Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive242

This is an archive page, last updated 8 July 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <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)

Florida: Get real

Unlike CP^img, I'm not foolish enough to go around barking about how Obama will win Florida[1]^img. Yes, Andy, the Republicans want to suppress voters^img. Keep a few things in mind: Latinos, Medicare and Rick Scott. Thank you Tea Party, please keep giving. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

NATO are terrorists.

according to MPR^img. P-Foster (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin is the resident Qaddafi lover who thinks God is against NATO^img. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they really want to start looking at the civilian casualties during the Iraq conflict? Worm (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BUT BUT BUT BUT!!! Libya was started by Obama, Iraq by Saint Bush. Totally different! 14:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

JoMar's pro gadafi BS really ticks me off. Here we have a murderous tyrant and JoMar's always putting up propaganda on his behalf.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Right - you can be anti-war, and anti-Obama's war, and not be pro-Qaddafi. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Joaquin is an interesting case. I haven't the time to rustle up diffs, but there have been a couple of times where Andy has had to finesse ant-Israel stuff that he's put up on MPR, he supports Qaddafi, and he's spent a lot of time dealing with questions related to Judaism, and edited articles to point out who's a Jew. P-Foster (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He forgot to mention that the same strike was called in to kill a close associate of Ghaddafi, which it did. I'm not condoning the murder of children, since it's not their fault that they were born to this man, but war isn't fair to begin with. - Jpop (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See Operation Gladio. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First: In every war, no matter which one, children are always the first ones to get fucked - in really bad ones even literally. But nobody ever talks about that before a war is started.

Second: With the same logic pretty much all conservative Presidents are terrorists, oh, and also Merkel.

Third: I know people that grew up in Nazi Germany and during WW2, many of whom are damaged for life from both things (some actually more by the dictatorship itself then by the war). I also know somebody that grew up during the Park regime in South Korea and that guy has seriously taken mental issues from it. It might be enough to show how repressive that dictatorship was to mention one fact: If children looked like communists, they were tortured for information. I don't think that it's much better under Ghaddafi. --uhm, t! 18:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What's Ken done?

Ken's bizarre riposte to SharonW^img is on the page, but not the edit logs... Has Ken somehow hidden the edit but not undone it? Is this normal? CPfan (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Often he gets overzealous with oversight because he's too stupid to learn to use it properly, but on this occasion his edit seems intact. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right - it's in the edit history for the article, but in recent changes it's all weird. The Ken edit at the same time as the diff you posted is:

 	21:59 (cur | prev) . . (-461) . . Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (→a reply from penn jillette: )

in recent changes, but the diff doesn't exist in the DB and the diff that you posted isn't in the recent changes for that page at all. Odd. Perhaps it's a JS bug in the recent changes page. CPfan (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Penn responds to Ken's dribbles

In a 10min video Jaxe (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

he came off as a bit of a douche in the first bit, but otherwise it's interesting.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I liked the "Conservapediaholicgate" joke. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02

45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen the video yet, but I'm sure that Ken is thrilled to have this sort of response. He matters, dammit, he matters! Phiwum (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite flattering when a celebrity addresses you. I remember getting into an email exchange with Dan Savage, and I though "wow! someone famous knows I exist, now!" Of course, his emails to me were only about a sentence long each...--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Penn isn't gonna be able to get rid of him now. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am disappointed in Penn now. This really wasn't worth his effort or time, after all outside of Conservapedia and maybe irrelevant Vox Day's personal blogosphere, the how "fat atheist" thing wasn't worth anyone's notice. After all what serious commentator is going to view a kindergarten argument as something other than a liability? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's odd that he wasted his time on this. The editing made me nauseous. I give it a 'D'. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hes right that its not even a real word just by sticking ""pedia" on the end though. 12:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There's ten minutes of my life that I want back. Not really funny at all. P-Foster (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's not funny, he's never been funny, he's unnecessarily abrasive, and Bullshit is a terrible show filled with, ironically, bullshit of Penn's making. I wish Teller was the talker and Penn the mute because he's remarkably articulate and engaging. 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did he have to feed the Ken

?? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Say what you will, but Ken's response^img was one of the more considered and articulate things I have seen him write. I can't find much to argue with him about that Americans have screwed up priorities as a people. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, ken's bursts of lucidity are astounding--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's made an 'essay' response^img but doesn't dare post it to show his ignorance. His 'excuse' is that it contains profanity. Someone with video software redub the 'profanity' and we'll see what excuse he comes up with to coward out again. Bonus points if you over dub it with Andy's voice using his snarl words. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Obama employees deface LGBT posters

What's Andy's point^img? That there is anti-gay sentiment in the Obama Administration? That's true everywhere and I don't necessarily think a Department of Labor bureaucrat is accurately termed an "Obama Administration employee" since those people are there regardless of the President. It's difficult to see how someone tearing up posters is MPR-worthy. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Think about the shitstorm if an administration fires people on the basis of their political leanings - think about what CP would have done if Obama would have fired anti-choice employees after inaugeration. Oh Andy, the world has to be nice without any ideals or principles… --uhm, t! 18:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean kind of like this? I'm sure he was outraged. Godspeed (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course if Republicans do it it's called "cleaning up"… --uhm, t! 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be for ideological reasons to fire someone for repeatedly defacing workplace property? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

People just don't like signs. Signs are evil. [6]--76.205.73.125 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed they are. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When Sarah Palin fired the Alaska public safety commissioner for refusing to fire a state police officer for happening to be her sister's estranged ex, it was "getting rid of a bad cop". Mountain Blue (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was a contractor at DoL for a while, and, if memory serves, this is not the first time Gay Pride month poster were defaced there. MDB (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And I am willing to bet my mortgage and every single penny I have saved that if one of the defacers were to put up a poster publicising a church or something similar and it were to be defaced the cries of 'persecution' would ring loud and clear over the entire wingnut community. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference: the LGBT Pride Month posters were officially sanctioned and placed in lockboxes. (In fact, if memory serves, DoL installed the lockboxes because of previous vandalism of Pride posters.) The church posters would presumably be on a generally accessible community interest bulletin board. I think vandalizing either is wrong, though.

I think the more interesting is that CP is essentially defending the fact that DoL has Pride Month posters at all. You know damn well that if the vandal had gone whining to the press about how horrible it is he had to see such posters at work, rather than committing destruction of government property, they'd be behind him 100% MDB (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you get they are defending the posters? The MPR item was amorphous, but I don't think anyone would confuse that they were trying to bring light to a shame. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did say "essentially defending", but yeah, on reflection, that's a stretch. MDB (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative's browser preference

He's a firefox. - This wasn't wigo-worthy but I like the curious use of MPR--Danielfolsom (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But apparently he still can't use it's spellcheck feature. "lightening" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He insulted my precious Chrome. :( I'm such a damned Chrome shill. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Spellcheck wouldn't have helped with "lightening", since that's a word too. In fact, for the same reason, it couldn't help you spell "its" q-: </pedant>--Benod (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is happy about his browser beeing faster - wonder why… --uhm, t! 00:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that posting has little to do with browser preference and more to do with a backhanded slight towards "liberal Google".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I went down to Conservapedia and found that......

It has a WOT (Web of Trust) ranking of red. Many reviewers cited it as being "hateful and racist."

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/conservapedia.comLefty (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They misspelled "trusworthiness." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh! I like the "Child Safety" rating: see what Ed's done to the Wiki! Pippa (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Compare with RW. Nice site, Lefty. Pippa (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From it's RW page: "It is very bias, and only represent the opinions of a very few people, calling them proven facts. It also has many articles that are ethical issues." - Where the fuck is iren_b from? Bible Camp? Saudi-Arabia? Texas? --uhm, t! 00:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When students use the noun "bias" when they mean to use the adjective "biased" -- and they do that almost as often as they call non-fiction books "novels" -- I have to restrain myself from calling them nasty names as I grade their essays. P-Foster (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

When he says "represent the opinions of a very few people, calling them proven facts" I suppose what he means is that we take the minority position (at least in the US) that evolution is a proven theory. - π 00:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FreeRepublic. All green. Really. Dendlai (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"As a Christian Evolutionist, I find this website run by Atheists who prove to be anything but rational, to be not only biased but hateful...For example, there is serious scientific evidence that the probability for many of the actions required to be performed by evolution to be random to be extremely small. While Science indeed should stop there and not ponder about who/what lies behind Evolution, for Science can neither prove nor disprove God, we have the ridiculous RELIGION that Evolution is blind, i.e. random; despite the ever-increasing evidence to the contrary."

Ken

, have you been socking up again? That's some brilliant word salad from someone claiming to be an evolutionist (See Liberal style #49). I especially enjoyed the reference to "serious scientific evidence" -- what, pray tell, is the opposite? Junggai (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the right kind of salad to be a Kensalad, though I'm sure now that we've brought attention to this rating site Ken will be socking up immediately to improve conservapedia's web ranking as part of Operation Adjacent Lettuce. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

More on Barack HUSSEIN Obama...

Andy's latest creation: a totally non-biased page on Obama's Muslim heritage! He says that Islam is compatible with the modern world--HE MUST BE A MUSLIM! Facepalm (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't they already have a page on that? Heh, love the Gaddafi endorsement. So much for that, eh Moammar? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ferfuxsakes, the article was created by a guy who signed up yesterday. n00b. P-Foster (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is made by an Andy. :D --User:Brxbrx/sig 05:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

shut up. P-Foster (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I'm afraid it was a n00bish mistake on my part. After so much time looking at Conservapedia, I automatically assume that any Andy present is the insane creator. Still, though, that by no means detracts from the sheer ridiculousness of the article. Facepalm (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually looks to be a cut/paste from other stuff that is/was in their Obama article already, may have been taken out when it got revamped a while back. P-Foster (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this? They already have Muslim agenda of the Obama Administration^img, and this just repeats all that. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. The page I brought up is all about personal attacks. Facepalm (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OIC One article is all about how Obama has a Muslim agenda but it's personal; the other is all about how Obama has a Muslim agenda but it's more neutrally-reported. I guess one could see the content of each as distinct... --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

One is about how Obama is Muslim. The other is about how Obama's using his administration to pursue suppsoedly Muslim goals. There is a difference. Facepalm (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin Wigo

So CamilleT effectively replaces^img the edit that Ken

removed.  Wonder if ken will revert that one and ban camillet? Oldusgitus (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I lose track of who CPers are supposed to like and dislike. It must be very limiting trying to fit everything into an ideaology. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly it looks more like an attempt to keep CP's official anti-All Things British meme intact. If it means meaking Britain look bad, they'll keep the article as is, even if it has been proven false. Facts always play second fiddle to propaganda at CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jon "Stewart"

Just what is that nasty, vindictive little man up to now with this edit?^img The best I can come up with is the fact that he's having a go at Stewart, because his stage name hides that fact that he's Jewish. --PsyGremlinParla! 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, this isn't the first time either - and the previous time involved mainspace. Of course, Andy is oblivious to the fact that Jon makes no attempt to hide his Jewish heritage on the show, instead making jokes about it all the time. All the time. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just imagine how strong Andy's urge to use dick quotes is. I'm sure he leapt at the chance.

It's nothing compared to dick quotes at WND. The have titles about homosexual topics daily, but have never once forgot to dickquote "gay". Occasionaluse (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember which "nasty, vindictive little man" at CP it was that did it, but I remember that before the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, someone over there was making a definite point of using Stewart's birth name. (Incidentally, Stewart is his legal name. He had it changed about a year after he married.) MDB (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He really stretches to be petty, and he clearly struggled with this one. Conservatives don't even like George H.W. Bush and I seriously doubt Jon Stewart is trying to court any particular audience. There has to be truth for it to be witty, Andy. Dissecting the lack of wit and intellect in MPR items is too easy to be fun. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I'm quite fond of using old-timey curses and expressions because I find them charming and amusing, but Andy has single handedly ruined "claptrap" for me. I just can't use it. X Stickman (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100% - I just used "hooey" recently :-) Never will use claptrap. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

MDB is right. I forgot that it was the Rally, but there was definitely a kerfuffle about Jon's name. For some reason, Jpatt sticks in my mind - I think he was wearing the nasty, vindictive little man hat that day. I couldn't find anything in the Jon Stewart article history though. The rally article, perhaps? Someone look for me, before Ken burns its history. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an MPR item, and someone scrubbed it pretty quickly. I'm pretty sure it was WIGO'd here, so maybe it can be found in the archives. MDB (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Found it.^img It was on the page for the Rally itself, and it was JPatt. MDB (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear goddess... that clusterfuck could only have written by Johnny Sedition. --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. So Andy thinks Ken making fat jokes is funny while Jon Stewart making fun about stupid people isn't - well, as Andy isn't fat...

I'm wondering what Ms. "Schlafly" might think about that entry - if she ever may brake the chains that bound her to the oven. --uhm, t! 16:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

She doesnt use chain, she willingly stays in the kitchen. --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Making Karajou funny

If he's still doodling, and we're still providing the humour, then it's worth a linky, until he hangs up his pen again. (older entries here).--PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rob does the forbidden...

...and links to a KNOWN VANDAL SITE. update:Obvious parodist Respected sysop Jcw notices, inquires. update Conservative will have none of this,...and burns the talk page to get rid of Jcw's question. P-Foster (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC) (CAPS here and here.)

of all the days for captcha bot to break down!--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I capped myself. The links are right above your comment. P-Foster (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Over time I've numbed myself to the sensation of feeling stupid because of something I've said or done.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh - meeee too. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Clever way to get around the spam filter. Rob has brains afterall!! 19:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but he lacks the balls to stand up for his precious idea that a good faith editor could actually get promoted and challenge Ken's dick swinging and bullying, all while he does nothing but give lip service to the idea of community and lie down for Ken to repeatedly fuck him and his meager credibility. Hey Rob, do you think anyone other than Andy's coterie of mentally ill or cripplingly stupid thugs is a good faith editor by any definition your cohorts would accept? Lol! 20:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling Rob wants to reform CP: He makes suggestions that new editors should be treated like people, he opens a community portal that seems only to be used to criticize Ken, he links to RW (in a rather smooth way) and I think he wrote here somewhere that Ken is - well - not one of his favorite people. Good luck with that Rob, maybe if you get other senior sysops on the bandwagon that may actually work out. --uhm, t! 19:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob claims he wants to reform CP, but his actions don't exactly convince me: His quest to make Ken abuse his powers less and tune down the trolling has resulted in Ken abusing his powers more and cranking up the trolling to 11. And the one time he actually amended the rules, it was solely to codify the existing practice of sysops removing whatever they like from talk pages. And the linking to RW was done to push his little "RW harassed and killed TK!!!" meme. Yeah, I can feel the spirit of good-faith cooperation flowing already! --Sid (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And User:Conservative removed it. There is near universal agreement TK did more to hurt CP, and help RW among everyone, myself and User:Conservative, included (to quote a senior CP sysop, "TK is burning in hell.") My argument is all the backstabbing he got from his fellow Rationalwikians gav e him a heart attack and drove him to his grave. Now Rationalwiki is getting help from CP sysop User:Conservative to cover the story up, and you're being an ingrate. Are you trying to drive User:Conservative to his grave just as TK was, too? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Who's the number of the beast, Rob?: Pippa (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Rob, you can argue that we killed TK and are trying to kill Conservative, but that doesn't mean that you have anything to back it up, or that your argument is even internally consistent. Junggai (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob is using hyperbole.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, no, he's really accusing us of murder and now attempted murder. That's how the little troll thinks. P-Foster (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} Röstigraben (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

uh-oh, rob

shits about to go DOWN^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ah, don't worry. Just got off the phone with User:Conservative after an extended, high-level confidential discussion. One item discussed was unlocking his/her user page on a trial basis. I promised support if trolling and abuse were to occur. Subject is uninterested at this time, but is mindful of discussions at Conservapedia:Community Portal. Right now we need definitions for behavior guidelines relating to (a) vandalism, (b) good faith, (c) blockable offenses, etc. for both editors and sysops. Constructve, good faith editors welcome. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So after an extended telephone conversation, you're not sure if he/she is a him or a her? In fact, bloody hell; I can't imagine a conversation between Knobs and Ken

, no wonder it was extended - neither of you can stay on topic for more than two words... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Unlock Ken's talkpage, but make it a blockable offence to post there. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What's his number? Senator Harrison (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

^good lord why would you want to talk to him--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's too paranoid to give even Rob his telephone number or admit we all know his real name. He skypes using an alias. 05:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that be the same Skype alias that Kenneth DeMyer (for we all know that it is he) uses for his SEO business? The problem for Rob in trying to resuscitate CP is that Ken is not a team player and never will be. Wiki's are collaborative projects but Ken's history at CP from day 1 has been to isolate himself and lock away all his own toys so that the other kids can't play with them. The only reason he still hangs out at CP is that as a sysop he can publish and censor things without being held to account. His outings at aSoK show that he tends to run away and hide his tears whenever he gets challenged or mocked; whereas at CP he can hide behind mommy Schlafly's skirts when any of the naughty boys make him look silly. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"I promised support if trolling and abuse were to occur." - PFFBWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA! --Sid (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Constructve, good faith editors welcome." On Conservapedia? Nobsie you little minx! Mountain Blue (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

During this telephone conversation, did he make you call him "Peter Moore" or perhaps "Ruy Lopez"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you made it sound all dirty. Vulpius (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobby, so what if people troll or otherwise make undesirable posts on Ken's talk page? If they are genuine troublemakers they get the boot and offending comment is reverted or oversighted. There is never any need to lock, delete or redirect the talk page on a moderated wiki. Don't let Ken deprive you of your machismo. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously now, tell me, what is the purpose of trolling a users talk page? or engaging in personal vilification? If User:Conservative's work is that far off base, and you're so sure of yourself and your ability to rebut the scientifc points, why degrade yourself, AND your own argument, by abusing another editor, either in interaction with that user on their wiki, or on this website? Can you explain this to me? Is this just your idea of good, harmless fun? or are you on mission from God of Satan or whomever it may or may not concern, to save the children of the planet by making such a piss-poor example how human beings who diagree interact? Tell me, PLEASE. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not condoning trolling or abuse but it is an extreme overreaction to lock the page so that nobody can respond. If someone is abusive or trolling then there are options to deal with the individual. As to the second part of your question, you may care to examine how you and some of your fellow editors at CP have responded to liberals and atheists. Machismo? Obesity? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the gentleman say, "you and some of your fellow editors at CP" in the context Machismo & Obestiy? or responding to liberals and athiests? I beleive the gentleman is misinformed. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If any of you believe Rob is making sincere, good-faith efforts to make CP more reasonable--and why would we want him to, I mean, seriously?--then you are being trolled. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

because the intended goal of CP is actually a good idea?--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it a good idea, and if it is, why is Conservapedia where you have any hope for reform to bring about this 'good idea' when there is absolutely no evidence that under Schlafly it will be anything more than bomb-throwing and propaganda? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Conservative is already fed up with all the editors (three?) crapping on his castle: the cp:User talk:Conservative is protected again. But he put up a post-box: cp:User:Conservative/messages. Kafkaesk. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's disclaimer^img is classic. "Please don't message me about anything, and even if your message does pass my criteria, I probably won't answer it anyway." Also, why is the insane loon creating a messages^img page, when he has a talk page? His behaviour is getting more and more bizarre. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't misunderestimate the man-child. Edits to his talk page produce attention-grabbing orange boxes while posts on other sub-pages may be safely ignored.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

conservative's latest lucid outburst

[2]^img- although he probably recycled it from an earlier outburst--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Irony-meter broken again, a creationist criticizes someone for having a contradictory theology just kills the machine. --uhm, t! 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The sad thing -- that's as lucid as a CP sysop has ever been. Right Rob? P-Foster (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, he's not just right, he's mimicing a talking point of some Obama supporters. To wit: Obama has been lambasted for being a follower of Jeremiah Wright AND for being a follower of Islam. (or however that should parse) The two are mutually exclusive. I know it's tough to see through his particular writing style, but it's a fair point. 98.247.159.83 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the conservatives who make those arguments will insist Jeremiah Wright was somehow part of the Nation of Islam. (Of course, as I understand it, the rest of Islam views the NoI something like the rest of Christianity views the Mormons, reactions ranging from "brothers in the same religion, albeit a little odd" to "a bizarre cult." MDB (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To address the main point, give User:Conservative credit for speaking up and criticizing Obama's critics. As to, "a follower of Jeremiah Wright AND for being a follower of Islam...The two are mutually exclusive." Not necesessarily. Some might say both are Satanic. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, Rob? Does that mean, if I claim you're Chinese and Nutty claims you're Ecuadorean, it's possible that we're both correct because neither are American? Junggai (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe he was being serious, or at worst he was repeating a common Christian belief that other world religions are products of Satan meant to deceive the faithful.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It only took almost four years, but...

...ANDY FINALLY kinda sorta ACCEPTS THAT ARCHAEOPTERYX IS NOT A FORGERY!

Of course, the path to that is typical Andy.

Recap for those who hadn't been around back then: Long discussions on the talk page^img between Andy and a bunch of people (including PJR, even) between October 2007 and January 2008.

Now:

• Nzc: "Oh, by the way, SCIENCE!"^img
• Andy: "NOOOOOOOO!"^img *actually clicked that AiG link and finally realizes that even Creationists disagree with him* "Fine, whatever, SCIENCE! But it doesn't mean anything anyway! And it's not really proven, and St. Hoyle is still the victim!"^img

Ah well, it's still more than expected from Andy. --Sid (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were gonna say something like; "Ken FINALLY adds a coherent sentence to his pet article in one single edit" or "Andy FINALLY sorts out the Main Page." How disappointing. SJ ^Debaser 16:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Andy's now only 150 years behind modernity? He'll be ready to replace his traction engine with an internal combustion car soon. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. He doesn't say that it isn't a forgery. He says that some other scientists predictably claims not and that AiG shows Archie is irrelevant whether it is a forgery or not. I think we should withhold our congrats until he actually says that legitimate scientific consensus confirms that it isn't a forgery. Phiwum (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's less of a congrats and more of astonishment that Andy even partially reverted his previous stance. The "Even AiG accepted it as a non-forgery" thing is YEARS old and has been mentioned directly on the talk page, even by a senior sysop (PJR, January 1, 2008: "The case for it being a fraud has been blown out of the water."), and yet Andy had completely refused to ackowledge this in the article, instead basically sticking to "Yes, it's most definitely a forgery, and nobody disputes this". --Sid (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia VS Penn Jillette?

Conservapedia has a rather lengthy response^img to Penn's remarks. TL;DR, Kendra took offence and filled the essay with such remarks like "Of course, with his busy eating schedule, he probably found it difficult to read the whole article." Cant wait for another video.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Beat you to that. :P -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

waitwait... what remarks? did they do a Bullshit on CP? :-) --En attendant Godot 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OH Dear God. why do i have a feeling if we took 100 random atheists (thinking Schirmer, Dawkins, scott adams) and stuck them in a room with 100 random Conservatives (beck and rush come to mind) the totals for the religious would be a *bit* heavier. not that it matters, i'm just saying "southern fried chicken" and all that.--En attendant Godot 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The CP "talk" tab for the "Essay" links one to the "Atheism and Obesity" article. I presume actually debating the essay would not be allowed. Does being a "fathead" count as obese? "You are not of the body!"Jimaginator (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The irony of Kendoll lecturing other people on wasting so much time on unproductive activities. How many undergraduate degrees could he have got if he wasn't obsessively captioning pictures on CP? (Answer: None, you have to be at least vaguely literate to earn a degree.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they actually give degrees in "the study of the Gay and the Atheist and their infiltration into society, and one man's obsession with both".--En attendant Godot 21:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Can't wait for another video." Yeah. Maybe the next one will be smart and clever and funny.P-Foster (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to congratulate Ken on this - I was impressed. I loved Penn & Teller in college (though Penn bugs me these days) and I have to give credit that Ken achieves recognition from some pretty big names in the areas he targets. All the ridicule comes from people like us, his opponents so it bounces right off him. Nobody in his waking life will ever discover what a fool he is because nobody IRL will ever Google "Ken DeMyer" because he never leaves the house. He's championed by his fellow CP editors because he brings the hits and the big name mentions; they just think he crosses lines sometimes. Any substantive existence he has is on the Internet, and there he has high-profile targets responding to his 'satire'. On his own terms, he has done pretty well for himself as 'Conservative'. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, do you think Penn will make a video response if I write an essay on obesity and libertarianism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with Phil on this one, it is a win-win situation for Ken

, how could it not be? Here we have someone who writes a kindergartner level diatribe that is little more than "hur hur, I think atheists are teh fat!" on an obscure blog that pretends to be an online encyclopedia, which is even ignored by the target audience of the religious right and he actually got a decently high profile atheist to respond directly to it. Penn should have done what about everyone else in the world has; snickered briefly at the "essay", realize it is CP and thus realize it will receive no traction outside of its tiny basement corner of the Internet, and gone off to do something more worthwhile, like WoW or something. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Penn must have just found it and not read the background written on RW. Otherwise he'd know the best way to go would be to ignore it and say something about RW instead. That'd have been cool. 23:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A challenge!

Ken: I challenge you to a debate! But in fact, it will be three vs. three... in four months... and I'll just hide behind "Prove atheism!" and "Answer these questions by AiG!"...^img

I'd laugh my ass off if the guy replies and gets Dawkins to join him, actually. It's been a while since we've seen Ken's "Oh my, I suddenly have absolutely no time at all for the next half year! But I'll still squeeze in six dozen edits daily." bullshit excuse. --Sid (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Aannnnnd, it's gone. Good thing user:capture is on the job! 01:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Strictly speaking, it's not deleted. It's been added to the Essay: Conservapedia's reply to atheist Penn Jillette^img article. However an honest editor would, instead of of deleting original article, would replace it with a section-redirect to is new location. CS Miller (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Im getting tierd of this whole "You cant prove atheism is true" nonsense. Can anybody prove that christianity is true? All I see is nonsense about YEC, but nothing concerning the Christian god. Untill I see airtight proof in the exsistance of god, I'll call THAT as proof atheism is true.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That won't be getting anybody anywhere. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that I expect anything to come of it, but I just e-mailed links to the essay and the CaptureBot screencap to Penn Jillette. I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Ken

's head explodes if Penn replies directly... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As expected, he said thanks for the heads up, but not likely. At least he responded, though! I may have to take the wife to his show in Vegas when I get back from Korea... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Kendoll keep challenging people to debate? Hasn't he had enough humiliation for one lifetime? If Penn responds he'll have to take another 90 day sabbatical. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would you encourage this? All Ken

will do is excuse why he can't actually debate, or make some sort of impossible demand and then sit back in his basement and soak up the little bit of attention he receives out of this.  It won't matter if he looks like a coward to the rest of us, he will just rationalize it away and declare himself "Teh Winnah!" --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But Conservative, I thought you had a busy schedule for the next few years or so? But now you have time to challenge more people to a debate?? Surely the 90 day editing sabbatical wasn't just a downright lie to get out of debating someone?! SJ ^Debaser 10:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

SURELY. ...and HOW! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe penn should lose some of his weight, then he could be a worthy opponent of the amazing Ken, operating at FULL ATHEIST POWER!"--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wutevs. Ken only talks about "debating" people who wouldn't deign to speak with him if he was the last person on earth. Several of us would debate him if there were clear terms. But no. He's too far down his anti-intellectual bunny hole, which unfortunately is his native habitat. 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone email Penn and tell him to demand that Ken donate 20K to an atheist charity of his choice before the debate will take place. Anything Ken says against that we'll just add straight to the article on Ken dodging the debate with people here.

I see he's brought out the written debates only idea. Odd how Gish et al have the machismo to show up and debate in person but Ken doesn't. We all know the reason Ken, you've got a massive case of self loathing. First articles about obsessive compulsive disorder twinned with your days long editing sprees and red telephone messages. Now dodging public appearances to avoiding showing you're fat enough to have to buy two seats on an airline. It does make me wonder about your major work on the subject of homosexuality... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Birthers: Did I miss a memo or is this just Rob being Rob?

Rob: "...the 'Obama was born in Kenya' conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House..." and "...the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question."^img

To be fair, I shouldn't be surprised that things went there. But still, is this just Rob's warped view, is this CP's official new stance, or is this a wider trend already? --Sid (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, at Conservapedia it seems that it's only a short three-step process from

1. Believing something bad about their political opponents, to
2. Being completely certain of it, to finally
3. This being an established fact.

The novelty of Conservapedia's take on this system is that between any of the steps, no external impetus or evidence is required. They just have to suspect something long enough before it jumps from belief to certainty to fact. Consider it a form of the scientific method, without all of that bothersome testing. Junggai (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Suspicion is proof. Why would the God Om put suspicion in the minds of the quisitors, if the accused is innocent? -- Terry Prathett, Small Gods CS Miller (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The root of Facebook evil

I just read that Aaron Sorkin, writer of The Social Network (which lost the Oscar to The King's Speech) left FB after the film. So did the film's star Jesse Eisenberg, who was "creeped out". The first I remember Andy carping about FB was when that orgy preacher said it hurt marriages in Nov 2010. In January 2011 Andy explained his outlook^img. Was this the start of his anti-FB thing? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My pet theory is still that Andy is insanely jealous of anything that came out of Harvard that's had more success in life than he has (Facebook, Barack Obama, an especially well-fed rat under the dining hall). MDB (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The preacher thing was the start of the anti-Facebook parade - on CP at least. But I agree with others that Andy was already predisposed to considering Facebook a liberal scourge, and the preacher thing was just his first opportunity to declare it so publicly. I think it's more than just a jealousy over its success, though. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's just jealousy, but I do suspect that plays a big part in it. This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps he imagines that Conservapedia would be the go-to spot for conservative political networking if it wasn't for Facebook.

As for Andy's obsession about Facebook "promoting gossip" and "destroying marriages" -- well, yeah, it does. But you could say that about any tool of communication, and that's what Facebook is -- a tool of communication. I could easily envision Andy a hundred years ago, griping about how this "telephone" thing (invented by the liberal Alexander Graham Bell) "promotes gossip" and "destroys marriages". MDB (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is popular and respected enough to be used as a medium by major conservative politicians; CP on the other hand is ignored by all conservative politicians, pundits, and activists despite Il Duce honestly believing his little bunker on the Internet is the greatest thing since the Resurrection. In short, extreme jealously. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Facebook, he also hates Microsoft, Apple and Google. You'd think he'd hail them as icons of American technological innovation and corporate success, but instead, he summarily dismisses them as "liberal". Of course, Facebook still stands out in the sheer quantity of the rants he's directed against it. I've personally given up on trying to find reasons for Andy's whims, because there doesn't seem to be any pattern whatsoever - why isn't he hating Twitter, for example? Surely the whole Weinergate mess would've been a prime opportunity to find a promising new target for his rage. Röstigraben (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And don't forget the church (which at the time could very definately be called conservative) fought long and hard against both printing and against the peasants being allowed to learn to read and write. And I'm damn sure that at the time there were probably clergy ranting about how this new fangled letter writing stuff was allowing people to carry on illicit affairs. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

EC) The invention of the post box was regretted after its introduction to the UK as it allowed women to communicate without the knowledge of their male guardians. Source: dimly remembered QI. Pippa (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What does he have against Micro$oft? I thought they were a conservative darling after the Clinton administration's anti-trust suits. MDB (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's successful? wait, when the hell did the majority of conservatives and what andy consider conservative align? --Mikalos209 (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple and not Twitter you ask? Because CP has a mildly successful account on Twitter and Il Duce doesn't want to jeopardize that with some sort of anti-Twitter rant, even if most text on that social network is every bit as insipid as that found on Facebook. For Il Duce, anything that brings the hits is automatically *good*. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What's their Twitter handle? I gotta see this madness! Jdellaro (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here, I think it is maintained by JPatt.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, forgot it was JPatt tweeting. Went to try and follow again--turns out he had blocked me from following him on Twitter! Jdellaro (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatta ya know, I follow them too. Barely updated - they could do a lot more with that Twitter feed if they were smarter. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "them", I think. It's just Jpatt's private Twitter account (so I guess he doesn't allow anybody else to use it), but he calls it "Conservapedia" to look important. --Sid (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because, hey, what could be more important on the internet than to be the official Twitter feed of Conservapedia? MDB (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

When you have achieved absolutely nothing else, you cling to even the smallest stepping stone... --Sid (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia and deliberate ignorance

Quoting from them

• Liberal cafeteria Christians refuse to consider Bible verses that contradict their preconceived notions of what the Bible should say.
• Liberal Internet discussion boards quickly delete posts that present facts contradicting liberal ideology and ban users making such posts.

Tu quoque? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

At a guess, BoN, you've only just found Conservapedia(?). RationalWiki has been documenting this behaviour for almost 4 years now. Pippa (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Hehe, very fitting, especially right now. Also, here's the current version of the article^img so people can also check out the other examples. --Sid (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Too good an example of "delicious irony" to waste. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the magic of the market!

Conservatives complaining about things they don't like going on on private property is always entertaining.^img Either US Airways can allow transvestites on planes or you can (gasp!) use the gummint to regulate US Airways. Crossdressing -- it's the magic of the market! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm, if it's true that the guy was refused travel because his undercrackers were showing but they let that weirdo fly, then that is hypocrisy. That old tranny looked a right state, I wouldn't want to sit next to him on a flight. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but it's also hypocritical of Karajou to complain (if he actually supports forcing them to change their policies, etc). 99.50.96.218 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment he's just pointing out the hyprocrisy. He hasn't said what his position is on the two incidents. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy who was refused travel was NOT refused because of the way he was dressed. He was refused because of the way he behaved when he was asked to pull his pants up. Among the charges is assault. The whole issue is not about how you dress but how you behave. I'll sit next to a well mannered tranny in preference to a boorish but well dressed person. Actually I'd probably prefer the tranny anyway. Anybody with the gumption to go out dressed like that is going to be an interesting person. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't wearing your trousers slung low a sign of gang affiliation in the US anyway? I always thought it was.

And I've never yet met a free marketeer who really believed in the free market. I recall once having an argument with someone who described himself as a free marketeer who worked for what was then the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce in the UK. The entire purpose of the intervention board was to go into the market and buy up surplus agricultural produce if the price dropped too low in order to artifically maintain the price. Or to sell the surplus if the price began to rise too high. He would not accept that what he was doing was in diametric opposition to his free market principles. So far as he was concerned it was prefectly acceptable for a free marketeer to go into the market to artifically manipulate prices by controlling the supply of goods. And tbh most of the ones I have met are equally as hypocritical as he was. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is perfectly acceptable - by libertarian standards - for a "free marketeer" (which in this case I'll assume means a private enterprise) to buy and sell crap regardless of their motivations for doing so (in this case, deliberately influencing market prices). However I have a sneaking suspicion the IBAP is funded by the government, or given certain special powers by the government, which does make him a flaming hypocrite. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Low-slung pants are worn by gang-bangers and banger-wannabes alike. As the story goes, the practice derived from prisoners in jails being issued clothing that was too large for them. Another story says that low-slung pants were a sign from the prison "bitch" that he was available and misinterpreted by gang-bangers who wanted to look hard. I always liked the irony in the second one. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the real problem with Karajou's news item is the use of the word "liberal". With that word removed the item reads just fine to me. The problem is that the CP hierarchy regards all hypocrisy as liberal hypocrisy even if it has no logical connection to liberalsim. Why is this airline a liberal institution? Is it renowned as being representative of liberal thought? Or is any connection with San Francisco enough to tar one with the liberal brush? They just don't think. --Horace (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Horace: I'd answer your question by telling you to read What's the Matter With Kansas?, which, while its demographic argument has some flaws (see here for instance), does a good job deconstructing wingnut tropes. Here, San Francisco + crossdresser equals liberal, which makes good fodder for what Frank calls the "plen-t-plaint":

“”Everything seems to piss conservatives off. And they react by documenting and cataloging their disgust. The result is what we will call the plen-T-plaint, a curious amassing of petty, unrelated beefs with the world. Its purpose is not really to evaluate the hated liberal culture that surrounds us; the plen-T-plaint is a horizontal rather than vertical mode of criticism, aiming instead to infuriate us with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of the many tiny ways the world around us assaults family values, uses obscenities, disrespects parents[...] It offers no resolution, simply reminding us that we can never win. The plen-T-plaint is the rhetorical device that makes Bill O’Reilly’s TV show a hit, as he gets indignant one day about the Insane Clown Posse and gets indignant the next about the Man-Boy Love Association

[7] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that gets left out here is that this is NOT hypocrisy. US Airlines has more than one employee. This was a different flight crew in a different part of the country. If the same crew and same pilot had allowed one to fly and not the other, you have a legitimate case, as it stands, you have a case of bad corporate guidelines that allow too much personal discretion when dealing with passengers. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The blind squirrel finds a nut

Andy is right about this one. It's ridiculous that Roger Ebert had to apologize for calling someone a jackass after they killed someone driving drunk. MDB (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebert could have waited a month before making a public service announcement.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue. Lost in the "tragedy of Ryan Dunn's death" was that he was speeding 130 miles per hour in a Porsche, and he killed his friend, a newlywed. We're lucky he didn't kill anyone else. He had a young following, and I don't fault Ebert for wanting to make an impression on them while the poker was hot. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, also, the guy Ebert called a jackass was famous for being in the Jackass movies.

I'll grant, there is something to be said for holding off and not speaking so soon after someone's death. But really, driving drunk is one of the stupidest fucking things a human being can do. Even if you're lucky enough to make it home without a scratch on you, your car or anyone else, if you drive drunk, you're a jackass. You're not just putting yourself at risk, you're putting everyone else on the road with you in danger. MDB (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I'm glad I live in New York and don't need nor want a car, because I like to drink! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ebert (and, but extension, Andy *shudder*). He murdered someone, and committed suicide, essentially. If he had shot wildly into a crowded, and then turned the gun on himself, would anyone be saying "Oh, what a poor guy, cut down in his prime"? He is a villian, and the appropriate response is to villify him. (As you may note, drunk driving is a bit of a hot button for me) Carlaugust (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy was a jackass who put people's lives at risk out of pure self-centered stupidity; Ebert was right on the money. No apology needed. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I gotta go with Ebert and (ack) Andy here. YOu don't know the person, you are trying to make a point about responsibility, fast cars and alcohol... and he did say at first "condolences to the family". I don't get why we are so worried about celebs. if this had been some 16 year old kids, they would be blasted in the papers to try and scare other 16 year old kids from doing the same. --En attendant Godot 16:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I also saw one tweet quoted that said something on the order of "the car hit Ebert's face". Nasty thing to say; Ebert has had surgery that left his face -- the politest way I can think of to put it is "not pleasant to look at". MDB (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of Andy's argument, but the way he uses it to bolster his stupid "Hollywood Values" sneerfest is really annoying. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the blind squirrel found half a nut. MDB (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ebert should not have apologized. I have zero tolerance for drunk driving and say good riddance to assholes that do it. If this was someone who was randomly shooting a gun in a crowded mall even if they weren't trying to hit people we'd say good riddance jackass, I'd argue the spirit of the argument is very similar. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 18:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. Really...The Real James Brown (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most people here and...urghhh...Andy. Ebert shouldn't have had to apologize. However, I'm sure Andy will claim something silly soon enough, like 'giraffe' is conservative term or tennis shoes are part of the liberal conspiracy, and we can get back to mocking him. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

silly obama and oil

silly elitist obama, wanting to keep gas prices at a low price so americans can live a normal life!^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, just last week Obama wasn't doing enough to lower prices. Now he's doing too much. Can't win, don't try. P-Foster (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Obama can't win, he just does a little better each time... 23:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I strongly disagree with this decision. I always felt the Strategic Oil Reserve should only be tapped into for real national emergencies. I hate paying high prices at the pump just as much as anyone else, but if we are going to do price relief, than it should be done through real, long term solutions, not this tiny, temporary one. Besides the price was sliding anyway and even at the peak, we still weren't paying the summer 2008 prices.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're from the US you do not pay high prices at the pump. It may seem like that but spend a little time in Europe - for example - and then you'll find out what high prices at the pump means. Jack Hughes (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I visited my sister in Germany last April, and filled up her mid-size car once (she drove me around a great deal while I was there.) I think it was fifty Euros or so, which is about $75-80 American. Back in the States, I probably would have paid half that. And when I bought gas for my sister, I bought it on a US military base (her husband is in the Air Force), so the prices were probably a little cheaper than I would have paid at a gas station right off the Autobahn or something.

As for the SPR decision itself -- well, it can't hurt, but I really question how much it will help. Obama ordered the release of thirty million barrels of oil. That's about 1.5 days worth of oil consumption in the United States (2009 statistics). 30 million barrels just isn't that much.

I heard this analogy during the "Drill baby drill" days of the 2008 Presidential campaign. The solution is not more oil. The United States is like a junkie, and providing more oil is like giving a junkie a few more bags of smack. It might ease the suffering temporarily, but the real solution is to end the addiction. (And yes, I realize that analogy is flawed in that you can completely wean someone off of heroin; it is not realistic to believe that anytime in the reasonably near future the US will be able to completely quit using oil.) MDB (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

JoMar watch

This is very likely innocuous and I'm needlessly spotlighting this edit, but is anybody else worried that JoMar might actually be Jewish conspiracy theorist?^img©^{P-Foster original idea} I ask this in light of his edits concerning Israel and Libya and whatnot. What is it with developing and undeveloped countries and Jews? And yes, I realize that I am probably making too much of this. But that's why we're here, right? Speculating on and analyzing Conservapedia--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I said pretty much the same thing a couple of days ago. P-Foster (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, has he mentioned anything about Khazars, the Rothschilds, "international bankers," or Zionists? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be another deep cover Ratonalwiki parodist. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, its me. 23:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What, Rob, you're not going to try to accuse us of adding JoMar to our hit list? P-Foster (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oh dear.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Told ya. P-Foster (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Could Israel be behind the whole Arab Spring? Who wins while the Arab countries are divided, murdered or bombed?" - Joaquín Martínez. I am curious nobs, what do you think of that statement from one of your senior editors? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds conspiratorial and somewhat out of character for a sysop I've observed for four years. OTOH, English is his second language, he does not live in the United States, and is immersed in another culture where such rumblings may not recieve the scrutiny they are recieved with here, and throughout the English speaking world. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Only on Conservapedia do you "observe" your co-workers, instead of working, or collaborating, with them. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, his anti-US imperialism is definitely coming through his criticsim of NATO, but the conspiracy stuff looks like he's crossing a line. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 01:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another one.^img CPfan (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the straightforward answer.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

He's on a spree...^img CPfan (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Zionist ancestry?!?! Has he lost it???--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jom is catholic isn't he? The catholic church has a long and honourable history of anti-semitic sentiment, from it's expressed belief in jewish involvement in deicide to organisations such as wp:opus dei. Perhaps Jom is simply being an honest roman catholic, true to many of the original teachings of his orgainsation. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not damn them all out of hand. The church also helped Jews escape the holocaust and recently the Pope condemned Jewish deicide theories.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's largely the pre-Vatican II Mel Gibson-type wingnuts promoting that shit. Speaking of which, it reminds me of some of the Oldus Gituses on the Jewish side of my family, but that's a whole 'nother story. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course not all catholics are anti-semitic, I didn't mean to imply that. However there is a section of the catholic church which holds extreme anti-semitic views and in many cases they regard themselves as the true catholics (yes I know....rather like the scotsman and all that) and all the others as revisionists. Not all xtians are wingnuts of the andy kind either but that doesn't stop us from pointing out that his</> 'faith' is an integral part of his wingnuttery. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What have you done!! Now everyone's comments will be bold. There we go, I got the tag in before things got out of hand. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr 1. That's what comes of trying to write something just before you rush out of the door to go to work. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A minor point, but VII happened two decades after the War. Antisemitism is a complex phenomenon; occupied Poles were capable of being fairly antisemitic in the old-fashioned religious way (thoroughly reprehensible, I agree) while still risking their lives to save Jews from the Nazis (whose antisemitism was of a totally different order). CPfan (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least now the question is answered as to what Joaquin's major malfunction is. I always thought he seemed a bit too normal for CP, but sadly he was just doing a good job of concealing his own brand of crazy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, why does JoMar have two usernames? (I assume, from the links above, he's JMR10 as well.) Jdellaro (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, he has 3. His first account got fucked up after the great missing week disaster at CP, the second he created without accents to get around the problem, and then finally he has a third which is the same as his original account minus the unicode fuck up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And from the picture on his user page, he seemed like such a friendly old man--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And more^img, and more^img. Of course each edit taken alone is innocuous, but the pattern is positively chilling.... CPfan (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, he's a Paultard

lol^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia(ns) across the web

Recently, BBC Click mentioned a neat little website that allows you to find out what usernames are available across a number of popular social networking sites. It's also a fantastic little tool for lazy internet stalking. So! Let's have a look at the results for some certain usernames:

Conservapedia

Has accounts at Blogger, Facebook, YouTube, Wordpress, twitter, Twitpic, Buzznet, FriendFeed.

Karajou

Just Blogger, twitter, YouTube and Wordpress.

JPatt

Lots. We know he gets around but most probably aren't him.

aschlafly

Digg, DailyMotion, YouTube, eBay and twitter.

So there we go, if anyone wants to find out what fundie bile they've been saying out there, here's a good starting place. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it hilarious Conservapedia has a presence on Facebook given Andy's stance. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that Obama's on Twitter (the 3rd most followed person nog al), how long until that becomes a bed of liberal gossip and time wasters. I'm sure that'll impress Jpratt no end. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Check Temlakos as well: 13 sites, as has jinxmchue. Pippa (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this, you should be leery of the results. The moniker I use here (the only site I use this particular moniker) is also used on a dozen other sites. Even my common Internet moniker I discovered is used on Facebook by someone else other than myself. So its very hard to tell from that site along much of anything.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It really depends on the name. Karajou, Temlakos and Asclafly are pretty much Brian, TerryH and Andy everywhere, Normal names are more common because people like to use their real names on social networking sites. For years the only other person on the Internet with my own real name was some DJ in the outback of Australia. Now I can find about a dozen but my usual moniker based on a hobby, which I use on WP is more or less me everywhere. Even when I find the name taken it is often by me but I'd forgotten about it. Doh! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Best "New" Conservative words

Just in case you had any lingering doubts that Andy's made up list was massaged to suit his needs... I present "myopic".^img Although it was coined in 1752, it was only used in a conservative sense (as in Andy's myopic worldview) in the 1990s. Of course, this means that it gets included under the 1700s as a "new" conservative word. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it bothers Andy that his gimmicks fail to get the attention that Ken's gimmicks receive. Which of Andy's gimmicks have gotten notice? Conservapedia Bible went hog wild, but so many others--ConservaMath Medal, anyone?^img--die on the vine. Best Conservative Songs, Movies and Words have gone nowhere, and "Words" is so bizarrely constructed nobody will want to take the time to even make sense of it. Their Presidential candidate rankings look silly ("Sarah Palin uses Facebook, and the King's Speech won the Oscar, so that's a negative"). In the last few years, which of Andy's Gimmicks have succeeded to gain attention on the level of Fat Atheists (which both PZ Myers and Penn Jillette have now responded to)? I can't think of any off the top. OH! Theory of Relativity is Liberal! Any others? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot CP's most successful idiocy, the lenski affair. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

At least part of Andy's failures to gain attention are because he has the attention span of a three year old on amphetamines. Take the aforementioned ConservaMath Medal -- he made a half-assed announcement that Ben Green "seemed to have won it" and left it at that. Even the much-heralded CBP is pretty much dead. His homeschooling efforts no longer exist with regard to CP -- it's all face to face teaching with the exam results being posted on-line.

Ken, by contrast, gets obsessive. Machismo, fat atheists, etc. MDB (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also loved the Conservative of the Year award, which seemed to be sporadically given. Jdellaro (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember that once upon a time Andy was planing to have the complete Supreme Court case files covered on CP. I don't think that it was ever completed, nor the articles on the various appointees. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Attention span - that's definitely it. Andy has none. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Iduan wrote articles for each SCOTUS justice and a nice template. Sme of them are skeletal. Some are very good. He's a smart kid who does a better job than CP deserves. 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath on Supreme Court cases---heck it took them three years to fix the title of the Dred Scott v. Sandford article, and end the redirect from the CORRECT title of the case to the INCORRECT title! Jdellaro (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Special Rights

I just came across Special Rights^img, a short blog post by DavidE. It's worth quoting:

Special rights, also called special privileges, are privileges extended to a particular special-interest group but denied to the majority. Examples of special rights include same-sex "marriage"[1] and the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell[2].

Sooooo... examples of a "privilege" or a "right" not extended to the heterosexual majority but that are specially reserved for gays are marriage and serving in the military. DavidE has been active on CP since 2007, so even though he writes things like this without irony^img, my guess is he is not a parodist. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

the "special rights" argument always pisses me off. They give these smart alec responses like "gays have equal rights, cuz they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people." How about the right to marry who you love, and the right to live your own life without interference from the religion and bigotry of others?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a good framing technique. "Rights" must be conceived as a finite, zero-sum game, so as gays gain rights, religious right wingnuts lose them. That is, they lose the "right" to live in a society (ostensibly) based on Biblical morality and the "right" not to see gay people being, well, gay. Thus, any public demonstration of "gayness" is an infringement on their "rights" and fuel for the plen-t-plaint machine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Really good points. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty self-evident once you think of it like a conspiracy theory. Replace the NWO/Illuminati/whatever with liberals, connect any event or news story somehow with persecution by liberals, then get pissed off about it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I remember 'special rights' gaining traction in the 1980s and 1990s with anti-discrimination laws. It was demagoguery back then, because laws aren't written so that only gay people get protection, they are written to protect people of sexual orientations. So, if a gay fired a straight for being straight, the straight had recourse whereas they didn't before. You don't really hear 'special rights' anymore. I think that argument burned out with most of the other evangelical lies. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still around, it's just not as popular as it used to be (similar to "states' rights" because the dog-whistle got used too much). Incidentally, one of the nuthouses still using it is the one he cites, (In)Accuracy in Media. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait - his idea is that "same sex marriage' is a special right, cause het's don't get to play? why not? what's stopping a het from marrying another het? this little bear of little brain is very confuzzled. Also, what "special right" will repealing dadt give gays? oh, the special right to talk about their wild and crazy sex life? or... um... the special right to rape other men the women women have claimed the male soldiers rape them? *I'm really really twice confuzzled.--En attendant Godot 17:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Help to buy Expelled.

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Help to buy Expelled.22:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ed Boor makes a redlink for no fucking reason

[3]^img Seriously? I mean I know he just died, but cmon!--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

crisis?

drama queen^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

JCW's "Graphs"

Otherwise known as playing with a TI-85^img. I mean, seriously, when I was in high school, we used to play with our graphing calculators and check out the results. "Obviously the liberalism line is hypothetical, but it's interesting nonetheless."---which equates to, I made up some shit, and then wanted to see what it looks like graphed. Actually, that's the theory underlining this ENTIRE "conservative" words graph! Jdellaro (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And what kind of primitive graphing tool is that? Does JCW use DOS? CPfan (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be some package like Maple or Mathematica. If you don't use them to the fullest extent, the graphs can come across as really crude and basic. άλφα^Talk 01:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks rather like gnuplot to me. alt (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ayup. gnuplot on default settings. You can make it a lot prettier, like, oh, outputting in vector format (EPS or SVG) or something. The raster output is pretty horrible. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberal hippie gnuplot? Tut tut. CPfan (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence Ed Poor is a horrible person

I have no words for how blithely he lies in order to demean and slander homosexuals.^img 17:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess when it's "your turn to seduce me" at the Poor household, a little back-door action is off the agenda. P-Foster (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thou shalt lie for Jesus. It's what little Baby Jesus would do.--En attendant Godot 17:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, at least it's more than one line. Not bad for Uncle Ed, although you'd think a wiki expert would know how to use fucking refs. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And he adds another sex related redlink. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, creepy Ed adds the "Anal Cancer" redlink, but they already have an article on "Anal cancer and homosexuality". Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ESINO - Ed Stub In Name Only. He lifted it from Jpatt's Gay Disease^img article. --Sid (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute...Ed Poor is a horrible person? I had no idea!^img DickTurpis (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good God, I had forgotten about that one. *headdesk* --Sid (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's power is growing exponentially since his showdown with Rob

What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, right?^img Ken's

got balls machismo--User:Brxbrx/sig  22:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, ol' Kenny boy doesn't like competition it seems. Vulpius (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

God help them when Kendoll is the person who enforces editorial control on the wiki. "Good article Mr. Schlafly, but put a couple of flying kitty gifs at the top." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised, really. Each sysop has his own niche, and they will absolutely refuse to look at any idiocy or abuse as long as it doesn't happen in their niche. But once the border is crossed, all bets are off. Homosex is Ken's specialty, so of course he won't tolerate any other articles butting in, especially not ones that don't conform to the Ken Manual Of Style or his Operation Anal Turmoil or whatever. --Sid (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy

Let's all stare at a website nobody gives a fuck about and talk about how crazy and insane they are! And, let's spend hours and hours doing so, and create blogs and other websites against it instead of, you know, getting a life. Face it RationalWiki, it's time to move on and forget conservapedia. They'll always be crazy, and you cannot change that. But you can change the fact that people care by simply not caring yourselves. In fact, I bet that if all you conservapedia trolls and vandals ignored conservapedia, it would become just a footnote on the internet right next to geocities. 74.63.112.147 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm, the folk here look at Conservapedia for the same reason someone might watch a really, really, really bad horror movie - because it's quite good as an unintentional comedy. As for vandalising CP, the folk here don't really need to. The sysops and admins over there do a much better job of vandalising their own wiki than anyone else. Oh, and, despite the delusions of some over there, CP already is a footnote on the internet. 86.164.15.217 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

@74.63.112.147. Well, that's me told. I will remember next time I'm flying my light aircraft, riding my new Triumph, going on holiday to South Africa or somewhere equally interesting or teaching my next karate lesson that I need to get a life and stop occasionally reading here and over at cp. Thanks, without you I would never have thought of getting myself some kind of life. Tell me, what are you doing this afternoon? Just so I can get some ideas from you of how to get this life you refer to. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This afternoon? Let's see, I'm going to an immigrant-rights parade. Then, I'm gonna go plant some trees in the state forest and pull some weeds for them because, after all, I'm a conservationist. Then, I'm going to work on fixing other environmental issues affecting my state because, again, I'm a conservationist and certified naturalist with the Fish and Wildlife Service. After that, I'll have to check my schedule. But I won't spend my time trolling and vandalizing some stupid website nobody cares about. 74.63.112.144 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But I won't spend my time trolling and vandalizing some stupid website nobody cares about. Did you even read what you wrote before you hit save page? Enjoy your afternoon, from what you say you are going to be having an enjoyable time and I applaud you for what you are doing. I intend to work in my garden to see if I can make it any more habitable for the slowworms that live here and for the hedgehogs that live under my shed. And then I wll also check cp to see if there is any more idiocy, I will watch the motogp to see some supreme sportsmen in action. What I personally will not be doing is vandalising cp, and I doubt any other regular here will be doing so either. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to hear that RW isn't a website that nobody cares about. Vulpius (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What Oldusgitus said. It always amuses me that people buy into the "RW trolls and vandalizes" meme. Yes, when you take all trolls and vandals and all RW members, there is bound to be an overlap. It's a large community, after all. However, there is also an overlap between CP members and Holocaust deniers, and yet I don't see anybody claiming that the people of CP are Holocaust deniers. How strange, it's almost as if there is a difference between the actions of individuals and the stance of a site! ;)

And what do the trolls and vandals do? They behave like complete assholes and insert hilariously wrong information into the encyclopedia. Compare and contrast that with the sysops who... behave like complete assholes and insert hilariously wrong information into the encyclopedia. Hm. (Though that reminds me that I toyed with the thought of defining "good faith editor" and "vandalism" for Rob because he refuses to do anything about Ken's idiocy until that arbitrarily moved goalpost is met.) However, that doesn't mean that I'm defending or encouraging vandalism, parody or trolling. Trust me, I'm not. I (and most others here, I am sure) prefer to watch the CP sysops spiraling into madness without outside influence. Parodists are unwanted noise, and I always felt that the best things usually happen when Andy has a moment of peace to develop his newest "insight". That's why we have "What is Going On At CP?" and not "How Are We Currently Trolling CP?". We as a site just observe and make notes. Oh, and laugh. Because to us, CP is entertainment, nothing more. --Sid (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

to each his own. troll harder--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=50^img Ken's on a roll. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Counters to Conservapedia parts 1:10

I've not read them all but looks worthy of closer examination. Pippa (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of it seems to be stuff we already have. I watched the Maddow segment -- she's wrong about anti-relativity being new. Relativity as a commie plot goes back to the 1920s and there were other anti-relativity cranks before the Schlaf. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is on vacation

Karajou is on vacation^img just a heads up. Mikalos209 (talk)

There is no truth to the rumour that he's gone dinosaur hunting with Terry Wobblebottom.Psygremlin (talk)

Are you trying to annoy Ace? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you being a dick because I expressed an opinion? You asshole. Ace ^{of Spades} 22:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

FFS, lighten up man. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 01:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I try but I can't. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

wtf is this?

[4]^img I don't know what I'm looking at.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Jpatt, the man with 2 brain cells. Do you need to know any more? DickTurpis (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of all the morons at CP, JPatt is the worst. He's not clever or mean. He's just retarded. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to understand what the picture is about.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a poor attempt at satire, parodying the (as they see it) liberal desire to read racism into everything. CPfan (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's that typical right wing, and invariably racist inspired, meme. Instead of addressing the actual arguments about racism the right winger will simply cry 'Im white and that means you think I am racist'. So they have developed this incredible (to any intelligent person anyway) mindset in which because some white people are said to be racist this is an attack on the entire white race by we who think some people are racist. So in an attempt to be amusing they extend that to anything white. It's rather sad in reality and illustrates a complete lack of both empathy and understanding. But really I've just described jpatt so I suppose in a way that was tautology. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The saddest thing about it is that that actually shows even more that there's something racist going on there. In order to feel insulted as a race, you kinda needa have pride in your race which makes it terribly hard to say that your race is just an equal under equals (although equality is of course something librul), which kinda makes that race you belong to superior to others - because if it was inferior to others you wouldn't have anything to be proud of… So by saying you feel insulted as a member of the white race kinda makes you a racist, or just dumb. Why do I have the feeling I just created something awefull? --uhm, t! 21:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Oldus has the basic idea. It usually goes something like: Alice: States rights,argle bargle! Bob: Wow, way to invoke a racist dog-whistle there. Alice: I am not racist! Why do libtards see racism in everything?! It must be because they themselves are racist! Which is then fueled by idiotic bullshit like this which takes it to conspiracy theory level. Or, easier answer: It's because it's from The People's Cube, a wingnut "humor" site. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuks cake. I'd not been bothered to look at that cube site until you posted that link. It looks like everything that was wrong with geocities and is wrong with people who know a small amount of html but nothing about design. The reason I have never produced my own website is that despite the fact I know html and (a small amount of) jsp and asp I know fuck all about design so anything I produce is shite. That site is the kind of fuck up I produce in my most drunken attempts at page design. Oldusgitus (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was fine until I reached the picture of Ayn Rand. No amount of bad web design can top the stomach-emptying effect her ugly mug has on me. Vulpius (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Another fat atheist

I think it is curious that they have Stephen Fry as their obese atheist poster boy, considering he has recently lost a massive amount of weight. Perhaps he has found salvation through Christ? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sasayaki's essay

First: saving it before it gets burned^img. And then: How long will this guy survive? If he really just there to debate, 90/10 will hit him hard in a few edits - especially when he has good points. --uhm, t! 15:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

At least until a sysop shows up. Extra points if Ken

answers and deletes it before anybody can see the answers--User:Brxbrx/sig  15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it got deleted by Ken

, he can't have someone actually challenge him! GTac (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll

I love watching Ken

lately.  More and more i see him try to go off topic when someone asks him something or even use Google translate to start talking Chinese and no op paying any attention to him.  Even the latest with cp:Essay:Sasayaki_answers_Conservapedia's_challenge_to_atheist_Penn_Jillette we see Ken

just ignoring it and talking gibberish (and taking 4 edits to do that) Quazywabbit (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"I believe if people are honest with themselves and examine your essay and Conservapedia's atheism article and Christian apologetics articles that they will become Christians.". It's just comedy gold. Delusional, megalomaniacal and yet so gravely impotent of forming a sentence or a valid argument. --uhm, t! 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The word you want is "incapable," not "impotent." If you criticize someone else's poor writing while being unable to write a proper sentence of your own, you look like a pinhead. Pinhead. P-Foster (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, "gravely" is wrong. You mean "completely," or "totally." P-Foster (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I liked both "gravely" and "impotent". Don't listen to this grumpy old curmudgeon uhm. He has no poetry in his soul. --Horace (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He also has a firm grasp on basic English vocabulary. Now get off my lawn. P-Foster (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

P-Foster, *meoow!* What'd he do to you? He's not even a native English speaker!--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You're gonna "*meoow!*" to my defense now? Seriously? Be a man do it like a tiger or a dinosaur! --uhm, t! 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No. "Gravely" as in "too serious" and "impotent" as in "lacking power" not "lacking abitlity". Ahh, we secret poets are the jews of the grammar pragmatics nazis… --uhm, t! 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Worst thing about those articles is that they're little else but link collections. Or am I thinking of other ones?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

So then you meant to say : "too seriously lacking in power of forming a sentence or a valid argument." Oh, you're right, that looks MUCH better than "totally incapable." P-Foster (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

UHM is German. Quit being a twit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Impotent due to his graveness. And as grave is an adjective putting it before a verb makes it an adverb, uh, and as a bonus "-ly" descibes a process or a state. Of course if you only substitute and don't put the grammar according to the meaning you'll get BS, but that's just the basic difference between math and language, why should we care if we correct other people's sentences? After all it's not like others may have thought about how they say something. --uhm, t! 00:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The choice of wording is unique, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is wrong or even imprecise. Everyone knows exactly what UHM was saying and it is certainly an interesting way of putting it. Damo^Hi 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

My only point was "pot-kettle-black." Calling out someone for poor writing with a poorly-written post just looks bad. That said, I did not know UHM was not a native speaker of English\, and for that reason I withdraw the comment and apologize. P-Foster (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I email Ken?

I've made too many talk-space edits. It's time I took the "discussion" to email.SeamusC (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, his "E-Mail this user" thingy is active. But beware - behind closed doors, most CP sysops behave like even bigger jerks than they do in public. --Sid (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised he has it on actually. But the chances of getting a response are slim and the chance of getting a coherent response is nil. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find the email button - so I asked him to email me. No email was received. Could it be that Ken lacks machismo? Er....yes, of course he does. Chickeny chicken chic chic! Who's afraid of the little atheist? SeamusC (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have his gmail address. Email me and I will email it back. --Horace (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Log in and use the following link: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:EmailUser/Conservative --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2/3ish days in, and penn is already a coward

has conservative ever debated a atheist? if not, why?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd think it would take a certain masochistic streak to debate Ken

. I don't think Penn has it in him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

)(edit conflict) Because Ken

can't burn evidence in a live debate; he actually has to respond. ;-) --Roofus (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's funny that I've posted my reply on behalf of Penn twice now, and both times it resulted in the essay being immediately deleted (even after every single one of their criteria were met), with the accounts getting a five year and infinite ban respectively. Karajou even admitted what he was doing was censorship (His ban message was "Troublemaker: If it's censorship, make the most of it."). At the same time, Conservative is editing the challenge essay with a shocking disregard for the preview button and claiming that Atheists won't debate them. I think my irony meter is at near near "Lamestream media hypes headlines" levels. --Sasayaki (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Conservapedia realize how juvenile and idiotic they are with the fatty jokes?

Back in 2006, when Conservapedia was founded, I thought it was a great idea to counter some of the liberal bias that was and is on Wikipedia (especially on political articles, not on scientific articles, but I'll table that discussion for another time unless you absolutely want to respond to this point). However, instead of trying to be a respectable encyclopedia with a conservative POV, they've become a laughing stock with most of their editors being parodists or batshit crazy people. I guess, in hindsight, that should have been expected with any information source stating they want to have a biased POV. At least with Fox News, they claim to be fair and balanced. Conservapedia has no informative value, and I can't seem to understand why such idiocy attracts so much attention, both there and here. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

try Ameriwiki--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You realize this now? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yah. Why did you think a fringe site wouldn't attract the kind of lunatics who'd make pages like that? Anyone halfway sane edits wikipedia, and perhaps has the occasional argument over the content. Only the fringiest of fringe loons would consider conservapedia as anything other than a laughingstock. It could have worked out if the Arsefly had just tried to make a narrow scope resource for homskollars, but trying to out 'pedia wikipedia was always going to be a fools errand. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I realized this a couple of years back, as my posts indicate. However, not until the fatty posts did I classify Conservapedia as a total joke. Before that, I just thought they were only moderately crazy. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The really sad thing is that if it was just Ken's ranting, we could still understand. After all, that's the intellectual capacity of the man when it comes to debating. However, the minute Andy and Karajou jumped on the bandwagon, then any lingering pretence that CP might be a worthwhile intellectual endeavour went out of the window. Then again, given Andy's insanity and the spineless intellectual nobodies he's surrounded himself with, it's no wonder CP has degenerated to a kindergarten-level debating style. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Did any of the people making these POV-specific encyclopedias ever use an encyclopedia before Wikipedia came along? They're a shortcut. Want to know about poverty? clowns? Chinese history? Don't have time to attend a year's classes or read a weighty book on the subject? Check the encyclopedia and get a fast outline. POV means dragging every topic back to a handful of talking points. Clowns: are they gay? Poverty: does it make you gay? Chinese history: was China less gay in the past? Why bother with an encyclopedia for this?

Now obviously Conservapedia is worse than it had to be. Conservative doesn't automatically mean someone with a chip on their shoulder who can't stand to be wrong about anything. But the point isn't how far Conservapedia slipped below what you might have hoped for, but whether it was worth hoping at all. It's not as though there's a successful "Liberalpedia" or "Atheistpedia" or anything like that. POV encyclopedias were a stupid idea from the first time they were proposed, Andy just found a way to make it even worse. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think its the fat articles that really get to me as well, since besides being childish, it's cherry picking your own reality, which is scary to me. When Andy goes to church, does he assume every fat person in the building doesn't believe in god? I wish I had a sockpuppet I could use to ask "all my fellow christians" to post shirtless pictures of themselves to prove they are all in shape and buff. I'm just losing in interest in a website I believe would have to be nothing more then trolls at this point(no not RW, articles are entertaining and informative). At this point there are so many examples that are way overboard just, I can't even understand how Andy isn't a parody. "The world is growing more conservative, at a geometric rate" and "the human race is becoming less intelligent". Those are two of the "facts" that an open mind would not argue. How is that not parody? ^{— Unsigned, by: Sorge / talk / contribs}

More conservative + less intelligent is happening. How else do you explain the fact that people like Palin and Bachmann are being seen as contenders, instead of being laughed out of town, which they would have been 10 years ago. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It does make sense... conservatism (Andy's version, at least) is an ideology for people with low intellectual capacity. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism, as it is on Conservapedia, exsists because people are lazy. Insted of forming your own thoughts and opinions on actions, you take them from a book. Insted of answering questions of the how or why we are, they say goddidit. Why do you think people who claim to be Conservative, but don't fall in line are called RINO's. What I don't understand is how the nation becomes more Conservative when the majority of the nation dosn't fall in line like that.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunder, there is no "conservatism" on CP, at least not how most self-identified conservatives would recognize it. That's why no mainstream -- or even fringe-y parts of mainstream -- conservatives ever give it a shout-out, or can find a way to contribute to the project. Conservapedia is the work of a half-dozen crazies/idiots bound only by the fact that one of them has access to a web server and the wiki software. Nothing more. P-Foster (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but there is Foster. The newest brand of conservatisim known as the tea-party exsist to, knowingly or not, echo the sentiments of Conservapedia (or visa versa). And while the tea party is still a fringe group, they're influance is noticeable. The newly elected republican house members show this. Those that don't follow along risk being ostracized and would be removed and replaced with some one who will. Evolve or die (Ironic, given they're stance on the issue). They exsist, and they are growing.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is overlap between some segments of the right (Tea Party, YECists, etc.) and CP, yes. But that is mostly because CP simply echoes what those segments say. Which would be fine for a site that wants to become a (small) part of the conservative movement. If they left it at that, they would stand a chance of being in tune with certain types of current conservatism and attract editors from there. The problem is that CP wants to lead, not follow. So they push forward with things like the Lenski Affair, the Conservative Bible Project ("From English to Conservative English because God wasn't able to create a language that was powerful enough to convey His thoughts from the start - that's why He had to wait for AMERICA!"), or Andy Insights like "Quantum Jesus disproved Relativity!" - and that's why the actual "leaders" will likely claim that the CP sysops are No True Conservatives. --Sid (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thunder: What Sid said. When someone gets elected to office and swears the oath on a Conservative Bible Project Bible, I'll believe that CP represents something bigger than itself. Also, yes, some Tea Party folks got elevted. A lot didn't, including that forgettable dingbat from Delaware, who was arguably the most prominent of the lot. moreover, a lot of the TP-leaning governors are seeing their approval ratings go into free-fall. There has always been a nasty strain of US conservatism, a few elements of which naturally show up on CP, but there's relly nothing new going on here -- they're just lucky enough to have gotten themselves plugged into a few really prominent media outlets. If CP had more than 10 or 12 active editors, I'd start to think there was something there in terms of the larger political discourse. But it barely has that many. It's a cranl echo chamber, nothing more, nothing less. P-Foster (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Joseph Farah thinks CP is nuts. 'Nuff said. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I think it's more accurate to say Farah thinks the Conservative Bible Project is nuts; I don't think he's ever commented about CP otherwise. Otherwise, they're on the same ideological page. MDB (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

INFINITE CONSERVATISM!

Andy talks about it here^img. It kinda reminds me of the Marxist claims about a utopian communism being the final stage and the state withering away. I guess in Schlaflyism the future utopia is infinitely conservative and human intelligence is zero^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Me, I prefer utopian socialism ala Charles Fourier. Only socialism can transform the ocean into lemonade! Beat that, conservatives... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We learned about Charles in AP euro and... i have to say Of the failed socialist Utopians we learned about, he was the class favorite. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not biting

Please leave this for a few days as I do expect it to run negative for a while until the swabbie finds out how hard it is to take a break from CP and does many more edits than he thought he would. I don't mind having massively negative WIGO's. 19:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

The problem with nuking the Middle East...

..is not the loss of human life, but the effect on gas prices^img. --Horace (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oversighted before CBot caught it. I'll bet a nickel Kenny wrote it. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ok. We will have to make do with a slightly later edit. I watched him yesterday make half a dozen edits to a single addition to Andy's talk page and then oversight them so that it looked like just a single edit. I guess that is what he has done here. I think some of the criticism is beginning to bight, but rather than learn to use the preview button he prefers to use oversight. Tool. --Horace (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Muphry’s taking a chunk there, or deliberate post-matrix-modernism irony?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued...^img CPfan (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Smooth-As-A-Ken-Doll should be the absolut LAST person to be calling anyone a "power hungry blow hard".--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

graph of conservative words

Just read the graph that supposedly comes from "conservative words". as always What The Fuck. (with andy you have to spell it out. wtf just does not convey the shock. oopsie, forgot tildas. En attendant Godot 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Community_Portal

I understand RobS's good nature in creating this but geez its nothing but a talk page for Ken

since he doesn't have one.  Quazywabbit (talk)

If he'd stop behaving like a dick it wouldn't, wonder if he will learn that at some point… --uhm, t! 00:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny. I was just reminiscing about the complaints page they had years ago that was almost entirely filled with complaints about Ken. Good times. --Horace (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt missed a poll

Lobbyism, RINOs, "special interest groups" all those people are to blame that gays in New York State may now be as happy as "normal" people.^img But I think Jpatt missed a poll there, wasn't there one in the last month or so that said that the majority of Americans now supports same-sex marriage? So if he isn't hoping for a sudden change of heart - or for our OCD guy next to the mental asyllum to succeed with his crazy - that's kinda unlikely. --uhm, t! 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I just noticed Jpatt simply lifes in the past: the qoted article is from Nov. 04, 2009. --uhm, t! 00:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Better, it's an aggregation of polls. Man, calling the legalization of something "statist" is weapons-grade doublethink. And since when did CP start bandying about libertarian snarl words? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Statist? I thought Conservatives we're all about state's rights...--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of statism. Though in popular discourse, it's usually just a word used by libertarians to mean "shit we don't like." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is RobS a conspiracist too?

[5]^img I don't know much US history - is this a conspiracy theory? It certainly sounds like one... CPfan (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is RobS a conspiracist? I don't know, does Ken have an obession with fat atheists? (Also, remove the "conspi" and you get an accurate statement too.) He is also, by the way, a terrible, terrible writer. But that's par for the course over at CP. DickTurpis (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RobS has always seen Reds under the bed. This one has a little bit of truth to it. White was actually in communication with KGB and Soviet intel officers. I'm not sure on some of the details offered up in that snippet, but he definitely wasn't a covert KGB agent. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

White was not KGB? why then does the NSA's own website refer to him as, "KGB agent Harry Dexter White"? Also, the debate should be over not replaceing User:Conservative's img of Keynes on the Obama page & linking Obama to KGB agent Harry Dexter White. But that may be judged a little too conspiratorial. What's worse anyway, a KGB agent or a pedophile? Interesting debate.... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No evidence is ever given for this. Feeding the Soviets intel? Yeah. Being a KGB agent? I don't think so. See here for further context. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Roger Sandilands. It's all crap. The NSA Venona Monographs call White a "KGB agent"; Bensen & Warner call White "KGB agent"; the scholarly consensus is White was a "KGB agent" [8][9] This issue was settle a decade ago. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, your own sources make clear that there is not a consensus. White was complicit as a source of info, but not a "KGB agent" in the sense that he was formally trained and in the direct employ of the KGB. But there's not much point to discussing it because COMMUNISM!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, duh. Let me embarass you, ok? did ya know, the KGB didn's exist in 1948 when White died? This is really the big coup in Cold War history narrative, that Comintern operatives, NKVD stooges, etc. from the 1930s & 40s we all call "KGB agents" today. And yes White was certaily a "witting spource". And an "agent" is exacvtly what the legal term is, one who acts on behalf of a principal, in this instance, Josef Stalin, the Soviet Union, and the International Communist movement. There is no doubt whatsover that White was an agent of the Soviet Union. Or his lieutentants, cp:Frank Coe and cp:Solomon Adler, who later were pursuaded by the Maoist strain of wp:Deviationism, and did in China what they were restrained from doing as "loyal New Dealers",-- the cp:Three Years of Disasters -- which starved 60 million human beings to death. Two Great, liberal, ideologically pure, leftists. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:08, 29 June 2011 (UTa

Rob is getting fed up with ken oversightin him

he might even take it to andy! :O^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think it'll happen, but sometimes I worry about Ken's mental state if he did end up getting kicked off conservapedia. X Stickman (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

aaaaaaand it's burned^img. Anybody want some tea while waiting for Andy? --uhm, t! 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Slightly odd, considering RobS's talk page^img. -- CS Miller (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

These people speak loud volumes of the mentality of the typical conservative, even if they are extremists. It highlights their irrationality and pathetic child secrecy attitude. 67.241.176.96 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's what User:Conservative wanted, private discussion. I'm for transparancy and open editin. I'm also for respecting other people and cooperation. Is that "extreme", you dumb fucking motherfucking cocksucker? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken smacks down the dearly departed

Screenshot before Ken oversights... he smacks down TK and calls it like it is. Nice, nice. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

TK a "blowhard"^img eh? Awesome. Ace ^{of Spades} 07:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How courageous of Ken

! MtD^{Pinko Scum} 08:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "don't beat a horse unless it's dead." 99.50.96.218 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Does he really think he's any better than TK?--User:Brxbrx/sig 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In terms of ruining CP he is and TK was trying. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative thinks he's better than everyone, but really it just shows how much of a coward he is - on top of all the "ooh! You're too cowardly and fat to debate me! *BLOCK! REVERT! DELETE!*" He's too much of a fucking wet to call out TK, so he waits until he's dead. What's really funny is imagining Andy reacting to this - publicly torn between two sysops, even if one of them's gone forever. Only thing to do is ignore Ken and let hum continue driving his wiki into the ground. Garçon (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it, CP has a record of dancing upon the graves of the dead. After all, dead men can't sue. Also it just shows what spineless chickenshits they are that they can't stand up for their principles. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "blowhard" is one of the most apt descriptions of TK I've heard. DickTurpis (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You have to understand - Ken's been backed into a corner, or his own doing. And in order to extract himself, he's quite willing to throw everything under the bus - including Andy's pet and his own principles. Ken is the kind of guy who, if he was bathing in the sea and heard somebody yell "Shark!", would cut small children and throw them over his shoulder to give him a better chance of making it to shore. I'd love to know where Ken was when TK was around. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful WIGO capture. Either Conservative made slip his actual honesty of TK and the system of impunity sysops have, or he's emboldened with power to say and do as he pleases, with Andy turning a blind eye (even when he and Rob are shouting at each other on his front lawn, basically). He's become the new TK and every time he kicks his corpse, his foot reels back first and boots himself in the ass. He just doesn't see the irony, does he? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys better watch it or Ken will bitch about you months after you're dead. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In a deeply amusing "twist", Iduan and fellow copypaster JM are defending TK:

• Iduan: "Hooray for even stricter 90/10! But TK was a guiding light for me!"^img
• JM: "TK encouraged fair editors!"^img

Glorious, really. --Sid (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Point to one of my articles that's copy-pasted. You can see all of them at CP:User:Iduan/Works.--Iduan (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was a little taken aback by Ken's "TK is burning in hell! In hell!" tirade. I don't think I've ever seen him gnash his teeth so much. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hush. It's all better now. It's all been oversighted and never actually happened in the first place. We have always been at war with Eastasia (Sorry, I know that reference may be becoming a bit tedious but by god it fits CP so damned well). --Horace (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't expect my statement to be parsed that way, and I think that you're assuming a bit too much bad faith about what I wanted to say: JM is TK's fellow copypaster. --Sid (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be of interest to the CONservapedia watchers....

A recent study by Duke University finds that clergy and ministers are most likely to be obese, yet happy. Comments? Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

irony-lulz --uhm, t! 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fat people are notoriously jolly. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 07:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

RobS taking on TerryH?

"It's been proposed that certain external links that are either self-promotion or innappropriate content also might be oversighted under certain circumstances." Even if he didn't mean Hurlbut's link-spamming, it certainly falls under that proposal. (underlined emphasis added) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Except for the handy caveat that Wobblebottom is a sysop and thus the rules don't apply to him. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob is just busy amending the rules to justify sysop abuse. He already made it okay to remove talk page edits (any and all from the own user talk page, and any "troll" edit from others - without clarifying what "troll" means, meaning that sysops get to decide on the fly as they please), and now we finally have the "We're allowed to memoryhole RW links!" rule. If the rule was actually applied to sysops, both TerryH and Ken would break out in tears. --Sid (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sid half true, half bullshit. I've invited everyone to participate & propose language. What do they do? Sit & bitch about Ken and Ken's work. What the fuck? You're either good fith or not. You either mean well or not. You either wanna improve the site or not. Stop the fucking bitching about Ken and his work. Your bitching does nothing - absolutley nothing. And you got four years under your belt of time wasted to provbe it. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Small Supreme Court lols

To what I'm sure could only be his chagrin, "limited government" Andy reports on the strike down of a California ban on selling violent video games to children. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting Andy's reaction aside for the moment, it's an interesting split on the Court -- 7-2 (not really "sharply divided" as Andy claims; I think that usually refers to 5-4 splits) and the dissenters were Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Those are hardly ideological soul-mates. MDB (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How the f did that happen? Thomas is as right wing ideologue as they come, and Breyer is generally center left. I have GOT to read this opinion and dissent. This is the slip, if you care--En attendant Godot 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you've got to remember that "limited government" means "extremely intrusive government" when it comes to preventing "things we don't agree with". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So wait, Andy is agreeing with teh CA law then? or disagreeing with it? --En attendant Godot 15:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

He's agreeing. He believed both that that the standard of review for a prior restraint on this category of speech was at most intermediate scrutiny, and that if it is strict strict scrutiny the law is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. The Court disagreed on every point, though to be fair Schlafly wrote an amicus brief for a crank outfit so he wasn't advocating for any party in interest. It's doubtful if the Court didn't permit amici to file briefs without motion that Schlafly would ever be granted leave for something like this, so I sincerely doubt the justices clerks even read his awful brief. 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On planet Schlafly: "In a sharply divided opinion this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that 'Crudely violent video games ... are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny' under the First Amendment."
On planet Earth: 7-2 isn't "sharply divided," and the majority opinion, drafted Antonin Scalia (I heard he's like a biblical literalist except with the Constitution!), rejects every factual claim Schlafly's ever made about the standard of review and alleged negative effect of violent video games on children. I wait with bated breath for Schlafly to continue claiming this is a liberal vs. conservative issue when the only "conservative" member of the court to break ranks was Conservative of the Decade, Clarence Thomas, who dissented with liberal Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer.

“”Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. [citation omitted].The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving [citation omitted] and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution. [citation omitted]. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” [citation omitted]. California cannot meet that standard. At the outset, it acknowledges that it cannot show a direct causal link between violent video games and harm to minors. Rather, relying upon our decision in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622 (1994), the State claims that it need not produce such proof because the legislature can make a predictive judgment that such a link exists, based on competing psychological studies. But reliance on Turner Broadcasting is misplaced. That decision applied intermediate scrutiny to a content-neutral regulation.[citation omitted] California’s burden is much higher, and because it bears the risk of uncertainty, [citation omitted] ambiguous proof will not suffice. The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, “[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology.” [citation omitted]. They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children’s feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.

—Brown, et al., v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., et al, __ U.S. __ (June 27, 2011)

Another failure and the best Schlafly can muster is patting himself on the back by fudging the spread. Must be nice to be right all the time. 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh lol. The decision took me half an hour to read so I missed the above section. 16:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those things I never could understand about many conservatives/republicans. They are all for limited government and believe that the parents should (and can) be the ones to raise there children and the government should stay out of it, except when it comes to TV, Video Games, Movies, etc. Quazywabbit (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's broader than that. They think the govt should stay out of the business of regulating anything (schools, business, parenting) because for the longest time, the regulations were "liberal" - like laws trying to teach Evo. But when the society turned liberal (from the perspective of 1950's america, that is), and it was accepted to sware, read bad stuff, take the bible out of classrooms, have sex, not get married, etc., then they want or even need legislation to curtail all of us from being more icky. Really, they just want things their way, and as long as the law was protecting them, it was good... but, things change.--En attendant Godot 16:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy is saying it was 5 to 4^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whee! Let's grab the popcorn and watch Andy proclaim that 7-2 is actually 5-4. PsyGremlinHable! 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait to hear how Andy spins it. Quazywabbit (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing about censoring something is that you don't allow anyone to consume it legally. Let's for example say that porn is outlawed or even better: showing a tit anywere else than at home is outlawed. Even if all the towns but one in America was conservative (CP meaning of the word) you would still not allow it in that small town of hippies. All in all these people are just too lazy to do the work they need to do as parents, it's so much faster to just outlaw the shit out of something. Thinking that your kids would go postal like that may also say much about ones own psychy, maybe they think they might do it themselves, after all many of the same people also claim that without god's blackmailing loving we would all - well - do all the fun stuff. --uhm, t! 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda confused. It's that whole math thing. that JJ dude says it's cause I"m old and can't learn new-math. let's see, there were 2 dissenters... there are 9 judges. 2 agreed, but wrote even more strongly than the Sacalia lead majority about how bad it is to mess with free speech. so... um... 9 plus 7 - 2. or is it, 9 judges and 2 had concurring, which means they don't really count, so 7 judges, and 2 disagreed, so that's 5 to um... oh gosh, this is very hard. and this fucker is a "lawyer" (or plays one on tv anyhow....--En attendant Godot 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As my father always says: "Everybody is for big government, liberal or conservative, it's just a matter of which sections of the government they want to enlarged." SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 17:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy would have had to literally read paragraph I of the concurring opinion to find out that Alito (and by extension, Roberts) didn't even bother to research the first amendment issue. ("Because I agree with the latter argument, I see no need to reach the broader First Amendment issues addressed by the Court."). That's apparently a little too much to expect from a Harvard-educated lawyer. So five justices explicitly endorsed (making a legally binding precedent) the first amendment protection of violent video games. Two other justices didn't even consider it. He would have had to read pages into the dissent to figure out that Thomas didn't think it was a first amendment issue to begin with ("Even assuming that video games are speech, in most applications the California law does not implicate the First Amendment."). In other words, Andy has completely failed to take hold of the basics of the opinions. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Resident parodist contributor Jcw lies for Jesus Andy. Seriously, which one of you is Jcw? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am Spartacus. First! Jdellaro (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what the hell is w/ JCW marking all his entries "minor"? Unless he's talking quality, but that's for US to judge, not HIM! Jdellaro (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Even assuming that video games are speech, in most applications the California law does not implicate the First Amendment" may i reiterate here how much this man should be impeached. he has no sense of precident law. he just does what he wants. (ok, back to the Andy bashing -- ps, i fear sending my children to harvard, if that is what they produce. oh wait. obama. ok, harvard is still ok on my list).--En attendant Godot 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of agree with him. It's not about companies being able to make these games, but about whether or not the games can be sold directly to children. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy: "Far enough"....but "note that 7-2 can be "sharply divided""^img. Another Schlafly Definition. Also, he deleted someone quoting the full context of the Divine Comedy quote. --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, "based on a reading of the opinions and how they respond to each other", it's more like 8-1 than 5-4. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's 7-2 as to the outcome. I'm glad I limited my statement about the Court's acceptance of the factual arguments made by the industry to the majority opinion because looking at the concurrence I see that Alito doesn't agree as to the interpretation of the factual record or that the First Amendment is even implicated, thus he rejects the facial First Amendment challenge. His legal analysis centers almost entirely on his belief that the undefined terms "deviant" and "morbid" would not give fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence what is prohibited. So his concurrence as to the outcome only reflects his agreement that the statute doesn't pass muster; he doesn't agree with a bit of the majority's analysis and doesn't even get to the First Amendment issue. Thomas only gets as far as stating his belief that the act of speaking to a minor without the consent of his parents was excluded from First Amendment protection by the founders (Yay! An originalist and textualist who opposes expanding 14th Amendment liberty rights but finds stuff-that's-not-in-there when it comes to protecting state regulation of speech) and rejects the facial challenge on that ground. So you've got 5 on the same factual and legal analysis, 2 concurring as to the outcome but rejecting the legal analysis on the ground that the statute doesn't give fair notice and suggesting disagreement with the factual analysis even though that's not essential to their concurrence, and 2 who don't care about the factual record accepting that the First Amendment is implicated and expressly finding that the prohibited conduct fits within an (unstated) exception to First Amendment protection. 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@ nutty, re: "finding stuff not in there" you mean like Scalia's saying "women are not protected by the 14th", then finding that Corporations, however, are PERSONS??? ;-) --En attendant Godot 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That and other delicious ironies. 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Say what you will, but I find Scalia to be a man of sound legal mind, and witty to boot. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy is complaining that the "lamestream media" omitted that 4 voted to limit the sale of violent games to minors^img while also not mentioning that the outcome was 7-2. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he thinks that it was 5-4 because two judges had a concurring opinion. What he doesn't realize is that they still count as voting in favor. And this guy is supposed to be a lawyer? I think this is WIGO-worthy. - Jpop (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well, there's a good reason the media wouldn't report that. The best you can say re: votes in favor of restricting sale of violent video games to minors is that Thomas and Breyer don't think strangers have a First Amendment right to say much of anything to children. The concurrence was agnostic on the subject matter of the statute; the only analysis essential to it is the statute doesn't adequately give notice of what's prohibited. It might as well have been a statute prohibiting the sale of white trash t-shirts a dirt track speedways getting invalidated because "white trash" wasn't adequately defined. 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Something about the way andy writes, makes me think that he does not get that this law is unprecidented. He does get that anyone, of any age, can walk into best buy and buy an R-rated movie, if they have the cash for it, right? The restriction of sale of things that HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE HARMFUL, is fully illegal, because the state has no compelling interest in the issue. For a lawyer, andy's knowledge is... well, worse than his knowledge of math, language or history. which is saying a lot--En attendant Godot 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)