wishing ill against America is getting to be a pretty tired argument and is clearly an ad hominem attack.

This economy sucks and much anger about this is directed towards the President, being our nation's chief executive. Unemployment is over 1% higher since Obama took office, the employment to population ratio is close to a 26 year low, and gasoline is twice as expensive. The President is a failure whether or not anybody wished for his failure. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between pessimism and the end times-style economic collapse BS the hyperinflation cranks have been pushing for decades. IOW, Robert Reich and Michael T. Snyder are not the same thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be the first person to say Gerald Celente is no economist. However, as you implicitly point out, there is criticism of our current economic policy from both liberal and conservative economists. Hell, there's even criticism of the administration policies from former administration officials (Peter Orzag as an example). America's hurting, and whatever we're currently doing sure in hell is not working. One colloquial definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. That's Obama's pseudo-Keynesian policies for you. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain to this non-Yank how the POTUS has such a dramatic effect on the price of oil and hence fuel? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Primarily through monetary policy, though fiscal, foreign, and energy/environmental policies do play smaller effects. Since the price of oil is very highly correlated with the generalized value of the dollar and since the President appoints the Fed Chairman and governors, he is thus politically held responsible for significant increases in fuel price. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The price of oil is also highly correlated with speculators, OPEC, etc. dicking around with it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. According to the last CFTC report, less than 24% of all speculative positions in light sweet crude oil were long positions. The belief that OPEC is responsible for high gas prices was the same failed logic that caused George Bush to make his ill fated comment for OPEC to turn on the spigots. Instead of laughing about shovel-ready jobs, Obama should take personal responsibility and own up to his failures, both on high food and energy prices as well as the piss poor economy. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So what should Obama do/have done to keep the price of oil down in order that you can afford to drive your stupid fucking pickup trucks that do ten fucking miles to the fucking gallon?

Those aren't the numbers I'm seeing from the latest reports. Papa Bush also got screwed over in part by an oil shock. And are you really suggesting that OPEC has no control over gas prices? My point is that the president doesn't have a magic wand that makes gas prices go up and down. There are lots of places to criticize Obama's economic policy, but gas prices don't seem to be a good one. It's really just the logic of any political opposition party: "Something bad is happening while X is president, therefore, it's X's fault." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the last Commitments of Traders report published every week by the CfTC. I believe the importance of OPEC is vastly overrated, primarily because they have to sell their all their oil sooner or later. (BTW, OPEC and speculating are the best market forces that promote optimal conservation). I don't think high gas prices would be as big of a deal if Americans actually could pay for them, but in this economy many of them can't. Elections are not debates. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is a very good predictive tool to determine whether or not Obama will win a second term. Right now, it's not looking too good. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ken....

We don't think you're cuddly, or a tyrant. We think you're mentally ill. Also, Karajou barely reads English, never mind Chinese. P-Foster (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Karajou's talk page is the new red telephone. I wonder when he'll burn it to the ground again? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that Conservapedia is little more than a latter day Bedlam where the sane pay visits to watch the inmates soiling themselves and laugh at their weird antics. Not much has changed in 200 years.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing has changed. It cost a ha'penny to visit Bedlam. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken, if you want to appear mysterious and inscrutable, don't post phrases you cribbed from machine translators. Babelfish-isms like "到了点" will only serve to expose you as the idiot you are. Röstigraben (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

--Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

At 13:50 Conservapædia time. Captures please, Gentlemen! CS Miller (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, it's a phone screenshot so it's heavily cropped though. Nothing special, just another red telephone message. Röstigraben (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Declining Intelligence

I have turned the ultra-long WIGO into an article here.

Nice work bro! I think this deserves to be added to Conservapedia:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Delta. When I am sober, I shall read it. But thanks for the contribution. It's more than I could ever say for myself. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, since Andy graduated from Harvard his intelligence definitely has declined with time. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool stuff. But is harvard all that?? Isn't it just like a normal university but with a bit of a reputation. 00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Another CP sysop takes off his mask.

Ok, so it was the world's worst-kept secret, but Zelmerszoetrop comes out. --PsyGremlinTala! 09:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how I'd love to be in the sysop discussion list right now... --Sid (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They haven't realized it yet, JacobB ist still not blocked. Or they just don't care anymore - after all, they even let him back in after he'd posted a Parthian shot and fessed up to being a parodist. Röstigraben (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the trouble with being a parodist: you're likely to write what they'd have written if and when they'd thought of it. So why should they stop you? Pippa (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice, subtle prodding^img on his behalf. – Nick Heer 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's still totally oblivious^img, too. – Nick Heer 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's on the ball enough to say 'hi' to a returning sysop but somehow misses all the other shenanigans? What a cherry-picking, cowardly tool he is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with Zelmer's rosy depiction of his state of mind during his tenure as JacobB. He denies drinking the kool-aid but it's clear from his conduct that after he came back from trying to give his account away (nobody wanted it) he went on a year long power trip with the goal of terrorizing users and being as big of a dick as possible. I'm sure there's room for disagreement, but my perspective on effective parody at CP is that it should merely highlight the core nutters' stupidity and insanity. Zelmer went too far by becoming what he initially hated enough to feel the need to escape from by giving his account away. 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I dunno Nutty. Not to take sides or support active Troll/Vandalism but from where I sit the fact he was allowed to get away with such behavior speaks more to Conservapedia's administration than to his personal antics and failings. For a project that is supposed to be "trustworthy," "Family Friendly" and welcomes anyone with "open mind," there has been a long, long (long, long, long, loooooooong) history of sysop abuse that goes unchecked by the founder or his inner circle. Bugler, JacobB, the grand master TK and probably countless others got away with being humongously oversized male appendages so long as they nodded and grunted to Schafly's twisted tune. Did this bring out the worst them even if they were just there for a lark? Possibly. But that's the really the rub. That such abuses will happen in an online community is inevitable. That such abuses KEEP happening, over and over again, despite complaints, protests, and mountains of evidence against the offenders show CP for what it is; the personal blog of a bitter man spouting impotent rage at a world for not conforming to their beliefs who will give you the keys to the kingdom if you just agree with every tiny little thing he says. Just my two cents. Spend them wisely. --Tygrehart

a new hope

Ken's talk page is open for business^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Honey trap, just like the community discussion page over there.--^talk 05:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apart from burning it down no less than eight nine times^img in a few hours, he's also still happily reverting comments and banning^img the users who made them. Open for monkey business, maybe. Röstigraben (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

took him less than 24 hours to lock it again [2]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the page. Is this user making any uneasonable requests about posting to his/her talk page? Seems it's all pretty standared stuff on any wiki regarding civility, personal information, and the like. I'm assuming the relevent article talk pages referenced are unlocked, can that be verified? So, let's not direct a hostile tone if someone has a legitimate inquiry, or poke him/her with a stick just for fun. Best just leave him/her alone unless some matter is of pressing import and can't be addressed elsewhere. Let's set an example -- and try treating this user with the same way we ourselves wish to be treated by other users in our internet lives. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The page is locked again, rob--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new Conservaleaks layout; opinions?

Conservaleaks currently shows one thread per page. Most threads contain very few words once you remove the boilerplate and the redundant included messages; in order to browse any amount of actual text you have to click and click and click and click. I'm considering to move to a layout that

1. shows more than one thread per page in the default view so you don't have to click as much;
2. allows longer lines and wastes less space on message author and timestamp information. The idea is to prevent pages from getting too long so you don't have to scroll too much. Part of wasting less space on timestamps would be dropping timestamp parts that are clearly redundant. The specifics are easier to show than explain; see the screencap for what I mean:

For comparison, the two threads in the screencap currently look like this and like this.

Comments? Suggestions? Listless expressions of generic indifference? Mountain Blue (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the new layout, although I'd stick to a thread per page. But that's just me. I'm just wondering how much interest it's still generating? Are there plenty of page views coming in, that warrant revamping the site again? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd read it. The cream background is a little odd for me, though. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pages with one thread each would still exist; it's just the default view that would be different. The site is down to about 3k page views per month from about 40k in February. It's definintely not worth the effort in any conventional sense but I don't care. I don't want stuff on my server that even I myself think is objectively shoddy craftsmanship. If I build something I want to be able to stand by it and say, yes, this is how you do it. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks awesome. In the posted example, is that the same Terry with two comments or TK and Throwbum? If the latter, was there no way of distiniguishing them in the original formatting? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and good point. "Terry" is TK; the other Terry writes as "Temlakos" or "TerryH". Most of the time it's obvious who "Terry" is even without knowing that because he usually sign off as "--TK". It was even more obvious before I started redacting email addresses. Mountain Blue (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, alcohol and conservaleaks formatting code don't mix. Apparently the leaks are discussing people's lymphoma. There's some creepy shit here

Guns, Gold and a Getaway plan

The demand for iron ore depends on down-to-earth things, such as how many steel girders Chinese builders are using. The demand for gold depends on airier considerations, such as whether you think Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ.... If investors ever wake up and notice that the yellow metal is little more useful than tulips, the gold bugs will be burned. --The Economist, June 2011 [5]

We know that Coke Eyes is a huge goldbugger who hopes to pay^img for his Shredded Wheat with bullion. Ken again demonstrates he is too^img (via Gerald 'the World is Ending!' Celente). Never do the goldbuggers explain what they will do with their gold once we are in a post-apocalyptic world. Gold differs little from fiat currency in that its value is based upon belief and hope. Despite its tremendous rise over the last 6 years, there are few practical uses for gold outside of jewelry, making belief in its value irrational. When the hellscape comes, are you going to want jewelry? Why would gold be any different in the paper of fiat currency, since in a post-apocalyptic world they would both have the same practical value, except that gold is pretty. People are more likely to trade chickens for shoes than they are to grade chickens for gold. It's one thing if you are just gambling that Glenn Beck will continue to get people to buy gold, so you buy it in hopes demand will go up; but if you actually believe that civilization is going to collapse, you'd be better off investing in a farm with livestock out in the middle of nowhere than in gold coins that nobody will have any use for. Willem Buiter, chief economist of Citigroup, said he would not invest more than a sliver of his wealth "into something without intrinsic value, something whose positive value is based on nothing more than a set of self-confirming beliefs." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Also electronics. Most high technology objects can be basically assumed to have tiny amounts of gold in them for one reason or another. But they also tend to have dozens of other less famous elements in them, which share gold's rarity, but not the weird myths about its intrinsic value. None of them would be worth a cup of clean water, let alone a chicken in a post-civilisational hellscape either. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. From my limited economic knowledge, the "traditional" argument for gold is that it's less likely than paper money to be horribly devalued(inter-war Germany, post-war Hungary, Zimbabwe), right? So logically, the price of gold should increase with inflation, and decrease as more gold is mined. Is it irrational to think that gold will continue to have a value? I don't think so. No more than it is irrational to believe that the US Dollar will continue to hold a value, anyway. Is there a massive gold "bubble"? Absolutely. Is buying gold because you think it will be useful after the apocalypse stupid? Of course. But gold has been an accepted form of exchange for 2000 years, so comparing it to tulips might not be completely accurate. I'm not sure why I brought any of this up, since the point was to make fun of the gold bugs, and rightly so. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gold bugs are suckers. Silver is where the big money will be made (or lost).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

At least silver has some practical use. WW - Gold was used for currency for thousands of years, but not anymore. 64% of gold use last year was jewelry[6], with the rest mostly investment for the reason "it's been used for thousands of years and is a good hedge", which means little. Investing today because "it's always been so" is a foolish reason to invest in anything. But people who invest in gold do so for apocalyptic reasons, and that makes no sense because if an 'apocalypse' occurs they'll be left holding useless metal. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But, but, but...PETER SCHIFF WAS RIGHT!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All I meant was that gold has an accepted value as exchange, and has a long history of such, with wildly varying values, obviously. I only meant to contrast with tulips, which was a sudden craze. I agree that gold is a bad investment. Well, I should say, I think gold is a foolishly risky investment, rather. Some people will probably buy and sell it for a profit, as I'm sure that people bought and sold tulips for a profit in 1636. Like I said, I'm not really sure why I made the first post, I don't have a hard-on for gold, and I think gold bugs are stupid. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken claims not to be a goldbug^img. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

we already covered this--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So you have, so you have. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, kids, we should return to the gold standard because you can't trust a currency that's only backed by trust. People only use the US dollar because they believe it has value, not because it has any actual value. Of course, gold is only valuable because people desire it (in other words, they believe it has value, not because it has actual value). Stile4aly (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Somnebody once argued gold will still have value cause of computers. that only works if we have a passive collapse of society--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides which, according to Wiki, only 10% of gold mined is used for computers, so that would still be a huge collapse.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Gold has always been valuable because it has always been rare. It will always be rare, and so it will always be valuable.

It's silly to think that gold is the end-all of investments - that "it will always be worth something" line is just as true about iron - but don't lose sight of the forest because of a few stupid trees. Precious metals are still a decent investment (as long as you aren't giving Goldline 15%), they're just not magical.--^talk 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If an apocolypse happens, I imagine gold will probably be the most reliable of all currencies. Bartering food and other things of immediate use might be safer, but if everyone around you is trading gold, you might see value in the convenience of doing so. It's easier to carry a sock of gold than a sack of grain. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but that's assuming that everyone is going to start to use gold when few people currently have access to bars and bullion, and that an exchange rate and scales will become prevalent. Look at the collapse of Somalia - they didn't switch to precious metals but came up with new informal banking systems. How gold would suddenly be sprinkled upon the gold-less post-apocalyptic masses is a problem; unless it is widely accessible it is not going to gather traction. The world isn't going to be plunged back into medieval times, no matter how much fundamentalists like Hurlbut and Ken wish for it. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless the food or something is better? you'll get a LOT farther in post apocolypse land if you have food then a pound of some shiny gold. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Best Conservative Songs: Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here

Anyone else know how British band Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" is "A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office"? LeonardO questions^img how that can be, since it was written for Syd Barret. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

5 years dead now. RIP Sid. Wish you were here. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...but I am... --Sid (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I really hope Andy starts arguing about how musicians from a country with no president are expressing the yearning for any kind of president. P-Foster (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

These lists kinda tick me off. Here they go trying to claim every good little bit of culture as on of their achievements--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the ol' reversed ad hominem argument, done for thousands of years and will probably be done for thousands of years to come. Soon some insight of Andy's will be that all beautiful things in the world are conservative and all bad things in the world are liberal. --uhm, t! 19:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that insight was part of the fabric of CP? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Did not see it actually written somewhere, so I'm waiting. --uhm, t! 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck. First YMCA is about christians, and now this???? man there is a good poe over there. :-)--En attendant Godot 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he also thinks that Bruce Springsteen was a secret birther... --Sid (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Blinks once. Then again. Um. Ok. Must have been why he wasn't at the Concert for the Inauguration. oh wait... he was. En attendant Godot 20:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My first ever block was for adding a song to the list.... good ol' times!--Buscombe (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, but Godot, he didn't play "Born in the USA", did he? Eh?^img Eh?^img --Sid (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I count at least 3 composers from their list of Best Conservative songs, that were unequivocally atheists or agnostics. They really should do their research. Wait. Research? What am I saying? Jimaginator (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Make that 4. For those who asked, NO, I won't be listing them here. They need to do their own work, IF they care. Jimaginator (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't. Andy's said that liberal artists can sometimes create a conservative song, so he'll just say the same applies to atheists.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing will ever top "Taking care of business" by BTO. It's literally an anthem to liberal rockstardom. Andy personally "fought" (read: dismissed all criticism) to keep it in. Bottom line: Andy personally enjoys the song, therefore it is conservative. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I love your "bottom line'. it does explain all the songs he has fought for. (ymca?)--En attendant Godot 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"#65 - Take Me Home, Country Roads by John Denver (and others) – Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions." How is West Virginia the south? Is 'the taste of moonshine' the tradition? Oh, and from the songwriter: "But here's the catch: Danoff had never even been to the Mountain State before writing it, though he'd heard the sounds of the state as a kid growing up in Massachusetts... "West Virginia might as well have been in Europe, for all I know."[7] --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the obsession with machismo on that site, and how Village People apparantly wrote a, eh, tribute to YMCA, how long until Macho Man makes the list? Dendlai (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Navy and Macho Man were in the list, but were removed (by Andy, IIRC), a few days ago. (I don't access Conservapedia from work). CS Miller (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff, Rob

Umm, what's the difference between evolution and intelligent design?^img  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

After that one I actually believe him that he had no clue what YEC meant... --uhm, t! 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his point is that ID to many is just evolution, but instead of lucky mutations it's God guiding the process. Many ID believers don't deny that speciation and natural selection happen—it's unbelievably simple to understand those concepts—they have doubts that their God isn't guiding it. - Jpop (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lucky mutations" isn't the way to put it, but you know what I mean. - Jpop (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, Andy is being a complete fuckwit in that section. Someone pointed out that the article is pure lies and irrelevance because one example didn't win a Nobel Prize and the other has no evidence to back up the claim that he is a creationist. Andy's response? "Bachmann's statement was correct, and so is the headline. If you want to try to ignore the compelling example of Fred Hoyle, then take a look at what Bachmann specifically said and you'll easily find a Nobel Prize winner who supports intelligent design." No, Andy, you won't, as the user JUST FUCKING EXPLAINED. Christ. - Jpop (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy secretly hurting from not winning the Nobel Prize in Conservatism himself, clearly. 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."

— John Stuart Mill (On Liberty) --Opcn (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool quote. 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been bothering me for a while

People who refer to Terry Hulbut as "chuckarse" are no better than Ken's "Hahaha your fat" arguments. Making fun of someones name? Please, we can do better than that. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

True that. Equally tedious are "assfly" and the like.--^talk 05:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Before I go into this, let me first establish that I always use TerryH or Terry Hurlbut to refer to him.
Now. Ken's "arguments" are arguments. He calls people fat to justify dismissing them out of hand. When we say such things as "assfly" and "chuckarse," we are merely amusing ourselves. We do not go "no, you're wrong because you have a silly last name." We make a passing mockery of his name and then analyze his point. We are better than Ken

because he cannot see past his insults.--User:Brxbrx/sig  05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you keep referring to? 05:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Justify it however you want Brx, its pathetic and childish. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

^ What he said. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Ken

still o.k.? --uhm, t! 09:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that the name mocking is childish but can you separate it from much of what else goes on here? You're focussing on one aspect, I could point out many other instances of childish or pathetic behaviour by editors (but will not as I don't wish to upset anyone and they would probably only quibble about it anyway). However, I do hold my hand up and confess my own guilt on occasions. If you are really concerned then I suggest you start a forum to discuss how we deal with CP in general because if you want to "serious things up" then we should start with some of our articles about CP and its sysops as they set the tone for this page. I would even go further and suggest that many non-CP articles could also benefit from less dismissive snark and more intellectual rigour. One of the reasons for our most recent HCM and the current reorganisation is because too many people behave in a childish and pathetic manner. I think that the real issue is how far do we wish go with on-mission articles and serious discussion at the expense of less goat and CP, because there are much bigger targets out there than Andy Schlafly's little blog. (P.S. Is calling CP a blog alsIo childish?) Генгис^{Gum disease} 09:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go on record here as (perhaps the only) one of us who honestly doesn't give a flying fuck whether it's pathetic or childish and moreover sees no need to justify any of it, even to the tiniest degree. Chuckarse, JPratt, Karajerk, Assfly, it's allll sweet comedy nectar to me and fuck them if they're offended and fuck anyone else who's offended on their behalf. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was a bit of a lie: I justify it ever so slightly by saying they're all a bunch of dicks and have it coming. That's all the justification I need. (Btw I have no activity outside of this talkpage, so I won't be objecting to the sanitization of any CPspace articles.) ^{ONE / TALK} 10:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just watched the Jon Stewart interview on Faux News (is that childish mockery of the name?) and thought that he made some good points which might give us some food for thought (replace the Daily Show with RW and Fox News with CP) especially at the end with his comments about Republicans. Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem is not just that it's childish and immature. It's also boring and not very funny. Some WIGOs are genuinely funny, but the clumsy name-calling gets in the way.--^talk 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have rarely if ever used terms like assfly or karajerk and have previously deassfly'd articles here. Anyway, with karajerk and jpratt, they are online monikers and not "hur hur,what a silly name!". Ace ^{of Spades} 12:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I see little distinction. Outside of the mainspace I see all such names as harmless silliness. It's not as if anyone here frames arguments around it, or dismisses Hurlbut's "arguments" because he has a funny name. That's a major difference from Ken (is Ken

childish and pathetic?). In the mainspace and Conservapedia space, yeah, they can be a detriment. DickTurpis (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hurl - butt... chuck - arse... I get it now!! lol. But srsly, why do people need to do it?? Their actions alone should make people feel pretty smug and superior without funny names too. 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

the kendoll template is framed by his online behavior and homophobia. Making fun of someones odd last name seems really pathetic. I am not trying to make any rules about it just offering my opinion and hoping people consider what I have said. Ace ^{of Spades} 12:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I never understood "chuckarse". Hurlbut is a lot funnier. Making fun of someone with debilitating disorders isn't funny. Assfly is. But you can all go fuck yourselves for all I care. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think some people take this site a little too seriously... The talk page should just be a casual forum. In that sense, we have no "standards" we have to uphold in terms of name-calling. - Jpop (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ace that this is some principle or standard that needs to be adopted, but "chuckarse" is just not witty. "Hurlbut" is funny enough every time you read it and I add an extra "T" just for my own jollies (har har). Where I agree with Ace is that this kind of thing reminds me the endless plays on "Obama" "Republican" "Democrat" that I see on blogs. Obummer, Demorats, Republicunts, etc. It's so common, so stupid on all sides, that it's annoying. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Justify it however you want Brx, its pathetic and childish. Really? Could you please try addressing what I have to say? At the very least, could you point me to a similar discussion where the same argument was made and refuted if you've not the time to debate me?
@nutty- the royal we of course. But seriously, I was speaking as someone who doesn't mind the "chuckarses" and "assflies." And let me note once more that I am not one who uses these terms.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

More like, AssFuckwitted, amirite? Am I? Am I? No? Oh alright then. Carry on. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always liked "Ashfly" for referring to the Himselfness. It is simply the bestest, the bassakwards of "fly ash" which itself is a pollutant found in (extremely) hot air. It calls to mind that Ashfly is often not even wrong. Also Assfly is just too, oh, I dunno, juvenile for my "tastes". 17:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Hey Leotardo, how did you get don't agree with Ace that this is some principle or standard that needs to be adopted from I am not trying to make any rules about it just offering my opinion and hoping people consider what I have said.? Ace ^{of Spades} 20:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you arguing for the principle that we should not make fun of people's silly given names? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I offered my opinion in the hope that others might consider my words. Ace ^{of Spades} 20:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I overstated your case. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)