Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive243

This is an archive page, last updated 4 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>, <242>, <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)

More news from la-la land

Divorce and liberalism are bankrupting the Dodgers franchise. Discuss.^img (Alternatively, Bud Selig is still an ass. Discuss.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to baseball so I feel inclined to ask: divorce? Andy writes of "collectivism by baseball league" and I'm not sure what he refers to but am I right in thinking it's probably the whole "not that high payment"-thingy? Isn't that socialism not collectivism? The yearly draft by the way (which also appears in basketball and American football, but not in soccer) is also an infringement on the free market. --uhm, t! 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Baseball includes a revenue sharing process by which teams that exceed a certain team salary cap (200 million, I believe) must share revenue with smaller market teams. This is to prevent the Yankees and Red Sox from basically buying 130 wins every year. It's a de facto tax on the wealthiest teams, which I'm sure Andy considers the baseball equivalent of the Holocaust. Actually, Andy's in New Jersey, so he's probably a Yankees fan. The Evil Empire, indeed. Stile4aly (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that problem actually exists in European soccer, in most leagues it's the same five teams again and again - until some rich guy pumps half of his money into some team. Andy called the Yankees liberal at some point, although as we always were at war with Eastasia, I'm not that sure. Could see him as fan of some underdog team though. --uhm, t! 17:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast...

I'm a college student majoring in molecular biology and biochemistry, and I thought that I would help Conservapedia out by giving the "endosymbiotic hypothesis" article a face-lift. Needless to say (in a matter of minutes), Ken

showed up and...well...he forced me to watch him rape 100 years worth of scientific knowledge. Violently. Brutally. I wept for a while, and then got a text message from some friends to meet them at IHOP. The bastardization of science can only be followed with pancakes. Professor (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw Ken's little editing spree. There is only one word for it: vandalism. I was quite shocked. Particularly when, after destroying an excellent article, he turned around and gave you the finger on the talk page. He really has all the poise and grace of Ruprecht the Monkey Boy. It wouldn't surprise me if he sits in his room throwing poop at the walls. --Horace (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Raping the ever-living fuck out of science articles is practically Kendoll's speciality. I especially liked this edit, though. EVIDENCE? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And the icing on the cake, or (in my case) the high fructose corn syrup on the synthetic pancake... CARL WIELAND, BITCHES! What that man has to do with endosymbiotic theory, we may never know. I only wish they could find a picture of him that didn't make him look like he was lacking a few chromosomes. Professor (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy might as well change CP's name to Kenservapedia and get it over and done with. He's literally running rampant over there, shitting on editors and admins alike. Of course, not that I condone this sort of thing, but it would be fun to make factual edits to a string of articles and watch Kenny boy reduce them to rubble. It would happen - it's a Pavlovian response with that simpering idiot. --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a college student. I'm surrounded by other college students. Summer classes are reaching their lull. We've got nothing but time on our hands. I could muster 20-30 science nerds who are also RationalWiki-addicts.Professor (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Psy is onto something. Adding a section on evolution to an article tags it for Ken's speciality treatment, and, fearing that the article is vulnerable to evolutionary facts, Ken not only deletes the facts but immunises the article with whatever cretinist crap he can copypasta out of his existing shitheaps. The question is: how unconnected does an article have to be before Ken decides creationist content is inappropriate? Summon the parodists! ^{ONE / TALK} 09:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, you can vandalise CP just by going there and correcting a spelling/grammar mistake in a science article. As soon as it appears on recent changes, the Kenbot will copy-paste some fat atheist stuff in to it and your work there is done. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's funny. The last time I edited CP (year+ ago), it was a similar circumstance with the situation ending in the consumption of pancakes to wash away the remorse. Instead of syrup, I doused them in my tears of anguish and pity, relenting the fact that at CP, "this is where knowledge goes to die". Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 12:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm quite happy I have no clue of biology, chemistry or physics... --uhm, t! 18:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that I'm wasting my time; I know that much greater minds have trailed and failed. But as a scientist that has fallen in love with the majesty of our natural world, I feel that it is my duty to try (til the very end, which will most likely occur shortly) to reach this very misguided individual. I know it's going to end with blocking, revision, and deletion, but in the end, that's a small price to pay for being right. Watch my downfall, live with Regis and Kelly: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Endosymbiotic_hypothesis Professor (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Prof, please please please please ask him "And how exactly is saying that everything happened by magic NOT voodoo science?" . I know he'll just burn it, but he's set you up so perfectly for it... Saladin 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Ken

is done with me, for now. He hasn't replied, and is otherwise occupied distorting information elsewhere. Interestingly enough, I wasn't blocked for committing the ultimate blasphemy: rational thought. Professor (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Light shone on BOTP by the White House

Finally the Conservapedia idea of "Best of the Public" is getting some traction, even in Obama's dirty White House!

"Chalk another one up for the power of crowdsoucing" as a member of the public crafts an algorithm which out-performs the best the so-called "experts" could come up with, and it only took him a week! QED. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 07:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What rot! Dark matter is an evil liberal conspiracy to stop people reading the Bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if Andy accepts it, even though the "member of the public" was a PhD student in glaciology (although the fact that it's from the White House and is about dark matter are probably bigger problems in Andy's... mind (for lack of a better term)). Actually, it seems like an interesting case of a solution coming from a completely different field. The PhD student applied techniques from detecting glaciers with satellite images to mapping dark matter. Science is filled with these interesting connections. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only in "science" also in the fields that speakers of English call "studies", i.e. I have an idea in my head how the theory of evolution, using post-structualist assumptions, might explain how popular culture changes. I just need to find some time to right that thing down. I have also once used techniques of art history to analyse still standing pictures from various TV shows, based on a hypothesis from media history that every new media contains the structures of older media related to it. --uhm, t! 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because "best of the public" (a preposterous and ultimately meaningless term) only counts when the results are in line with Andy's ideological goals. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I laughed for about 5 minutes.

There's just something about this "article" of Kendoll's. The way it has a picture of Chuck Norris at the top captioned "Chuck Norris." It's like he's parodying himself. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The caption should read: "Chuck Norris. Dicking for America!". - π 12:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to build a Kendoll generator? You'd need a handful of pictures, maybe a few sentences or paragraphs, a few headings, and then something to randomize them. The title could be generated by random combinations of his favorite ideas. The fact that his article had a subheading that was "Picture of an overweight PZ Meyers" really drove this home. Actually, if the title were determined first, then a shuffling of paragraphs were done second, that might create more realistic articles. -Lardashe

We have at least two already. Fun:Ken Quote Generator and Fun:Ken article generator. - π 13:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The sad thing is these articles actually get to me due to the fact they are so poorly thought, and the arguments are so weak. Unless you can prove possible omnipotent being(with unlimited power of time, space, and creation itself) doesn't exist, that means he exist....

I think the best part is there is a section about how to deal with bullying atheists, followed by a section on how to cyber bully atheists.

Heh, that Ken article generator throws up some good stuff! - Evolution and search engine optimization DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin, might run, but still #9

I don't see why Andy bothers^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, 2012 Presidential rankings, how I love thee. In Andy's fantasy race, Bachmann knocked Jeb Bush down to #3 (this is my favorite since Tim Pawlenty has Jeb Bush's campaign organization in Florida, a fact somehow missed by Andy). My second favorite thing is that Jon Huntsman, a serious--though unlikely to be successful--candidate is ranked near the bottom. Which wouldn't be so funny if Dick Cheney, who just had heart surgery and can't travel, wasn't beating him. Who else is beating Huntsman for President? Todd Aiken, someone nobody has heard of, who is actually running for the Senate; and Mike Pence, who is running for Indiana Governor. Again, none of this wouldn't make them look so stupid if Andy stopped advertising this list as "likelihood of winning" the nomination. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

old but, still relevant^img i could find a better one we've had in here in the archives but i forget the wording used on it.--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! When you're relying on Bristol Palin for news, it must be a slow day. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, one of the few redeeming features of Andy's "ranking" is that he's been much more pessimistic about Palin's chances than other fringe activists. I'd have expected him to drool all over his blog at every hint that she might be considering toying with the idea of entertaining the thought of running, but he's consistently ranked her rather low. I know, it might be for idiotic reasons like "King's Speech" winning the Oscar, but still. Röstigraben (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much Andy has ever been pro-Palin, but I can't recall it. It's Rob who is a Palinista, I thought. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And JPatt. I haven't seen Andy comment on her (dis)abilities as a candidate, just tangential stuff like the Facebook nonsense - I think he's been consistently on the fence about Palin 2012. I wasn't around to hear what Andy had to say about her in the pre-quitting days when she was still considered a rising star in the GOP, though. Röstigraben (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Andy wants Bachmann for the nomination, and so do I! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rocketing

Anti-Israel bigotry is rocketing to the top of the Longest Pages on CP. Do you think any of the sysops has even bothered reading it? Jdellaro (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That page now has 1338 references/notes on it. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't get to the different but he just deleted about 150k from the article--Mikalos209 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Friends with a Muslim? NO PRESIDENCY FOR YOU!

Another Republican fails the Conservapedia purity test. Either that or Chuckarse is a raging bigot, one or the other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the article they hate it because he's more of an extremist one. the wording left much to be desired about that critical piece of information. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

God how I want to elect a female devout muslim who veils, qualified or not, just to piss them off. --En attendant Godot 15:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Wait, a GAY female devout muslim who is married to an atheist hippi. just to piss them off.

From the link: "animals that were already dead before slaughtering." Is that possible? Pippa (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure - people who eat roadkill. The article on Hurlbutt's site is particularly hateful. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Christ Christie was already written off as a RINO after he became a warmist shill. Having a Muslim friend, though, is not as bad as having a Muslim wife, because then Frank Gaffney will be up your ass. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And even when you're a big New York Jew, having a Muslim wife can be a problem. There are very, very few instances where I see parallels between 1930's Germany and today, but the way the rightwing talks about Muslims definitely falls outside of Godwin's Law. Look at Hurlbutt's article. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the Moonie Times recently scrubbed a post like that (Ed Brayton saved it for posterity). But, hey, I wouldn't blame anyone for converting to Islam for Huma Abedin. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, the American right-wing burns you on a stick if you have even as much as contact with a Muslim, and in Germany we may very well elect a Muslim into the chancellors office. If anybody wants to flee I'll mob the floor for you. --uhm, t! 23:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Who would be a worse debator, Ken or Rob?

Both fail utterly at even understanding what a debate is, and any debator of consequence (should a debate somehow ever happen) would likely put a bullet in his own head after 2 minutes, but who would be more insufferable? Though either one is like debating a random word generator, Ken seems to be the obvious answer, but although his replies will be repetitive and not address any points made, he would likely at least stay on the general topic of atheism or evolution, or whatever. Rob will start out on topic but quickly move to the VENONA files, or gas prices, or Daniel Brandt's Wikipedia article. Both of them make me weep for humanity. DickTurpis (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rob gets distracted by shiny things, but he is capable of staying on topic for an edit or two. Ken, on the other hand, is smug and tends to answer in Chinese punctuated with obnoxious smileys. Moreover, Rob actually wants to debate -- say what you will about him, he's not a coward. Ken is very much a coward. P-Foster (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No question for me. I think nobs talks utter shite but I can imagine him being, in person, fairly personable and despite me disagreeing with him someone worth talking to. Some of the best debates I have ever had have been with either very conservative Brits or out and out facists - think skinhead Cockney Reject fans and you will be close. Ken is the kind of 'debater' who sits in the corner dribbling into his half of shandy occasionally shouting feck bollocks, I win. I would probably punch his lights out within the first 2 minutes. Nobs comes across as the kind of person I would argue with and walk away from probably having shaken his hand, and still disagreeing with absolutely everything he says. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken will never actually engage in a real debate, because he's too chicken (That's right, I'm pulling a ShockofNephilimDoll) to engage someone in a venue where he can't control literally every aspect of the conversation like he can with CP. You can't delete someone's comments on another site or in the real world can you, Kenny? Protip: Having to edit a conversation to make it LOOK like you've won tends to mean that you actually lost. Badly. You moron. Saladin 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you CAN delete comments in real life, it just involves murdering them and anybody else who heard/saw it.--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I initially read this as "who would be a worse dictator?". Sent chills down my spine. --Benod (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to impersonate User:conservative, this is how they would do it

My god^img There is no getting through to him--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see Ken go on one of his finely orchestrated (read: edited to give the impression that he's competent) "victory" laps regarding atheism/evolution etc. I'm reminded of the line from The Hangover when Ed Helms' character tells Zach Galifinakis' "You are literally too stupid to insult" to which Zach replies "Thank you". Truly this man represents a wall of invincible stupidity. Saladin 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out of Ken is literally retarded. Now what exactly is the definition of mental retardation? There is obviously something very wrong with him, but when is someone a retard and when are they just a normal guy who happens to be really, really, stupid? Is there a technical distinction, or just a gray area? DickTurpis (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be the term you're searching for...

Hopefully Professor finds his way to RatWiki. As for Ken, he can go fuck himself. There's really nothing else to say. - Jpop (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait he's already here. And I'm sure Andy thinks he has a great editor retention rate at CP. - Jpop (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by Ken, in the way somebody may be fascinated with a fictional character. I wonder if he actually is that stupid or that delusional. The reason I say that is that he seems to get more and more aggressive as more as somebody gives him shit about it. He appears to be one of those weird "honor is everything" people, and as more as somebody attacks his honor as dirtier he "fights". For example: He begins writing about atheism, relatively normal for his style, many ad hominem arguments and such. People start to laugh at him from all angles. As they don't convert to his views he goes even deeper, graping anything he can to make his opponents look bad. He goes more and more into direction of flat out insults. He calls his opponents fat, they make fun of him (for obvious reasons), he wants them to debate him (to show them, probably). They don't answer, they had their fun and move on, he calls them cowards (honor!). And finally somebody else makes fun of him, and the whole thing repeats itself. And with every cycle he get's dirtier and for some reason more self-conscious. I think he thinks the other side doesn't have any honor, but he has (while constantly blocking people, because if he does that it's ok). It's quite possible that the man is stupid and delusional, or that he actually is retarded (which would explain how he can edit for that long, not having to work and all). Anyway, I don't think any of these hypotheses will ever get validated (although he mide be all three) until the man get's psychological help - and even the all of it would be confidential. I'm still hoping he's a bunch of parodists, maybe a bunch of psychology students from all around the world doing there field work for a thesis on what would happen if there weren't any mental asylums. --uhm, t! 21:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, he's fascinating in that special way. It's like my cat, when I make a sandwich will come and have a look see what I've got. I always break off a bit for him, and he'll lick it a bit then without fail he'll always for some reason run off like he's seen the pope coming to sodomise him. I always wonder what's going through his mind to make him do that. That's exactly the same way I feel about Kendoll. He's like a dumb animal with a bizarre behaviour that just can't be explained. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My guess is "mmh, food, maybe it's good". --uhm, t! 21:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I smell a new greatest achievements by teenagers coming on!

Bachmans latest Gaff is having trouble making it into TOW, perhaps it can find a home in the Trusworthy encyclopedia. --Opcn (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope most of those people are parodists, because you'd have to be pretty daft to think that you could get away with editing that tripe in. Then again, you'd have to be pretty daft as it is to support Bachmann. - Jpop (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking the history, I think it was only added once (plus one or two sarcastic edits). People do seem to want to specify that his father was a Founding Father, which is of course entirely accurate. DickTurpis (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And like Schlafly, his cousin made one hell of a beer. Oh, wait. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

don't give them ideas^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That was fast. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And I thought green technology would destroy America!

Green Economy Google Study Jimaginator (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You expect me to believe a study funded by the enviro-Nazis? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, Conservatives don't use Google, they use Goddle. My bad. Jimaginator (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton, alive in the 1980s!

atleast from my understanding of the date removal^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Andy believes that Alexander Hamilton lived to be, what, 250 years old? Do we really need to discuss every fuckin' typo that happens over there? P-Foster (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering he is now appearing in American banking commercials, he may still be alive.... Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 00:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Incoming red telephone call

Here.^img CPfan (talk)

I'm guessing all those phases have something to do with obesity. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FLYING FORTRESSES AGAIN? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? YOU ARE MENTALLY ILL KENDOLL, GET HELP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Phase II very successful - Conservapedia doubled its Alexa traffic the first 6 months of 2012." - Great, Jpatt is living in the past, Ken in the future. --uhm, t! 23:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

cmon, people, talk about talking about nothing!--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll: Making up "operations" since 2008

Wha^img?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess he's referring to Professor in the Ken vs Penn thing above? X Stickman (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If RW has COCD, does that mean Ken

has RWOCD? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken wants america to collapse/other things

Not only will america collapse and become more conservative^img but conservapedia will continue to gain editors and become more accepted in the more conservative america! Quite a lot of sedition and america-hating on the site of late. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Michelle Bachmann run barter town. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Awful liberal bias WIGO

Andy only sees^img what he wants to see, even when the contradiction is staring him in the face. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He's just playing "name that party," which is like a second-tier wingnut meme. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Andy, I saw a cached version of the story that did not mention Blagojevich's party affiliation. C®ackeЯ

I don't understand your comment. The story still doesn't mention that he's a Democrat, just as it doesn't mention that George Ryan is a Republican. They are both corrupt - the point of the WIGO was to say Andy only sees that they didn't mention the Democrat, whose crimes were far less than the Republican's. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The version I saw said, "The 54-year-old ex-governor," (which has since been amended to "The 54-year-old Democrat"...I didn't really look for Ryan's affiliation since I never say anything bad about a fellow Republican. 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Oh Jesus, you're right! They do mention he's a Democrat, but they don't mention George Ryan is a Republican. Even worse than the WIGO currently reads! Andy didn't read the whole article (and neither did I - ha!) --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Like clockwork: Newsblusterers: NAME THAT PARTY! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding work sailor!

Poor old Chip Berlet (whoever he is) turned up at CP to try to correct some falsehoods^img in the article they have about him. Unfortunately he got into a discussion with Karajou and the inevitable happened: blocked for infinity^img for daring to disagree^img with the swabbie. --Horace (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Like drugs, you build up a tolerance for crazy. I guess Chip Berlet needed some industrial-strength crazy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When I went camping we used to do things like roasting weinies and telling each other scary stories; Popeye gots him a smertphone and is doing editing blockings while he is on "vacation". He must have the same travel agent as User:C. C®ackeЯ

Once again, Karajerk has realised just how impotent he is in real life and scurried back to where he's safe and has the only authority he'll ever have. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more balanced view of Berlet. But once again, ED's is the best. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Help us Jenn Jillette, your our only hope

the fate of atheism everywhere rests on the shoulders of "the coward" Jenn Jillette.^img, nobody else will do. -mikalos209

That's what responding to Ken gets you, now he's formed a lasting obsession with Penn. If this is how Ken reacts to something that was "no big deal^img" to him, it's a good thing Dawkins never took him up on that challenge, it probably would've given him a heart attack. Röstigraben (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there something quite funny about the fact Ken's essay^img includes a section entitled "Pictures with captions"?

I suggest he expand on that, and future essays should include:

1. Captions with pictures
2. Pictures without captions
3. Captions without pictures
4. No pictures, no captions

In fact, we can hope we will eventually migrate completely to the final item. MDB (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He missed a trick by not captioning the chicken as "Hen Jillette". That would really have shown those atheists!! Cantabrigian (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

MDB, when I first read that, I thought the section was titled "Pictures with captions?" (with the question mark). Now that would have been funny. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything, nor do I pretend to know anything, about law. But, suppose Mr. Jillette (or PZ Myers) decides things have gone too far with Ken's defamatory essays and sues for defamation of character, there would be public record of said lawsuit. It would likely list Ken's real identity as a defendant. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He does need to be careful, because while any such suit would not be successful, it would probably be enough to quiet him down because he would be so exposed. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First Dawkins, then Myers and now Jillette - is it me or is he shooting for lower targets? Although, I think it's better if he attacks people that are still alive than smearing people that are allready dead, it's just not so respectless. Btw, if I was Jillette I would make an answer for Ken: a YouTube-video, were in the beginning somebody says Kens name and the rest of the video is just Penn hysterically laughing his ass off. --uhm, t! 17:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You know Ken will wait with bated breath as soon as someone signs up to CP with the username PennJ or PJillette. Once said user responds to Ken's calls, he'll likely delete, oversight and block for 5 years, regardless of whether it is the real Penn (not likely) or not. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is desperately trying to start an online "feud" with some big name. Dawkins was too high a mark for him; Myers responded and that brought a wealth of Myers-related essays. Now that Penn Jillette has responded, he is trying to start something with him. This is Dawkins' point for not responding nor debating Creationists: all they want is the legitimacy of a debate to give the "two sides" and "teach the controversy" silliness more credibility. Dawkins is right: why debate their fairy tales endlessly when it only gives their belief in magic credibility? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The numbers game: Atheists vs. Christians

CP is a conservative troll blog, nothing more, so I hope Ken doesn't think that the supposed "global decline of the atheist population and unimpressive nature of United States atheist population"[1]^img means something to atheists, because it doesn't. Christians are the ones who think increased numbers are a validation of their fairy tales; atheists could really care less whether people believe in the Christian deity or not, just as long as you don't violate our rights because we don't. It's that simple, Ken. If there is one American atheist or one million means nothing to me. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

..."couldn't"...Ajkgordon (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me of when Ken directs people to watch videos instead of summarizing his point, like we have to do homework to get the gist of what he's trying to say. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not homework. It's a gentle and amusing rant against Americans' use of the term "could care less". Ajkgordon (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally if I were the only atheist left in the world I wouldn't give a shit and wouldn't start top believe anyone fairy tales. The fact is that of all the people I know in the UK the HUGE majority are non-believers. Asked what their religion is most reply CofE or whatever they were brainwashed by their parents into thinking but when you actually ask them if they believe in the sky daddy virtually every single one says no. I suspect that in reality there are far more atheists in the US than the surveys show. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IT doesn't help that there are some atheists who are content to go "Hey look we are all friends! You believe in your god, i don't! but its cool!" and then the ones who make it a point to go around trying to get people to leave their faith just because they don't think its real. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IT doesn't help that there are some religious who are content to go "Hey look we are all friends! You don't believe in god, i do! but its cool!" and then the ones who make it a point to go around trying to get people to join their faith just because they think its real. Pippa (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "helps" or "hurts" is appropriate here because most atheists don't care nor do they have an agenda to help or hurt. If someone--christian, atheist, buddhist--wants to go around trying to convince other people of their views, I have no problem with that at all because the right to try to convince other people of the correctness of your views is one of the principles I believe in. Trying to force schoolchildren to pray is not one of my principles. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Horray we can all be friends! --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to confess, I actually would care. Even if the argumentum ad populum is logical BS, it's still nice to know that somebody out there shares your worldview (well, more or less) - and also, with whom should I make fun of Christians and other religious people if there weren't any other atheists around? Looking at my social group which, without family and relatives, pretty much are only people that either study something or have studied something at university level, there really are so few religious people around me that it's hard to believe it wont be even less in the future. Actually for the time I go to a college, which is almost 2½ years now, I have been asked twice if I'm religious from anybody at the university and about three times I said it so other people knew they could speak freely (minus official business things). As for those missionaries from any side, I have no problems with these people as long as they really go away when I say "go away". --uhm, t! 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Hey andy, I'm still waiting on that translation thing"

im surprised August is still alive there^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, how is he still there? --Roofus (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

andy in the news

he put this up on MPR. Big man in the media!--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of the first comment: "With all due respect, what world is this person living in?" I love that that's everyone's instant reaction to everything he says. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Andy is promoting reading now? What happened to "Don't read a book to learn, write a book to learn!"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Training an 8-year-old to dismember or decapitate [non-Muslim] victims as they beg for mercy, with blood splattering, should not be a free speech right." Fixed that for you, Andy. I like that he's a Big Media Man on behalf of mommy's club, which isn't a political player on anything anymore. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You can see the problem though. He's been playing the shit games where the enemies beg for mercy rather than fighting back. No wonder he has such a negative opinion of the games industry. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

>"Andy Schlafly filed a Supreme Court brief on behalf of the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund." Yeah, that brief really swayed the votes, didn't it? --DinsdaleP (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that kids can still walk into a bookstore and buy the literary equivalent of hardcore porn, but, then again, kids don't read anymore. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing but good news to Andy, who is on record as hating bookstores and books because they're inherently liberal. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait... so Andy doesn't trust the government to teach our kids and wants parents to teach them themselves, but he doesn't trust parents to make good decisions about what games their kids can play and wants the government to make that decision for them. Okay... For the record, I do believe that many parents are incompetent and that they cannot be trusted to raise kids without outside forces, but on the other hand I recognize that kids are all different and some are mature enough to handle violence and some aren't, and it's unfair to deny all of them certain entertainment based solely on age. For example, I couldn't handle R-rated movies and even T games until I was 12, and didn't really enjoy the former until I was 14, but I have a friend who was playing Doom far before that and we've both grown up to be perfectly fine citizens. - Jpop (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I made that point in the comments section of the article. Hypocrisy, thy name is Andy. --DinsdaleP (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I love the guy who talks about the pop-guns. my brother played WWII, coboys and indians, etc., and they shot eachother, fell down screaming in pain, then got up for dinner. in both the 1600's and "the old west" it was "entertainment" to watch the local hangings on the weekend. Violence is part of our human subconcious. we are what we are. And Andy, kids can legally buy r rated movies at Best buy. they just can't buy x rates ones.--En attendant Godot 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Living in the UK, where age-ratings on games are both mandatory and enforced by shops (i.e. "unrated" things aren't released, and a 12 year old can't legally buy a rated 18 game/movie/whatever), this entire debate has always seemed kinda weird to me. And then Andy makes it even weirder with his general weirdness. X Stickman (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Games are rated here but the rating system is voluntary, though I haven't seen any unrated games except imports and underground type games. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, in the US ratings for games and movies are technically voluntary, and releasing an unrated thing is legal, but nowhere will carry it so it's basically financial suicide. So the extent that it's "voluntary" is debatable. X Stickman (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

True, though when it comes to selling the games, it makes about as much difference as the Tipper sticker. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I grew up undersupervised by parents who should have never gotten married, getting high with friends, and playing Ikari Warrior and Mike Tyson's Punch-Out! on Nintendo. And I didn't turn out alright. 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ulitmatly, this is what andy doesn't seem to get. there is no reviewed law about the validity of saying a movie or game is an M or a PG or whatever the labels are. those systems have never been tested, because they are what we call "soft law". the govt does not write the, the "industry" does, and the "Industry" self patrols. that is, a theatre says it is not this theatre's policy to let under 16 year olds into some films. however it is not a law, by the govt, so there is no right to speech / association issue raised. if the theatre does not have such a policy, the movies will not distribute, etc. all very tricky. But, making an actual law by the govt that says "this movie/game cannot be bought by children" would require a better rating system, a more carefully applied ratings system, and yes, some kind of oversight. but you know... lol, andy will just rant that "it's about the kids" and "less government intrusion in our lives". or ... um... "more", i guess.--En attendant Godot 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny story: when I was 15, my father bought me one of those Medal of Honor (rated FSK18 - that's for 18+, folks) games, fighting against Nazis and such, I began to play it and halfway through he joined me, We had shitloads of fun with that game, running through the desert, fighting at Omaha Beach, stepping through the fogy snows of Norway, actually that was a bonding experience just as much as playing soccer (virtually and in real life) together. These people always think parents would let their children play these games when it fact, many play them together with there kids. If you're 6 it's Super Mario Cart, if you're 16 it's GTA - were's the freaking difference? --uhm, t! 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't know the difference between GTA and Super Mario Kart? Tsk. One is a game that brings out the worst in you and will make you turn on your friends in murderous rage, telling them exactly how you will dismember them. The other one lets you steal cars. --Sid (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

^I'm going to post this beautiful quote everywhere. - Jpop (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"protecting children against exploitation by violent video games." What does that even mean? Pimps exploit women, unscrupulous employers exploit illegal immigrant workers; a fucking video game can't exploit anything you fucking idiot. Does this man really have engineering and law degrees from Ivy League institutions? The mind boggles. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken vs. Penn

Catchy names aside, I love the implicit assumption that Penn is even aware of Ken's challenge. Wouldn't it be hilarious if Penn accepted? I could see Penn putting together a TV special for it and everything. --Roofus (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowards go on TV, brave people hide in their basements and issue debate challenges to celebrities who will never read them, then cower away from actual opportunities for debate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm very disappointed that CP's Penn article doesn't mention his role in the greatest movie of all time, Hackers. Grave oversight there, Kendoll. Please to be fixing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

空穴來風未必無因 --Conservative 20:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He's aware. Some guy on twitter keeps asking him to debate them. see below--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't debate Ken anyway, it's impossible. He'd just keep shifting the debate conditions until he demanded that the debate be held in a submarine at the bottom of the Mariana Trench and that Penn has to show up with God's corpse, then he'd declare himself the winner when someone said that was impossible and go on another masturbatory spree about how awesome he is. I guess the difference with Penn, though, is that Penn could publicly declare his intent to debate Ken in a way that quite a few people would see it. All the other targets Ken has picked on have been low-key (such as Rationalwiki: it's not a hugely popular site so a lot of people wouldn't see the page about taking up his offer and meeting his demands) or have ignored him completely (Dawkins, for a while). Penn's acceptance would be a lot more public, but it still wouldn't affect Ken at all. X Stickman (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am honestly very curious as to what a debate involving Ken

would be like. Not for it's intellectual value or for the shame it would bring the Third Reich, but because I find his mental condition to be truly interesting. I know that most RationalWikians dismiss him as ignorant, stupid, etc., but I must say that, based on my little interaction with him, this is not entirely true (although it is 99% true). Concerning evolution, he clearly does not understand the complex science behind the theory, and is dismissive of any and all evidence as "pseudoscience". He does, however, posses enough knowledge to combat the  presented evidence in his own special way. I don't think he simply copies and pastes responses from Creationist websites; if anything, he has spent countless hours gorging himself on Creationist teachings. He is probably well-versed in all of Kent Hovind's seminars; he can most likely recite Michael Behe books like an Islamic fundamentalist can regurgitate the Qur'an. He's truly an interesting character, one that (clinically) possesses signs of schizophrenia. Definitely worth furthy study, and ridicule. Professor (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see Ken held to a proper debate, mostly for the same reasons as you. But it just won't happen. The best we'll ever get is a "debate" on conservapedia, which Ken would control. And by "control" I mean "delete all the other user's posts and declare victory". Other than that, he just issues ridiculous demands that must be met in order to debate him (including a sizeable, and given his reputation, ridiculous sum of money) because he knows no one will take him up on it. And then when someone actually accepts his ridiculous demands, he runs off and hides anyway because he is exactly the type of coward he accuses everyone else of being. X Stickman (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly wonder how deep the psychosis goes. I want to plunge myself in to the Ken Rabbit Hole and follow it to its conclusion. It's rare to find someone that aggressively defends their beliefs while at the same time is terrified of discussing them in an academic manner. I think that Ken has essentially two layers: the thick, outer shell of unequivocal arrogance (I'm better, I'm right, etc.) and the delicate inner core comprised of paranoia and fear. I think that one of the reasons he behaves as he does is because he's consumed by this fear. It's tragic, as if he knows he's wrong but is simply unable to acknowledge such an earth-shattering blow to his worldview. I feel that Conservapedia is closely tied to his psyche and overall mental stability. Professor (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your award for stating the obvious is in the mail. 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Penn's got an easy way out of this, let Ken

have his written debate, just have it as a condition that these arguments are then presented to a neutral audience in person for voting. Ken

won't dare show up, his problem with obesity results from a case of self-loathing. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 17:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Penn's way out is to ignore Ken

completely.  Ken

hasn't given him any reason at all to want to debate him; he's got nothing to gain at all from a debate with the craziest nut from a minor fringe website.  --Roofus (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, the fate of atheism hangs in the balance because of penn! with that thing in texas messing up text books how will atheists continue to indoctrinate children if penn cannot debate?!?!?!--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what?

noticed it on the recent changes^img and thats pretty much my reaction. --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Ken's masturbating to Twitter now. --Sid (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And... oversighted. I wonder how long it took Thick Ken to figure out the guy was being critical of him. 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably as long as it took him to read this page and have it explained to him. Hey, don't knock. He's doing better than Andy, who still hasn't figured it out. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Strange Characters

I was thinking about the crew over at CP. It's an extreme environment with a very specific set of authority-endorsed views and an unusual system of authority, which blends rewards for ideological adherence with rewards for its own queer sort of achievement (i.e. notoriety or pageviews). Despite what has sometimes been suggested, it's not a place that rewards blatant toadying. All of these factors have combined to yield a cast of major characters that sometimes defy belief. To wit: if you tell someone about it, it sounds fake.

• Andy Schlafly, the son of the woman who led the fight against equal rights for women. He went to college and then law school, and has argued in front of his state's Supreme Court - and yet he has found little personal success, and has become mostly content with a tiny online fiefdom of his own creation.
• TK, the now-deceased but famously vicious master of subterfuge. Fanatical about communication, clever with deception, and draconian against opposition. It seemed that every move was devoted only to advancement in his small strange world, and then to preserving his power while crushing out any potential enemies. Did he have any real views more important to him than power? We'll never know.
• Philip J. Rayment, the patient and recklessly reasonable chamberlain. He'll discuss things with you, he'll even take up your cause if the injustice seems egregious enough. Famously religious, right down to the less-followed advice on kindness and justice. And just as famously, he was driven out in the end.
• conservative, the bizarre man-child whose obsessions run into the hundreds of pages and are crammed into long essays. They have become lurid with madness over the course of a thousand minute edits, but still he returns again and again to polish them and to add another. On the occasions when he descends from his tower of insanity to answer a challenge, he hurls out long screeds and then, minutes later, burns every copy with frenzied fingers. The others allow him to rave, slightly uneasily.
• TerryH, who has used every opportunity to turn his small - tiny - microscopic amount of power into monetary gain. Every day sees another clumsy article turned out and nailed to the front page, luring in a trickle of rubes to stack their pennies at his elbow. Satisfied with this lucre, he seems to have no further ambitions but to polish his gains.

It doesn't even seem real - and that's without the high-profile assassins like Bugler and the like. Truth is stranger than fiction.--^talk 04:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy argued in front of a state's Supreme Court, not THE Supreme Court. Otherwise spot-on. (What about creepy Ed and AngryBear?) P-Foster (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, they're also so bizarre that no one would believe the narrative. And fixed that mistake - thanks --^talk 05:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, toadying does get you very far in Conservapedia if you are clever about it. You don't toady to everyone there, but if you support Andy like a loyal acolyte, subtly stroking his ego, and offer "insights" that fully support his already set ideology and thus can be incorporated, you will go far. Bulger and JacobB did a good job of this. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See Conservapedia:The_Vestigial_Empire. -- CS Miller (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy Youtube Video

A month or so ago, I found an article or blog post that featured a video of one of Andy's home school classes. I didn't have time to watch it at the time and thought I bookmarked it. I didn't, and forgot about it until now. Does anyone have a link to it? --Roofus (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This one? Röstigraben (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks! --Roofus (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

. . .What. The. Eff. =_____= They think people 'flock' to their website for the 'knowledge'? I just go for the occasional LOL.--Dumpling (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck. That would have to be one of the whitest videos I've ever seen. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 08:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Is this Children of the Corn?" Win. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Winning indeed.--Dumpling (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear sweet FSM, Andy has an annoying voice in that video. If he had a conversation with Fran Drescher, glass would shatter within a fifty mile radius. MDB (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy has an annoying voice. It's not only that video, it's every video or radio appearance. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember his voice being as annoying when he appeared on the Colbert Report. Perhaps it was just better sound quality. Or perhaps my memory is go... what was I saying? MDB (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you just blocked it from your mind. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

His "Liberal building codes caused 9/11" video is pretty bad to. --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen this video, and the second time I've tortured myself with visuals of that bony little body laying naked on a bed of rose petals, with that outsized head cooing, "I'm just a guuuuhrl for you tonight, Leo, just a guuuurhl!" The mental image of Andy naked or even just in a swimsuit reminds me of the Holocaust. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And is he trying to sing "I'm Just A Girl" at the correct octave? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WTF...

...is this?^img --Horace (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember he was linkspamming Michael T. Snyder's websites a while back. Maybe he drank too much of the kool-aid there? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect I think he has been oversighting. The diff makes it look like he removed his post and replaced it with one signed by SeanS but I suspect that SeanS's post is real and that, in fact, Ken was trying to get rid of the evidence that his post ever existed but fucked it up. --Horace (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What a fun question: Is Ken abusing oversight to the degree of completely fucking over talk page histories, or is he forging posts/signatures? Or maybe both? --Sid (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The first option. He really sucks at burning the evidence now that he's been told not to delete things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

SamHB suggests there that there should be penalties for 5 consecutive edits to a page and deleting/recreating pages^img (I wonder who he has in mind). Interestingly, Andy seems to agree^img. The user also suggests to basically amend the 90/10 rule to apply only when people are "combative", which will of course mean when they disagree with a sysop (though it's pretty much like this in practice already). --Night Jaguar (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, Ken! The peasants' revolt is catching the king's eye! Burn everything! Salt the earth! ^{ONE / TALK} 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually SeanS's post is real. --Mikalos209 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I happened to be patrolling Recent Changes (I do that a lot) shortly after this stuff happened. No forgery was intended. It was pure klutziness on Ken's part, as usual. (He's such a klutz in everything he does; I assume his mother puts a bib on him while he's eating.) Sam posted, Andy agreed, then Rob added something. Then that paragon of lucid writing posted something about "I've reconsidered my earlier post about amending the 90/10 rule to 80/20 or whatever, the reason being the inevitable economic collapse of the United States, the inevitable triumph of conservatism, and something about Winston Churchill." Then SeanS suggested that the economic collapse might not be a good thing. Everything was in order at that point. Then Ken oversighted stuff in a manner that suggested forgery. No, he was just being a klutz, as usual. Gauss (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edison wigo

Andy actually made that descision on 19th November 2010^img. Someone just tried to add some intelligence to teh article today and the assfly reverted it. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but the reversion captures the insistence that was lacking in Andy's original edit. Especially given how reasonable the reverted edit was. I'll admit it's a pretty mediocre wigo though, compared to recent ones. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious tho - if not Edison, then who is the greatest inventor? Edison must be right up there. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus obviously. Pi

Edison is certainly one of the most prolific inventors ever, allegations that he stole a lot of his ideas notwithstanding. Leonard of QuirmLeonardo da Vinci would certainly be on a short list of greatest inventors, too, though many of his ideas existed only on paper. And Nikola Tesla was no slouch in that regard, and you have to appreciate the fact he is possibly the closest to a mad scientist humanity ever produced (unless you want to count a monster like Josef Mengele.) MDB (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Did Leonardo ever invent anything that actually worked? I think utility has to come in to consideration somewhere. I vote for Archimedes for greatest inventor of all time of things that actually worked. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

William Shockley wins. Case closed. Carlaugust (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Over at CP, MrLCharms (who will probably be banned soon) adds a name I'm embarrassed I didn't think of myself: Ben Franklin.^img (Who also gets points for being a dirty old man.) MDB (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Define inventor. The person who injected himself with cowpox to 'invent' the cure for smallpox would stand quite high. As would the inventors of anti-biotics. Sure they only 'discovered' them but in temrs of overall general good for mankind I wold suggest they stand higher than Edisson. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Whitcomb L. Judson Gooners (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Differentiating between an invention and a discovery is not as easy as one might think... was the chair invented or was its shape (which, let's be frank, is the only thing that makes a chair a chair) discovered? Extending to the logical conclusion - was the transistor invented or was its particular arrangement of atoms (which, let's be frank, is the only thing that makes a transistor a transistor) discovered? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Somehow I have gotten the sense that Edison was as much of an inventor as Disney was an artist. Both men actually practised their art in their early years, but really hit their stride when they had rooms full of minions to do the actual work. I don't care to look at CP, so I might be missing the point here, Oh, well... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You also have to evaluate quantity versus quality. Is the person who invented five thousand slightly useful gadgets a greater inventor than the person who only had one great idea, but it saved millions of lives?

And how far back into history do you take it? The caveman who noticed you could bury the little hard things from the berries he had for dinner and grow more berries for later or the other caveman who noticed if you hit a couple of rocks together you can create sparks that start a fire and use it to cook the antelope he killed and keep the cave warm at night pretty much made all human civilization possible. MDB (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that any single individual can claim credit for stuff like that, nor bread, nor beer, nor twisting tufts of wool into strings long enough to crochet into a nice warm hat. Lengthy development, more like. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I once met a fellow who had spent some time as an archaeologist, places such as mastodon kill sites. Said he had spent one digging season using stone tools he had knapped for himself. Also said that every time he tried to make a Levallois flake he wound up with a lap full of pebbles. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! It doesn't take long to see Ed's little turds of ediocy lying around WP. Go from your link to the first article listed as using the image to the first age the Levallois technique was used and finally to the first entry on the talk page. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also the complication of certain inventions having long-term unforeseen effects... fertilizer allowing the human population to explode for instance, or DDT. If nuclear war one day ended the world, could the atomic bomb then be considered the worst ever invention? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The kudos should go to the person who made an invention or discovery practical. If I discovered antigravity and did nothing with it, I might as well have not bothered. If someone takes my discovery and makes hoverboards, then they should get the credit. Edison was one of the latter and deserves his fame. Pippa (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Theory versus practice, in other words. You get a Nobel Prize for theory; you get rich for the practice. MDB (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the person who makes it practical should get the credit, at least in part. If you discovered practical anti-gravity and just ignored it, then yeah, you shouldn't get much credit. But if you came up with anti-gravity machine that requires a million dollars worth of Unobtainium to make a single gram float a centimeter off the ground, and a decade or so later, someone else comes up with a way do it it cheaper, but still using your idea, then you both should get credit. MDB (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm guessing Andy was a little sleepy when he wrote that. I just figured he'd give a little more credit to the guy who invented life, the universe, and everything in six days flat. But if he says the light bulb trumps that, who am I to argue? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Todd Aiken: Liberals hate God

CP doesn't keep up with news so they often seem outdated or behind the curve (because there are few editors). They post things like this^img, when in reality Aiken backed down. Former Republican Senator from Aiken's state (and Episcopal priest) John Danforth said: "Religion can inform politics, and people who are religious people often feel they have an obligation to be involved in politics, but that's not the same thing as thinking your views are God's views." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quoting it exactly, but Lincoln said something like, "we should not think God is on our side, but fear we are not on God's side." MDB (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Even *THINKING*

That you're a "proven editor"^img will get you put on Uncle Ed's Naughty Probation List^img. Jared (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And lest she forget, he deleted her User Page too. Hmmmm...wonder if he got smacked down at WP recently, hence the hissy fit at CP. Jared (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, and now AugustO finally gets the boot. Uncle Ed, go watch a movie and relax. Jared (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to make a "WTF, Ed?" section, too. It's really remarkable how this guy's emotions influence his editing. And he wanted to become a WP sysop again? Dear Lord. Also, August's ban is much funnier after Ed's advice^img to August on how to really help the project. (Bonus points for chiming in to stress that 90/10 is more of a general guideline and that you shouldn't feel safe if 1 out of 10 of your edits is a good article edit the sysops usually can't be arsed to actually calculate your actual ratio. --Sid (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Approximately 19 minutes after his response, he decides, "Ya know what, I'm just gonna boot AugustO anyway, F my advice." Stay classy, Uncle Ed! (Oh, and love the tidbit at the bottom of his advice, "If you don't know whether it's liberal or conservative, know the party affiliation." Ummmm where can I found the "D" or "R" on the LA Times or the NYT? Do they post it right on the front page, or should I check the "About Us" section?) Jared (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his sudden WP editing binge, it seems that Ed indeed chose to watch a movie after his rage burst. --Sid (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading his WP edits always makes me feel like I need to shower when I'm done. Jared (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

He just keeps it up! Blocking someone for infinity isn't enough---he's got to correct the guy's talk page afterwards. Because we all know that if you share the name of a character in a book---you're lying about your name! Presumably this doesn't affect those sharing names with The Big Book. (And what's Ed doing reading Ken Kesey?!?! Is Andy aware of his liberal reading habits????) Jared (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(Block log); 11:54 . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked AugustO (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (yak, yak, yak ... go back to Rational Wiki), august goes here?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

August got an infinite ban? Always nice to see how CP gives shorter blocks to obvious vandals than to people who dare to disagree with the sysops. --Sid (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Having never banned someone before, how do the time limits work when entering the ban? Does it default to infinite, is it a check box, etc.? Also, side questions---how do you highlight a specific ban from the ban logs for capture purposes (and is there a way to do the same to highlight things like a specific page deletion, when you can see it deleted in the logs?) Jared (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

AugustO was always my favorite CP user who might be me. (I'm actually not, but it would make sense) Carlaugust (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm Spartaugust! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But what I don't get: Ed Poor blocked AugustO after he asked for creating a Conservapedia-Bible-Project-namespace: hardly a blockable offense, especially as Andy was in favor of the idea... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

August has more than accumulated enough things to be blocked (like *gasp* expressing a different opinion!), and I think Ed was feeling down and need something to make him feel big. Carlaugust (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Conveniently, andy no longer has to deal with being asked to discuss the translation stuff! and nobody is going to question the unique visitors again! It's a win for andy in every direction. --Mikalos209 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

approval ratings

obama is at 45%, hopefully it dips into the low 40's^img? wasn't it lower earlier in another MRP item?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pulling this out of my butt, but wasn't his hero, Georgie boy's ratings in the mid 20's at one point?--En attendant Godot 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bush was never his hero. He hates the neo-cons. P-Foster (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actual diff(s) link.^img «-Bfa-» 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure when i copied the main page link. sorry bout that--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see good old Hitwin again though. I wish Ken brought it back. Vulpius (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"I have decided not to follow this web page any further"

Here ends the saga^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

thar she goes!^img He deletes it without bothering himself to look at the answers--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And the talkpage was burnt an hour later^img along with Sasayaki challenge^img. What a horrible, inadequate little man the deleter must be. #La La La! I can't hear you!# CS Miller (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC). Did I really take 20mins to compose that post? CS Miller (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet Sasayaki isn't blocked. CPfan (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet. --Maquissar (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Ken blocked me. The big bollix. He even blocked himself at one point. SeamusC (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, been drinking and am reduced to substandard Roddy Doyle language)

Ken's most reasonable block ever. CPfan (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Which isn't saying much. --Horace (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you all seriously knocking Conservative for blocking himself at one point? You do realize a lot of Wikipedians have made the same error, right? DMorris2 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

D, you gotta admit, the reason he gave in his most recent self-block is pretty damn funny. P-Foster (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit it's funny whenever anyone blocks themself on any wiki, like you can see in my own block log. At least I didn't fail horn myself or tell myself to go back to cheerleading practice though. DMorris2 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RED TELEPHONE FOR KEN!!

To be sure , Ken, oi never cited any websites at all, so I didn't. So blocking me for citing this one is a bit strong.SeamusC (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you did say all her "question evolution!" questions could be answered here. CS Miller (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I was banging on about slavery. I think Ken just got the wrong user (he did, at one point, block himself^img) SeamusC (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to capture bot, isn't this one of the most obvious recorded examples of Ken's

hypocrisy in the face of a challenge or debate.  All his blustering about "intellectual bunny-holes" and lack of MA-CHHEESE-MO is nothing more than a hypocritical reflection of his own crass cowardliness in the fact of any atheistic or evolutionary challenge (if that wasn't obvious already by his locking down and deleting of any criticism or changes to his pet articles)?  What more proof is there that is needed?

I am curious to ask nobs. What is your thoughts on the fact your fellow sysops are so willing censor and erase any remote challenge to the de facto dogma set forth on your site? All that blather about liberal censorship and then we all witness a again and again that Conservapedia is one of the most intellectually closed minded locations on the web, where any dissent from Andy's personal beliefs are ruthlessly squashed. How can you be part of that in all good conscious? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is getting to the point where Ken deserves the proverbial picture of himself in the dictionary under the word "coward". --Horace (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

*snigger*^img CPfan (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

somebody put this all up in his article. What a fucking hypocritical shit. We nailed him once more.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

He's watching us. Check out the block log. SeamusC, you're unblocked--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken is always watching us. We validate his fight against the dragon of atheism and give him the attention which he craves for but doesn't get at CP. Thanks to SeamusC for leading me to this list of blocks. I know people block themselves here for fun reasons but Ken has a history of accidentally blocking himself. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, those 15 questions have been answered, a long time ago,not to mention some of the questions are disingenuous. But when you censor, block, and memoryholed every answer and comment that disagrees or answers those questions like Kenny and Shocky do, of course it gives the appearance that you are winning; even though deep down you know its a facade that has to be propped up through strict censorship. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken has shown us for once and for all that he's a dishonest, lying, cowardly individual, with no relevance outside of CP and without the balls or intellectual capacity to actually respond to any challenges to his increasingly bizarre utterances. He is a sad little joke of a man, living alone in his little house, with only his delusions to keep him company. Now let's go back to ignoring him, so he can make CP look even more bizarre as he tries to grab our attention again. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

…and Ken masturbates

"Will Penn Jillette and his fellow atheists have the courage to debate Bible believers?^img" I was trying to come up with a snarky comment for that, but you really can't say anything anymore. This whole thing deserves an article, somebody with some time do that. --uhm, t! 13:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Smack down^img Bet this won't last long. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nakhes. Big ups to TracyS. 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

She backs down.. a little.^img But will it be enough?^img <capture>SeamusC offers his backing^img<capture>, kiss of death? Ken

replies, <capture>predictably justifying his cowardly censorship,img knowing he cannot answer the atheist challenge.  SeamusC bravely puts his head on the guillotineimg calling Ken

out on his intellectual dishonesty. Jcw elects to take the safe sycophantic route and sucks up to Kenimg in response.  Ken: <capture>Its all that site that shall not be mentioned's fault I won't reply to the challengeimg, you know, that site with the users I chickened out on a debate with? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's like Andy is personally debating: set ideal very high + only accept ideal version → you are never challenged correctly → you are never challenged → you are right, because nobody dares to challenge you! Ken then goes one step further and calls the people that "didn't" challenge him cowards for "not" challenging him. Maaaan, it has to be nice to be dumber then bred. --uhm, t! 18:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't stupidity, its cowardliness. He can make that claim no one can answer simply because he uses his sysop powers to censor anyone who does answer, and comes up with some flimsy excuse to why the answers were removed and that user banned. Then he just pretends no one has answered again, knowing he is lying, but breaking that commandment is alright as long as you do it for Jeebus. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That last exchange with Seamus was superb. Shamo: "You said you'd let the readers decide, but then you deleted it." Kenny: "Erm, yes, but erm, vandal sites, erm, erm, it's not censorship!" What a twat. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What a little lying piece of shit. He put up another "ha, ha, evolutionists can't answer this" on the main page after deleting a load of answers. Toffeeman (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Seamus challenges Ken

again, asking "so what would you accept as answers?img"  Receives completely obfuscating and hypocritical answerimg from the coward known as Ken. Seamus points out the obviousimg. Ken refuses to answer and demands Seamus get "a prominent atheist" to answer for him.img Six damn edits later, same exact bullshit.img Typical Ken, it isn't about intellectual honesty, it is about getting their corner of the Internet basement hits.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I know you read this page religiously, so I'm pretty sure you'll see this. I've posted this before, but have not received a response, so I'll try again: where are these evidences for Christianity you consistently tout? You link to your apologetics article all the time, but it is an article about Christian apologetics, not an article outlining evidence for Christianity. Can you please address this? If there is actual evidence for Christianity I sincerely would like to know what it is, as the reason for my atheism is lack of evidence for the contrary. Thanks. DickTurpis (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It continues, JacobD points out Ken's

demand for a prominent atheist to reply runs against the ideaimg of "best of the public". After one, two, three, four, FIVE edits;img Ken just reiterates the demand for his newest object of sexual obsession, Penn, to reply, not addressing JacobD's point at all.  Yet another user replies, calling Ken out and questioning if he has MA-CHEESE-MO.img  Man, its bad when even the CP editors all know Ken is a vapid coward hiding behind his sysop powers.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NKeaton^img and TracyS^img keep up the pressure. How long until Ken cracks and burns it all? --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Even Jpratt is getting on Ken's case now.^img --PsyGremlinFale! 16:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken's response to Jpatt Move it to the top!^img Jdellaro (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

150 days

If penn does not debate real christian's by novemeber, he will be... ken didn't say^{img — Unsigned, by: Mikalos209 / talk / contribs}

Ken, what took you so long?

You're only now getting around to writing Homosexuality and obesity? Tsk tsk tsk.

Okay, here's the truth. And I'm fat and big ol' homo, so, unlike you, I have a fucking idea what I'm talking about.

Yes, there is a "chub community". (And it's spelled with one "b", though you finally seem to have learned that.) There's also straight men who like overweight women ("BBW" -- Big Beautiful Women), and, while I've never met any, I wouldn't be surprised to learn of straight women who like overweight men. So what?

Ironically, you quote Peter Labarbera in your article, who looks like he could lose a few pounds himself.

You also once again show your and the rest of the American right's bizarre fixation on Chuck Norris (odd that you're so fixated on Chuck Norris when writing about homosexuality, Ken...) I thought "shut up and sing!" was the Official Conservative Response to politically active celebrities?

Oh, and to your credit, you include links to several different weight loss programs. I'll grant, that's good. However, you left out the enormously successful Weight Watchers program. I don't know, maybe you left it out because it at one time the Heinz company made their food products John Kerry is married to a Heinz heiress so therefore it's a lib-burr-ull company. I'm mentioning because I lost 285 fuckin' pounds on Weight Watchers, and have kept it off for over six years now. (In the interest of full disclosure, it's more accurate to say I lost 295 pounds, and put about ten back on.) And while I'm not an atheist, I am a liberal and as queer as a three dollar football bat.

In short, Ken, shove your obesity obsession up your ass. MDB (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you letting a failed internet oddity get to you? Remember, the guy's a complete cock and only survives off the oxygen of attention. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm in a pissy mood this morning and wrote a therapeutic rant. MDB (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't be surprised to learn of straight women who like overweight men"... a while ago I had a discussion with a friend of mine where she admitted about as much to me... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

285 pounds? A pound is still 500g (0,5 kg), right? Dude, that's impressive… (the question I'm asking myself is how much you weight (is that correct?) before… --uhm, t! 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it exactly this type of response that Ken writes these articles for? When he reads this, and he will (if he hasn't already), he won't take to heart the criticisms in the argument, nor will he catch on to the fact that you're calling him an idiot and giving examples of his idiocy. All he'll see is someone getting angry about the "points" he's making, ignore the rest, and come to the conclusion that he's doing a good job at battling atheism and homosexuality and whatever else he feels like having a go at. He doesn't read this and think you're making good points that he should take to heart, he reads this and thinks he's got you on the ropes and you're desperately lashing out in your death throes. X Stickman (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

^THIS! Getting mad at Ken

diatribes is like getting mad at the crazy wandering the streets of your local major city with the crude cardboard sign saying "The End is Nigh!"  Remember, Kenny has no influence, not even among religious fundamentalists, who for the most part dismiss him outright, and so should you, with mocking laughter.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

@uhm - "0,5 kgs"? You adorable Europeans and your inability to even do the decimal system the right (read: American) way. It's just so cute. Carlaugust (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn, it's not that easy if you switch languages more often than water bottles… I guess it's clear that I meant 0.5 kg. --uhm, t! 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a rough approximation. As per google, I lost about 130 kg, or about twenty and a half stone, if you want old school British. (I used to give my friends weekly weight loss updates. To keep up the amusement value, I used different units every week. I think my favorite was, assuming burning 3500 calories to lose a pound, and 200 calories in a Krispy Kreme doughnut, I lost the equivalent of almost 5000 Krispy Kreme doughnuts!)

I started at 540 pounds, or about 245 kg. So, yeah, I lost over half of my former weight. Somewhere, I have pictures of me with various friends, taken when I had lost what they weighed at the time.

A good chunk of what I have left is excess skin; that won't shrink unless I go all-out bodybuilder (and even then, it's more "cover the muscle instead of the fat that used to be there" than shrink.) There is surgery to correct it, but it's not cheap. (Incidentally, it's not true burn treatment centers will remove it for free to use for skin grafts. I found some national organ donation web site that looked reputable some years ago, and the grafts are either so shallow it wouldn't have an effect or so deep you wouldn't want it done.)

Not only that, my weight stabilized somewhere around early 2003. So, I've keep it off for eight years now. Supposedly, doctors will say if you can keep a weight loss for five years, you've done it for good. Now, I know that I, as my Mom says, will never be able to eat like I really want to. However, I know how to eat relatively responsibly now. (Well, I know how to eat really responsibly. I just don't always do so.)

As I mentioned, I did it with Weight Watchers old Points system (which is really a slightly modified calorie counting system, plus light to moderate exercise.) They won't tell me if I hold the corporate record. They claim they don't keep the records, but I suspect that's bullshit, since they keep it on a computer system. Several people have said WW should use me as their answer to Jared from the Subway ads, but some of their employees have told me, off the record, Weight Watchers doesn't target men in the their advertising, so they look for female spokespeople. MDB (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lost 150kg? Holy crap! That's excellent. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Soon CP's homepage will just be "ur fat hurr durr." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the Weight Watchers system (which as you say is basically "calorie counting") is that from a straight forward engineering point of view this is the only thing that works. To "lose weight" a human needs to reduce their energy intake below expenditure, and normal exercise barely helps increase expenditure. So why are the newer systems, which are less focused on this, successful? I assumed it was all bullshit, to avoid confronting the bare facts above, but it turns out it's all about psychology. Many people (but it seems you're not one of them) find it very difficult to approach the problem in this analytical way, adding up points. Giving them a system which focuses on not feeling hungry helps. So newer systems (even some from Weight Watchers) concentrate on foods that are filling and not very energy dense. You eat "as much as you want" of certain foods but you quickly feel full and then you're less tempted by chocolate, ice cream etc. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The "not feeling hungry" is a key reason why exercise is successful, although you're right to point out that it doesn't really burn enough calories to make a difference on its own. As far as I can tell, there are more variables involved than just energy expenditure and intake, for example metabolism and body fat percentage. As you also hinted, not all calories are equal either, nor are all types of proteins and fats equally (un)healthy. In my own experience with intensive fitness training over the last six months, I've noticed that the increase in metabolism from working out goes hand-in-hand with reduced appetite, which itself has (without my trying) been coupled with a desire for healthier, more wholesome sources of protein and carbohydrates. I never even thought about controlling my diet, but it just re-arranged itself naturally over time after starting a workout regimen. Junggai (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Exercise can indeed result in reduced appetite and I'm glad it worked for you. The two extra "variables" you identified just contribute to expenditure. Humans are constantly expending energy, even when asleep. This is called a basal metabolic rate and it varies from person to person. The main things burning power are your vital organs, and muscles. Can't do much about the brain and so on -- if you live in a country with plentiful food and your brain is wasting a banana milkshake worth of extra power per week compared to average go ahead and have that delicious milkshake -- but the muscles can be grown, exercise will increase them, and the more muscle the higher that basal metabolic rate. Now, I don't know where you think I "hinted" that not all calories are equal. Energy is energy. The dietary labels on food packaging already include adequate compensation for the differences in digestive efficiency. 2MJ of energy from chocolate biscuits you needn't have eaten is the same excess as 2MJ of energy from rice and beans or a mushroom omelette. The problem with calorie counting isn't that it doesn't work - it does work - it's that people find it too difficult to obey.

There is a way to sidestep the in vs out equation, but it's not very nice. You need to get rid of the undigested energy source. So either stick your fingers down your throat, or take a fat-uptake suppression drug. That is, either vomit the food up, or shit it out as a nasty oily slurry. If you're thinking of doing either of these things please consult a specialist doctor first so they can try to talk you out of it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You did say that certain diets work without counting calories because they convince you to fill yourself up with foods other than ice cream and chocolate. I guess I misconstrued that to mean something you didn't imply. At any rate, I have a hard time believing that calories tell the whole story. I imagine that if you need to stick to a 2000 calorie diet in order to lose weight, then consuming 1000 calories worth of beer and 1000 of doritos will still go straight to your ass. How do you factor in things like nutrition? Or does this all not make any difference in weight gain/loss, only where you gain or lose the weight? I'm genuinely curious, because I only know so much about nutrition as what has worked for me. Junggai (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Weight Watchers' Points system is calorie based, but calories aren't the whole story. Fat in foods adds to the point totals, beyond the calories from the fat itself. Fiber will lower the point totals, but only to a certain point. (This is based on the formula they used when I was an active member. It's since changed, but I think the core principles still hold. I believe the biggest difference is that unprocessed fruit is now zero point; previously, a serving of fruit was probably one point.) You could also "earn" points via exercise. They also have special rules for diabetics.

The formula I used was, iirc, calories/50 + (fat grams)/12 - (dietary fiber grams)/4, with the caveat you can't "earn" more than two points from fiber. Supposedly, they had to limit the fiber because there were "colon-blow" cereals that were zero point before they added that cap, and people were eating them heavily, and not losing weight.

Essentially, they figure out how many calories you'd need to eat a day to maintain your current weight (based on gender and how sedentary your lifestyle is), cut that in half, and tell you to eat that much a day. Roughly, you got one point for every ten pounds you weighed.

The one common criticism I've heard is that the plan does not address sodium intake at all; they basically tell you that's between you and your doctor. In some ways, that'a valid criticism; however, WW point is for you to lose weight in a sustainable manner, and sodium does not really effect that. (It might cause water retention, but that's a temporary problem.) MDB (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Petty

Not only is he "washed up" but he's a "musician wannabe"^img. Curious what Andy's definition of a "musician" is, as he feels Tom Petty doesn't qualify. I mean, he's only sold 60 million albums, won 3 Grammys (and a Legend Award at the Radio Music Awards) and continues to sell out arenas. Or perhaps he's suggesting Tom Petty is a "washed up musician" wannabe...but I can't think anyone would really want to be a "washed up musician." Doesn't seem like a life goal to me. Is anyone past Lawrence Welk no longer "music" in Andy's world? Jdellaro (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Andy doing Ken's "Ya-boo, you're fat, hur hur!" to people who say something he doesn't like. Plus Petty sent a "cease and desist" letter from his lawyers, which probably means those good, Christians, upstanding capitalists were using the song without permission, or paying royalties. Also... after her serial killer fuck up yesterday, and the fact American Girl was playing in the kidnap scene in SotL... --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way - can you be "washed up" and a "wannabe" at the same time? --PsyGremlinTala! 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Memory-holed. Not usually Andy's style. P-Foster (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(To add to P-Foster's comment)(EC)Andy, desperate not to seem like an 80-year old crank yelling at the kids to get off his lawn, "trims" the headline^img and memory holes his adding it, leaving us to believe that TerryH hates Tom Petty.^img Jdellaro (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For some reason it's Andy's deceitful edit comments - when he hides something embarrassing - that really get to me. It's always "trimming" or "cleaning up". I think it's the laziness of the deceit that annoys me: his edit comments make the edit seem unworthy of seeing when looking at the diff history, but actually open the diff up and the deceit is revealed. The man has no integrity whatsoever. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The title track from the (surprisingly good) album "Has Been" by William Shatner and Ben Folds seems like an adequate response to Schlafly calling anyone you've actually heard of washed up. I particularly like the line "Has been... might be again" which was penned before Shatner's award winning run in Boston Legal 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's easy for Andy to pick on Tom Petty, he didn't do the same thing when Trent Reznor sent a C+D letter to Fox News. Probably because an unhinged Tom Petty fan would only glare at Andy, whereas he'd be frightened that an unhinged NIN fan would stab him. It's the music that caused Columbine after all... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be ashamed of myself for this

I'm sure Tom Petty is just heartbroken to learn CP considers him washed up. MDB (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No no no. Tom Petty's one of the heartbreakers, not the heartbroken. 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally

somebody says it how it is!^img --uhm, t! 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That's great. And Ken hasn't even noticed, yet. - Jpop (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he did, but I don't think he got the joke because he didn't ban XavierC. - Jpop (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Since they probably only read about it on the "recent changes", they'll see "revert vandilism" and not notice WHO's vandalism was reverted. by the by, why do creation "scientists" always have to "reterm" everything. i was reading Ken's "what Creation Science says" stuff and it said "we will call this the protoeucaryote". why do they do that?--En attendant Godot 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

They're just building up a body of bullshit. Makes them look to the faithful as if they have a depth of knowledge. It's an authority thing. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Its the same as when they like to call themselves "professor" or "Dr." Ace ^{of Spades} 21:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already reverted^img, and protected^img. ^{— Unsigned, by: BMcP / talk / contribs}

They even make fun of him on CP now.^img --uhm, t! 22:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dolphins!^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk^img page edits^img are quite fun as well. Finally the proles really are revolting and starting to tell Ken

what he is. Oldusgitus (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, because the last time it happened it worked so well--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? what is this recent obsession with this shock of god? guy? First ken is saying that shockofgod is oging to prove evo is wrong, now he's come up again in these edits??? he's not famous outside of youtube, is he?--En attendant Godot 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Shlock of Goat is the only person who has ever expressed a positive opinion of one of Kendoll's shitheaps. Even his fellow sysops only offer him backhanded praise of the "get the hell away from me you freak" genre, but shock genuinely gushes over how clever and funny they are. You'd latch on to that too if you were Kendoll, and your whole life had been one long series of embarrassments. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC, fuck it I'm copy/pasting) Ah, I am well-versed in the idiocy of shockofgod. He's an infamous YT troll that claims to be an ex-atheist (fun fact: his father is a renown preacher, he's lying out his ass) who has recently pushed the "Question Evolution" campaign, a series of questions meant to discredit evolution in some way. Some who personally know him claim that his job is a mall cop, no joke. He hosts a chat where he "debates" against atheists (cuts them off, insults, bans quickly when getting cornered), and is the leader of the YT group Alliance of Christ. Other members include the song maker of "Slay the Faggots" GodsGutsGunsGlory and NephilimFree. His subscribers are over 15,000, but he hid the list when it was revealed that over a majority of them were sock accounts or sub4sub deals.

Shock is similar to Conservative, in that he abuses his power freely and refuses to debate or discuss anything where he can't control everything ro his advantage. He had a previous channel called shockawenow that was suspended for attempts of phishing. Just recently, an ex-moderator (OptimalRidge) from his inner circle has revealed that he and other AoC members had played a scam in selling some tickets over paypal for some convention... and never sent the tickets. Lefayad1991 had challenged him to a debate, but shock made up a story of lefayad entering his chat and spamming racist slurs (of course, no screenshots or evidence, just hearsay) in order to make excuses.

Besides the Question Evolution retardation, he started the dishonest and facepalming question of "What proof and evidence is there that shows atheism is accurate and correct?", to which many have replied and answered. He simply ignores everyone and continues to claim nobody has answered his question, and Conservative used to tout it sometimes as "THE QUESTION". They both promote each other in a sort of male-on-male 69 position through the internets. Like Ken, he doesn't exist outside his cave of control, but tries to whore attention by challenging well-known names to bring traffic to his website for monetary gain. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, please provide the proof and evidence that Shockofgod and Conservative are not the same person and coinciding. --Maquissar (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have wondered about that myself. If they're truly different people, perhaps Ken should try to check his manlove before he is judged a sinner. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A steaming classic

From TerryH^img. Bizarre falsehoods about the remote past are one thing, but outright lies about something that can be verified in moments? Is this a low for TerryH? CPfan (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And one from Ken^img. Is the moon full tonight? CPfan (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

“”Under the First Amendment, laws that interfere with one’s free exercise of religion are unconstitutional. That is exactly what New York did by passing a same-sex marriage law. When any government, State or federal, dictates what churches must recognize, it violates our First Amendment rights and our freedom of conscience.

—Some internet hatemonger

23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he must be some sort of Constitutional scholar. By his reasoning every time I sit down to enjoy a rack of slow-roasted baby back ribs or thick slices of maple hickory bacon… I’m actually infringing on observant Jews and Muslims religious freedom not to enjoy those products. Wait, what? --Inquisitor (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets go form the first church of flaming gayness, so we can make hetrosexual marriage unconstitutional. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I sware the more i read the insightful comments of the right in this contry, i realize just how stupid and confused i am. imagine, i was under the impression that nothing in this law could make a church marry two people? clearly stupid am i.--En attendant Godot 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, drunk! Or at least typing from your phone. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC²) Thank you Godot I just wanted to ask that (no clue of American law here!).

That by the way is awesome in Germany: Nobody needs to get married in any kind of religious institution, we just go to a civil servant pay a little price and a few years latter we go back pay again and aren't married anymore. In many cases it's the same guy. --uhm, t! 00:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not drunk. I am, however, a horrible speller and typist, so when i'm not on a browser with little red lines saying "damnit, you spelled that wrong", i don't see my errors. @ullhateme.... the thing is, a "marriage" by law, is something you can do in a church of your choice, or with a judge, or with a "minister" of even an intentionally fake religion. any given church no more needs to marry you, than they would have to marry a divorced woman who is still married in their eyes. this law says THE GOVT must recognize these marriages. that's all.

Nutty's internet hater quote is particularly stupid because--I'm surprised nobody else pointed this out--the very thing that held up the bill's passage were the religious exemptions worked into the bill (and that caused Republicans to support it). Not only do churches not have to marry homos, they can actively discriminate against them. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to cry...

...Karajou lays down his own guidelines^img on how to write science articles. --Sid (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, fucking science, facts, theories, and reality. What about the theory of gravity? NO! Evolution is a theory, ergo ALL theories are now being slapped with intense scrutiny, regardless of evidence and proof! _{Btw Noah's Ark totally happened by miraculous chance!} Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Why don't they just slap a template on every science article with Cletus the slack-jawed yokel exclaiming "This article contains lies. Yahweh created the world 6000 years ago." That way they wouldn't have to butcher the fucking content. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Ken

just praised me (http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Endosymbiotic_Theory) for my contribution on the Problems section of my article. How do I politely inform him that I address those problems in the article, and show that endosymbiotic theory still holds. I honestly don't know how to deal with...this. I have taken mostly advanced science courses in college; did you guys ever take "Batshit Insane 1001"? Professor (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He's messing with you. I say just keep up the good fight until Ken

creates an Endosymbiotic Theory and Obesity article. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my friends, I feel that the end is near for me at Conservapedia. Long live science, and God Bless (sarcasm made it out alright). The Fall of Man Professor (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible he still doesn't understand the word 'theory'? He must have had it explained to him countless times... so... wilfully ignorant or just really dumb? Jaxe (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Professor: I do not have full proof, but can reasonably assume based on evidence i am more learned in such and such fields^img<capture>, to which ken replies <capture>so... your wrong about something else?!^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's depressing, isn't it Jaxe? Kowardjerk - google these three terms and get back to us: 1) Theory 2) Scientific Theory 3) Hypothesis. Thanks. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I love this kind of stuff -- it's like shorter postmodernism rammed through a fundy filter. Someone with a sock should spout off something about post-normal science. That's the new, fashionable wingnut anti-science meme. They'll have a field day with it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I pointed out in my reply to him that he lacked the expertise to understand the Problems section, and had therefore not noticed that solutions were provided, and the evidence overwhelmingly supported endosymbiotic theory. Thus, an edit was in order. This is the great scholar whom Conservapedia turns to on the subject of evolutionary biology. Professor (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Banned for being a member here. (In unrelated news, CP senior administrator Rob Smith is openly running for a position of power here... but is not considered a member of this site. Somehow.) --Sid (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

snow on a mountain/it's cold somewhere = Global warming is fake

Exactly what it says on the tin^img and tis cold somewhere^img the only notable thing is how rare the snow is apparently (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously the nefarious work of none other than the goons at the Weather Channel! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC³) I like the part where he says that the Biased Liberal Media are conspiring not to report cold weather — right after he cites a mainstream media report of cold weather. I wonder if the "new editor" who put him onto it is a parodist. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The liberal media never reports on the global warming hoax except when they want to sell us some Al Gore-sponsored carbon credits! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait... I love Andy's barefaced lying.^img MPR claims "Our temperatures are running over 30 degrees below average for this time of the year"... the actual news story says it's for ONE DAY and because of a storm. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Andy is hung up on "global warming" because he's stupid and doesn't understand "climate change", which means unpredictable weather, including snow in the summer and 80 degree days in the winter. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not even a counter-example because AGW increases precipitation, which obviously includes rain and snow. But it's also possible that it's not that Andy doesn't understand it, it's that science is one of many liberally curious things in Andyland and so he'll throw any old bullshit at it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy is never wrong!

Oops, my bad - Andy never admits to be wrong. He's quite inventive when he has to deal with his errors:

• Lying in edit comments: Trim^img
• Blaming others: edit conflict^img!

So, are there examples where Andy was wrong, admitted so, and perhaps even apologized? Did such events became less frequent over the years (because he's nearing infinitely conservative perfection)?

And I don't want to see any tumble-weeds!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This was truly funny "your comments were excellent. they were deleted due tosimultaneous edits (very rare error)." so rare, it doesn't happen?--En attendant Godot 14:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Christie, good or bad?

is chris a good conservative^img or a evil RINO?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He's overweight, so ipso facto, he's an atheist. FTW! Jared (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He's both a good conservative and a RINO - I'm serious. I've watched Andy's pronouncements about him, and because Christie has nuanced views, he's not a teabagger. That means on some issues Christie is a good conservative, and on others he's a RINO. It just depends on the day and the issue. But by New Jersey standards, Christie is a teabagger. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We've always been at war with Eastasia Chris Christie. ... of liberals? (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

andy noticed myspace being sold

mypsace being sold for $32 mil = death of all social media^imgnevermind myspace stopped being important around 2008ish. --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's like saying people are using vehicles less because sales of bias ply tires plummeted. Never mind the radials. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Least necessary redirect ever.

Right here. P-Foster (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I dunno. At best it's tied for first place (and that one was made by the Assfly himself!) ^{ONE / TALK} 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And i'm glad he did, too. I myself have often wondered what a "Democratrs" is.--En attendant Godot 16:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Those Dirty westerners and their democracy

Those dirty Westerners and their agents spreading democracy^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

While that kind of language is laughable appearing on the front page of CP (courtesy of JoMar?), given the site's usual pro-war, anti-non-Westerners stance, the sentiment is pretty much right on. The idea that you can spread democracy at gunpoint -- or from drones thousands of feet in the sky -- is fundamentally wrong. P-Foster (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was moved to Forum:Democracy through war.23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit. And holy shit²: Andy let's it stand there and even corrects the grammar^img. --uhm, t! 17:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Martinez isn't anti-war, he's pro oil dictators. Everything he writes in this regard bears that out. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken amps up the crazy.

"Genghis Conservapedia; Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life? Conservapedian The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair. Genghis Conservapedia; Wrong! User Conservative! What is best in life? User Conservative; To crush atheism, see Richard Dawkins be afraid to debate Dr. William Lane Craig and to hear atheists' lamentation about the web page comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution. Genghis Conservapedia: That is good! That is good."^img P-Foster (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Guy's a loon. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here.^img «-Bfa-» 20:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on Andy. The guy's unhinged. How you gunna let him have a complete mental breakdown at your feet and do nothing? Some religious morals there. 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably about the most amusing thing Ken's ever written, actually. You know, I still haven't seen Conan the Barbarian all the way through. DickTurpis (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec*2)Of course with a locked talk page that redirects to "Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution". How droll of Ken to compare himself to Conan The Barbarian, though. I can almost see him wibbling up and down in front of his computer (I'd normally say "dancing around his computer, but Ken seems to be eternally glued to his chair, judging by his insane edit binges), going "Olé! Olé! Olé!" in a vahree stoopeed ahksehnt. --Sid (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And there "it" goes again, compensating. --uhm, t! 20:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He actually refers to himself as User:Conservative. That's so sad. Come on, man. Just call yourself Kendoll like everyone else, it'd feel good. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Also: CROM! Though I have never prayed to you before, if you exist, help me to defeat atheism and evolution on the internets. Or if you do not, to hELL with you! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If Ken's Conan, and Conan follows Crom, does this not mean that Ken's something worse than an atheist - a *gasp* PAGAN?!?!??!? 86.162.89.169 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"He actually refers to himself as User:Conservative." See Andy's talk page where he started being UNBELIEVABLY annoying and coy and smug about how to refer to him given his refusal to even reveal which gender-specific pronoun would be appropriate. What a git. P-Foster (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he refers to himself as "User:Conservative" in real life, and insists the orderlies do too. I just wonder if someone replaced Ken with a random text generator, if anyone would notice. Doppelheuer (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen! I will anglicise your precious ROM, enabling me to destroy homosexuality on the internet. You should all be revolving over Operation beagle, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.

Lady Techpriest!

I am not surprised that your comments in regards to the death of evolutionism on the internet are quite lackluster. Regarding feminism and deception, you ignore the likelihood that The Conservapedia Anti-Abortion Project is picking up steam. In fact, by the time I've finished in regards to this Operation, it is likely RationalWiki will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)

Rest assured, Operation Eggplant Beaters is gathering steam!!! Please do not be disappointed if a internet atheist/agnostic revival does not ensue. Sincerely,

Conservative

Michele Bachmann!!!

What is best in life, Michele Bachmann?^img P-Foster (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is a complete and utter genius. I really, sincerely, hope to meet him some day. I honestly think it'd be brilliant. DogP (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shorter Andy

Andy: "One instance of colder weather does not disprove Global Warming. However, a handful will conclusively obliterate the idea without any shred of doubt". Time for my monthly inquiry of "Gentlemen, are we certain Mr. Schlafly is not a parodist?" Saladin 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we even sure that the sun really exists? I mean really? A giant ball of fire in the sky close enough to "warm" our planet, and yet we still have snow? Sure, a few scattered reports of snow here and there would be understandable, even expected, but how do we explain the vast amounts of snow all over the planet? How do we explain the snow on top of mountains, which are ostensibly closer to this "sun" than the baking hot deserts of northern Africa? X Stickman (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So by that logic, why do you not believe in Evolution. "one fossil does not prove evo, but a hand full (or bucket full, or museum full) surely does". (lol to x stickman)--En attendant Godot 22:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

@X Stickman: But if gravity were true, how would planes fly? They should fall straight to the ground! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel obliged to ask a question regarding MAGNETS! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Joking aside, I once got into an argument with someone who claimed that the moon landing must have been a hoax because "there's no gravity in space". X Stickman (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin would have taught him a lesson. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A long letter to andy

a long letter to andy about fixing the site^img saved because its long and possibly filled with true desire to help and would be cruel to let it inevitably be memoryholed--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He is pissing into the wind. - π 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

seems to me he's been very open minded recently. Sure, he's still spouting the same old nonsense, but I get the feeling he's really listening to people's suggestions.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is Andy will stamp it with his version of TL;DR, "Godspeed", and send it on its way to the Ministry of Information. I thought it was incredibly tactful though, even if you took out all of the caveat sentences reminding him that it wasn't a personal attack. Good work, even if it comes to nothing. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy's response will basically be "We have no time for you closed-minded liberal claptrap." While Ken will tell him "Here, hold on to this Flying Kitty while I let Shock ask you a few questions..." --Inquisitor (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is ultimately doomed because it asks for the one thing Andy can never give: an implied admission that he was wrong to make Ken a sysop and allow him to crap all over the site and its editors lo these many years. --Horace (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken

provides his defense,^img completely ignoring the premise of the letter being founded on what constitutes "encyclopedic" entries. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) One couldn't have hoped for a better record of Ken's insanity and refusal to cooperate. He didn't even have to wait for Andy to show up because the law at Conservapedia is sysops get to do whatever the fuck they want and when one of them is against the ropes another one will slip out of the woodwork to rearguard the defense. Encyclopedia. LARF! 13:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, in Andy's mind Ken's batshit insanity = more page views & Google rankings and this can only be a Good Thing ^TM. Andy doesn't care that people are coming to laugh at him - he cares that they come. Although... judging by how he has yet to release the "record number of visitors", that could also exist solely in his mind. Either way, Xavier has committed wiki-suicide. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What Psy said. Any hope anyone here has of CP "reigning Ken in" is going to be disappointed. He's their golden hit boy, and any criticism is taken as proof of the devastation his satire causes. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy isn't going to answer is my guess. From what I have seen Andy has not gotten involved with any of the criticisms for Ken

lately.  Quazywabbit (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A few months back I would have fully agreed with Psy that Xavier has commited wiki-suicide, but nowadays I don't think so. There have been a lot of people lately - some of them senior sysops, that said Ken

should stop behaving like a dick and have questioned the quality (in the sense one speaks of something that doesn't exist) of his "work". Because there aren't many people that speak on either side - most of them keep out and their heads down - all that is missing are two or more senior sysops going against Ken

and his throne dog kennel may be shattered. The question of it all is on what side of the argument Andy comes down on, if people start to leave and solely blame Ken for it and if Ken

continues to behave in ways that are without honor even for Andy, Andy might just change his mind. It's pretty much the same in all dictatorships, if people that were loyal scream "That's a bad desicion!" and they are many, something will be done. --uhm, t! 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They could have saved themselves so much trouble

Still, now that Angry Bear's "vacation" isn't going so well and he's still hanging around CP, maybe he can use his spare time and revisit this discussion:

“”Did Conservative ever at any time tell us where he's from? Did he ever make postings of any kind outside of Conservapedia or CreationWiki? Does anyone here know his real name? I'm saying this becaause I'm still not convinced as to his honesty with regards to CP. Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well. Ken DeMyer is 45 and from Buffalo, New York. Remember troll and user KDBuffalo? Was KDBuffalo trolling against us before or after the Ratwikians claimed he was Ken DeMyer? If the above is true, then we got someone with a clear Jekyll/Hyde personality. If it's not true, then we've got one hell of an elaborate ruse going on. Either way, I am of the opinion that Conservapedia should not have to suffer this.

Also, I believe he's studying archaeology. Can you imagine him on a dig?
"Ah yes, and here we find some pottery shards, dating back some 10,000 years, to the reign of Empress CorWattaBiggaPairIGot."
"WHAT?! LIES!" The Earth is only 6,000 years old!! Get off the dig! GET OFF THE DIG! I don't care if you're the chief archaeologist!! YOU'RE JUST A FILTHY LIBERAL! GET OFF!!!" (the last accompanied by much spade swinging). --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ooh, an 'out-of-place' artifact. It must be from the Bible." "No it's a rock." "Out-of-place artifact!" "No, it's a rock." "OFF MY DIG LIBERAL SCUM!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I have very mixed feelings about Ken. On the one hand, he's a smug, deceitful little git who abuses power to frustrate and block honest debate and then declares victory and burns any evidence of having been challenged in the first place, and gets away with it only because his superiors are complete idiots and willingly turn a blind eye to the flagrant misconduct, and for this reason I yearn to see him brutally smacked down. But on the other hand, he has single-handedly done more damage to Conservapedia and its reputation than all other parodists combined, wielding his unchallenged power to dump an endless stream of utter crap all over the wiki and the main page itself, in the form of ever more ridiculous essays and satires and random pictures with tedious captions, all full of badly-worded, ham-fisted straw men and non sequiturs. As much as I want to see the his smug face roundly slapped, I want even more for his efforts to continue unabated. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with One above. Karajou's IP sleuthing: "With the exception of one, [all of Ken's IPs] post from the State University of New York at Buffalo. The odd-one out (192.135.227.164) posts from the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library, 1 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York." So what does Ken do at SUNY-Buffalo? Janitor? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's Ken in 2004: "Plus at my university the State University of NY at Buffalo this is what happened at the creationist/evolutionist debate" --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just months before he discovered Wikipedia. 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Why haven't I heard about this before? Junggai (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia, growth via candidness and good feelings

andy: We grow as the rest declines, because we are better^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's candid all right. Vulpius (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"visitors are better off after spending time here" - I fully agree! I would be much worse off if it wasn't for the laughter caused by Andy's insights and flying kitties! --Sid (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RELEASE THE DATA ASSFLY! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Release the birth certificate data! --uhm, t! 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No wonder jpatt is such an angry guy

He spends his time listening to Rush Limbaugh.[2]^img--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance? Incompetence? Contempt for the American system? Are you sure Rush wasn't talking about W?--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it speaks volumes that Johnny Sedition equates the American system with "capitalism." Junggai (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)