Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive244

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 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>, <243>, <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>, (new)(back)

Contents

Counterexamples to evolution global warming[edit]

Click to view fail.img I like how Andy seems to think floods and droughts can't happen at the same time. Droughts? What droughts? Love the LOLWUWT and NaturalNews cites as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, i thought mainstream media doesnt use the word flood. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
LOLwut? I'm no climatologist, but even I understand that if the planet is warming, it melts the ice, liberating water into the water cycle, producing more precipitation when it does rain or snow, causing the floods we're seeing today. Dumbasses. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on, the planet isn't warming, a new ice age is imminent. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
potholer54 stomped the crap out of that on YouTube. (I'll link to the exact video when I get home.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This is parodistic work of the highest order. When I first read it I thought a lazy parodist had knocking it together, but it was so badly written even the Assfly would see through it and delete and ban. But alas! Upon reading the history I see that a parodist merely plants the seed by suggesting/starting a ludicrous article, another parodist or two chips in, but they leave it to the masters to grow it in to the full-blown abortion. Secularized language anyone? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Has no-one there thought that the final sentence of warm weather patterns (Random temperature fluctuations, including those above, would occur in the absence of global warming.) would similarly apply to cold weather patterns? Pippa (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It depends what the meaning of the word 'above' is. DogP (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The best part about Andy is that you can play him like a cheap fiddle.
1. Wait for him to pronounce on one of his pet crazy toes
2. Question his reasoning behind his latest statement
3. Watch the defensive shields go up and the bluster begin
4. Sock up and create an article / essay supporting Andy's latest drivel. Draw this to his attention.
5. Bask in the warm of Andy's glory as he praises you for your effort and then goes and turns it into an even bigger heap of crap
6. ???
7. Profit. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
-OR- 2a. Bring it up in a section of CP where Andy will never respond, like Community Guidelines, and watch sysops squirm on his behalf. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious parodist Melissafox has entered the fold and produced this brilliant edit. Considering it is the middle of winter what is most surprising is the fact that this is the first cold front that has hit in an unusually warm winter (at least as far as my 30 years are concerned). Ace of Spades 21:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut JoMar[edit]

I don't need sources let's say weird thingsimg. There's that, and his despicable unsourced MPR postimg.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced hearsay: good enough for Conservapedia. Speaking of which, a dying Peter Falk told me that JoMar works for North Korea's State Security Department. Doppelheuer (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually the strauss-kahn story is not unsourced. Andy has added the sourceimg and it has just been seriously discussed on Radio 4 in the UK for 5 minutes or so. I have no idea on what is really going on but it is looking like the case against DSK is possibly about to collapse spectacularly. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It does look that way, basically if the accused in a rape case takes the "it was consensual" line from the outset and you've got no other witnesses then you are relying entirely on the credibility of the accuser. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard for criminal prosecution means you should lose every such prosecution where the jury isn't sure who to believe. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Independence Day[edit]

How is Independence Day conservative? Is wilful rebellion against your lawful (and divinely ordained) sovereign a conservative value? Sounds more like the type of nonsense lawless and godless liberals get up to. Next thing you know Conservapedia will be claiming mispronunciation of just about every word in the English language and turning up late for world wars is the very foundation of society. Toffeeman (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Independence Day is conservative because patriotism. ONE / TALK 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The CP definition of 'conservative' is 'good'. Once you start reading the word 'conservative' on CP as 'good', it makes much more sense. With 'good' of course defined from the POV of Schlafly. CPfan (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I like how Andy's post shows his self-loathing/masochism. Even places like Harvard admit Independence Day is conservative. Places like Harvard where Andy's family dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education he didn't want. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...
Goodpedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more good regardless of badness creep and the best efforts of baddies. Of course bad deceit can cause much suffering during that process. The rapid growth in good insights suggests that only a fraction of the truth is yet known, as stated by Isaac Newton but denied by baddies today. Indeed, the rapid growth in good insights explains why baddies attempt to discourage an open-minded search for the truth: those discoveries are more likely to be good than bad in nature.
It's almost as non-sensical as the real thing. ONE / TALK 13:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You've just summarized the Whig view of history. You're right that it's absurd, but it lurks behind a surprising amount of modern thought. CPfan (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
SeamusC posted the comment to Conservapedia as "George Hanover" and got blocked 8 minutes later. They didn't respond to the pint though. Toffeeman (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Liberal god hating trolls make no points, only useless drivel! --Mikalos209 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I sense a great disturbance in the Force.[edit]

Chavez has cancer. Andy is not gloating about it. P-Foster (talk)

Next stop: Chavez-is-dead Station. --uhm, t! 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Something for Andy's MPR?[edit]

Dr. Jeffrey H. Toney uses CP's article on Michele Bachmann to prove a point. Pippa (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy is convinced that what he does (and ehm, "teaches") is serious education. so, the two fit perfectly.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Evaluating Rep. Bachmann's "Scholarship"[edit]

Thank you for posting my article, "Rep. Bachmann Scholar?." As an academic Dean, her reference to "serious scholarship" got my attention, as I routinely evaluate the quality of faculty scholarship as a key component of reappointment and tenure at the University. I was not able to identify any evidence of scholarship by Rep. Bachmann, and included the reference to Conservapedia as an example of a strongly biased perspective on her accomplishments. All of this information is important for any citizen considering candidates for President of the United States in 2012. — Unsigned, by: Jetoney / talk / contribs

CP and their ilk thrive on attention (they're not doing so well for it at the moment) so I regret that so prominent a blog as yours mentioned them. They see all comment as good (no such thing as bad publicity?) even when it lambasts them. Pippa (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a sensible way to evaluate the benefit/detriment of attention to that disfunctional blog. (Somewhere I have picked up the idea that many conservatives find it embarrassing.) Given enough pointing and laughing, there has got to be a time when some sort of balance tips in favor of responsible commonwealth, and away from authoritarian privateering, or so I would like to believe. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone pointed out from an article or statement of hers, what she intends to mean by "scholarly". I mean, maybe she's comparing herself to the Alaskan nut. In which case, she might well be considered to have a virtual PhD. But I would take some "offense" with Jetoney's suggestion that the only scholarly person must be in academics or must have written something. It is possible she is an amateur connoisseur of history, noting things that have long been missed, like forgetting one of the Adams' as a founding father, or thinking that Paul R didn't warn the british as well. those are historical things unknown heretofor, and perhaps some credit should be given to her, for finding those things out! (that said, great article, Jetoney.)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"Offense," Godot? But why? If I told you I was a "serious guitarist," you'd expect that I've played in public or released an album, hell or at least posted something on Youtube. The point is, describing yourself as "serious" means that there's some evidence that you've played for more than just my friends at cocktail parties, and there's some tangible body of work that other professionals could evaluate. I see nothing offensive about making the same assumption with scholarship. Put up or shut up, in other words. Junggai (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the context in which she was speaking, and the vagueness of the words "serious" and "scholarship", I'm not inclined to make a big deal out of this one. It's not like she's in an academic field, or applying for work in one. She's in the goddamn House of Representatives. Based on some members I'd say "serious scholarship" could well be coloring books. DickTurpis (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Junggai. Maybe my academic bias is showing, but when I hear people speak of "serious scholarship", then I assume that it is of an academic nature. This means, at the least, published research or scholarly commentary in some form or another. It does not, of course, include strictly political activities. The root of "scholarly", after all, implies something of an academic nature — at least to my ears. Phiwum (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Junggai, i was being flippant about ms. bachman's gaffas with american history of late. my sarcasm is not always that dead on, or that funny. :-)--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I would make the point that scholar and scholarly are different things. I consider myself a scholar of religion, but scholarly of science because i spend a great deal of my free time studying it. Though with bachman, she's neither a scholar, nor scholarly about anything. --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
While my adoration of you knows no bounds, I disagree here, Godot. I am a scholar when it comes to my formal research into black radical movements, but simply an amateur (in the sense of the word meaning "doing something for the love of it") when I'm poking about learning about jazz or comic strips or pre-WWII stringed instruments (although the first 2 have a strong potential to blur the lines a bit with my scholarly work)....P-Foster (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL, one disagreement should not an adoration make or break. ;-) but i do see your point. I just know that being a scholar in one field, is how i've approached another, but without the formal tests cause - i'm tired of going to school.  ;-) And again, neither definition applies even remotly to the bimbo in question. That's why i wish i knew what she was implying, what "things" she thinks she has looked at in any sense of that word, study.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Bimbo? She's 100 times more dangerous than people like Palin because she's competent and successful. That does not a bimbo make. IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I must have a different definition of competent than you. she does scare me, because i can see her getting elected, but i see nothing competant about how she has run her House seat. I don't see her as very knowledgable about much of anything, she is not highly informed beyond her extreme views. but she does scare me, cause i think she is electable--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I mean she's competent and successful at getting elected. She scares the hell out of me and I don't even live there. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Following up on Pippa's comment at the top of the thread, I don't know if I agree. We have a tendency to try to circumvent CP on its own terms, not wanting them to reach their own goals, when their own goals are nothing but good: they so crave attention they'll say wilder and more freakish things until they get it. We shouldn't discourage this, nor discourage others from pointing it out. If I laugh and point at a fool on a soap box in the corner of a park, it's to critique their outlandish views, and it doesn't matter to me if they suddenly feel validated that someone has noticed that they are alive. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

courts have designated atheism as a religion![edit]

Sez Ken anyway. Any idea which courts? Ace of Spades 02:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to find out so I can use my Holy Catholic Church of Atheism seriously.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Torcaso v. Watkins classified "disbelief" as a religion in order to give it protection under the First Amendment. This is, of course, a legal rather than a philosophical definition in order to afford non-believers the same rights (no religious tests for office in this case) as believers. This is a common talking point for apologists so they can invoke the secular religion trope. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So... Does this mean I can ordain myself as a priest of atheism and gain a tax-exempt status? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In theory, yes.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can become an ordained minister. There's a bazillion atheist sites that offer this service. No you will not be tax-exempt BUT you can get certain clergy only write-offs such housing allowances. You can also un-enroll from social security if you want to as well. A lot of con artists and other sovereign citizens have already milked this angle for decades. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Srsly? I gotta get in on that shit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if a priest of Humanism would qualify as a church leader. To be frank, Christians like Ken should be more concerned about Scientology having tax-exempt church status because it really waters down the tax code for churches. If Scientology can have tax exemption, Pastafarians could, too. I'm surprised Ken doesn't take on Scientology, but he does so at his own peril adn I know this well. They will investigate him if he ever took them on, and I don't think Ken has the balls go to up against Scientology. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Attacking something that does not have all that much of a definition (or the definition is widely unknown to the public) has a long history, that's because you can simply call somebody it and silent him or get him killed. In the middle ages it was magic, it then later became protestants and their various sub-categories, democrats, anarchists, socialists, communists, moslims with all their subcategories and so on. Of course that exists on the other side too: capitalist, imperialist, racist, fascist and so on. It's very much the same thing as "good" and "evil" that only smear words - no I'm not saying killing a toddler isn't evil for me, I'm just saying those words aren't defined enough so they should actually be used. Atheism is actually a quite wibly-wobly (is that written right? can that be written right?) term for many people, let alone that fact that there are two major definitions out there, so it is quite easy to use it as a smear word and define it too fit your very own witch-hunt/holocaust/"clean up". But: this is not something "irrational", but something very very human. RW has some of those terms itself: "irrational" and "anti-science". "irrational" is thrown around like shit in an ape cave without ever defining what the fuck "rational" means. And "anti-science" is just a smear word for people that don't accept something even if it has been scientifically proven. There it is, burn me on a stick. --uhm, t! 15:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I think its pretty obvious... atheism per se is not a religion, but it can form part of a religion. Likewise, theism isn't a religion either, but it is an important part of some religions. For examples of atheist religions, how about some forms of humanism, the atheist/humanist wing of UUs, Christian atheism/"Death of God theology", nontheistic Quakerism, Humanistic Judaism, LaVeyan Satanism... Buddhism is arguably atheist, since it lacks any Western concept of an ultimate universal God (although it admits more limited 'gods', bodhisattvas, etc.). Bishop John Shelby Spong rejects 'theism', although I've seen the argument that by 'theism' he means his own peculiar definition, separate from the usual one, so his rejection of 'theism' does not necessarily imply atheism - oh, but anyway, looks like we can add atheistic Anglicanism to the list of atheist religions too. (((Zack Martin))) 23:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll makes Rob his bitch once again.[edit]

Rob: Straightforward question requiring one word answerimg?
Kendoll: Ha! As if I'd ever answer a direct question from a peon like youimg!

Oy. Repeatedly humiliated by a drooling simpleton. That's got to hurt. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What the? --uhm, t! 22:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll never lay claim to being the president of the RobS fan club but damn. Nobs, if you're paying attention, FIGHT BACK. He is mortal, he BLEEDS, and as they say "If it bleeds, you can kill it."--Thunderstruck (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
He also has Gods Andy's Favour--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ken really is a master of discourse. Instead of responding to legitimate criticism about his practice of creating locked articles with locked and redirected talk pages, he links to locked article with a locked and redirected talk page! --Tabrcg23 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm also no fan of Rob, but at least he tries to do SOMETHING. I'm not really impressed by the results so far, but I'll readily applaud any effort to move away from the "almost no clear rules, and the rules that exist don't apply to most active users" state CP has been operating in for the last... four years or so? --Sid (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, right after applauding Rob, I check the RC and find this talkpage discussion.img --Sid (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
We really should thank Knobs; 1) His persuasion of the Assfly to remove the 403 rangblocks has resulted in more editors, which gives us the wonderful sight of Andy (and others) spouting shit as people shove his 'insights' up his hoop. 2) The community portal has given people the chance to question Ken on his, erm, 'behaviour' which then results in 3) Ken thinks he is really sticking it to the atheist/evolutionist/homosexualist/liberalist ranks and will thus redouble his 'work', ensuring that CP never ever becomes a respected resource, even amongst their target audience. Thanks Rob! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Bawwwww, did Rob's simple yes/no question get a convoluted, unconnected and diversionary response? I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. ONE / TALK 09:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Sid's link tells a lot. I find it very telling:
  • Because it's "Original Research", it should be okay.
- Inserting "Original Research" on anything but their ideology IS NOT ALLOWED. It's poor quality satire, and yet encyclopedic?
  • Calling a sysop or another editor a troll can be construed as a personal attack.
- Nevermind all the block logs randomly calling users "trolls", or that Conservative labels anyone in disagreement certain things.
  • If Conservative responds, regardless of coherence and disrespect, he should be respected.
- As if he would do anything otherwise?
  • If Conservative doesn't respond at all, just leave it be and respect him still.
-He can do no wrong. If a user didn't respond to a sysop's inquiry, it's obvious what would happen.
Keep it classy, Rob. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (yeah, I used bullet points. DEAL WITH IT *sunglasses on*)
Good old Rob! For all his bluster, he's just another spineless CP sysop, once again toeing the CP line - CP admins are gods and lords of their domain - the rules do not apply to them, and thou shalt shut the fuck up. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As bad as Ken[edit]

For somebody who's supposedly been on vacation since the 25th, Karajerk's been surprisingly active on CP lately. Maybe he uses the same travel agent Ken does.

Or else Koward has realised that locking his talk page is a good way to avoid dealing with the plebs. The lie about the vacation is just second nature to him. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At least he didn't pull the same "I'm on vacation, but I use VPN to access the site through my home computer" silliness TK did back in the days. --Sid (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Ken can afford a proper vacation unless he forgoes his meds. A vacation for him is just getting out of the basement. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 08:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

????????????????????????????????????????????????[edit]

the rules disfavor use of a full real name as an idimg--"Shut up, Brx." 18:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Real name and last initial should be enough to cover any real ID. So we only know that the owner of CP is called Aschlaf and their surname begins with Y! Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this will be it for Ed Poor, then. So long, and thanks for all the stubs. Röstigraben (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Same goes for Rob. --Sid (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I like the faux pleasant request "please do not post personal information" as a block reason. What a disingenuous creep Andy is. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

BoN Section Break[edit]

First post but I have had Conservapedia on my wtf? list for years. TK was an epic troll/destroyer of communities, others were close in but were parodists. Looking at Ken's latest, I ask honestly, could the entire site be on the level of an Andy Kaufman type joke? I know Andy's education and trust me, that dude knows exactly what he is doing or else he is bat shit jesus on a chocolate rocketship crazy. I could imagine a scenario where he dedicated his life to giving his mother a total FU but is waiting for the perfect time to do it (that would be after she died and he got all her money).

If Andy waits till after his Mom dies and he collects the millions for being such a good conservative son (look at my conservapedia Mom. I am such a good boy (while destroying the conservative point of view)) while his Mom was alive, he will have managed to accomplish the following:

1. Collect her millions and live happily ever after when she dies

2. Have the ability to totally give her a big middle finger when he tells the world he is gay or a liberal or a free thinker or was trying to see how far the fundie rabbit hole could go or what ever.

3. Has not had to work except for minor annoyances

4. Is getting huge yuks out of this?

5. Become really famous

6. Take the money and disappear

I think the key question here is I wonder if CP is a parody site to Poe Andy's mom just enough to get his inheritance while he doesn't have to work?


If the above turns out to be true...pass the popcorn.

If the above turns out to be untrue...pass the popcorn.

75.243.188.196 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Mental

The thing about Conservapedia is that, even if it *is* a troll/poe site of truly epic (in the traditional, non-lulzinternet sense of the word) proportions, then the people perpetrating it are just as bad as the people they'd be mocking. Conservapedia isn't just a repository of stupid "facts" and "insights", it's a meeting place for some truly nasty people. Andy, TK, Karajou, Rob, Conservative, Ed Poor etc... have all been legitimately nasty to people who were apparently innocent (i.e. not part of their parody site conspiracy, if it were a parody). Even if they were hardcore leftists on some deep undercover operation, they're still complete and total assholes.
Not to mention the fact that they have a history of doing the same thing that predates Conservapedia (Andy and Roger Schlafly have a history on Talk Origins, I believe, and Conservative has history in... lots of places). If they are parodists, they've put more effort into it than anyone I've ever seen.
Even though every part of my mind actively hopes that they're all just making it up and they're not really that dumb, all the actual evidence points to the fact that.... yeah. They really are that dumb. X Stickman (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If they could pull that off, it would make Andy Kaufman look like an amateur. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy is not an act. If his only presence was Conservapedia I could see where you might be coming from, but Andy exists in the real world, doing real world wing nut stuff outside of running CP. The idea that someone would spend their entire adult lives pretending to be an arch conservative while secretly being a liberal is ridiculous. There isn't a distinction between someone who pretends to be a wing nut all the time and an actual wing nut. --Marlow (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if Andy were a parodist, he would still be a giant dick and mad. He'd be a dick for being that angry at his mother for not much (I mean I would understand other people with way worse moms being angry like that, but not for something like that) and treating any human being like that, let alone how he treats other editors that are seriously conservative or mentally challenged by letting their problems run free there. He'd be mad because he graduated from an Ivy League College and not going for the big money. And I couldn't even find the words if his students actually existed and he would teach him such crap, knowing it was bullshit he would actually fuck up lifes. So for everybody involved I hope he is just that mad. --uhm, t! 15:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
X Stickman. stop talking shit and cite an instance before spewing bullshit & lies with my name attached, asshole. nobsViva la Revolución! 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No. X Stickman (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, human rights[edit]

Seriously Andy?img You're happy about the shutdown, fine, but you're gleeful nobody cares about human rights?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But he said "Ha ha!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think he's saying that nobody needs that department, not something against human rights - which if we believe him, are violated every day by not forcing others to pray. --uhm, t! 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice homophobic blast, courtesy of Aschlafly.[edit]

Keep it classy, Andy. Keep it classy. P-Foster (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know that calling another person a "pansy" is homophobic. Surely it's not homophobic to claim that someone else is weak in the knees, unassertive, etc. Sure, "pansy" adds the implication of effeminate behavior (presumably in the character of one who does not want to project femininity), but in most contexts, it's not really an anti-gay slur to my mind. (I don't know whether the historical origins of the term are essentially a slur against homosexuals or not, but I certainly use the term occasionally with no such slur intended.) Phiwum (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Googling "pansy homophobic" or "pansy slur" seems to indicate that there's debate about whether or not the term is a homophobic slur. I see it as one, and while I don't know where Andy stands in that debate, using "weaklings" would have got the same point across without raising the possibility that he was using offensive language. P-Foster (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Do remember that liberals lack machismo and, as such, definitely are pansies as proven by professor Kenneth DeMyer. Vulpius (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The sense of impotence importance increases by the day[edit]

So  K e n  D o l l  seemingly thinks the shit he smears over main page will actually have some bearing on the 2012 electionimg if only for a short period. Then he woke up and immediately removed this crap, perhaps even he realised his delusions of adequacy don't extend to influencing the POTUS election. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually felt like laughing, when I read that. And banging my head against the wall, at the same time. --Maquissar (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
And now of course he's burnt it. Dance  K e n  D o l l , our sweet little puppet. Dance for your masters. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Manic Kendoll: This is so awesome! It will go viral and everyone will vote Bachmann!
Depressive Kendoll: Jebus wept, what the hell was I thinking? *BURN*
--JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Or or or....Maybe even "Manic Ken" decided that a Bachmann Presidency might not be a Good Thing?13:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Barack "3 War" Obama. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Red telephone time[edit]

Yes indeedimg. Because what could be more foolish than wanting to edit an article on a wiki. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's rant makes think me of a teacher that gets angry because the students keep getting the material wrong every year and aren't improving. - π 12:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Free WIGO[edit]

I won't post this (since it's a Ken but have one all cued up if someone wants a good one, I even have the snark:If irony had mass this would be a black hole. 13:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Yes, clearly WE'RE the ones who are obssesed.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Expandedimg to catch all 300+ edits. Scrolling through it, it's basically all Ken, all the time... though I did notice at least one edit by TK (to add the essay tag) and one edit by Andy (to remove some image). --Sid (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy Schlafly is a horrible person for not intervening to get Ken mental health assistance. They're close enough that there's no excuse for just sitting there and watching a man have a breakdown at your feet. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's face it, it is just another facet of the right-wing's failure to have any really empathy for other human beings. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh nonsense. It's nothing of the sort. Just because a few crazies at a wacko website claiming to be conservative does does make all right wingers empathy free. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well the scary part is that Andy isn't too far off from representing the average far-right conservative. Certainly there are conservatives who are more moderate and who don't let religion get in the way of politics, but there are also a lot who believe in the same things that Andy does. Scary stuff. - Jpop (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, scary indeed. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does Ed want from Conservapedia?[edit]

Is it a conservative encyclopedia? An editorial aggregator? A general encyclopedia without bias?img Because he's failing at all of these. We can, however, congratulate him for not having simply made another stub about whatever movie he's just watched. I mean, a thousand characters! That's the equivalent of running a marathon in regards to Ed's editing habits.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd kinda hoped Ed would continue elaborating on the gay cupid meme. Simple (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
A thousand characters!? Someone must have taken Ed hostage and forced the poor Moonie to type until he passed out from exhaustion. Vulpius (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm to lazy to go find it, but according to Ken, it isnt an encyclopedia. --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the answer to that question the same as what all the other sysops want: effort free, cost free webhosting? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment Mikalos mentioned is buried on Andy's talk page, in that long section where people try to get Ken under control. And I think Ed's not in for the free hosting. Sure, he's ultimately still pushing an agenda, but he's very, very lazy and random about pushing it. Sure, some global warming denial here, some UC hype there... but he's mostly there for the powertrip. He gets to shove people around, forcing them to respect his seniority under threat of banhammer. "You! A writing plan! You! You're now on probation!" All while pretending (or worse, actually believing) that he's some sort of inspirational leader who can shepherd the newbies and turn them into great users under his gentle guidance. --Sid (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

MeganH[edit]

(S)he seems to have blasted onto the scene out of nowhere. My gut says its a parodist, but then I read the stuff the rest say and I don't know what to believe.— Unsigned, by: Ateafish / talk / contribs

the only people on Conservapedia who aren't parodists are the sysops. The site has long been dead. People only go there for the lulz. --"Shut up, Brx." 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sysops. Vulpius (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthirism, still around![edit]

something about how obama is afraid of the natural born citizen requirementimg, also, terry believes that Chester Arthur was born in canada thing as well. --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet more creationist Burden of Proof sophistry[edit]

Moved to: Essay talk:Russell’s Teapot and the Burden of Proof
What he inserted into the CP article is basically the short form of this essay. Even if you don't want to read the whole thing, it's probably better to discuss it over at the essay's talk page, before we have to turn this into another forum thread. Röstigraben (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Help![edit]

You know that parody e-mail that was sent to Willminator, the one that starts

I will lie, revise history, cheat, steal and censor to further our goals. What are you going to do about it? I will stop at no end, but you have to operate within the fictional bounds of your morality.

that Karajou deems is the gospel truth? Can anybody please point me in the direction of Karajou's frothing and alternatively an admission that the whole thing was done to wind Willemina up. I've been looking around, but my search-fu is weak. Thanks! --PsyGremlinSprich! 15:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got it all. I'll provide later. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude, you're developing Karajou Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Go outside. Take a walk. Smoke a joint, Get laid. SOMETHING.Just do something else for a little while. :-) P-Foster (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If I'm getting blown while I blog about him, does that count? Just adding the final smackdown to the lying sack of shit, then I can close the book on him for (hopefully) good. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That whole situation was awfully strange. It was pretty clear the letter got written to wind Willhelmina (honestly I can't remember the guy's name) up and that he himself was a parodist stirring shit. I was pretty sure Jeff Tavolieri was Toast, but when I kept getting emails from him (copies of a whole bizarre series of chest pounding emails about lawsuits, cops, lawyers, etc. from Karajou) after she allegedly passed away, I started believing he was a team effort. Fess up, whoever you are. Good show. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute. I finally read Karaturd's posts on this. Does he really believe people think like this? And talk like this? Seriously? Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sadly Koward appears to believe that the contents of Jeff's e-mail are gospel truth. Or put it this way - they conform to his opinion of liberals, ergo it must be true. --PsyGremlinFale! 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Andylogic[edit]

The biggest problem with Andy's "It's cold, therefore global warming is false" line of thinking, is that when things like this happen, it completely destroys your agrument. A penguin to whoever sneak that onto CP first. SirChuckBThis country needs more Rutabegas 05:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you read the his counterexamples to global warming page? He's got you covered on that warm weather doesn't counter his batshit delusions.Ateafish (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh boy, it's been updated. Let's play bingo with the refs section. Watts, Junk Science, SPPI, wait, what's this, NOAA?! Get that warmist bullshit off your site and replace it with some good denialist material, quick! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's be honest. I live near Phoenix. It's not in the least bit unusual for it to be hot in Phoenix. People have cooked eggs on the asphalt here. Record temperatures in Phoenix won't convince anybody.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I live in Northern California, summer storms happen every year and when they do they bring in cold weather. A record low on a single day because of a summer storm shouldn't convince anyone either (There was a strom last tuesday, both the day before and the day after was in the mid 80's low 90's). Ski resorts are in the business of making money, while it is rare, it isn't unheard of for a Tahoe resort to stay open until June (especially a high up resort like sugar bowl which is practically on the summit) if the storm gods smile on them.Ateafish (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it this way -- if you think a snowy day "disproves" global warming, you're either ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense, as in simply uninformed), or willfully ignorant. In terms of creationism v. evolution, the "argument" is on the level of "How come there are still monkeys?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken in June 2011[edit]

Ken's log-entries in June 2011
( block delete move patrol (i.e., comment) protect upload)
I'm always a little bit irritated when I display Ken's editing behavior over a couple of days: either he has bladder problems or his Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder is getting worse. I had observed such a pattern with TK, who couldn't find sound sleep in the night, neither. And during the day, there is no sign of a regular schedule, he is always in sitting in front of his computer - or perhaps, he is using his smartphone in church...
editors at CP
June 2011
With his 2,400 comments he dominates the site - he has a share of 28% of all June's edits still in the database. That's right: Without his deleting-and-recreating stuff, nearly 40% of all comments are made by him.
comments and logged events
cp:User:Conservative
2010 was no good year for Ken: at least not for any other action than contributing to Conservapedia. He keeps is erratic behavior up in 2011: he's going full throttle
comments and logged events
cp:User:Aschlafly
In comparison Andy's actions seem to be downright sane. Here we can see that the missing revisions (which are mainly generated by Ken with his deleting of pages) don't afflict other editors in the same way. Of course, when MPR is deleted (or the main talk page), many edits by various contributors vanish...
deleted edits at CP
... but one can be quite sure that most of the deleted edits in CP's history were originally made by Ken. Not much of a comfort for those whose work he is casually usurping...

larronsicut fur in nocte 07:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Man is off his nut. LArron you ability to parse data and present it astonishes me, please tell me this only takes a few minutes, I would hate to think you spend Ken-like lengths of time on this. - π 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
*LOL*At least I get my sleep at night :-) It takes the most time to try to formulate the results using intelligible English sentences - but I understand that this is Ken's problem, too... larronsicut fur in nocte 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
At least you have the excuse of not being a native speaker of English. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
40% of all edits. Conservapedia OCD anyone? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A grand insult of intellect - by Ken DeMyers[edit]

Department of Education, NASA, PBS and the Smithsonian Institution are luxury.img Yeah, fuck education! Everybody learn from Ken! --uhm, t! 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give him the last three, but THE DEPARTMENT OF FUCKING EDUCATION?!?!?!?!?!??--"Shut up, Brx." 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
(playing Devil's advocate by arguing that Ken meant something completely different)Why do we need a Department of Education to have education? The Department of Education are the people who gave us No Child Left Behind(different administration, but still). We need public schools, but I don't know that we need to have a federal department for them. Yeah. That's totally what Ken meant. Exactly. To the letter. More short statements jokingly suggesting that's what Ken meant, when it obviously wasn't.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If only we had a Department of "Fucking Education." Random surfer (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The US spent more on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan than they spent on the budget for NASA. -Lardashe
Wow, that's stupid, even by Ken's standards... unless he's sucking up to Andy's "public schools are teh evil" meme... payback for Andy supporting his "atheists are fat! hur hur!" crap. I think WP's screenshot needs updating... That said... I agree totally with cutting the defence budget and selling off Govt. land. Budget deficit gone in a blink. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That air-conditioning stat is unhelpful because it's not an isolated element, the number basically aggregates costs that are partly attributable to air-conditioning as if they are wholly attributable. It's like writing off a $5000 Vegas holiday on the basis that you needed to send a $10 package there and you preferred to deliver it in person... But hey, while we're talking about things which aren't what they seem let's look at NASA and just two examples, I'm sure anyone who actually cares about NASA can list dozens but there are the first two I thought of.
Mostly standard wingnut fare actually:

COSPAS-SARSAT[edit]

NASA together with NOAA is America's component of COSPAS-SARSAT which provides global satellite locator beacon functionality. Beacons are required by law in the US partly after frustration in Congress at the fact that two Congressmen vanished, never to be seen again in a presumed air crash in Alaska. The effect of these systems depends on how mercenary you're feeling: reduced "search time" either means less money wasted on fuel and personnel for a rescue attempt, or it means more lives saved.

ASRS[edit]

NASA also provide ASRS at the request of the FAA. ASRS is a critical air safety system. ASRS has to be independent of the NTSB and other authorities because it's an anonymising proxy. NASA (as the ASRS) takes honest reports from pilots of errors they've made that didn't result in an accident but could have, and it anonymises and correlates them, in order to come up with advice to pilots, carriers and manufacturers about how to further improve air safety. Without anonymity the risk of admitting to an error would be far too high for most pilots to come forward. Since actual accidents are now incredibly rare in public air travel such "near miss" reporting systems are vital in order to learn about and mitigate risks. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lies! NASA does nothing but build space shuttles. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo WIGO[edit]

The last time I checked, "reported to" was not a synonym of "invented". Strawman, much? --uhm, t! 22:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Not everybody has a PhD and an extensive knownledge of the history of science. Explain where the fucking connection is (not to me, but in the WIGO). --uhm, t! 23:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the author of the WIGO may have been making a subtle dig at the fact that it is relatively common knowledge that fireworks were invented in China, yet their article on the subject makes no mention of this fact. Thus providing a further example of Conservapedia's version of pre-American world history "If it didn't happen in western Europe or the Holy Land... it didn't happen." --Inquisitor (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, they covered it nowimg. Still going from "reported to", to "they didn't mention it so they think they were automatically invented by Europeans" is a bit of a stretch... --uhm, t! 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No one ever said that CP implied fireworks were invented in Europe - that wasn't the point of the WIGO. The point is that they left out China entirely, even though that's the important part. The author was saying that it's stupid to mention that something was brought to Europe without noting where it was invented.
Now, if someone wants to point out that a three-year old edit by a user without rights who left the project two years ago isn't exactly "What is going on", then I would get behind you. 江斯顿What is it now? 15:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Ops, I read the "who" as a pronoun refering back to Marco Polo. Damn you English language. --uhm, t! 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Inquisitor got it. I didn't realize a PhD in history to know that fireworks were invented in China. As for how old the edit is, one, it's still there and two, I thought it might be fun to put one up that was tangentially related to Independence Day. Also, fireworks were on my mind because I'd just bought mine earlier that day. I trust I've explained myself. :-P --Roofus (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey User:Conservative[edit]

We know you're reading this. And we know you keep coming back. You keep accusing us of being obsessive, but here you are whittling away your days crafting "clever" retorts to our discussions. You go back to your essays and make minor change after minor change even weeks and months after you've completed them. See, we can admit we follow Conservapedia. We do it for fun. But you are in denial.


Why don't you go ahead and prove us wrong? Take a break. A REAL break, not like the last one. Don't visit RationalWiki, don't edit Conservapedia, concern yourself with your actual life. That'll show us. But you won't, will you? Because you can't. You need, you crave our attention, even if we're only laughing at you. You can't prove to us you aren't pathetic because you are pathetic.

Edit away. We enjoy it. We laugh, we scoff, we point and ridicule. And like a jester you keep going with your silly antics.

--"Shut up, Brx." 16:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Give the kid a break. It's hard getting through puberty - especially if you get acne. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 16:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Who balks? We balk? Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't steal my argument! --uhm, t! 17:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Next Essay: Ken Demyer Obssesive Disorder--Thunderstruck (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


this should be stickied, so  K e n  D o l l  can't ignore it.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

JoMar and Libya. A case in cognitive dissonance.[edit]

Qadaffi is a totally legitimate ruler. The USA/NATO are horrible warmongers.img How a CP sysop, even a marginal guy like JoMar, can spout this stuff and keep a straight face is beyond me. P-Foster (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody tell that man that Qadaffi's (I write it like that because I'm too lazy to look up how I normally write it) ideology is a mixture of islamism and socialism. --uhm, t! 11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately its about Obama; the tune would be completely different if the President conducting this campaign had an "R" next to their name instead of a "D". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Edited WIGO regarding Church's Rights[edit]

I don't approve of the rewrite, I feel like it changed the point for the worst. However, as the writer of the original, I'm probably biased, so can what other people think? I thought mine was pretty good... - Jpop (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored to your version. I hate it when people fuck with other people's WIGOs. P-Foster (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm certainly open to people editing my WIGOs, but when you completely turn around the meaning of the text I feel like you should at least bring it up on the talk page first. - Jpop (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I probably would have written "Human rights in Andyland explained. Letting two people of the same sex get married under civil law: A violation of human rights. Banning a liberal from your church: A sacred right. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I get the point of the WIGO but is not well written. Neb's formulation is very lucid. It's a simple idea. Express it simply. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Unfortunately I'm not the best at being concise. My problem with the replacement was that it wasn't the same joke, if you will. - Jpop (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem bit for me is "an institution that only spreads hate and ignorance". By all means make a joke. But that is neither funny nor factual so it shouldn't be there. WIGOs should be snarks and rationality, IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, "an institution that only spreads hate and ignorance" really is BS (no sarcasm here). If Jpop is ok with using Neb's version I'd be happy do see it. --uhm, t! 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think the ignorance part isn't completely off, but I'd be happy to take it out. - Jpop (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as more of an observer of RW than a participator, and as someone who doesn't really care one way or the other about gay marriage, I don't like this WIGO at all. It oozes liberal talking points and it's hard to take it seriously unless the reader already has your mindset. "Deprived of a most basic right?" You make it sound like gays are being denied clean water or freedom to live and work where they want, when really they're just being denied and excuse to wear a suit at that particular church. But what really get my goat is implying that people who don't agree with you don't deserve any rights. That's not rational at all. If you think Andy is being exceptionally stupid here, I can only wonder with morbid curiosity what you think of Fred Phelps. Syndrome (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Cogent points...I do note, however, that that WIGO is -28 as of this post, do it would seem that many in the mob agree, (but are too lazy to come with reasons why they don't like it).
Marriage is (according to SCOTUS, Loving v Virgina 1967) a "fundamental right", so that's where that point got dragged in, I guess. Gays are not accorded freedom from being fired simply because they are gay, so that isn't going to win you friends. I think the WIGO's point is that Andy seems to say that the institutions that are churches have "rights": no, they do not...PEOPLE have rights to practice their religion as they see fit...if they have a need to rip on gays or FAT people, hey such is life. If these religious need to tell other people, "don't associate with these heathenesque politicians", that is their right...but the churches per se don't have "rights". 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
It is better to point out inconsistencies in Mr. Schlafly's or Conservapedia's own position than to engage in whining because his beliefs are different from those of editors here. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Because y'all can't die in an American Hospital![edit]

Well, I waisted my comment in the heading.img Bonus: Were does Chavez go for treatment? United States? Switzerland? Japan? No! Cuba! --uhm, t! 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to this awesome example of Andy's cognitive dissonance. Though it falls in line with his liberal deceit - pull any argument out that makes whatever point you want to make in the moment. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You mean Andy's lack of cognitive dissonance. That's the uneasy feeling one gets from holding contradictory positions. I doubt Andy experiences such a thing. ONE / TALK 08:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ponies vs. creationism - ponies win![edit]

RationalWiki has recently learned that a certain gentleman at a website beginning with C has rather high hopes for the "Question Evolution" campaign in regards to defeating atheism and evolutionism both on and off the internet. Unfortunately, it would seem that this campaign has yet to deliver any tangible results. Using statistics on search terms entered at a search engine beginning with G, we can see how well the "Question Evolution" campaign fares in regards to attracting attention. Interestingly, it seems that Americans are far too preoccupied with cartoon ponies to pay much attention to the campaign. Despite the best efforts of a certain popular YouTube producer beginning with S, even the manly men of Texas are steadily losing interest in creationism, and will probably prefer to spend their money on coloring books rather than creationist school textbooks. It would seem that the gentleman mentioned above would do well to change a certain essay he wrote so as to incorporate this lamentable fact. Röstigraben (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Even by CP's standards, the ponies vs. atheism "page" is so lamentable, I can see why some people think Ken's a parodist. This is Poe's law at its best (or worst, depending on how you look at it). Facepalm (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"Meanwhile, pictures of the baby Jesus, pictures of Jesus holding lambs and pictures of Jesus surrounded by little children continue to melt women's hearts." Further proof, as if any were needed, that Kendoll has never so much as been near a woman. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kenny. LOL! Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Bronies are taking over! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 02:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well Bronies do have far more MA-CHEESE-MO then  K e n  D o l l , after all they don't coward from debate into an "intellectual bunnyhole" when debate offers are accepted by a certain site that starts with "R".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd[edit]

User: Conservative seems to know all about womenimg who broke up with their atheist boyfriends. I'd think he collected his data for this well-researched piece being the "supportive best friend" to these women, if he didn't spend all his time spewing this crap all over Conservapedia. --Roofus (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm an atheist nerd but I don't fit any of the points on the list. Am I doing it wrong? Maybe I'm secretly a Christian jock and I don't know it? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I like that in Ken's world, girlfriends are constantly talking about shockofgod. Does he also believe that they like to wear a shockofgod mask to bed? X Stickman (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And of course they are all obsessing over picture of baby jebus with fluffy little lambs. Ken obviously only ever meets a rather strange section of ladies. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What I find even more astounding is that "it" (yeah, I'm trying to make that a thing) thinks all women are Christians. Everywhere it writes about women they are these little lambs that need to be protected doesn't he have ever met women outside the church and those momy send him over? Also, marrying seems to be the greatest goal for him, that because then a Christian can finally have sex or because having a wife kicks up your machismo? --uhm, t! 10:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm an atheist nerd, but I don't fit any of those 10 'signs'. Then again, I don't have a girlfriend/wife, which 7 out of the 10 seems to be concerned with. Of course, that could be something to do with the fact I'm gay. 81.151.250.24 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Aha! That's what the anti-gay marriage sentiments from the religious right are really about - they don't care that you want to fuck men, they just want to ensure you're required to have a beard. It's like a union rule or something. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Kenny makes a one byte change to an old "essay" he hasn't fiddled with in months and it gets a decent response here; congrats all, you gave  K e n  D o l l  some much needed validation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well with recent changes over at conservapedia, such as people actively calling out sysops (futile though it is), I started wondering what would happen to Ken if he actually got kicked off the site, and none of my predictions were pleasant. Then I started wondering what would happen if no one gave him any attention, and those outcomes made me sad. So I'm in favour of throwing the guy a bone and giving him the attention he craves. Not like it hurts anyone. Also, to be honest, I kinda want to see would happen if he got an attention overload. Like if Conservapedia really did become the most popular site in the world (for whatever reason). That's a Ken I'd like to see. X Stickman (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose because to me, he is boring. He never seems to come up with any creative weirdness anymore, just recycles the same old crap, or latches onto someone else's project like a barnacle, (such as the "Question Evolution" campaign). Sure his attacks on any editor who dare questions his insipid behavior is humorous, or the fact he plasters his nonsense all over the front page, assuring no credibility among conservative Christians will ever be granted to the site is sort of amusing, but for the most part, the crazy has run its course. We say his antics will ruin CP, but the site has already long ago derailed and now sits rusting on the side of the tracks that is the Internet. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
He actually made those changes after I posted it here. I was just looking for funny Essay:s over there. --Roofus (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(Possible) Copyright infringement = Censorship[edit]

Dodgy Roger makes one his brief forays onto CP, to prove that deep down he's as bat-shit insane as his kid brother.

He adds an external link to their Ted Kaczynski page,img claiming that Wikipedia editors are "censoring" Ted's manifesto.

In reality, not only does wp:Ted Kaczynski have external links to exactly the same manifesto - then even link to Wikisource's article on the contents of the manifesto. However, this cannot currently be seen because of worries about copyright.

In what passes for Roger's mind, however, this is clearly censorship. Either that, or he's lying. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's that kind of stuff that makes me almost feel desperately sorry for the wingnutters. I live in a beautiful owrld where some large corporations do nasty things and some people do nasty things and others don't. People like Roger live in a world in which EVERYTHING and everyone is involved in a conspiracy, from the newspapers they read to the radio shows they listen to to the politicains they elect. It must be a very dim and dark place most of them inhabit. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
^ What he said. Although I still maintain that the likes of Roger and Andy only believe a fraction of what they say. I imagine they consider themselves part of the God-appointed elite, the people who should be running things if it wasn't for those pesky liberals and progressives. A bit like some of the old fashioned upper classes in the UK. And what they say is little more than rabble-rousing and fear-mongering to help gather popular support. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I could never bring myself to hate these people, I feel too much pitty for them to actually hate them or their ramblings against everything and everyone. Thinking about it, their world has to be even darker then those of communists nowadays. They can't even make clear distinctions between who is evil and who is on their side. Man, am I happy that I live in a country were those few right-wing conspiracy theorists have almost nothing to say. Although a lot had to happen until that kicked in. --uhm, t! 11:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Most matters of perspective can be boiled down to a different weighing of the importance of things. In this case, he views the disclosure as more important than the copyright. Thus, he feels that the copyright should not apply. -Lardashe
It's also amusing to note that the manifesto is nowhere to be found on Conservapedia. Surely they couldn't be... censoring it, could they? And can somebody please explain why Ted Kaczynski has complimentary "see also" links with Ramzan Kadyrov? Is that just Joaquin going, "Ooh, they have strange names..." --PsyGremlin講話 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems strange to be talking about TK again (two of them!) but according to TK the departed, the See Also section does not have to have any link to the topic at hand. Something which always struck me as another indication of how the powers that be at CP have no idea how to organise and run an encyclopaedia. I'm also puzzled why the link mentioned by Psy is complimentary. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 14:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
"Is that just Joaquin going, "Ooh, they have strange names..."" That's exactly what I thought when I saw it....P-Foster (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia supporting government work camps for universities[edit]

well, north korea is doing it to their students for 10 months...img obviously government intervention/spending into these Communist, american hating liberals here should happen.--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If North Korea actually did invite all our academic radicals to this rebuilding project, and they all went over there, I think we would see an increase in academic quality and a vast decrease in bickering on campus; not to mention that in North Korea they would probably destabilize the dictatorship in short order. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that. Here's how I see it going:
Professor Marx-Fan: You know, comrade, this system is nothing like the idea of the perfect worker's state an envisioned by...
Korean People's Army Guard: Silence, American son of a pig!
Professor Marx-Fan: But the dialectic clearly says that...
Korean People's Army Guard's Gun: Blam!
Professor Marx-Fan: thud
QED. MDB (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

An update on Question Evilution![edit]

volunteer contacted about 65 churches in the state of Texas in a week!imgthe results? WHO CARES! in for the kill now! Also, we will expand our operation from the influential textbook state of Tejas to... THE ENGLAND!--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't contacting 65 churches in Texas a little like saying, "I have personally spoken with over twelve residents of... New York City!" MDB (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask[edit]

Why do people like Andy (and Palin and the associated worshipers) continue using the phrase "lamestream media?" Do they not understand that A, it's neither funny, clever, nor particularly insulting. B, nobody has used the word "lame" seriously since like 1987 and C, it makes them sound like spoiled little kids who resort to name calling because they can't come up with a decent argument. Just wondering. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 06:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Jon Stewart is hilarious. Schlafly doesn't. Still, when I try and look at it objectively, it does come across as pretty lame.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Those that take themselves so seriously rarely if ever have a well developed sense of humour. Andy’s childlike attempts and the things that seem to make him laugh are invariably more than a tad embarrassing simply to read. This is all the more strange when one remembers that Jesus invented humour. He no doubt used a spinning bow tie as part of his opening routine for the Sermon on the Mount, but this was censored out of the Bible by Liberals. JumboWhales (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess there is just ONE funny Palin, and it's not Sarah. --Maquissar (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Brett? Harold? John Henry? Leigh? Leo? Michael? Robert? Tom? MDB (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Chuck, you obviously just don't like "lamestream media" because you're a liberal and can't bare to hear a word against them, denying that things you were taught in school as a child were invariably wrong. It is a hilarious pun on the overtly liberal-biased media outlets of the United States of America, and if you look in the bible, Jesus Christ himself coined "lamestream media" the day after the USA was created by God in 1776, which proves it. Open your mind you fucking liberal. SJ Debaser User:Aschlafly 10:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If I had a less biased view of them, I'd think that they might be trying to make a point about the quality of the news coverage they watch. Calling it 'lamestream' implies that the story has gotten no traction in the larger press. The context of their usage is usually in reference to stories that didn't deserve broader attention, as it wasn't a story. In any case, it suggests that they have no legitimate complaints, and have to dummy up their attacks to create something exciting. I am reminded of a Simpsons quote - "So, my friends, let's just junk those Dumbocrats and their bleeding-heart smellfare program." -Lardashe
A lot of people use insulting nicknames for the "other side", in basically any "us vs them" situation. PZ Myers, for example, repeatedly uses the term "rethuglicans" when talking about republicans and it annoys me just as much as Andy's use of "Lamestream media". It's just one of those cheap tricks people come up with when talking about things they're passionate about, I guess. X Stickman (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream is a conundrum to the rightwing viewpoint. Imagine having to call someone a winner when they were clearly not. The gold standard is to make it to the mainstream, the big time. Yet, that was coined (best new liberal words) when partisanship was low and acceptable to all. The 'spin' lamestream is geared to a conservative audience. --76.205.73.125 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
At least here in Blighty we get to watch the evolution of dumb annoying phrases like those. For example New Labour > New Liebour > New LieBore > Nu LieBore > Zanu LieBore. Wonderful. We are waiting for the Cambrian explosion with regards to the "Condems". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree lamestream isn't very good, cute, or even funny. Likewise I prefer Press the Meat to Meet the Depressed and Debase the Nation to Slay the Nation. Washington Compost certainly sums it up. George Step-on-all-of-us is more imaginitive than Ronald Ray-gun, but the all time winner is Danny Rottencowshi'. And hey, whose gonna start RW's entry on Weiner's weiner ? nobsViva la Revolución! 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Unfortunately for those who like to think they are taking the high road in politics, it is just such "cheap tricks" which have proven effective in getting us chickens (as a collective mass) to vote Col. Sanders and Mrs. Tweedy into power. The authoritarian "conservative" message machine is pretty well-known to have had its wicked way with the minds of the electorate for the last thirty or forty years, doing things like metaphorically tattooing "Ignorance is Strength" inside the eyelids of anyone who reads, listens, or watches. Unfortunately, notions like "taking the high road" and "not stooping to their level" get in the way of effective means of flooding the public mind with alternative frames in aid of appropriate roles for government such as responsibility, empathy, commonwealth, and the evils of privateering (a coinage combining privatization and profiteering.)

Annoying though it may be, the repeated use of "rethuglicans" is a good start in a countervailing direction. Gentlemen, I have plans to unleash a stub upon this wiki which will set your minds on the right track, just as soon as the mod squad has found its feet securely enough to keep the message safe. For democracy, of course. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The weird thing about these people who complain about the "lamestream media" is that everything they know about reality ultimately comes from the very people they profess to despise. Sure, they get it all filtered through some crazy arse blogs, but whatever factual content went in and somehow managed to survive the distillation process all comes from the lamestream media. It's only the crazy conspiracy garbage that gets added. I guess maybe their beef is that the media just doesn't make enough crazy shit up to satisfy them. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"I guess maybe their beef is that the media just doesn't make enough crazy shit up to satisfy them." Indeed, if their cranks aren't given proper coverage, it's not because they're cranks, it's because the liberal cabal that runs the media keeps them out, thus proving their bias. There was a great round of "look what the LIE-beral media isn't showing you!" last weekend in the wingnut blogosphere due to Heartland's Denial-a-palooza conference. The LIE-beral media doesn't want you to know about the "other side" of the global warming "debate," so it won't cover Denial-a-palooza. It's not that they're a bunch of cranks, shills, and rent-a-quote contrarian hold-outs. No, they are Truth-SeekersTM speaking the TruthTM that the lamestream media just doesn't want you to hear (much like the lamestream media isn't reporting on that one day of snow that totally disproves global warming). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm about half way through Ann Coulter's Slander right now; the books dated from 2002, but does make a very damning case against the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS in particular. "Lamestream" is a code word among Repubs & conservatives that simply means the speaker does not believe a word of what passes for "common knowledge", "conventional wisdom", or the daily narrative of news event. The case of Sarah Palin in point: for two years the mainstream media has been saying she'll run for pesident and Michelle Bachmann did not have a prayer. Those of us in the conservative movement knew this was complete bullshit. And if I came to a forum such as this six months ago, and told you what I knew, which was 180 degrees contrary to mainstream media reports, you'd all say I was crazy. Now look. The mainstream media does not know jackshit, has reported bullshit for two full years. And Bachmann's gonna be the next president (despite all the bigotted misogynists who can't hang with having a sister president). nobsViva la Revolución! 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think those who dislike Bachmann do it for mysoginistic reasons? Ace of Spades 00:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What other reason is there? the only criticism of Bachmann is she's a woman. It's traditional sexist pigs that can't hang with the idea of a woman president. nobsViva la Revolución! 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
By your logic you are a rascist pig for not liking Obama because I can think of no other reason. Ace of Spades 00:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No one is critisizing Bachman becasue shes a woman. They're critisizing her because she's a dominist who wants to turn America into a Christian version of Afganastahn, and would get laughed out of a forth grade American History class.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
She is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, not a Dominionist; big difference. (But that is assuming that she can even recite the Ten Commandments in order). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is, it's moniker's like "Tricky Dick" or "Ronald Ray-gun", or when the President of the United States likens the GOP's program to a mafia hitman (Contract on America) that leads to the opposition employing the same disgusting, childish behavior. It's effective. It works. Commies & Dems have been very effective with this sneering attitude for decades. This is just the GOP version of the same thing. Just as som Dems, with massive helpfrom the mainstream media, attempted to call Bush an illigitimate president, the opposition rsponded in kind with the birther movement. We should note, Obama does not have a nickname like was applied to Bush (Shrub) or even Clinton (Slick Willy). Could it be, a sign of respect for the man, Mr. Obama, and the office? No, we could never acknowledge that may actually be the case. nobsViva la Revolución! 00:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice stream of conciousness there Rob. But this has to do with Bachmann how? You still have no case that any criticism is leveled is due to sexism. Ace of Spades 01:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What other reason would there be? You can deny it, but thinking people, and people with a heart and compassion, know better. We all see right through it. nobsViva la Revolución! 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I listed a couple good reasons.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean "dominionist". Been reading Berlet lately, huh? nobsViva la Revolución! 01:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Wanna talk to me about spelling, I'm pretty sure "Traditional" dosn't have a P.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What other reason would there be? Perhaps because she wants to eliminate social security, teach intelligent design or nuke Iran? That's just off the top of my head. people with a heart and compassion as opposed to people who think with their head? You have still failed to provide any evidence of sexism. Ace of Spades 01:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nor will he ever. He's probably doing this because liberals claim conservatives hate Obama because he's black. The difference is Michelle has never been on a poster with a bone through her nose.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So Rob, you're pretty convinced Bachmann will be the next President, eh? Care to put your money where your mouth is? $100 says Bachmann is not the next President. What do you say? DickTurpis (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (unindent) Hey Rob, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter until approx. June or July of 2008. I currently oppose Bachmann as president. Go ahead and reconcile those two, twist them in your mind, find a communist in your breakfast cereal and make me a sexist. Let me get my popcorn first though. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 04:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Her former chief-of-staff sounds pretty sexist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: Skepticism about Palin and Bachmann's chances - the opinion that Palin was still a serious potential candidate has been a minority view for some time now, held mostly by her hardcore fans on the right wing. Her reality show and the reaction to the Giffords shooting sufficed to convince both voters and experts that she's nothing more than an attention whore who happens to draw interest from sounding off on politics. The media just tag along, because trainwrecks sell. And if you're seriously convinced that Bachmann's going to be the next President, there's a fortune to be made at Intrade. Röstigraben (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Rob is just wrong about everything here. He said the mainstream media has been saying Palin will run, but by and large they haven't been, they've been speculating about it, just as Andy has. Many believe, or did believe she probably would, but she's been doing everything she can to keep this speculation alive. Rob would have us believe she's just another working mother, but the fact that she has a PAC, and (contrary to what Rob says) her bus tour of patriotic historic sites was not just another family vacation, which are not things non-politicans do. Besides, she still might run, who knows. As for Bachmann, the mainstream media has not taken her very seriously until recently, but Rob sees a bump in her poll numbers as proof that the media doesn't know what it's talking about. We've seen this for Trump and Cain already; she's still a long shot for the nomination, and if she wins the election I'll give Ken a blow job. So, Rob, you're a bit premature in calling the MSM wrong, you even have their positions they're allegedly wrong about wrong, so it's a strawman anyway. Now, are you going to take my $100 bet? DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

same-sex marriage causes economic problems[edit]

exactly what it sways on the tinimg--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Canada has also been the victim of that accusation. It stems from either of two things: this or the conservative fact that everything liberal causes everything bad. ONE / TALK 08:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The right claims that gays make up less than 5% of the population. And i'm betting less than 10,000 couples married there. yet some how this is contributing to the fall of the economy? Huh. cuase you know, that's 10,000 couples (if it were the US, for example) that would be forced to PAY more in taxes, cause of the "marriage penality" for dual incomes one household. And of course, there's that whole caring for the other's person's Debt to insure debts get paid off, even after death. and you know, if gay marriage is a drain, what about the 90% of het's that marry. aren't they the bigger drain, in teh scheme of things? --Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

the atheist doghouse[edit]

Kens latest "Essay" | some pilot refused to fly some stupid adimg where the doghouse part came from is beyond me--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"In the doghouse" means "in trouble because of something someone disapproves of" in American English. It usually refers to a husband who's wronged or offended his wife in some way. He would be "banished" from the house for a period of time and have to sleep "in the doghouse" if he wanted to stay dry (I don't know if this has ever actually happened, but it's funny to think about and I have come close several times). It's similar to "sent to the couch", but usually only refers to the husband. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of Ken, I do love it when he starts his own articles with a facepalm.img --PsyGremlinParlez! 08:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I really am enjoying Ken's reign of error. His efforts to make CP look ridiculous and lack credibility exceed those any parodist by a significant margin. More popcorn please! Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 09:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I find this quote from the article  K e n  D o l l  based his new "essay" on the most telling:
Justin Jaye of Fly Signs Aerial Advertising, who is orchestrating the flights for American Atheists, said out of the 85 people in the country who fly these sign-pulling planes only about 17 have agreed to fly the messages.
"I've been in this business for 20 years and I've never run into so much resistance on people flying," Jaye said. "I've had pilots who are actual atheists who said, 'Justin, I am an atheist and I won't fly it because I can't wear a bulletproof vest.'" (emphasis mine).
I think it says far more about the religious than about atheists, as in atheists have to worry about persecution including violent retribution, just for expressing their beliefs. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that ghastly quote should be incorporated in our own atheist article along with the fact that some bigoted Christians are even proud of the situation.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't fly because he wife threatened to divorce him? Where's the machismo? Ace of Spades 20:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
"We here at the local fundie church appreciate your good nature and applaud you for doing the right, christian thing by not flying that banner for those filthy, liberal atheists... However, you knuckled under to your wife, so you're going to have to turn in your man-card and we're shipping you off to six months of Promise Keepers seminars for re-education. Pussy." The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I still find this kind of stuff a bit surprising, being holed up in my ultra-lieberal godless coastal elite pointy-headed enclave and all where few blink at a bit of atheist thumping. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta school teachers MPR entry[edit]

Okay, Andy is accurate when he points outimg that this CNN story headline does not mention that the teachers involved were public school teachers.

Otherwise, he fails almost completely.

  1. The first sentence of the story refers to them as public school teachers. That hardly qualifies as hiding the fact.
  2. To me at least, unless the context otherwise makes it clear, a reference to "teachers" or "educators" implies public school staff. I doubt I'm alone in that (at least in the United States -- perhaps it's different elsewhere, but this is a US story.)

MDB (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Note how the sneaky bastard cuts out two other MPR "stories" both linking to CNN articles, in which the exact opposite is done: (1) How the oil price is back up after Obama tapped in the reserves and (2) how Lynn Woolsey (75, unmentioned in the CP post) is actually called a "liberal" (not mentioned is "anti-war liberal" - go figure why). So while he is criticising CNN for not clearly stating something, he actually deletes stuff that clearly states something to make the other side look bad. Andy, you are a deceitfull manifestation of the worst things to appear in political activism, you dishonest little sorry piece of deceit. --uhm, t! 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
MDB is correct - the default assumption in the United States is that when "schools" and "educators" are discussed, it means public schools. The 2000 census reported that 85% of students attend public school. I think it's amusing that Andy feels the media is trying to "hide" the problems at public schools, when that is pretty much the only thing I hear about them. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember, in Andy's world, any news story about education that is anything short of "Every public school is a deathtrap designed to destroy young minds and teach them liberalism, socialism, evolutionism and homosexualism" is liberally biased. MDB (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget that the reason for that is that we hire psychics to teach(probably why they get paid $500k a year or whatever the talking point was about Wisconsin), and if any student ever has a thought about God, or prayer, they're immediately executed. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? It's a "twitter world". all the "masses" (clearly, andy included) do is read the headlines. if they can't get the entire news story from teh headlines, it's not worth bothering with and was clearly not well written. I mean, if you can't say it in 10 words or less, is it really worth saying?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sadly true. X Stickman (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Powerline's continued climate idiocy[edit]

MPR links to the latest hit piece on Powerline.img First, they parrot the debunked Nisbet study to bolster their Big Enviro conspiracy theory, then they quote mine the shit out of Kahan, which Chris Mooney did a recent post on. And this was Time's Blog of the Year and one of the "best" conservative blogs. What a joke. Edit: Noticed another recent post on a new PNAS study. Joe Romm, as usual, has a good de-spinning of this, but the obvious flaws in using the study the way Powerline does is to conflate surface temps with all temps (thus ignoring ocean temps), and fail to note that the study doesn't go past 2008. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear pattern Neb, a study in 2008 as well. Proof is not on your side, hence the collapse of the movement.--76.205.73.125 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, you obviously failed to read why that study was misused. As for "collapse," that's been bandied about by deniers for years, but they keep using that word, and I do not think it means what they think it means. Yawn. I'm sure there's an impending ice age coming as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
How many "last nails in the coffin" have the deniers found over the past decade? "This is the last nail in the coffin of the AGW conspiracy!" Then a year later... "This is the last nail in the coffin of the AGW conspiracy!" Another year later... "This is really the last nail in the coffin of the AGW conspiracy!" A year later... and so on. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there really needs to be "last nail" count somewhere. I'm sure it's in the thousands by now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

By this logic, CP should be the biggest climate change proponents in the world[edit]

Just sayin is all...img --Roofus (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody burn a sock go over to CP, creating an account if necessary, and...[edit]

...propose a new calendar system, please?img Oh, Joaquín, we forgive youimg, after all you're not American! --uhm, t! 17:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with the inclusive counting practiced in Hispanic countries, by which the same day next week is reckoned as "eight days from now"? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As my Spanish would barely be enough to survive, this question is completely over my head (never heard of that phenomenon). Sorry Joaquín if that was the case, I know the feeling. --uhm, t! 17:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that; the off-by-one error is in the wrong direction (from 236 to 235 instead of 237). I knew a fellow who used to count like that, is all, so it was the first thing I thought of. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a violation of Rationalwiki site policy, plotting vandalism and sockpuppet attacks from here. Please, everyone involved, cease and desist, now. nobsViva la Revolución! 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Suggesting a new calendar is "vandalism and attacks"? Apparently that article is right about your definitions. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care what the subject matter is, encouraging sockpuppetry is vandalism & trolling. Rationalwiki site policy is clear on this matter about using Rationalwiki to coordinate and/or encpourage vandalizing another wiki. nobsViva la Revolución! 20:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to tell you this, since you've been here forever, but..."burn a sock" is slang for "say this". They're called "socks" because anyone admitting to RW membership is banned (although you've personally allowed a few in TK's wake, iirc). Literally encouraging people to go make multiple accounts may imply vandalism, but hasn't happened. Etc, etc. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Just stop. Please stop. Please just adhere to RW policy. I'm doing what I can to promote change and sell the new RW to CP sysops & powers that be. [1] Don't be part of the reactionary conservative movement that longs for the good ol days of being able to freely abuse and bash your enemes at will. Get with the program. nobsViva la Revolución! 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Rob, pointing out a mistake isn't vandalism, that's actually helping. If you don't want that, just ask Ken to lock Talk:Main, I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige. Röstigraben (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
@99 anyone admitting to RW membership is banned. I'm not banned, and I am quite sure CP sysops are aware I edit RW more than CP. I haven't admitted to it, in the sense of said it publicly on CP (why should I need to? does it matter?), but I am sure several CP sysops are aware of it. (Actually, Iduan banned me once, but ASchlafly asked him to unban me, so he did.) (((Zack Martin))) 09:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
So, first of all I'm gonna believe that was an honest request if you say that every time somebody uses that phrase - which should be in the hundreds now. And the dozens of times I have read it you never gave two squirts of piss. Or is it that you want shock away somebody who hasn't done it before?
Second: The whole phrase "Somebody burn a sock and do X" basically means: "Look what I have found, wouldn't it be awesome if somebody pointed this out?"
Third: How dumb would somebody be to go on a Christian or claiming-that-it-is-Christian website and propose a different calendar, then the one that refers to the birthdate of Jesus Christ? If anybody does that because I suggested it, you should be thankful. --uhm, t! 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care what it is. I haven't bothered to follow the links nor see whose involved. All I see is, "Somebody burn a sock...". Parse it anyway you want -- it's vandalism by any standard or definition. And it violates Rationalwiki policy. And it doesn't make Rationalwiki look good. It's counterproductive. It does not further Rationalwiki's mission statement. nobsViva la Revolución! 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading Ken's satires has definitely messed up your sense of humor! Ever heard of the concept of tongue-in-cheek? larronsicut fur in nocte 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Parse "tongue-in-cheek" any way you want, but it's a serious medical condition by any standard or definition. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read any of User:Conservative's work, other than collaborating on cp:Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence which was cut and pasted verbatim from the research I did, and locating footnote 6 here in a medical pathology text book. That's it. That's been my involvement. Even Conservaleaks shows little or no exchanges between us. nobsViva la Revolución! 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Then start reading! Pronto! Conservative is the most prolific editor at Conservapedia, his articles are the face of that wiki (no, Ken, that's no compliment at all). Your approach reminds me of a guy standing in Augias's stable, saying: "I did marvels with the ceiling and didn't look once at the floor..." larronsicut fur in nocte 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Chest-deep and rising. The silly bastards would sooner resort to periscopes and snorkels than admit it, though. --Robledo (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Its only "burn a sock" because questioning His Andyness gets you banned. If thats vandalism your really warped in the head. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a definition of vandalism, right now, at this moment. As CP's definition of vandalism is clarified & reflects a definition more commonly recognized in the greater wiki world, RW will then have to update it's policy on Conservapedia. nobsViva la Revolución! 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me help you out. Damaging articles = vandalism. Arguing about content, pointing out errors, contradicting admins = not vandalism. These actions are simply unpleasant for people who consider themselves the intellectual vanguard of the conservative movement, yet are actually a bunch of morons who can't resist the urge to post their "insights" for the whole world to see without thinking them through. Röstigraben (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you don't get to redefine what is vandalism on RationalWiki and making any sort of non-libellous, or non-pornographic edit to a talk page on another site can hardly be called vandalism. In fact I would call you out on your own post here as being blatant trolling. However, unlike Conservapedia we do tolerate conflicting views and in my new position as moderator I will not consider or approve of any disciplinary action against you. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 01:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As it is not your place as moderator to do either, that is excellent. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You know, I really considered adding a winking smiley to that post but thought that most people would know me by now. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 10:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys, but what I' trying to do is define vandalism for CP sysops so they can only block when it really occurs, rather than pulling an edit (or in many cases where only an account was created) out of their asshole, and calling it vandalism. nobsViva la Revolución! 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You're kidding yourself. Andy's blog, Andy's rules. It's that simple. You can craft whatever guidelines you want but Andy and Ken are just going to keep right on doing what they're doing, and you know this. The stupid game you're really playing is this attempt to show RW how reasonable and rational you can be. While the end game is just to get RW to moderate it's behavior while CP continues to run roughshod. Godspeed. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob: I find your suggestion intriguing. I find your claim that you are trying to improve sysop behavior over there intriguing. I see some evidence that you are trying to do this, but, as yet, you do not seem to be making headway. I find the possibility that your attempts are in good faith intriguing. I might be willing to support fixing RW policy in a way that is compatible with what you think CP ought to do (though I am just one person and don't have a lot of influence here.) What we would need to see is some changes in policy that are announced over Andy's signature, and are enforced. I recently proposed some changes on Andy's talk page, and he said that he agreed with each of them. But his complete inability to rein in Ken as needed to improve CP won the day, as usual. I have a lot more ideas that I haven't yet gotten around to saying.

This needs much more discussion, which I don't have time for just now. But it is intriguing. SamHB (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As Inquisitor said - not gonna happen. There is no need to change anything in RW's "policy" towards Conservapedia, because it's simply "You're welcome to share laughs about CP here, but we don't condone vandalism or organize attacks." You can't keep individual RW members from posting legitimate criticism at CP though, and cracking down on actions at another website would be impossible anyway. As long as Andy and the others keep posting their half-baked ideas, you'll have people pointing out the stupidity, no matter which "policy" others employ. Röstigraben (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
CP suffers from retarded development as a wiki project largely from the early days when (1) it was under arttack from vandals, and (2) the way it responded to those attacks. Then there was a long era, let's call it the TK era, when there was a limited user base and sysops such as TK felt it their job to fight off Rationalwiki users more than develop an internet community. The job of sysop-as-vandal-fighter was set in concrete leading up to the Night of the Blunt Knives and specific rules of accountability, do's and don'ts, have never taken shape. With a limited user base, the need for more sysops never occurred. Like Rationalwiki, CP has it's Old Guard which is accustomed to the way things have always been, and doesn't like change. But it's time for introspection, and recognition that they way CP handled the CP/Rationalwiki war as failed.
I for one, believe Andy's hasn't been satisfied with the way things developed. In management theres a saying, 'you work with what you got', meaning, you can't always wait for the most qualified to fill a spot -- you accept the most ambitious who are willing to fill a position, despite their obvious shortcomings. Even the 'best of the public' has to allow for modification. The time has now come to spell out what exactly is the job of Sysop on CP, besides vandal fighter and defender of the wiki. And to put a bridle on unbridled (or unprincipled) leadership and power.
Rostigraben, this refers to the idea CP's definition of vandalism differs from most wikis. nobsViva la Revolución! 19:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice speech. Too bad you're giving it to the wrong audience. Vandalism and inter-site feuding aside, CP's failure is due in large part to the myopic world view of its leadership. When widely accepted scientific fact is considered "liberal vandalism", there's not a whole lot of opportunity to grow into a "trustworthy encyclopedia". --Inquisitor (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Widely accepted scientific fact? Let's see, like "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced," [2] for example. Who put that inspiration in his head, Jesus? Muhommad? Bet you $50 it was "widely accepted scientific fact." nobsViva la Revolución! 01:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
They don't generally cause spills, I bet 99% or more don't cause spills. We have an article though that might interst you. - π Silverbrain.png 02:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Good article. But what happens when science changes its mind? For example, every six months science says coffee is gonna kill you, and six months later a new study says it'll make you live to 100. Or when I was kid there were 8 planets, then science discovered another and it became 9; recently Pluto was decanonized and there's only 8 again. How c an we actually ever know facts and/or truth if it's a moving target, or fickle and can't make up its mind? nobsViva la Revolución! 02:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Knob, drilling rigs very very rarely cause spills. Here is a very very short list of rigs that have not caused spills. Make of it what you will, you fucking idiot. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It only took one, once. And the damage it did was immense. And Jesus and God sure weren't behind it, but the government, by law, required sceientists to make assureance and to sign off on the project, first. nobsViva la Revolución! 02:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Might I add the brilliant scientists who came up with the idea of building, not one, or two, but four nuke plants on a earthquake fault zone susceptible to tsunammi's? Geezuz H. Christ. Tell me some idiot politicians and real estate developers went ahead with that project without consulting "widely accepted scientific fact" first. nobsViva la Revolución! 02:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Blimey, I'd not thought of it like that, Knob. You're right, lets abandon the scientific method and just do things er, erm, er, let's just read the bible? I didn't think you were quite so anti-science as this, just a cold-war fan. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you can't carry on blaming TK for all of CP's ills. After all he was kicked off late in 2007 and didn't become a sysop again until 2009. TK wasn't a sysop when he plagiarised the UCLA article and none of the other sysops were man enough to implement their own standards. Joaquin continues to use copyrighted material, TK or no TK. In fact TK's demise has seemingly exacerbated Conservative's wall of gibberish. Ed Poor has eliminated articles because he is too stupid to understand them and posts moronic stubs completely blind as to what an encyclopedia should be. Andy took it upon himself to reinstate TK and ultimately must accept responsibility for how CP is run. Let's face it CP sysops have largely been chosen for their ideology rather than any skills at running a wiki or community. I have seen many good editors run off solely because they didn't toe some arbitrary line drawn by Andy. Do you really think that Karajou, Jpatt, Ed, and Ken do anything to promote an atmosphere of community and standards? Because I haven't seen one jot of change in their behaviour since he died. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 03:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, TK was a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The problem starts with Andy, who saw off decent users (TimS) even as he brought in bad ones (TK). The simple fact is, Andy doesn't want an encyclopedia. He simply wants a place where conservatism (or whatever he believes it to be) reigns supreme, and he is its arbiter and avatar, and he wants to be worshipped as such by the userbase. Unfortunately, it didn't quite turn out like that, so instead he had to employ an army of arrogant unintelligent thugs to keep people in line. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Albeit a very small army. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What is really interesting[edit]

Conservapedia is usually really gun-ho about American holidays, especially ones that are considered patriotic to celebrate. This means the holiday usually gets a large splash at the top of the mainpage left. Not Independence Day though, it gets a brief mention in the mainpage right as just another note in their version of an RSS feed. Instead  K e n D o l l ' s  dribble trumps any homage paid to America's independence. CP has really gone down hill lately, and that is saying a lot by their low standards. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

When TK was alive, he'd usually rip off a picture for the front page. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, left page is currently dominated by that Evolution thing, so MPL isn't free.--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I think they hit rock bottom when the flying kitty made the front page. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
well, it took them nearly a day to add it butimgthey are indeed celebrating independance day for the country they want to see fail.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow a picture haphazardly stuck up top, that's real effort; yet again they really have started to take an anti-American tone, haven't they? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What is far more likely[edit]

Is that another one of our newer/younger users is freaking out over a simple typo or math error. Again. P-Foster (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, stuff like that isn't worth mentioning, as it is an honest mistake that can happen to anyone, and we have seen it happen on Wikipedia often enough.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No, look at the second diff-link; he had the correct number to start, but changed it to the incorrect one. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's still nothing more than a simple accounting error. You've never thought you made a mistake when you had it right in the first place? P-Foster (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you're just generally moaning again, or actually trying to make a point. But, most people AFAIK have no problem with laughing about little mistakes they made. Personally, I only point them out when I have a remark for it that I find funny. C'mon man, smile. --uhm, t! 19:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Its a bit "meh" really. But then again compared to Kens dribble and Andys delusions, everything is a bit "meh". Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Some typos are noteworthy - Ken's "homoschooling" springs to mind - and while maybe not always WIGO-worthy, Andy's mistakes should be called out if he is using other people's typos as ad-homs. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Can I just point out that when robs said I don't care what it is. I haven't bothered to follow the links nor see whose involved he basically summed up right wing fundamentalist thinking to a tee. I've not read what you wrote and have made no effort to actually understand it but, DAMN I'm against it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I enjoyed his following comment: All I see is, "Somebody burn a sock...". Parse it anyway you want -- it's vandalism by any standard or definition. Any standard. Any. So if I were to set fire to my underwear, it's vandalism. ONE / TALK 08:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I have NEVER worn my socks as underwear. They're too small, for starters. But yes, as per Rob - suggesting something to Andy = vandalism. CP in a nutshell really. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Lol, socks are considered underwear in some parts. They go under your shoes. ONE / TALK 09:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My socks go inside my shoes. I really want to come and watch you get dressed on day... :) --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Like this? -- CS Miller (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know quite how old "nobs" claims to be? Apparently he was a child in 1930 when Pluto was discovered.Sphincter (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What year was Pluto canonized a planet? We was jus' po' folk and I had to learn from outdated encyclopdia's. nobsViva la Revolución! 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Godlessness caused Hugh Grant![edit]

Isn't this the most cheerfully incoherent argumentimg you've ever heard? Does Boteach get all his info about the UK from the big book of national stereotypes? Yes, all British people drive white vans, read the sun and beat people up at the football of a weekend. And godlessness is to blame for these things! Also for Hugh Grant, poor dentistry and fish and chips. Plus the purpose he seems to think us Brits once had was pretty much dominating the entire world, if we got back on the god bus does he think we'd get the colonies back? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I demand some kind of explanation for the existence of Hugh Grant, and godlessness is good enough for me! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Somebody didn't pull out in time? The condom split? Godlessness? Tricky to say.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 10:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative goes against the birthirism movement[edit]

well, atleast he's right about it tooimg--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...only for reasons of political strategy. He never points out the part about birtherism being a steaming, festering pile of racist bullshit. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
He's got a point though. This brand of crazy is a guaranteed vote loser. I have a love/hate relationship with Ken's occasional accents in to sanity. I love that this utter incompetent is the voice of sanity at CP, but I loathe that ostensibly sane people are walking around with crazier opinions than this reject from the one flew over the cuckoo's nest casting call. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ken actually seems less bothered about the truth of the issue than about whether it would further a political agenda of his preference, but given the content of articles starting with e, a, and h, we already knew that. - π Silverbrain.png 00:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It makes him more sane then trump was for a while.--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments and I don't rule out that Ken is a birther based on his equivocal statements. But what he said is right, and smart, and I was surprised that it was coming from Ken. A major part of my fascination with CP is to watch ineffectual wingnuts flop around, highlighting in their essays, wiki diffs, blog posts and MPR items how foolish and hypocritical they are. It's one of the main reasons I love Ken so much, because he ridicules fat people, likely pissing off the very people they want to have read them since a significant portion of conservatives have weight problems. So I was surprised to see Ken evidence cunning and intellect; I may need to reassess his mental disability. This was particularly astuteimg. That's why I love Andy's birtherism; it immediately red flags even the casual conservative reader that the people on CP are in tin hat territory. Thankfully nobody listens to Ken. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Who was that guy who andy kept saying was a citizen even though that would have to mean obama was too?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Marco Rubio, on cp:Talk:2012 Presidential election. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Ken can apply the same reasoning to his 'PZ MYERS IS FAT' 'KEYNES WAS A PEDOFILE' 'FLYING CATS!!!!!' "essays"? --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think whats important here is that neither Bachman nor Romney have shown us they're real birth cirtificates, grade school report cards, college transcripts, sworn statements from the doctors who brought the "canidates" in to the world, proof that the father was born in america, proof they shop at they're local super markets, proof they never drank an imported beer, proof that no one in they're family has ever visited another country (except Isreal...maybe), and proof that they have not now, nor have they ever been scientologists. Untill I see ALL of those, they are not Americans, nor are they elegible for election.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that Bachmann and Romney are going to have to provide records from colleges they may not have attended, as well as proof that Obama's parents were divorced and that he attended kindergarten. They are eligibility requirements, after all. «-Bfa-» 02:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow did ether of them even go to harverd? If not then they may as well go to canada.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the most disturbing things I have encountered is a nutter who appears to be occasionally sane, because the underlying instability is precariously balanced and you don't know what it might tip into. By the way, I've got a viper in this box. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 08:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though Americans, make a facebook campaign or something when the Republican nomination is given to somebody and militantly demand a birth certificate, if not to show them how annoying it was/is, then just for shits and giggles through parody. --uhm, t! 15:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And another one![edit]

Atheism and... Atheism and... Atheism and... DEPRESSIONimg - Does he pre-write these or something? Ateafish (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think  K e n  D o l l 's just a PHP script or something. --Roofus (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Copy, paste, insert "Atheism and X", rinse, repeat, cash the fuckin check.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is an old one? Or maybe it's just a new similar one that has the same trigger words parsed in a different way, but I think I recognize this essay. The history only goes back to today, but obviously that doesn't mean anything with Ken. --Willfully Wrong (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ken writes using a kaleidoscope like they did for pornosec in 1984.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That article is so filled with cherry picked bullshit, association fallacies, and incoherent nonsense that as an atheist of conscience I find it depressing. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Fill in the blank using this. According to my first hit, the next essay will be "Atheism and Astrodome." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I got a good one..."Atheism and Retransference" --Roofus (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Atheism and Envelope". --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Atheism and Photochemistry". Does  K e n  D o l l  pass the Turing test? --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ken doesn't pass anything; he's anal retentive. Which explains his constipated writing style. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 08:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I got 'Homosexuality' and 'ignorance' myself, in just a few clicks. Maybe he does use it... Eyeonicr (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Atheism and boiling". Delicious! --YossarianSpeak, Memory 10:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Atheism and Athlete's Foot". Give it time--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Dread", hell, that would even make sense for Ken. "Atheism and European suicide in the 17th century" - so did I miss a specific European style of suicide or does he mean suicide in Europe? Or was the suicide born in specific country? --uhm, t! 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Even better[edit]

There's a random paragraph generator that will allow you to select the primary and secondary subjects. For instance:

Atheism and Brain Tumors[edit]

Above a flood consents the mechanic. Below a rail stirs atheism. Brain tumor excludes atheism throughout a kidney. Atheism tongues the smashed philosopher behind an unwilling pointer. Under atheism boggles a graphic quest. Atheism fusses brain tumor underneath a crack.

"I" couldn't have said it if I was Ken himself. MDB (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

To me that looks like drivel, but not Ken's drivel as it lacks the verbal constipation. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 11:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this?
A shiny creator exhausts in regards to on top of a rabid child. In regards to mends sacred cow. Sacred cow reflects past a previous lamp. In regards to exercises with my courier. With in regards to bobs the consuming commentary. In regards to exports sacred cow with the village.
ONE / TALK 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Atheism bricks obesity. Atheism surprises the size breakfast throughout the six sigh. A prejudiced ownership purges a cream pizza. Obesity alarms a heel near the few echo. A cookie organizes obesity over the voter. The right protein escapes above obesity.
Almost every random line was about food, oddly enough... 99.50.96.218 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken takes his ball...[edit]

... and runs for cover, squealing like the cowardly little bitch he is.img

Yes, Conservapedia's master debater responds to the challenge, the same way he did on ASoK... "Whaa! Whaa! I'm not reading this no more!" --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears as if a certain gentleman at a certain site beginning with a C is hiding down an intellectual bunnyhole. I declare victory! Ole ole ole! EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Awwwww... Holy Hell! This is seriously one of the most WTF moments I've had this week. "Comedy and satire are valid and blah, blah, blah... Huh? Someone called me on my shit? Aha! I'll respond by doing the very things I charge my satire targets with doing! There's nary a SHRED of hypocrisy in that! Lalalalalalacan'thearyou..." The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
And of course he says he will accede to reasonable requests but of course his talk page is locked but it does have the special page you can contact him on. Doesn't it? Well noimg not any more it doesn't. So from your bunny hole  K e n  D o l l  how EXACTLY are people supposed to send you their 'reasonable requests'? You need to give an address, and ken's bunny hole, under the tree simply will not work. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely the TK way - private mail behind the scenes so there won't be any public evidence of his trolling.
[EC'd post follows] Eh, the Community Portal is probably a lot better off without Ken's constant trolling. Let Rob and some mortals discuss things in peace, and then let Rob worry about actually enforcing whatever they come up with. --Sid (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I see he has also blocked XavierC Oldusgitus (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Being able to edit Ken's user talk page clearly is an unreasonable request. After all, it's not like CP is a collaborative project where people need to coordinate their actions. Röstigraben (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
When I first saw this heading on Recent Changes, I was so hopeful that Ken had announced he was quitting CP. No such luck!--ADtalkModerator 09:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You mean like the time when he announced a 90-day-sabbatical and reduced his contributions to a mere 10 edits per day? Röstigraben (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
And he's wiping out a lot of his redirected talk pages now, but of course not lifting the protections, so no changes there, either. Röstigraben (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wow... Ken is becoming seriously unhinged.img "How dare you call my fire a bad fire. Maybe the house had toxic gases in it that would have given them cancer and it was a blessing in disguise." --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, he replies after I've been LloydR has been blocked, and cannot reply. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I can only attribute the mass deletion of his silly pages to my comment above. Dance for me little man, dance! Ken, not only are you true intellectual midget but a gigantic hypocrite to boot. I declare Penn and Dawkins the winners with a walkover in round one of the Ken Demyer debating challenge. Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, he's dancing...img by admitting that locking and redirecting those talk pages was basically just trolling and adding that he has no interest in discussing things anyway, so even now, those talk pages are absolutely useless. --Sid (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The LULZ go into overdrive! That explanation is posted immediately after his public withdrawal from the Community Portal. He must be switching tabs like a demented bluebottle to see what we say. On a more serious note it's not unexpected that he has done this, his manic behavior has hinted for several weeks that he's due for a long slide down the rollercoaster. Right now Andy should be contacting him to see if he's OK because he looks fully primed to do something stupid. Clickbot (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"he looks fully primed to do something stupid" - he's been fully primed for years now. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 13:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Damn, you all have Kenny going like a marionette, that is pretty amusing how he just responds in such a silly way to whatever is said here. Curious to know what nobs thinks about Kenny just crapping all over his Community Portal Concept?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Since, of the regulars, only Rob and Kendoll have turned up at all it wasn't much of a community anyway. Kendoll isn't even capable of having a conversation, all he does is drop what he thinks are cleverly veiled insults in to the mix, and Rob is just Rob. All the community portal has done is confirmed how utterly dysfunctional CP is. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I know Conservative is a bit light intellectually, but "foolish atheist religious beliefs" is a phrase that would seem to confirm quite how wrong his concept of atheism is. Sphincter (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Na, he's just a totally credulous sucker for creationist propaganda. It's pretty commonly said that atheism is a religion in those circles so it's not like he came to the wrong conclusion on his own. FFS Philip Rayment repeats and even tries justifying it all the time. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not participating at community portal anymore" my ass.img --Sid (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Toll roads[edit]

How are toll roads a liberal gimmickimg? Toll roads are use taxes, so only the people who use the service pay for it. Historically, the concept was considered a conservative way to build and/or unclog roads, which is something dreadfully necessary in Los Angeles. It's very easy to find Republicans who did toll roads in their own states: "We built this project -- six miles of four-lane highway and a bridge -- at no cost to taxpayers," said an extremely conservative Alabama Republican gubernatorial candidate. Or here is an Indiana Republican whose transportation systems are primarily used by tourists: "It's fair for everyone to pay something. Those ferries are extremely expensive. They are used over 50 percent by out-of-state people for tourism." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Srly tax-payer funded, free-at-the-point-of-use roads are a socialist gimmick? CS Miller (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It's in Los Angeles, so it must be liberal. QED. MDB (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
^ THIS, that is all there is to it. Andy thinks like a kindergartener; since Los Angeles is deemed liberal and materialistic anything that happens there is also liberal and materialistic and thus "bad". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The linked article in the LA Times notes the large system of toll lanes and toll roads in that bastion of liberalism, Orange County. Give it up, Conservapedia. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously... His line of thinking is exactly thus: "There's a dollar sign attached to the action and, either directly or indirectly, it comes out of my wallet. Therefore it MUST BE OPPOSED! Unless it's dropping bombs on brown people. That's a necessary expense. For AMERICA!" *le sigh* The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The L.A. toll roads are an attempt at traffic control, not at cost-cutting, which raises one red flag to Mr. Schlafly ("radical liberal environmentalists," etc.) A Republican legislator calls them "double taxation," which raises another red flag. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Insight into Schlafly and Obama at Harvard[edit]

Andy, far left, and Obama on the right
Andy and Obama were on the Harvard Law Review together. From Salon:
Much of what President Barack Obama knows about dealing with Republicans he learned at Harvard. And most of it is wrong. As David Remnick tells the story in his masterful book "The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama," the president owes his election as editor of the Harvard Law Review to conservatives.

A born mediator, Obama knew how to negotiate bitter personal, racial and ideological conflicts among his classmates. Among Harvard's hyper-competitive law students, Obama stood out as somebody who "didn't personalize political differences."

So when conservatives realized they didn't have the votes to win, they swung to Obama. His classmate Brad Berenson, a Federalist Society member who worked in the Bush White House, told Remnick, "There was a general sense that he didn't think we were evil people, only misguided people, and he would credit us for good faith and intelligence."

So...Andy ostensibly was responsible for Obama being elected editor! Thanks for helping elect our President by giving him a plum job, Andy! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain my own little conspiracy theory that Andy was running for HLR Pres (after all, there were about 19 candidates) but obviously came nowhere because a) what support he did have, he lost when the cons went to support Obama (although I thought it went to Obama's main rival - Silverman, or Goldberg, whatever his name was) or b) because nobody could stand him even then. Given as to how Andy can really bear a grudge, that is the reason behind his hatred for Obama. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I do find it amusing that in the photo, Andy is on the left, and Obama is on the right. MDB (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
haha - I like that too. Regardless whether a person disagrees with Obama's views or not, what consistently comes out is that he is a good man, as Berenson's quote shows. Of course, since he is the Anti-Christ, that's exactly what Obama wants us to believe. I'm sure Schlafly was never considered a serious candidate by the other conservatives because he's too weird and just not a pleasant person. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, which on is Andy -- the one standing on the left, looking a little grim, or the one seated on the left of the row with Obama, and the only male not wearing coat and tie? MDB (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
He's the second row from the top, far left. Man, he looked as old in 1991 as he does today, and not in a good way. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(EC - you bastard) He's the goofy looking one 2nd in from the left that nobody wanted to stand next to. He just sort of inserted himself into the picture hoping nobody would say anything about him not really being a part of the community even though he was technically entitled to sit for the photo. At least that's what that picture says to me. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree that's what it looks like. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, it doesn't help that he has to stand behind Jaws. But maybe they put him there because they didn't really like him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, he has exactly the same proto-combover then as now. I thought he might just have a receding hairline, but apparently it's how he likes his hair. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, the kid beside him looks 12. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby?Moderator 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Two points, first Andy is standing on the right from his POV or to the right of the "chair" so being on the left of the picture is not an issue. Secondly, how do we know that the picture isn't photoshopped and Andy added in afterwards? Redchuck.gif Генгисmutating 16:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
How do we know Obama isn't photoshopped into the picture, or all of them? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Because nobody would choose such an unflattering picture of an already unattractive man. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In the original photo Obama is sitting smack dab in the middle, quite befitting Ateafish (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)