Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive246

This is an archive page, last updated 19 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>, <244>, <245>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

What the fuck is Ken doing?

This made me laugh though.^img - π 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to block everyone who ever dared to speak out against him, only he's too stupid to actually block them. Once again Kendoll expresses his contempt for Rob's efforts to civilise CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is making progress. Rob is making progress. Rob is making progress. Rob is making progress. Rob is making progress... Just keep saying it. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the Coue method only works on yourself.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Tracys^img calls him out on it. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And as was pointed out here yesterday (I think) the more andy bores of his little toy, the more kendoll will run the place, or is that ruin? eh, same ol.--En attendant Godot 15:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, something happened^img on the talk page of Ken's little revenge article, "Newark Star-Ledger". He made three contribs, then deleted the entire thing, all in the space of two minutes. Man, good thing that Rob is making progress and that without TK, a whole new era has begun on CP! Olé! --Sid (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't Rob said he's Catholic? Johnny Sedition? Catholic. Joaquin? Catholic? Andy? Heretical Catholic, raised traditionally. How the fuck is Ken able to get away with saying that stuff about the Catholic church? 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know why I was asking a sensible question. At least when it comes to Rob we already know he's such a dickless toady that it's all good as long as it's in service of greasing the wheels of the CP propaganda machine. Nice response to that Nate though Rob. You're a class act. 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Rob hauls out a debating tactic not seen for a while (but a fav of TK and Kajagoogoo IIRC) - the old "show me where else you've bitched about this before I believe you" - happily ignoring the fact that the complaint is about Conservapedia's handing of the subject. But yes, Rob really let his class shine through there. Maybe they should hand over management of the portal to cuddly Ed Poor. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at that guy's question. Are you going to address it on the merits? Is Andy? Or are you going to let Ken laugh at an editor for asking someone to curb Ken's abuses? The guy asked for his account to be closed if you guys aren't going to do anything about it, which I guess mean he wants to be blocked. Surely you'll at least oblige him a proper blocking after Ken unpersoned him. 15:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Passive-aggressivepedia

Rob steps in to unarchive everything, but _still_ doesn't censure kendoll at all. Jesus wept, Rob. Could you be any more pathetic than to keep letting him steamroll you? Aren't you ever going to say _anything_ about it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

rotfl, Rob just unprotected ken's talk page. This should be good... Occasionaluse (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

on the page that was just reopened, i found this line by Kenny boy. ""Shockofgod thinks the Question evolution! campaign will cause the Atheist Population to be 1/2 squeak in the United States population." " This one line alone made your link so amusing - much less the lulz that will arise from the passive AGness. --En attendant Godot 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Respect where it is due to Rob for the edit comment on this^img. You earn a few internets for that comment if for nothing else Rob. And a grudging respect from me as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And for restoring NKeaton and bobshearman. Once again, respect is due Rob. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken hasn't edited in nearly 12 hours. Considering the mutiny against him, should we be worried? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll join the current round of applause. Rob, if you manage to go through with this,^img I will be thoroughly impressed. --Sid (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

+1 Mountain Blue (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will go further. I'll de sock, which incidentally I have never edited using the sock, and contribute. I am a terminal liberal but as I have said before I see nothing wrong with the idea of a conservative leaning wiki. It's the insanity of ken and some others I have issues with. And more internets for the moving of the idiots 'comedies and satires' drivvel. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking the "nobs/Obama" route and declaring anything Rob does as teh evil. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He restores deleted userpages and talk pages^img and moves the satire were it belongs (if we're generous)^img. Rob, I wich you the best with this. All you need are a few sysops in arms and Ken will get a spanking. But I think Rob might get blocked if nobody joins him.

"Do Not Delete Mainspace Discussion Pagers!" should be meme from now on. Does it beep in Ken's head whenever somebody edits them? --★uːʤɱ digital native 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Ken going to bitch slap Rob back, or take it lying down? --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

UHM, what he needs is not the support of other sysops (though it wouldn't exactly hurt), but rather Andy's ear. As long as Andy doesn't pay attention, Ken can and will simply ignore all rules he doesn't agree with. --Sid (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I mean that the other sysops also saying "Ken can't behave like this" would make Andy stop singing "Lalala, I can't hear you!". You have to consider that this is about the guy who made up "best of the public", not some normal person you can argue with. --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Hooooooleeeeee sheeeeet. It's good to see someone bitchslap kenservative up and down the wiki. -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

cmon, Rob's still fighting the good fight. See this^img and this^img.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Restoring proper version which User:Conservative thoroughly screwed up" --> hehehe --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's the kind of bitch slapping that'll cause a 90 day sabbatical. I wonder how long it'll take kendoll to get over it and get back to deleting, blocking and creating "essays"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You better watch out, Rob. Ken might talk bad about you six months after you're dead^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves called it. "pursuing other projects off-wiki"^img --Willfully Wrong (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's back...

And his first move was to delete and recreate his talk page. This should be fun. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's now employing his ace in the hole, that the Arsefly just doesn't give a fuck about anything that goes on on his wiki. He's really learned at the feet of the troll king himself. You can get away with anything by relying on the apathy of Andy. The best counter to this strategy is to behave like you own on the wiki and lay the smackdown on him hard with his next infraction. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

100 bucks say he didn't even read what Rob wrote.^img --★uːʤɱ digital native 23:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I often wonder if Kendoll can read what people write. His replies are never on point. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR version of the events covered in this section. --Sid (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And Rob continues the attack^img:

"Airing our dirty laundry in public is necessary bacause you constantly shut down discussions among users. If you don't like what they say, fine. Don't read it. Go elsewhere. Ignore them. Stop these endless reprisals against anyone you imagine you don't like."

*grabs popcorn* --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not bad noby, not bad. Spellcheck won't kill ya, but not bad.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob get a backbone implant or something? Mountain Blue (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we encouraged him. This is a good thing though, Ken is a huge reason why I don't bother with Conservapedia. Andy can be avoided, so can KJ (mostly). Ken seeks out people and bans. I hate that I have to say this, but good job Rob. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think our encouragement helped, but read his first paragraph of the reply to Ken carefully: "one sysop can't play nice with others" + "insists on chasing away editors" = TK. Looks like Rob finally realized that TK's death didn't magically fix everything and that other people are going to follow the "As long as Andy doesn't actively interfere, I can do anything I want!" mentality unless he manages to change the system and implement at least some sort of sysop accountability (something we have been calling for since, uh... early 2007). --Sid (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too, Sid. And if you read Conservaleaks, you'd know that. So after you called for sysop accountability, you created RW run by a mobocracy. And it's only taken 4 years to give moral authority to immoral atheists. Damn this makes perfect sense and gets more interesting all the time. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Ken just pull that "I'm going to be busy off wiki... yeah... that's the ticket" move again? On Rob? Is that his default excuse for things like this? Even he must realise how utterly stupid that sounds, and how obviously wrong it is. And how provably wrong it is. X Stickman (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation: "Im losing, so im gonna back out with my tail between my legs".--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And Ken burns,^img and protects^img his talk page. Then he moves over to Rob's talk page^img Ken also responded on his own talk page somewhere in there. Mr. Swift (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

AND ROBBY COMES IN WITH A BIG LEFT HOOK TO THE JAW.^img--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Which BIG LEFT HOOK Ken

of course BURNS.  As I said Rob, respect is due for this and I for one give it to you. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, this is amazing. I wonder how much longer Andy can afford to stay on the sidelines? When you've got two admins at each other's throats in public, even the most casual reader will be able to see what's beneath CP's monolithic facade, so there's no point in pretending it's still business as usual. If he doesn't intervene, one of the remaining inner circle members will have to rein Ken in. Terry is busy with his own blog, so that leaves Ed or Karajou. Neither is known for being reasonable or responsive to the cries of lesser editors, but they don't like Ken either, and must've realized that he's doing serious damage to the wiki. Let's see where this will go. Röstigraben (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Andy will do nothing. All the time TK and I were bickering at each other over there - both on CP and in the ZB, Andy never said a word. He only took action when I messed with his precious "liberal vandalism" block reason, and threw in "fighting with admins" as an after thought, thanks to Ed Poor sticking a knife in my back. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

With Ken once again doing the burn/recreate/protect routine of his user talk page (quietly erasing the entire discussion Rob started!) and dragging Rob into private mail business,^img it really looks like Ken is (successfully) banking on Andy's laziness. Sorry, Rob, but you are currently experiencing the reason why CP is doomed to fail, despite your promises of a new era: Andy doesn't give a shit about sysops openly breaking all rules as long as they say what he wants to hear. --Sid (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More Ken: No, I never said that!^img --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Rob really going to take this kind of disrespect from Kendoll? It's some wiki where a madman gets to act like a made man just because he's uploaded a few flying kitty gifs. Seriously Rob, it's time to inflict some real consequences on him, or he'll just keep going and going. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, if Andy keeps aloof and sysops are free to do as they please, then why shouldn't Rob take advantage of the same liberties? Slap him with a minor block, "trim" his crap from the mainpage, make his oversighted edits visible again. Two can play that game. Röstigraben (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC "ignoring instruction from an administrator" is still a blockable offence. Drop the banhammer on him Rob! That'll wake him up, when he can't edit his precious articles... well, until he figures out how to unblock himself. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Randomly related: Are you prepared to laugh? Rob is Admin/SiteAdmin/CheckUser^img while Ken is Admin/SiteAdmin/CheckUser/Oversighter^img - yep, in an actual surprise (to me), Rob does not have Oversight powers. That being said, it'd be kinda funny if somebody restored all revisions of the Evolution article (though this would likely make the database spaz epically). --Sid (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! I know how to settle this! Call in the conservapedia panel! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL! Just checked Captcha-whatcha-ma-callit links. NKeaton:: You deleted my user and talkpages! Why?! and then, 13 hours later... Ken: *WHINE* My talk page is my castle! There you go Rob, I just gave you a fresh ammo clip to reload with. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Rob, you should really use a spell-checker! Otherwise if Andy gets involved he will only make snide remarks on your spelling. And Ken

gets his spelling always right - after 100 revisions or so... larronsicut fur in nocte 07:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Ken doesn't have too many problems with spelling other than the odd typo which anyone could make. His problem is mainly with phrasing which is the linguistic equivalent of squeaky chalk on a blackboard. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oversight - the new Preview button

Nothing new here, but Ken's really abusing Oversight, and here's a fresh example:

• 08:34, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888441 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎
• 08:34, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888440 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎
• 08:33, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888439 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic)

Three edits, and only the last one remains visible. So what was this complicated message that required three edits and two oversightings? "I prefer it the way I have it now."^img --Sid (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The really fun/scary part is that he's most likely only doing it, to try and beat Capturebot. Ken takes paranoia o scary new places. Dance for us, little man! Dance for us! --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Four more edits, four more oversightings:

• 08:56, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888447 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎
• 08:51, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888445 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎
• 08:49, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888444 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎
• 08:45, 12 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 888442 of User:Conservative/messages patrolled (automatic) ‎

Current message:^img

I prefer it the way I have it now. Please attend to more important matters than how others design their talk pages. It seems to me you are trying to pick a fight over a trivial matter. I base this on your previous comments to me and the tone of your post here. I would also suggest you refrain from trying to picking other fights with me. If you have any further commentary, please direct it elsewhere as I not willing to wrangle with someone who I believe is contentious. Thank you.

Man, Ken's really writing himself into a frenzy here... --Sid (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait... "I not willing to wrangle with someone who I believe is contentious." but... but... isn't that the very nature of all these debates that Ken supposedly wins. Unless Ken's debates involve him standing in front of a mirror, yelling "Atheists are fat!" and then applauding himself. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And finally burned. Gosh that was a circuitous way of getting to "I'm not going to address you peons", wasn't it? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Tracy replies (manual cap - I had the diff open in a tab but then got distracted by my RSS feeds) and Ken burns the entire page to the ground and recreates a clean version^img - yep, feel free to leave a message! --Sid (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And "asking me to redesign my talk page" has become an explicit "do not contact me about this" example in Ken's talk page "DO NOT TALK TO ME!" disclaimer box (no diff - he has already burnt it to the ground again). --Sid (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, when Rob wakes up he's going to have a seizure after seeing all these burnings in recent changes that he explicitly asked kendoll just yesterday to stop doing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec, bastard!) Does anybody else picture Ken sweating profusely and muttering under his breath as he frantically clicks his mouse, trying to restore reality to just the way he likes it. This is certainly the first time he's had to face such a backlash on CP. --PsyGremlinTal!

(EC) He's now spent the last eight hours deleting, recreating and protecting his user page. He must feel like the Stasi bureaucrats in the waning days of the GDR, frantically trying to shred as many documents as possible while the shouting of the demonstrators on the outside gets progressively louder, angrier and closer. Feeling the heat already, Ken? Röstigraben (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how Conservative is raping Recent Changes (hopefully image capture happens) right now, while Andy is calmly ignoring it all like it's never happening. Must be some really tight tunnel vision. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Snapshot of the carnage^img --Sid (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He then welcomes Koreansman...as JPatt, on 27th March. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, Ken forgot that his "comedies and satires" [sic] are supposed to be Essays . Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob is fighting a fool's fight because he is fighting by himself. He needs another sysop or two to clean up Ken crapping all over the Wiki. Unlike some of you, I do not want Rob to be successful with his anti-Ken efforts because, as we saw from the NJ.com website, Ken is the best thing going for keeping CP a tin foil hat joke that turns off their target market. And Rob will fail, because Ken is far more invested, far more active and far more influential on that site because he brings lots of hits from people who come to ridicule CP. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think pretty much think the same thing. Ken is really bad for CP's image, so let him win. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I too hope that Knobs is unsuccessful in his efforts, but I hope he continues for a good while. For people to see a gibbering idiot post ludicrous and embarrassing (even to conservative christians) nonsense all over a website is one thing, but for them to see that another sysop is actively trying to prevent this but getting no support or help, even from the site's owner, takes it to another level. Good work Ken and Rob! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that gambling is a sin...

...because there's a horse called Flying Kitty running in the 3:10 at Brighton. Opened at 13/2, might be worth a fiver... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit, there'd be no support from CP anyway, just checked the form and Flying Kitty is a filly! A bloody Filly! She should be back at the stables making cakes for all the colts, not at a race course! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! Those are decent odds. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't a filly get a shorter course, or a lighter jockey or something? Worm (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If I ever become wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice, I want to buy a thoroughbred and name it Me Pet 'Orse Eric (or, alternately, Eric the 'Orse.

Mainly so I can enter it into the Kentucky Derby, and I'm interviewed on TV, I can discuss all of my pets named Eric.

MDB (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would go for it Eddy, but my latest half-baked 'system' has me backing Dutchman's Field in the same race. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to check what the other runners are. If they're atheists then it's a dead cert, because ponies always win. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

And Flying Kitty came in last. Give it up, liberals! Cantabrigian (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF is Ken doing now?

Now he's signing talk page welcomes as Jpatt^img. DickTurpis (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see its been mentioned above. Still, What the fuck? DickTurpis (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He's clearly just copy/pasted the welcome message from somebody else's talk page. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He's spent over an hour adding minor rephrasings to the unwelcome mat on his talk page. This seems like fairly minor crazy in comparison. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

For a busy wo/man who supposedly has more important things to spend her/his time on that seems like a big dstraction. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't keep us in suspense, Kendoll. Do tell us this quote that both reassures us^img and tells us like it is^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob: "There is no excuse for this kind of snobbery, wholesale deletion of a very important discussion between sysops. Please desist."^img --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob obviously forgot that he recently and explicitly^img gave everybody the right to remove anything they like from their user talk page for no reason whatsoever. Hilariously, he made that clarification^img after people complained about Ken removing comments from (user) talk pages - the exact same thing Rob is now complaining about. I pointed out back then that he's basically justifying Ken's behavior, so... yeah, tough luck, Rob. --Sid (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

After User:Conswervative vandalizaed the Commnity Portal page and vandalized another registered uses page (NateS, including a block thrown in for good measure), where else couild this be discussed? And full well knows the consequences of deleting and oversighting my postings. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 17:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What are those consequences?--Danielfolsom (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) More power to you, Rob. Do you agree that this can only be resolved by intervention from Aschlafly? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Rob again slaps kenny baby down^img. This power struggle is worthy of the best of communist china Oldusgitus (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Rob, if he knows the consequences he sure as hell doesn't seem to care. Can't really blame him, since the consequences are that you'll ask him again not to do it. Either you'll have to in some way make Andy care, or just block the sucker and keep blocking him if he tries to evade his block. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What he said. Getting Andy on your side is key since Ken (a.k.a. the guy who was such a mystery that the Secret Sysop Group of the time had to launch its own investigation to figure out who he really was) will refuse to cooperate with anybody. Of course, this is unlikely to work out because Andy doesn't dare to slap down Ken. And that is because for four years, everybody sat on their asses while Ken alone controlled three key articles/areas and manipulated search engine ratings to create "success" stories. --Sid (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep in focus what the objective is: it is not to slap User:Conservative down, or open those three articles open editing; it is to force sysop accountability. The remaining CP sysops, Andy included, are all aware the damage TK did over the years. But TK could at times, at some level, be responsive to suggestions and show a willingness to work with others of varying opinion. User:Conservatve wears ideologial blinders. If Andy slapped him down, he'd convince himself Andy's an atheist and going to hell anyway. He wouldn't learn from overreaching. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Right now, enforcing sysop accountability and slapping Ken down are one and the same because Ken is completely out of line, even compared to the other sysops who are quite happy to slap others around for no reason (Kara and Ed come to mind). And you will need both popular support and Andy's ear for this. You can write rules, but so far, even the most basic Commandments are openly ignored by sysops. You need more power if you want to enforce anything with the sysops. --Sid (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"And you will need both popular support and Andy's ear for this...." "Popular support"? are you fucking kidding me Sid? Which community of people counts enough to make up "popular support" on CP? There;s Rob, Karajou, Ed, Ken, JPatt and a few stragglers, all of whom are invested in their own corners of the project, none of whom are part of any broader community, most of whom actually actively dislike each other, all of whom are subordiante to Andy. There's no such a thing as "popular" on CP, only "what Andy chooses to tolerate." P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 19:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• even the most basic Commandments are openly ignored by sysops

Amen to that. And that's been the case since the Night of the Blunt Knives, if not before. And it was TK's doing. It is an embalmed precedent - sysops ignoring site rules with no consequences - that even new sysops, who never heard of TK, will think the rules don't apply to them. This has always worried me, even before the Night of the Blunt Knives. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just give up? CP isn't worth trying to save anyway. It's practically Kendollpedia already. Just walk away and do your own thing. Or do the TerryH thing and spam your own thing on CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's actually an interesting question who set the precedent. Though it mostly depends on which rule you're looking at. TK (and DeanS, IIRC) demolished a fair few and set up their own WTH rules (this is another big problem, by the way), but when you look at really basic things like the first two Commandments (true+verifiable, always give sources), TK was fairly late to the party while Andy entered the playing field with Liberal [Noun] articles, insights and truisms (though it was TK who made the latter term "popular", I think), and of course his infamous dinner conversations. --Sid (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Let's keep in focus what the objective is: it is not to slap User:Conservative down, or open those three articles open editing" - nobs (emphasis mine). Why shouldn't these articles be open for editing? A Wiki is a collaborative effort, and articles, espeically major ones, are not to be the domain of one user; it runs contrary to the very principles of having an encyclopedic wiki. This is doubly true when they are so full of inaccuracies and are not encyclopedic articles, but propaganda hit pieces. How do you defend such lack of integrity?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To echo what Jeeves said above, why don't you just quit Rob? Even Christian conservatives don't take CP seriously. It's gotten waaaay past the point of being fixable. No reason you need to stay on that sinking ship. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer RobS go down fighting like every other demoted, shamed, and banned sysop in the past. At least then he knows he did everything he could while everyone else oils their nude bodies in copious amounts of lulz. Who knows... he might actually make a breakthrough with Andy, which would be even better! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As if. Andy'll continue to stick his fingers in his ears and sing until he runs out of minions to block the parodists, wandals and malcontents. Then at that point he'll probably declare CP perfectly conservative and lock it permanently. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Which makes me think that maybe...

just maybe Ken

is financing a good portion of the wiki. This would explain much. 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

No way does Kendoll have any money. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah. Andy's rich. He's a lawyer, his parents are lawyers, and I think they might have some old money or whatever. That's how he pays for it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken can't afford to leave his apartment. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's not in an apartment. He's in a lab cage - researchers have given a monkey a laptop to see what he does with it - so far no intelligence has been demonstrated. Pippa (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but rich people stay rich by having other people's money do their "work" for them. If Ken is (partially) financing CP this would explain Schlafly's "reluctance" to stray into the KenWars or even tell him (privately) to give a bit of ground here or there. Another thing passes through my "mind": Is there a familial connection betwixt the Schlaflys and the Denyers Demyers? 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

There is no evidence whatsoever for any of this speculation. Here's a simple reading of the situation. Andy has poor management skills and has no idea how to deal with the problem. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

But at some point the probability of being that untalented is far less than the probability of conspiracy theory being true. On the other hand even without the money of his mom, IIRC 250$ a month for only a dozen students is 3000$ every month and I think Andy has more than that. --★uːʤɱ digital native 22:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a practising lawyer. But anyway, it's just all idle speculation. He's obviously quite a wealthy man and running a website like CP isn't going to break the bank. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

" obviously quite a wealthy man." No, he's probably pretty damn comfortable, "quite a wealthy man," to me, anyways, entails the kind of wealth that can translate into power -- the Gateses, Kochs, Murdochs, Turners, etc. of the world. You're not "really wealthy" until you own things -- corporations, properties, etc. that produce wealth for you, and lots of it. A guy like Andy owns his house, some investments, conceivably a nice car/a summer place/a boat, and lots of stuff that is depreciating in value, not producing wealth. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 22:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm betraying my lowbrow roots here, but, dammit, you own a boat, you're wealthy. That's what wealthy means.Phiwum (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Eeuw! Do you mean to say there are poor people here? Good gracious! If this sort of thing carries on, I'm going to have my manservant stop reading this page to me. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone earning less than $5 million a year is only middle class nowadays. And I thought P-Foster was a socialist. Silly me. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some long message to Andy about how great CP is

not sure what to make of that^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You must be the only one. Well, maybe you and Andy. Lets see if the fellatio gets him promotion, just like everyone else who has ever done it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And kenny boy takes five from his beef with Rob to Respond: "O RLY? Read my articles.

Mikalos209, if you're referring to the "Conservapedia" heading on Schlafly's user talk page, then that was me (BobSherman)! Just wanted to see what would happen. If anyone has a Conservapedia account and wants to get in on it, go for it. Socal212 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

DUDE, shut it. First rule or RW, KEN IS ALWAYS WATCHING. you just blew your cover.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. Better luck next time, I guess. It was fun while it lasted. I'm still kinda new so eventually I'll get it right...Socal212 (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

-

I would join in on the fun if i didn't want my vaguely covered account to remain unblocked.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Warned ya.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm still kinda new here but eventually I'll get it right... Socal212 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's block reason of "unfunny jokes" is one of his better attempts at irony. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... so basically all we need to do to get legitimate users blocked on CP is to write a line here, pretending that they're our sock puppets? Doesn't sound very fair now, does it? --Maquissar (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's been happening for years. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Telephone again

Thanks^img for letting us know you are going to try to write something ken. Can you do us, and RobS a favour please, try to make it a moderately intelligent article which discusses the facts and not your warped interpretation of them. And PLEASE, don't create it and immediately burn it. Leave it for the rest of the world to laugh at. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a red telephone call, that's just a note to self that for some reason he put in an article talk page. I'm sure he'll realise his mistake, delete it, burn the edit history to hide the fact he ever made the mistake in the first place, then put the comment in his user page under the title User:Conservative/elevatorgate, and give it a snazzy nickname such as Operation Diverting Shutdown. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And then burn that because we saw it. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The funniest part is that he almost certainly has less understanding of the entire 'scandal' than most of us do. Whichever side we were to come down on we would do it with far more intelligence and reason than kenny boy will scrape together. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it will be "Dawkins lack of machismo causes woman to reject him in elevator for being overweight".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, if Rebecca Watson had been in the elevator with a horse... Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob beat me to it. Yes, the article will be - a quote from Ms Watson, who will be described as "an obese atheist leader"; a totally unrelated quote from Dawkins; a picture of Hitler; and links to 12 new satires, all dealing with the fact that obese atheists are targets of sexual harassment.

@Pervert GK... well, ponies always win, don't they... or should that be "come first". --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 12:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as you focus on the sheath and not the "hook" area where smegma can collect (the most sensitive part)... where's Jinx when you need his expertise? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Gun-pointing legislator

Regarding Andy's MPR headline about a legislator pointing a gun at a reporter.^img

Okay, I've never owned a gun, nor do I desire to. But as I understand it, elementary firearm safety includes two very basic rules:

1. Always treat a gun as if it was loaded.
2. Never point a loaded gun at someone unless you intend to shoot.
   1. If you think you're pointing an unloaded gun at someone, see rule 1.

The legislator is question was in no way being responsible. She may be perfectly in the right in having the gun in the state capitol, but it's not a fucking toy you show off, especially not by pointing it at someone. MDB (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hell I live in the UK and when I was a little kid my grandad taught me to never point a gun at someone, and to never assume that it isn't loaded, and all I had was a cap gun. It has always surprised me that people with real guns act like such assholes with them. X Stickman (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article he linked to doesn't give the whole story. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/12/20110712arizona-legislator-klein-gun-debate.html First of all, she's been changing her story, second, the gun was loaded, and third, the safety was off. -Lardashe

The NRA would earn some credit in my mind if they came out and said, "we respect the legislator's right to own and carry a firearm, but we oppose her irresponsible demonstration of her gun." MDB (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the gun didn't even have a safety mechanism. I'm not sure, but that would make said firearm illegal? Furthermore, the weapon of gun wasn't being used in a defensive fashion in this incident. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

""Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, according to a transcript of the interview. She added there was no need to worry. There was no safety on the gun, Klein said to reporter Richard Ruelas and photographer Mark Henle, but "I just didn't have my hand on the trigger, god."" [4] Pippa (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

When I was doing my weapons handling training in the military, our instructor corporal said "If anyone ever points a rifle barrel at you, even in jest, you are to punch them as hard as you can in the face, and that's a direct order!". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, if you buy a laser sighted, hot pink pistol then you probably think it is a toy and you shouldn't have been allowed to buy it in the first place. Hell, I think gun makers should offer guns in something other than black or gunmetal in their catalogues, but not actually make them, as a honey trap to weed out unqualified purchasers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, we don't censor her and we let the reader form their own opinions. Everyone should own and carry a gun. This is self-evident. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not having a safety isn't a big deal and wouldn't render the weapon illegal. An old-fashioned revolver like a Wild West movie is still perfectly legal in most places that allow handguns at all. Correct handling (e.g. not pointing the weapon at someone) is far more important than any plausible technological improvement in terms of weapon safety. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it surprise anyone that Andy doesn't know a damned thing about gun safety? If you press him on it, he'll probably claim that such rules are designed by liberals to make otherwise sensible people fear a largely defensive weapon. (I grew up in a gun nut home, and we sure as hell learned how to treat guns with respect.) Phiwum (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No. And the truth is that anyone who knows anything about guns knows she was in the wrong. The only reason anyone would try to defend her is to try to politicise her idiocy and defend her fucking stupidty. Face it is reasonable to assume that karajerk is probably a gun owner, ken probably masturbates over pictures of guns but isn't allowed by the rules of his care home to own one and andy has never been near on in his life except for watching films on tv. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Ken nor Ed as gun-owning types. Now JPatt is probably togged up like Rambo. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll go with the "it's a toy" theory. Out of my handful of gun nut friends who've never fired a weapon in anger, and the Merc I know, there is no question in my mind as to who would be more likely to shoot me by accident. Somebody who has seen real people get shot is under no illusion that guns are toys. Also my guess would be (I have never asked) that the Merc doesn't even own a gun. It's not as though you can board a plane from the UK to some embattled country with an AK-47 in your luggage; weapons and other military equipment are just tools provided by the client. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Andru and the gun toter are fools. My dad was a life member of the NRA, and although pretty gungho, he ALWAYS emphasized safety, and even though I haven't touched a gun in over 35 years, those lessons still stick. I would never, ever, point one at anybody. If you handed a gun to someone, the receiving person was within their rights to demand you to demonstrate that it was unloaded before handing it over. This was to prevent accidental discharge during the exchange. Any other times, there was NO pointing. I didn't even bother to look up the politics of the gun toter, because frankly, it doesn't matter! Whoever did it should not have. Period. The End. Jimaginator (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The only gun I currently possess is a moderately powered air pistol, sadly now illegal in the UK due to more knee-jerk reactions from politicians but that's another story. Whenever someone else in in the room with me and I am handling the pistol I ALWAYS breach it to show that it is not loaded. ALWAYS. And even then I would not point it anywhere other than a leg just in case. To do otherwise is simply moronic and ayone who seeks to justify is simply moronic - but in the case of andy that is a definate tautology. Oldusgitus (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's WAR!

Kendoll's back, and for the third or fourth time deletes Rob's request not to delete requests. Is Rob actually going to do something serious about it, or just knuckle under to the CP dunce? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Rob. Ken's got nuclear weapons^img and all you've got is a peashooter. Give it up, liberal, give it up. Ouch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob fires back?^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah, they've gone in to angry Christian mode now. I love it when two Christians are boiling mad at each other. They are constrained from telling each other to go fuck themselves and all they can do is tell the other party how much god hates them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BOOM^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken: I'll delete comments from Andy's talk page if I want to.^img. Rob: Oh, no you won't^img.... Hey anyone remember that episode of South Park where the cripples fight? --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty, I wish Rob luck. I can imagine how frustrating Ken's behavior is, if one wants to create a respectable resource for a particular political/religious viewpoint. Certainly, I've nothing against such desires. (Sadly, Andy doesn't seem to care and this little battle won't likely end well for Rob.) Phiwum (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And Kendoll just nukes Rob's request for explanation. Rob, either block him or quit CP. Those are your two options. That drooling simpleton is making you look like a chump right now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BLOXXORRED^img. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

...and Ken just unblocks himself 4 minutes later^img. (For some reason I'm finding this fascinating to watch.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. This is an epic flameout. All it needs is battle without honour or humanity as a soundtrack. Enjoy your block, bitch! Whatever, bitch! *nuke*^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And Kendoll wins yet another round^img. It's getting harder to feel sorry for Rob when he turns in such a pathetic performance. Just quit while you have a little dignity left, or go balls to the wall for the prize. Jeez. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob fires another shot^img LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 02:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, well said, Iduan, well said.^img LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on Rob^img don't make me laugh. Using liberal/atheist/feminist as pejorative is practically CP's stock in trade. You were doing so well for a brief moment, and now you've thrown it all away. Just retire. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, dude, not cool. not cool at all. LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 03:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Boom^img! Kendoll takes the moral high ground. That's game, set and match right there. Follow it up with a block, Ken, and your victory will be complete. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to see Rob change his method of attack to Guerrilla style. That would make things interesting... LordSlug ^{[[User_talk:slugboy | You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, Iduan is apparently using Ken's own weapon against him!^img UPDATE: and then backs off^img immediately... also, capturebot isnt working for me for somereason... LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I see I'm mentioned here my reaction is usually confusion. Some users here certainly disdain my actions all the time and some praise my work - but mostly it's a mix. In this last post - while I'm not sure what User:Conservative's "weapon" is - I made a mistake. I suggested Rob had not unprotected Conservative's page - I made this decision because I had assumed if it had happened, it would not be very far back in the page log, as page logs are generally short. This was a stupid error on my part - I would chalk it up to being a little out of practice (it's been a few weeks since I've edited the wiki, and even longer since I've concerned myself with things like "page logs"), but having been a user for - on and off - almost 4 years, I should've known better.--Iduan (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

his weapon would be Burning the evidence (cause you couldnt see stuff, idk), and thanks for the clarification. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See, the only thing you achieved is to stir the shit mate. You didn't have a clue what you were talking about. Kendoll has been acting like a total child and Rob has been trying to reform him. A worthy, if doomed, effort. You just did a Conservapedia:Schlafly Rearguard on Kendoll's behalf, however unwittingly, and you've helped Kendoll to win. Basically you've just had added a little bit more to how fucked up CP is. Congrats. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

no, what makes CP even more fucked up is that both sides have to triple proof read all their edits to make sure that there are no spelling or grammatical errors that the other that point them out on. FFS! LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?}

What...is...Rob...doing...^img? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:slug: I believe it's impossible to remove information from logs; I could be mistaken, in my 4 years I have no experience with high-level tools like oversight. As to typos ... I've never been picked on for typos, but I don't change my text because of fear of being picked on, I change them because I don't like having typos in what I've written. Re:Jeeves: I suppose you're referring to my first post, since my second couldn't be interpreted as doing that. But I don't necessarily agree with this idea that it's "Rob vs Conservative". It's not a matter of one user coming out on top, it's a matter of building consensus and a better wiki. This isn't a matter of debating a certain paragraph in an article, it's a matter of building guidelines - and guidelines aren't built via one-on-one debates.--Iduan (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidently logs can be oversighted; there's no record of User:NKEaton's block [

Well, good luck in your fantasy land then. In the real world, there's no chance of improving CP while Kendoll still inhabits it. He singlehandedly makes CP the laughingstock that it is. What consensus do you imagine you can drag out of someone who can't even form a coherent argument, and whose only response to any challenge is to claim he's too busy to talk to you? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Conservative burnt the block log on User:NKeaton. What, why, pray tell, would he do that? I've raised it on our private discussion list. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of Nate being blocked? IIRC, he complained about his user page being burnt to the ground on Ken's message page, so at that point at least, he hadn't been blocked. If Ken can burn logs, you'd have much bigger problems. Go with Occam and assume that Ken simply forgot to block after burning the page, maybe? --Sid (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked NKeaton myself, and BobSherman at the same time. Yet there's no record of it [5] (there is for BobSherman last I looked). Be able to burn a block has the potential for serious problems. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

H3H3H3 >:] Love this one: " I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage" I actually have no idea why the fuck he is blabbering about citing sources^img for, though. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken: "Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time"....oh let's see if we can get Ed involved. *fight* *fight* *fight* --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll: Apologise to me, peon^img! Kiss my ring, and all will be right with the world! Acknowledge me as supreme ruler of Kendollpedia! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC) By the way, When I left TK I was but the learner, now I am the troll master^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And then Ken plays the Andy card^img...sigh EDIT: fuck ninja'd, also, "pesterfest"... does Ken read Homestuck? (please god no) LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 05:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Rob's worldview but I do admire the fact that he's trying to improve the situation at CP. Of course the irony is that many editors here were trying to instil some standards before they got blocked. (Yes, Rob, not everyone was trying to vandalize CP.) Unfortunately Ken is giving Rob a bitch-slapping and Andy is looking the other way. You have to wonder what the likes of JPatt and Karajou are making of this because so far they have been simpering wimps hiding in the corner. If either of them had some balls they'd make a stand either with Rob or against him. Unfortunately they only time they come on "hard" is when the user cannot respond on equal terms. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RobS--I believe this CP:IP block list is what you're looking for^img Jared (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to look through the "Blocked IP addresses and usernames" (special) pages to look for that block reason... and naturally triggered CP's idiotic anti-DoS measures because clicking a link every 10 seconds (page loads, I run fulltext search, I click the link for the next page) is an attack of a magnitude that CP can't handle. So I won't be able to connect to the site anymore for a few hours (or until I get a new IP). =| --Sid (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well-deserved applause to RobS for his current IP un-blocking spree! Jared (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get you guys who applaud improvements to Conservapedia. I mean, seriously, WTF? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's always entertaining to see somebody doing the right thing because it causes all the other sysops to double their efforts to do the wrong thing. That being said, here's a RC capture^img for the gallery. --Sid (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I like to see dysfunction on the site, but that requires two opposing sides. If all the sysops are in agreement on policy, it makes for a boring site. But with RobS actively trying to improve the site, and other sysops trying to actively pull it in their own direction---that makes for dramatic viewing. Jared (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...good reasons! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This whole Ken v. Rob showdown needs a WIGO. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CP's idea of HCM -- we do it better.

Let's face it, the kind of sparring that Rob and Ken are doing is bush league. If that were Human and Nx or me and <insert name here>, something like this would have sprawled over 12 talk pages, there would be edit conflicts every time you tried to make a post, and five 'crats would have left LANCB'd....they're so used to bullying, they have no idea how to fight. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I want to fight some one.--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They're amateurs, man. They're also really handicapped by the Christianity, 'cos the first one who blows their top and really lets the other know what they really think loses. It's just not healthy. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If CP allowed even minor swearing, it would automatically become a better fucking place LordSlug ^{誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平} 03:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What the balls, when do we ever war? I think the only thing I've ever put on your talk page even is a declaration that you are awesome.--^talk

hahaha come on AD! You have been around long enough not to full for that! Ace^{of Spades} 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOO goddamn! --^talk 03:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC) <======owned hard by template

To me, this Ken v. Rob thing is sort of an Upperclass Twit of the Year race. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Only even more retarded. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 03:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Rob is doing better^img: "All you've done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilites of people trying to contribute and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. " --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks Rob is getting angry LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, my respect for you has gone right back up^img nice job with your list of improvements. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It still amazes me that Rob is the only one that stands up to him though. It's needless to say that if he wasn't a sysop, he would have been banned a long time ago. But for some of the things that Ken says, such as TK burning in hell for "lying about his devotion to crationism", I'm really surprised Andy hasn't stepped in already.

Wow. This has been impressive to watch - especially now that it's escalated to the point of blocking. And still Andy looks the other way. Ah, to be a fly on the wall in in the Conservapedia Group... although, given the fact that everybody ignores Ken in the discussion rooms, it might not be helping him much there. It really does show just what a douche Ken is though - he's being asked (nicely at first) to amend his behaviour and is flatly refusing and throwing out insults left and right. I'm really impressed with Rob, especially this^img edit. It's just sad that Karajerk and Jratt aren't man enough to jump into the fray. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus I can't remember where, but I remember reading a comment by Andy on a talk page of one of his own essays. Some naive user was not sure whether he could correct something, but Andy encouraged him to anyway, stating that Essays are not personal property. So much for Ken's "Castle" policy... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 04:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's complete disregard for the shit slinging on his front lawn just shows what a spineless weed he is. Nate's posting on his talk page has gone completely unremarked although he could have hardly been unaware of it just because of those orange boxes - which is why Ken redirects people to a "messages" page rather than his talk page. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF did I do? Why am I being mentioned here? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's about the first line going "If that were Human and Nx...", you can relax. Take a closer look at the wiki text and you'll see that it's just a "YOUR NAME HERE" trick. --Sid (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have something else to add to my reasons not to type on the internet drunk list. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 21:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gets me every time. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir Rupert Murdoch

The proprietor of sex and scandal whose newspapers have admittedly hacked (and deleted) the voice mails of a murdered little girl, terrorist victims and world leaders, was "knighted" by the Catholic Church in 1998 (to a great outcry by Catholics). On both cp:Rupert_Murdoch (added by a parodist^img and cp:News Corporation (added by TK^img) they use the honorific "Sir" for Murdoch, even though there is no evidence that papal knights are entitled to use it, since it's a British honorific. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. WP doesn't use it in their article, and "Sir Rupert Murdoch" gets only < 25 000 Google hits, FWIW. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth the filthy digger can call himself anything he likes in the UK. As can you. The only offence is to try to impersonate for pecuniary gain or for fraudulent reasons. As David Lord Sutch was quite entitled to call himself Lord Sutch despite never having been enobled and Humphry Littleton was entitled to NOT use his title. If you try to con someone by calling yourself Sir then you are committing an offence but not until then. However cp is wrong as murdoch doesn't call himself sir either. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So, then, if I hop across the big pond, I could call myself "Lord Stooksbury", as long as I don't try to profit from it? MDB (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not entirely a free-for-all. You mustn't pretend to be a specific Lord Stooksbury who already exists. You can't use the fake name to avoid the law (e.g. to hide from a debt, or from police). You aren't to pretend to have various professional qualifications. And the law doesn't force other people to use your ridiculous name, nor does it care about the hilarious consequences when all your hotel reservations are deleted because they were presumed to be prank phone calls. But sure, be Lord Stooksbury if you like. You may even get a nicer seat on the plane. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Two things stuck out at me: 1) American conservatives typically disdain European nobility titles; and 2) they certainly make no mention of Sir Richard Dawkins. Murdoch isn't even Catholic. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but he is VERY rich which in some American's eyes allows him to get away with many otherwise unforgivable sins. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, if it was illegal I guess Count Basie, Duke Ellington and Nat King Cole might have been arrested when they visited the UK. I remember (one of those silly things that seems to lodge in the back of your mind) a guy many years ago who changed his first name by deedpoll to Lord so that his driving license said Lord Smith (or whatever), evidently he found it very useful whenever the police pulled him over. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What is quite astonishing however is the total ignoring of the shit storm surrounding murdoch and his corrupt business practices currently taking place in the UK and the US though. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right, which is how I discovered "Sir" Rupert - was to see how CP is [not] treating this horror. One thing is for certain: the years of liberals complaining about what a corrosive effect Murdoch and News Corp have had on journalism is now laid bare for all to see. And of course, conservatives don't see what they don't want to, even when a little murdered girl is involved. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I heard a few yelps from his down-under empire on Aussie radio today - they didn't like being tarred with the same brush. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eliot Spitzer: "Given the frequency with which he shuttled his senior executives and editors across the various oceans—Pacific as well as Atlantic—it is unlikely that the shoddy ethics were limited to Great Britain." --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Olbermann had a nice piece about his experiences with Murdoch and Fox last night on Countdown. Here. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 16:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I love Countdown! Doo doo do doo do doo, do doo do doo doo, duh-duh, duh-duh- d-d-d-du! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One from the top, and five from anywhere else, please.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RobS

He'll be lucky to get away with this.^img Aewtraqw (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that none of them bothers with anything that takes more than a few clicks, right? 00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of unblocked range IP's... LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 01:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want to count how many IP addresses that is? Definitely a big number. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IP blocks

• Conservapedia reached an important milestone in May 2011: for the first time in over two years, less than 2^24 (equivalent to a \8 block) were blocked! Congrats!
• Not only did blocks expire, but Andy himself unblocked a couple of ranges
• Andy even got rid of some of the idiotic indefinite blocks!
• Rob's efforts aren't that visible at this moment.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have thought of letting search count them earlier.

Unblocks by Rob

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65,536	32,768	16,384	8,192	4,096	2,048	1,024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
# of Ranges unblocked	98	1	5	9	0	4	15	1	77	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
# of IPs unblocked	6,422,528	32,768	81,920	73,728	0	8,192	15,360	512	19,712	0	64	0	16	0	0	0	1

That's a grand total of 6,654,807 IP's unblocked (assuming I did everything correctly). Good job, Rob! Seriously. Andy undid 14 /16 blocks earlier this month, so that's about another million. As LArron mentioned, back in May there were ~16.7 million IP's blocked. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He's unblocked a few more^img. There's 50 /16's, so at least another 3 million unblocked. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I said it before and I'll say it again: we don't give Rob enough credit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Conspiritacular!

Wow, TerryH really has gone over the edge^img. A friend of someone vaguely involved with "investigating" this operation fast and furious nonsense gets an illiterate death threat in the mail, and THE US GOVERNMENT POSSIBLY SENT IT! Not to mention the operation itself wasn't an effort to track down the people buying weapons rather than the disposable couriers just like they do with drugs trafficking, oh no! It was a plot to flood mexico with guns so the united nations can take away US guns. He's a fucking lunatic. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The guy is an idiot. Why bother reading it or linking to it? He gets paid per hit doesn't he. I'm not going to be throwing this guy any more pennies. --Marlow (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I added a capture so you won't feel so bad about reading his stupidity, but I'm not sure that he does get paid for conservativenewsandviews.com as it's his own blog - unless it's just advertising revenue. He definitely got paid per view on the Examiner site; I wonder why he left there? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok marlow,. we arent forcing you to click the link then. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Everytime I click a news link on CP and it takes me to TerryH's site, I feel like I've been had.

Nice choice of pictures, Terry. From the intro, you'd think the guy had gotten a death threat from the Founding Fathers. Röstigraben (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes! Not constitutional foreknowledge? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Coke Eyes, but death threats^img in the age of the Internet are pretty meaningless. I've received them myself. They aren't out of the ordinary anymore, so acting like it is a grave concern just makes you look silly and clawing for the victimization that conservatives are addicted to. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lamestream media licking their chops at a chance to attack Rupert Murdock's conservative media empire."

Has Schlafly ever seen The news of The World, or The Sun, how f'ing conservative is page 3? You're a market segment ASchlafly, nothing more. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.167.224 / talk / contribs}

It’s here too. I'm not Jesus (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course andy hasn't seen the sun or now. That would mean moving outside his intellectual culvert and experiencing something of the wide world. Not a chance. It was jonnyp that added the item though and I do wonder what jonny will say when it it shown that news international and news corp employees were involved in accessing phones of 9/11 relatives and victims. There have been rumours floating around in the UK for months now that they did, from moderately reliable sources as well. If and when it is shown they did I can't wait to see andy and jonny burn this item and replace it with an accusation that liberal british media did the hacking. TBH this has the chance to take news corp down imo. Prove 9/11 hacking and watch the advertisers desert news corp and fox. I can't wait. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hacking the phones of 9/11 families won't upset the Right. The party line, set nicely by Limbaugh, is that the 9/11 families are all sickening scumbags who Blame Bush ^TM and want bags of money in compensation. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. The 9/11 families disagree with how 9/11 is used politically. Those of us who lived through it in New York disagree with how it is used politically. But somehow the right thinks it owns 9/11. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that's been the claim of some right-wing commentators, but has Limbaugh himself ever used that argument? MDB (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Murdock", LOL. Go ahead Johnny, flaunt your illiteracy all over the MainPage (yet again). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he was thinking^img of another Murdock? --Sid (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, "thinking" and "Jpatt" aren't two words you often see in the same sentence, unless they are accompanied by "not". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see...Fox Television has Family Guy, The Simpsons and a lot of other television that conservatives dislike. News Corp newspapers print soft porn in Europe and salacious gossip everywhere else. But because they own Fox News, conservatives ignore all of that. It's true: it doesn't matter what a person/corporation does, as long as they say things conservatives want to hear. Example #2: Newt Gingrich. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Republican Peter King, primarily known for his ties to the Irish Republican Army and his Muslim fear-mongering, wants News Corp. investigated. So, now it's bipartisan. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Face the phacts, Englanders are more ga ga over U.S. antics than the other ways around. Example:Pippa. But neither here nor there, the Murdock drama is destined for nothingness in the scheme of things. Maybe Barack will boycott the Presidential debates on Fox, again. ST0pid Seditioner--76.205.73.125 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

“”Rupert Murdock (sic) and phone hacking Are you seriously implying that hacking into the phones of murdered children, grieving parents and victims of the 7/7 and 9/11 Islamicist attacks (not to mention various public figures) is anything other than an enormous scandal? News Corp found it sufficiently serious to close down one of the few newspapers in Britain that still made any money. There is cross-party revulsion at activities of these "journalists". Oh, and you spelt "Murdoch" wrongly. --Jdixon 14:26, 14 July 2011 (EDT) We have higher standards in the United States than in England for what qualifies as news.--Andy Schlafly 16:50, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

There is no interpretation of what Andy is trying to say that doesn't render him as a complete and utter shit. And for posterity- capturey type thingy, that might work^img-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jack - your friend Qaddafi is willing to blow up Tripoli

We all know Jack Martinez lurves Qaddafi with his constant MPR items decrying[1]^img[2]^img the rebels' atrocities. What does Jack Martinez never talk about? Qaddafi's war crimes, or how he's willing to blow up his own capital city. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of a weird position to take for someone from conservapedia. Basically the only world leaders that support Gadaffi are Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and alike. In Mexico he is also supported by the far left newspaper "La Jornada". --Tlaloc (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

JoMar's just a crude anti-imperialist, and thus pro anything that might be anti-imperialist. You can't just blindly support people that agree with you. They just might end up being sacks of shit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Is something wrong with my vision?...

Or do I really see Assfly unblocking /16 ranges? Aewtraqw (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Do try and keep up by reading previous posts on this page. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia on Facebook wigo

Im pretty sure that facebook site is not owned by Conservapedia

Datestamp--PsyGremlinTala! 06:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hand washing again

Wow! Cleaning dirty things was a sign that the Bible knew about germ theory.^img And he's back on the "hand washing isn't necessary" thing. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

All these "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" things and the equivalent Muslim screeds always amuse me. The amount of clutching at straws and creative reading they involve boggles the mind. You always end up wanting to slap the author a couple of times and ask, "this is why you believe? REALLY?" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What really boggles my mind is Andy's promotion of the idea that hand washing isn't necessary outside of a "farming and medical" context. Does Andy really not wash his hands after using the bathroom? --Marlow (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Lex Luthor doesn't... ;) --Sid (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Andy counts himself as livestock? Phiwum (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure people have laughed about this before but the physics stuff is fantastic.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how Jesus never said anything about washing your hands in a farm/medical context, yet Andy just presumes Jesus wants doctors to hand wash. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Andy also claims to be the person who knows what God wanted to say but couldn't because He hadn't had access to the Best New Conservative Words. So this is more or less par for the course. --Sid (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can Andy really be that out of touch with practical reality? I have held janitorial and culinary jobs, and as a teenager I worked a four-pump island at a busy filling station. Full service that was, checking oil and topping off fluids including the battery cells. That's where I became familiar with the distinctive appearance of the holes in cotton fabric that come from invisible splashes of sulfuric acid.

When I worked building maintenance, I kept a pair and a half of vinyl gloves in my back pocket in case I had to touch something really gross, but most of the time I worked bare-handed. There were over two hundred toilets in my building, and I got so I could change a wax ring in under fifteen minutes, even on days when I was "dehydrated." Yup, that's what it was, dehydrated.

None of those were in a farming or medical context, but you had better believe that I washed my hands before lunch.

Artistic contexts seem to be missing from the list as well. Flake white (white lead) is still used, although it has become hard to get. Somewhere I have a ziploc bag of gamboge, which in sufficient doses leads to fatal diarrhea. No need for hand-washing there, no sir. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quantum Jesus was clearly against hand washing. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So if you keep your eyes above collar-level, and no other observer is in the bathroom, it doesn't matter whether or not you wash after going? Sweet! Think of all the water we could save... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

God, Jesus and the Bible are more or less accessory to Andy's pet theories anyway. God could appear to Andy and tell him, "No, actually I suggest you DO wash your hands before eating", and Andy'd just tell God to open His mind and admit He is wrong, or lose all credibility. --Maquissar (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Omnipresent Man is watching you, even if you aren't. Cantabrigian (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to invite Andy to spend a morning working in my research lab in which, potentially infectious materials aside, half of our chemicals are corrosive, (very) carcinogenic, neurotoxic, or some combination (in other words, a typical molecular biology lab), to see if he still doesn't feel the need to wash up before lunch. Of course that would involve Andy handling lab equipment and toxic chemicals. Perhaps not. Kallium^talk 00:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How about stuffing him into the handiest time machine and plunking him into a coppersmith's shop in Galilee sometime during the Roman occupation? Fluxing and tinning, annealing, oh my. Elsewhere, tin miners in Cornwall were famous for handling their lunch pasties by the edge crust, and not eating the soiled part. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet, why doesn't he start ripping down those "Employees must wash hands" signs from restaurant bathrooms? Then he'll get all the fecal matter he wants! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacists as pillars of the community

Why does Ken think[3]^img that people think pharmacology is a valiant profession to a degree a parole board is willing to go easy on one for murdering a man? ("My guess is that his prior service to the community as a pharmacist...will be taken into account as far as sentencing and possibility of parole/probation."^img) I mean, it's not so bad but I hardly look at my Walgreen's pharmacist as a pillar of the community akin to the police, clergy or firemen. It's a job, Ken; it's not really a "calling". --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember: Ken has had a long relationship with his local pharmacist. It's the only thing that stops him talking to trees and dribbling on his keyboard as he tries to type. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Psy, are you sure about that? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of the dribbling, no. Also, he talks to, or via, Conservapedia. Talking to trees is several steps up from that. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Rob, who has some machismo, Ken is too timid to address critics directly. He can only talk out into the ether, and even then he burns what he writes. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the only way Ken would lose credibility with Andy is if Andy were to catch him banging Little Phy, whilst Big Phy did Ken from behind with a strap-on. Outside of that, Andy still happily believes that Ken brings page views to CP. Well, he does - but not for the reasons Andy thinks. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to that mental image, I shall be unable to sleep for the next three nights. MDB (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Or Andy Jnr., more like. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha! I was going to make the same joke but I thought my post was getting too unwieldy! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this ending well.

Iduan wants SYSOP rights.^img I didn't keep close track of him - did he suck up enough to be even remotely considered yet? --Sid (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If CP were anything resembling meritocracy, he'd be a great candidate. But it isn't, and he isn't enough of a suckup. --Benod (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If CP was anything resembling a meritocracy, he would've received at least edit rights years ago, yes. --Sid (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If CP was anything resembling a meritocracy, there'd be no CP anymore.--Talpidae (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If CP was anything resembling a meritocracy, most of the parodists that embarrassed Andy in the past wouldn't have happened. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 21:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (sweet, a bandwagon! *jump*)

If CP was anything resembling a meritocracy, funny fifth thing. BURNED, ANDY! Saladin^{Mostly Harmless.} 22:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we all know Iduan is a sock of Ace McWicked, then of course it isn't going to happen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ace is like Savoir-Faire, he esssss everywhere! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Aye, credit to Ace for the work he's put in with that sock. I couldn't be arsed with that much effort (assuming that Ace was telling the truth when he said he works alone with that account) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't he originally blocked/driven off because he kept asking for sysop rights? That's why he came back with all those weird parole conditions about asking TK to unlock templates when he wanted to work on them. I'll check the mails when Ace hands over control to me on Monday. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't someone access Iduan's account and post something from his school which Andy found offensive? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear things up: I ran into trouble in attempting to keep my real name - which at the time, being a minor in high school, I was uncomfortable sharing - secret. That's all I want to say on the matter.--Iduan (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In related news...

Jesus, but Andy's a dick^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody would recommend her to do a Ken. She'd cross the 500-mark in a matter of minutes. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 03:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

she seems to get the Iduan-2007(?)-treatment, which disappointed HelpJazz, too: I don't trust her, so let's invent some bogus loops through which she has to jump first. After this I can invent other reasons not to give her rights.... Conservapedia is a meritocracy (just ask cp:User:CollegeRepublican), rights are given as candy, not as medicine... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberal books, going extinct

I thought all books were liberal though^img?--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I never did understand Andy's reasoning behind his hatred of books. The only books that he seems to like are the Bible, Atlas Shrugged and that crap that Jerome spewed out. I wonder what his students' parents would think if they found out that he's so anti-book? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 00:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the guy has to politicize everything; and that if something is conservative, it is good and wholesome, and if its good and wholesome, it cannot fail, ergo Borders is liberal. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to fathom. Let's say 2/3rds of all books written are "liberal", or even 90%. What that evidences is a lack of conservative scholarship and publication (most thinking people know that's not the case). Do you guys remember back when conservatives were all fretting that liberals beat them to the Internet and thus dominating it? The YouTube Ken and ShockofGod love so much was once deemed liberal. Now conservative/liberal presence is pretty equal, but back when it wasn't that didn't mean the Internet was the problem, it was conservative resistance to keeping up with new technology, a perennial problem for people who resist change. Calling a neutral platform by which anyone can use it "liberal" because you see liberals use it is pretty stupid. He also has this problem with Facebook, and it just makes him (and CP) look incredibly behind the times. Not to mention just plain dumb. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But I'd give him some cred with Twitter, some of this stuff is hardly English anymore, that's why it looks dumb too people that doen't understand how languages evolve.

Why Andy hates books, except that special one: Book = Knownledge = Education → people start to think for themselves → more people become liberals, freethinkers, atheists a.s.o. → People think Andy is stupid as soon as they read his stuff → Little Andy feels small and powerless → Books make people not believe what Andy says + Andy is a conservative (= good) → Books are liberal.

It's easy if you start thinking like a five year old. --★uːʤɱ digital native 14:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...or like someone out of the 16th Century Catholic Church. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he just takes that "don't read a book, write a book" idea too far. I remember him espousing this idea ages ago, and he seems to think it means "literally don't do any research, just figure it out for yourself and write about it". X Stickman (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But going by his logic, won't the end product be liberal? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is becoming more like TK every day...

This lovely exchange^img nicely illustrates not just Ken being a vaguely threatening asshole (like TK), but also him not being able to read diffs properly (like TK): To compare, this^img was Bob's only contrib to that article.^img --Sid (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Being a CP sysop means never having to say "Oops, I made a mistake." --PsyGremlinHable! 08:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To fucking late you lying^img hypocritical self-abuser Ken

, we have the capturebot images to prove what a moron you are. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Another arrow in Rob's quiver. Do you hear footsteps behind you when you're walking in the dark, Ken? It's justice sneaking up on you. You're fucked. 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You think Andy's going to do something about him? Wanna bet? Assuming CP is still around year from now, or that he doesn't jump ship for another outlet, Ken will be behaving in the exact same manner. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Until the rest of the editors join Rob in stopping Ken from crapping all over their Wiki, he will run amok, harassing new editors. The pathetic people who were willing to tuck their tails between their legs just to be part of this turd pile would support whoever seemed to have the "power". Now that Rob is raising issues with Ken's menagerie, b/c it retards CP's influence, and is offensive, Andy might not do something but new editors probably will. Objectively, Ken's 'Fat' essays will piss a lot of new editors off and instantly make them dislike him. So, if Rob keeps it up, then Ken's days of doing whatever-the-fuck-he-wants are coming to a close. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"the rest of the editors." There is no "rest of the editors." Granted, there are a couple of deadenders like Iduan, but besides that, there's Andy on top, the sysops who are only interested in their own thing (Karajou, Ed, Terry, Jpatt, JoMar) and the parodists. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, having a chorus of people, including bonafides like Rob, raising these issues might have an effect. If Rob is successful they will have more editors, they just won't keep them because Ken's work even insults conservatives. Rob has too big of a task on his plate. 1) to open the site back up to contributors (when that's not what Ken and Karajou want); and 2) to improve the quality of the content (which will not happen with Schlafly at the top). It will be fun to watch Rob's failure to reform an un-reformable mess. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Regular editors don't mean a thing. No one listens to them if they say anything the sysops don't like, they just get banned. Andy certainly won't be swayed by "the masses". Andy's support is the key to who wins this thing. Rob could bring over Karajou, JPatt, Ed Poor etc... to his side against Ken, but if Andy's on Ken's side, or if Andy just plain won't intervene, they've already lost. As for regular editors, Rob could have millions of people sign up and disagree with Ken. Ken would simply claim some kind of atheist conspiracy, and ban everyone. X Stickman (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that Kara, Jpatt, Ed, etc. are unlikely to join Rob in the first place. They may agree that Ken is the biggest idiot on the planet, but they don't want any limits to their power, and Rob is aiming for freaking sysop accountability. If anybody doubts me, just go on and check the Conservaleaks. PJR tried the exact same thing (at the time, Bugler was the prime offender) and was pretty much thrown out of the group for it. --Sid (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are different reasons why the sysops cherish their status. Ken likes it because he can spout his drivel and protect it from being edited and prevent comments on the talk pages - it's a soapbox with no hecklers. If someone does manage to get through, say to Andy's talk page then he can block and burn to his heart's content without any comebacks. For Karajou, JPratt, and Ed it gives them some petty status where they can vent their anger on junior editors that's why they will generally keep quiet when there are issues of standards and general integrity because they won't do anything that might jeopardise their privileges, otherwise they would have gone the way of PJR, DanH and TimS, to say nothing of the feisty homeschool gals. Bethany showed more integrity and balls than the all male sysops together. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

NASCAR

Those beer-swilling, big-bellied yahoos who get excited by cars driving in a circle are good, because they vote GOP.^img Give it up liberals - rednecks support the GOP and beauty queens support creationism. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a "goal" of 52 cards? ^{ONE / TALK} 10:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

NASCAR. Eh. If I wanted to see brightly colored objects go round and round, I'll flush a bag of Skittles.

For what it's worth, I have an aunt and uncle who are definitely NASCAR Republicans. Hard core right-wingers and big NASCAR fans. MDB (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the reason for the 52 card goal is that there are 52 cards in a standard deck of playing cards. And otherwise, Andy wouldn't be playing with with a full deck. MDB (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the Jokers are already built into the concept…
Just point at the authors and laugh.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey remember when... (post your favourite CP moments)

...a parodist bullshitted up a "liberal detection robot" and Andy fell for it hook line and sinker? Good times. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My favorite is still "no humor before Jesus". MDB (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, remember when parodists goaded Andy into sending a second Lenski letter, even though at that point most of the sysops were facepalming and begging him to stop? Memories... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's "homoschooling". The biggest Freudian slip, ever, on CP. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Obama has to be a Muslim because he doesn't dance. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember Jpatt getting blocked (for a few days) for saying that DeanS was a "loser for life." That was back in the day when he occasionally let his parodist mask slip. And Bugler telling PJR to take the honourable way out, with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver. And getting away with it. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was great^img:

"In view of your treasonable remarks, your time to depart has come. I advocate the merciful option, the equivalent of the bottle of whisky and the service revolver, in recognition of your past service in debunking Evolutionism. Better that than being publicly stripped of adminship and blocked. But, after what you have said, go you must. "

--Night Jaguar (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Quantifying Order" and the KSorenson saga. Might also count as the beginning of his obsession with Relativity, at least it was the first time I'd heard him sound off on the topic. Anyway, this arguably rivals the Lenski affair as the most comprehensive ass-kicking he's received at the hands of those evil experts. Röstigraben (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I'd never seen Quantifying Order before. There is no study that Andy can't revolutionize! That's totally wicked awesome. Phiwum (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of KSorensen: If promoting black holes caused people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?^img --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Why the big push for black holes by liberals?"^img" IIRC, that one even earned him a spot in the FSTDT top 100. Röstigraben (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it did. Actually, he has three quotes there (search for 'Schlafly'). More than anybody else. He also won the 2009 Fundie of the Year with 94.8% of the vote. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of my favorites have been hit... What about "Zero mental problems!" Occasionaluse (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And of course his classic defensive weapon of gun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy implying that the universe couldn't be anymore than 12,000 light years across. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"We have the perfect number of teeth to fit our mouths" -"What about wisdom teeth?" -"There is no such thing". This was the very first WIGO I saw that made me go WTF. I had never seen such blatant disregard for reality in my life before, so it stuck with me. Danoso (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, it was Jinx who came up with that gem. And he was hardly the sharpest fork in the knife drawer. Knew a lot about penis bones though. --PsyGremlinSermā! 19:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

My favorite: Who won the Great War?^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 18:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims doesn't get nearly enough love around here. The talk page in particular is hilarious as Andy shows his total ignorance of statistics and the scientific method in attempting to justify his theory that "Hollywood types" (an undefined group it seems) are more likely to get breast cancer than regular people. --Damo^Hi 19:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Related": Young Mass Murderers^img - the list includes Amy Bishop (age 40+) and Asa Coon (killed only himself), though the nuttiness runs deeper than just those two examples. --Sid (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really haha funny, but I think Andy adding the reference: "Dinner conversation between the late Chief Justice Warren Burger and Andrew Schlafly in late 1991." is one of my favorites. Especially because Justice Burger died in the mid 90's, meaning no one could possibly refute the point. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

All the good stuff has been brought up, but Ken's 90-day break is what finally convinced me he was mentally ill. also, while not really a "favorite," the way that CP dealt with TK's death, as compared to how we paid our respects for Susan, pointed out how cold those "Christians" are. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Movies (mostly his irrational hatred of Tom Hanks), and the application for whatever educational standard he applied for, which truly showed the levels of both paranoia and unreality he had sank to by that point. UPDATE:And purely selfishly, the conversation where he was insisting that Conservapedia 'vandals' could be prosecuted and the moment a couple of other users, PJR and myself called him on it, he pulled a classic Schlafyism and legged it from the conversation faster than the Roadrunner goes 'Meep' .-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, three words: "Paging Doctor Babyshakes." P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 23:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The word on the street is, TK's burning in hell. And I just now started cleaing up the mess he left. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, a bit boring but I really liked: When CP reappeared after having been DDOSed off the face of the internet for several days (along with many other sites), a (assuming) good faith editor asked Andy if there'd been any problems with the site recently, only for the Assfly to respond along the lines of "no, there's been no problems here at all. We've been up and online perfectly, I don't know what you're talking about." Maybe he really does live in an alternate reality? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, autumn foliage is beautiful. Best moment in CP history. Ace^{of Spades} 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I loved when the flying kitty made the main page and actually stayed there for about a day (aka, when CP finally "flew the kitty"). --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Double Standard at play

Ah wonderful! In Karajerk's world, calling Ken out on his non-apology^img is an insulting personal comment worthy of blocking until the entropy death of the universe.

Also, I love how Tracy's account goes from being blocked for "one individual, multiple accounts; Joe's Data Center, Kansas City, MO" on the 13th to "Multiple sock accounts, South African, Canadian proxies," (as well as 3 other editors) on the 15th. And yet Kajagoogoo will insist his blocks are legit. --PsyGremlinTala! 14:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love how Ken comes scurrying out of his hole^img as soon as she's blocked. The machismo is indeed strong in this one. Röstigraben (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And Ken covers his scrawny ass - blocking BobSherman after the fact. Conservapedia, where you get punished for the sysops' fuck ups. Ken is just overflowing with machismo at the moment. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that Kendoll has bested Rob, he's pretty much free to do whatever he wants secure in the knowledge that there won't be any consequences. Meanwhile poor old Rob is left crying over the broken remains of his community portal. Just quit Rob, put yourself out of your misery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is undoubtedly right about him being a parodist, however. There are, after all, three types of editors at CP: sysops, parodists, and the soon to be blocked. DickTurpis (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that Ken

has Karajou essentially on his side, Rob's hopes of reforming CP is basically sunk, unless somehow he manages the impossible and wins Andy to his side.  Otherwise CP will continue to sink into the farthest fringes of the Internet, with all pretenses of being seriously considered even by fellow Christian conservatives gone.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rob cares if he is part of CP or not, so his crusade against crap will probably mean he will replace Moonie Ed as the oddball sysop. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that he doesn't care about the project itself. After all, this is hardly the first time Rob is trying to work on his image as a great negotiator. From the Conservaleaks post where he tried to use TK and Geo as his meatpuppets to manipulate an AfD outcome: "This gains brownie points and recognition as an editor who solves problems, builds consensus, gets people to get along, not disruptive, an asset to the project, etc etc. [...] Someone has to show leadership on the page to build consensus. When that's done, I carry that momentum with the respect gained from neutral voices to talk/Conservapedia" --Sid (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there's one side that matters on CP, if you're a sysop - being in Andy's good books. Since Andy (and Kara by default) have embraced Ken's 'Atheists are fat! Hur hur!' meme, there's no way they would risk earning Andy's displeasure by turning on Ken. They all openly dislike the man, but they fear losing Andy's race far more, because let's face it - CP is the only place they'll ever have anything approaching authority. Compared to that lot, Rob's balls are pure brass and 10 feet wide. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid, you left out, "I need to convince (Trent) he needs to moderate RW's content and assert some control of RW trolls." I wouild say I have essentially done that. Want diffs? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Go Rob!

Rob pokes Karajou with a big stick^img This could be fun. --PsyGremlin講話 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Always nice to see one sysop advising another sysop to bait a user into violating a non-existent rule (unless I missed the part where CP introduced 3RR?) in order to have a block justification. Yes, Rob is indeed fighting the good fight! --Sid (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Not WIGOworthy, but boy, they're dumb.

I was just reading the ClimateGate "article" over at CP, and noticed that they can't seem to spell right in the captions. I expect horrific spelling in the main text, since they are functionally illiterate and dopey, but one would think that a caption would get a little more of a review. Zeus! Thay am bozzos! Jimaginator (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides Andy, Jpatt is their biggest climate fundie, so the atrocious (that means really bad, JP) language skills are probably his. --PsyGremlinSermā! 20:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!!

Yayz!

FOUR! MORE! YEARS! YEAH, BABY!

...what do you mean with "WTF are you talking about, Sid?"?

It's my anniversary, you silly people! Not my "I joined RW" anniversary, not my "I joined CP" anniversary... but much rather the fourth anniversary of my current, infinite ban on CP! =D

• 15:20, 13 July 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite ‎
• 15:12, 13 July 2007 RobSmith (Talk | contribs) unblocked Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (need discussion in Sysop area or Andy's talk page)
• 15:05, 13 July 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite ‎ (Sid was on probation, Andy will render final decision once again. All actions frozen until then. Sysops are forbidden to undo each others blocks, unless Andy approves.)
• 14:59, 13 July 2007 RobSmith (Talk | contribs) unblocked Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) ‎ (lack of transparancy)
• 14:20, 13 July 2007 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite ‎ (Sorry your trolling and working one sysop against the other has failed.)

Oh yeah, that's me, bitches!

So what was the ban reason? What horrible feat did I do to deserve this? Well, the thing is that this thing came straight out of nowhere. One moment I was giggling at Ed's 2-hour block for sarcasm (don't ask), the next moment TK extends the block to infinity for, well, the above "reason". Of course I asked around by mail to see WTF was up.

Here's Ed's reply:

Bottom line is, if you want to post on our web site, you have to gain TK's approval.

Any sysop can block your account - and we do not have to give a reason.

I gave you a second chance, and you wasted it.

If you want a 3rd chance, think about what you would do with it, and submit a written plan: Which articles do you intend to improve or start? I can let you in, on probation, if you will submit a writing plan (and promise to stick to it).

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense. OH WAIT, IT DOESN'T. Yeah, thanks for the generous offer of submitting myself to parole and a writing plan when the ban made no sense. =|

TK's reply somehow managed to make less sense than Ed's, though:

We do not tolerate editors, such as you were, providing links to material, which seeks to embarrass or undermine other administrators. Supposedly your purpose in wanting back was to make quality edits, not play internal politics, and the exchange below, unless you are in your pre-teens and totally ignorant of the world, belies your claim to not be engaged in helping play one sysop against another.

The section in question? It was my last exchange on my talk page:

[quote]

==Information destruction==

Sid, I admire your vigilance on information destruction. Please alert me if you encounter anything to be concerned about. Thanks. RobS 13:45, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not 100% certain what exactly caused you to make the comment, but sure thing, glad I could help... :) --Sid 3050 13:56, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm referring to this [6] and this [7] for example, and some of the similiar problems you encountered in RW. RobS 14:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, those things! Yeah. Good times, good times. :P Thanks for the offer, I'll keep it in mind. :) --Sid 3050 14:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

[/quote]

Yes, my "working one sysop against the other" and "providing links to material" was in fact Rob starting a conversation and Rob giving links. And I was banned for it. Somehow. Ladies and gentlemen, TK at his finest!

TK's mail goes on and on, but it's mindless banter about how this wasn't just his decision and how Andy and the others were informed and how he already had to look away several times and how he and Ed were my only hope and how he'd reconsider if I forwarded to him all mails by Kevin (the guy who early on alerted us of TK's community-destroying habits), blah blah blah.

The best part? While this was the most openly abusive ban (of me), it wasn't the dumbest. That award goes to Karajou for his involvement in the Bible Ban Chronicles. Hilariously, this is how I survived the Night of the Blunt Knives: I had already been permabanned, and Ed experimentally unblocked me months later (made somewhat easier since I wasn't involved in TK's mass banning)... two days before this round of permabans. Good times, good times. XD --Sid (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy anniversary! I missed by 2-year anni by a month - thanks for reminding me. However, you fail in looking for logic where a TK block was concerned. The only thing you need to know is "I was yet another helpless pawn is TK's successful plot to screw Conservapedia over." --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And it was less to look for logic (though I was admittedly going "Dude, now what?" at the time since I was just settling in again after months of being banned for something truly stupid) and more to see the pathetic justifications, especially by Ed "I'm a good friend of the guy who tries to destroy the site I want to see succeed!" Poor. Needless to say, with TK's "I banned you because you're in my way, and nobody will help you!" and Ed's "LOL I dunno derp", it was a pretty easy for me to say "GOOD RIDDANCE!" --Sid (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Merry Anniversary. I'm glad you got over the block so well Cid. You still have to get approval from TK before being let back in. --76.205.73.125 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, JPratt, going for the anger bear title yourself? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that was pretty funny. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here, actually. =P --Sid (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sid, I hope my bona fidas has been vindicated in all of this. Do img's exist to the two broken links? Whatever it was, it was important enough that I (a) spent time on it, and (b) undid another's block, 3 times. I'm sorry for never following through on it, but your case just got swept away in the tide of events.

Let me add, I hope it's obvious now I'm not forcing the issue of CP accountability just gain votes in Mod elections, and my integrity is intact. Thanks to all. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, the problem with you isn't primarily in what you did, but in what you didn't do. This applies both to the past and the present.

Four years ago, you happened to be directly involved in a picture perfect abuse case to be made against TK, yet you let it slip past. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not mad, and I wasn't mad back then because by that time, RW2 was merrily doing its thing, and I mostly just sought my unban (the one before TK threw the above fit) out of principle. But yeah, TK blatantly abused his power, Ed was made aware of this and openly looked away, and you... kinda let it go.

And now, we're (more or less) all cheering you on because you're trying to do the right thing, but seriously, it's likely too little, too late. You lost powerful allies when DanH, TimS and PJR left in disgust. Especially the latter would have supported your current quest to hold sysops accountable. Look at the Conservaleaks and watch him propose pretty much exactly that. And look at the reactions of your current fellow sysops.

So... yeah. I wish you well, I don't hate you (though to be fair, you're also not the saint you would like us to believe in), and I support your current quest, but you badly missed your window of opportunity. Good luck. --Sid (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CP:Timeline doesn't help much [8], it references "fighting between RobS and TK continues at a riotous rate" 10 days earlier; Conservaleaks for July 13 gives TK's misinformation [9]; this was still at the time TK was trying to "trying to frame Rob S" leaks. See here, for eaxmple, "Take a look at the now deleted talk page of Sid3050, and it appears clearer than ever to me Rob was involved with the Kevin Conley emails", TK still trying to defend himself after the Kenvin Conley letter. There's more of a narative here to be written, but I've stood for transparency, resent backdoor dealings such as I've suffered at the hands of the Wikipedia cabal and TK's IM's. TK complains here, "Rob is posting this stuff publicly, and often." So I have an record to stand on. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet after fours years I'm still banned forever (without valid reason and despite never socking and never vandalizing) while actual vandals just get five years, or even just six months^img (reduced to that from infinite by you). Your record currently is that you're more welcoming of obvious wiki vandals than of people who genuinely tried to help and opposed sysop abuse. Nice. ;) --Sid (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your post^img about the infinite bans being under review. While I still find the situation weird and amusing, I guess I can afford to lean back and await the outcome. =P Go ahead, please surprise me. --Sid (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to restore the broken links above but TK's 4700 deleted talk page comments may be unrecoverable. So it's been reverted to this version with an apology. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've actually developed a certain respect for this Rob fella over the course of the past few days. Mountain Blue (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So Rob has a history of fighting the good fight. Not bad at all. Anyways, that's enough of kissing Rob's butt for tonight.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Eating garbage is conservative

Andy added 'dumpster diving' "Searching through dumpsters for food or other material that can used rather than discarded"^img to his steaming "conservative" word pile. I would have been reluctant to go near him before but with this, and the whole don't-wash-your-hands thing, I think he might be actually be a biohazard. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no words. In what possible context can dumpster diving be conservative, except as a spin off of the Reagan and Bush era financial crashes? Just when I think Andy couldn't get any loopier. Who's got a sock - I can wait to hear his rationale for this one. --PsyGremlinParlez! 3:06 pm, Today (UTC+2)

I think he's claiming the term is conservative, not the act, since in his citation, it was used as a disparaging reference to the homeless looking for food. MDB (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's a conservative value to make fun of the homeless then. Sounds like typical Andy. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy's a bad writer. His point isn't always clear. I thought he might have been using it against homeless too, but with his whole don't-wash-your-hands thing, the "can used rather than discarded" and that he was written "greasy spoon" is conservative^img made me think otherwise. If he later says its the word and not the act that is conservative, I'll change the WIGO.

My guess is that in the Schlafly household cleaning was deemed women's work. Since Phyllis was out of the home all the time telling women they should be in the home all the time, shit didn't get done. Since anything from Andy's world is conservative, being filthy is obviously conservative. I think that's what's really behind this whole anti-cleanliness thing of his. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dumpster diving is the conservative social security. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was conservative social security. MDB (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure it's not conservative, it's about not wasting things and proper energy use - and of course these homeless people should just get a job instead of making the socialist appeal for some money. --★uːʤɱ digital native 13:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

About a year ago, Rush Limbaugh actually suggested dumpster diving as an alternative for Summer Food Service programs for children out of school. --Night Jaguar (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought for the wingnuts like andy dumpster diving was theft. Certainly in the UK many prominent conservatives say that divers should be prosecuted as just because you've thrown something out does not transfer ownership to whoever picks it up (in fact it transfers ownership to the refuse collector or agency). So now andy is sanctioning theft. Way to go andy, we'll have you shouting 'all property is theft' yet before you die. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no no no. The Supreme Court ruled, I believe in Kissinger v New York Times that "trash is there for the taking", and once disposed of, the former owner rescinds all property claims. At best, you may get a criminal trespass charge to stick. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Rob, so different from the UK then. In the UK you can be charged with theft from supermarkets dumpsters and the like. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My brother got my TV from a dumpster. He's no Conservative--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

JPratt interprets the dear leader's visions for the masses^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

oh wow - pure Andy crazy in defending the term: "Some guy who works in an industry I perceive to be conservative coined the term, thus it's a conservative insight."^img --PsyGremlinParla! 21:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jpatt is spot on; some people do it out of desperation, some people do it for freebies, and some people do it to steal information. Though I don't feel sorry for people that have their information stolen out of a trash can or dumpster; it wouldn't have happened to them if they hadn't insisted on using a socialist landfill to get rid of what they were done with. Anyone in this day in age that is stupid enough to get rid of sensitive material the socialist way deserve to have their ID stolen. DMorris2 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Shorter DMorris. "If something bad happens to you, it's your own damn fault, and don't come bitching to me." Is this What Jesus Would Do? This is your idea of living life in a Christ-like manner, D? P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what Andy means by "conserative words" is morelike "normal people's words", vs crazy libs and politically correct terminolgy. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

So political correctness has been decreasing over time? (relatively speaking) Eyeonicr (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

People are getting dumber as they get more conservative over tome. look at Rob, for example. Deny this and lose all credibility. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Creepy Ed is creepy

Why is Ed, who basically does nothing at CP these days but liveblog teen movies he's watching, suddenly concerned about editorial standards on the Madonna article? I can only assume he was attracted by the word "lolita." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Because she started to mess around with Kabbalah, a sign that this fallen woman is starting to see the spiritual light. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Started to mess around with it? Don't you mean...stopped? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 18:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Gravitation Demystified"

It's metastasized.^img P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, cancers spread wherever they can possibly manage to get a foothold. I personally look forward to seeing the creationists debating against someone who calls mainstream scientists "crypto-creationists". Of course, they're tolerating other metastasized tumors from across the intarwebs... cranks will settle down wherever they can, I suppose. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What do we burn apart from witches?

Kendoll is on the hunt for heretics^img. "Now DeanS is gone, nobody will object to me calling Mormons evil heretics who will writhe in the pit of fire!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn you for getting to it before me. My take was: "Now that Crocoite (sp?) has left, let's stop pretending, and crap all over a religion we disagree with!" P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Explains why Ed keeps putting his 2 cents in. Pippa (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Even Christians think mormons are batshit. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed... Kendoll is doing some necromancy of his own^img, talking to the long dead. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Typical Ken. He has so much ma-cheese-mo that he jumps in only when Dean is long gone. It's worth noting that when Dean brought up the issue with Ultimahero in TZB, Ken was nowhere to be seen. Of course, neither was Andy. Although I do seem to remember Andy coming down on Dean's side. So now Ken is openly challenging Andy. Interesting. Ken! Ken! Don't forget the evil Moonies! Or will you have to wait for Ed to leave before you have the balls to do that? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A while back Ken was linking to a bunch of different anti-atheism blogs which were all written by one guy named Mariano or something (why one guy would have many different blogs all covering the same topic is beyond me, but this guy was probably about as mentally stable as Ken). Anyway, those blogs also had prominent links to other blogs of his which were decidedly anti-Mormon. I mentioned to Dean than the main page was featuring prominent links to a guy who was spouting pretty strong anti-Mormonism, but he didn't really seem to care. It's odd how it's taken 4 years for anyone to stand up to Ken. DickTurpis (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, where is Ken with the Moonies, or he is too scared of creepy Ed Poor? I like that Ken uses the Lutheran Missouri Synod, which considers the Catholic papacy to be the Antichrist. Indeed, the church Michele Bachmann attended also believes that, and yet Andy is Catholic and continually trumpets her. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't that odd, most Christian denominations actually don't see Mormons as "fellow Christians". As for the Papacy as "the Antichrist", that isn't too uncommon either. Fundamentalist Baptists almost universally see the Papacy this way and Calvinists, although they usually don't go that far, see the institution as evil as well. This isn't that uncommon in Protestantism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff! The only thing better than seeing religionists go at each other is seeing christians go at each other! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But interestingly enough, while he's hatin' on the Mormons, he's also cosying up^img to that weirdo who has created his own bullshit religion and written his own Bible. If you haven't read Maratrean's Bible, you really should. It's almost timecube level crazy. Mormons are way more Christian that that guy, it seems oddly inconsistent. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is my "Bible" of which you speak. How is it "almost timecube level crazy"? Are Mormons Christian? Am I Christian? What is "Christian"? That is an interesting question, which does not have a straightforward answer. That old saying, two Jews, three opinions - well, I would say the same if you asked Christians to define who is and who is not a Christian. As to Conservative and myself, we disagree about very many things, but I look for common ground, and a shared interest in refuting atheism is my common ground with Conservative, so I focus on that area, and put aside other areas on which our opinions greatly differ. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I see Ken has already drastically expanded his wish list^img, so you've got your work cut out for you. You'll love working with Ken, he's a very creative and reasonable individual, and an expert at getting positive media coverage. Say, could you possibly introduce him to Jim as well? Conservapedia definitely needs an anti-Big-Bang project. Röstigraben (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)