Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive247

This is an archive page, last updated 23 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>, <246>, <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)

Recognizing the Libya rebels is a Muslim Agenda

Damn that Sekret Atheist Muslim Obama and his recognizing the group we are "helping" as the legitimate government!^img --Mikalos209 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The funniest item in that insane list is Obama's killing of Bin Laden is a sign of his Muslim agenda. Oh and "Obama heaps the praises of the Al-Jazeera as the emir of Qatar who owns the news channel visited the White House" Heaps the praises? Seriously, Jpatt, if you're going to write mainspace articles for an encyclopaedia, at least make sure they're in English. --PsyGremlinTal! 20:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is just an attempt to associate Obama with the word Muslim as much as possible.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course killing bin Laden is evidence for Obamas Muslim agenda. Isn't it self-evident? They are fighting over the power position in the radical Muslim movement. The same thing happend with Hitler and Stalin within the socialist movement and even before that with Stalin and Trotsky. bin Ladens way was open fighting, Obamas way is much sneekier - much more liberal - the slow islamification of the Western World. Geez, people it's easy.

Oh, a little bit off topic, does anybody know why explanations you pull out of your ass are shit? Oh, wait that's also self-evident… --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's secret/Simple plan to increase traffic

Not only does it not involve Machismo, Obesity in Atheists, or how atheism is for clowns...^img but it will Quadruple conservapedia traffic! ... but wasn't it already going up at a increasing rate as people fled books, TV, newspapers, The Bible, and the internet for CP?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And like all of Kendoll's other plans, they exist solely in his mind. I wonder how operation grass roots is coming along these days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I see there's a handy caveat involved: I have to implement some things first. Yeah, like that's ever happened. Hey Ken, how's Operation Flying Fortress going? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Only ally he has is that doofus equivalent of a mall cop who makes Youtube videos on his helmet cam over in California. That isn't saying much.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, who? Phiwum (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckofGawd. --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How I missed the Poor Stubs

Destroying the family^img User188's approach to building an encyclopaedia: see a phrase, make an article, hope that the non-existent masses will come along and improve it. Rinse. Repeat. --PsyGremlinParla! 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That tweet "article" is really amazing. Reminds me of my all-time favorite Karajou post:

One side wants family values, the other wants to shove in the family's face sex, drugs, and aborted babies. One side wants to go to church to worship the Lord, the other wants to go to the church to burn it down.

And just wait. Any day now, the high-profile conservatives will join the site to contribute their material. Yep, aaaaany day now! --Sid (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

“”From 2001 to 2004, I would just create a stub and watch with joy as others jumped in and did 90% of the work. I started about 1,100 articles that way (which still exist). But nowadays, people want to see much more work done before the initial submission.

—Ed Poor

Ken^img: "Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time." --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberals want to burn down churches; conservatives settle for shooting everyone. Doppelheuer (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"One side wants to go to church to worship the Lord, the other wants to go to the church to burn it down. " taking the second part as a metaphor, that actually works quite well… --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

How so? I wasn't under the impression that liberalism was fundamentally allied with evangelical atheism. Phiwum (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noted that I don't mean liberalism but atheism (especially the American, slightly more pain in the ass version). --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

From Sid's link: Kara quotes Alinsky's "rules" If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do. Come on Andy shows us those record unique visitor stats otherwise we must regard you as a liberal radical. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. Bloody Ed Poor, if you're going to add a reference then at least put in a references section. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This week's sweepstake

How long do you reckon Andy can ignore Iduan's request for sysopship? "Infinitely", while the most likely answer, is reserved. I don't think I've ever seen any quite as good at aggressively ignoring matters as Andy is. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

He'll likely ignore it completely until the next "Uh... Andy...? About those rights...?" post (or the one after that if he feels extra dick-ish). Then comes the first line of defense: "Conservapedia is a meritocracy, and these rights have to be earned. Rob's support helps, and I will review your edits." Days after that, Iduan will have to ask again, and Andy will make up some bullcrap about having reviewed the edits and finding them not quite up to par or something. Maybe there was a "bizarre" edit, maybe Iduan didn't explain his absence sufficiently, maybe mysteriously unnamed other sysops have expressed doubts about sincerity, etc. --Sid (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It will be irrelevant, as Ken will soon build up the machismo to "archive" the Assfly's talkpage. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine there is concern among the sysops over Iduan's contribution here at RW - we all know how that's turned out for them in the past. Iduan could be a deep-cover parodist. All evidence that he is genuine is also evidence that he's a deep-cover parodist. CP's paranoia will ensure he never becomes a sysop, which is just as well - he's too reasonable and measured to fit in with the rest of them anyway. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken vs Bob Sherman

So is Ken being sincere or sarcastic^img to poor Bob Sherman in his "Thanks"? Socal212 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's not sincere you big silly goose. What about it made you think it was sincere?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well hopefully Bob Sherman's inadvertent creation of CP's atheism-whatever project will ease Ken's distrust of him. I'm just hoping he lays off of him for a while (not that that'll really happen). He gets on Bob's ass about everything and it's preventing him from... being a productive member of Conservapedia. Socal212 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I wish I hadn't made those comments about being BobSherman after he was blocked. I never thought I'd get unblocked. Might as well go out with a bang before I'm finally blocked for good though. Keep an eye on recentchanges when the nightly editing lockdown lifts. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation to you, 98% of editors are blocked regardless of what they do or say. It's the nature of the beast. 14:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually the block was only for a day. That was the second he's come back from and he's still alive for now... Socal212^{I can't find my talk page} 23:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Heatwave? WHAT Heatwave?

It was a little cooler in Orange County^img therefor, Global warming is False. Obviously the eastern Half of the country does not exist at all ^{— Unsigned, by: Mikalos209 / talk / contribs}

Alternate Andy: "It's cold in summer instead of hot, so the climate is changing. Therefore, climate change isn't happening! ...wait, what?" Though yeah, Andy treats "Global Warming" as if it says "Every inch of the planet is constantly getting hotter all the time." --Sid (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

He's desperate, looking for any instance of cooler weather to make up for the heatwave NJ had last week and the heatwave we're going to have this week. Even so, that's not how it works. WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE, MORON. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Weather is not climate." That's beyond the ken of many deniers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Blah blah Ken blah featured essay blah trolling blah

• JanW, SamHB, Custer, some bloke who made a sock after being blocked: "Ken, WTF, we're trying to improve this site, and then comes your barely comprehensible garbage as FEATURED ESSAY on the main page?"^img
• Ken: "Trololol..."^img

I love this. Ken is so beyond giving a fuck about what people think of the site, and only one sysop is even trying to do anything. --Sid (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't take long^img for the parodists^img to come out^img defending Ken's "work". The sincere editors really don't stand a chance. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Park Chung-hee, war hero

Well, I'm not really amazed that nobody spoted this one while I was locked into a cage had to study: Park Chung-hee, the ruthless, violent and paranoia spreading anit-communist dictator of South Korea from 1962 until he was assassinated in 1979, is a "war hero" for CP^img. Yeah, you're probably not lol'ing right now but I did. Park served in two wars, the second is the Korean War in which he was a logistics expert - that means he was sitting in an office telling people where and when to fly things. The first one was WW2 and no he wasn't a freedom fighter against the Japanese, the fuckhead was with the Japanese and a life long Korean fanboy of the Japanese (of course that's not good publicity, so it's a silent matter). So war hero? Yeah, on the wrong side, you idiots - next war hero to be added? Osama Bin Laden? Erwin Rommel? Let's see. Bonus 1: Park is the only one in that category.^img Bonus 2: Park had something in common with Reagon, Park was commie too once. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Added by a parodist. What isn't these days. Nothing to see here. We'll await Uncle Smeg Ed's arrival. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason too assume Discocampo is parodist. Also a parodist will probably go for bigger bullshit. --★uːʤɱ pervert 16:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"I see no reason too assume Discocampo is parodist" - he's editing CP isn't he? </snark off> --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to get riled up about the nuance of Park Chung-hee. Most people are too unfamiliar with his South Korean record to care. Although I find the creation of this category amusing - how many Korean war heroes does CP plan to write about? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Erwin Rommel was probably the most decent and moral human being in the German Army in WW2. Lets not slander the name of one of the few honourable prominent Germans in the period by comparing him to the guttertrash like Osama and Park. -- Mr. unregistered IP address 17:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is honourable about defending fascism and winning time for a regime to continue with the Holocaust etc. etc. etc? Auld Nick (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can have good guys on the wrong side. What is honourable is trying to make an ugly war just a little bit more humane by not deporting Jews to the camps, not killing civilians intentionally in theatres under his command, not shooting all Commandos on sight and treating the enemy with respect. In the words of Churchill: "He also deserves our respect because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life. In the sombre wars of modern democracy, chivalry finds no place ... Still, I do not regret or retract the tribute I paid to Rommel, unfashionable though it was judged" -- Mr. unregistered IP address 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rommell was a professional soldier. People, myself included, may not like the cause he fought for but he was a professional and not a conscript. He did not torture nor mistreat pow's, he did not commit attrocities (that I know of) and he faught a 'clean' campaign in as much as you can. He was on a shit side.

Lynndie England was a professional soldier. She took part in humiliation of prisoners and torture. She did so to please the person she was at that time fucking. She was on 'our' side in fighting (albeit in an illegal war) against a rather nasty man.

I have to say I know which one of them I consider to have been, or to be, the better person. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What is honourable is trying to make an ugly war just a little bit more humane by not deporting Jews to the camps... Rommel helped make that possible by fighting against those who would put a stop to it. The honourable thing to do would have been to say "fuck you Adolf" I'll have no part in your madness an go assist those who wish to put a stop to it. Auld Nick (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldusgitus has got the point I'm trying to say. Besides, Rommel took the "fuck you Adolf" line, he was an advocate for military coup and Hitler's arrest and trial, and his involvement with the Stauffenberg conspiracy resulted in his death; he was forced to commit suicide or else be executed along with all his family. -- Mr. unregistered IP address 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've always heard that the extent of Rommel's involvement in the plot is unknown. I think the most that can be definitively stated is that he knew high-ranking officers were plotting to kill Hitler and carry out a coup, and he neither reported it nor tried to stop it. MDB (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and it doesn't really set Rommel apart from many of the other officers who were contacted by members of the military resistance and refused to participate, but didn't rat them out either. Nobody talked, otherwise the plotters would never have gotten that far. In fact, I think that's a major reasons why military coups in general often succeed - militaries have to foster a strong sense of cohesion and fellowship, and officers will be very reluctant to testify against their mates, even if they strongly disagree with their plans or actions. Röstigraben (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC (from reading the Rise & Fall OTTR) Rommel did meet with some of the conspirators and was in favour of the coup. His downfall came when it appears the conspirators had penned him in for new President/Chancellor/thingy after Hitler's removal. I'll read tonight and update if anybody's really interested. That said, had he survived the war, he would still have been charged with war crimes, for the use of slave labour in building the Atlantic Wall, of which he was commander following the collapse of the Africa campaign. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How about calling him "the best of a bad lot"? MDB (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that slave labour and the Atlantic Wall is something you can really pin on Rommel. As far as I'm aware, Rommel only appeared on the wall in early '44 and ordered key areas strengthened, but he had no influence over Organisation Todt, which was responsible for the construction and upkeep of the wall and the slave labour involved. That answered to Albert Speer, not Rommel. I can see him being charged with it at the Nuremberg High Command trial, but being acquitted. Either way, if you're going to pick a German officer whose name can sit comfortably next to bin Laden's, choose one of the many who are more appropriate: Wilhelm Mohnke, Alfred Jodl, etc. -- Mr. unregistered IP address 12:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing him to a terrorist mass-murderer is nonsense, but it's also inappropriate to glorify the man as "the most decent and moral human being in the German Army". What set him apart from other commanders was his skill as a tactician, not his extraordinary moral virtue. Röstigraben (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, that was so not how I meant that. Just trying to write names down from the wrong side but clearly geniuses in their fields. I don't really give a fuck how morally high or low standing murderers are. --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The 1944 military coup attempt defence. The Nazis gained control of Germany in 1933. They got involved in the Spanish civil war, bombing Guernica in 1937, annexing Austria and Marching into Czechoslovakia in 1938 then invading Poland in 1939, and after that about most every neighbouring country. The 1944 coup came a little late. By then western allies had established secure bridgeheads in France and Italy, and were advancing on Germany. The Soviets to the east were rapidly advancing on Berlin. All those plotters were enthusiastically happy to go along with Adolf when the going was good, now that the shit was about to hit the fan they decided to get rid of Adolf and sue for peace, just to save their own skins. Just a bunch of honourless opportunist turncoats who didn't give a shit about anyone else or the untold suffering their previous activities had been a part of. Auld Nick (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Enter JimJast

JJ follows the suggestion on his talk page and creates a CP account. Could be a good match; they don't like GR either and won't take offense when he starts calling everyone a creationist. Plus there's nobody to notice whatever silliness he writes in the physics articles. --Benod (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

""MS is Master of Science degree. It is the lowest scientific degree. It is lower of two possible scientific degrees. The other, the higher of two, is the PhD degree." With writing like that,^img he'll soon be a firm fave of Ed and Ken. JimJast for sysop!! --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 16:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not giving CP traffic

I know some of you on this board don't want to give CP hits, or are afraid of helping increase their web traffic in anyway. I think this is a mistake. Nothing is better for liberals/evolutionists than elevating CP as a shining example of what wingnut teabaggers think. You only need to see the Star-Ledger's article about the site to see why it's nothing but good for us to see CP viewed by as many people as possible. Especially while Ken--who believes in unicorns and dragons--has free reign. Michele Bachmann, Kenneth Gladney, all of it is helping show Americans what nutjobs these neo-Birchers conspiracy theorists are. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly bear with me as I say that having "free rein" means the freedom to move as you will. It refers to giving a horse his head, which is one reason (besides shameless arrant pedantry) I mention it. The idea of Ken being given head, being given his own head, amuses me somehow. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how language evolves, and I thought that funny as well. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"You only need to see the Star-Ledger's article...nothing but good for us" LOL, you got a woody from a leftist journalist trying to discredit conservatism espoused by CP. A big fail on your part. You want us labelled as extremist, I understand. But America is run by extremist liberals now and Americans are sick to their stomachs because of it. The Obama era is the end of liberalism as a force in politics. Sympathy to conservatism, acknowledging accusations like Islam is one of the most violent religions, doesn't help your cause but it does increase ours. Feel free to disagree gock.--76.205.73.125 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a template for JPratt's little visits, along the line of Jinx _{hi Jinx!} one. I wonder if he's going to start talking about penisbones? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"America is run by extremist liberals now" Wait, Jpatt, I thought that the doubling of conservative words per century is evidence of the continued triumph of conservatism? I mean, the trajectory of new conservative words is astronomical since 1600. How is it possible that in the last 100 years we've had FDR, Kennedy, Carter, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, etc.? Shouldn't we only be electing Republicans at this point? Things that were considered liberal for their time--the Civil Rights Voting Act of 1964, for instance--are accepted by the vast majority of Americans. Gay marriage is now supported by the majority of Americans. Face it: you teabaggers are seen as nuts, and I loves ya for it! Go Michele Bachmann! The Sharron Angle of 2011! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually my question would be how can he actually believe that the CP nut-hutch has anything to do or represent mainstream conservatism, let alone even Christian conservatives or the Tea Party when none of these groups take the site seriously or even acknowledge it?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lee - nice, change the subject. bmCP "none of these groups take the site seriously" yes, your citation as proof are convincing. it's been great talking with u'all, will be back in a few months to stir the pot once again. --76.205.73.125 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. How about showing us some mainstream conservative sites and players that are referencing CP - in a positive light. Terry's blog doesn't count. Where're the Becks, Norrises, Palins, etc who are hanging on CP's every word? I can't wait to see the list. --PsyGremlinParlez! 19:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's a tremendously delightful disconnect from reality that they think they are influential, when even Christians and conservatives make fun of them, ignore them, etc. Jpatt talks about the liberal newspaper, but he can't find any conservatives of any influence that point to CP as a good website. Go on Jpatt - find one. You can't. Even WorldNutDaily derided you[4]. Let's see what your fellow wingnuts say about you. Here's a collection of comments about CP from conservative RedState.com readers:

• "Yeah, the NYT loved Giuliani. And if that isn't enough, they can't even spell his name right."
• "Some of the science is a bit eccentric, too, as for example this article on unicorns."
• "I'll see your bad article and raise http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution"
• "when you say eccentric I hope you mean insane"
• "I actually thought it was a satire site. Sort of like the Stephen Colbert of wikis. It's so over the top it is hard to believe it is serious."
• "I waver back and forth between believing it to be genuine and believing it to be an elaborate hoax."
• "I can't say that the stuff I have seen has done Conservatism any favors."
• "This is a horrible idea with even worse execution. Seeing lefty college kids try to build stuff like this is annoying, but I don't see how you can claim to be so far above them. At least they can format a page."

Comments from HotAir.com:

• "conservapedia fails as a worthwhile resource for conservatives"
• "on the “right” you have conservapedia – which is an embarrassment."
• "The first time I saw a conservapedia article I was sure it was parody. I still check it out every now and then just for the entertainment value."
• "Conservapedia is a “satire” wiki like Encyclopedia Dramatica."
• "the odd and rotten thing about conservapedia is that it wouldn’t even exist as it does were it not for the left’s use of it. I’ve never seen Conservapedia cited by a single conservative blog, yet the stats show that Conservapedia is at least very popular with the left. A Google search of “conservapedia” returns 160,000 hits, 4,100 alone featuring the term “wingnut,” and every one which is not a hit to Conservapedia itself is a hit to a leftwing site eager to accept and amplify Conservapedia’s claim to represent conservatism."

That last comment explains why I follow y'alls! Why, Jpatt, you'd think we liberals were writing these comments! In fact, that's what you probably need to tell yourself to not face how your own movement sees you all as lunatics. Bah ha ha ha! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. If any are from notable entities they should get worked into wp:Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not just us that see CP as Andy's personal echo chamber. From RedState: "The site does serve to shield someone from ever hearing information or opinion contrary to their preset disposition. That appears to be the real goal of the site. I think it is a very tragic goal, but the site is certainly a good way of accomplishing such a mission." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 22:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would I need to show any evidence that conservatives of any respect or note do not take CP seriously when JPatt here cannot show even a single one who does. Not even Andy's own mother acknowledges or uses CP for any of her editorializing or activism, what does that tell you?! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

At least I am willing to admit my mistakes. You think y'all have all the answers but your bias left out others. You see, even though the Conservative Bible project is a subject of scorn, Newsbusters.org, a division of the Media Research Council, was kind enough to attack our fellow liberals. [5] Conservative web traffic stat collectors have to put aside their shame of Conservapedia just long enough to list us. [6] [7] So keep on compiling those lists from RedState comments and find that conservative that disagrees with Conservapedia. Big deal, I hope it makes you feel better about yourselves. ^{— Unsigned, by: IP / talk / contribs}

So, you can't find even a single site or article that speaks about CP in a positive way, only a couple of traffic-monitoring sites that show just how many people have been reading CP to laugh and mock. Well done. Come on, post some links from all the hordes of conservative groups that have flocked to CP... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that cp is listed as one of the 50 most influential right wing/conservative sites says more about the standard of many right wing sites than it does about cp. As Delta has pointed out cp is not used, quoted (except in mockery or wtf'ing) or written on by a single influential right wing commentator. Not even anne coulter has bothered to stray over and she essentially writes her crap for anyone who will take it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Rob is really going through the block log

• Rob: "User:FOIA has been blocked?"^img
• Flashback to January 2011: Jpatt blocks "User:FOlA"^img
• Rob: "Wait, I see!"^img

Personally, I find this intriguing. Kinda wondering how many people will be unbanned through his inquiries and what the other sysops are thinking right now. --Sid (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

He should just do this by request. It'll take him forever to process all the unjustified blocks.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he's really going to town. Not just range blocks, but I see BobSherman and TracyS have also been unblocked. Huzzah, Rob! Huzzah! Only problem is, I seem to recall Andy saying that undoing another admin's block was a demotable offence. or that might have been TK channelling Andy. --PsyGremlinParla! 20:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if he has undone any Andy blocks _{read, I cant be buggered to check} but I'd love to see AlanE unblocked. His was the most epic Parthian shot I've ever seen. While he's at it, I'd like to become an un-unperson as well over there, too. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 03:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User page hs been restored now and the block expired in April 2010. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. I'd assumed he was blocked for infinity because of that last outburst, but his case was one of, I felt, a severe Andy-grudge. He was a prolific writer who kept politics out of his edits. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 18:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gimme the vitals and I'll investigate your block. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's new essay

Yay! Indian Christian dancers (?) pwn Penn Jillette.^img And he craps all over the main page too.^img --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unlike atheists, Christians have lots of songs including dance music." My head hurts. How the hell does he come up with this stuff? Phiwum (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Christians are really known for their dancing. That's what the movie Footloose was about. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken may be letting too much slip with "Look at THESE svelt Indian Christian men dancers". Of course his whole Asian religious slimness is built on shaky foundations because Christianity is a minor religion (even if it is increasing that does not explain the current slimness of most Asians) and the majority of those atheist Chinese tend to be a bit on the bony side. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If this doesn't wake Andy up and spur him into action, nothing will. Ken has completely lost his shit. 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I expect Andy to do his Horatio Nelson impression party piece yet again. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What, "Kiss me , Edmund" ? --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only imagine how guilty Ken must feel when he has sex with men. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fucking Walrus? Walrus? Really? I only get Walrus in the depths of a peyote binge and Ken is dregging this up from a seemingly straight mindset. Dude is fucking cooked. Ace^{of Spades} 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, care to comment on whether this kind of unilateral fuckery, like his deletion, oversighting, and other abuses, is good for the project? You took a stand on those things. What about this absolutely bonkers hate filled nonsense? 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Pastor Moses looks a little on the chubby side. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A walrus would be the biggest atheist one could find. Ace^{of Spades} 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone burn a sock and go create an essay "Atheist blue whales vs. Christian penis length." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes! You're encouraging vandalism. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont you know svelte cheetahs hunt the obese oxen? Ace^{of Spades} 14:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism...it fits perfectly with all the other Ken-crap on Conservapedia. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Ken ought to be happy, we'll just slavishly gave him the attention and thus the validation he so desperately craves, and he didn't even have to do anything creative or original to get it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken's "essays" are effectively vandalism. If you really want to damage CP, encouraging Ken (as the Ledger piece showed) is one of the best ways to do it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't my purpose to damage CP. I do think Rob's attempts at reform, no matter how sincere, are now impossible and CP will never be anything but a facade ignored by conservatism and laughed at by everyone else. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, atheists have no songs. http://youtu.be/lFWA1A9XFi8 -Lardashe

I just don't understand how you guys get your underwear twisted in a knot over Ken & his writings. If you don't like it, don't read it. I was one of those guys who jsut turned the TV everytime Bill Clinton spoke for 8 years. I know people wo did the samething with Bush. Why are you so focused on Ken and his latest musings? It's obvious, he does this stuff just to get your guys goat. Tell the truth now, is the concept of atheism really so close to your heart, so goddamm precious, you'll defend it to the death against any and all comers? Fuckin' A, whose got the obsessive compulsive disorder here, you guys or Ken? I can not really tell. Listening to this reminds me of the Bickerson's when I was a kid. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 04:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I don't think you really understand how we perceive Ken (hey, you called him Ken as well - have you had confirmation of his ID?). We are not upset or angered by Ken's anti-atheism (and not everyone here is an atheist); it amuses us and amazes is is that CP is supposed to be an encyclopaedic resource for homeschoolers yet Ken is allowed to post the most childish and execrably written screeds unchallenged. His writing style is unbelievably constipated with all those "regards" and repetitive names instead of pronouns. His articles are a tedious compilation of mined quotes which are impossible to read. He obviously has some psychiatric problems otherwise he wouldn't spend hours continuously editing yet none of your fellow sysops seem to give a fig about his wellbeing. Have you read Ken's "Essays"? Do you think they are any good? Do they really improve Conservapedia's image? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, nobbykins. After all these years, have you still not grasped what goes on here? We're not shocked and outraged about what Kendoll dares to say. We're laughing at him, and at you and at what Conservapedia is. When Kendoll writes a new "essay" that makes Conservapedia look even more foolish than the last one (though it'll take a lot to top the flying kitty, I must admit) we laugh at you. When Kendoll, a man who can barely compose a coherent sentence, bests you in mano-a-mano combat for control of CP, we're laughing at you. When Andy ignores edit warring going on on his own talk page, we're laughing at you. CP is hilarious, and the funniest part is that you still go on thinking it's some kind of encyclopaedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@Gengis Khant, you feign concern that he has mental health problems, and complain that other CP Sysops don't care about his wellbeing — yet here is this place constantly poking fun at him and laughing at him. I don't claim to have any idea about his mental health (I don't know him well enough to judge), but if you genuinely suspect that is the case, how can you morally justify to yourself constantly mocking him? At times this place seems to be just an attack site against the poor guy, a form of harassment — how would you like it if someone set up a blog to microanalyse your every word? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There was a HUGE long thread on here some time back where many people were giving a shout out to cp sysops to intervene. At the time kenny was editing continually for days at a time taking as little as 2 hour breaks in the midle. We know that TK (at the time), Rob, jpatt and others were reading here, just like you are now. We have no direct contact with Ken, cp sysops do and could TRY to do something. The fact they seem to not care, in particular andy, says a lot about their real religious attitudes and spirituality. So quite frankly I gave up caring about Rob. If his fellow contributors on cp don't care why should we. So lets carry on poking him with the shitty stick and watching him gradually drag cp lower and lower in to the shit heap. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what sublime moral sentiments! If other people don't care about him, we aren't going to care about him either, just hurl some more abuse at him. If you think CP is doing the wrong thing, shouldn't you aim to do better than they are, not aiming to sink to their level - or, to be honest, sinking far beneath their level - maybe they are neglecting the guy, but they aren't giving him this kind of treatment either. (((Zack Martin)))^™

So tell us then maratrean. What are you doing? Have you contacted ken? Have you contacted sysops at cp to try to find out anything about ken in real life that may enable you to help him? Or have you just sat by ignoring him and shaking your head? Except, of course, for popping in here to criticise those here who have no way to do anything? Tell me what you have done? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right, there is not much I can do. But, at least I'm not stalking him like this page is. One cannot always help, but at least do no harm. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So nothing then. In which case can I suggest you keep your moralising about this subject to yourself until such time as you have tried to do something. Anything. Now run along an write another bible or whatever you do in your spare time. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Paradoxically we have probably given user Conservative (for his/her identity is a complete mystery to us) more pleasure than we have given pain. So who am I to take that away from him (or her). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken: "The UK is weighed down by depressed (see: Atheism and depression, overweight and socially challenged atheists." - Does he really believe that the UK has more atheists than the US? Furthermore has he ever met a British person in real life, or does he just sit in front of his computer fapping away at Dawkins? I'd also like to know if Andy has been to Britian too - they do seem to like saying alot about it. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 06:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there probably are more atheists in the UK than the US, certainly open atheists. Very few of my contact circle here in the UK are religious and most of them are atheists in fact if not in open statement. Ask them if the believe in god and most will prevaricate or say no outright. However almost all of them are a fit and healthy weight, I'm one of the heavisets as it happens at 14 1/2 stone and 5 ft 10 1/2. So slightly overweight. I would also say with certainty that people in the UK suffer from mental health problems lesss than US residents do. So once again kenny is spouting rubbish - why don't you do something Maratrean? Or don't you care enough? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh bollocks - I wrote athiests - I meant to say obese people! Certainly the UK has more athiests than the US, that's for sure. Only 1 in 10 of us (me included, probably a rarity on this site) go to church each week. It certainly is odd his obsession between the connection... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 06:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Six degrees of Kendoll

A prize for any person who comes up with a plausible link between these two "related" news items^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Indian culture is classier than atheist culture, which is so classless that atheists sued the Governor over prayer. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 02:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

there's atheist culture? Does that, like, make me an expatriate of atheism then?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

i'd like to see ken's Kevin Bacon number. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

CP doesn't have an entry for Kevin Bacon (yet?), so for now, that number is "n/a" --Sid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken shills for Ray Comfort, who was in the Banana Video with Kirk Cameron, who was in Listen to Me with Rance Howard, who was in Apollo 13 with Kevin Bacon. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken is as transparent as Kevin Bacon in Hollow Man. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear gentlemen from a rather atheistic site! You have not yet sufficiently proven that Ken is not in fact Kevin Bacon himself! Olé! --Sid (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So ken rapes woman while invisible?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it up, "pro-aborts"!

「Even Russia has just enacted a law that "restricts abortion in the country for the first time since the fall of communism."」^img
Reviving a social policy of communist Russia? Yet another sign of the Inevitable Triumph of Conservatism. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 14:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By Jpatt's logic, Nicolae Ceaușescu was the greatest pro-lifer evah! --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate that term, pro-abortion. It's completely inaccurate.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still better than "anti-life", I'd say... --Sid (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All the terms surrounding abortion are pretty Newspeak-y. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Politics are always fun that way...but "pro-abort" (noun) sounds like something he made up, or at least pulled from a random blog. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good thing we don't give a damn

Because according this site, Conservapedia is worth way, way, waaay more than RW. I'm not sure how they get these numbers but damn that's high.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no way in hell CP is worth anywhere near 3/4 million dollars (RW's figure might be reasonably accurate, though). I can't think of what they're basing it on other than pageviews and a few pretty high rankings on search engines. If it's pageviews than we're looking at a value of about $3 per view, which is insane. I doubt that site has much credibility. In any case, I don't care what your calculations say, the value of anything is only worth what people will pay for it. CP might be worth a few thousand. DickTurpis (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's way off. I put in my old domain, which I mostly used to host my wedding-related information and pictures for a few years. They say it's worth about $7,000. It's not even a reasonable combination of words. It's my last name and her last name, neither of which were common last names. -Lardashe

Hey, these aren't my calculations. I was just posting this for kicks. Geez.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Check the "About Us" thing, they go after the usual stuff Ken masturbates to: Alexa, Compete, incoming links, etc. Looking at their analysis, I'd say the lion share for CP comes from the incoming links (Yahoo section), which is a fairly ungodly number. But that's hardly surprising: (1) Ken fragments his giga-projects into thousands of semi-redundant satellite articles and then link-whores them to no end, (2) people have been openly laughing at CP for more than four years now, and (3) the fire was kept burning by Andy constantly coming up with new craziness like the CBP or Lenski. That's the problem with such an analysis - it makes the exact same mistake Andy and Ken make when bragging about how popular they are or how many pageviews they got: Every link and every pageview is treated as something extremely positive. This works for some sites, but not for a site that caters to the fringe of the fringe of the US right wing while being shunned by the rest of the US right wing and openly being laughed at by the rest of the planet. --Sid (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)To be fair, I did read that entire site with a Nigerian accent in my head…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Three-quarters of a million dollars? Chump change. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I should let my cousin know he's a millionaire. DickTurpis (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, now I feel like a loser - my site is only worth a little over $5K. Le sigh. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The numbers are indeed all over the place. My domain is worth almost ten thousand dollars. Which is funny because only one subdomain has a few extremely low-traffic content pages while the rest of the server is basically glorified personal cloud storage. --Sid (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Google.com gets a google pagerank of 9 out of 10. Well, *I* found that funny... And apparantly Twitter is worth less than $25,000. Dendlai (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the site is shit. But it totally isn't my fault!--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Need new links. I can't see anything.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

godhatesfags.com is almost $200k Occasionaluse (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, at least this will have andy pulling out whats left of his hair.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

hehehe. Can't argue with numbers. Need I say more? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm a goodamn internet genius according to that site as my personal blog is worth over 600 dollars and it's less than a year old and has had less than 60 dollars spent on it. The power of my writing has increased my investment tenfold. Anyone want to buy it for its appraised market value? Anyone? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC):\

I will sell my business site for the low low price of $8,501.48. Serious inquiries only. 02:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

At first I thought they were on to something, I mean, as many parodists vandals there are out there, you don't think one of them with money would be willing to pay a hefty price just to smear Andy with the domain? But then I looked up a few other domains and they completely lost all credibility. By the way, if Trent's willing to sell RationalWiki for $6,414.75, maybe we could work out some kind of a deal? DMorris2 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"You don't think one of them with money would be willing to pay a hefty price just to smear Andy with the domain?" Why buy a cow when you're getting the milk for free? P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 03:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What's missing here is some productivity stats (maybe we can get larron to run some charts). By my reckoning, RW has about 23 editors combining to prduce about $6414 in value added product, or about $278 avg per head; by contrast CP has had about 6 editors producing a $773,000 value added product, or about $128,800+ per head, which is probably close to accurate. Now, let's apply the 80/20 rule; 80% of the people produce about 20% output while 20% produce 80% output. At CP, 20% of 6 = 1.2 persons, or in dollar terms, 1.2 editors produced $618,400 in value added product. So one single editor produced about $515,333 in what is now the estimated fair market value of CP. $515,333 divided by four years = $128,833 in accumulated gain per annum (or about $352.97 per day). Now we are closer to understanding the difference between conservatives & commie libs. Should we take a poll of reader sentiment who the most produtive editor at CP most likely was? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good answer Rob! Post of the day. DogP (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But unfortunately the site loses all credibility when it says Charlotte and Lemon Bay High School are worth more than Port Charlotte High. No way in hell is that right. DMorris2 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Phreaks rejoice, the PLA is worth more than Twitter! DMorris2 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

But Rob, the CP editors are working to produce a credible conservative counterpart to Wikipedia, but are actually producing a festering pile of shit that nobody uses as a resource and that most people visit only to laugh at. Surely we have to take into account the fact that the workers aren't doing their job, and are in fact producing the exact opposite result as compared to their intentions when we try to guage their productivity? P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 03:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts speak for themselves. And dollars, in this case, are facts. A blog I abandoned years ago cause I lost the pass word is worth $23,477.31 (had a lot of good shit on it and still gets regular hits). My current blog I forgot the domain name for.... 03:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Even better evidence that urlapprasial is crap. You back up my point very well. DickTurpis (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently my site's url is worth $12,000 dollars - twice this site. And all my site does is list handy links to torrents of my favourite TV shows. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the change from "COM" to "ORG" - RW.org is at $23,000+ Pippa (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to see how much a non-existent page would come up, but even my "I registered it less than 2 months ago" dyndns hostname came up in the five-digit range. So, I tried a joke domain name based on a page that is well known to RWians (which? just ask!), and got: $42! I think that's the lowest I've seen. (bonus: the URL is so long, it's screwing up the formatting) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! My humble blog is worth $23,158.41, and before you think that's Wordpress as a whole - wrong. They're worth $58,091,947.64. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Look how much shit.su is worth, apparently! Garbage top level domain (the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore) and a site that consists entirely of an error message! Rationalwiki should really feel insulted. DMorris2 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

While it's blatantly obvious CP is worth nowhere near $750,000, I'm sure it's worth a bit of money; someone could buy it, put up ads, and make a profit, no doubt. Is there any way of estimating its value in a way that isn't utter bullshit? I'd be a bit curious to know. Hey, Rob, you don't know if Andy has had any offers to buy it, do you? I'd bet he could get $10,000 for it. DickTurpis (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this another of your crazy conspiracy theories, Dick? The website that appraises url values is as whacked as CP? just because it put a $6400 value on RW, probably less' than the site operaters put into over 4 years? Of course Soros has money to piss away on all kinda nonsense... nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

George Soros owes me money... I wrote the liberal article on massage therapy. And Rob, I think Dick was saying that the site's methods of evaluation were wanting. See the above testimonials.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to know that even though he has done a massive amount of unblocking and called Ken out on his shit, he's still Rob. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationalwiki.COM, which just redirects immediately to rationalwiki.org gets about $32k. So, yes, the website that is appraising URL values is totally whacked, because the exact same webpage through a redirect is a significantly different value from the original. Conservatives and liberals may not always agree on what is good science, but returning consistent results is kind of a requirement to being trustworthy. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:D :D that's the nail in the coffin for that website... Eyeonicr (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Think of all the free advertising this place has given urlappraisal.net.... The owners must be salivating. They are obviously only doing it to show ads, and as a gateway drug to their SEO or domainsquatting services.... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to their own site, they're only worth about $106k. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See, Rob, I can't tell when you're kidding, because you're pretty nutty either way. I'll assume you are then, because accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist is like Ken accusing someone of posting a picture of a flying kitty somewhere. I'm not sure where you get the "whacked as CP" comment. I never said that, and there are probably few other sites as whacked as CP (Time Cube aside). In any case, while you say that you can't argue with numbers, my point is you can when the numbers are wrong, as they clearly are here. The problem here is that the site, instead of evaluating every website on its own merits, plugged in a rough calculation that probably, at times, yields somewhat accurate results, but is often wildly off. I don't blame them that much, it's really all they can do, unless they do investigate every site thoroughly which they'd obviously have to charge substantially for. RW's value might not be far off; it's really hard to say, though I find it odd that the move from .com to .org a while back resulted in a loss of some $17,000 (if only we knew!). It might even be worth significantly less than $6000. As a non-commercial site it's hard to say. I'd guess the mistake urlapprasial is making here is looking at pageviews, but not taking into account what those views are. As soon as they realize millions of them are clickbots the value goes down right away. Likewise once they see that no one takes the site seriously, and is therefore not likely to take too much interest in any ads hosted, they'll have to adjust its revenue potential (if you want to argue that people do take it seriously please show us any respectable site that does so (Shockofgod is not respectable)). For CP to be worth $750,000 it'd have to be able to generate that much in a few years or so. Is there a business plan wherein this is feasible? If so, why isn't Andy raking in millions in free money? It's not like he cares about the integrity of the site, Ken reminds us daily. Besides, his base could hardly criticize him for taking a capitalistic stance here. I mean, Wikipedia has no ads, so having ads must be good. Why is this site, valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, an expense for Andy rather than easy revenue? DickTurpis (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to your "you can't argue with facts and facts are numbers" points, I have some slightly different numbers. You can't argue with them; they are numbers! Pwned. DickTurpis (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea party is a conservative word now

nevermind that it has a completely different meaning coming from the 1700's (that isn't American either)^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought tea parties were English/British (they're interchangeable in Andyland) and therefore liberal/atheistic (also interchangeable). --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, 2007? they didnt appear till that damn black muslim from kenya Barack Obama came in to office in 2009. 2007, they would have had to deal with bush's deficit spending and 11 raise's of the debt celing.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not like liberals ever band together to drink tea, right? They totally nailed this one.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you gents may be overlooking the true power of a wiki. History books are slow to write and edit. Not to mention all of the pesky and tedious research that goes into them. And in the end may contain annoyingly stubborn facts. Alleged "facts" that run counter to your worldview, thus making them a form of liberal deceit. But by applying Best-of-the-Public^TM technology, history can now read exactly the way you want it to.--Inquisitor (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the first Tea Parties were organized by the Ron Paul campaign in 2007, but that was before the astroturf machine moved in and then decided to run 'baggers against Ron Paul. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the roots of the Tea Party go back further -- the libertarians have been holding income tax day protests for year and the first nationwide teabagging event was an outgrowth of that. MDB (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Water, air, fire, dirt

Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?^img --Roofus (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Obvious parodist is obvious. Thanks for trying, Roofus. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"How does it work, I don't know. Not many people know how electricity works, i don't, do you?"--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Yes I do. But i'm not going to tell you. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 07:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's currently high tide with parodists, unfortunately. --Sid (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But just as unfortunately, quantity does not equal quality. How many long-term genuinely skilled parodists are still active there? It seems like most of them have just decided it's not even a challenge anymore. --Phentari (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There was some great parody in the early days but now it's hard to compete with Ken and Andy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that TK's finger in the dam really was holding the waters back. --Mariposa (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The waters of third rate parody, yes. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mariposa's statement is as trivially true as "TK banned many vandals" - he simply banned everybody. So yes, he banned many vandals. And parodists. And people who genuinely could have helped. And anybody else. If you weren't instantly aiming for Andy's good graces by behaving like a complete asshat, you were 99% likely going to be banned. But yes, this is lame-ass parody. Painfully obvious, too, especially in these quantities. --Sid (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

'Parodists' ruin cp for me. Its only funny when they genuinely believe their own bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution, it destroys country's GDP

and is also apparently the same as Keynesian economics.^img--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great statistics there, Ken. The country with the highest GDP in the world has a higher GDP than countries in which more of the population understands evolution (and those with more creationists too, I might add). We can extrapolate on this one for a long time. The country that was home to the Manson Family has a higher GDP than every country that was not home to the Manson Family, therefore the Manson Family is good for the economy. You can't argue with figures. I can't wait for "The USA, home to the website Conservapedia, has a greater GDP than every country that has not launched a conservative encyclopedia. Conservapedia is a boon to the economy! Deny this and lose all credibility." DickTurpis (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Check out their citation. It's a on-line comic strip, for C'thul'hu's sake.

Next up, Ken declares Garfield to atheist because he's fat. MDB (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, you know, it's those big ol' fucking forrests, and coal, and other natural resources we have, the physical size of our land, and the number of people we have who like to buy shit they don't need. Oh wait, that's not evidence. We have more gays! therefore, gays are good for the GDP! --En attendant Godot 14:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm an idiot, but isn't Ken's "citation" (and I use those quotation marks in the dickiest way possible) showing that, in general, a country that accepts evolution has a higher GNP/capita? Carlaugust (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the US as a huge outlier, yes. Of course, this is definitely a "correlation =/= causation" case. MDB (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing else needs to be said past the fact he cites an online comic. Oh please use this as some sort of evidence in your articles Ken and forever remove that last shred of pretense of them being encyclopedic work! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing an online comic is bad enough, but citing one that actually contradicts the argument you're making? Epic fail. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a total failure. Also, I wonder if Ken knows the difference between GDP and GNP (not that it's a huge difference in this context, but it doesn't look like he does). --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack Martinez continues Qadaffi apologism.

"What a shame!"^img --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer calling him JoMar...--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Loyal Libyans" was another winner of a description. Now Jack is passing judgment on Libyan patriotism to a mad man. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See, you have to think like a conservative here. Bush went to war, against the UN, NATO and like every other fucking country's objections, based on nothing but some lies about a white poweder that was not, but could have been, something dangrous. Now you have Obama SENDING EQUIPTMENT and men, to be under A FOREIGN LEADER'S CONTROL, based ON TREATY, that he was obligated to follow, to fight someone that Nato, the UN and most countries in the world though needed attacking. The conservatives have no choice but to demonize obama by making the attack look wrong and bad and laying it at obama's feet. to do that, they have to make Q (i can't spell my own name, much less his) look nice and good. Sick, huh? oh the tangled web we weave and all that.--En attendant Godot 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

JoMar is not a typical American conservative, though. I'm sure he thinks Gaddafi is taking the fight to the international Jewish conspiracy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He's a vulgar anti-imperialist. He'll defend anybody that might seem to oppose those evil Western powers. I am probably an anti-imperialist myself, but I know better than to align myself with any old tyrant just because they oppose colonial legacies.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What was his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan before the Obama presidency? Does anyone know? He may very well be pretty consistent in his stands.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If he was we probably won't find anything about it, as Andy was for it - you know, before they became Obama's wars - strong criticism would be stupid.

I'm slowly getting a feel for the ultra-conservative stance on wars involving the USA: If the President is a Republican and the NATO and the UN does not support it, it's a necessary war. If the President is a Republican and the NATO and the UN do support the war, you shall be silent. If the President is a Democrat you shall yell war criminal and imperialist in all cases. And if the the UN and NATO do suport that war, then you shall also yell "global conspiracy against international law!". I bet we could put together a "How to be a good Conservative 101" with all the necessary instructions. --★uːʤɱ pervert 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC) (Godot agrees with brxbrx)--En attendant Godot 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Geezus you are easy… --★uːʤɱ pervert 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for the Libyan intervention either, but Jack is actively campaigning for Qadaffi. I hope the rebels win, I just don't think America has any business being part of it. Jack takes the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing here waaaay too far, with the enemy being interventionism, so he supports Qadaffi. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"He's a vulgar anti-imperialist. He'll defend anybody that might seem to oppose those evil Western powers." Yeah, I've always said choosing "sides" is a sure path to having to defend the indefensible, which means when it comes to wars of asshole vs. asshole (which is most of them), your only choice is to say "Look, my asshole is better than yours." I don't see how the moonbats writing apologias for the likes of Hugo Chavez are any better than when the right was touting the "Chilean miracle" while Pinochet was "disappearing" people. I've been against all the wars except Afghanistan (which I still think was carried out poorly), but there's no way in hell I'm cheering for the likes of Saddam or Gaddafi. The faster we get rid of them (which is a given in terms of military superiority), the faster the troops can come home (in theory, at least) and the sooner people stop getting killed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetically unappealing MPR item

Christ that's ugly^img. And why did he remove the other ones? Did they prove to be factually inaccurate?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

He's playing the "CNN is good/bad - No! I've changed my mind!"-game again. --★uːʤɱ pervert 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I wish he'd do all his news posts that way. It's like he's screaming to be heard over the lamestream media. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It lets readers know it's a blog, because encyclopedias don't tell people how to think, continually, in the span of one sentence. It's ugly, no sysop can touch, and I like it. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's regular encyclopedias... trusworthy encyclopedias tell you exactly what to think. I don't understand why some people don't get it. Andy's blogencyclopedia only publishes the truth. Since reading the truth can only lead you to one conclusion, what's the harm of just coming out an saying it? --Inquisitor (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"I AM ANGRY AT THIS, LOOK HOW EVIL IT IS!"--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"MY EDITORIALISING HAS MORE WORDS THAN THE HEADLINE!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Churches have been in sharp decline in England, causing people to worship government instead

Schafly's latest "insight":

Churches have been in sharp decline in England, causing people to worship government instead^img

Because certainly the 9 in 10 British who don't go to church wake up and burn make an offering to the "RINO-like" David Cameron each morning (I do love how Andy calls foreign Conservative politicians RINOs). I suppose one could try and make some kind of weak connection between government and the Church of England (there are a good 20 bishops or so that sit unelected in the House of Lords which actually not that bad an idea since they're pretty non-judgemental) but that would be defying his argument about churchlessness in the first place...

Almost thought it was a parodist at first, but nope, it's from the big cheese himself. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 07:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly weird. What can he mean?

He also seems to be confusing causes and effects in his other points - or simply going with non sequiturs.

Finally, he confirms his Americanism by confusing "England" with the "UK" which is what I suspect he means.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Last week I had a presentation and the guy sitting in front of me did not know what the "Vereinigtes Königreich" (United Kingdom) was. Sometimes I feel ashamed for knowing these people. --★uːʤɱ pervert 09:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an old trope (perhaps unfamiliar to Brits) among the religious right, i.e., that communism/socialism/secular humanism leads to worship of the state instead of god (idolatry). Some of these themes are contained in Phyllis Schlafly's own A Choice, Not an Echo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they have a specially constructed definition of "worship" in order to make this work?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The student protests were a clear sign of people worshipping their government. Ditto the Greeks. The man is full of fail. --PsyGremlin講話 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the "lack of federalism and decentralized government in England". Has he seen the size of this place? It's like complaining that Louisiana is run as a unitary state. Toffeeman (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of a decentralised state, I was mentioning today to an American friend that I believe the EU epitomises what the US should be. We have some centralised laws, such as a rough general citizenship, freedom of movement, and the odd law which covers all states (ie: dangerous chemicals, a common food-additive labelling scheme) since it would be far less effective to for each to have different ones. But in the end, each EU country is actually extremely independent. Sounds like what the US was originally meant to be, but hasn't turned out to be... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 11:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

He might, just might, be referring to the fact that the UK is a devolutionist country, not a federalist. From my limited understanding of how political theory, in devolutionist countries, the central government is supreme, it can devolves what ever power it doesn't want to deal with to subsidiary authorities (counties etc), and the central government can revoke their power on a whim. In pure federalist systems, the local units (townships etc [in theory]), concede powers they feel they can not handle to the districts, who may defer to, counties, states, and central government; a unit may recaim any power it has conceded at any time it wishes. However, I haven't seen Andy talk about political theory before. CS Miller (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the subtleties of "devolutionist" are beyond him. If he was talking about the UK, he can't even get the name right, let alone the relation between Scotland and Westminster. I'd love to ask him, directly, what he thinks of the constitutional position of the Isle of Man and Jersey. Just to see the blank incomprehension in his eyes.Toffeeman (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to see him try to accurately describe the status of Bermuda and Belize. It would be a laugh a minute. Sadly andy, like far too many people (US, UK and elsewhere) know far too little about anything outside their own small sphere of concern. andy likes to think he is an educated citizen of the world, in reality he (and almost cp editors) are provincial rednecks who neither know nor truely understand anything outside of their own back yard. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

@. Doraemon, we did try that style for a bit, it fell apart in a decade.--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? For Andy, the only thing you need to know about devolutionist systems of government to know that they are evil is right there in the name.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And "evolutionist", so it was probably invented by that monster Charles Darwin. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the poor dears at CP are thinking along the lines that:

1. In some communist dictatorships there is no state religion.
2. That makes them "atheist countries".
3. The dictator is help up as some kind of god-like being to be worshipped.
4. There are not many churchgoers in England.
5. That makes England an "atheist country".
6. Therefore people in England worship the government.

QED DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So Andy is obviously crazy. Please give your theories about the reasons for the differences between the UK and the US here. Thanks.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me try that one: People need something to worship (because we do) + Normally, people worship God™(because we do) → If people don't believe in God™ they have nothing to worship + Evidently, the UK is slightly more socialist than (we think) America is → The Next big thing to God™ is the Government® → People in the UK worhip the government (because they don't believe in God™)

If both the Gs were on the same metaphysical level, I'd get that, but they aren't so it's bulldiarrhea. Is it a bad thing that my head doesn't hurt when I do this? --★uːʤɱ pervert 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can goad the Arsefly in to inventing the law of conservation of worship. The amount of worship in a society is always constant, if people are worshipping Yahweh less, they must be worshipping something else more. Probably the government. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, now we all worship at the altar to Darwin, lead by the high priest Dawkins. CS Miller (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of work in the sociology of religion suggests that the reason why the US is so much more religious is that the US has for most of its history had a free market in religions - lacking any one single church which could command the allegiance of most of the population, and (oftentimes) the support of the state as well. As a result, US religion remained vibrant and could change to meet new needs. British religion was more like a Soviet-style command economy, so religion ossified instead. Of course, nowadays, the establishment of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland means very little in practice, but the argument goes, the tone had already been set long before we all were born. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is pretty much what I said on the debate page. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"No, I don't think so. "England", the dominant nation in the United Kingdom, is the more familiar term. And England itself is more liberal than the United States."^img Why Andy doesn't want to use United Kingdom. Excuse me while I jab my thumbs in my eyes.^{— Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs}

Well then, he needs to get editing on the "England" and "UK" articles to reflect this new truth.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait - he is assigning a liberal/conservative bias to the WORD used to describe the uk? what the fuck happened to this man's head when he was, oh 10 or soemthign?--En attendant Godot 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Andy's insistence on England being "liberal" is that the UK wouldn't have had a Labour government were it not for the Welsh and Scottish; England itself tends to vote predominantly Conservative. The NHS was largely brought in by a Welshman. Only with Blair's conservative lite New Labour did the electoral map show a predominance of red in England. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh, a Kendoll fiefdom comes under stealth assault

Those bastards^img! They're trying to take away Kendoll's powah to feature random of his excretions on the front page without oversight! Surely Kendoll won't stand for this. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If they succeed in purge the main page of Kens drool, I will be very disappointed. C'mon, we need MOAR HITLER!!!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need a few parodists on the committee to promote Ken's superb satirical work. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm 3.5 of the people who have and will be volunteering. I got your back. 01:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I gittit. For the first time, I've followed some of User:Conservative's work. cp:Essay:_10_telltale_signs_you_are_on_your_way_to_becoming_an_atheist_nerd#Help_me.21_I_am_an_atheist_nerd.21 This is what's got you guys so twisted? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken and his essays are undoubtedly the best thing about Conservapedia. If ever I worry there is a chance some of its ideas could go mainstream, I watch Ken take a huge dump over the entire project and feel a nice sense of contentment. My sock has encouraged him to do more of these, and so far he has not disappointed. I suggest you make his essays daily reading. DickTurpis (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The best description of Andy-ism I have ever seen

written by Andy himself^img. We need to cut this and put it in some article. --★uːʤɱ pervert 17:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If that was the link you meant, I don't get it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The joke is bull. Andy deleted the page after Sid hung the broken redirct/speedy delete tag on it. [8] nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's the joke?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea Andy deleted "The Idea of Progress". nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I found the version I tagged much more hilarious: "Idea of Progress" redirected to "Progress", but "Progress" does not exist on CP ;) --Sid (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That was Prof. Jensen's work. He must never have finished copy pasting from Citizendium. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The Joke: Andy is not only against progress he deletes the "Idea of Progress" (article), the fact that it's a broken redirect to an article that doesn't exist on CP (called "progress") made me rofl. I wonder if this is my German humor coming through (because well, Sid seems to get it) or my very very weird humor that only makes 1% of the people I meet chuckle (like this for example). I thought it was hilarious. @Jeeves: No, the line "11:35, 17 July 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) deleted "Idea of Progress" ‎ (content was: "{{db|Broken redirect}}")" had be in there. @Rob: linking to a page for which you need to be logged in from a site you get blocked for being a member of does not make much sense. --★uːʤɱ pervert 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It;s also admin only so... yah.

I think we've disposed of "guilt by asociation" blocking. That really, by me, was the most outrageous, ignorant thinking TK probably ever did (member of a vandal site). What should we call it, BTK - Before TK, and Post-TK? Ideas anyone? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with basing the timing system on TK's departure is that you will forever be remembering that guy and what he stood for. Not the sort of thing that CP needs right now. By the way I am very impressed with your efforts to tidy up the place. I wish you luck, although I am not hopeful you can achieve your goals. Damo^Hi 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How about the TeeKambrian, and the DeMyerian? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"I think we've disposed of "guilt by asociation" blocking." Sweet! Now you just need to work on the whole "guilt by inserting factual verifiable information into articles" blocking. --Inquisitor (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow down, partner! Conservapedia means no liberal bias, and therefore NO FACTS.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts is a word abused b liberals. We preferinsights and Biting Essays --Mikalos209 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

BTK as in the serial killer? Sounds good to meStick Boy (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Quinlan : Ex-Gay

You seriously can't make this shit up. "I know because I am ex-gay myself. I suffer more harassment as a former homosexual than I ever did as an out and proud homosexual."^img --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the section title for you. Now, who's Greg Quinlan? P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Greg Quinlan is President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays and Executive Director of Equality and Justice For All." Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF?

Shit! I was hoping for some serious lulz with TerryH as an ex-gay. Still the headline juxtaposed with the picture gave me a chuckle. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit, man, an "ex-gay" activist group dares to use the phrase "Equality and Justice For All" in its name? That's so wrong. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 14:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I give it two years till he's photographed leaving a gay bar with a leather daddy. MDB (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My favorite bit was: "The problem: even one ex-gay proves that homosexual behavior is not something that one is born with, or something that he or she cannot change. So the gay lobby fears its former members." I don't know anyone who believes that all gays are 'born this way'. Sexuality is extraordinarily complex, and there are many people born a particular way, and many people who might be influenced by their environment, and a whole mix in between. The absolutist argument above is only self-serving for people who believe nobody is born gay. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of a gay man, "ex-" or not, who says "I chose to be gay". There are some ex-gays who will says they were able to suppress their desires, but that's the closest it comes.

I have heard of a few lesbians who say they chose lesbianism as a feminist political statement, but that's not at all common. MDB (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point: has anyone bothered asking these ex-gays why they chose to be gay in the first place? I'd expect blank stares at first, but I'd love to hear the answers. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose some might argue they were seduced or "corrupted" or some such. If one actually says, "yep, I woke up one morning and said, 'no more women for me, I'm gonna start giving blowjobs and taking it up the butt now'", I'd love to hear the entire story. MDB (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gays are seen in the light that they ought to be seen: as freaks and weirdos. The idea that someone would go from Sucking Dick Addiction to being repulsed by the notion is only good for jokes. No doubt, a handful of disparate people maybe decided they hated women for some reason, or became gay in some sort of Jaycee Dugard situation. If I was one of those people, I wouldn't really want to stand up and say, "This is the awful way I came to suck dicks." Usually they cite depression or some parent issues as to the reason they started to ride pony. Greg Quinlan divorced his ex-lesbian wife of three years in 2008. Surprisingly, it was a childless marriage and I can only imagine the awkward silent sex that they attempted. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, this reminds me of when Seth Macfarlane said: "Look, I like a good ass-fuck as much as the next guy, but I'm not gay! That makes me gay? C'mon, it's the 21st century." Carlaugust (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The people who study these things differentiate between "men who have sex with men" and "gay". MDB (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely a convenience of human anatomy is that anybody can arse-fuck anybody if they (both) like. It's like kissing, but with more STIs. That means it's tangential to being gay. Also, now I have King Missile's "Gay / Not Gay" song in my head. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, perhaps the most bizarre "argument" I've seen on this page. Phiwum (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New Conservative Word?

C'mon, someone sock up and add "choot-spa" to the Conservative Words List. MDB (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What is it with conservatives and Saying Stupid Shit? It's a bloody epidemic. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I don't know why that's so funny but I just laughed out loud. RatMaster ^háblame 15:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not sure anything is going to beat "dumpster diving" in exposing how utterly naked Andy's attempt at manipulating data with bullshit in an attempt to "prove" his "theory" of conservative words doubling.

Besides that article is annoying, the fact Bachmann isn't good with a word in a language of which she isn't a native speaker of and most people don't even use is somehow news? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

When you're running as a huge supporter of Israel and thus presumably trying to court Jewish votes, not being able to pronounce "chutzpah" is amusing. Of course, the likelihood of an extreme conservative Christian being able to get many Jewish votes is pretty slim, anyway. MDB (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Stupid Bachmann reeks of a Manchurian-esque candidate who is reading a speech someone else wrote for her. Carlaugust (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is perfect pronunciation of words of the language or dialect of nation or people I or anyone supports a prerequisite before one can be taken seriously as a supporter? If I were Jewish, the proper pronunciation of chutzpah would be pretty damn low in importance in my considerations of who to support for POTUS (especially considering the large majority of Jews don't even speak Yiddish). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with her being a yiddish speaker: it shows her total lack of common knowledge. It's a sign of someone who has a minimal exposure to the overall language and mores of her country. If it was written by someone else then she should have rehearsed it beforehand, if she wrote it then she shouldn't have. If it was off the cuff then she's ignorant. Pippa (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Minimal exposure to the overall language and mores of her country? What you mean American English and western liberal democracy? What do either of those have to do with Yiddish words? Other than "chutzpah" I really doubt any politician who doesn't actually speak Yiddish knows any words from the language, let alone most average Americans. How many times do politicians regularly mispronounce English words in this country? Are we really that capricious over the faux pas of a single foreign word? Or is it just for politicians we don't like?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey. Stop your kvetching. Don't be such a putz.P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

...and, of course, that should be pronounced, "Oy vee. Stop your kayvetking. Don't be such a pyootz." --Phentari (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

BMcP manages to make himself look like a schmuck Politicians have to be able to schmooze, unless they're in the Tea Party and can get away without needing to be able to talk to anyone outside their narrow constituency. These (and chutzpah) are English words, not Yiddish words. English imported the words and they began their inevitable drift independent of their meaning in Yiddish, and that's why they're in an English dictionary, not a Yiddish dictionary. Just like in German the word "Handy" imported from English means "mobile telephone" rather than "handy". But sure, on the matter of people always picking on politicians they don't like, yes that happens. But that doesn't automatically make all such criticism invalid, it just means you need to be sure you need to be cautious. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Its trivially stupid, it is like claiming Obama or Democrats doesn't have to talk to anyone outside the narrow constituency of the coastal states because he accidentally called Sioux Falls "Sioux City", instead of it being a simple mistake. Politicians make mistakes in grammar all the time, but our media saturated, self-righteous culture has to make a big deal of it and hold them to some ridiculous standard where even the most trivial slip of the tongue is really meant to reveal some deep inside soooper seekret knowledge of what that politician and by extension, their entire party, really thinks. Bachmann mispronouncing chutzpah as meaning she doesn't ever regard or talk to the Jewish-American community is like saying Obama hates South Dakota and Middle America because mispronounced one city's name.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

CP has ruined me. All I can think of is how shockofgoat would pronounce it. *perfect hand gesture* Hooooootz-pah! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All I can think of is how that Fascist shikse should just shut up and go away. Pippa concisely nailed it: "If it was written by someone else then she should have rehearsed it beforehand, if she wrote it then she shouldn't have. If it was off the cuff then she's ignorant."

For your daily fun fact, chutzpah only comes in one degree: unmitigated. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As much as I think the media are blowing this out of proportion, it can be safely argued that chutzpah is in the English lexioc - if the OED has it, it's in. And if I was going to be using the term, I'd be damned sure I'd know how to pronounce it. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Infinite blocks at CP "disfavored"

Or, at least, so Andy claims^img. I guess that's why as recently as June 2011 they had only 9 million IP's infinitely blocked. I also love his reasoning why they're disfavored: because liberals often become conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to appreciate the number 9 million when it's applied to IP's blocks. It's quite staggering actually. They should contact Guinness World Records or something. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Some older pics
Blocks of editors at CP per sysop Feb 2011	Here the absolute numbers... Whether you block for infinity - or infinity light (5 years) is a personal choice.
relative numbers Feb 2011	Karajou (and RobSmith) preferred an infinite block length, Aschlafly or Jpatt go for five years. Infinity seems to be a more honest choice - but I may be wrong, and in a couple of years there will be a flood of reformed editors who come back after five years, having forgotten their former ideals, but not their passwords...
returnees Feb 2010	This scenario seems to be a little bit unlikely: even a block length of 6 months is sufficiently repellent....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I like how Andy can perform ~850 infinite blocks (close to 25% of his blocks) and still say it's "disfavored". --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if only 25% are infinite then 75% are not, so there is a clear preference for non-infinite blocks. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an unfair comparison. If I'm reading these charts correctly, I've handed out possibly 350 325 blocks over 4 years, of which 72-73% were infinite. Karajou by contrast has handed out 3200+ infinite blocks, and that propably includes Range blocks. During the unblocking operation, I found two (2) IPs I blocked infinitely in the early days. Two. Later the defaults were reset so the IP was blocked for only 24 hours (I think), but the username could be blocked infinitely. It should be obvious, I only block as a last resort in the most extreme cases, and by CP standards, have always been fairly reserved. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

First graph, Rob, first graph. --★uːʤɱ socialist 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

the pics above only cover the blocks of editors, no range blocks. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So I've done about 325 total blocks and about 275 infinite blocks. This means I rarely block at all, except in the most blatant and extreme circumstances. Further, of the 50 or so temporary blocks, virtually none have been to editors I had any direct interaction with, so called 'retalitory blocks'. In four years I bet I've not blocked a half dozen, if that, editors I had any direct discussion or revert war with. By contrast, Karajou blocked 10 times as many single IPs and probably 40% of all Range blocks. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: these are only blocks against editing CP, right? What about blocks against reading CP? is there a way to fetch such numbers? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, since (as far as I know) everything was done behind the scenes with no way of knowing who did it, though one would assume it was Andy. It wasn't done on MediaWiki, so it might be tough to find any logs for it. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious nutters at CP....

It's always sort of surprised me that we don't see more of these types of edits at CP. I mean, Andy et al are religious nutters, but at least there's a certain amount of coherence in what they say....you'd think there would be more God-inspired raving on the site...P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

CP appeals to a different type of fundie. I'm not sure if I could come up with a formal definition of "CP-fundie" versus "non-CP fundie", though. MDB (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The numerogically-inspired Book of Revalations fundies are a breed of their own, that's for sure -- I'd love to see more of them on CP. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Normal fundies wear "What Would Jesus Do?" bands and He's all about love and salvation. In Andyland, Jesus is all about Hellfire and politics and He wears a "What Would Ronnie Do?" band. CP's fundies are very much of Terry Wobblebottom variety - 6,000 year old Earth, dinosaurs still alive and Jesus is coming any day now... any day now - so there's no need to look after the Earth. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Normal fundies wear "What Would Jesus Do?" bands and He's all about love and salvation." WWJD bracelets were pretty common among evangelical fundies, but focusing on love and salvation is pretty much mainstream Protestantism. And asking the question "What would Jesus do?" is common to any Christian. MDB (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

O kak. No wonder I was radished when I tried to sneak into Jesus Camp? --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerology... is that really any worse than Best New Conservative Words? ^{ONE / TALK} 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that numerologists avoid association with CP because they think it might make them look crazy. Vulpius (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna try this for the lulz: There are 2 types of religious fundies: mythological and political. A political religious fundie wants to design society just as his or her religion says it should be, but as most religions are much too old for that they fall into some political tradition of their own. For example, American Christian political fundies (CP) adopt libertarism and anarcho-capitalism as their economic doctrine. In other countries there are differences, for example German Christian political fundies - represented by the PBC - are much more socialist then one might think. In most instances they fall under social conservatives (or revisionist), that is not so by definition, but by tradition (if neo-pagans would gain ground their social liberal stances might be adopted). The mythological religious fundie is not really concerned about the actual laws of a state, but more about the state of society and what that says within their mythology - mostly as they want to gain ground they try this through fear, which often results in "the end days are upon us". As a huge procentage of them is incorrect they almost immediately loose all credibility. There are also other types of fundies that might use religious additudes, for example anthropological (racists with "gods chosen race"-stuff) and authoritarian ("you are not allowed to speak because what you say is against the holy order"). CP-fundies are mostly political tending towards authoritarian in their behaviour, but justifiy this through the capitalist notion of "earning" the right to speak up. They normally don't like anthropological and mythological fundies because the make them look bad. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My definition of a fundy is a lot shorter. I normal religious person is seeking, through spiritual enlightenment, the power to control their own lives. While the fundy is seeking, through political and legal means, the power to control the lives of everyone else. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty awesome as definitions go. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, jesus does spend a lot of time talking about hell. --Mikalos209 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well he 'does' if you believe a book of fairy tales written by a bunch of goat herders. As there is no historical evidence that the person ever existed it is doubtful he ever spoke about anything at all, any more than Zaphod Beeblebrox did. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

@Oldusgitus: Yes, i do bleieve in a "book oof fairy tales"and that there was a jew named jesus/insert whatever name you prefer, and i dont give a damn if you think im stupid for it.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@Mikalos209, in which case that means that you believe that the bloke spent a lot of time talking about hell. It doesn't make your xcomment 'jesus does spend a lot of time talking about hell' accurate other than as personal opinion, which is not the way I read you as having written it. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My only contention with Ullhateme's definition of the American Christian political fundamentalist is the idea they are libertarian and/or anarcho-capitalist in their economic views. ACPFs (American Christian Political Fundamentalists) tend to follow to ideas of classical liberalism when it comes to economics but for the most part are definitely not libertarian, especially if economic activity runs afoul of their social/religious values. Libertarianism almost always allows for economic concepts such as legalized prostitution and narcotics, while socially being for ideas such as gay marriage and even polygamy. Libertarian are also very anti-PATRIOT Act, and extremely anti-interventionist. All of these positions are viewed in an extremely negative light by the bulk of ACPFs. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is a problem that I did not describe. When fundies accept two doctrines at the same time they do not tend to split them apart logically. They accept both and when they hit a rock where both collide they will prefer, it's the difference between Christian libertarian and libertarian Christian (with the first word being an adjective and the second word being a noun - damn you English language). Or for example between "socialist democracy" and "democratic socialism". The emphasis lays on the noun not the adjective. So in this sense they are libertarian Christian - they choose social issues over economic issues if their doctrines collide. Although this may just be a logical problem as being poor is much easier than burning in hell for all eternity. But as far as pure economics go they are libertarian (the classical American libertarian), or maybe what we describe in Europe and often use as a smear word in Germany "neoliberal" (which would probably drive Andy up the freakin' wall) meaning that they give a lot about economic freedom. I want to note that anarcho-capitalist was only meant as a description of their economic ideas, but as anarcho-capitalism isn't much more that a subdevision of libertarianism it kinda seems redundant now. With the intervintionist thing, I don't know at the moment, if a Rep becomes the next President it'll all be as you said again.

@Inquisitor: Fundie (no matter from which side of the political spectrum): 1. A person who bases his whole process of thought on one or two doctrines, often ignoring logic, pragmatism and facts. 2. Somebody who wants to let all the fun die. --★uːʤɱ socialist 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ACPFs have little to do with (US right-)libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism (even if some of their "ideas" are ripped off from them). More appropriate terms would be economic liberal/fiscal conservative, as those apply strictly to economic stances. Libertarian implies social liberalism. Neoliberal is somewhat similar, usually being applied to Thomas Friedman types who are socially liberal/don't really care about social policy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"...a book of fairy tales written by a bunch of goat herders. As there is no historical evidence that the person ever existed it is doubtful he ever spoke about anything at all."

And yet, wherever it came from, whomever actually said those words, there's a world-changing message in that book about what it means to be a human and how we should treat each other. Perhaps it doesn't matter as much who gave the Sermon on the Mount, or where, or when, as much as what that text tells us about how we should be? Maybe? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder some times about how much of the 'new' morality in the NT was already in use at the time... Eyeonicr (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably most of is. Jesus was most like a real dude, doing what about 100 others that we know of were doing for 200 years before and after, trying to revolt against the establishment politically and religously. trying to take power from the priests, and give it to the people. trying to connect God with the individual. There's little about Jesus' message that isn't found elsewhere (some non supported theories include jesus wandering to India to learn there)... there's little to new christianity that isn't what judiasm was about to become. that said, i like P foster's take most.En attendant Godot 02:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Godot. I have no problem with what Jesus preached; I have a problem with the horrible people, like Schlafly and DeMyer, who profess to do the things they do and say the things they say in his name. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Andy's going to be happy

Borders Bookstore is likely to shut down completely.

Honestly, Andy's said a lot of stupid things, but his hatred of books really pisses me off. How can anyone with his level of education, who purports to be a damn educator, view books with such contempt? MDB (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just an ugly side-effect of Andy's black & white worldview. Most books (with possible excepts of Jerome Corsi and Coulter - we know the Bible's already failed the test) contain some element, somewhere in the story, that is contrary to his world view. Ergo, they must therefore be liberal, therefore bad, and therefore they should be removed. I'd actually love to see what's on Andy's bookshelves. Allegedly, he keeps the Happy Hooker under his mattress. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But it does even make sense based on Andy's other "thoughts" -- he thinks there's worth conservative TV shows and movies (some of them debatably conservative, of course), so why does he dismiss all books out of hand?

I wonder if he's written a book he keeps somewhere on his hard drive that was rejected by every publisher under the sun, thus leading him to think all books are liberal. MDB (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess, he had a book he tried to get published and no one wanted it. I don't think he's even published any law articles. Clearly, if they cannot see his true tallent (gak, ack, ugg - and yes i've read one of his amicus) they are just vile and evil.--En attendant Godot 15:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

it's possible - and we all know how Andy can bear a grudge. He's also pretty much down on TV and movies- even the conservative lists cover probably less than 1% of all movies & TV shows. I'm sure if a parodist somebody started a "Greatest Conservative Books" essay, Andy would chip in. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a published author, though the technical papers really have nothing to do with the issue. He's been published in legal and medical journals, but it looks like all wingnut stuff. MDB (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

pardone me for off topicing for a short rant but this " Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer" is just fucking offensive. ok, done. back to bashing his hatred of books. how do you all know he hates books? just curious. i don't hang out there ever. --En attendant Godot 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, that just fucking sad. Books are - books are the very way people get ideas. They are ways to invent yourself as someone else, spend an hour 80 leagus under teh sea, or off on a wild west adventure; they are ways to see how others in history viewed your world, they are ways to learn new things... god i hate him. or rather, what he represents, which by the way, is infiltrating our real world far more than just CP (as if you all didn't know, muwahahah). at least "book burners" PRETEND to be ok with books in general.--En attendant Godot 16:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If it happened much after 1800, Andy's against it. Often I think he'd be much happier going and living with the Amish. They're all good Bible believin' Christians who don't have no truck with the modern liberal world. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) There's been a few occasions where Andy's cheered the closing of bookshops, like Borders, claiming books were full of liberal bias and people should be reading the Bible instead. It's in the WIGOs somewhere, damned if I'm going to look. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 16:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I looked:

• Borders -- one of the nation's largest booksellers -- is the latest to hit financial difficulties as people buy fewer of the typically liberal books [1]^img
• Nearly 250,000 people will soon be without a single bookstore, as the last one is closing in Laredo, Texas. Most books (other than the Bible) are liberal claptrap anyway, so this is probably good news.[2]^img
• Liquidation sales at 26 Borders bookstores have begun, as they unload their inventory before permanently closing. Liberal claptrap is available at record-low prices! [3]^img

--PsyGremlinParlez! 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fucking anti iltellectual, anti-idea, anti thought, these types will destroy anything they touch, if they can.--En attendant Godot 16:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly: If he didn't exist, you'd have to invent him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But if you wrote him as a character in a serious work of fiction (as opposed to, say, a Pratchett style satire), people would dismiss it as being unbelievable. "No one could be that obsessed with conservatism!" MDB (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A good portion of the people at FSTDT don't even think Andy is for real. They are convinced he is a parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder about that myself at times. MDB (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who saw him on Colbert has got to believe that he is about a half a dozen caps shy of a full cylinder. I don't think he is that good of an actor. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If it turned out that Andy was this generations Andy Kaufman, I'd never stop laughing at myself. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

<brokenrecord>I still claim that it's his "write a book not read a book" attitude.</brokenrecord> He firmly believes that you don't need to actually research something, you just need to think on it and write out what makes sense. Presumably he bases this idea on guys like Newton, whom Andy probably thinks just locked himself in a room with 0 knowledge of physics or maths and came out the next day with his laws of motion. He believes that anything he comes up with is an obvious, self-evident truth and either can't (he really, truly believes that he's a genius) or won't (his ego just won't let him) accept that people can disagree with him. Therefore anyone who disagrees with him has been lied to and/or is actively trying to censor his ideas. Almost every published book ever disagrees with him, therefore they're wrong, therefore they're deliberately trying to brainwash the public, therefore the world is better without books. Hell, the entire founding idea of conservapedia (students building a wiki as they learn) springs from this idea. We know Andy refuses to accept outside sources of information, so any student writing an article on the wiki would be doing it from Andy's own notes (which they've been taught) and any Andy approved "insights" the student may have while doing it.

As a side note, I think it's hilarious that Andy thinks that bookstores closing down is a sign that books are disappearing, rather than a sign of Amazon becoming accessible to anyone who wants a book. X Stickman (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty common trope among the right that if any business they perceive as "liberal" (which is practically everything -- Andy could find liberalism in his breakfast cereal) suffers some kind of setback, it must be because the buying public is rejecting the liberalism. It's particularly common when discussing the general downturn in the newspaper business -- "they're failing because no one wants their liberalism anymore!" is the inevitable refrain. Of course, anyone who's not completely blinded by Fox News and talk radio can see that the internet is replacing the daily newspaper and the politics of the newspapers has little to do with it. (And right wing papers are failing, too -- the Washington Times a crumbling shell at this point.) MDB (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In some respects it's actually a rather zennish concept. The idea that learning from a book is not true learning and only by direct experience can you truely learn about something. So if you want to find out how much you know about a topic then don't read a book on that topic but write a book on that topic. Of course andy doesn't mean it that way and even if he has heard the concept he will have, like so much else in his life, misunderstood the point. The point isn't to show how good you are but to highlight the gaps in your understanding. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He's definitely aware of the concept. See, to me, the phrase "don't read a book to learn, write a book to learn" (or whatever the formal phrasing of it is) means that the act of writing a book properly is an educational experience in itself. You have to research the topic properly and then come up with your own wording (at the very least) of the ideas involved. It forces you to think about the topic, rather than just absorbing what someone else has thought about it. That's why so many educational courses have essay writing and such, rather than just "read this book". To Andy, the phrase seems to mean that you pick a topic, then write stuff about it as it comes out of your own head. If you want to look scientific about it, come up with an idea about the subject (abortion causes cancer!), search for someone already expressing that idea, and then quote them as a reference. He's got the whole thing backwards. X Stickman (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Of coruse that idea makes sense, and if done right, his wiki would have been one of the best learning tools for his students. I learn more about science by writing science articles on "basic english wiki" than just reading things for my own sake. It's not unlike teaching. to explain something, you have to really grok it. But like you said, for andy, it's NOT done right. he tells his students that they are wrong with what they find, thus making them distrust their own instincts for research, and he very much thinks that "at least for basic ideas, if you think about it hard enough, the truth is easy to create". ie., "100 conservative words" or "english is clearly a superior language" or "math only needs basic proofs" (cause i can't do more than that on my own, so it's not valid).--En attendant Godot 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Another reason for Andy to be happy

That New Jersey cold snap is gone and by the end of the week Andy will be cranking up the aircon as "temperatures in New Jersey ...could reach 100 degrees by the end of the week". Will we see mention of this on MPR? Will this change his mind about global warming? We await the Great One's pronouncement with bated breath. DogP (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what he's talking about with those claims of significantly below normal temperatures. Here in North/Central New Jersey, near where Andy lives, it hasn't been 10 degrees below average for well over two months, and the high temp was only below average one day in July. It's actually been pretty damn hot. Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of a good anti-science crusade / conspiracy theory? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And I read that 13 people have died because of the heat-wave and more than 1,000 US heat records have been broken this month yet Andy focuses on one below average event. Moron. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to work outside and the heat has been so freaking oppressive. I wish it was 10 degrees below in NJ. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is such a good Christian.

(Block log); 21:32 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked Jessiroseburg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: Did you know Jesus never tolerated sin?). Wow, it's like he read the Opposite Bible or something; you know, the one where forgiveness of sin isn't the central pillar of Christianity. I know you're reading this, Brian. I wish you had the stones to come here, or open your blog to comments, and talk about what Christianity means. P-Foster_{The Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.} 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could block karajoke with (Idiocy: Did you know Jesus was never a hypocrite?). Just for kicks. RatMaster ^háblame 01:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's called "theology." That means the Bible means what we say it does! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that religion in a nutshell. Homage to Bill Maher's "Religulous"... changed my view of religion forever. RatMaster ^háblame 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading that little screed on the same day that I read this makes the whole thing all the more appalling. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's no different than the idea of a wp:Living Constitution, then, right? Or are you nsuddeny a biblical wp:Strict constructionist?

"Woman, where are thy accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee." (John 8:9-10). If you guys knew your bible, you could've cut him off at the knees. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would involve him having the balls to make such a stupid assertion somewhere other than on a mostly-closed wiki where he can ban at will, wouldn't it? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's opened up now, a Karajou's lightened up a little on some of the blocks. And we're having both public & private discussions on rehabbing block policy. Was Jessiroseburg the guy editing the Judaism entry? Anybody got a link to what got Karajou pissed off? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's called "theology." That means the Bible means what we say it does!" -> I thought that was the Conservative Bible Project. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's no different than the idea of a wp:Living Constitution, then, right? Or are you suddeny a biblical wp:Strict constructionist? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Robert. Your analogy fails. Even the most dedicated proponent of a "Living Constitution" doesn't argue that it could be interpreted to mean that the US should be a monarchy, or that all men are not created equal. To say that Christ didn't tolerate sin is to argue the EXACT OPPOSITE of the truth, not a question of finesse, interpretation, or context. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 03:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The comment was, "the bible says whatever we say it says", as if the speaker is a biblical fundementalist. And cp:Political cards has an illustration of the other halfd of this point: nude dancing is "free expression", not "free speech" as the text says. But a football teams voluntary pregame prayer that nobody gets hurt is unprotected "free expression" under the First Amendment. As Judge Bork said, the team should dance nude before the game, cause that then would be legal. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank god. You were starting to be a little too coherent the last few days and I was worried you were slowly turning sane. Good to see you're back in full form with your non-sequiturs. Very good reply. Karajou gets one of the main tenets of Christianity backwards, but its okay because the Supreme Court says nude dancing is free speech. Fantastic. DickTurpis (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading that little screed on the same day that I read this makes the whole thing all the more appalling. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt the guy was a vandal and should have been blocked; it's just funny that (see the story linked above) a Muslim shot in the face is showing more Christian goodwill to his assailant than a nominal Christian is to an internet troll. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're being critical of the edit summary, not the length of block? nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 02:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 03:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unprofessionalism. I agree, perhpaps. But after a 3000+ block binge in 1500 days, you'd be looking for a little levity in the job, too. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be less stressful if he didn't block anyone who tried to put verifiable information in articles? Nah.--Willfully Wrong (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sweet irony. Our favorite CP sysop, knobs^{Mira la Masturbación!}, tells us that if we only knew our Bible, we could have presented Kara-coo-coo-ca-joo with evidence that "could've cut him off at the knees". Where's the irony? First, he attributes his biblical quote to John 8:9-10 when he clearly meant to say John 8:10-11. Oh but it only gets worse. The passage in question is the tale-end of the so-called "Adulteress Story", a story that Assfly contends was secretly slipped into the Bible by liberals. Godspeed. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, Rob, why exactly should we know our Bible? To disproof something that is clearly wrong with a literal quote, which to even bring we should first clear the question if the Bible is meant literally or figuratively? Nah. If somebody was to say that Lord of the Rings was about a little girl wanting to go home to Kansas after coming to a wondrous place, we don't need to quote a sentence from the books to see that that is wrong. Oh and btw, the only way you'll ever get me to read the bible again is if you buy a Bible and pay me to read it, until then I'll read other holy books with an interest for other cultures and views, rather then indulging myself even deeper into my own. Could'ya try that too? --★uːʤɱ pervert 10:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

knobs^{Mira la Masturbación!} ← this, is awesome btw. --★uːʤɱ pirate 10:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find it incredibly immature and think it lessens the strength of any argument you're trying to make. If you want to start name calling you might as well create the article Rob Smith and obesity.. Yes, I'm grouping you with Ken now. GTac (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguments and jokes have to be held seperately. If you think a certain kind of humor that a person has makes his or her argument weaker, there's really no point in making an argument and bother if you might or might not like it. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - nobody here is claiming Rob is wrong because his username is nobs or that he wanks a lot. Those are just observations unrelated to his arguments. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Literally flinging poo while making an argument also technically has no effect on the content of the argument. Yet I'll still have a lower opinion of you and by extension your argument from it. But hey, I'm not stopping you if you want to make insults at your opponent during your discussion. GTac (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll have a lower opinion of the argument by extension? How irrational! ^{ONE / TALK} 14:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And so will you, don't kid yourself. Hell, you often see it happening on this talk page when Ken or Andy accidentally makes a good point. People often will give them the credit, but it's always in a begrudging manner or accompanied by something which diminishes the argument (like "he's right, even though he only said it cause he just wanted to disagree with the liberal washington post"). GTac (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You have to have a really low opinion of RW then. Not only do we "literally fling poo" (goat damn am I hoping you meant "in a literal way") at each other all the time - also during discussions, but we also fling a lot of poo towards CP. I mean: "Assfly", "Jpratt", "Creepy Ed", "JoMar" and last but not least Ken. It's not like that isn't mutual: CP name for RW? "Vandal site/wiki" and the CP name for Rationalwikians: "Rats". But I see nobody on either side moaning about it, I actually think both sides laugh about more than people normally would. And for heavens sake I'm not keeping anybody from flinging poo at me. --★uːʤɱ secularist 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that implies I have a higher opinion of RW, because I think there are a bunch of people who resent other using phrases like Assfly. And I also resent Andy calling me a liberal/vandal/whatever for unrelated reasons too. And you honestly think he says it in a joking manner? I see nothing but idiotic hatred from it. GTac (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick

Does Ken even know what "Mystery" means?^img Ooh and now he does an Ed; lookee meee! lookee meee!^img --PsyGremlinParla! 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I suppose it is a mystery, what with the nature of it being a future event. Maybe CP should have a new namespace. cp:MeaninglessPrediction:The Inevitable Triumph of Conservatism^{ONE / TALK} 13:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Can Ken type? All he seems to do is cut and paste. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the pedantic side of me goes along with a mystery being something that has happened which is unexplainable or unknown not something unknown that will happen in the future. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That and very likely chance CP is once again interchanging England for the United Kingdom and not understanding the difference.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like his meds kicked in again, so now it's nuked. He's not even trying to memory hole his attention seeking either. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

More money pro stuffs

Money pros have accepted God and Gold/silver^imgwill Guns be next?--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still looking for where God comes into the subject, but I was tickled pink by the following:

"Donald R. Laster Jr told your editor one other problem that Sanders does not see. The Gang of Six are all Senators. Yet their deal needs tax raises to work. The Constitution plainly says that the House of Representatives must first pass any such deal. If the Gang writes their deal into a Senate bill, and that’s the bill that passes, then anyone whose taxes go up will have standing to sue."

Golly! Phiwum (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there it is: He even invokes God, when he says, "Pray for a better outcome." Well, that's it then. Economists are turning to Christianity in droves. Phiwum (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Every day another TerryH self-promotion^img. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Terry's news items are ten a silver ingot. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus wasn't fat!

Moses, Elija (sp?) and the Apostle (Paul?) weren't either!

MDB (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor were a lot of people back then?--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that until about 1970 most people were on the skinny side. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the amount of big dinners the Bible has Jesus going to, maybe he was fat. He said he hung out with tax collectors and whores because they were sinners, but really it was because he was a fan of good food and pussy galore. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus likes Bond movies? Who knew! --PsyGremlinParla! 14:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The name was Bond, St. James Bond. Number 6 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm trying to picture a James Bond/Passion of the Christ crossover.

It's not working. All I can come up with is James Bondus, Roman agent sent to investigate an uprising in the Judean province, and he sleeps with Mary Magdalene. MDB (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Except her name wasn't Mary. She was called Norma Snipples. Number 6 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sooo, now Wales is this great center of revival even though it is part of the atheistic Great Britain? Or is that just atheistic England now?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about BMcP? Great Britain IS England. Carlaugust (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, don't you guys know your Bible? Glutton and wine-bibber!--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If Moses wasn't fat, why is 'Fat Moses' a common Finnish term for rotund people? Vulpius (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well at least one Jesus was fat, it was in the picture. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)